Crucial Conversations amidst Controversy
David Maxfield is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Influencer: The Power to Change Anything.
Dear Readers,
I created a firestorm with my response to last week’s question about the crucial conversations world leaders are having about climate change. Like most people, I obviously have my own views on global warming. However, I didn’t intend to write a political column and I am sorry it came out that way. I got more than 40 negative responses on the blog and our editor received several as well. Ben Semadeni echoes many readers’ reactions when he says, “I was disgusted with this column . . . It illustrates that even the ‘experts’ totally botch the process.” But then he goes on to say, “I’d love to see you take another stab at this topic.”
I like Ben’s suggestion. However, rather than dig back into the climate change content, I’d like to use this column for its real purpose—to learn about dialogue. I’d like to apply the crucial conversations principles to last week’s column and its resulting controversy. My guess is that we all find ourselves in this unfortunate position from time to time. I hope my transparent application of these conversation tools will also rebuild my relationship with some of you with whom I may have lost faith.
1. Explore Others’ Paths. Our readers are a pretty gentle crew, so when they write, “you’ve lost credibility,” “you’ve used this forum as a soap box,” and “what unprofessional text!” I know people are deeply upset. I’ve seen and felt the heat of their sentiments and to understand what I’ve done to cause these feelings I need to backtrack to the facts behind these stories.
Backtrack to Facts. Most of the letters I received focus on an assumption I made and never actually acknowledged. I now clearly see this oversight. In my response, I called four statements about climate change that leaders from the BASIC nations had agreed to as “facts.” While the leaders in their agreement also called them “facts,” they are better characterized as “conclusions.” Not only did I label these conclusions as “facts,” I also applauded their agreement because I felt it represented “progress in their dialogue.”
Here’s the rub. Many readers disagree with these “facts” and don’t see “progress” in this direction as a good thing. When I described these as “facts” and as “progress,” it caused these readers to question my credibility and motives. They saw this as an unfair use of the opportunity this forum provides me.
2. Start With Heart. I need to look inside myself and decide what my goals are.
Work on me first. My honest, first reaction to the criticisms was frustration because I felt most comments didn’t deal with what I saw as the topic I’d addressed. Instead of focusing on Copenhagen and the dialogue and disagreements between world leaders, readers focused on disagreements they have with world leaders. That wasn’t my topic.
However, I see now that this reaction on my part was a way of bypassing people’s legitimate frustration with my use of this column.
Focus on what I really want. I need to ask what I really want. As far as this forum is concerned, what I really want is for people to discuss dialogue and influence skills in a way that advances our shared understanding. And I want to be fair and honest in my author role. I really don’t care about advancing or exchanging facts about any political agenda. In the article, I included an undiscussed assumption that many readers saw as a political position, and that was not my intention.
3. Restore Mutual Respect and Mutual Purpose. This is where actions speak louder than words. I care deeply about this forum, so let me begin.
Mutual Respect. I’ve violated mutual respect in two ways. 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 to you and clarify my intent.
I’ll try to “practice what we preach” by using a contrasting statement. I didn’t mean to be underhanded. I did try to answer the question posed by one of our readers. Here is what happened. The way the original question was posed (“what dialogue should world leaders have?”) and the way the leaders in Copenhagen framed their agreement (“we’ve agreed on these facts”) created a blind spot that I didn’t see.
I was narrowly focused on the Copenhagen dialogue and failed to remember the broader dispute. As a result, it didn’t occur to me that readers who disagree with global warming would be offended. 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.
Mutual Purpose. I see our purpose as building and sharing dialogue skills. We’re not a forum for presenting political views. I will redouble my efforts to avoid doing so. At the same time, we’d like to be able to examine topical political dialogue. We think social and current issues are rich turf for crucial conversations. It would be a shame to put them totally off limits.
I hope you will see this week’s column as more consistent with our community’s purpose. I’ve tried to share how I am applying our dialogue principles to my dilemma. I did not want this to simply be an apology because that would be misusing its purpose as well. Rather, I wanted to demonstrate that I care about what we teach by showing how it helped me through a tough week.
