In my previous book review, I wrote about winning and influencing people. Carnegie wrote about the risk related to confronting people and create resentment, leading to problems. After reading the first few chapters of “Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High” by Kerry Patterson, I was conflicted. As the first thing Patterson suggests is to confront people and talk about issues. Rather than keeping people happy by “not talking” as suggested by Carnegie. This contrast is interesting. Yet, this book provides some good tools for talking when stakes are high. The author characterizes crucial conversations as conversations in which:
Regardless of conversations being crucial or not, tools given in the following chapters provide a way of dealing with conversations. If, one can take a step back and think as a “strategic conversationalist”.
People deal with difficult conversations in various ways. The main tendency of people is to resort to silence (moving away from the conversation) or violence (name-calling and being aggressive). Establishing purpose in conversations, making the other people understand why you’re having a conversation in the first place, is a way to counter this tendency.
Establishing a common goal allows for other people to perceive that all are working towards a common outcome in the conversation. This makes others believe that we care about their goals, interests, and values.
However, establishing a common goal is not always as easy as it sounds. People have a “reptile brain” and act according to their instincts. Safety may be damaged in situations where people misinterpret your intent. This safe environment can be recreated by using a conversation technique called contrasting. It allows you to make others understand what your intentions are. Start with clearing up what you don’t mean and then clarify what you mean:
“I don’t want to leave the impression that I’m not happy with your work here. I hope we can continue to work together, and you have valuable skills. I want to let you know that meeting deadlines is important to me and missed deadlines negatively impact the rest of the team, so I need you to do well in this area.”
This was a very basic yet very important advice given in the book. If you put smart people in a room but don’t give them enough information and/or reach a common understanding of the problem, there is still a big risk for them to make a bad decision. People with more information are more likely to make better, informed decisions.
Therefore, it is important to create a shared pool of meaning. People skilled in the art of conversation will ask clarifying questions to get the most amount of information out of the participants.
“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—with both unity and conviction. 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.”
Watch out for villain, victim or helpless stories. These are stories or tactics people use during heated conversations to convince others.
During conversations, people will often place others in a villain role, claim they are the victim or claim that they couldn’t have changed the situation (helpless). They base these stories on emotions and they don’t help reach effective results.
Rather than focussing on emotions and looking for excuses, it is much wiser to “retrace your path” (take a step back and understand where you’re coming from) and get back to the facts. If people are using the wrong stories to make a point, the book suggests having a bird’s-eye view and focus on what is important.
“When an unhelpful story is driving you to silence or violence, stop and consider how others would see your actions. For example, if the 60 Minutes camera crew replayed this scene on national television, how would you look? What would they tell about your behavior?
Not only do those who are best at crucial conversations notice when they’re slipping into silence or violence, but they’re 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.”