Conversational Intelligence Coaching: Glaser's Approach

Conversational intelligence coaching uses Judith E. Glaser's ideas to examine how people exchange information, advocate a position and discover something together. Its practical value depends on what the leader does with the other person's answer. A more inviting question changes little if the decision is already fixed and the leader conceals that fact.

This guide explains the three conversation levels, their limits and an original coaching process. A complete fictional case follows a director from a misleading invitation through a repaired conversation, a client's actual choice and a later review. The aim is a clearer and more responsible interaction, not a promise to produce trust through a particular phrase.

Coachful is our #1 recommendation for organizing that coaching workflow. Use its worksheets, private client conversations and chosen tasks to connect preparation with what actually happens. It does not measure a person's conversational intelligence, hormones or hidden willingness to cooperate.

Attribute the model and choose a useful purpose

Glaser's Conversational Intelligence framework describes Level I as transactional, Level II as positional and Level III as transformational. Her CreatingWE article Build Trust Through Conversational Intelligence discusses telling, advocating and sharing or discovering. In her published interview with Whitney Johnson and Jonathan Kahn, she emphasizes willingness to be influenced rather than merely moving another person toward one's own position.

These are the originator's conceptual categories. The practical distinctions, questions and fictional material below are original applications, not a reproduction of an accredited course, proprietary assessment or certification. Do not present this guide as authority to award a C-IQ credential.

Use the categories to discuss an interaction rather than assign a permanent type to a colleague. A single meeting can contain all three purposes. The word “level” should not become a reason to avoid a necessary instruction or describe a person as less developed.

Make information exchange complete

In a coaching application, transactional conversation is useful when the immediate job is to supply or confirm information. “The review begins at 14:00” may be exactly the required message. It does not need an invitation to redesign the review process.

Information exchange becomes incomplete when a leader mistakes delivery for understanding. The recipient may have heard the time but not know which document to bring, which version is current or whether their attendance is required. Ask for the specific response needed: “Which version will you use?” or “Is there a conflict that prevents you from attending?”

Distinguish understanding from agreement. Someone can understand an instruction and disagree with it. They can agree with the purpose but lack access to the necessary file. Those are different problems, and repeating the information more forcefully may solve neither.

Also distinguish a confirmation from an invitation. “Please confirm receipt” requests evidence of delivery, not approval of the plan. When a record later says “everyone agreed,” check whether people actually agreed or simply acknowledged an email. A coach can help the leader make those small but consequential distinctions visible.

Advocate without disguising the position

Positional conversation is relevant when someone has a recommendation and wants others to consider it. In the application used here, stating that position openly is more useful than pretending to have no preference. A leader can say, “I recommend delaying the optional feature because the current evidence is incomplete,” then explain the reasoning and invite challenge.

Separate the recommendation, its grounds and the person's authority. A department head may recommend a delay while a client retains the final choice. If that boundary is unclear, participants can leave the same meeting with different expectations about what was decided.

Examine the questions surrounding advocacy. “What risk am I missing?” allows a substantive answer. “Surely you can see this is our only responsible option?” makes disagreement harder while still looking like a question. The problem is not a forbidden set of words; it is whether the answer can receive fair consideration.

Practice explaining the strongest relevant alternative accurately. This does not require supporting it. It shows whether the leader understands the choice well enough to discuss it. If another person corrects the summary, use the correction before responding. The coach should not score persuasion as successful simply because the other person stops objecting.

Give joint discovery a real opening

For this coaching application, transformational conversation means there is something participants can develop together that is not already settled. They may discover a different interpretation, combine requirements or formulate a new option. It need not produce agreement, enthusiasm or a dramatic insight.

Define the open part before inviting participation. The deadline may be fixed while the scope is negotiable. A manager may retain the decision while asking staff to identify consequences and alternatives. Saying so gives the other person a more accurate understanding of their influence.

