Structural Dynamics: What Moves Our Conversations

  • Have you noticed that with certain family members, friends, or coworkers, you can predict exactly how a conversation will unfold before it even begins?

  • Are there people in your life who consistently fall into familiar roles—always agreeing, always resisting, always challenging, or always trying to keep the peace?

  • Have you observed how the same issue can trigger radically different responses in different people—one focused on fixing the problem, another on understanding emotions, and another on questioning the system itself?

  • Do recurring patterns in group conversations frustrate you—like when someone constantly introduces new ideas while someone else insists on structure, order, and sticking to the plan?

  • When tension rises or something deeply matters to you, do you notice your communication style shift in predictable ways?

  • Have you ever wondered why certain people seem to reliably bring out specific reactions in you—defensiveness, impatience, agreement, or withdrawal?

What if conflict isn’t just about what we believe, but about the interactional dynamics that shape how we engage with each other?

What is Structural Dynamics?

After years of studying family dynamics, David Kantor noticed that verbal interactions fell into certain patterns and that people had certain propensities when it came to how they used language in their interactions with others. He found a structure to these interactions hence the term Structural Dynamics. These behavioral propensities are the surface manifestations of deeply rooted psychological characteristics developed over time since childhood. At Beyond Primal, we use David Kantor’s structural dynamics to explore the way we use speech in our interactions with others to help us fine tune the ways in which we can more fully engage our dialogic skills in the intended way. It is not just what we say, but also how we say it that impacts how we receive and are received by others.

Kantor’s Structural Dynamics model has three components; The Four Player Model, Language Domains, and Operating Systems. From the first to the last, each component represents ever deepening aspects of the self. While we have access to each of the behaviors within the model, some may be more accessible to us than others. Each behavior is neutral and a necessary component of healthy interactions. However, we may sometimes get “stuck” in a certain way of behaving that is most comfortable for us especially when we feel stressed. Understanding why we are stressed through the B.U.C.(k).E.T and identity aspects of our the brain-based holisitic dialogue framework and how that impacts our verbal interactions will help us broaden our behavioral repertoire in ways that will allow us to communicate more effectively.

Why explore structural dynamics when we are already learning about dialogic skills?

Even if we think we are proficient in using the dialogic skills of making space for the self and making space for others the specific ways in which we use language can impact the success of any social interaction. The behaviors and language we use to communicate provide a window into how people feel about situations. Our communication propensities often shift when we feel anxious or threatened. They offer clues into whether someone may be in fight, flight, or freeze mode. Noticing when communication propensities shift can provide clues into which aspects of a situation people feel the most strongly about as well as what aspects of their identity may be salient in the moment. Being aware of your own propensities is the first step in owning your own part in the interaction so that you can shift as needed to keep the interaction constructive.

Four Player model

The Four Player Model describes four fundamental Action Stances—the basic ways we contribute to a conversation. They are called Action Stances because they do more than communicate information; they shape the direction, momentum, and outcome of every interaction.

Everyone is capable of using all four Action Stances, but most of us develop preferences. We naturally rely on some more than others, and those preferences often shift depending on the situation. You may speak differently at work than you do at home, and under stress you may default to a narrower range of responses than when you are relaxed.

No Action Stance is inherently good or bad. Each serves an important purpose, and healthy, productive conversations require all four. The key is not choosing the "right" stance—it's developing the flexibility to use the one the moment calls for.

As you explore the four Action Stances, consider: Which ones come most naturally to you? Which do you avoid? How does that change at work, at home, or when discussing topics you care deeply about?

Action Stances

  • Move

    A Move initiates action or a direction in a conversation. Example, “I’m hungry, let’s go to lunch.”

  • Follow

    A Follow completes or supports a direction in a conversation. Example, “Sure. I could eat.”

  • Oppose

    An Oppose pushes back against an action or provides alternatives. Example, “ How about in half an hour? I’m not very hungry right now.”

  • Bystand

    A Bystand is a neutral observation or a synthesis of the ideas already presented. Example, “John, I noticed that you are getting fidgety. Do you need to eat now or can you wait?”

Patterns of Conversation

Very often, conversations follow a repeating pattern of action stances. For example:

  • Move/Oppose - One person makes a point and the other rebuts it. Common in heated arguments or parents talking to teenagers.

  • Move/Move - A conversation that resembles chickens in a yard running every which way. Not much gets done with this pattern.

  • Move/Follow - One person makes a point and the other follows. Often found with a leader who is feared.

  • Bystand/Bystand - Not saying much of anything. Occurs when people are overly polite and preoccupied with not upsetting anyone.

When you notice a conversation getting stuck in an unhelpful pattern, it can say as much about what is going on as the words that are being spoken. Productive conversations require a healthy mix of action stances. To break an unhealthy pattern, try a missing action stance. Bystands where you make an observation about the pattern you are seeing often work well in these situations.

