Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High

Chapter 8 explores methods of dealing with crucial conversations when another participant has already resorted to “Silence and Violence” and questions how safety can be restored to the interaction after the damage has been done.

Sincerity is the first pillar of restoring safety. People will not feel safe in expressing their (potentially ugly or hurtful) stories unless they feel that the other person actually cares about their wellbeing and respects their viewpoint. Curiosity is the next pillar: “When most people become furious, we need to become curious” (143). Instead of reacting with emotions to the emotionally-driven behavior of others, deciding to investigate why they feel the way they feel often yields much more valuable insight. Patience is the third and final pillar. When other people are processing their emotions, it can take a while for those emotions to subside. It’s important to “[e]ncourage them to share their path and then wait for their emotions to catch up with the safety you’ve created” (145).

Next, from a place of sincerity, curiosity, and patience, it’s time to start understanding the story they have told themselves about the conflict. In order to do so, one must use four “listening tools” remembered through the acronym AMPP:

“Ask” to get the conversation going: Invite people to express themselves. Asking people for their perspective can help with “breaking the downward spiral” of an argument by showing respect and curiosity (149).

“Mirror,” which refers to describing how a person appears to be feeling despite what they are saying. Mirroring also shows that attention is being paid to the other person’s state of mind, showing respect and curiosity once more.

“Paraphrase” their story: Once the other person has related their side of events, repeating their narrative back to them shows caution in making sure there are no misunderstandings. However, pushing too hard may come across as pestering or prying, so backing off if emotions are still high is a good strategy.

“Prime” if you reach a dead end: Priming, referring to adding water to get a water pump to start working, is the act of guessing what a person is thinking in order to get the conversation going. When people are hostile, withdrawn, or afraid, and the first three steps haven’t brought them out of their shell, sometimes guessing what they’re thinking can get the conversation going. While the guess may not always be correct, it can prompt the other person to correct it. Priming requires sympathizing with someone else’s view, which can feel “dangerous” if their attitude is harmful. However, “understanding doesn’t equate to agreement” (153). Priming shows respect and curiosity, not validation.

After finding out the other person’s story, now it’s time to express a personal narrative to add to the Pool of Shared Meaning. The skills required to healthily express this narrative can be expressed through the acronym ABC.

“Agree”: When people are arguing, often they actually agree on almost every salient point but are stuck on a small detail or strategy. They’ve turned “subtle differences into a raging debate” (156). This can be described as “violent agreement”: people on the same side of an issue heatedly arguing essentially the same point. By returning to the vast majority of the narrative on which they agree, people can drastically reduce the conflict.

“Build”: Instead of focusing on small differences, start building on the points of agreement. Find places in the argument to say “I agree.” Then, building on that approval of the other person’s point, add other relevant information.

“Compare”: Disagreement can be minimized or resolved by comparing the paths taken to different conclusions. Saying something like “I think I see things differently. Let me explain how” instead of rejecting the other person’s viewpoint outright can be very helpful in building agreement (158).

After all the relevant information has been added to the Pool of Shared Meaning, there remains the problem of what needs to be done with that information. Decision-making introduces other problems into the crucial conversation process, mostly because of two factors: People are unclear on how decisions are going to be made, and people do a “poor job of acting on the decisions they do make” (162).

Dialogue is not decision making, though sometimes people can believe that it is. Some people involved in a crucial conversation may think that they all mutually decided on a plan of action during the conversation, while others can think that they simply expressed general principles to keep in mind. This is why it’s important to “decide how to decide” (163). Figuring out beforehand who will ultimately decide the course of action and how they will make that decision can eliminate many issues. The “line of authority” in some cases will be clear (163). A manager, for instance, will decide how to decide; so will a parent. There is no question about who has authority to make those calls. When a crucial conversation is happening with no clear line of authority, for instance between partners or colleagues, then it becomes vital to discuss how to make the final decision on the issue.

There are four methods of decision making.

“Command”: Decisions are made without the need for consulting others. Command decisions should be made sparingly, and the rationale behind the decision should still be explained even if others’ input is unnecessary.

“Consult”: Consulting still involves a direct authority making the decision, but information is gathered from others beforehand that will ultimately inform that decision. Consultation should be used when the decision will affect many people, information can be gathered easily, and people care about the decision being made. However, consultation should only be used sincerely, if others’ opinions actually will factor into the result.

“Vote”: Voting should be used when there are “a number of good options” and the decision making process needs to be “efficient” (166). Votes aren’t a replacement for healthy dialogue and should not be used to end a discussion prematurely.

“Consensus”: In this case, discussion continues until “everyone honestly agrees to one decision” (166). This can be a great way to create a sense of unity in the group and come up with a decision that suits everyone. It can also waste time. Consensus should not be used for every decision—only for decisions where “everyone is affected, everyone cares, and there are several options” (171).

After the decision is made, that decision has to be translated into action. In order to make a decision actionable, determine “who does what by when” and select a time to follow up (178). Make sure to write down the commitments, and “hold people accountable to their promises” (178).