Introduction to Mastering Crucial Conversation
The crucial conversations we’re referring to are interactions that happen to everyone. They are the day-to-day conversations that affect your life. The inability to work through tough issues devastates individuals, ruins family, and poisons communities.
When you ask the average person person what causes couples to break up, he or she usually suggests that it’s due to differences of opinion. In truth, everyone argues about important issues. But not everyone split up. It’s how you argue that matters.
Individuals who are the most influential – who can get things done, and at the same time build on relationships – are those who master their crucial conversations. They are more skilled in crucial conversation and they are who really get things done.
One of the opinion leaders we are particularly interested in meeting was Kevin. He was the only one of eight vice presidents in his company to be identified as exceedingly influential. We wanted to know why. So we watch him at work.
At first, Kevin didn’t do anything remarkable. In truth, he looked like every other VP. He answered his phone, talked to his direct reports, and continued about his pleasant, but routine, routine.
After trailing Kevin for almost a week, we began to wonder if he really did act in ways that set him apart from others or if his influence was simply a matter of popularity. And then we followed Kevin into a meeting.
Kevin, his peers, and their boss were deciding on a new location for their offices – would they move across town, across the state, or across the country? The first execs presented their arguments for their top choices, and as expected, their points were greeted by penetrating questions from the full team. No vague claim went unclarified, no unsupported reasoning unquestioned.
Then Chris, the CEO, pitched his preference – one that was both unpopular and potentially disastrous. However, when people tried to disagree or push back on Chris, he responded poorly. Since he was the big boss, he didn’t exactly have to browbeat people to get what he wanted. Instead, he became slightly defensive. First, he raised an eyebrow. Then he raised his finger. Finally he raised his voice – just a little. It wasn’t long until people stopped questioning him, and Chris’s inadequate proposal was quietly accepted.
Well almost. That’s when Kevin spoke up. His words were simple enough – something like, “Hey Chris, can I check something out with you?”
The reaction was stunning – everyone in the room stopped breathing. But Kevin ignored the apparent terror of his colleagues and plunged on ahead.
In the few minutes he in essence told the CEO that he appeared to be violating his own decision-making guidelines. He was subtly using his power to move the new offices to his hometown.
Kevin continued to explain what he saw happening, and when he finished the first crucial minutes of this delicate exchange, Chris was quiet for a moment. Then he nodded his head, “You’re absolutely right,” he finally concluded. “I have been trying to force my opinion on you. Let’s back up and try again.”
This was a crucial conversation, and Kevin played no games whatsoever. He didn’t resort to silence like colleagues, nor did he try to force his arguments on others. As a result, the team chose a far more reasonable location and Kevin’s boss appreciated his candor.
When Kevin was done, one of his peers turned on to us and said, “Did you see how he did that? If you want to know how he gets things done, figure out what he just did.”
What typically set Kevin and people like him apart from the rest of the pack was their ability to deal with crucial conversations. When taking turned tough and stakes were high, they excelled.
At the core of every successful conversation lies the free flow of relevant information. People openly and honestly express their opinions, share their feelings, and articulate their theories. They willingly and capably share their views, even when their ideas are controversial or unpopular. It’s the one thing, it’s precisely what Kevin and the other extremely effective communicators we studied were routinely able to achieve.
Each of us enters conversations with our own opinions, feelings, theories, and experiences about the topic at hand. This unique combination of thoughts and feelings makes up our personal pool of meaning. This pool not only informs us but also propels our every action.
When two or more of us enter crucial conversations, by definition we don’t share the same pool. Our opinions differ. I believe one thing, you another. I have one history, you another.
People who are skilled at dialogue do their best to make it safe for everyone to add their meaning to the shared pool – even ideas that at first glance appear controversial, wrong, or at odds with their own beliefs. Now, obviously they don’t agree with every idea; they simply do their best to ensure that all ideas find their way into the open.
As the Pool of Shared Meaning grows, it helps people in two ways. First, as individuals are exposed to more accurate and relevant information, they make better choices. What starts as a doomed discussion ends up with a healthy resolution.
In a very real sense, the Pool of Shared Meaning is a measure of a group’s IQ. The larger the shared pool, the smarter the decisions. And even though many people may be involved in a choice, when people openly and freely share ideas, the increased time investment is more offset by the quality of the decision.
Meaning didn’t freely flow because people were afraid to speak up. In every instance where bosses are smart, highly paid, confident, and outspoken, people tend to hold back their opinions rather than risk angering someone in a position of power.
On the other hand, when people feel comfortable speaking up and meaning does flow freely, the shared pool can dramatically increase a group’s ability to make better decisions. Consider what happened to Kevin’s group. As everyone on the team began to explain his or her opinion, people formed a more clear and complete picture of the circumstances.
As they began to understand the whys and wherefores of different proposals, they built off one another. Eventually, as one idea led to the next, and then to the next, they came up with an alternative what no one had originally thought of and that all wholeheartedly supported. As a result of the free flow of meaning, the whole (final choice) was truly greater than the sum of the original parts. In short:
Not only does a shared pool help individuals make better choices, but since the meaning is shared, people willingly act on whatever decisions they make. As people sit through an open discussion where ideas are shared, they take part in the free flow of meaning. Eventually they understand why the shared solution is the best solution, and they’re committed to act. For, example, Kevin and the other VPs didn’t buy into their final choice simply because involved; they bought in because they understood.
Conversely, when people aren’t involved, when they sit back quietly during touchy conversations, they’re rarely committed to the final decision. Since their ideas remain in their heads and their opinions never make it into the pool, they end up quietly criticizing and passively resisting. Worse still, when others force their ideas into the pool, people have a harder time accepting the information. They may say they’re on board, but then walk away and follow through halfheartedly. To quote Samuel Butler, “He that complies against his will is of his own opinion still.”
The time you spend up front establishing a shared pool of meaning is more than paid for by faster, more committed action later on. The greater the shared meaning in the pool, the better the choice – whoever makes it.
In a nation state, power comes from inside. In a democratic society, power is distributed in a way that keeps checks and balances and avoids autocratic concentration of power. Admittedly, decision-taking is slow and frustrating, yet these countries are more enduring and flourishing than any dictatorship.
Every time we find ourselves arguing, debating, running away or otherwise acting in an ineffective way, it’s because we don’t know how to share meaning. Instead of engaging in healthy dialogue, we play silly and costly games.
And then we use every manner of force to get our way. We borrow power from the boss; we hit people with biased monologues. The goal, of course, is always the same – to compel others to our point of view.
Now, here’s how the various elements fit together. When stakes are high, opinions vary, and emotions run strong, we’re often at our worst. In order to move to our best, we have to find a way to explain what is in each of our personal pools of meaning – especially our high-stakes, sensitive, and controversial opinions, feelings, and ideas – and to get others to share their pools. We have to make it safe for us to discuss these issues and to come to a shared pool of meaning. And when we do our lives change.
Start with Heart
When conversations become crucial you’ll resort to the form of communication that you’ve grown up with - debate, silent treatment, manipulation, and so on.
More often than not, we do something to contribute to the problems we’re experiencing. People who are best at dialogue understand this simple fact and turn it into the principle “Work on me first.”
They realize that not only are they likely to benefit by improving their own approach, but also that they’re the only person they can work on anyway. As much as others need to change, or we may want them to change, the only person we can continually inspire, prod, and shape – with any degree of success – is the person in the mirror.
There is a certain irony embedded in this fact. People who believe they need to start with themselves do just that. As they work on themselves, they also become the most skilled at dialogue. So here’s the irony. It’s the most talented, not the least talented, who are continually trying to improve their dialogue skills. As is often the case, the rich get richer.
Although it’s difficult to describe the specific order of events in an interaction as fluid as a crucial conversation, we do know one thing for certain: Skilled people Start with Heart. That is, they begin high-risk discussion with the right motives, and they stay focused on the right motives no matter what happens.
They maintain this focus in two ways:
First, they’re steely-eyed smart when it comes to knowing what they want. Despite constant invitations to slip away from their goals, they stick with them.
Second, skilled people don’t make Sucker’s Choices (either/or choices).
