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.