ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Grenny is the author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

Many of us in our personal or professional lives have avoided crucial conversations, not just over weeks and months, but sometimes over years or even decades. How do we even begin to strategize about conversations that have been on the back burner for this long?

Signed,
Finally Speaking Up

I am inspired to see someone who has disempowered themselves for years finally own their agency. I think all of us are challenged to examine and improve ourselves when we see someone take such an enormous step. I salute you for taking this step yourself.

There are two fundamental principles you must not violate if you decide to finally step up to a crucial conversation after a long period of silence.

First, given that you have enabled the bad behavior of the other person for so long, you owe them some patience as you announce your intention to discontinue your willing submission of unacceptable circumstances.

Now, in saying this, let me be clear that I am absolutely not suggesting you tolerate abuse, malfeasance, or the ill effects of incompetence one second longer than today. I am simply suggesting that your enduring collusion in shaping the other person’s bad behavior places a responsibility on you to be understanding if they take some time to disentangle from this long practice.

For example, let’s say I’ve had a boss who has frequently been dishonest about expectations. He hypes the possibility of future raises, promotions, or opportunities in order to keep me motivated then appears to do little to make them happen. In the end, he’s always got an excuse and another fair promise for the future.

For years, I have simply grumbled under my breath or gossiped to others about his manipulative ways but never taken responsibility to either require other behavior from him or quit the relationship. As a recent Crucial Conversations grad I’ve decided to candidly express my concerns.

What I’m suggesting here is that while the crucial conversation may go well, you’d be foolish to lay down ultimatums expecting that his deeply entrenched behaviors may change instantly. My goal in the conversation should be to a) agree on ground rules—how he will and won’t treat me in the future; and b) agree on how I’ll respond if he transgresses these agreements. It is part “b” that acknowledges that you’re going to give him some time to adapt to the new reality, but also that you’ll hold him accountable. If your goal in the crucial conversation is to get him to stop immediately and never fall back into old ways, you are failing to give him the same allowance you had in bringing about your own change. You took years to adapt. Giving him a few weeks is only fair.

The second principle helps you Make It Safe while also Mastering Your Story in how you feel toward him. This is a principle of ownership. You must own the fact that the bad situation is not just about him, it’s also about you. As you begin the conversation, make it clear that there is a pattern the two of you have been involved in that you are committed to changing. Don’t blame him exclusively—own up to the fact that you’ve enabled it.

For example, you might begin, “I’d like to discuss something I’m embarrassed to admit I’ve been doing for many years. It’s been wrong of me to not speak up about it in the past but I’ve decided to do so now. I’ve blamed you for many years for it going on, and that has been unfair. I’ve been a part of the problem, and I don’t want to do that anymore. May I discuss this with you?”

Whether or not these are the perfect words, what I’m suggesting is that your “story” needs to be one that stops painting you as a victim and him as the villain. You need to take ownership. This will help you approach him as a reasonable, rational and decent person—someone kind of like you. In addition, you’ll Make It Safe for him because you’re approaching him as a normal, fallible human being, rather than as a reprobate villain. You’re approaching him with the utmost confidence that he, like you, can change. That expression of confidence is an enormous show of respect.

Now with all that said, you should expect him to go through a period of defensiveness. The first conversation may be confusing, upsetting, and provocative to him. If this is the case, don’t go in with the goal of solving it in one sitting but rather to open up the issue. Ask if you could just tee it up and then allow him to reflect on it and get together after a few days when he has collected his thoughts. It’s only fair—you had years to get ready to talk, you should allow him some time to adapt to the new reality as well.

With all that said, let me conclude that by no means am I suggesting that if you are being hurt physically or emotionally, or if others are being damaged by the other person’s actions, you should allow this to continue one day longer. In these instances you have an obligation to take a hard stand on what must happen now, while allowing for patience and adjustment in areas where you owe the person the same season for change that life has allowed you.

Thanks for your inspiring question—and best wishes as you change your world—and hopefully, that of others.

Best wishes,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Crucial Conversations

During the month of July, we will run “best of” content from the authors. The following article first appeared on January 11, 2006.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Al Switzler is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of “choking up” during some crucial conversations. This is not a frequent occurrence by any means, but comes on when I least expect it. You can imagine how this adds a whole new dynamic to the discussion. I actually have had to say “excuse me while I collect myself,” take a few minutes and a few deep breaths, then resume. It goes as suddenly as it came, but I feel the damage was done. Can you offer any advice on how to deal with this in the moment and after the fact?