Unlike others who justify their unhealthy behavior by explaining that they had no choice but to fight or take a flight, the dialogue-smart believe that dialogue, no matter the circumstances, is always an option.
To see how the desires of our hearts can affect our ability to stay in dialogue, let’s take a look at a real-life example.
Greta, the CEO of a mid-sized corporation, is two hours into a rather tense meeting with her top leaders. For the past six months she has been on a personal campaign to reduce costs. Little has been accomplished to date, so Greta calls the meeting. Surely people will tell her why they haven’t started cutting costs. After all, she has take great pains to foster candor.
Greta has just opened the meeting to questions when a manager haltingly rises his feet, fidgets, stares at the floor, and then nervously asks if he can ask a very tough question. The way the fellow emphasizes the word very makes it sound as if he’s about to accuse Greta of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby.
The frightened manager continues.
“Greta, you’ve been at us for six months to find out ways to cut costs. I’d be but lying if I said that we’ve given you much more than a lukewarm response. If you don’t mind, I’d like to tell you about one thing that’s making it tough for us to push for cost cuts.”
“Great. Fire away.” Greta says as she smiles in response.
“Well, while you’ve been asking us to use both sides of our paper and forego improvements, you’re having a second office built.”
Greta freezes and turns bright red. Everyone looks to see what will happen next. The manager plunges on ahead.
“The rumor is that the furniture alone will cost $150,000. Is that right?”
So there we have it. The conversation just turns crucial. Someone has just poured a rather ugly tidbit into the pool of meaning. Will Greta continue to encourage honest feedback, or will she shut the fellow down?
We call this a crucial conversation because how Greta acts during the next few moments will not only set people’s attitudes toward the proposed cost cutting, but will also have a huge impact on what the other leaders think about her. Does she walk the talk of openness and honesty? Or is she a raging hypocrite – like so many of the senior executives who came before her?
How Greta behaves during this crucial conversation depends a great deal on how she handles her emotions while under attack.
If she is like most of us, Greta will defense herself. When we’re in the throes of high-stakes conversations, new (and less healthy) motives often supplant our original, more noble ones. If you are standing in front of a potentially hostile crowd, it’s a good bet you will change your original goal to the new goal of protecting your public image.
“Excuse me,” you might response. “I don’t think that my new office is an appropriate topic for this forum.”
Bang. You’re dead. In one fell swoop you’ve lost buy-in, destroyed any hope for candor in this particular conversation, and confirmed everyone’s suspicion that you want honesty – but as long as it makes you look good.
Later that day we asked Greta how she had been able to keep her composure under fire. We wanted to know exactly what had been going on in her head. What had helped her move from embarrassment and anger to gratitude?
“It was easy,” Greta explained.” At first I did feel attacked, and I wanted to strike back. To be honest, I wanted to put that guy in his place. He was accusing me in public and he was wrong.”
“And then it struck me,” she continued. “Despite the fact that I had four hundred eyeballs pinned to me, a rather important question hit me like a ton of bricks: “What do I really want?”
Asking this question had a powerful effect on Greta’s thinking. As she focused on this far more important question, she quickly realized that her goal was to encourage these two hundred managers to embrace the cost-reduction efforts – and to thereby influence thousands of others to do the same.
As Greta contemplated this goal, she realized that the biggest barrier she faced was the widespread belief that she was a hypocrite. On one hand, she was calling for others to sacrifice. On the other hand, she appeared to be spending discretionary funds for her own comfort. It was at that moment that she was no longer ashamed or angry, but grateful. She couldn’t have asked for a better opportunity to influence these leaders than the one offered up by this penetrating question. And so she moves to dialogue.
Refocus your brain. Now, let’s move to a situation you might face. You’re speaking with someone who completely disagrees with you on a hot issue. How does all of this goal stuff apply? As you begin the discussion, start by examining your motives. Going in, ask yourself what you really want.
In order to move back to motives that allow for dialogue, you must step away from the interaction and look at yourself – much like an outsider. Ask yourself: “What am I doing, and if I had to guess, what does it tell me about my underlying motive?”
As you make an honest effort to discover your motive, you might conclude: “Let’s see. I am pushing hard, making the argument stronger than I actually believe, and doing anything to win an argument.”
Once you call into question the shifting desires of your heart, you can make conscious choices to change them. “What I really want is to genuinely try to find solution rather than try to win people over to my ideas.” Put succinctly, when you name the game, you can stop playing it. Do what Greta did. Stop and ask yourself some questions that return you to dialogue. Here are some great ones:
· What do I really want for myself?
· What do I really want for others?
· What do I really want for the relationship?
· How would I behave if I really wanted these results?
Asking questions about what we really want serves two important purposes:
First, it reminds us of our goal.
Second, it juices our brain in a way that helps us keep focused.
Wanting to win
This particular dialogue killer sits at the top of many of our lists. Heaven only knows that we come by this deadly passion naturally enough. Half of the TV programs we watch make heroes out of people who win at sports or game shows. Ten minutes into kindergarten we learnt hat if we want to get the teachers’ attention, we have to spout the right answer. That means we have to beat our fellow students at the same game. This desire to win is built into our very fiber before we’re old enough to know what’s going on. Unfortunately, as we grow older, most of us don’t realize that this desire to win is continually driving us away from healthy dialogue.
Hoping to remain safe
Of course, we don’t always fix mistakes, aggressively discredit others, or heartlessly try to make them suffer. Sometimes we choose personal safety over dialogue. Rather than add to the pool of meaning, and possibly make waves along the way, we go to silence. We’re so uncomfortable with the immediate conflict that we accept the certainty of bad results to avoid the possibility of uncomfortable conversation. We choose (at least in our minds) peace over conflict. Had this happened in Greta’s case, nobody would have raised concerns over the new office, Greta never would have learned the real issue, and people would have continued to drag their feet.
The best at dialogue present themselves with questions that turn either/or choice into a search for the all important and ever-elusive and. Here’s how it works.
First, clarify what you really want. If you know what you want for yourself, for others, and for the relationship, then you’re in position to break out of the Sucker’s Choice.
Second, clarify what you really don’t want, add it to what you want. This is the key to framing and question. Ask your mind to start searching for healthy options to bring you to dialogue.
“What I don’t want is to have useless and heated conversation that creates bad feelings and doesn’t lead to change.”
Third, present your brain with a more complex problem.
Finally, combine the two into an and question that forces you to search for more creative and productive options than silence and violence.
“How can I have a candid conversation with my husband about being more dependable and avoid creating bad feelings or wasting our time?”
It’s interesting to watch what happens when people are presented with and questions after being stuck with Sucker’s Choice. Their faces become reflective, their eyes open wider, and they begin to think.
Summary - Start with Heart
Work on Me First
· Remember that the only person you can directly control is yourself.
Focus on What You Really Want
· When you find yourself moving toward silence or violence, stop and pay attention to your motives.
o Ask yourself: “What does my behavior tell me about what my motives are?”
o Then, clarify what you really want. Ask yourself: “What do I want for myself? For others? For the relationship?”
o And finally, ask: “How would I behave if this were what I really wanted?”
Refuse the Sucker’s Choice
· Clarify what you don’t want, add it to what you do want, and ask your mind to start searching for healthy options to bring you to dialogue.
Learn to Look
When it’s safe, you can say anything. Here’s why gifted communicators keep a close eye on safety. Dialogue calls for the free flow of meaning – period. And nothing kills the flow of meaning like fear. When you fear that people aren’t buying into your ideas, you start pushing too hard. When you fear that you may be harmed in some way, you start withdrawing and hiding. Both these reactions – to fight and to take flight – are motivated by the same emotion: fear. On the other hand, if you make it safe enough, you can talk about almost anything and people will listen. If you don’t fear that you’re being attacked or humiliated, you yourself can hear almost anything and not become defensive.
Think about your own experience. Can you remember receiving really blistering feedback from someone at some point in your life, but in this instance you didn’t become defensive? Instead, you absorbed the feedback. You reflected in it. You allowed it to influence you. If so, ask yourself why. Why in this instance were you able to absorb potentially threatening feedback so well? If you are like the rest of us, it’s because you believed that the other person had your best interest in mind. In addition, you respected the other person’s opinion. You felt safe receiving the feedback because you trusted the motives and ability of the other person.
