I recently used the method when holding a dialogue space at a conference for social work researchers. The invitation to delegates was to come along to a 2hr facilitated dialogue to talk about anything that was important to them.

I used the dynamic dialogue/soft shoe shuffle to explore the topic had been decided on. I started by setting up how it would work - this is a dialogue on its feet and I am going to ask anyone who has a view on the topic we’ve chosen to share their view. I will stand next the person speaking and gently turn up the volume’ of what they have said by re-stating their view. I will then invite anyone who agrees with that view to stand alongside the person who has spoken. If you don’t agree don’t move and I will ask your view. We finished with a round of awarenesses that we recorded and transcribed later.

Participants were struck by the power of amplification and reflected that they felt understood (most were speaking in their second or third language) ‘I think the technique that you used is brilliant. And hearing what I was saying through your words was an experience in itself. It’s like translating all the nonsense into something that makes sense.’

There was also a sense of the tool creating clarity and sharpening the exchange - ‘the methods help a lot a lot, they structure it. I was super impressed by your ability to bringing it on the point. I enjoyed that very much.’

The use of the dynamic dialogue also allowed people to slow down, to listen, to reflect and to form meaningful connections.

One participant said ‘for me the first thought that came to my mind was how brilliantly the connections were nurtured, because I think there’s a lot of talk of how difficult it is to make real connections. But my experience today was that it was really easy to do that, because we really opened ourselves to it, it’s not that difficult.’

My learning was that dynamic dialogue was a brilliant tool for creating deep connection quickly amongst people who, for the most part, don’t know each other. There were deep and personal experiences shared in a very short space of time which I found profoundly moving. I also noticed that in an academic environment where people are more used to be in their heads, the Dynamic Dialogue offered an embodied experience and a space where emotions were welcome and people really valued that.

I have also been using DD in the context of a pilot prisons project called ‘The Conversation’ run by Spark Inside. The aim of the pilot was to bring staff and prisoners together ‘to improve living and working conditions on their residential unit’.

In the first session, we had 4 officers and 7 prisoners. The atmosphere was fizzy, there was anticipation mixed with nerves and a dose of distrust and scepticism.

We started by using the DD check in - my hope for today and a part of me that doesn’t want to be there. Some of the group acknowledged that they didn’t want to be there and one of the officers named that ‘this feels awkward, I’m not gonna lie.’ We moved on and shared the image of the iceberg and the waterline.

There was lots of chat and fidgeting and I realised we were starting to lose the group’s attention. I interrupted my co-facilitator to name what was happening - I said ‘sitting here together like this in a circle is weird isn’t it? This isn’t the norm and it feels strange’. I perceived a collective sigh followed by a settling of energies.

The role of awkwardness that the officer had named in the check-in was now clearly above the waterline and in our shared collective consciousness.

We went into the Dynamic Dialogue with energy and started by establishing safety rules but there was a sense of impatience and desire to move into the dialogue. We started by asking: ‘what is it like to live and work on 6A?’.

Prisoners shared their frustrations at the lack of resources, symbolised by a table tennis table that had been broken for months. One said, it felt like ‘suffering for people I’ve not even met’. Staff recognised their frustrations but shared that as officers they had no power to replace the table tennis table nor did they decide at what time prisoners would be locked up in their cells. One officer said ‘we are just trying to make things run smoothly’ which generated full agreement in the group.

There was some recognition from the prisoners that the officers in the room were not responsible for decisions made by more senior staff members. One prisoner spoke directly to an incident where an officer (who was participating in the session on his first day back at work after taking some time off) had been attacked by a prisoner (not in the room) by saying, ‘it wasn’t personal, it was about X’s frustration with the system and the (staff) higher ups’. This was a powerful moment, where something that everyone in the room was aware of but up until that point had been under the waterline, was spoken and the possible reasons for it were shared.

We finished the session with a round of insights and awarenesses and I was struck by how much understanding and empathy there was between officer and prisoners. One officer said ‘we’re on the same side with lots of things. Perhaps more than we thought.’

We went on to work with the group for a further two sessions using Dynamic Dialogue and invited some more senior staff and other prisoners to join the sessions. By the end of the pilot there were high levels of commitment to the project and a greater understanding between participants. One prisoner who had been at all three sessions said, ‘there’s a big difference in the group and a better relationship with staff.’ An officer reflected ‘I’m excited for the future and what we can do. I want to make it better for us all.’

Most leadership training is focused on management techniques, efficiency, or problem-solving. This work feels different because it asks deeper questions i.e. about how we show up, how we listen, and how we create space for others. It is less about fixing and more about transforming relationships.