Signed,
Choked Up

Dear Choked,

Your comments and question are effective reminders that life comes at us fast. Crucial conversations fit right in this arena. Crucial conversations are defined as having “high stakes, opposing opinions, and strong emotions”—and often we don’t have time to plan out these kinds of conversations in advance. What I hear in your comments is that you don’t frequently get emotional, and when you do, it’s about something that matters—a lot. All of that is pretty normal. We’ve run into this dynamic very often when coaching others. Let me share a few points about what we’ve learned.

1. People can get better at catching their own emotions early. Everyone has some kind of response when conversations turn crucial. The difference between the good and the best is how quickly they notice the response and use it as an “early warning sign” to switch to using their very best skills. Think about what some of these early indicators are:

• Some people’s faces turn red.
• Some people can feel their pulse—often in their temples.
• Some people’s breathing changes—it speeds up, or lengthens.
• People’s voices can increase or decrease in volume.
• There may be churning in the gut or butterflies in the stomach.

There are any number of other possible reactions—pay close attention and learn to recognize your own early warning signs. What are they? How could you catch them early? The best see these signs as signals and have a little voice that tells them, “Ooh—this conversation just turned crucial; I need to use my best skills.” And they are more likely to do exactly that. The next time you have a situation where you get choked up, review it after the fact and ask, what should I have noticed earlier that would have signaled me to use my best skills? After a few cycles people can make big improvements.

2. Building or rebuilding safety is at the heart of the interaction. I congratulate you on the steps you have taken to restore safety. When a conversation becomes unsafe for you or for the other person, you should rightfully “call a time out.” In Crucial Conversations, we discuss this as “stepping out of the content and rebuilding safety.” The problem is that most of us get hooked into the content. We get so captivated by what is being said that we don’t look at the conditions surrounding the conversation.

Why is this the case? If you are like most people, you have a lot on your plate and are committed to getting things done. You have time pressures and commitments hanging over your head. You might be talking to someone who is verbally slower, or faster, or someone who is more powerful or more determined to argue until they get their way. In such circumstances, content hogs the spotlight. The conditions that make conversations safe can fade from view. When the conditions fail, safety is at risk as people move toward silence or violence.

Catch it early. “I’ve noticed that I’m getting a little emotional here. Could we take five minutes?” Or it might sound something like this: “I’ve noticed that we seem to be debating this issue. I’ve been putting my point forward—perhaps too strongly. I’d like to turn that around and ask more questions so that I can understand your points clearly. Would that be okay?” By fixing the conditions, you increase safety—and the content can flow more freely.

3. It’s never too late to fix relationships that matter. When we lose it during a conversation, it’s never too late to go back and try to fix it. Apologize appropriately and share your intentions. For example, “Last week, when we were talking about budget, I got ‘choked up.’ You didn’t do anything wrong. I’m sorry it happened and I’m working on controlling my emotions. I hope we can continue to have effective conversations in the future. That’s what I’d like.”

In closing, let me repeat that your challenge is one that affects all of us. Learning to control your emotions can lead to significant and lasting improvements.

Best wishes,
Al

Al Switzler Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kerry Patterson is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.
READ MORE

  Dear Crucial Skills,

My brother’s wife died suddenly and unexpectedly almost three years ago, twenty-one days before their thirtieth wedding anniversary. She was only fifty-two years old. Since that time, my brother has withdrawn deeply into himself and lives in the emotional pain of her death and his loss. He goes to work every day, but is a shell of his former self. He saw a grief counselor for several months after her death, but now speaks to no one about his lingering pain. What can I do to broach the subject with him, to let him know that I care for him and love him, and that talking about this matter may help?

Concerned Sibling

I’m so sorry to hear of your family’s loss and of your brother’s continued sorrow. How he must have loved his wife to grieve her passing so passionately. I also understand why you’re concerned about his lingering pain and apparent unwillingness to talk about it. He’s lucky to have such a sensitive and caring sibling.

You’re right to give the topic some thought. Getting others to talk about serious topics—when you’re the one who wants them to open up—always presents a problem. The other person could easily interpret your actions as meddling and become resentful. Or, they might simply feel you’re well intended but wish you’d leave them alone. Either way, the conversation can quickly head south and never recover.

So let’s start with a diagnosis. Why do people choose to clam up when speaking up would solve so many problems? In this case, the undiscussed subject is the loss of a loved one, but it could be about anything.

