Crucial Conversations Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High (25 page)

Let's start with decisions that are made with no involvement whatsoever. This happens in one of two ways. Either outside forces place demands on us (demands that leave us no wiggle room), or we turn decisions over to others and then follow their lead. We don't care enough to be involved—let someone else do the work.

In the case of external forces, customers set prices, agencies mandate safety standards, and other governing bodies simply hand us demands. As much as employees like to think their bosses are sitting around making choices, for the most part they're simply passing on the demands of the circumstances. These are command decisions. With command decisions, it's not our job to decide what to do. It's our job to decide how to make it work.

In the case of turning decisions over to others, we decide either that this is such a low-stakes issue that we don't care enough to take part or that we completely trust the ability of the delegate to make the right decision. More involvement adds nothing. In strong teams and great relationships, many decisions are made by turning the final choice over to someone we trust to make a good decision. We don't want to take the time ourselves and gladly turn the decision over to others.

Consulting is a process whereby decision makers invite others to influence them before they make their choice. You can consult with experts, a representative population, or even everyone who wants to offer an opinion. Consulting can be an efficient way of gaining ideas and support without bogging down the decision-making process. At least not too much. Wise leaders, parents,
and even couples frequently make decisions in this way. They gather ideas, evaluate options, make a choice, and then inform the broader population.

Voting is best suited to situations where efficiency is the highest value—and you're selecting from a number of good options. Members of the team realize they may not get their first choice, but frankly they don't want to waste time talking the issue to death. They may discuss options for a while and then call for a vote. When facing several decent options, voting is a great time saver but should never be used when team members don't agree to support whatever decision is made. In these cases, consensus is required.

This method can be both a great blessing and a frustrating curse. Consensus means you talk until everyone honestly agrees to one decision. This method can produce tremendous unity and high-quality decisions. If misapplied, it can also be a horrible waste of time. It should only be used with (1) high-stakes and complex issues or (2) issues where everyone absolutely must support the final choice.

Now that we know the four methods, let's explore which method to use at which time—along with some hints about how to avoid common blunders.

When choosing among the four methods of decision making, consider the following questions:

1.
Who cares?
Determine who genuinely wants to be involved in the decision along with those who will be affected. These are your candidates for involvement. Don't involve people who don't care.

2.
Who knows?
Identify who has the expertise you need to make the best decision. Encourage these people to take part. Try not to involve people who contribute no new information.

3.
Who must agree?
Think of those whose cooperation you might need in the form of authority or influence in any decisions you might make. It's better to involve these people than to surprise them and then suffer their open resistance.

4.
How many people is it worth involving?
Your goal should be to involve the fewest number of people while still considering the quality of the decision along with the support that people will give it. Ask: “Do we have enough people to make a good choice? Will others have to be involved to gain their commitment?”

How about you?
Here's a suggestion for a great exercise for teams or couples, particularly those that are frustrated about decision making. Make a list of some of the important decisions made in the team or relationship. Then discuss how each decision is currently made, and how each
should
be made—using the four important questions. After discussing each decision, decide how you will make decisions in the future. A crucial conversation about your decision-making practices can resolve many frustrating issues.

Now let's take a look at the final step. You've engaged in healthy dialogue, filled the pool of meaning, decided how you're going to draw from the pool, and eventually come to some decisions. It's time to do something. Some of the items may have been completely resolved during the discussion, but many may require a person or team to do something. You'll have to make assignments.

As you might suspect, when you're involved with two or more people, there's a chance that there will be some confusion. To avoid common traps, make sure you consider the following four elements:

• Who?

• Does what?

• By when?

• How will you follow up?

To quote an English proverb, “Everybody's business is nobody's business.” If you don't make an actual assignment to an actual person, there's a good chance that nothing will ever come of all the work you've gone through to make a decision.

When it's time to pass out assignments, remember, there is no “we.” “We,” when it comes to assignments, actually means, “not me.” It's code. Even when individuals are not trying to duck an assignment, the term “we” can lead them to believe that others are taking on the responsibility.

Assign a name to every responsibility. This especially applies at home. If you're divvying up household chores, be sure you've got a specific person to go with each chore. That is, if you assign two or three people to take on a task, appoint one of them the responsible party. Otherwise, any sense of responsibility will be lost in a flurry of finger-pointing later on.

Be sure to spell out the exact deliverables you have in mind. The fuzzier the expectations, the higher the likelihood of disappointment. For example, the eccentric entrepreneur Howard Hughes once assigned a team of engineers to design and build the world's first steam-powered car. When sharing his dream of
a vehicle that could run on heated water, he gave them virtually no direction.

After several years of intense labor, the engineers successfully produced the first prototype by running dozens of pipes through the car's body—thus solving the problem of where to put all the water required to run a steam-powered car. The vehicle was essentially a giant radiator.

