Read Crucial Conversations Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High Online
Authors: Kerry Patterson,Joseph Grenny,Ron McMillan,Al Switzler
This is another case of pattern over instance. Tentatively STATE the pattern of splitting hairs and playing word games. Let them know they aren't fooling anyone. In this case, don't focus exclusively on actions, because creative people can always find new inappropriate actions, “You didn't say I couldn't call her âstupid.'” Talk about both behaviors and outcomes. “You're hurting your sister's feelings when you call her âstupid.' Please don't do that, or anything else that might hurt her feelings.”
Use previous behavior as an example, and then hold them accountable to results. Don't get pulled into discussing any one instance. Stick with the pattern.
“YEAH, BUT . . .
I'VE GOT A LOT OF GOOD people working for me, but they're too full of surprises. When they run into problems, I only find out after it's too late. They always have a good excuse, so what should I do?”
Leaders who are constantly being surprised allow it to happen. The first time an employee says, “Sorry, but I ran into a problem,” the leaders miss the point. They listen to the problem, work on it, and then move on to a new topic. In so doing, they are saying: “It's okay to surprise me. If you have a legitimate excuse, stop what you're doing, turn your efforts to something else, and then wait until I show up to spring the news.”
Make it perfectly clear that once you've given an assignment, there are only two acceptable paths. Employees need to complete the assignment as planned, or if they run into a problem, they need to immediately inform you. No surprises. Similarly, if they decide that another job needs to be done instead, they call you. No surprises.
Clarify the “no surprises” rule. The first time someone comes back with a legitimate excuseâbut he or she didn't tell you when the problem first came upâdeal with this as the new problem. “We agreed that you'd let me know immediately. I didn't get a call. What happened?”
“YEAH, BUT . . .
WHAT IF THE PERSON you're dealing with violates all of the dialogue principles most of the timeâespecially during crucial conversations?”
When you look at a continuum of dialogue skills, most of us (by definition) fall in the middle. Sometimes we're on and sometimes we're off. Some of us are good at avoiding Sucker's Choices; others are good at making it safe. Of course, you have the extremes as well. You have people who are veritable conversational geniuses. And now you're saying that you work with (maybe live with) someone who is the complete opposite. He or she rarely uses any skills. What's a person to do?
The danger, of course, is that the other person isn't as bad as you thinkâyou bring out the worst in him or herâor that he or she really is that bad, and you try to address all the problems at once.
Let's assume this person is pretty bad all of the time and with most everyone. Where do you start? Let's apply a metaphor here. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Choose your targets very carefully. Consider two dimensions: (1) What bothers you the most? “He or she is constantly assuming the worst and telling horrible stories.” (2) What might be the easiest to work on? “He or she rarely shows any appreciation.”
Look for those areas that are most grievous to you and might not be all that hard to talk about. Pick one element and work on it. Establish Mutual Purpose. Frame the conversation in a way that the other person will care about.
“I love it when we're feeling friendly toward each other. I'd like to have that feeling more frequently between us. There are a couple of things I'd like to talk about that I'm pretty convinced would help us with that. Can we talk?”
STATE the issue, and then work on that one issue. Don't nag; don't take on everything at once. Deal with one element, one day at a time.
I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me
.
âD
AVE
B
ARRY
If you read the previous pages in a short period of time, you probably feel like an anaconda that just swallowed a warthog. It's a lot to digest.
You may well be wondering at this point how you can possibly keep all these ideas straightâespecially during something as unpredictable and fast moving as a crucial conversation.
This chapter will help with the daunting task of making dialogue tools and skills memorable and useable. First, we'll simplify things by sharing what we've heard from people who have changed their lives by using these skills. Second, we'll lay out a model that can help you visually organize the seven dialogue
principles. Third, we'll walk you through an example of a crucial conversation where all the dialogue principles are applied.
Over the years, people often tell us that the principles and skills contained in this book have helped them a great deal. But how? In what way can the printed word lead to important changes?
After watching people at home and at work, as well as interviewing them, we've learned that some people make progress by picking one skill that they know will help them get to dialogue in a current crucial conversation. But others focus less on skills and more on principles. For example, here are two high-leverage ways of getting started with increasing your capacity to get to dialogue by becoming more conscious of these two key principles.