For instance, after I give a presentation on the topic of Crucial Conversations, people often approach me and ask: “How can I get my life partner to talk to me? I understand how the skills you shared might work once a conversation starts flowing, but my partner never wants to talk about anything.”

Let me address the broader issue of talking face-to-face about meaningful topics in general, and then I’ll return to your specific question.

Here’s my generic diagnosis of why people won’t hold certain conversations. They don’t think it will bring them much benefit. In fact, they fear the costs will exceed the benefits. So, it is better to clam up and live with the current problems than to open up and maybe unlock Pandora’s Box. It’s a simple enough theory. People seek pleasure and avoid pain, and they figure talking will probably bring them pain.

I’m reminded of a civic leader who approached me a couple years back about an upcoming community meeting. He was upset at the previous attendance levels and wanted to know what he could do to get people to show up at the important event. At first, the fellow wanted to use his position of power to threaten folks. Next he wanted to frighten them with horror stories about the impending doom they would surely suffer if they continued to remain apathetic about the meeting.

So I asked him: “Have you thought about the meeting itself?” I had been to a couple and then, like most of my neighbors, stopped going because the meetings were slow-paced, boring, and appeared irrelevant.

“What are you getting at?” the leader asked.

“Perhaps people would be more likely to go if they got more out of the meetings. Maybe if they enjoyed the experience, they’d be willing to give you more of their precious time.”

After a brief discussion, the leader left with a resolve to make the meetings something people wanted to attend.

So now, when people approach me about a spouse or partner who doesn’t like to do much more than grunt and point, I ask: “What, exactly, do you want to talk about?”

“Well, you know, important stuff,” they explain.

“What kind of important stuff?”

“Problems we need to solve.”

After I prod them further, it usually becomes clear that they want to talk to their partner about what he or she is currently doing wrong and why he or she needs to change. As I’d listen to their description of what their partner is doing wrong, I couldn’t blame them for wanting to talk about and resolve the issues. However, I could also understand why the partner was doing everything he or she could to avoid the discussion.

“So, you’ve tried to talk about the issue, but the conversation failed, and now you’re to the point where you don’t talk much at all.”

“That about sums it up.”

After hearing dozens of similar descriptions, I’ve begun to wonder if a less direct approach might be the better solution to getting people to open up. Prior to this insight, my usual suggestions advised people to talk with the silent party about his or her pattern of avoidance—clearly, openly, and directly. I’d suggest starting the conversation by making it safe. I’d have them explain that they’d like to talk about a problem they see—and resolve it in a way that meets both of their needs. I’d warn people about entering the conversation with the assumption that they were right and others were wrong. I’d encourage them to be curious, not judgmental, to describe the issue (facts not conclusions), and to ask the other person if he or she experienced the problem in the same way. I’d then advise people to let the other person talk.

Previously, I believed that if you followed these skills, you would start the conversation on the right foot. While this advice still holds true, I now think that with long-standing silence and a history of broaching a lot of problems, it is best to first set a goal of having enjoyable, non-threatening conversations—about anything—before bringing up headier issues.

Find a way to regularly talk about things the other person cares about. Next, move to serious but non-confrontational topics. Get to the point where you routinely hold pleasant conversations. Once you’re talking regularly, you can broach more testy subjects by following the steps I just suggested. But first, make conversations safe by not restricting every single interaction to a serious problem-solving discussion.

Now, with regards to your grieving brother, obviously you haven’t been continually trying to get him to open up nor are you constantly talking about problems with him. But the idea of making the conversation safe and pleasant for him certainly applies here. Perhaps your brother fears bringing up the issue will only aggravate the problem. And maybe this has been his experience.

So find time to talk with your brother in general (preferably face to face if he lives nearby, but at least by phone). Be his friend and confidant. Increase the time you spend together. Let the transition from pleasant, smalltalk to more serious topics happen naturally. With time, you might want to start talking about your sister-in-law. Share a pleasant memory or two. Read your brother’s cues. Don’t push the topic if he becomes too uncomfortable. Demonstrate that you can share lovely memories without it turning painful.

Eventually you may want to follow the more direct steps I outlined above. But start by simply being there for your brother and modeling a healthy approach to discussing your sister-in-law’s memory. This alone may help him get to the point where he can talk.

Kerry

Kerry Patterson Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Grenny is the author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

When I try to have crucial conversations about issues where there seems to be no middle ground (i.e., abortion, global warming, politics), people often respond with over-the-top, dismissive, and divisive statements. How can I effectively hold crucial conversations about high-stakes topics with those who engage in aggressive ways?