Safety allows us to share meaning and keeps us from moving into silence or violence. When conversations become crucial, safety must be strong.
Perhaps the most difficult element to watch closely is your own behavior. The truth is, we all have trouble monitoring our own behavior at times. We usually lose any semblance of social sensitivity when we become so consumed with ideas and causes that we lose track of what we’re doing. We try to bully our way through. We speak when shouldn’t. We do things that don’t work – all in the name of a cause. When a discussion starts to become stressful, we often end up doing the exact opposite of what works. When you’re in the middle of a crucial conversation, you can be more conscious of what to watch for by identifying your own style under stress.
Make It Safe for Dialogue
To get started, let’s examine a situation where safety is at risk. We’ll eavesdrop on a couple as they try to discuss one of the most delicate of topics - physical intimacy.
First a little background. Jotham thinks he and Yvonne are intimate with each other far too seldom. Yvonne is satisfied with their relationship. For years the two have acted out rather than talked out their concern. When Jotham wants to be amorous and Yvonne doesn’t respond, he goes to silence. He pouts almost nothing, and avoids Yvonne for the next few days.
Yvonne knows what’s going on with Jotham. Occasionally she’ll go along with him even when she’s not feeling particularly romantic. She does this in hopes of avoiding Jotham’s pouting. Unfortunately, she then feels resentful toward Jotham, and it’s much longer before she feels genuinely romantic toward him.
So here’s the game. The more Jotham insists and pouts, the less attractive and interesting he is to Yvonne. The more Yvonne succumbs and then resents, the less she is interested in the entire relationship. The more both of them act out rather than talk out this crucial conversation, the more likely they are to end up going their separate ways. Yvonne has decided to broach the subject with Jotham. Rather than waiting until they’ve both upset, she’s picked a time when they’re relaxing on the couch. Here goes.
Yvonne: “Jotham, can you talk about what happened last night – you know, when I told you that I was tired?”
Jotham: “I don’t know if I’m in the mood.”
Yvonne: “What’s that supposed to mean?”
Jotham: “I’m sick and tired of you deciding when we do what!”
Yvonne: (walk out).
Okay, let’s look at Yvonne. She tried to tackle a tough topic. Good for her. She was already uncomfortable and her partner took a cheap shot at her. Some help he was. Now what should she do? How can she get back to honest and healthy dialogue? What do you do when you don’t feel like it’s safe to share what’s on your mind?
The key is to step out of the content of the conversation. Don’t stay stuck in what’s being said. Yvonne existed because she was focused on what Jotham was saying. If she had been looking at Jotham’s behavior, she would have spotted his use of sarcasm – a form of masking. Rather than talking out his concern, he’s taking a potshot. Why would he do that? Because he doesn’t feel safe using dialogue. But Yvonne missed this point.
Now, we’re not suggesting that Jotham’s behavior is acceptable or that Yvonne should put up with it. But first things first. Start with Heart.
Start with Heart: Here’s how people who are skilled at dialogue stay focused on their goals – particularly when the going gets tough. Work on yourself first. Remember that the only person you can directly control is yourself. Focus on what you really want. When find yourself moving toward silence or violence, stop and pay attention to your motives, clarify what you really want.
The first question is: “What do I really want?” If you really want to have a healthy conversation about a topic that will make or break your relationship, then for a moment or two you may have to set aside confronting the current issue - for example, Jotham’s sarcasm.
Yvonne’s challenge here is to build safety – enough so that she can talk about their physical relationship, about the way Jotham is dealing with it, or about any other concerns. But if she doesn’t make it safe, all she’s going to get is a continuation of the silence and violence game. So, what should she do?
The best conversationalists don’t play game. They know that dialogue is the free flow of meaning – with no pretending, sugarcoating, or faking. So they do something completely different. They step out of the content of the conversation, make it safe, and then step back in. By stepping out of the content and building enough safety that almost anything becomes discussable.
For example: “It would be good if we could both share what’s working and what isn’t. My goal isn’t to make you feel guilty, and I certainly don’t want to become defensive. What I’d really love is for us to come up with a solution that makes us both satisfied in our relationship.”
Let’s go back to Yvonne and Jotham. Yvonne is trying to get the conversation going, and Jotham suspects her motives. Let’s see how Contrasting might help her.
Contrast to Fix Misunderstanding: When other misunderstands either your purpose or your intent, use Contrasting. Start with what you don’t intend or mean. Then explain what you do intend or mean.
Yvonne: “I think it makes things worse when you withdraw and won’t talk to me for days at a time.”
Jotham: “So you expect me not only to put up with regular rejection, but also to be sociable and happy when I do?”
Jotham appears to believe that Yvonne’s motive is to reshape him. It’s unsafe. Mutual Purpose is at risk. Rather than responding to his sarcasm, she should step out of the content and clarify her real motives.
Yvonne: “I don’t want to suggest that this problem is yours. The truth is, I think it’s ours. I’m not trying to put the burden on you. I don’t even know what the solution is. What I do want is to be able to talk so that we can understand each other better. Perhaps that will help me change how I’m responding to you, too.”
Jotham: “I know where this is going. We talk, I continue to get rejected, but you get to feel good about yourself because “we’ve communicated.” Have you been watching Talk Show again?”
Obviously Jotham still believes that Yvonne merely wants to confirm that their existing relationship is okay and if she does, she’ll be able to continue to reject Jotham – but feel good about it. Jotham still feels unsafe. So Yvonne continues to step out and build safety, using Contrasting.
Yvonne: “Seriously. I’m not interested in discussing why our current relationship is really okay. I can see that it isn’t. I merely want to talk about what each of us likes and doesn’t like. That way we’ll be able to see what we need to improve and why. My only goal is to come up with some ideas that will make both of us happy.
Jotham: (Changing tone and demeanor) “Really? I’m sorry to be so insecure about this. I know I’m being a bit selfish about things, but I don’t know how to make myself feel differently.”
Once Yvonne clarified her genuine goals, Jotham feels safer acknowledging his own contribution, and the two were back in dialogue.
When people misunderstand and you start arguing over the misunderstanding, stop. Use Contrasting. Explain what don’t mean until you’ve restored safety. Then return to the conversation. Safety first.
Yvonne is going to try to move to dialogue with Jotham. Let’s see how she does at making it safe in her crucial conversation. First, she’ll use Contrasting to prevent misunderstanding of her purpose.
Yvonne: “Jotham, I’d like to talk about our physical relationship. I’m not doing it to put you on the spot or to suggest the problem yours. I’m completely clear that it’s as much my problem as yours. I’d really like to talk about it so we can make things better for both of us.”
Jotham: “What’s there is to talk about? You don’t want it. I want it. I’ll try to deal with it.”
Yvonne: “I think it’s more complicated than that. The way you act sometimes makes me want to be with you even less.”
Yvonne: “If that’s how you feel, why are we pretending we have a relationship at all?”
Okay, what happened? Remember, we’re exploring Yvonne’s side of the conversation. She’s the one initiating the talk. Clearly there is a lot Jotham could be doing to make things go better. But she’s not Jotham. What should Yvonne do? Consequently, she shouldn’t respond to the content of Jotham’s discouraging statement. Rather, she should look at the safety issue behind it. Why is Jotham starting to withdraw from the conversation? Two reasons:
· The way Yvonne made her point sounded to him like she was blaming him for everything.
· He believes her concern in one small area reflects her total feelings toward him.
So she’ll apologize and use Contrasting to rebuild safety.
Apologize When Appropriate: When you’ve clearly violated respect, apologize.
Yvonne: “I’m sorry I said it that way. I’m not blaming you for how I feel or act. That’s my problem. I don’t see this as your problem. I see it as our problem. Both of us may be acting in ways that make things worse. I know I am at least.”
Jotham: “I probably am too. Sometimes I pout because I’m hurting. And I also do it hoping it’ll make you feel bad. I’m sorry about that, too.”
Notice what just happened. Since Yvonne dealt well with the safety issue and kept focused on what she really wanted out of this conversation, Jotham returned to the conversation. This is far more effective than if Yvonne had gone into blaming.
Let’s continue.