Willingness to be influenced is observable through what happens next. Does an inconvenient fact alter the proposal? Does a concern receive an answer? If the leader keeps their original recommendation, do they explain why? Listening does not obligate them to accept every suggestion, but an unanswered invitation can become misleading.

A useful shift can also be from exploration back to a clear decision. Once the required evidence is available, summarize the options and exercise the authorized choice. Endless inquiry can leave people uncertain about what to do. The purpose is to improve the work, not keep a conversation indefinitely in the category with the most ambitious name.

Use research without turning conversation into a brain test

Glaser's public explanations often use neuroscience language. In ordinary coaching, however, you have not measured someone's cortisol or oxytocin by hearing their tone. A pause does not identify a brain state, and a friendly exchange does not establish a chemical change. Describe what you observed and ask about the person's experience instead.

Related communication research can inform questions without validating the entire branded framework. Huang and colleagues' 2017 research examined question-asking and liking in getting-acquainted conversations and speed dating. The reported benefits of follow-up questions concern those interpersonal settings, not a test of Glaser's coaching model or executive decision quality. A 2025 correction reports minor reporting errors and says the audit preserved the paper's conclusions.

Edmondson's 1999 study found psychological safety associated with learning behavior across 51 manufacturing-company teams. It does not show that asking a certain question creates safety or removes a manager's power. Use these sources for their actual scope, not as guarantees for a particular phrase or program.

Practical observation can remain modest: the leader interrupted twice, corrected an inaccurate assumption, answered a concern or missed a promised reply. Such records can be useful without becoming a validated trust score. A colleague's own account may also differ from the leader's assessment.

Prepare one conversation through six ordered steps

1. Choose a real event. Specify the people, the practical issue and when a conversation is needed.
2. Separate facts and predictions. Record the evidence available and the response the client imagines. “They will be defensive” remains a prediction.
3. State authority and boundaries. Identify what is fixed, what can change and who decides. Include what the client cannot promise.
4. Prepare an honest opening. Say whether the purpose is to inform, recommend, explore or combine those purposes in sequence.
5. Rehearse a consequential answer. Let the coach introduce a correction, refusal or unexpected constraint. Practice responding to its content.
6. Review the actual interaction. Compare the chosen action, the other person's response and the resulting commitment. Do not substitute a successful rehearsal for a completed workplace conversation.

Ask permission before role-play and offer written preparation instead. Agree what the coach may record. A sponsor can receive an agreed progress account without receiving a private rehearsal transcript or the names of everyone discussed.

Worked example: repair an invitation that was not open

Entirely fictional example: Rhea directs a consulting engagement. Tom prepares a client briefing about readiness at four regional offices. The client's sponsor, Sella, needs a briefing on 9 May 2030 at 10:00, Europe/London. Rhea can recommend content and allocate her team's work. Sella can accept a partial briefing or change the client's meeting; Rhea cannot choose that on her behalf.

The agreed internal review is 8 May at 14:00 in the same time zone. Rhea has drafted an email: “How can we work together to get all four offices completed by review?” In private coaching she says the answer she wants is that Tom will work later. She has not asked which information is missing.

Discover the problem in rehearsal

The coach, playing Tom with Rhea's permission, answers: “What can change? You have already told the client all four will be ready.” Rhea responds, “I am asking you to be constructive.” They stop the role-play. Rhea notices that she has made disagreement look like an attitude problem while concealing her preferred answer.

She checks the project record rather than rehearsing a warmer demand. Two office-readiness returns are complete: North and West. East and South have not supplied the required owner confirmations. Tom requested both on 3 May and followed up on 6 May. Rhea's earlier client email nevertheless promised a complete four-office briefing.

Rhea cannot solve missing client confirmations by requiring Tom to draft as though they exist. Her revised purpose is to correct the factual position, understand the consequences and prepare an honest recommendation for Sella. Whether to hold the original client meeting with a partial briefing is genuinely open.