Signed,
Seeking Middle Ground

Several years ago in London, I hailed a taxi for the 45-minute trip from Gatwick airport to my hotel. After I informed the driver of my destination, he turned back and said, “You have an American accent. Are you American?”

“Yes,” I responded.

He then made a pretty bold generalization about the culture I came from.

It was late at night. I was a bit tired. I weighed my willingness to engage in an energetic conversation and as I considered ignoring the comment I thought, “I should be able to do this. I should be able to talk to someone with a strong opinion even if I don’t fully agree.”

As this challenge took shape in my mind, I found myself more interested in a dialogue. I had no intention of trying to change his mind, but I thought, “Here’s a guy who wants to be heard. And if there’s hope for the world it’s only if people like him and me can disagree in a respectful way.” With this moral mission in mind, I responded.

“Not too worried about your tip, I take it?” I said and smiled at his eyes in the mirror.

He broke into a broad grin, then continued, saying that he loved Americans, but again reiterated some strong generalizations.

His voice got louder and his face redder the more he spoke. I began to wonder if I should just nod and smile or if I should really engage. But I returned to my conviction that until we can find peaceful ways of disagreeing we have no hope of creating real peace in the world. At one point in what turned into a five-minute monologue I patted the back of his seat to interrupt him.

“Hey, my friend. May I ask you a question?”

He looked into the rear view mirror and paused. “Sure. This is your taxi at the moment.”

“You know, I am from the U.S. and don’t get as much contact as I’d like with people who have a whole different experience than I do. I am very interested in hearing your views. And I may agree with some of them but disagree with others. Are you interested in mine, too, or should I just hear you out?”

“Oh, no,” he practically crooned. “I want a debate!”

“Okay, then how about this. You take the first five minutes and then I get the next five. At the end, I don’t care if we both agree on everything or not, but I’m guessing we might both be a little smarter. How is that?”

He laughed heartily, turned to face me full on and said, “You are a strange man. But that is a deal.”

I don’t know that my taxi-driver friend ended up seeing the world any differently when we were done with that ride, but I did. Not that my opinions were profoundly altered, but they were tested in a way I was grateful for. Most importantly, I was encouraged to discover that dialogue was possible with someone who held strong views and who seemed initially uninterested in anything but a monologue.

This is what I’ve found to be helpful in such a controversial conversation:

1. Talk about how you’ll talk. If you’re having a one-sided conversation but would like a dialogue, and it’s not going that way, stop the conversation and come to agreement about ground rules. You can do this in a very respectful way by letting the person know you are interested in their views and want to continue the conversation. Then ask for time boundaries, or lower volume, or whatever will help you engage in a healthier way.

2. Check your motives. Be sure your interest in the conversation is sincere. If you just want a chance to demonstrate the perfection of your own opinions, expect the same from the other person. Fair is fair. But if you want dialogue, be sure you are open to new information or perspectives. If you are sincerely interested in getting smarter not just looking smart, you’ll behave in ways that will invite the same from the other person.

3. Encourage disagreement. We’ve learned a startling truth about dialogue. People are okay with you expressing even very strongly held views so long as you are equally genuine in your invitation of their disagreement. Before sharing your opinions, make a statement like, “You know, I’ve got a really strong opinion on this. I’ve thought a great deal about it and read pretty widely, and I’d like to tell you my view. But at the end, if you see holes in it, or if you have new information I don’t have, I desperately hope you’ll challenge me with it. I really want to learn from your view in any way I can.” This sincere invitation takes the fighting wind out of others’ sails. They realize they don’t have to beat you over the head with their opinions because you’re asking for them!

4. Never miss a chance to agree. Finally, don’t go for efficiency. When we agree on 50 percent of a topic and disagree on 50 percent we tend to move quickly to the disagreements because those are what interest us most. And besides, life is short, so why not start with the fight, right? Wrong! If you want worthwhile dialogue, take the time to listen for points on which you agree. Point them out. Confirm them. Put them in the “Pool of Shared Meaning.” Then—and only then—move to the areas of disagreement. When you do this you reaffirm that your goal is not to win, it’s to learn.

I hope these modest ideas are useful to you as you engage with others. I truly believe the future of humanity lies in our capacity to develop mutual purpose and mutual respect across the planet—and that happens one crucial conversation at a time.

