Conversational Agility Drills: Four Practical Coaching Exercises
Nour
Founder, Coachful
Conversational agility is the ability to notice what a discussion needs and choose a useful response: listen, clarify, offer another interpretation, narrow the question or change the next step. Practice with a specific situation, a willing partner and a short review. The aim is a better choice, not a perfectly calm performance.
Judith E. Glaser discusses reframing, refocusing and redirecting in her Conversational Intelligence work. The four drills below are original exercises informed by those ideas. They are practice options rather than official developmental levels, a clinical intervention or a method for measuring another person's trust.
Choose a suitable rehearsal
Start with a conversation the client wants to prepare. Ask who is involved, what decision is needed, what authority the client holds and what information is missing. Use an ordinary but meaningful scenario before rehearsing something highly sensitive.
Agree the roles: speaker, responder and observer. Participants can change wording, decline a scenario or stop. A rehearsal should not require someone to relive a harmful event or disclose private information in a group.
Record what the client hopes to do differently. “Ask which evidence supports the criticism before defending the plan” gives practice a clearer purpose than “be more charismatic.” The reframing, refocusing and redirecting guide develops how to choose among the three responses.
Use a six-minute practice cycle
An original cycle allocates one minute to the brief, two to the conversation, one to responder reflection, one to observer feedback and one to a revised opening. Total: six minutes. Repeat only if participants find it useful.
The observer notes words and actions rather than diagnosing motives. Did the responder answer the concern? Did they check a disputed assumption? Was the final action within their authority? Invite the speaker to explain how the response landed.
A short pause can provide thinking time. Its length is a participation choice; three seconds does not establish a hormonal change. People can look at notes, ask for the question in writing or request a different format.
Drill 1: Pause and listen for the actual request
Set the scene
A colleague says: “I still do not know what your team expects from us by Friday.” The responder practices hearing the request before preparing a defence. The speaker can supply one concrete example when asked.
Try a complete response
“Let me check what is unclear. Is it the output, the decision you can make or the date? I can explain the current request, and I want to know where it does not fit your understanding.”
The speaker replies: “We know the output. We do not know whether we are approving it or just commenting.” The responder then clarifies the actual role, or identifies who must confirm it.
Review the choice
Ask whether the pause helped the responder hear the issue, whether they supplied relevant information and what the speaker still needs. Listening is active work; it does not mean withholding a straightforward answer while asking more questions.
Drill 2: Reframe an accusation into a testable issue
Set the scene
The speaker says: “Your team has dropped the ball again.” The responder should neither accept an unsupported global judgment nor evade a genuine missed commitment.
Try a complete response
“I want to understand the missed commitment you are referring to. The report was due Tuesday and arrived Wednesday; I can account for that. What other impact or example do we need to address?”
The speaker says the late report prevented a customer update. The responder replies: “Then we need to address both the late delivery and the notice you needed. I can explain the cause and agree a more useful update process.”
Review the choice
The reframe makes the issue more specific without insisting it was positive. Ask what facts were acknowledged, what remains disputed and whether the next proposal addresses the impact. Avoid using a polished phrase to make a complaint disappear.
Drill 3: Refocus a broad concern on a useful question
Set the scene
A planning group says: “We can never make this work. There is no time, and everyone wants something different.” The responder practices finding a bounded question rather than promising a breakthrough.
Try a complete response
“Which requirement makes the current version impossible? If we had to choose one part to investigate before deciding, what would it be?”
The speaker identifies an unavailable specialist. The responder follows: “What if we separated the work that needs that specialist from preparation we can do now? Would that create a useful option, or would it just move the same dependency?”
Review the choice
A what-if question offers an option for examination. The other person can reject it. Ask whether the new focus clarified the constraint, overlooked something important or required another decision owner. Keep the unresolved dependency visible.
Drill 4: Redirect to the appropriate next route
Set the scene
Two functions are arguing about the same resource. Each asks the responder to promise it immediately. The responder has no authority to allocate it.
Try a complete response
“Both requests need the same specialist time, and I cannot authorise both. Let us record the required work, deadlines and consequences, then ask the allocation owner to decide. I can prepare the comparison by tomorrow.”
The speaker asks for a guarantee that their project will win. The responder says: “I can promise the comparison and the request. I cannot promise the decision. What evidence should the owner consider?”
Review the choice
A useful redirection can end the argument's current form while preserving the actual disagreement. Check whether the proposed owner has authority and whether the promised preparation is feasible. Serious concerns may need a designated legal, safety or organisational process instead.
Use a simple field sequence
Outside a role-play, try four choices: notice the difficulty, ask what needs clarifying, select a response and confirm the next action. This is an original practice aid, not a requirement to complete every stage in order.
A leader might notice that they are preparing a rebuttal before the colleague finishes. They can say, “I interrupted. Please finish the example.” After hearing it, they may offer a fact, ask a question or request time to check. Agility includes a direct answer when that is what the conversation needs.
Physical discomfort can prompt a personal pause, but it is not a diagnosis of another person's nervous system. Significant distress or matters beyond coaching competence need an appropriate support route, rather than a more demanding rehearsal.
Rehearse a board challenge with accountability
Adil is a fictional CEO preparing for a board discussion after a missed implementation milestone. The board needs an accurate account and options. Adil wants to stop answering every challenge with an immediate defence.