Thanks,
David
Related Material:
Hi;
I missed your column of last week, and though I haven’t had the fortune of having corporate sponsorship to attend your courses (I’m a network engineer) – my quest started with improving first, anger-management, and then, second, become more adept at interacting with my peers and bosses.
I take your lesson-learned to heart. In my way, you handled it properly – though I have to admit that I’m still learning the subtleties.
Thank you for sharing.
Josh
I have to say I was a little disheartened by many of the comments to last week’s column as it seemed to me that many didn’t utilize the tools or critical conversations in their responses that we are all trying to incorporate in our dialog.
When I read last week’s column I suspected that the facts as stated in the article would present a difficult obstacle for many people. You might say a tipping point, or tripping point, where many might stop ‘listening’ and begin to react instead of respond.
I have tripped and fallen into that trap more times than I’d like to admit. Mastering my stories has helped and I work hard to notice when I’m no longer listening. For me one of the warning signs is how badly I want or need to convince someone how right I am, but more, how wrong they are.
Magic exits, words have the power to cast spells, advertisers and news agencies know this. To protect ourselves and improve the level of debate in this country each of us must become aware of our tripping points and recognize when we are reacting rather then responding.
(Did my use of the word magic trip you up?)
Now it sounds condescending in that sensitivity is required for those not on board with the position that global warming exists.
That was a really good recovery after quite a stumble last week. I think you hit the nail on the head in your understanding of why some of us were a bit disenchanted last week. A simple acknowledgement that the so-called experts “facts” are held in question by many credible and respectable scientists was the main element necessary for you to keep the focus on the world leaders’ dialogue rather than the real questions that exist about whether global warming 1) exists and 2) is propagated by man. Keep up the great work.
Like you I have my own opinions about global warming and have decided to keep them. Besides, you could have picked a different topic such as abortion vs adoption and probably caused a much worse “storm” response! Unfortunately, the USA will continue to remain divided by political boundaries until everyone learns how to debate without taking things as if they are personal attacks upon our own self character or our family history. I recently had someone send my boss a email message stating they had a personal problem with me over something I never said. He stated this in front of some elected officials and was told quickly by one of them that they do not believe I ever made that statement and that it did not sound like something I would ever say. The controversy ended immediately ! When I later met with that person it was never brought up! It made me wonder why anyone would want to put words in my mouth when I would never make such a statement. I cannot help but wonder why that person would want me fired over something I never said and my feelings were hurt. I know that I will never receive an apology from that person for making that claim. After reflecting upon it I decided to pray for that person as they might have more pain in their life than they can endure and it probably has caused them much grief over the years. It worked for me ! Hope your day is bright.
Thank you,
Stephen
David,
I applaud you for using climate change as a topic for your last column. I saved that column on my computer as an honest attempt to tackle a huge communication problem. Climate change is in dire need of communication strategies that will allow people to have productive discussions, even if they disagree. As you experienced in your comments, it is almost impossible to have a rationale conversation about climate change without it devolving into personal attacks on values and beliefs.
As an educator on natural resources, I now frame the issue as one of risk management. I have given up on trying to reach consensus on the “facts” as very few people actually read the scientific reports to try and learn the facts. However, the _risks_ are readily apparent. Industries such as the insurance business and energy corporations (Exxon Mobil) for several years have been taking these risks (more intense storms, increased flooding, rising sea levels, increased energy costs) into account in their rate planning, strategic planning and facility planning. It is simply smart business to do good risk management.
So perhaps the shared pool of information can start with the risks, which are apparent and we are dealing with right now, rather than trying to agree on the fundamental “facts”.
What do you think of this approach? It’s leap-frogging beyond trying to find fundamental agreement, and instead tries to find agreement at an action level.
Thank you for trying your best to talk about this and sharing the results!
