Dear David,
Sorry I didn’t respond to your original article on this subject. I read it, and thought it was well reasoned and focused on creating dialogue on a controversial subject, not on proving that global warming is a “fact”. Unfortunately, any discussion even vaguely political these days seems to generate strong negative responses using language that further separates those having the discussion. All the more important to have skills in Crucial Conversations to establish some common ground. Please don’t think that the majority of your readers took your article negatively. Many of us probably just smiled and thought “oh yes, if only world leaders would act this way”.
Many thanks for your thoughtful columns!

“It was never my intent to either persuade others to accept global warming or to offend readers who don’t accept global warming. I’m sorry I was insensitive to your views.”

If this is your way of back-peddling, I would say you are better to stay away from scientific discussions altogether. Science, at its heart, shouldn’t have to be about being sensitive to others opinions. Gathering and analyzing data in a scientific way should obviate the need for opinion, outside trying to sell an idea to the uneducated public.

I understand you are trying to run a business, and don’t want to offend your customers. Stay away from angering the anti-vaccination, and free-energy cranks too.

I do not agree with a lot of the unhappy writers to your previous article. The point that I thought you were trying to make was how do you resolve issues that are very contentious. I think the whiners and crybabies are saying more about their personal outlook then about applying techniques to improve their communication skills.
You have used any number of contentious social issues and still they wouldn’t see the big picture. That Is so sad.
Keep up the good work.

I appreciaeted this week’s newsletter,and not because I was upset with the one on climate change. What I appreciate most is your willingness to admit wrong doing. This models one of the principles taught in the book. It also gives me hope in a way, because Crucial Conversations is hard work. It requires effor to learn the principles and then work to apply them and then more work to improve them. It’s an ongoing process, not an event. Thank you for persisting to help us all communicate in a dramatically more effective way and by modeling how it should be done.

What a great practical example of “Crucial Conversations”. By responding to the original article’s feedback, you clearly demonstrated for us readers how to use the various tools of Crucial Conversations. I feel safe now; and I understand your intentions. Thanks

Thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt response. The idea of “blind spot” especially resonated with me. We all have them. You were more than gracious with your apology, clear with your purpose, sound in your analysis. I’ll use this column as a model for an upcoming conversation I need to have.

While you did a masterful job of backtracking and restating your purpose, in this instance I feel you let yourself be bullied. I am going to get a little political here: It seems that a few close-minded individuals making a lot of noise can corrupt an otherwise open conversation.

David, may I applaud your response. It helps demonstrate one of the biggest attributes that great leaders have - that of humility. No, we don’t get it right all of the time ans we don’t have all the answers so, when we get it wrong then, as one of my friends in the USA says, “If you’re going to eat crow, eat it when it’s fresh!”
I’ve taken some valuable lessons from your srticle. Thank you for sharing them in the way you did.

I loved your article - I found it useful as a dialogue tool, so much so that I have a hard copy tacked to my cubicle wall. I can find many situations to apply the priciples you outlined.
Job well done!! And it wouldn’t hurt our global “leaders” to read it and learn from it.

“I’ve disrespected some of you by stating a position in a way that came across as underhanded; and I’ve shared an opinion that some of you see as naïve or misguided. I want to apologize…” “I’m sorry I was insensitive to your views.”

congratulations on a “real” apology, according to randy pausch, however i think you go a little far into the responsibility zone when you say that you made something come across a certain way and ask forgiveness for the way people see things. i don’t think it’s news that WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT WE SEE to a large extent.

i think another necessary lesson would be for those who piped up with hasty conclusions about the intentions of your position to be reminded to master their stories. they act like provocateurs hoping to come up with the worst conclusion and watch you defend yourself. sometimes they’re aware of that and sometimes they’re not. for them to ask curiously about your intentions is one thing but for them to jump straight to a decline in quality due to your positions is childish, i think.

and this is something i’ve touched on before. there’s no reason we shouldn’t be held responsible for our perspective. to baby them by defending their right to throw out provocative accusations is unfair to more than just those of us who try to apply the principles we learn here: it becomes unfair to even the provocateurs when we use these skills at work and THE MOST SENSITIVE PERSON IS THE ONE WHO DOESN’T HAVE TO LEARN THE CRUCIAL SKILLS. certainly not that i’ve gotten it down pat, but LET’S UPHOLD QUALITY WHERE IT’S BEEN ESTABLISHED.