These skills encourage people to listen across difference, to slow down, and to recognise the humanity in others. If practised more widely, they could help bridge divides in workplaces, communities, and even within families, anywhere relationships are central.

The learning has provided me with new perspectives and practical tools that I can see would be valuable for supporting colleagues, especially in sensitive or complex situations.

The moment that really stayed with me was being asked the question: “What do you need to come along?” That simple but powerful prompt completely reframed how I think about engagement, collaboration, and inclusion.

I find myself being more intentional in creating spaces where people feel they can contribute, and more attuned to the different perspectives that colleagues bring.

I’ve been reflecting on when I will use (the skills) in the future: in line management conversations, in chairing meetings, and in supporting colleagues through change.

Personally, I have already used them at home with my children. Simple shifts, like asking them what they need to be part of something, have helped turn moments of resistance into moments of collaboration. I’ve noticed that asking open questions instead of giving instructions can dissolve tension very quickly.

For instance, instead of insisting on something directly, I ask, “What do you need in order to do this?” That question often leads to a calmer, more cooperative response. It made me realise how powerful these skills could be if I bring the same approach into professional situations of disagreement or tension.

My one key lesson I will carry forward is that true leadership starts with listening, that is really listening to yourself and to others, whether in your professional role or in your personal relationships. Leadership is not just about strategy and outcomes but about creating conditions for people to thrive. This work provides leaders with a mindset and toolkit that encourages deeper listening and more thoughtful engagement.

Without these skills we would lose an approach that prioritises humanity in leadership. Without it, leaders risk reverting to transactional ways of working, missing the opportunity to build genuine connection and resilience in their teams and institutions.

I came to the training with an intrigue about how the philosophy and tools could be used to manage conflict within teams.

I left with a different way of seeing group dynamics and a different way of understanding and observing what’s happening in groups I’m in, and with a sharper understanding of how to use the Debate. That tool alone feels radically transformative. It’s so simple, and yet so powerful. I’ve already used the debate as a coaching technique, and the people I’ve used it with have found it really powerful for their thinking.

Deep Democracy is a set of tools for understanding tension and conflict as it emerges within groups and for working with it constructively to make better decisions. It offers a different path than either getting stuck in endless debate or making top-down decisions that shut out voices.

Over 20 years (as a practitioner), I’ve often experienced two models of inclusion and decision making that sit at the ends of a binary:

At one end: consensus-style decision making where everyone gets as much space as they want, harmony can become more important than making a decision, and as groups scale it becomes incredibly frustrating, as you never move to decision or action.

At the other end: top-down decision making: elect a committee, or a visionary executive director where momentum is prioritised and dissent or other voices don’t have much space. There’s a fear that if you open participation up, you’ll get stuck in endless debate.

Deep Democracy by contrast creates a framework for hearing everyone’s voice (every voice is valued) while also providing structure and scaffolding so the group can make decisions without needing unanimity.

Additionally, understanding of group dynamics elevated this training substantially above any other facilitation training I’ve done.

I went in because my biggest weakness as a facilitator is not feeling confident enough managing conflict. I’d done a different one-day training hoping to address that and really didn’t take anything from it.

In contrast, I came out thinking: I now have a new way of seeing group dynamics and a concrete tool for managing tension, disharmony and conflict, and that very concretely boosts my confidence as a facilitator.

The strength of the trainers made the course stand out, including the ability to answer deep questions, the pace and clarity of explaining concepts, and the overall mastery of the method.

In fact, what convinced me to come was attending taster sessions where the concept of the Waterline was presented with such clarity and pace that I came away thinking: “that’s one of the best trainers I’ve ever seen.”

A particularly extraordinary part as a participant was the relationship between the two trainers (Francesca and Payam). There were moments where they paused and had a discussion between themselves about how they were reading what was going on in the room and what decision they were going to make next. I felt like I learned as much from observing those discussions (the way they read the room and made decisions) as I did from anything else. It felt very special and unusual, to be allowed to see even a small part of that internal dialogue.

Another standout was how the training was held. It was much less structured than other trainings. The order of content was decided by the group, using the tools in real time. There was little upfront contracting about how we would learn, and it wasn’t overly didactic.

That emergent structure really held my interest. It made our use of tools feel more real than it would have in a highly structured environment because it brought up uncertainty and friction and that uncertainty is what made the examples of using the tools feel rich rather than flat.

If more people had access to this training, tension could become celebrated rather than debilitating or explosive.

I have taken so much and recommend it wholeheartedly!