Wow. Thoroughly enjoyed your response to the original column. Provided me with a lot of insight. My first reaction when I started reading was to be defensive, and I didn’t even write the original column!!!! I suppose I reacted that way because I know how I would have felt if something I had written had caused such a firestorm. I would have been hurt and felt attacked, which would have initiated the need to defend myself. I learned so much from you in how you handled this. Thank you for providing the response.
Well done! As the old saying goes it’s usually best to avoid the topics of money, religion, and politics. Even among friends.
Not being the sharpest tool in the shed, I have a large gap or hole in my understanding of the techniques in Crucial Conversation. Where in the book (which I have yet to finish) do I find information on “testing” the biases people may have with the topic at hand? If I knew them, might I conduct the conversation differently?
Thank you David for making a second attempt at this article. I appreciated this approach. Whether its climate change, healthcare reform, gay marriage or any other hot button issue, we all find ourselves in situations of controversy with family members, friends and colleagues. Your approach reminds us that no matter our position on an issue, the skills you teach can be applied in any situation and can lead to better dialogue and greater understanding.
I am very impressed with your article today – although I was also impressed with the one last week. I really should take the time more often to tell you (all of you) that – rather than letting only the “negatives” speak up. I must admit – I tend to avoid unhappy things and would have found it very difficult to do what you did this week – your introspection and commitment to make it right are very inspiring! You model excellent leadership and much courage. Thank you.
I would be interested in knowing your take on this book:
“Why we disagree about climate change : understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity”
by Hulme, M. (Michael)
Parts of what Hulme says reflect what you describe, using different language. He, of course, goes deeper into the issue than you can in this format.
What I would like to be able to apply is the ability to discuss this with others who disagree with my view. While I try to understand where they come from, they usually only want to talk emotions. This is an emotional issue, and while world leaders struggle and fail, so do I in trying to get others to hear my beliefs. Using your insights, Mr. Maxfield, and Mr. Hulme’s and others, I hope to be able to do that.
What a great opportunity your “firestorm” has created! I wonder if anyone used the “State” format in their emails to you, bringing up their conflict with your article?
It surprised me that people thought you were pushing a political agenda. That sounds like an assumption to me, and it never entered my mind as a possibility because I’ve never seen anything like that from your organization yet.
You did initially lose credibility with me with last week’s article. My disappointment was that you called conclusions by a certain group of people “facts”.
My reaction was “How could an expert in communication and influencing people so totally miss it by calling such a controversial assumption/conclusion a “fact? He will offend everyone who doesn’t believe those are facts.” But everyone makes mistakes and you redeemed yourself this week by acknowledging your error in calling an assumption a “fact.”
To me, an important lesson from this firestorm is the lesson about the damamge that can happen when we call assumptions “facts”. It shuts down the dialogue between disagreeing parties.
By the way, was there anyone who brought up their disagreement with you in an agreeable way? Nita
This just goes to show, no matter how skilled you are in these techniques, there’s no accounting for people’s political biases and immovable opinions. If someone is absolutely determined to be insulted, they will be, even if you are a master at crucial conversations. It also shows politics is no answer because people don’t care about “facts” only their posture. How sad in this so-called enlightened age. I hope those people who berated you have flood insurance.
I do not understand why you are back-pedaling.
You are surely entitled to your opinion on a matter that is so crucial to our planet.
Most thinking people would agree with your earlier column and you do not need to compromise your views, just because a few people get huffy and label it a political statement.
@larry siebauer
Correction: you are not interested in hearing political ideas that differ from your own. Don’t you find it interesting that you will go to the point of cancelling your email subscription just because the author “may have… or you suspect may have” offered a political opinion that you disagree with?
Kudos, David! I am just beginning my quest to improve using Crucial Conversations and it was indeed heartening to me to know that even one of the creators of this tool can slip from time to time and have to fall back on the tools to get the conversation back on track. Politics is one of the two most passionate topics for anyone and because of the passion it can be easy to backslide into the old traps. Thank you for walking the walk and putting CC to work. It is an example I will carry with me.
Well done. I wish more leaders would acknowledge when they completely go in another direction and do not explain themselves more clearly. They run around with an entire entourage and still make the wrong point.
