January 27, 2026
by Stephen T. Messenger
Last week, I was speaking to someone about completing a task. They were struggling, and I had some great ideas to help them out. But after my third suggestion, I noticed that they weren’t receptive to my input. That’s when they let me know they weren’t asking for help; they were trying to vent.
I was in the wrong conversation. Where I thought we were solving problems, they just wanted to share emotions and tell a story. The result was a few hurt feelings, and me not helping at all.
It is critically important to be in the same mode of discussion as the person we’re talking to. After researching the different types of conversations, I found Charles Duhigg’s theory in his book Super Communicators the most effective where he argues there are three types of conversation: practical, emotional, and social. To communicate effectively, we must align our conversation to successfully connect.
Types of Conversations
Regardless of the type of interaction, the most important thing to remember is being in the same one with your partner. However, the ways scholars categorize conversations vary greatly, depending on who we ask.
David Angel believes there are four types: debate, dialogue, discourse, and diatribe. The first two are conversations between multiple people, while the latter two are one-way discussions. Meanwhile, discourse and dialogue are cooperative while diatribe and debate are competitive. He has a quad-chart to describe it, and it’s a helpful visual.
Ivan Andreev references four different communication types. Analytical communicators talk about hard numbers and facts. Intuitive types prefer the big picture while avoiding the details. In contrast to intuitive, functional communicators are detail-oriented and want to discuss facts in depth. Lastly, personal styles seek human connection and focus on emotions and feelings.
Finally, psychologist Jose Alvarez talks about five kinds. Casual conversations exchange quick, small bits of information between those who know each other. Deep conversations are where participants uncover levels of emotion through intimacy and trust. Therapeutic ones are where mental health professionals attempt to promote self-growth. Constructive conversations solve problems. Finally, destructive conversations create conflict and discomfort.
These different types are all very interesting, but with so many, it becomes hard to keep track of them all. Journalist and author Charles Duhigg researched this problem and solved the complication by simplifying it into three conversational styles. To me, it’s the easiest model to grasp when trying to identify what’s happening in the moment.
1. Practical. “What is this really about?” A practical conversation asks to understand the decision-making and thought processes behind the players. In practical engagements, most people have an agenda and are trying to accomplish something or solve a problem. In this conversation, both parties should understand what the other is trying to achieve.
2. Emotional. “How do we feel?” Here, the conversation focuses on beliefs, emotions, and memories. Emotions are a critical component of two people talking. It is a process of sharing thoughts and attempting to connect on a deeper level. These people are growing closer through an exchange of feelings.
3. Social. “Who are we to each other?” Social conversations are about identity and togetherness. Social roles and norms influence people talking to each other. It allows us as participants to focus on relationships and attempt to discover how others see us and how we see ourselves. These conversations create networks and bring people together.
Regardless of how we want to frame different types of conversations, the important thing is that we get on the same page as the person we’re talking to.
On the Same Page
When people are having different conversations, trouble arises. When we enter a conversation, we must understand what the other person is expecting. Or else, we’re that person who keeps talking as we roll our eyes wishing it would stop.
I was recently working with a person on a project mainly over Teams. We never had a one-on-one engagement, but spoke frequently in groups about our task. One day, he was in the area, and we met in my office. It was a great opportunity to make some progress.
But unknown to me, he showed up wanting to have a social conversation. We spent the whole 30 minutes exchanging information about the past and people we knew. At the end, I casually mentioned that we didn’t really get anything done, and he was surprised we were even going to work on anything at all. He was having a social call while I was having a practical meeting.
We were in two different conversations. But I could have avoided this whole miscommunication through an easy solution: ask and share.
Duhigg outlines a number of great ideas in his book, but the simplest one is to ask the other person what they are looking for in this conversation and share what we want. My wife has a phrase: “Unstated expectations are unmet expectations,” especially when applied to personal preferences on where we go and what we do.
As we enter a conversation, if we’re unsure the other person knows, we should share our goals and expectations. Or we could first ask: “What are you trying to get out of this?” Much like a good meeting, a good conversation has a mutually agreed-upon framework to cue the participants into what types of sharing will result in a successful engagement.
Without knowing this, and as demonstrated by my failed engagement example, unstated expectations are unmet expectations. Duhigg says this another way: effective conversation requires the parties to understand the kind of conversation they’re having and match each other. Without matching, confusion results.
Super Communicators
Duhigg believes “conversation is the communal air we breathe.” If that’s true, when one person is breathing the wrong gas, it results in miscommunication… or suffocation, to extend this analogy. No one should ever be without oxygen while talking.
By using the simple framework of practical, emotional, or social conversations, we are more likely to understand the conversation we’re having. It’s important to state our intentions clearly, and we should ask clarifying questions if it seems like the two partners are speaking past each other.
Finally, it’s possible to mix and match the conversations. We can still have a practical conversation while building social components and injecting emotional aspects. That said, don’t be afraid to combine the models or use any of the other frameworks.
In the end, it doesn’t matter what kind of conversation we’re having, just that we’re having the same one. Most communication failures don’t come from bad intent or poor skill, but from mismatched expectations. Leaders who pause to align the purpose of the exchange create trust, efficiency, and far better outcomes.
Click here to sign up for The Maximum Standard’s weekly email where you’ll get a leadership vignette delivered for free every Tuesday morning!
We’re always looking for authors. We coach first time authors (and anyone) through the writing process if you need a little help. It’s worth taking the first step to get published.
This website is a personal blog and all writings, podcasts, opinions, and posts are the authors’ own and do not represent the views of the United States Army nor any other organization. Podcast music credit in this audio file is to: “Alex Productions – Legends” is under a Creative Commons license (CC BY 3.0). / @alexproductionsnocopyright
The Maximum Standard 