Jotham: “I just don’t see how we can work this out. I’m wired for more passion than you are – it seems like the only solution is for me to put up with it the way it is or for you to feel like a sex slave.”
Decide Which Condition of Safety Is at Risk:
· Mutual Purpose: Do others believe you care about their goals in this conversation? Do they trust your motives?
· Mutual Respect. Do others believe you respect them?
The problem now is one of Mutual Purpose. Jotham thinks he and Yvonne are at cross-purposes. In his mind, there is no possibility of a mutually satisfactory solution. Rather than move to compromise or fight for her way, Yvonne will step out of the issue and CRIB to get to Mutual Purpose.
CRIB to get to Mutual Purpose: When you are at cross-purpose, use four skills to get back to Mutual Purpose.
· (C)ommit to seek Mutual Purpose.
· (R)ecognize the purpose behind the strategy.
· (I)nvent a Mutual Purpose.
· (B)rainstorm new strategies.
Yvonne: (Commit to seek Mutual Purpose.) “No, that isn’t what I want at all. I don’t want anything with you that isn’t great for both of us. I just want to find a way to have us both feel close, appreciated, and loved.”
Jotham: “That’s what I want, too. It just seems like we get those feelings in different ways.
(Notice how Jotham is leaving the game behind and joining the dialogue. Safety – especially Mutual Purpose - is making this possible.)
Yvonne: (Recognize the purpose behind the strategy.) “Maybe not. What makes you feel loved and appreciated?”
Jotham: “Making love with you when you really want to makes me feel loved and appreciated. And you?”
Yvonne: “When you do thoughtful things for me. And when you hold me – but not always sexually.”
Jotham: “You mean, if we’re just cuddling that makes you feel loved?”
Yvonne: “Yes, and sometimes – when I think you’re doing it because you love me – sex does that for me, too.”
Jotham: (Invent a Mutual Purpose.) So we need to find ways to be together that make both of us feel loved and appreciated. Is that what we’re looking for here?”
Yvonne: “Yes, I really want that, too.”
Jotham: (Brainstorm new strategies.) . . . .
Before a crucial conversation begins, think about which skills will help you most. Remember, when it comes to these high-stakes conversations, a little progress can produce a lot of benefit. But don’t aim for perfection. Aim for progress.
Summary - Make It Safe for Dialogue
When others move to silence or violence, step out of the conversation and Make It Safe. When safety is restored, go back to the issue at hand and continue the dialogue.
Decide Which Condition of Safety Is at Risk:
· Mutual Purpose: Do others believe you care about their goals in this conversation? Do they trust your motives?
· Mutual Respect. Do others believe you respect them?
Apologize When Appropriate
· When you’ve clearly violated respect, apologize.
Contrast to Fix Misunderstanding
· When other misunderstands either your purpose or your intent, use Contrasting. Start with what you don’t intend or mean. Then explain what you do intend or mean.
CRIB to get to Mutual Purpose
· When you are at cross-purpose, use four skills to get back to Mutual Purpose.
o (C)ommit to seek Mutual Purpose.
o (R)ecognize the purpose behind the strategy.
o (I)nvent a Mutual Purpose.
o (B)rainstorm new strategies.
Master My Stories
This article explores how to gain control of crucial conversations by learning how to take charge of your emotions.
Consider Maria, a copywriter who is currently hostage to some pretty strong emotions. She and her colleague Louis just reviewed the latest draft of a proposal with their boss. During the meeting, they were supposed to be jointly presenting their latest ideas. But when Maria paused to take a breath, Louis took over the presentation, making almost all the points they had come up with together. When the boss turned to Maria for input, there was nothing left for her to say.
Maria has been feeling humiliated and angry throughout this project. First, Louis took their suggestions to the boss and discussed them behind her back. Second, he completely monopolized the presentation. Consequently, Maria believes that Louis is downplaying her contribution because she’s the only woman on the team.
She’s getting fed up with his “boys’ club” mentality. So what does she do? She doesn’t want to appear “oversensitive,” so most of the time she says nothing and just does her job. However, she does manage to assert herself by occasionally getting in sarcastic jabs about the way she’s being treated.
“Sure I can get that printout for you. Should I just get your coffee and whip up a Bundt cake while I’m at it?” She mutters and tolls her eyes as she exits the room.
Louis, in turn, finds Maria’s cheap shots and sarcasm puzzling. He’s not sure what has Maria upset but is beginning to despise her smug attitude and hostile reaction to most everything he does. As a result, when the two work together, you could cut the tension with a knife.
People who are the worst at dialogue fall into the trap Maria has fallen into. Maria is completely unaware of a dangerous assumption she’s making. She’s upset at being overlooked and is keeping a professional silence. She’s assuming that her emotions and behavior are the only right and reasonable reactions under the circumstances. She’s convinced that anyone in her place would feel the same way.
Here is the problem. Maria is treating her emotions as if they are the only valid response. Since, in her mind, they are both justified and accurate, she makes no effort to question them. In fact, in her view, Louis caused them. Ultimately, her actions (saying nothing and taking cheap shots) are being driven by these very emotions. Since she’s not acting on her emotions, her emotions are acting on her – controlling her behavior and driving her deteriorating relationship with Louis, and she doesn’t even know it.
People who are the best at dialogue do something completely different. They act on their emotions. That is, when they have strong feelings, they influence and often change their emotions by thinking them out. As a result, they choose their emotions, and by so doing, make it possible to choose behaviors that create better results.
This, of course, is easier said than done. How do you rethink yourself from an emotional and dangerous state into one that puts you back in control?
Where should Maria start? To help rethink or gain control of our emotions, let’s see where our feelings come from in the first place. Let’s look at a model that helps us first examine and then gain control of our own emotions.
Feel (hurt, worried) => Act (silence, cheap shots)
Consider Maria. She’s feeling hurt but is worried that if she says something to Louis, she’ll look too emotional, so she alternates between holding her feelings inside (avoiding) and taking cheap shots (masking).
Maria actions stem from her feelings. First she feels and then she acts. That’s easy enough, but it bags the question: What’s causing Maria’s feelings in the first place?
Is it Louis’s behavior? As was the case with the nacho-mother-in-law, did Louis make Maria feel insulted and hurt?
Maria heard and saw Louis do something, she generated an emotion, and then she acted out her feelings – using forms of masking and avoiding.
So here is the big question:
What happens between Louis acting and Maria feeling?
Is there an intermediate step that turns someone else’s actions into our feelings?
If not, then it has to be true that others make us feel the way we do.
As it turn out, there is an intermediate step between what others do and how we feel. That’s why, when faced with the same circumstances, ten people may have ten different emotional responses. For instance, with a coworker like Louis, some might feel insulted whereas others merely feel curious. Some become angry and others feel concern or even sympathy.
What is this intermediate step? Just after we observe what others do and just before we feel some emotion about it, we tell ourselves a story. That is, we interpret or add meaning to the action we observed. To the simple behavior we add motive.
Why were they doing that?
We also add judgment – is good or bad?
And then, based on these thoughts or stories or interpretations, our body responds with an emotion.
See/Hear ==> Interpret/Tell a Story ==> Feel ==> Act
We call the process above our Path to Action because it explains how emotions, thoughts, and experiences lead to our actions. We observe, we interpret or tell a story, and then we feel. Since we and only we are telling the story or doing the interpretation, we can take back control of our own emotions by telling a different story. If we can find a way to control the stories we tell, by rethinking or retelling them, we can master our emotions and, therefore, master our crucial conversations.
Stories explain what’s going on. Exactly what are our stories. They are our interpretations of the facts. They are theories we use to explain why, how, and what.
For instance, Maria asks: “Why does Louis take over?”
And then she interprets or tell herself the stories:
“He doesn’t trust my ability to communicate. Louis thinks I’m incompetent, and this is bad. He thinks that because I’m a woman, people won’t listen to me. What should I do about all this? If I say something, he’ll think I’m a whiner or oversensitive or militant, so it’s best to clam up.”
As we come up with our own meaning or stories, it isn’t long until our body responds with strong feelings or emotions – they’re directly linked to our judgments of right or wrong, good or bad, kind or selfish, fair or unfair, etc.