Good column. I might add that subjects such as global warming, politics, taxes, etc. might be exactly what you SHOULD focus on from time to time. This is where Crucial Conversations is really most important. As an exercise, maybe trying to see opposing ’sides’ of a hot issue could illustrate dialogue most effectively, much as your column heartily did. A roadmap showing others how to break out of familiar patterns would be valuable indeed.

Thank you for your straightforward response. You could have run from the topic, but in addressing it you served the purpose of the column, communication education.

I too was deeply incensed by the content of the last column, but I chose the path of not communicating. I see that was wrong.

I find myself struggling daily with what are accepted “norms” with people I respect in many other ways than their political views.

It’s difficult when your interests lie in educational and cultural pursuits and your political thoughts do not fall in the same vein. My friends and family often assume a shared ideology simply because we share the same love of history or theater. I find I can’t challenge every statement, even if it is in a postive and thoughtful way, without stressing the friendship.

Any suggestions besides getting new friends and family?

Thank you for this follow-up column, David. I enjoyed reading your article last week & was surprised when I read this week’s column and saw you apologizing! However, I feel the way you handled this situation is remarkable and I really appreciated seeing you put the Crucial Conversations skills to work. Thank you for being a great role model and continuing to help the rest of us perfect our own crucial conversations!

I appreciated this post, David. So very well done, even if you may have, as others have suggested here, given those who were upset by your original article a little too much credit. But, you know, that’s the point of the Crucial Conversations approach and I admire your application of it here. As a minister, I have found myself, at times, having to accommodate reactions to my sermons that have little to do with what I actually said, and less to do with what I intended. As another poster said, those coming after me would do well to “master their stories”. And yet…and yet…someone has to be mature, humble, curious, open, forgiving, etc. Someone has to let go of the intoxicating drug of being right in exchange for the possibility of connection and understanding. That’s what Crucial Conversations asks of us. I’m grateful for the reminder. Keep up the good…and very important!…work.

@Peter Huisman “magic” didn’t trip me up but it did take a long time to realise that “exits” was a typo and that you meant “exists” :)) There are times I could use some “magic exits” if anyone has any for sale.

David, I missed the post on “climate change discussions” and left your response to feedback, and went immediately to the original article to read it first when I read the word “firestorm”. I was not offended by the article, but I do take the point that a statement like “The world leaders agreed on what they saw as facts” could have been less inflammatory to some readers. I did not see it as you promoting those facts, or the leaders (or your own) views about climate change, and I certainly get that your intention was to examine the conversation critically. I think I also understand that someone who really disagreed with the whole notion of climate change could read your article in a very different way than I did.

I do respect your reply to the feedback, as other do, because I imagine you did a great deal of centering and looking within, in order to be respectful and focused and balanced when you responded. I”m not convinced that you have given away too much, I think you acknowledged the offense that was taken, took responsibility for your contribution, and contrasted by saying what your intention was and focused on your purpose which was to promote (and engage in) learning about Crucial Conversations. I thought you accepted other views, and held to what you believed to be important.

I noted the passion with which readers responded and was very curious about that. I could hear some really deep hurt.

I appreciate the candid sharing and at the same time I also wondered if you were offended by the way some of the comments were offered. If you were, I could see how you could have easily responded in a more negative way, but you chose not to.

What this conversation highlights for me is the importance of establishing some kind of mutual purpose, because if there is disageement (as there seems to be in this case) about the “facts” we are working from, then that argument could really stall us from taking any productive action.

I like the example of the people with different views about abortion who could have been stalled in an argument, but instead were able to come up with one common goal, or area of agreement, and then work from there to develop a shared initiative that everyone could support.

I’ll be thinking about this for a while, and I’m grateful for all the comments and for the opportunity to hear and digest them all.

@Charlie Compton
Can you not see that you are engaging in personal attacks on people you don’t agree with? And that this will shut down dialogue? Your statements make it appear as though you think the Crucial Converstions method applies only in certain situations but in others it can be tossed aside?
“Cancel me permanently” is a barrier you are throwing up. I guess I would classify it as violence, since it is a threat. If you just anonymously unsubscribed yourself, then it would be silence.

David,

Interesting, I thought it was a great article not so much because of the content but because of how you illustrated the use of CC tools to breakdown an issue related to moving this seemingly stuck conversation forward. In fact I liked it so much I forwarded an edited version- taking the key points and then putting in our example “being stuck”.

Thanks!

