Read Crucial Conversations Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High Online
Authors: Kerry Patterson,Joseph Grenny,Ron McMillan,Al Switzler
Of course, the reason most of us turn agreements into debates is because we disagree with a certain portion of what the other person has said. Never mind that it's a
minor
portion. If it's a point of disagreement, we'll jump all over it like a fleeing criminal.
Actually, we're trained to look for minor errors from an early age. For instance, we learn in kindergarten that if you have the right answer, you're the teacher's pet. Being right is good. Of course, if others have the right answer they get to be the pet. So being right first is even better. You learn to look for even the tiniest of errors in others' facts, thinking, or logic. Then you point out the errors. Being right at the expense of others is best.
By the time you finish your education, you have a virtual Ph.D. in catching trivial differences and turning them into a major deal. So when another person offers up a suggestion (based on facts and stories), you're looking to disagree. And when you do find a minor difference, you turn this snack into a meal. Instead of remaining in healthy dialogue, you end up in violent agreement.
On the other hand, when you watch people who are skilled in dialogue, it becomes clear that they're not playing this everyday game of Trivial Pursuitâlooking for trivial differences and then proclaiming them aloud. In fact, they're looking for points of agreement. As a result, they'll often start with the words “I agree.” Then they talk about the part they agree with. At least, that's where they start.
Now when the other person has merely
left out an element
of the argument, skilled people will agree and then build. Rather than saying: “Wrong. You forgot to mention . . .,” they say: “Absolutely. In addition, I noticed that. . .”
If you agree with what has been said but the information is incomplete, build. Point out areas of agreement, and then add elements that were left out of the discussion.
Finally, if you do disagree, compare your path with the other person's. That is, rather than suggesting that
he
or
she
is wrong, suggest that you differ. He or she may, in fact, be wrong, but you don't know for sure until you hear both sides of the story. For now, you just know that the two of you differ. So instead of pronouncing “Wrong!” start with a tentative but candid opening, such as “I think I see things differently. Let me describe how.”
Then share your path using the STATE skills from
Chapter 7
. That is, begin by sharing your observations. Share them tentatively, and invite others to test your ideas. After you've shared your path, invite the other person to help you compare it with his or her experience. Work together to explore and explain the differences.
In summary, to help remember these skills, think of your ABCs.
Agree
when you agree.
Build
when others leave out key pieces.
Compare
when you differ. Don't turn differences into debates that lead to unhealthy relationships and bad results.
My Crucial Conversation: Daryl K.
A few weeks ago a friend I highly respect told me about
Crucial Conversations
. The notion of “crucial conversations” resonated with me because I'm in the midst of some challenging leadership issues, all of which involve potentially difficult conversations leading to
important decisions. Anyway, the idea intrigued me enough that I went straight to the bookstore and bought it. Once I began reading it I couldn't put it down. I read it like a novel over an evening and the next morning, as every page seemed to offer help for the sticky situation I found myself in.
You see, simultaneous to discovering the book, I have been in the end-stages of a major negotiation with a key partner to jointly spin out a venture capitalâfunded company in Europe to further develop our technology. As we got closer to a deal over the last two months, the discussions started to decay, including heated phone calls and distrust on both sides. I was at a loss with how to effectively talk with them. Two weeks ago, we received a deal term sheet, so we had to either come together on an agreement or go our separate ways. If we went our separate ways, both sides knew it would end badly. So in desperation, last week I met with my negotiating counterparts at JFK airport to try to work through the impasses and strike a deal.
In preparing for the JFK meeting, I reread the book and it was like a light turning on for me. I went into the JFK negotiations armed with a new communication approach. I literally scripted my arguments and had crib sheets on the dialogue process. I followed the basic process from the book, and it worked like a charm. There were many points where the dialogue started to decay, but each time I was able to restore it and move the discussion forward. One of the big things I had to do was fight my impulse to argue for my view and instead restore safety by simply exploring the other side's perspective. After a six-hour meeting, we emerged with the outline of a very good dealâfor both parties.
The deal was finalized over the last two days. Negotiating the details of the final documents under tight time pressures, over the phone, and on two different continents was challenging and full of
land mines. In fact, just yesterday at the moment of extreme tension, it seemed that the entire deal was coming unwound. I had to work the phones for four hours to rebuild dialogue between the parties so that we could get through the final pieces of the contract. Last night we were down to
one
word in the seventeen-page agreement. I wouldn't give in, and they tried to bully me. I had to step backâagainâexplore their viewsâand rebuild safety by finding a Mutual Purpose. We resolved the final pieceâvery easilyâon a phone call at 5 a.m. in which I used the communication process to find common understanding between the parties.
I truly don't think that we would have struck the deal if a good friend had not recommended this powerful approach to communication.
âDaryl K.
To encourage the free flow of meaning and help others leave silence or violence behind, explore their Paths to Action. Start with an attitude of curiosity and patience. This helps restore safety.
Then, use four powerful listening skills to retrace the other person's Path to Action to its origins.
â¢
A
sk
. Start by simply expressing interest in the other person's views.
â¢
M
irror
. Increase safety by respectfully acknowledging the emotions people appear to be feeling.
â¢
P
araphrase
. As others begin to share part of their story, restate what you've heard to show not just that you understand, but also that it's safe for them to share what they're thinking.
â¢
P
rime
. If others continue to hold back, prime. Take your best guess at what they may be thinking and feeling.