Maria’s story yields anger and frustration. These feelings, in turn, drive Maria to her actions – toggling back and forth between clamming up and taking an occasional cheap shot.
See/Hear ==> Interpret/Tell a Story ==> Feel ==> Act
See/Hear: Louis makes all the points, meets privately with the boss.
Interpret/Tell a Story: He doesn’t trust me and thinks I’m weak. If I’ll speak up I’ll look too emotional.
Feel: hurt and worried.
Act: silence, cheap shots.
Even if you don’t realize it, you are telling yourself stories. It’s our interpretations or stories that drive our emotions and not other people’s actions.
Our interpretation or storytelling typically happens blindly fast. When we believe we’re at risk, we tell ourselves a story so quickly that we don’t even know we’re doing it.
If you don’t believe this is true, ask yourself whether you always become angry when someone laughs at you. If sometimes you do and sometimes you don’t (It depends on your interpretations or stories you tell to yourself), then your response isn’t hardwired. That means something goes between others laughing at you (what you see/hear) and you feeling, that is your interpretations or stories. In truth, you interpret or tell yourself a story. You may not remember it, but you tell a story.
See/Hear ==> Interpret/Tell a Story ==> Feel ==> Act
Any set of fact can be used to tell an infinite number of stories. These fabrications could be told in any of thousands of different ways, almost unlimited. For instance,
- Maria could just as easily have decided that Louis didn’t realize she cared so much about the project.
- She could have concluded that Louis was feeling unimportant and this was a way of showing he was valuable.
- Or maybe he had been burned in the past because he hadn’t personally seen through every detail of a project.
Any of these stories would have fit the facts and would have created very different emotions.
If we take control of our stories, they won’t control us. People who are excel at dialogue are able to influence their emotions during crucial conversations. They recognize that while it’s true that at first we are in control of the stories we tell – after all, we do make them up of our own accord – once they’re told, the stories control us. They control how we feel and how we act. And as a result, they control the results we get from our crucial conversations.
People who are the best at dialogue find a way to first slow down and then take charge of their Path to Action. Here’s how.
To slow down the lightning-quick storytelling process and the subsequent flow of adrenaline, retrace your Path to Action – one element at a time. This calls for a bit of mental gymnastics.
First, you have to stop what you’re currently doing.
Then, you have to get in touch with why you’re doing it.
Here’s how to retrace your path:
· Notice your behavior. Ask: Am I in some form of silence or violence?
· Get in touch with your feelings. Ask: What emotions are encouraging me to act this way?
· Analyze your stories. Ask: What story or interpretation is creating these emotions?
· Get back to the fact. Ask: What evidence do I have to support this story or interpretation?
By retracing your path one element at a time, you put yourself in a position to think about, question, and change any one or more of the elements.
Notice your behavior. Ask: Am I in some form of silence or violence?
If you learn to look at yourself and notice that you yourself are slipping into silence and violence, you have a good reason to stop and take stock. But looking isn’t enough. You must take an honest look at what you’re doing. Stop and review what you are doing and avoid justifying your actions.
Not only do those who are best at crucial conversations notice when they’re slipping into silence or violence, but they are also able to admit it. They don’t wallow in self-doubt, of course, but they do recognize the problem and begin to take corrective action. The moment they realize that they’re killing dialogue, they review their own Path to Action.
Get in touch with your feelings. Ask: What emotions are encouraging me to act this way?
As skilled individuals begin to retrace their own Path to Action, they immediately move from examining their own unhealthy behavior to exploring their feelings or emotions.
Actually identifying your emotions is more difficult than you might think. In fact, many people are emotionally illiterate.
Many people say they’re angry, in fact, they’re feeling a mix of embarrassment and surprise.
Or they suggest they’re unhappy when they are feeling violated.
Perhaps they suggest they’re upset when they’re really feeling humiliated and cheated.
Since life doesn’t consist of a series of vocabulary tests, you might wonder what difference words can make. But words do matter.
Knowing what you’re really feeling helps you take a more accurate look at what is going on and why.
How about you? When experiencing strong emotions, do you stop and think about your feelings?
If so, first, do you use a rich vocabulary or do you mostly draw from terms such as “bummed out” and “furious”?
Second, do you talk openly with others about how you feel? Do you willingly talk with loved ones about what’s going on inside of you?
Third, in so doing, is your vocabulary robust and accurate? For example, are you admitting you’re feeling both embarrassed and surprised than simply angry?
It’s important to get in touch with your feelings, and to do so, you may want to expand your emotional vocabulary.
Analyze your stories. Ask: What story or interpretation is creating these emotions?
Question your feeling and stories. Once you’ve identified what you’re feeling, you have to stop and ask, given the circumstances, is it the right feeling or interpretation? Meaning, of course, are you telling the right story? After all, feelings come from stories (interpretations), and stories are our own invention.
The first step to regaining emotional control is to challenge the illusion that what you’re feeling is the only right emotion under the circumstances. This may be the hardest step, but it’s also the most important one.
By questioning our feelings, we open ourselves up to question our stories or interpretations. We challenge the comfortable conclusion that our story or interpretation is right or true. We willingly question whether our emotions (very real), and the story or interpretation behind them are accurate.
For instance, what were the facts in Maria’s story?
She saw Louis give the whole presentation. She heard the boss talk about meeting with Louis to discuss the project when she wasn’t present.
Don’t confuse stories with facts. Sometimes you fail to question your stories because you see them as immutable facts.
When you generate stories in the blink of an eye, you can get so caught up in the moment that you begin to believe your stories are facts. They feel like facts.
You confuse subjective conclusions or invented stories with hard facts. For example, in trying to ferret out facts from story, Maria might say, “He’s male chauvinist pig. That’s fact!” Ask anyone who has seen how he treats me!”
“He’s male chauvinist pig” is not a fact. It’s story or interpretation Maria created to give meaning to the facts. As we say earlier, others could watch Maria’s interactions with Louis and walk away with different stories or interpretations.
Get back to the fact. Ask: What evidence do I have to support this story or interpretation?
Separate fact from story by focusing on behavior. To separate fact from story, get back to the genuine source of your feelings.
Test your ideas against a simple criterion: Can you see or hear this thing you’re calling a fact? Was is an actual behavior?
For example, it is a fact that Louis gave 95 percent of the presentation and answered all but one question.” This is specific, objective and verifiable. Any two people watching the meeting would make the same observation.
However, the statement “He doesn’t trust me” is a conclusion. It explains what Maria thinks and not what Louis did. Conclusions are subjective.
Do what it takes to tell a useful story. A useful story, by definition, creates emotions that lead to healthy action – such as dialogue.
To see how this all fits together, let’s circle back to Maria. Let’s assume she’s retraced her Path to Action and separated the facts from the stories. Doing this has helped her realize that the story or interpretation she told was incomplete, defensive, and hurtful. So she asks herself:
· Am I pretending not to notice my role in the problem?
“When I found out that Louis was holding project meetings without me, I felt like I should ask him about why I wasn’t included. I believed that if I did, I could open a dialogue that would help us work better together. But then I didn’t, and as my resentment grew, I was even less interested in broaching the subject.”
If you notice that you’re talking about yourself as an innocent victim (and you weren’t held up at gunpoint), ask: Am I pretending not to notice my role in the problem? This question jars you into facing up to the fact that maybe, just maybe, you did something to help cause the problem. Instead of being a victim, you were an actor.
· Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person do what Louis is doing?
“He really cares about producing good-quality work. Maybe he doesn’t realize that I’m as committed to the success of the project as he is.”
When you find yourself labeling or otherwise vilifying others, stop and ask: Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person do what this person is doing? This particular question humanizes others. As we search for plausible answer to it, our emotions soften. Empathy often replaces judgment, and depending upon how we’ve treated others, personal accountability replaces self-justification.
Our purpose for asking why a reasonable, rational, and decent person might be acting a certain way is not to excuse others for any bad things they may be doing. If they are, indeed, guilty, we’ll have time to deal with that later.
The purpose of the humanizing question is to deal with our own stories or interpretations and emotions by providing a variety of possible reasons for the other person’s behavior.
In fact, with experience and maturity we learn to worry less about others’ intent and more about the effect others’ actions are having on us. No longer are we in the game of rooting out unhealthy motives. And here’s the good news.