Thanks for all your input. Many of you are also asking some very interesting questions, which I’ll save for future column. The most common questions are whether last week’s feedback made me feel defensive (of course it did), and how I dealt with that. I used two approaches. First, I used the crucial conversations skills as described in this week’s column. Second, I asked people I trusted to read my first draft, and give me feedback. This feedback was very important in helping me stay focused on what I really want and in seeing my own blind spots. I encourage you all to share drafts of conversations, emails, and letters with someone you trust–and someone who cares enough about you to tell you when you’re off base.

David Maxfield

@ian

ian :\I think the whiners and crybabies are saying more about their personal outlook…they wouldn’t see the big picture…

Name-calling and accusations have no place in a productive crucial conversation. I respectfully suggest that you start with a little more heart.

It is a “fact” that some people treat “conclusions” as “facts.”

It is a “fact” that some peoples’ “misunderstandings” are rather “disagreements.”

It is a “fact” that “dialogue” (talking back and forth) may exchange “information” but not “agreement” - in the words of a current title, “Many Communicate, Few Connect.”

It is a “fact” that preceeding “dialogue” many people have already “made up their minds.”

It is a “fact” that all the “dialogue” in the world will not persuade those who are commited to “incommensurability.”

It is a “conclusion” that there have always been disagreements, and always will be.

It is a “conclusion” that disagreements, with or without dialogue, are NOT a catastrphe.

It is a “fact” that those in power usually impose their definition of reality on others.

It is a “conclusion” that most of the analysis on global warming, both pro and con, is NOT factually-based.

It is a “conclusion” that although “global warming” is actually occuring, the causes of this are usually mis-attributed.

It is a “fact” that long-term alterations in solar flux have been producing cycles of both global warming and global cooling for millions of years.

It is a “fact” that human activity is only contributing about 15% to the present cycle of global warming that is currently occuring.

It is therefore a good “conclusion” that the most appropriate political actions to counter-act the effects of global warming, would be far more effective policies for water and land management (less wasteful irrigaton and lawn-watering, better cultivation techniques, etc.).

So DAVE - be cool - your complainers have as many hidden and inappropriate assumptions and conclusions as you do. Why not invite a dialogue in which everyone apologizes all-round.

I relish difficult topics discussed in this newsletter. The Crucial Conversations skills provide ready flow and clarification as one speaks; that’s the beauty of live dialogue. But we also have to learn how to write effectively, openly and yet with a viewpoint. Otherwise I fear we are leaders without moral courage. Sure, there’s not universal agreement on global warming, and we know that people disagree about how much man impacts our environment. But there is no value in shying from the exploration of our respective views and, in fact, we limit our ability to learn from others if we don’t pose such viewpoints. So, please continue, David, and as others have suggested, apologize as needed. Press on, however. Through the tough stuff. Not around it.

I thought your original column was excellent.

Be a role model and a leader is what I say often! That is exactly what this response demonstrates. Thank you!

The way we Communication has undergone a great deal of change in just a few years – blogging, texting, email, face book, twitter, cell phones - and the one thing in common with those methods is that we are not physically interacting with the person we are attempting to communicate with.

The reality is we depend a great deal on non verbal communication clues during our interactions with others and without them we are far more likely to ‘read minds’ inferring motive and intent no matter how many smiley faces. (we do this face to face as well but IMO its a bigger problem with text communication.)

Take the example of last week’s news letter but this time the interaction is face to face. David’s intuition is the same, to explain how to use the critical conversation skills when talking about a difficult topic.

During this interaction when David states the ‘facts’ being skilled, he noticed that the persons listing to him reacted unexpectedly, perhaps stopped listening, or the person may have even interrupted him . At this point David could have stopped, make it safe and utilize the STATE tools to get the conversation back on track.

The problem with virtual conversations is that the medium though ‘instant’ is slow.

Very much slower than face to face dialog, and as such requires greater self awareness from both the communicator and reader, especially of our stories and ‘tripping points’.

Pehaps in the next edition of Crucial conversations a new chapter should be added, or new book, on the difficulties of virtual (wireless, connectionless) communication is needed.

Corrections
Instead of - David’s intuition – read David intention

Might also add that
In my onion the problem with virtual conversations is that the medium though ‘instant’ is slow – but we react just as fast or faster.

I have followed your two postings on climate change with interest. I knew you had stepped into some deep doo-doo the first time. Though I am probably on the opposite side of the issue from many of your objectors, I knew what you had cited as fact didn’t really qualify, and that in general this is a hornet’s nest.

That said, I second the comment in #11 above that I would love to see you demonstrate how to address hot political topics. I think the crucial conversations model has a great deal to offer, and you can use it to do more than graciously correct a misstep!