Conduct the actual conversation and accept a correction

On 7 May, Rhea speaks with Tom. She opens: “I said all four offices would be ready without checking the outstanding confirmations. That was my commitment, and I need to correct it with Sella. I want to understand what is usable and develop a recommendation. We cannot invent the two missing returns. Sella will decide what she needs for her meeting.”

Tom replies: “I also need you to stop describing the issue as my slow drafting. North and West are written. The other two are blocked on client owners.” Rhea begins, “I only meant that the deadline…” then stops and repairs: “You are right that my wording assigned the delay to you. I will correct that in the project update. Have I understood the two completed sections and the two missing confirmations accurately?”

Tom confirms the status and adds that East's draft exists but lacks owner confirmation; South has supplied no return. This difference matters. Rhea's first summary had treated both offices as equally incomplete. She updates the record: one usable draft awaiting confirmation and one missing submission, neither ready to present as confirmed.

The correction does not make Tom pleased with her. He says he is still concerned that the client will see him as unreliable. Rhea does not ask him to trust her immediately. She states the specific correction she will make and asks whether the proposed factual wording misrepresents anything. Tom approves the wording about status, without endorsing her earlier handling.

Use advocacy and inquiry for different jobs

Rhea explains her recommendation: retain the meeting with two confirmed offices and visibly incomplete status for the other two. She thinks Sella can still use it to decide where to focus follow-up. She asks Tom what that option could mislead the client about.

Tom says a single “ready/not ready” overview would imply all four had been assessed on the same basis. He suggests separating confirmed findings from missing evidence and marking the decision each office can support. Rhea asks what Sella could reasonably decide from North and West alone, rather than asking how to make the partial report appear complete.

Together they develop a third presentation option: a confirmed-findings section for North and West, followed by an evidence-status section for East and South. They also preserve two alternatives: postpone until all returns are confirmed, or hold the meeting solely to assign missing-evidence actions. They have not decided for Sella.

This is the consequential opening in the conversation. Tom's answer changes the recommendation's structure. Rhea still advocates retaining the meeting, but now offers a precise reason, limitations and alternatives. The interaction has used information exchange, advocacy and joint development without treating any one mode as sufficient for everything.

Send a complete recommendation and obtain the client's answer

Rhea's fictional message to Sella, 7 May: I need to correct my earlier promise of a complete four-office readiness briefing. North and West have confirmed returns. East has an unconfirmed draft; South has not supplied its return. This is not a delay in Tom's drafting of the confirmed sections.

I recommend keeping 9 May at 10:00, Europe/London, with confirmed findings for North and West and a separate evidence-status section for East and South. We would not rate the latter two as ready or not ready. Alternatives are postponing until all returns are confirmed or using the meeting only to assign evidence actions. Which serves your purpose? Please reply by 8 May at 10:00 so we can prepare for our 14:00 internal review.

Sella replies on 8 May at 09:15: “Keep the meeting with the two-part format. I will use North and West to choose follow-up priorities. Show East and South as not yet assessable, not as failed offices. I will own obtaining their confirmations. Do not turn this into an overall four-office readiness recommendation.”

Rhea acknowledges those terms and sends them to Tom in the project system. Tom confirms that the two confirmed sections and evidence-status page can be ready for the internal review. The case now contains actual client authorization and owner acceptance, rather than a sent request described as agreement.

Show the completed output and the review

At 14:00 on 8 May, the team completes that internal review and corrects the misleading delay description. On 9 May, Rhea presents the agreed format. Sella assigns follow-up on West's missing training owner and retains responsibility for obtaining East and South evidence. She does not approve a four-office readiness conclusion. The two missing confirmations remain outstanding at the end of the meeting.

At the coaching review on 10 May, Rhea reports the actual reply, document and meeting outcome. Tom's message says the revised record is accurate but that he wants her to check dependencies before making another client promise. Rhea agrees to that practice for the next commitment; a later review will be needed to see whether she follows it.

The result is mixed and useful. A misleading promise was corrected and a bounded briefing delivered. The missing evidence and relationship concern remain. There is no measured hormone change, validated trust increase or proof that the model caused the outcome.