When we reflect on alternative motives, not only do we soften our emotions, but equally important, we relax our absolute certainty long enough to allow for dialogue – the only reliable way of discovering others’ genuine motives.
· What do I really want?
“I want a respectful relationship with Louis. And I want recognition for the work I do.”
Make an honest effort to discover your motive.
Asking questions about what we really want serves two important purposes:
First, it remind us of our goal.
Second, it juices up our brain in a way that helps us keep focused on our goal.
· What would I do right now if I really wanted these results?
“I’d make an appointment to sit down with Louis and talk about how we work together.”
When you refuse to make yourself helpless, you’re forced to hold yourself accountable for using your dialogue skills rather than bemoaning your weakness. You are forced to openly, honestly, and effectively discussing the problem – not taking potshots and then justifying yourself.
As we go thorough this process we free ourselves from the poisoning effect of unhealthy emotions. Best of all, as we regain control and move back to dialogue, we become masters of our own emotions rather than hostages.
And what about Maria? What did she actually do?
She scheduled a meeting with Louis. As she prepared for the meeting, she refused to feed her ugly and incomplete stories or interpretations, admitted her own role in the problem, and entered the conversation with an open mind.
As Maria sat down with Louis, she found a way to tentatively share what she had observed. While engaging in healthy dialogue, Louis apologized for not including her in meetings with the boss. He explained that he was trying to give the boss a heads-up on some controversial parts of the presentation – and realized in retrospect that he shouldn’t have done this without her. He also apologized for dominating during the presentation.
Maria learned from the conversation that Louis tends to talk more when he gets nervous. He suggested that they each be responsible for either the first or second half of the presentation and stick to their assignments so he would be less likely to crowd her out.
The discussion ended with both of them understanding the others’ perspective and Louis promising to be more sensitive in the future.
Summary:
If strong emotions are keeping you stuck in silence or violence, try this.
Retrace your path:
Ask yourself what you’re really doing:
· Am I in some form of silence or violence? Get in touch with your feeling. Learn to accurately identify the emotions behind your story or interpretation.
· What emotions are encouraging me to act this way? Analyze your stories or interpretations. Questions your conclusions and look for other possible explanations behind your story.
· What story or interpretation is creating these emotions? Get back to the facts. Abandon your absolute certainty by distinguishing between hard facts and your invented stories.
· What evidence do I have to support this story? By retracing your path one element at a time, you put yourself in a position to think about, question, and change any one or more of the elements.
To get to the useful story, ask:
· Am I pretending not to notice my role in the problem?
· Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person do this?
· What do I really want?
· What would I do right now if I really wanted these results?
STATE My Path – Speak Persuasively, Not Abrasively
Adding information to the pool of meaning can be quite difficult when the ideas we’re about to dump into the collective consciousness contain delicate, unattractive, or controversial opinions.
It’s one thing to argue that your company need to shift from green to red packaging; it’s quite another to tell a person that he or she is offensive or unlikable or has a controlling leadership style. When the topic turns from things to people, it’s always more difficult.
The best people at dialogue speak their minds completely and do it in a way that makes it safe for others to hear what they have to say and respond to it as well. They are both totally frank and completely respectful.
To speak honestly when honesty could easily offend others, we have to find a way to maintain safety. How can we speak the unspeakable and still maintain respect? Actually, it can be done if you know how to carefully blend three ingredients – confidence, humility, and skill.
Confidence
Most people simply won’t hold delicate conversations – well, at least not with the right person. For instance, your colleague Brian goes home at night and tells his wife that his boss, Fernando, is micromanaging him to within an inch of his life. He says the same thing over lunch when talking with his pals. Everyone knows what Brian thinks about Fernando – except, of course, Fernando. People who are skilled at dialogue have the confidence to say what needs to be said to the person who needs to hear it.
Humility
Skilled people are confident that they have something to say, but also realize that others have valuable input. They are humble enough to realize that they don’t have a monopoly on the truth. Their opinions provide a starting point but not the final word. They may currently believe something but realize that with new information they may change their minds. This means they’re willing to both express their opinions and encourage others to do the same.
Skill
People who are willingly share delicate issue are good at doing it. That’s why they are confident in the first place. They speak the unspeakable, and people are grateful for their honesty.
To see how to discuss sensitive issues, let’s look at an enormously difficult problem. Bob has just walked in the door, and his wife Carole, looks upset. He can tell from her swollen eyes that she’s been crying. Only when he walks in the door, Carole doesn’t turn to him for comfort. Instead, she looks at him with an expression that says, “How could you?” Bob doesn’t know it yet, but Carole thinks he’s having an affair. He’s not.
How did Carole come to this dangerous and wrong conclusion? Earlier that day she had been going over the credit card statement when she noticed a charge from the Good Night Motel – a cheap place located not more than a mile from their home. “Why would he stay in a motel so close to home?” she wonders. “And why didn’t I know about it?” Then it hits her – “That unfaithful jerk!”
Now what’s the worst way Carole might handle this? What’s the worst way of talking about the problem? Most people agree that jumping in with an ugly accusation followed by a threat is a good candidate for that distinction. It’s also what most people do, and Carole is no exception.
“I can’t believe you’re doing this to me,” she says in a painful tone.
“Doing what?” Bob asks – not knowing what she’s talking about but figuring that whatever it is, it can’t be good.
“You know what I’m talking about,” she says, continuing to keep Bob on edge.
(Do I need to apologize for missing her birthday? Bob wonders to himself. No, it’s not even summer and her birthday is on . . . . well, it’s sweltering on her birthday.)
“I’m sorry, I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he responds, taken aback.
“You’re having an affair, and I have proof right here!” Carole explains holding up a piece of crumpled paper.
“What’s on that paper that says I’m having an affair?” he asks, completely befuddled because (1) he is not having an affair and (2) the paper contains not a single compromising photo.
“It’s motel bill, you jerk. You take some woman to a motel, and you put it on the credit card?! I can’t believe you’re doing this to me!”
Now if Carole were certain that Bob was having an affair, perhaps this kind of talk would be warranted. It may not be the best way to work through the issue, but Bob would at least understand why Carole made the accusations and hurled threats. But, in truth, she only has a piece of paper with some number on it. This tangible piece of evidence has made her suspicious. How should she talk about this nasty hunch in a way that leads to dialogue?
If Carole’s goal is to have a healthy conversation about a tough topic, her only hope is to stay in dialogue. That holds true for anybody with any crucial conversation. That means that despite your worst suspicions, you shouldn’t violate respect. In similar vein, you shouldn’t kill safety with threats and accusations.
So what should you do? Start with Heart. Think about what you really want and how dialogue can help you get it. And master your story (interpretation about the fact). The best way to find out the true story is not to act out the worst story you can generate. This will lead to self-destructive silence and violence games.
Once you have worked on yourself to create the right conditions for dialogue, you can then draw upon five distinct skills that can help you talk about even the most sensitive topics. These five tools can be easily remembered with the acronym STATE. It stands for:
· (S)hare your facts
· (T)ell your story
· (A)sk for others’ paths
· (T)alk tentatively
· (E)ncourage testing
Share your facts
If you retrace your Path to Action to the source, you eventually arrive at the facts.
See/Hear ==> Interpret/Tell a Story ==> Feel ==> Act
For example, Carole found the credit card invoice. That’s a fact. She then told a story – Bob is having an affair. Next, she felt betrayed and horrified. Finally, she attacked Bob – “I should never have married you!” The whole interaction was fast, predictable, and very ugly.
What if Carole took a different route – one that started with facts? What if she were able to suspend the ugly story she told herself and then start her conversation with the fact? Wouldn’t that be a safer way to go?
“Maybe,” she musses, “there is a good reason behind all of this. Why don’t I start with the suspicious bill and then go from there?” If she started there, she’d be right.
Unfortunately, when we’re drunk on adrenaline, our tendency is to do precisely the opposite. Since we’re obsessing on our emotions and stories, that’s what we start with. Of course, this is the most controversial, least influential, and most insulting way we could begin. To make matters worse, this strategy creates still another self-fulfilling prophecy. We’re so anxious to blurt out our ugly stories that we says things in extremely ineffective ways. Then, when we get bad results (and we’re going to get bad results), we tell ourselves that we just can’t share risky views without creating problems.