Thank you for your interest in advancing public discourse about our most crucial issues.

Warmly,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Al Switzler is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

I am caught in the middle of a situation with two difficult employees. One of the employees with an animated temperament feels like she can’t talk to her overly-sensitive coworker. Every time she brings up crucial issues, her coworker either denies them or cries. The ’sensitive’ coworker rarely comes to me with her issues because she thinks they’re too small and I’m too busy to care.

I try to give each of them the time and attention they need, but after two years of refereeing, I’m exhausted. These employees make a really strong team in terms of their knowledge and skill. How can I help them work through their problems?

How Can I Help

We frequently receive questions from readers who want to help in various circumstances but don’t know how. Often, the readers have tried this and that but nothing has changed and they feel stuck and frustrated. I’d like to offer a few suggestions—starting with some strategies that you’ll want to avoid.

Common Mistakes to Avoid
“Don’t come out of that room until. . .“ Your two employees who have too many conflicts are a little like oil and water. They complain to their colleagues and boss. They say, “I’ve had it up to here,” and the boss uses a strategy akin to: “you two stay in the room until you can work it out and behave like adults.”

This approach doesn’t work because the boss is asking these employees to do more than they are generally capable of. The conversation won’t start with safety. They probably can’t find mutual purpose or mutual respect. And, even if they are motivated to talk, they will probably end the conversation by sharing jabs. Or, equally disastrous, they’ll smile and pretend all is well just so they can leave the room and please the boss.

“Stop doing the bad stuff, and do more of the good stuff.” Often, when a boss becomes aware of conflict between two team members, he puts on a coaching hat. Whether he meets with them individually or together, he gives advice that is general and vague. He makes suggestions that are not behaviorally specific. For example: “You need to be team players.” “You need to be more understanding and accepting.” “You need to be nicer to one another.” In a recent survey we conducted, 87 percent of employees said their boss was unclear about improvements they needed to make to perform better in their jobs. In fact, 37 percent felt their boss had very little idea about what they could do to improve. These numbers clearly show that vagueness only adds to the problem rather than solving the conflict.

Some Advice
The advice I offer here is based on the fact that I’ve seen these common mistakes made all too often. Rather than give ultimatums or vague feedback, use the following crucial conversations skills to reduce conflict.

First, get your motives right. You have to get your emotions and intentions right before you can talk with your employees. The mistake “helpers” often make is that what they think they want is to not hear about the problems or to simply have the employees “straighten up.” Instead, ask yourself the question: “What do I really want—for me, for them, and for our relationship?”

Set ground rules. Before discussing the specific problem, have a discussion about ground rules and how the three of you will know if the conversation is effective. My colleague, Ron McMillan, recently stated a ground rule for measuring the effectiveness of a crucial conversation: “Does the conversation help move us closer to resolving the problem and does it help us strengthen our relationship?”

With these skills in mind, here is what that conversation might look like.

Begin by asking your employees to meet with you. Discuss the process and make sure everyone agrees to have a conversation about the issues in a way that will solve the problem and strengthen relationships. Suggest that your function, as their manager, is to engage in the discussion because the issue is impacting you as well as other members of the team. As a part of this agreement, note that any of you can stop the conversation and point out aspects of the dialogue that are not helping you move closer to the solution or strengthen relationships.

Next, be specific. Use statements of observation or facts. Be specific about expectations and behaviors, not conclusions and emotions. The script we teach is to make a statement about what was expected or agreed upon and what you actually observed. Follow that with a question, such as, “Do you see the situation differently?”

In conclusion, remember that it almost never works to ignore the problem and it seldom works to just let the employees work it out. If they could do that on their own, they would have already done it. So make some agreements up front and have a safe and specific conversation.

Best wishes,
Al

Al Switzler Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ron McMillan is the author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.
READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

I thought I was ready to become a supervisor in my company so I applied and was given the job. However, after two and a half years in my job, I am discovering that I am either not ready, or I feel so unsupported by my supervisor that I am now unwilling to continue in this position. Either way, I want to step down from my position gracefully and return to my old position while maintaining a strong relationship with my supervisor. Do you have any advice?

Stepping Down

Dear Stepping,

The corporate ladder and the designated career paths in most companies are usually well known and everyone understands that success is defined as a vertical climb. Having risen to the rank of supervisor, you have decided to step down from your position. I congratulate you for having the intelligence and good sense to recognize what you really want and the courage to pursue it. Good for you.