While I found it curious that Vital Smarts was addressing such a politically charged topic as climate change, my initial concerns were allayed after I read the column. I felt that you treated the issue dispassionately and gave clear examples of how to apply CC principles and practices to a difficult and important topic.
I am dismayed to learn about the backlash you all experienced from some of your readers, which leads me to believe that the partisan divide in this country is out of hand. How intolerant must one be to react so strongly to someone simply discussing a topic you don’t agree with? I’m attending a conference on civility in public discourse, which is a topic sorely need of attention these days. (I see a CC opportunity here!) I hope these readers will apply the CC principles to themselves to become more tolerant and civil and not so reactive.
What an excellent demonstration of the principles of Crucial Conversations. Thank you for last week and this week.
Thank you for this fantastic opportunity to learn and grow. I did not read the column last week. Teaching in this manner has taken my understanding of crucial conversations to a new level resulting in increased confidence in my ability to co-create a respectful, considerate, and forward focused environment with those in my circle of influence.
@Krissy Gallardo If you have been saving and using the columns consistently for years, and this one came along and offended you (which I don’t relate to), maybe you should ask yourself whether you truly ought to be offended, and whether you might need to chalk this one up to your own lack of understanding about David’s motives, intent, etc., or simply lack of understanding about the way this subject matter was communicated. Crucial Conversations gurus ought to be more savvy in this regard than the average Joe.
Climate Change Denialists are a small but vocal group who could have any number of their friends commenting on your column. I would take their actions with a grain of salt. The vast majority of us are witnessing climate change in our own backyards, so don’t worry, and keep up the good work!
David,
I just want to give you a word of encouragement. Like many people, my opinion regarding global warming changed when the frauds were uncovered. Still, I did not write to complain about the underlying premises of your example dialogue in the first column, because I totally understood that the acceptance or non-acceptance of global warming theory was not the point of the column. I now feel bad that I did not write in to tell you I thought the column was quite good, for what it was intended to be. Good job on the first column, and I am sorry you had to write the second column.
David, this week’s columns was fine, and I learned from it, but I wouldn’t worry too much about the negative comments from the last column. People need to chill out and realize you were walking them through a process for productive conversation, not taking sides on global warming.
So, instead of creating a villian, then publically flogging the person when the emotions took over, didn’t people ask, “Why would a reasonable, rational,and decent person do this?” Because choosing examples of world leaders in, or not in dialogue is a great example. No apology necessary.
This whole commentary does nothing more than point out how extreme politics have become, and in my opinion, social media is a contributing factor. It is easy to “send” a message and not have to deal with immediate face-to-face feedback from another living, breathing, feeling, human being. Everybody needs to learn and practice, practice, practice, crucial conversation skills!! Each of our individual opinions are subject to change as the pool of shared knowledge expands. Keep up the good work David!!
Thanks for the brilliant example of the model. I’m new to Crucial Conversations, but certainly not new to conversations gone wrong. Your step-by-step application was a wonderful reinforcement. Thanks!
Thank you so much David for your humble and honest working through of the communication skills needed for this example of exchange. As I worked through your example, I thought through a current situation that was similar and resolved by way of your example of how I should best respond and hopefully, after praying about it a little more now, I will send this off today to start restoring a difficult relationship. Thanks and blessings!!
I comment here for the first time, because the angst that seems to have been created by last week’s column, leaves me wanting to crawl quickly back into, what I perceive as, my safe corner of silence. (“I was disgusted with this column . . . It illustrates that even the ‘experts’ totally botch the process.”) I am disillusioned to find that people who care enough about getting communication to work, demonstrated by the fact that they follow this column, would so miss the good illustration you presented on how world leaders might use these skills. I didn’t see the content of the conversation as the issue. Did these same ones get as upset during their CC training when so many example conversations were examined and critiqued? I aspire to reach your level of patience and faith in people. Please, keep up the good work. We’re listening.
I think the effort to placate you should be accepted as that, a gesture of goodwill intended to mend the hurts from last week. The writers always do a fantastic job at responding to any type of feedback and making amends when necessary. A response that we could all learn from I am sure.
