Scan barcode
jwsg's review against another edition
4.0
If Priya Parker's The Art of Gathering helps one be more intentional about why, who and how we bring people together, Fred Dust's Making Conversation is the companion book on helping people engage meaningfully in conversation when they do gather. Dust notes that when we bring different sectors - the government, for profits and private companies, and nonprofits and foundations - "sometimes there [is] no common language; other times there [are] different ideas of how a conversation should happen, or even how fast things should move….when we [bring] together diverse stakeholders, communities, and political and cultural entities in hopes of making change, our existing tools [aren't] good enough".
It's worth remembering what Dust points out - "just because we're talking doesn’t mean we're making conversation". And conversations that matter - where there is substantive and intentional engagement - necessarily entail the following: (a) there is difference in the room and the people present cannot be all alike or in agreement; (b) it feels difficult because conversations that matter grapple with hard issues; and (c) something is made - some action results - besides conversation. Dust reminds us that conversations do need to result in action; conversation fatigue arises when people feel that very little emerges from the conversation.
To have a good conversation, Dust advocates approaching dialogue not as a facilitator, but as a designer. Dialogue is something you can create by influencing the structure and feel of the conversation. It relies "not on your interpersonal skills but…the ability to spot opportunity and design for it in order to shape outcome and impact".
Dust identifies various tools for designing conversation, which he terms the 7 Cs of creative conversation:
#1: Commitment
Having conversations that matter require us to commit to having a conversation over our beliefs and our own agenda. This is difficult because our beliefs and worldview are often "bred into us, and…when we are making conversation, we must be willing to evaluate those beliefs and decide whether they will accompany us into our conversations… [as] the beliefs we start with may actually keep us from entering a conversation at all". Dust states:
"As we explore the idea of conversation as a creative act, we will need to redefine the things we commit to. We need to be less a defender of our beliefs, and instead commit to the process by which we manufacture beliefs: exploration, community, and conversation."
Identify the conversation you want to commit to - to solve a problem? To set strategy? To build agreement or understanding? Identify and commit to the principles that will inform the tone, feel and intention of the conversation. Then design for these. For instance, if the conversation is about team building, the principles might be "light, open-ended and interactive". If it's about informing employees about a new HR policy, it might be "serious, helpful, but still interactive".
#2: Creative Listening
Dust makes a distinction between active listening and creative listening. While "being open, engaged, and nonjudgmental feels right…the practices of active listening are so focussed on triggering change in the speaker that we lose the fact that listening is an act of learning for the listener" and can allow for joy and discovery for all parties. But making listening better, more fruitful and more fun requires effort (a different kind of effort from active listening).
Dust suggests asking people to tell a story to show what they mean. A good story is (a) personal; (b) short; (c) is surprising; and (d) is clarifying. Inviting someone to tell a short story and offering guidance/prompts on what was surprising can help move what is a confusing, contentious or meandering dialogue forward. Asking for more nuanced stories can help draw out nuanced insights - like asking a rich person for a story on the last time they felt poor, or asking someone who's lost someone for a story about what surprised them most about death. Pay attention to the feelings and judgments that what the speaker says invokes in you and more importantly, interrogate why these feelings and judgments arise; Dust argues that this is what offers the spark of insight for learning to take place.
(Note: Dust argues that focus groups are "deeply flawed" as having a group of people paid to sit in a room and talk about what they do and don't like about something is a structure "completely unnatural to common human interaction".)
#3: Clarity
Dust notes that "sometimes words fail us because we don't have a shared understanding of their meaning. We assume that everyone has a common understanding of the words and concepts we're discussing, when in truth we do not. Sometimes we may be using language that's purpose built for a specific conversation but not well suited to the next conversation we're about to have". He suggests that to ensure clarity and alignment on what words mean, we need to establish their meaning early. What does collaborate mean to different people - do they have the same understanding? Ethical? Innovation?
We can invite people to share visuals of what these terms mean to them to "extract and establish meaning", or to tell a story to illustrate what the term means to them. Do not use jargon or specialised language but use simple language instead.
#4: Context
In this chapter, Dust discusses how spaces can shape the conversation. This is a point Parker makes in The Art of Gathering as well. Thinking about how to "edit" a space by removing things that distract and detract (technology, screens that make people stare at the screen rather than look at each other, things that people might fidget with e.g. Post-Its and pens when the conversation does not call for them), and adding props that can move a conversation forward. Dust gives the example of a conversation that used a two-sided illustrated card, one side featuring a bright star and the other side featuring a dark shadow, which people could flip depending on their mood, which revealed how the emotions in the room changed as the conversation flowed.