The coach asks him to prepare three things: what happened, which responsibility is his and what decision the board is being asked to make. The rehearsal begins with a director saying, “Why should we accept another revised date?”
Adil: The previous estimate did not include a dependency I should have escalated. Here is the revised evidence and the remaining uncertainty.
Director: That does not explain why we were informed so late.
Adil: You are right that the notice was late. I will explain that separately. For the date decision, do you want to examine the dependency first or the alternative scope?
Director: The dependency first, then the notice process.
Adil has acknowledged a specific failure without agreeing to every allegation. He has also checked the discussion order rather than redirecting away from accountability. Board authority and formal governance processes remain intact.
The rehearsal does not establish that directors will accept the proposal, withdraw a motion or provide funding. Its useful output is an accurate opening and a clearer request.
Complete a practice record
| Field | Adil's example |
|---|---|
| Conversation | Board review of the implementation milestone |
| Purpose | Explain the missed estimate and request a decision about revised scope |
| Habit to notice | Defending the date before hearing the full concern |
| Chosen drill | Specific acknowledgement followed by a question about review order |
| Facts to prepare | Dependency, original estimate, revised evidence and remaining uncertainty |
| Responsibility | Adil accounts for his escalation and notice decisions |
| Other authority | Board and relevant operating owners retain their respective decisions |
| Observer feedback | Opening addressed the estimate; notice explanation still needs preparation |
| Revised action | Prepare the notice timeline and options paper before the real meeting |
| Review | Discuss what happened after the meeting, with suitable information permissions |
The record should show what still needs work. Completing a rehearsal is a preparation fact, not proof that the actual conversation will go well.
Adjust the need to be right without hiding your view
A client may notice a tendency to argue beyond the point where others can contribute. Explore the situation and its impact rather than diagnose an addiction from one meeting.
Three original variations can help. First, state one recommendation and ask for the strongest relevant concern. Second, acknowledge a useful challenge in words you honestly mean: “That identifies a dependency I missed.” Third, practice asking an open question, then provide the information you hold that others need.
Do not require a universal eighty-percent listening ratio or a discussion made entirely of questions. A safety instruction, factual briefing and exploratory workshop need different balances. Honest advocacy and genuine inquiry can coexist.
Use five checks on the rehearsal
Informed by Glaser's published blind-spot areas, ask whether the client checked the other person's meaning, considered context, explored the other perspective, separated remembered words from commentary and tested an assumption of shared understanding.
For example: Did “approval” mean the same action to both people? What made the request difficult? Which responsibility was missing from the first account? What was actually said? What did each participant think had been agreed?
Use these as questions for a selected exchange, rather than a fixed score. The blind-spots matrix guide offers a separate filled record for this inquiry.
Maintain four useful practices
A periodic review can examine one real exchange. An original thirty-minute format allocates five minutes to purpose, ten to the example, ten to alternative responses and five to the next choice. Choose the frequency from useful opportunities, not a universal monthly requirement.
Peer practice can provide another perspective when both people agree the purpose and confidentiality. A peer is not automatically authorised to coach on every concern or see private client information.
A dissent agreement can clarify how concerns are raised, heard and routed. It should protect legitimate challenge without requiring people to present misconduct concerns as a friendly role-play.
Manager onboarding can introduce the conversation practices, their limits and the organisation's actual decision routes. Participation and visible enthusiasm are not evidence of promotion readiness or measured trust.
Review the second decision
After the board meeting, Adil finds that the revised opening helped him answer more precisely. The board still requires an independent technical estimate before deciding. The next action is to arrange that work through the authorised owner, not rehearse the same opening until approval appears.
Ask what the client learned, what the rehearsal missed and which support is now appropriate. An observer's account, the client's impression and a formal board decision are different sources. Keep each within its actual scope.
Prepare practice in Coachful
Create a resource or optional worksheet with the scenario, chosen reply and review questions. Explain which responses are submitted and who can read them. Record the client's agreed preparation action through the normal client-plan workflow.
Where a configured coaching-flow question allows voice-note answers, a client can submit a short rehearsal for review. Explain the intended audience and choose an accessible text alternative. Keep private journal takeaways separate from shared submissions, and check relevant recap approval and session-type settings before sharing session material.
Frequently asked questions
Are these four drills Glaser's official training sequence?
They are original practice exercises informed by her conversational ideas. Formal training and tools have their own current permissions and administration requirements.
What if the other person is genuinely wrong?
Provide relevant evidence and state your position. Clarification helps identify the disagreement; it does not require agreement or abandoning appropriate standards.
Can a drill guarantee de-escalation?
No. It can help the client prepare a choice. The real response depends on the people, information, power and circumstances involved.
Sources and further reading
Glaser, Conversational Intelligence, Routledge, chapter 8. Primary publisher record identifies the three conversational adjustment practices; the drills and cases here are original.
Judith E. Glaser, Expert Interview with Rachel Salaman, Mindtools; “Conversational Blind Spots,” January 2015, reproduced by The CreatingWE Institute. Framework attribution, not independent evidence of hormonal or business effects.
Explore Coachful's features to organise preparation, submitted practice and agreed follow-through.