David: thank you for your transparancy as always and kudos for another job well done this week. This continues to be a grade A operation!
The responses of climate change deniers raises an interesting question that may be beyond the ability of crucial conversations to address: the power of confirmatory bias to blind us to facts and logic that contradict our deeply held beliefs or threaten our perceived self-interest. If one tries to add to the pool of shared understanding and tries to understand the factual and logical basis for others’ perspectives, but the other party is unable or unwilling to do so, how can one have a productive dialogue?
There are thoughtful skeptics regarding the extent and speed of climate change in response to human activities. But the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect and the fundamental chemistry of fossil fuel combustion are not subject to credible dispute. Those who would assert otherwise are bound to offer clear, compelling, and extraordinary evidence to support their case. They are bound to offer a testable, verifiable, and falsifiable set of physical laws, scientific models, and observations — just as someone who wants to claim that the earth is flat rather than an oblate spheroid with minor surface height variations would have to provide.
@Peter Huisman
@Peter Huisman
Amen!
David, when I stand back and survey the whole chemical reaction, certain life-lessons are once again reinforced: 1) This stuff is hard – it takes dedication and constant self-evaluation to make it work. 2) No matter how skilled we are, at some point we will all screw up. 3) A person’s reaction on any issue actually reveals more about the quality of his/her own character than it does about the issue.
Thanks for modeling your message. I’m a big fan.
I also had to use CC techniques in my own college classroom to make amends with my students over some misunderstood instructions. My goof and subsequent amends-making blatantly using STATE was the most instructive part of the course. Of course it felt very uncomfortable for me however it cleared the air and prompted much more honest discourse. Good for you for following the STATEd path.
Apology was indeed necessary and accepted. Last week I lost hope and was left sketical of you and the VitalSmarts site. “Conclusions”, or opinions, were stated to be facts and then extended to define “progress”. This demonstrates that we use tools to promote what we want to believe which is the opposite of what crucial conversations is all about. After all, there is much debate in what is considered “progress” and “conclusions” yet your position assumed both to be fact and as the starting point for earning mutual respect and common purpose. Shame on you for such a material oversight. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLICITES WHICH SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN EXCUSE. If I may offer a comparison to illustrate – think of the Government’s Eminent Domain right they have recently excercised. They take people’s private homes and give them to developers to convert into shopping malls and luxury condos in exchange for a higher tax base. This is viewed to be in the “public interest” and is their view of “progress”. The gov’t assumes that we agree (conclusion)and that they are correct in their subjective use of land for the greater good (progress), trumping private property rights of home owners. This position is very much like the one you took in your article. There are a lot of assumptions that get one to the definition of conclusions and progres on any topic, political or not. When one opens a conversation with these as the starting point, it is the exact opposite of everything I thought crutical skills is about. This is a great example of how complex topics can be and how our prior feelings on a topic erode mutual purpose, respect, trust and hope.
This is a good example of writing in response to negative comments from readers. Most people have to write this type of response at some time in their careers. (Some more than others…)
This is well written! Thanks.
Keep sending me the news letter as I find it full of information I can use.
Apology was definitely not needed. Anyone reading this newsletter should be able to detach from their politics for a second and try to learn from your comments. Climate Change is for sure a hot button topic, and just because the ‘Drill baby, Drillers’ disagree with or do not believe the evidence pointing to climate change, does not mean that you needed to back-peddle like this. Take it for what it is people, David is trying to educate (and sell a product), he is not Bill Maher.
@Ruth Oppedahl I second the motion: framing a crucial conversation in terms of risk acknowledges scientific uncertainty and frees participants to agree on possibilities and what to do about them.
Clearly, many governments and corporations have had this conversation, and have hedged their bets. Sadly, the U.S. remains mired in a naive political discourse where fringe agendas have frustrated any rational discussion of the possibility of grave danger.