Beyond props, things like how we arrange ourselves - in a circle? In rows? - and whether we sit in chairs, cross-legged on the floor or stand, shape the conversation as well.
#5: Constraints
Here, Dust argues that building constraints for a conversation can help establish the rhythm and pace of a conversation and add that creative spark. Constraints should be (a) specific, not ambiguous; (b) be positive; (c) be surprising [a wild card constraint that can tip participants off that the conversation is a creative one]; (d) be brief (not more than 4 constraints)
In a creative conversation, Dust offers the following advice on critiques; the most important element of critique is boundaries and questions like "what do you love?", "what can't be touched?" and "what are the specific things you need help with?" help to guide the conversation. On feedback, Dust suggests asking "Can I give you feedback on X". Being specific and pointing at something rather than someone puts the conversation on a better footing.
#6: Change
This chapter is perhaps less about a tool for designing conversation than an observation that when we stick with familiar formats, it can help us practise spotting change when it happens. For Dust, working with the same formats, constraints and tools over and over again, lets "the conversation feel so familiar and routine that it can fall to the background and you can start getting good at change-spotting".
#7: Create
Dust ends of the book with a reminder that the point of making conversation is to "make change together, and then make that change manifest". Conversation as a means of creation. How many times have we either faced conversation fatigue (because nothing ever happens after the conversation), or found ourselves in what senior VP on the Rockefeller Foundation Zia Khan calls "zombie coalitions" - groups of people who get together to talk about a topic, agree to make change, don't but then shuffle forward assuming that those two actions have made them a movement.
Dust peppers his book with numerous interesting examples - Whine and Dine sessions as an alternative to the traditional focus group discussion; Weight Watchers meetings and figuring out how to help people cross the huge threshold of joining a meeting; the listening practice of the Quakers; Elizabeth Warren's work with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; "Hunch Hour" introduced by writer and political activist Courtney E Martin to test op-ed ideas for newsworthiness and relevance; Let's Do It in Estonia, a movement to undertake an annual clean up of the country; the Sundance Directors and Screenwriters Lab. Not all of them have a direct link to conversation but serve to offer inspiration on tools and techniques to spark meaningful engagement and discourse.
Thought provoking and inspiring.
It's worth remembering what Dust points out - "just because we're talking doesn’t mean we're making conversation". And conversations that matter - where there is substantive and intentional engagement - necessarily entail the following: (a) there is difference in the room and the people present cannot be all alike or in agreement; (b) it feels difficult because conversations that matter grapple with hard issues; and (c) something is made - some action results - besides conversation. Dust reminds us that conversations do need to result in action; conversation fatigue arises when people feel that very little emerges from the conversation.
To have a good conversation, Dust advocates approaching dialogue not as a facilitator, but as a designer. Dialogue is something you can create by influencing the structure and feel of the conversation. It relies "not on your interpersonal skills but…the ability to spot opportunity and design for it in order to shape outcome and impact".
Dust identifies various tools for designing conversation, which he terms the 7 Cs of creative conversation:
#1: Commitment
Having conversations that matter require us to commit to having a conversation over our beliefs and our own agenda. This is difficult because our beliefs and worldview are often "bred into us, and…when we are making conversation, we must be willing to evaluate those beliefs and decide whether they will accompany us into our conversations… [as] the beliefs we start with may actually keep us from entering a conversation at all". Dust states:
"As we explore the idea of conversation as a creative act, we will need to redefine the things we commit to. We need to be less a defender of our beliefs, and instead commit to the process by which we manufacture beliefs: exploration, community, and conversation."
Identify the conversation you want to commit to - to solve a problem? To set strategy? To build agreement or understanding? Identify and commit to the principles that will inform the tone, feel and intention of the conversation. Then design for these. For instance, if the conversation is about team building, the principles might be "light, open-ended and interactive". If it's about informing employees about a new HR policy, it might be "serious, helpful, but still interactive".
#2: Creative Listening
Dust makes a distinction between active listening and creative listening. While "being open, engaged, and nonjudgmental feels right…the practices of active listening are so focussed on triggering change in the speaker that we lose the fact that listening is an act of learning for the listener" and can allow for joy and discovery for all parties. But making listening better, more fruitful and more fun requires effort (a different kind of effort from active listening).