As you begin to share your views, remember:
â¢
A
gree
. Agree when you share views.
â¢
B
uild
. If others leave something out, agree where you share views, then build.
â¢
C
ompare
. When you do differ significantly, don't suggest others are wrong. Compare your two views.
To do nothing is in every man's power
.
âS
AMUEL
J
OHNSON
Up until this point we've suggested that getting more meaning into the pool helps with dialogue. It's the
one thing
that helps people make savvy decisions that, in turn, lead to smart, unified, and committed actions. In order to encourage this free flow of meaning, we've shared the skills we've been able to learn by watching people who are gifted at dialogue. By now, if you've followed some or all of this advice, you're walking around with full pools. People who walk near you should hear the sloshing.
It's time we add two final skills. Having more meaning in the pool, even jointly owning it, doesn't guarantee that we all agree on what we're going to do with the meaning. For example, when teams or families meet and generate a host of ideas, they often fail to convert the ideas into action for two reasons:
⢠They have unclear expectations about how decisions will be made.
⢠They do a poor job of acting on the decisions they do make.
This can be dangerous. In fact, when people move from adding meaning to the pool to moving to action, it's a prime time for new challenges to arise. Who is supposed to take the assignment? That can be controversial. How are we supposed to decide in the first place? That can be emotional. Let's take a look at what it takes to solve each of these problems. First, making decisions.
The two riskiest times in crucial conversations tend to be at the beginning and at the end. The beginning is risky because you have to find a way to create safety or else things go awry. The end is dicey because if you aren't careful about how you clarify the conclusion and decisions flowing from your Pool of Shared Meaning, you can run into violated expectations later on. This can happen in two ways.
How are decisions going to be made?
First, people may not understand how decisions are going to be made. For example, Cara is miffed. Rene just plunked down a brochure for a three-day cruise and announced he had made reservations and even paid the $500 deposit for an outside suite.
A week ago they had a crucial conversation about vacation plans. Both expressed their views and preferences respectfully and candidly. It wasn't easy, but at the end they concluded a cruise suited both quite well. And yet Cara is miffed, and Rene is stunned that Cara is anything less than ecstatic.
Cara agreed
in principle
about a cruise. She didn't agree with this particular cruise. Rene thought that any cruise would be fine and made a decision on his own. Have fun on the cruise, Rene.
Are we ever going to decide?
The second problem with decision making occurs when no decision gets made. Either ideas slip away and dissipate, or people can't figure out what to do with them. Or maybe everyone is waiting for everyone else to make the decisions. “Hey, we filled the pool. Now you do something with it.” In any case, decisions drag on forever.
Both of these problems are solved if, before making a decision, the people involved decide how to decide. Don't allow people to assume that dialogue is decision making. Dialogue is a process for getting all relevant meaning into a shared pool. That process, of course, involves everyone. However, simply because everyone is allowed to share their meaningâactually encouraged to share their meaningâdoesn't mean they are then guaranteed to take part in making all the decisions. To avoid violated expectations, separate dialogue from decision making. Make it clear how decisions will be madeâwho will be involved and why.
When the line of authority is clear
. When you're in a position of authority, you decide which method of decision making you'll use. Managers and parents, for example, decide how to decide. It's part of their responsibility as leaders. For instance, VPs don't ask hourly employees to decide on pricing changes or product lines. That's the leaders' job. Parents don't ask small children to pick their home security device or to set their own curfew. That's the job of the parent. Of course, both leaders and parents turn more decisions over to their direct reports and children when they warrant the responsibility, but it's still the authority figure who decides what method of decision making to employ. Deciding what decisions to turn over and when to do it is part of their stewardship.
When the line of authority isn't clear
. When there is no clear line of authority, deciding how to decide can be quite difficult. For
instance, consider a conversation we referred to earlierâthe one you had with your daughter's schoolteacher. Should you hold your child back? Whose choice is this anyway? Who decides whose choice it is? Does everyone have a say, then a vote? Is it the school officials' responsibility, so they choose? Since parents have ultimate responsibility, should they consult with the appropriate experts and then decide? Is there even a clear answer to this tough question?
A case like this is hand-tooled for dialogue. All of the participants need to get their meaning into the poolâincluding their opinions about who should make the final choice. That's part of the meaning you need to discuss. If you don't openly talk about who decides and why, and your opinions vary widely, you're likely to end up in a heated battle that can only be resolved in court. Handled poorly, that's exactly where these kinds of issues are resolvedâ
The Jones Family vs. Happy Valley School District
.
So what's a person to do? Talk openly about your child's abilities and interests
as well as
about how the final choice will be made. Don't mention lawyers or a lawsuit in your opening comments; this only reduces safety and sets up an adversarial climate. Your goal is to have an open, honest, and healthy discussion about a child, not to exert your influence, make threats, or somehow beat the educators. Stick with the opinions of the experts at hand, and discuss how and why they should be involved. When decision-making authority is unclear, use your best dialogue skills to get meaning into the pool. Jointly decide how to decide.
When you're deciding how to decide, it helps to have a way of talking about the decision-making options available. There are four common ways of making decisions: command, consult, vote, and consensus. These four options represent increasing degrees of involvement. Increased involvement, of course, brings the benefit of increased commitment along with the curse of
decreased decision-making efficiency. Savvy people choose from among these four methods of decision making the one that best suits their particular circumstances.