When Hughes asked the engineers what would happen if the car got into a wreck, they nervously explained that the passengers would be boiled alive, much like lobsters in a pot. Hughes was so upset in what the crew came up with that he insisted they cut it up into pieces no larger than three inches. That was the end of the project.

Learn from Hughes. When you're first agreeing on an assignment, clarify up front the exact details of what you want. Couples get into trouble in this area when one of the parties doesn't want to take the time to think carefully about the “deliverables” and then later on becomes upset because his or her unstated desires weren't met. Have you ever remodeled a room with a loved one? Then you know what we're talking about. Better to spend the time up front clarifying exactly what you want rather than waste resources and hurt feelings on the back end.

To help clarify deliverables, use Contrasting. If you've seen people misunderstand an assignment in the past, explain the common mistake as an example of what you
don't
want. If possible, point to physical examples. Rather than talk in the abstract, bring a prototype or sample. We learned this particular trick when hiring a set designer. The renowned designer talked about what he would deliver, and it sounded great to us. Twenty-five thousand dollars later he delivered something that would never work. We had to start over from scratch. From that day on we've learned to point to pictures and talk about what we want and don't want. The clearer the picture of the deliverable, the less likely you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

It's shocking how often people leave this element out of an assignment. Instead of giving a deadline, people simply point to the setting sun of “someday.” With vague or unspoken deadlines, other urgencies come up, and the assignment finds its way to the bottom of the pile, where it is soon forgotten. Assignments without deadlines are far better at producing guilt than stimulating action. Goals without deadlines aren't goals; they're merely directions.

Always agree on how often and by what method you'll follow up on the assignment. It could be a simple e-mail confirming the completion of a project. It might be a full report in a team or family meeting. More often than not, it comes down to progress checks along the way.

It's actually fairly easy to build follow-up methods into the assignment. For example: “Call me on my cell phone when you finish your homework. Then you can go play with friends. Okay?”

Or perhaps you'll prefer to rely on milestones: “Let me know when you've completed your library research. Then we'll sit down and look at the next steps.” Milestones, of course, must be linked to a drop-dead date. “Let me know as soon you've completed the research component of this project. You've got until the last week in November, but if you finish earlier, give me a call.”

Remember, if you want people to feel accountable, you must give them an opportunity to account. Build an expectation for follow-up into every assignment.

Once again, a proverb comes to mind. “One dull pencil is worth six sharp minds.” Don't leave your hard work to memory. If you've gone to the effort to complete a crucial conversation,
don't fritter away all the meaning you created by trusting your memories. Write down the details of conclusions, decisions, and assignments. Remember to record who does what by when. Revisit your notes at key times (usually the next meeting) and review assignments.

As you review what was supposed to be completed, hold people accountable. When someone fails to deliver on a promise, it's time for dialogue. Discuss the issue by using the STATE skills we covered in
Chapter 7
. By holding people accountable, not only do you increase their motivation and ability to deliver on promises, but you create a culture of integrity.

Turn your successful crucial conversations into great decisions and united action by avoiding the two traps of violated expectations and inaction.

•
Command
. Decisions are made without involving others.

•
Consult
. Input is gathered from the group and then a subset decides.

•
Vote
. An agreed-upon percentage swings the decision.

•
Consensus
. Everyone comes to an agreement and then supports the final decision.

Determine
who
does
what
by
when
. Make the deliverables crystal clear. Set a
follow-up
time. Record the commitments and then follow up. Finally, hold people accountable to their promises.

As we (the authors) have taught this material, we've grown accustomed to people saying, “Yeah, but my situation's more difficult than that!” Or “Yeah, but the people I deal with aren't so quick to come around. Besides, most of the problems I face come as a surprise. I'm caught off guard.” In short, people can think of a dozen reasons why the skills we've been talking about don't apply to the situations they care about.

• “Yeah, but what if someone does something that's really subtle? It drives you crazy but it's hard to identify. How do you handle that?”

• “Yeah, but what if my life partner refuses to ever talk about anything important? You can't force a person into dialogue.”

• “Yeah, but what if I can't calm down quickly enough? I've been told not to go to bed angry, but sometimes I think I need time alone. What should I do?”

• “Yeah, but what if I don't trust the other person? How am I supposed to deal with that?”

• “Yeah, but both my boss and spouse are too sensitive to take any feedback. Shouldn't I just let things slide?”

In truth, the dialogue skills we've shared apply to just about any problem you can imagine. However, since some are more difficult than others, we've chosen seventeen tough cases. We'll take a moment to share a thought or two on each.

IT'S NOT LIKE ANYONE'S BLATANTLY harassing me or anything, but I don't like the way I'm being treated. How can I bring it up without making enemies?”

Someone is making comments or gestures that you find offensive. The person does it seldom enough and he or she's subtle enough that you're not sure if HR or your boss can even help. What can you do?

In these situations it's easy to think that the offender has all the power. It seems as if the rules of polite society make it so that others can behave inappropriately and you end up looking like you're overreacting if you bring it up.