How do you hold a crucial conversation via e-mail?

A crucial conversation is best handled face-to-face. No exceptions. The best among us use e-mail and voice mail to schedule and follow up on crucial conversations, not to hold them. The reality is, however, that we can’t always have an in person conversation. For example, I once trained a manger based in the United Kingdom who supervised a team based in India. They met together once a year. A face-to-face crucial conversation was typically not possible.

So, three quick thoughts on applying these concepts to e-mail:

1. Make sure you refuse the sucker’s choice. Too often, we resort to e-mail rather than the telephone. We tell ourselves it is because we can’t get in touch with the other person, they don’t respond to our calls, etc. In reality, it may be that we would simply rather hold the conversation on our timeframe (something made possible through e-mail) than on the other person’s timeframe. Check to make sure you aren’t selling out and always choose to have a conversation over the phone rather than over e-mail.
2. Make it safe. This is probably the most crucial thing to do during an e-mail conversation. What most often gets lost in e-mail is our intent. In a face-to-face conversation, people read our intent through our body language, even more than through our spoken words. Nodding, crossed arms, raised eyebrows all communicate intent. Because safety is a function of intent, you absolutely must find a way to clearly communicate your good intentions. Don’t rely on the other person to assume your good intentions and don’t think that adding an emoticon at the end of a paragraph will solve the problem.
   Contrasting is a great way to clarify your intentions. You also want to consider ways to communicate your intentions that are unique to e-mail. For example, one of our trainers in India related the following example to me: A participant in the course recognized that he needed to apologize to a colleague who worked in a city several hundred miles away. He was concerned that if he simply e-mailed an apology the colleague wouldn’t accept it as sincere. He wanted to do something to demonstrate his sincere intention to apologize and take responsibility for his bad actions. So, he e-mailed the colleague to apologize for his bad actions and copied both his boss and his colleague’s boss on the e-mail. By copying their superiors, he was able to not only state his sincerity but to demonstrate it.
3. Don’t be funny. Never use humor over e-mail when having a crucial conversation. It will almost always backfire. Share your facts, tell your story, and ask for the other person’s path.

In the Style Under Stress assessment, question 32: “I find myself in situations where people get their feelings hurt because they thought they would have more of a say in final decisions than they end up having” and question 33: “I get frustrated sometimes at how long it takes some groups to make decisions because too many people are involved” have a “correct” answer of False. I don’t understand why. With both questions, that answer does make sense if you indeed have any power to choose the decision making approach, but in my industry, we are often told how to do things and there is no choice. That being said, people do get their feelings hurt and the wrong people can participate in the decision making process, so it seems as if True would be a valid answer depending upon the situation. What insight can you provide about the rationale for the best response to be False?

This is a great question. I’ll give you my two cents and then we can see what additional responses we get from other trainers on the blog.

First, I don’t usually consider the answers to the Style Under Stress as correct or incorrect. These are simply measures of tendency. With the Crucial Skills scores, the score can point you to an area where you may be weaker, or an area where you may want to pay extra attention. And I would probably steer clear in the training of using the terms right and wrong.

Now, let’s look at each of the questions in turn. Question #32 – anyone in the group can speak up and clarify how the decision is being made, not just the decision-maker. Let’s say there are some people on my team who are frustrated because they think they will have a say in the decision and then don’t. For example, imagine us in a meeting where we are discussing an idea. Justin has lots of great input and is under the impression that we will be making a consensus decision. In the past, he has been frustrated when he thought his ideas were going to be a part of the decision and then weren’t. Now, here is what happens: Steve, another team member, speaks up and says, “Hey Emily, we are happy to give our ideas. And, I’m curious—is this a consult decision or a consensus decision?” At that point, I clarify that it is a consult decision. Now, Justin may be a little frustrated that he doesn’t get to be a part of a consensus decision, but it is not because he thought he would have a say and then didn’t. That was made clear. The key to understanding question 32 is that the problem is not “People are frustrated because they want to be part of a decision that they are not a part of.” The problem is “People are frustrated because they think they are part of the decision-making process when they really aren’t.” This gets to the skill of clarifying up front what type of decision-making process is being used, and anyone in the room can do that.

Question 33 is a little tougher, and I can really see your point here. What we are trying to get at is whether this issue is addressed. When decisions are taking too long because too many people are involved, do I bring it up or suffer in silence? Do I go to the meeting organizer and share my concerns, or just live with my frustration?

I hope some of these thoughts help.

Aren’t Crucial Conversations skills just good negotiation tactics packaged in a slightly different way?

Good question. I think the answer depends on how you are thinking about negotiating. If by negotiating you mean to speak openly and honestly in a way that encourages others to do the same so that you can get all of the meaning into the discussion, then I would agree – we teach skills for negotiating. If however, by negotiating you mean talking to someone to try to get your way, or as much of your way as possible while giving up as little ground as possible, then that is not what we teach.

In “Start With Heart” you learn to recognize what it is you really want for yourself, for the other person, and for the relationship. If your answer to the question “What do I really want?” is to win, to save face, or to keep the peace, then you are going to be negotiating, not dialoguing. If your goal is to learn, produce results, and strengthen relationships, then you are more likely to use the skills to dialogue. I often say that any skill can be used for good or for evil – it is all about your intent.