Learn to Look
. The first lever for positive change is Learn to Look. That is, people who improve their dialogue skills continually ask themselves whether they're in or out of dialogue. This alone makes a huge difference. Even people who can't remember or never learned the skills of STATE or AMPP, etc., are able to benefit from this material by simply asking if they're falling into silence or violence. They may not know exactly how to fix the specific problem they're facing, but they do know that if they're not in dialogue, it can't be good. And then they try something to get back to dialogue. As it turns out, trying something is better than doing nothing.
So remember to ask the following important question: “Are we playing games or are we in dialogue?” It's a wonderful start.
Many people get additional help in learning to look from their friends. They go through training as families or teams. As they share concepts and ideas, they learn a common vocabulary. This shared way of talking about crucial conversations helps people change.
Perhaps the most common way that the language of dialogue finds itself into everyday conversation is with the expression, “I think we've moved away from dialogue.” This simple reminder
helps people catch themselves early on, before the damage is severe. As we've watched executive teams, work groups, and couples simply go public with the fact that they're starting to move toward silence or violence, others often recognize the problem and take corrective action. “You're right. I'm not telling you what needs to be said,” or “I'm sorry. I have been trying to force my ideas on you.”
Make It Safe
. The second lever is Make It Safe. We've suggested that dialogue consists of the free flow of meaning and that the number one flow stopper is a lack of safety. When you notice that you and others have moved away from dialogue, do something to make it safer. Anything. We've suggested a few skills, but those are merely a handful of common practices. They're not immutable principles. To no one's surprise, there are many things you can do to increase safety. If you simply realize that your challenge is to make it safer, nine out of ten times you'll intuitively do something that helps.
Sometimes you'll build safety by asking a question and showing interest in others' views. Sometimes an appropriate touch (with loved ones and family membersânot at work where touching can equate with harassment) can communicate safety. Apologies, smiles, even a request for a brief “time out” can help restore safety when things get dicey. The main idea is to Make It Safe. Do something to make others comfortable. And remember, virtually every skill we've covered in this book, from Contrasting to Priming, offers a tool for building safety.
These two levers form the basis for recognizing, building, and maintaining dialogue. When the concept of dialogue is introduced, these are the ideas most people can readily take in and apply to crucial conversations. Now let's move on to a discussion of the rest of the principles we've covered.
Here's one last tool to help you turn these ideas into action. It's a powerful way of coaching yourselfâor another personâthrough
a crucial conversation. It can literally help you identify the precise place you are getting stuck and the specific skill that can help you get unstuck.
Take a look at the following table, Coaching for Crucial Conversations. The first column in the table lists the seven dialogue principles we've shared. The second column summarizes the skills associated with each principle. The final column is the best place to start coaching yourself or others. This column includes a list of questions that will help you apply specific skills to your conversations.
Coaching for Crucial Conversations
Finally, we've included an extended case here to show how these principles might look when you find yourself in the middle of a crucial conversation. It outlines a tough discussion between you and your sister about dividing your mother's estate. The case is set up to illustrate where the principles apply and to briefly review each principle as it comes up in the conversation.
The conversation begins with you bringing up the family summerhouse. Your mother's funeral was a month ago, and now it's time to split up both money and keepsakes. You're not really looking forward to it.
The issue is made touchier by the fact that you feel that since you almost single-handedly cared for your mother during the last several years, you should be compensated. You don't think your sister will see things the same way.
Y
OU
: We have to sell the summer cottage. We never use it, and we need the cash to pay for my expenses from taking care of Mom the past four years.
S
ISTER
: Please don't start with the guilt. I sent you money every month to help take care of Mom. If I didn't have to
travel for my jobs, you know I would have wanted her at my house.
You notice that emotions are already getting strong. You're getting defensive, and your sister seems to be angry. You're in a crucial conversation, and it's not going well.
Ask yourself what you really want. You want to be compensated fairly for the extra time and money you put in that your sister didn't. You also want to keep a good relationship with your sister. But you want to avoid making a Fool's Choice. So you ask yourself: “How can I tell her that I want to be compensated fairly for the extra effort and expense I put in
and
keep a good relationship?”
You recognize a lack of Mutual Purposeâyou're both trying to defend your actions rather than discuss the estate.
Contrast to help your sister understand your purpose.
Y
OU
: I don't want to start an argument or try to make you feel guilty. But I do want to talk about being compensated for shouldering most of the responsibility over the last few years. I love Mom, but it put quite a strain on me financially and emotionally.