Bravo! I didn’t read your first article, but I think it takes a lot of courage as an expert to admit you goofed. I hope that political dialogue does come up for future articles. Look at our currect political dialogue of politicians-It is immature, unprofessional, and these are the leaders who are supposed to help serve the nation. I wish some of them had your ethics and tact at dialogue.
I also have strong feeling about this subject. I was interested in hearing what you had to say but thought you missed a more important oportunity directly revolving around crucial conversations. how do you broach a subject in a way that is a hot topic where there seems to be no middle ground in a way to have a crucial conversation. some times I only have the 1 minute elevator conversation and want to broach a subject in a way that draws somone in and then have the oportunity to have a crucial conversation. How do you respond to those on both sides that use sound bites to throw gas on the fire and win by dividng us.
I think you did an excellent job in helping us see where you went off track… and also a heart felt apology.
What I especially liked was how real this was and what a clear example you provided.
I’d have to agree that I don’t tune into this site for a dose of politics… but even so, I feel I learned from your pain.
Thanks
R
You said you didn’t want to dig deeper, then you buried yourself. Cancel me permanently, if this is the level of your understanding of “facts” I don’t need it.
My only Masters level training is in Geology. AGW is a complete hoax by people whose religion is “Mother Earth”.
You must understand if what you say isn’t 100% correct then you are WRONG.
I’ve enjoyed the Crucial Skills Newsletter for many years. However, the tone and content of your comments last week we’re unlike any I had previously seen here. Like others, I wrote a response to you but I didn’t send it because I thought it would be a waste of time. The bottom line is, I come here to learn to be a better communicator. Last week I felt I was given a lecture but this week I learned something.
I have to admit I didn’t react strongly to last week’s newsletter but I was puzzled at what seemed to be a political response to a process question and puzzled as well by anyone could answer the question without causing a huge debate.
I think you have done a extremely good job of responding to the negative feedback and explaining what you meant and what you didn’t mean. I love the site and the concepts and will keep coming back.
I experienced your Climate Summit artile as a straightforward response on how to apply crucial conversation principles to a real situation.
Factual basis of world leader conclusions notwithstanding, the point, to me, was that they came to agreement at all – thereby establishing “the common ground needed to build solutions” – even if others do not concur with their facts/conclusions/assumptions.
Your quote just to the left of the “Start With Facts” paragraph seems apropos, “We can’t let the desire for consensus prevent us from taking action either independently or with small groups”. Having achieved consensus, the Copenhagen group can now move on to the more challenging task of finding mutual purpose. Should they find that one or more of their initial facts/conclusions/assumptions were faulty, their commitment to mutual purpose will more easily facilitate a required course correction as they continue to move along the road to action.
Hi David,
I have to say that I am VERY happy that you all with the Crucial Confrontations/Conversations organization have taken on the subject of Climate Change. Whether or not your readers “believe” in climate change, it is important that the public know how to talk about it in a reasonable, rational way, from whatever viewpoint they may come from.
In addition, many of the skills Crucial Confrontations gives its readers are very applicable to the climate change conversation — such as separating reality from the stories we tell ourselves first and being able to recognize and observe strong emotions for what they are. Let’s get real, people react with such strong emotion to this issue because they are scared — scared of changing lifestyles, scared of what might happen to the human race. So let’s start there first.
If the readers out there are having strong emotional reactions to this subject, then they haven’t read or understood the over 40 years of accumulated science, rational thought, reasoned argument from thousands of professional scientists, journalists, science writers and other very learned people — that yes, in fact, the earth’s climate is changing and it is due to human activity. We, as a global community will have to deal with these facts one way or another, and I applaud Crucial Conversations for helping us begin some rational conversation about it.
If only those who criticized you last week will learn from your humility and promotion of mutual respect you will never make this so-called “mistake” again! Keep up the good work–this week and last!
Bravo – you’ve proven your reliability and sensitivity. I agree that political topics are prime territory for a need to have crucial conversations. As long as it is method and no assumptions of facts or options on either side, this is an important area.
I love it that we got to witness the process as you so clearly modeled what you teach. Thank you so much!