| The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the experience of individuals who cultivated conversational leadership in their spheres of influence. Perspectives on conversation from the rhetorical tradition to the complexity sciences and leadership concepts from the 18th century to the present were reviewed. The capacities of conversational leaders as well as three views of conversational leadership, including a cybernetic approach oriented toward eliminating conversational waste; a dialogic, complex adaptive systems view emphasizing cultivating collective thinking; and a complexity approach focused on the centrality of local, everyday interactions were considered.;An analysis of narratives methodology was used to identify five themes among 10 randomly selected individuals. Participants derived the meaning of conversational leadership from personal, lived experience, implying the concept of conversational leadership was novel and should be held loosely, rather than seeking conformity around a fixed set of tasks or activities. Although diverse, participants expressed common capacities, including intentionality in relating with others, opening up conversations through inquiring, listening, respect, withholding judgment, and openness to other perspectives. This suggested that a conversational leader was not bound by role, context, or theoretical approach. Cultivating other conversational leaders took place informally and formally through role modeling, informal opportunities, coaching, formal programs, client interventions, and apprenticing. When changing the conversation, considering multiple levels of discourse ranging from the intrapersonal to the sociocultural may help prioritize efforts of where to change the conversation at any given time. Participants also reported paradoxes within conversational leadership highlighting both the rewards and challenges of relating with others, demonstrating the reality of multidirectional forces in human relating.;Participants indicated that conversational leadership was a way of being, not merely technique, relating to tendencies outlined in the authentic leadership research, including self-awareness regarding values, capabilities, and experience and seeking congruence between values, intentions, and actions. Authentic leadership is evident through their life-story construction.;Study limitations included breadth of employment, the small participant number, element of chance with the snowball method, potential of analysis of narratives methodology to diminish features of individual accounts, and lack of indicators tying conversational leadership to organizational outcomes. |