Use a different mode when the situation calls for it

Contrast Rhea's exploratory conversation with a fictional information-security incident. An authorized incident lead instructs a colleague to stop distributing an affected file and use the approved incident route. This immediate instruction should be clear. It is not the moment to imply that stopping distribution depends on a group preference.

The recipient can still ask a necessary clarification, such as which file version is affected. Later, the team can examine how the error happened and improve the process through inquiry. Different purposes at different times can all be responsible. Respect does not require pretending that every decision is open.

Equally, a grievance or allegation of harm may need a formal process, appropriate support or professional advice. Do not use conversational practice to require disclosure, secure forgiveness or replace a required investigation. The leader's preferred tone does not determine another person's rights or obligations.

Organize the coaching cycle in Coachful

Create an original preparation worksheet with purpose, established facts, assumptions, fixed constraints, open questions and decision owner. Explain the actual authorized coach-team audience before the client submits. In Rhea's case, store her preparation about the conversation, not the client's office returns or a full named employee transcript.

Use the worksheet response for internal coach review. Coach review is private to the coach team; saving it does not by itself return comments to Rhea. Send the agreed coaching feedback in her private Messages conversation, checking its actual authorized audience. The client's profile message icon opens that conversation; desktop All messages and the phone Dashboard chat button or Search > Messages provide other routes.

Add the action Rhea actually chooses in her Tasks & habits: correct the client commitment and obtain Sella's decision before the internal review. Keep task completion distinct from the reply. At review, record that Sella accepted a specific format and that two confirmations remained missing. A completed task is not evidence that all four offices became ready.

If the session will be summarized, check recap handling beforehand. Recaps send automatically by default. Sessions > settings gear > Session AI > Session recaps can require approval, and session-type settings can override the workspace default. Review a held recap, then send the agreed content or keep it private. Avoid recording unnecessary third-party details in the first place.

Explore Coachful's features for this preparation-to-review workflow. For a narrower reflection practice, see the trust-dashboard guide. For the substantive tension between ongoing priorities, see polarity management. Neither related guide substitutes for the actual person's answer or the decision owner's choice.

Troubleshoot what prevents a useful exchange

The opening sounds collaborative but nothing can change. State the fixed decision. Invite input about a real implementation question if one exists. In Rhea's first rehearsal, the coach tests this by asking what is open, not by polishing the same demand.

The client summarizes too quickly. Invite the other person to correct the summary before moving to options. East's unconfirmed draft and South's missing return require different descriptions. Accurate listening can change the recommendation even when the deadline stays fixed.

Questions become an interrogation. Explain the purpose, ask one relevant question and allow an answer. Offer a pause or another appropriate route if the conversation becomes overwhelming or unsuitable. Do not pursue personal explanations unrelated to the work.

The client calls the rehearsal a success. Identify what remains untested: the real person's response, the actual authority decision and the follow-through. Rehearsal can establish a practiced behavior; it cannot establish another person's agreement.

Frequently asked questions

Is Level III always better?

No. Choose the purpose the work needs. Accurate information and transparent advocacy remain useful. Joint discovery requires something that is genuinely open to influence.

Does this framework measure intelligence?

This guide uses it as a conceptual coaching approach. It does not administer a general intelligence test, diagnose a colleague or provide a proprietary assessment score.

Can a coach infer distrust from body language?

Not reliably from one gesture or pause. Ask about the person's account and context. Ordinary conversation observation does not measure hormones or establish a hidden mental state.

Does listening require accepting the other person's proposal?

No. Understand it accurately, consider it fairly and explain the authorized decision. Listening should not be confused with either automatic agreement or a concealed attempt to obtain compliance.

What should the coaching review examine?

Compare purpose, behavior, response and consequence. Include actual corrections, refusals, decisions and unfinished commitments. Do not claim trust has been restored because a difficult conversation ended politely.