So the next time we’ve got something sticky to say, we’re even more reluctant to say it. We hold it inside where the story builds up steam, and when we do eventually share our horrific story, we do so with a vengeance. The cycle starts all over again.
Facts are the least controversial. Facts provide a safe beginning. Facts are the most persuasive. In addition to being less controversial, facts are also more persuasive than subjective conclusions. So if you want to persuade others, don’t start with your stories. Start with your observations. Take time to sort out facts from conclusions. Gathering the facts is the homework required for crucial conversation. For example:
Carole: “I was checking our credit card bill, and I noticed a charge of forty-eight dollar for the Good Night Motel down the street.”
Tell your story
Earn the right to share your story by starting with your facts. Facts lay the groundwork for all delicate conversations. To be honest, it can be difficult to share negative conclusions and unattractive judgments. It takes confidence to share such a potentially inflammatory story. However, if you’ve done your homework by thinking through the facts behind your story you’ll realize that you are drawing a reasonable, rational, and decent conclusion. One that deserves hearing. For example:
Carole: “You know that’s how my sister found out that Phil was having an affair. She found a suspicious motel bill.” [Share story - tentatively]
Look for safety problems.
As you share your story, watch for sign that safety is deteriorating. If people start becoming defensive or appear to be insulted, step out of the conversation and rebuild safety by Contrasting. For example:
Carole: “I know that you’ve given me no reason to question your fidelity. I don’t really believe that you’re having an affair.”
Be careful not to apologize for your views. Remember, the goal of Contrasting is not to water down your message, but to be sure that people don’t hear more than you intend. Be confident enough to share what you really want to express.
Ask for others’ paths
So once you’ve shared your point of view – facts and stories alike – invite others to do the same. If your goal is to learn rather than to be right, to make the best decision rather than to get your way, then you’ll be willing to hear other views. By being open to learning we are demonstrating humility at its best. For example:
Carole: “I don’t have anything to worry about do I?”
Talk tentatively
Talking tentatively simply means that we tell our story as a story rather than disguising it as a fact. For examples:
“I’m starting to feel like you don’t trust me. Is that what’s going on here? If, so I’d like to know what I did to lose your trust.”
“I don’t think you’re intending this, but I’m beginning to feel rejected.”
Why soften the message? Because we’re trying to add meaning to the pool, not force it down other people’s throats. Besides, with both facts and stories, we’re not absolutely certain they’re true. Our observation could be faulty. Our stories – well, they’re only educated guesses.
In addition, when we use tentative language, not only does it accurately portray our uncertain view, but it also helps reduce defensiveness and makes it safe for others to offer differing opinions.
One of the ironies of dialogue is that when we’re sharing controversial ideas with potentially resistant people, the more forceful we are, the less persuasive we are. In short, talking tentatively can actually increase our influence.
Encouraging testing
When you ask others to share their paths, how you phrase your invitation makes a big difference. Not only should you invite others to talk, but you have to do so in a way that makes it clear that no matter how controversial their ideas are, you want to hear them. Others need to feel safe sharing their observations and stories – even if they differ. Otherwise, they don’t speak up and you can’t test the accuracy and relevance of your views. For example:
Carole: “It’s just that it might help put my mind to rest if we were to check on this right now. Would that bother you?”
To see how all of the STATE skills fit together in a touchy conversation, let’s return to the motel bill. Only this time, Carole does a far better job of bringing up a delicate issue.
Bob: “Hi Carole, how was your day?”
Carole: “Not so good.”
Bob: “Why’s that?”
Carole: “I was checking our credit card bill, and I noticed a charge of forty-eight dollar for the Good Night Motel down the street.” [Share facts]
Bob: “Boy, that sounds wrong.”
Carole: “It sure does.”
Bob: “Well, don’t worry. I’ll check into it one day when I’m going by.”
Carole: “I’d feel better if we checked right now.”
Bob: “Really? It’s less than fifty bucks. It can wait.”
Carole: “It’s not the money that has me worried.”
Bob: “You’re worried?”
Carole: “It’s the motel down the street. You know that’s how my sister found out that Phil was having an affair. She found a suspicious motel bill.” [Share story - tentatively]
I don’t have anything to worry about do I?” [Ask for other’s path]
Bob: “I don’t know, but you certainly don’t have to worry about me.”
Carole: “I know that you’ve given me no reason to question your fidelity. I don’t really believe that you’re having an affair.” [Contrasting]
It’s just that it might help put my mind to rest if we were to check on this right now. Would that bother you? [Encourage testing]
Bob: “Not at all. Let’s give them a call and find out what’s going on.”
When this conversation actually did take place, it sounded exactly like the one portrayed above. The suspicious spouse avoided nasty accusations and ugly stories, shared facts, and then tentatively shared a possible conclusion. As it turns out, the couple had gone out to a Chinese restaurant earlier that month. The owner of the restaurant also owned the motel and used the same credit card imprinting machine at both establishments. Oops.
By tentatively sharing a story rather than attacking, name-calling, and threatening, the worried spouse averted a huge battle, and the couple’s relationship was strengthened at a time when it could easily have been damaged.
Summary - STATE My Path
When you have tough message to share, or when you are so convinced of your own rightness that you may push too hard, remember to STATE your path:
· (S)hare your facts. Start with the least controversial, most persuasive elements from your Path to Action.
· (T)ell your story. Explain what you’re beginning to conclude.
· (A)sk for others’ paths. Encourage others to share both their facts and their stories.
· (T)alk tentatively. State your story as a story – don’t disguise it as a fact.
· (E)ncourage testing. Make it safe for others to express differing or even opposing views.
Explore Others’ Paths
Over the past view months your daughter Wendy has started to date a guy who looks like he’s about ten minutes away from felony arrest. After only a few weeks of dating this fellow. Wendy’s clothing preference is now far too suggestive for your taste, and she routinely punctuates her language with expletives. When you carefully try to talk to her about these recent changes, she shouts accusations and insults and then withdraws to her room where she sulks for hours on end.
Now what? Should you do something given that you’re not the one going to silence or violence? When others clam up (refusing to speak their minds) or blow up (communicating in a way that is abusive and insulting), is there something you can do to get them to dialogue?
And while it’s true that you can’t force others to dialogue, you can take steps to make it safer for them to do so. After all, that’s why they’ve sought the security of silence or violence in the first place. They’re afraid that dialogue will make them vulnerable. Somehow they believe that if they engage in real conversation with you, bad things will happen. Your daughter, for instance, believes that if she talks with you, she’ll be lectured, grounded, and cut off from the only guy who seems to care about her. Restoring safety is your greatest hope to get your relationship back on track.
Whenever you notice safety is at risk, you should step out of the conversation and restore it. When you have offended others through a thoughtless act, apologize. Or if someone has misunderstood your intent, use Contrasting. Explain what you do and don’t intent. Finally, if you’re simply at odds, find a Mutual Purpose.
If we can find a way to let others know that it’s okay to share their Path to Action – their facts, and yes even their nasty story und ugly feelings – then they’ll be more likely to open up. But what does it take?
Be sincere. To get at others’ facts and stories, we have to invite them to share what’s on their minds. When you do invite people to share their views, you must meant it. When you ask people to open up, be prepare to listen.
Be curious. When you do want to hear from others (and you should because it adds to the pool of meaning), the best way to get at the truth is by making it safe for them to express the stories that are moving them to either silence or violence. This means that at the very moment when most people become furious, we need to become curious. Rather than respond in kind, we need to wonder what’s behind the ruckus.
Getting to the source of fear and discomfort is the best way to return to dialogue. Do your best to get at the person’s source of fear or anger. Look for chances to turn on your curiosity rather than kick-start your adrenaline.
To avoid overreacting to others’ stories, stay curious. Give your brain a problem to stay focused on. Ask: “Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person say that?” This question keep you retracing the other person’s Path to Action until you see how it all fits together. And in most cases, you end up seeing that under the circumstances, the individual in question drew a fairly reasonable conclusion.