Dust suggests asking people to tell a story to show what they mean. A good story is (a) personal; (b) short; (c) is surprising; and (d) is clarifying. Inviting someone to tell a short story and offering guidance/prompts on what was surprising can help move what is a confusing, contentious or meandering dialogue forward. Asking for more nuanced stories can help draw out nuanced insights - like asking a rich person for a story on the last time they felt poor, or asking someone who's lost someone for a story about what surprised them most about death. Pay attention to the feelings and judgments that what the speaker says invokes in you and more importantly, interrogate why these feelings and judgments arise; Dust argues that this is what offers the spark of insight for learning to take place.
(Note: Dust argues that focus groups are "deeply flawed" as having a group of people paid to sit in a room and talk about what they do and don't like about something is a structure "completely unnatural to common human interaction".)
#3: Clarity
Dust notes that "sometimes words fail us because we don't have a shared understanding of their meaning. We assume that everyone has a common understanding of the words and concepts we're discussing, when in truth we do not. Sometimes we may be using language that's purpose built for a specific conversation but not well suited to the next conversation we're about to have". He suggests that to ensure clarity and alignment on what words mean, we need to establish their meaning early. What does collaborate mean to different people - do they have the same understanding? Ethical? Innovation?
We can invite people to share visuals of what these terms mean to them to "extract and establish meaning", or to tell a story to illustrate what the term means to them. Do not use jargon or specialised language but use simple language instead.
#4: Context
In this chapter, Dust discusses how spaces can shape the conversation. This is a point Parker makes in The Art of Gathering as well. Thinking about how to "edit" a space by removing things that distract and detract (technology, screens that make people stare at the screen rather than look at each other, things that people might fidget with e.g. Post-Its and pens when the conversation does not call for them), and adding props that can move a conversation forward. Dust gives the example of a conversation that used a two-sided illustrated card, one side featuring a bright star and the other side featuring a dark shadow, which people could flip depending on their mood, which revealed how the emotions in the room changed as the conversation flowed.
Beyond props, things like how we arrange ourselves - in a circle? In rows? - and whether we sit in chairs, cross-legged on the floor or stand, shape the conversation as well.
#5: Constraints
Here, Dust argues that building constraints for a conversation can help establish the rhythm and pace of a conversation and add that creative spark. Constraints should be (a) specific, not ambiguous; (b) be positive; (c) be surprising [a wild card constraint that can tip participants off that the conversation is a creative one]; (d) be brief (not more than 4 constraints)
In a creative conversation, Dust offers the following advice on critiques; the most important element of critique is boundaries and questions like "what do you love?", "what can't be touched?" and "what are the specific things you need help with?" help to guide the conversation. On feedback, Dust suggests asking "Can I give you feedback on X". Being specific and pointing at something rather than someone puts the conversation on a better footing.
#6: Change
This chapter is perhaps less about a tool for designing conversation than an observation that when we stick with familiar formats, it can help us practise spotting change when it happens. For Dust, working with the same formats, constraints and tools over and over again, lets "the conversation feel so familiar and routine that it can fall to the background and you can start getting good at change-spotting".
#7: Create
Dust ends of the book with a reminder that the point of making conversation is to "make change together, and then make that change manifest". Conversation as a means of creation. How many times have we either faced conversation fatigue (because nothing ever happens after the conversation), or found ourselves in what senior VP on the Rockefeller Foundation Zia Khan calls "zombie coalitions" - groups of people who get together to talk about a topic, agree to make change, don't but then shuffle forward assuming that those two actions have made them a movement.
Dust peppers his book with numerous interesting examples - Whine and Dine sessions as an alternative to the traditional focus group discussion; Weight Watchers meetings and figuring out how to help people cross the huge threshold of joining a meeting; the listening practice of the Quakers; Elizabeth Warren's work with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; "Hunch Hour" introduced by writer and political activist Courtney E Martin to test op-ed ideas for newsworthiness and relevance; Let's Do It in Estonia, a movement to undertake an annual clean up of the country; the Sundance Directors and Screenwriters Lab. Not all of them have a direct link to conversation but serve to offer inspiration on tools and techniques to spark meaningful engagement and discourse.
Thought provoking and inspiring.
bootman's review against another edition
5.0
Sweet Jesus. I would have rather read a book on the pseudoscientific topic of body language reading. After finishing this book, I’m just extremely grateful that I didn’t buy it because it was available through my library app. This book is just anecdotal evidence from cover to cover, and the author has made an extremely good living doing what many entrepreneurs do, which is selling BS to large companies and governments.