David,

Nice recovery — well done! Great example of humility and using the tools “real time”. Thanks.

I missed the first article due to time pressures. I am tempted to go and find it! I really enjoyed this article and it is the first time I have read the comments. CC is such hard work, talking tentatively and not looking like your own beliefs are not relevant can be difficult.
You just role modelled so many of the great principles and I thank you for it. An authentic and open example of the principles in action.

I did not write about your global warming column, but I also felt it was inappropriate and espoused a controversial political position. That being said it did not offend me. I really don’t know your position on this topic, but you are entitled to whatever it is. Don’t beat yourself up over this. Just keep writing great columns! Thanks for your advice.

David,
It is too bad that the people reading your column didn’t use their Crucial Conversations skills or they would not have jumped to such conclusions. I read your column as an evaluation of the conversations of the world leaders thru skills of Crucial Conversations. It would be another column to explore why dialogue is so difficult today. It seems, at least, to me that lots of people only want to say what is on their mind and not listen with an open mind to what others have to say. To me,
some of the readers need to examine the stories they have created before the lash out at someone just trying to describe the possibilities of real dialogue. It is sorely missing in our society as a whole.
Just my thought,
c

Those whose stories (their interpretations of what is said - facts) are negative, may get defensive when facts are stated that are contrary to their beliefs. That’s okay.

Please don’t apologize too much. I think you had a great response, demonstrating the skills, but I think your first article also demonstrated the skills as well - illustrating that these skills are beginning to be used by our leaders and also need some more work by our world leaders. These topics (science, politics, religion, etc.) are the meat of controversy where we learn to best use these skills!

How many people subscribe to this newsletter? Please know for every 40 negative responses, there are a hundred of those of us that realize what you are trying to accomplish and are on board with you. Some of us are still continuing to learn. Unfortunately, you’ll always hear more form the disgruntled, so that’s why I write today - to compliment you and your team on your continued work. We just don’t say “thank you” enough.

Happy to align with you,
Caroline

Well done, David, I so appreciate that you took the opportunity of a real conflict and applied it. Although we’re in a medium that doesn’t give us the whole ‘tone’ of what you have to say, you sound sincere and truthful about your intent, what you missed in the translation, and how you so excellently set the record straight. I appreciate the learning and your response that is, indeed, a great example of an applied crucial conversation.

Dear David:
Don’t feel too bad! It is in the conservative/reactionary mantra to immediaely attack anyone who has the audacity to suggest anything contrary to what is held by them as doctrine. This seems to be particulary true when such subjects as climate change are raised in any context. As a result it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about any topic which might have political implications.

Keep up the good work.
Ed

Hi David,
Talking about difficult topics can be messy, and we as responsible nations will need to hold many more crucial conversations to constructively address the challenges posed by the topic you chose to address. I appreciate your forthrightness and effort to reinforce the principles of holding crucial conversations. I think you are truly an exceptional teacher, using your own situation to demonstrate the principles (and qualities) necessary to hold crucial conversations. Good on you!

Bob

Gee, David, I can’t wait to hear how you handle the abortion issue.

There is a moral code written on our hearts. How brave are you?

Your follow up letter was moving and humble, you have a great heart.

Thanks for sharing courage with us. God love you, Cheryl

I want to echo what Ron Rowan said above.

I appreciate your willingness to continue tackling political and social issues in this forum. It’s unfortunate that the most important issues of our time tend to be the ones we don’t discuss because we’re too worried about offending people.

I see Crucial Conversations as a tool that you can use to talk to anyone about anything, even if you disagree. It is through opening our minds to what others believe and why they believe it, and them doing it in return to us, that we come to greater understanding of each other and find a common ground to work from.

Personally, I was not offended in the least by the global warming talk. But I can understand how certain people with certain views would have been. My hope, though, is that we can turn that into a productive, reasonable conversation, rather than saying a topic is off-limits for this forum.

David, thank you for using your column to teach us. Who hasn’t gotten themselves into a similar situation. Frankly, I’m not sure I would have broken it down without your help as I wasn’t offended.

Difficult topics involve difficult conversations with all sorts of pitfalls. Thank you for your humility. Please continue to use political and sensitive topics to train us!

I love your response. I know I have certainly put something out there in speech or writing, and had a similarly intense reaction. Seeing the return to mutual purpose and mutual respect, creating a safe space, and being transparent, stating your intention and sharing your reflections on where your thought process went off track was outstanding. I will always hit a nerve, no matter how well intentioned I may be; it is in practicing the recovery of relationship which matters.