Be patient. Once the chemicals that fuel emotions are released, they hang around in the bloodstream for a time – in some cases, long after thoughts have changed. So be patient when exploring how others think and feel. Encourage them to share their path and then wait for their emotions to catch up with the safety that you’ve created.
We are joining the conversation at the end of their Path to Action. They’ve seen and heard things, told themselves a story or two, generated a feeling (possibly a mix of fear and anger or disappointment), and now they’re starting to act out their story. That’s where you joined in. What happened before you joined in?
Crucial conversations can be equally mysterious and frustrating. When others are in either silence or violence, we’re actually joining their Path to Action already in progress. Consequently, we’ve already missed the foundation of the story and we’re confused. If we’re not careful, we can become defensive.
Break the Cycle. And then guess what happens? When were on the receiving end of someone’s retributions, accusations, and cheap shots, rarely do we think: “My, what an interesting story he or she must have told. What do you supposed led to that?” Instead, we match this unhealthy behavior. Our defense mechanism kick in, and we create our own hasty and ugly Path to Action.
People who know better cut this dangerous cycle by stepping out of the interaction and making it safe for the other person to talk about his or her Path to Action. They perform this feat by encouraging him or her to move away from harsh feelings and knee-jerk reactions and toward the root cause. In essence, they retrace the other person’s Path to Action together.
When we help others retrace their path to its origin, not only do we help curb our reaction, but we also return to the place where the feeling can be resolved – at the source, or the facts and the story behind the emotion. We can see that if we don’t get at the source of their feelings, we’ll end up suffering the effect of the feelings.
Whatever we do to invite the other person to open up and share his or her path, our invitation must be sincere. In order for the people to move from acting their feelings to talking about their conclusions and observations, we must listen in a way that makes it safe for others to share their intimate thoughts. They must believe that when they share their thoughts, they won’t offend or be punished for speaking frankly.
To encourage others to share their paths we’ll use four listening tools: Ask, Mirror, Paraphrase, and Prime (AMPP).
Ask
All it takes to break an impasse is to seek to understand other’s views. When we show genuine interest, people feel less compelled to use silence or violence. For example:
You: “Can we talk about that?”
You: “I really would like to hear what makes you think I’m trying to control your life.”
Invite the other person to talk about what’s really going on, it can go along way toward breaking the downward spiral and getting to the source of the problem.
Mirror
Mirroring can help build more safety. Although we may not understand others’ stories or facts, we can see their actions and get clues about their feelings. Mirroring is most useful when another person’s tone of voice or gestures are inconsistent with his or her words. For example:
Wendy: “It’s not a big deal (sounding angry). You’re the parent, right?”
You: “From the way you say that, it sounds like it is a big deal.” [Mirror]
We explain that while the person may be saying one thing, his or her tone of voice or body posture suggests something else. So we describe what we see, we have to do so calmly. In doing so, we show respect and concern for him or her.
The most important element of mirroring is our tone of voice. We create safety when our tone of voice says we’re okay with them feeling the way they’re feeling. If we do this well, they may conclude that rather than acting out their emotions, they can confidently talk them out with us instead.
Paraphrase
When you get a clue about why the person is feeling as he or she does, you can build additional safety by paraphrasing what you’ve heard. For example:
You: “So you feel like I don’t approve of you, and your friend is one person who does?”
You: “I can see how you’d feel badly when others are getting attention from boys and you aren’t. I’d probably feel the same way.”
The key to paraphrasing, as with mirroring, is to remain calm and collected. Our goal is to make it safe. Stay focused on figuring out how a reasonable, rational, and decent person could have created this Path to Action. This will help you keep from becoming angry and defensive.
Prime
The term priming comes from the expression “priming the pump.” If you’ve ever worked an old-fashioned hand pump, you understand the metaphor. With a pump, you often have to pour some water into it to get running. Then it works just fine.
Sometimes you have to offer your best guess at what the other person is thinking or feeling. You have to pour some meaning into the pool before the other person will do the same. You really want to hear from others, and you have a very strong idea of what they’re probably thinking. For example:
You: “I wonder if part of the reason you’ve started dressing differently and hanging out with different friends is because you’re not feeling cared about and valued by boys, by your parents, and by others right now. Is that part of it?”
Now let’s put the several skills together in a single interaction. We return to Wendy. She has just come home from a date with the guy who has you frightened. You yank the door open, pull Wendy into the house, and double-bolt your entrance. Then you talk, sort of.
Wendy: “How could you embarrass me like that! I get one boy to like me, and now he’ll never talk to me again! I hate you!”
You: “That wasn’t a boy. That was a future inmate. You’re worth more than that. Why are you wasting your time with him?”
Wendy: “You’re ruining my life. Leave me alone!”
After Wendy’s bedroom door slams shut, your drop down into a chair in the living room. Your emotions are running wild. You are terrified about what could happen if Wendy continues to see this guy. You’re hurt that she said she hated you. You feel that your relationship with her is spiraling out of control.
So you ask yourself, “What do I really want?” As you mull this question over, your motives change. The goals of controlling Wendy and defending your pride drop from the top to the bottom of your list.
The goal that is now at the top looks a bit more inspiring: “I want to understand what she’s feeling. I want a good relationship with Wendy. And I want her to make choices that will make her happy.
You’re not sure if tonight is the best or worst time to talk, but you know that talking is the only path forward. So you give it a shot.
You: (Tapping the door) “Wendy? May I talk with you please?”
Wendy: “Whatever.”
(You enter her room and sit on her bed.)
You: I’m really sorry for embarrassing you like that. That was a bad way to handle it. [Apologize to build safety]
Wendy: “It’s just that you do that a lot. It’s like you want to control everything in my life.”
You: “Can we talk about that?”
Wendy: “It’s not a big deal (sounding angry). You’re the parent, right?”
You: “From the way you say that, it sounds like it is a big deal.” [Mirror].
“I really would like to hear what makes you think I’m trying to control your life.” [Ask]
Wendy: “What, so you can tell me more ways that I’m screwed up? I’ve finally got one friend who accepts me, and you’re trying to chase him away!”
You: “So you feel like I don’t approve of you, and your friend is one person who does?” [Paraphrase]
Wendy: “It’s not just you. All my friends have lots of boys who like them. Doug’s the first guy who’s even called me. I don’t know – never mind.”
You: “I can see how you’d feel badly when others are getting attention from boys and you aren’t. I’d probably feel the same way.” [Paraphrase]
Wendy: “Then how could you embarrass me like that?!”
You: “I wonder if part of the reason you’ve started dressing differently and hanging out with different friends is because you’re not feeling cared about and valued by boys, by your parents, and by others right now. Is that part of it?” [Prime]
Wendy: (Sits quietly for a long time) I really work on how I look but . . . .
From here, the conversation goes to the real issues, parent and daughter discuss what’s really going on, and both come to a better understanding of each other.
Let’s say you did your level best to make it safe for the other person to talk. After asking, mirroring, paraphrasing, and eventually priming, the other person opened up and shared his or her path. As you begin to share your views, remember:
Agree. Agree when you do.
Build. Build if others leave something out, point out areas of agreement and then add elements that were left out of the discussion.
Compare. When you differ significantly, don’t suggest others are wrong. Compare two views. So instead of pronouncing “Wrong!” start with a tentative but candid opening such as “I think I see things differently. Let me describe how.” Don’t turn differences into debates that lead to unhealthy relationships and bad results.
Summary - Explore Others' Paths
Start with an attitude of curiosity and patience. This helps restore safety. Then use four listening skills (Ask, Mirror, Paraphrase, and Prime) to retrace the other person’s Path to Action to its origins.
· Ask. Start by simply expressing interest in the other person’s views.
· Mirror. Increase safety by respectfully acknowledging the emotions people appear to be feeling.
· Paraphrase. 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.
· Prime. 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:
· Agree. Agree when you do.
· Build. Build if others leave something out, point out areas of agreement and then add elements that were left out of the discussion.
· Compare. When you differ significantly, don’t suggest others are wrong. Compare two views. So instead of pronouncing “Wrong!” start with a tentative but candid opening such as “I think I see things differently. Let me describe how.” Don’t turn differences into debates that lead to unhealthy relationships and bad results.