In short, the author was an architect and then realized he could make money teaching people how to have conversations. Then, throughout the book he gives a ton of activities and extremely weird recommendations to make conversations better in the work place. The way you can spot BS books like this is that they say everything is bad and everything is good, and then they try to provide some ridiculous nuance explaining why X is good in Y situation but not Z situation.
For example, knitting can help you be a better listener in meetings but random thing X will make you worse. Why? Just because.
This was a ridiculous book, and I think what bummed me out the most is that the author is a married gay man, and I expected him to cover some more heavy topics. Finally, at the end he discusses how to have some more difficult conversations, but like the rest of the book, they’re silly, non-scientific recommendations.
Do I recommend this book? Only if you’re a masochist like myself who enjoys binging terrible books to see what dumb thing the author says next.
In short, the author was an architect and then realized he could make money teaching people how to have conversations. Then, throughout the book he gives a ton of activities and extremely weird recommendations to make conversations better in the work place. The way you can spot BS books like this is that they say everything is bad and everything is good, and then they try to provide some ridiculous nuance explaining why X is good in Y situation but not Z situation.
For example, knitting can help you be a better listener in meetings but random thing X will make you worse. Why? Just because.
This was a ridiculous book, and I think what bummed me out the most is that the author is a married gay man, and I expected him to cover some more heavy topics. Finally, at the end he discusses how to have some more difficult conversations, but like the rest of the book, they’re silly, non-scientific recommendations.
Do I recommend this book? Only if you’re a masochist like myself who enjoys binging terrible books to see what dumb thing the author says next.
chromeorange's review against another edition
2.0
I read this because it was free with my WSJ subscription.
I don’t have a ton to say on it. It’s a pretty typical self-help book. It doesn’t surprise or offend. In fact, it’s pretty bland.
The main premise starts out promising. A successful designer is going to give his perspective, after supposedly a ton of research, on how to “design” conversations. It sounded like he would give very practical steps, tips, and tools to use. “Do this, don’t do that. Here’s a specific framework, and here are various options within that.” Instead, 85% of it is nebulous generalities of what to do, instead of concrete answers, falling into my biggest complaint of books in this genre.
Also, despite his claim of doing so much research, the book still feels like it’s based mostly off personal anecdotes. There’s no numbers, no studies, no measurements...nothing convincing from a quantitative view. We just have to take his word that these things work. What research did he actually do? I know he did some, but I’m still not entirely clear.
I don’t have a ton to say on it. It’s a pretty typical self-help book. It doesn’t surprise or offend. In fact, it’s pretty bland.
The main premise starts out promising. A successful designer is going to give his perspective, after supposedly a ton of research, on how to “design” conversations. It sounded like he would give very practical steps, tips, and tools to use. “Do this, don’t do that. Here’s a specific framework, and here are various options within that.” Instead, 85% of it is nebulous generalities of what to do, instead of concrete answers, falling into my biggest complaint of books in this genre.
Also, despite his claim of doing so much research, the book still feels like it’s based mostly off personal anecdotes. There’s no numbers, no studies, no measurements...nothing convincing from a quantitative view. We just have to take his word that these things work. What research did he actually do? I know he did some, but I’m still not entirely clear.
cheriekg's review against another edition
slow-paced
3.5
The ideas in this are good, but something about the structure makes them harder to dig out or memorable. Maybe this could have used formatting that emphasized examples, or that had more of a "workshop" feel with questions or case studies? Something to reinforce what he's trying to share. Instead it's just a flat read about Dust's work. I'm not sure how much of this I will remember.
brittanygoescosmo's review against another edition
3.0
Some bits about active listening helped me. Unfortunately , that was all I pulled from this book. Very very basic and somewhat repetitive. This would be good for a younger reader possibly or someone who grew up a bit isolated and needs some starter knowledge on communicating.
dianacarmel's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
This book was interesting because I expected to learn more about how to be a better conversationalist and communicator, but I actually learned quite a bit about how to use physical structures to create better conversations.
amiller's review against another edition
5.0
When he says Making Conversation, Fred Dust doesn't just mean talking with someone, he literally means designing and engineering the conversation with purpose.
This book was a delight to read, which is often hard to say about books meant to teach you something. The author's tone throughout is not overly formal, and sometimes outright conversational (as you might expect). He uses anecdotal examples from his career and life to reinforce the key points. I'll likely be keeping this book handy and rereading it from time to time.
This book was a delight to read, which is often hard to say about books meant to teach you something. The author's tone throughout is not overly formal, and sometimes outright conversational (as you might expect). He uses anecdotal examples from his career and life to reinforce the key points. I'll likely be keeping this book handy and rereading it from time to time.
More...