The Languages We Speak

Our conversations are shaped not only by how we speak (our Action Stances), but also by what our language emphasizes. Structural Dynamics describes three Language Domains, each reflecting a different way of making sense of a situation and what matters most in the moment.

Like Action Stances, we all use each of the three Language Domains. However, we tend to have favorites, and those preferences often shift depending on the context. Under stress, we may become stuck in one domain and have difficulty recognizing the value of the others.

Many frustrating conversations occur because people are speaking from different Language Domains without realizing it. Imagine you're focused on the Affect domain, emphasizing emotions, relationships, and how people are experiencing a situation. Meanwhile, the other person is speaking from the Power domain, focused on decisions, action, and results. You may conclude they don't care about people's feelings, while they may see you as avoiding action by dwelling on emotions. In reality, both perspectives are important.

Healthy conversations don't require everyone to speak the same language—they require recognizing which Language Domain is driving the conversation and intentionally balancing all three. When feelings, meaning, and action each have a place, conversations become more productive, more collaborative, and more likely to lead to lasting solutions.

Language Domains

  • Power

    When we speak in Power we use forceful language that indicates we want to get things done. Example, “Let’s go folks, we are going to lunch.”

  • Affect

    When we speak in Affect, it shows we are concerned about others’ feelings and relationships. Example, “Hey John, you look a little frustrated, are you getting hangry?”

  • Meaning

    When we speak in Meaning, we seek understanding and truth. Example, “Data shows that this is the optimal time to eat lunch for increased productivity during the afternoon.”

Action Stances + Language Domains

The ways in which the action stances and language domains are combined has a huge impact on the way in which your statements can be interpreted. Below are a few examples.

Oppose in Power

“No, I don’t like that idea.”

Oppose in Affect

"I appreciate the idea, but I’m wondering if we can explore more options.”

Oppose in Meaning

“Interesting idea, but the data shows that this is not the optimal solution.”

Each of the above statements is basically rebuffing the idea, but think about how you might react to them. Would you become defensive, get creative, or maybe look at the data more closely to see what you missed?

Think about the last time you had a conversation about a highly charge political topic with someone who had a different opinion than you. What action stances and language domains did you rely on most? How did the other person react? How did the action stances and language domains they predominantly used make you feel? Did they help the conversation or make it impossible for you to continue? Are you still inviting them to Thanksgiving?

Internal Board of Directors

The Action Stances and Language Domains for which we have certain propensities serve the underlying beliefs and rules that govern our behavior. These underlying beliefs and rules are called operating systems, much like those in a computer and have developed over a lifetime beginning in childhood. Within the Beyond Primal framework, operating systems describe the deep assumptions, priorities, and adaptive strategies that people use to interpret reality and respond to challenges. These operating systems are recurring structural patterns that shape perception, decision-making, and conflict behavior. When conflict emerges, individuals often approach it through different operating systems: some seek order, rules, and stability; others prioritize relationships and group cohesion; others focus on autonomy, truth-seeking, innovation, or systemic transformation. Structural Dynamics examines how these differing operating systems interact within larger social systems, helping explain why people can experience the same situation yet arrive at very different conclusions, motivations, and conflict responses. Understanding these differences allows conflict to be viewed less as a struggle between right and wrong and more as an interaction between distinct adaptive frameworks operating within a shared environment.

An important question to ask is, “What part of myself or the other person is being protected by the operating system in use?”

Operating Systems

  • Open

    The Open operating system is characterized by wanting to hear what others have to say, it is open to new ideas. While the Open OS can foster a sense of inclusion and enable new ideas, it can also result in decisions not being made.

  • Closed

    The Closed operating system is characterized by adherence to rules and hierarchy. Someone with a dominant Closed OS may be decisive, making decision quickly, but they may do so too quickly stifling new ideas and making people feel like they have not been heard.

  • Random

    The Random operating system is characterized by a lack of adherence to rules or procedures. Decisions and ideas seem to come from no where. The Random OS is effective at generating new ideas and making connections between seemingly disparate things, but it can also be inefficient and going off on tangents.

Creating the Conditions for Generative Dialogue

Throughout Beyond Primal, we've explored practices that help us create space between stimulus and response—questioning our assumptions, listening with curiosity, sharing our reasoning, and seeking to understand before seeking to persuade. Structural Dynamics adds another essential piece to that practice.

Dialogue is often described as the shared unfolding of understanding. But that unfolding doesn't happen by accident. It depends on the conversational patterns we create together.

Structural Dynamics provides a framework for recognizing those patterns. By becoming aware of our Action Stances and Language Domains, we can notice when a conversation has become repetitive, polarized, or stuck. Instead of reacting automatically, we can intentionally shift how we speak, listen, and respond to create more room for reflection, inquiry, and new insight.

In this way, Structural Dynamics is not simply a model of communication. It is a practical tool for supporting the dialogic skills explored throughout this site. It helps us move beyond habitual ways of talking so that conversations become places where understanding can emerge rather than simply positions being defended.