Now that you have decided to take that step, you ask how you can do it gracefully. You are wise to think this step through before acting. Because you are moving against the grain, management could easily misunderstand your reasons for stepping down. They might assume you lack loyalty to the company or that you are not grateful for the trust they have shown in you by promoting you. They could question your commitment to doing a good job. Most likely none of these stories are based on your performance; rather they are formed by the surprise of you going against expectations.

The conversation you have with your immediate supervisor and any other relevant managers is a crucial one. There’s a skill I recommend you use that clarifies your motives and thinking while reducing defensiveness in others. It’s simply called Share your Good Intentions.

To use this skill, state your decision to step down, your reasons, and your intention going forward. You might say to your immediate boss, “I’ve decided not to continue in my position as a supervisor. I’ve worked very hard over the last two and a half years to do a good job, and I realize that I like being a producer, not a supervisor. I am committed to the success of the company and our team, and I want to add value. Going forward I believe I would do that best as a producer.”

This skill makes it clear that even though you don’t want to continue as a supervisor you have good will toward the company and the team and you will work to contribute in your new position. This helps to dispel any false stories or assumptions managers might otherwise be tempted to conclude.

Next, depending on your boss’s questions, you may need to explain your reasons in greater detail and help to plan the transition. Be sure to not leave your boss or your company in the lurch. Be flexible and willing to help in the change.

When you are open and clear about your decision and express your good intentions, others are less likely to misunderstand and your transition is likely to be both efficient and graceful.

All the best,
Ron

Ron McMillan Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David Maxfield is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Influencer: The Power to Change Anything.

READ MORE

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

David Maxfield Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David Maxfield is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Influencer: The Power to Change Anything.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,
I followed the climate change summit in Copenhagen last December and found it very frustrating to watch world leaders unable to agree on actions they must take to protect the ecological health of our planet. The meetings quickly disintegrated into a discussion about the individual wealth of their own nations.

What crucial conversation would help leaders agree to a plan to preserve the planet’s health—even though this will be at some economic expense to all?

Frustrated with World Leaders

Dear Frustrated,

This is a great and timely question. Resolving climate change will require leaders to address some very sensitive conversations. And as citizens, we can help. When we take an interest and speak up, it encourages our leaders to speak up as well.

Crucial conversations require dialogue. Climate change has been mired in silence and violence for many years. The good news about the Climate Summit in Copenhagen was that more than 130 world leaders came together. Heads of state from five opinion-leader nations (U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa) met for seven hours and negotiated an agreement that forms a framework for a 2010 world summit in Mexico City. The decision-makers are at the table, and dialogue has begun.

It helps to Start with Facts. Another major advance world leaders made at Copenhagen was to agree on a set of facts related to climate change. These facts establish the common ground needed to build solutions. A few of the most significant of these facts are:

• Increases in global temperatures must be limited to 2 degrees Celsius.
• Some countries will be especially hurt by climate change and other countries must support them.
• Deep cuts in global emissions of CO2 will be required.
• Developed countries and developing countries will need to follow different paths.

World leaders must now find Mutual Purpose. This gets to the heart of your question. Nations and their leaders look to their national interests, which are often in conflict—at least in the short term. Climate change is a global issue that requires a broader, more long-term view. Remember the question we ask in Crucial Conversations: “What do you really want—for yourself, for others, and for the relationship?” This is the question leaders must ask.

Here are a few crucial conversations where national interests may be in conflict—and mutual purpose must be found. Our leaders would do well to bring these crucial issues to the table:

1. Developed countries, especially the U.S., use the most carbon per person. Developed countries benefit if carbon is capped at the national level, not the per person level. Developing countries, like India and China, use far less carbon per person, but they will soon use the most at the national level. They benefit if carbon is capped at the per person level.

2. Developed countries have proposed a cap-and-trade strategy. This strategy benefits developed countries because it favors rich over poor. Developing countries are hurt by this approach.

3. Developed countries have an obligation to resettle refugees. Island and low-lying countries—places like Bangladesh and Vietnam—will lose large portions of their land mass, producing tens of millions of climate refugees. What obligation do developed countries have to resettle these refugees?

4. Developed countries have benefited the most from carbon use over the last 100 years—and have been responsible for the greatest amount of carbon-related damage. Does this mean they should be held accountable for the damage already caused and pick up a greater share of the repair and resettlement bill?

Soon we must Move to Action. Have you ever been part of a team that got bogged down because the facts were never complete and the options never ideal? When it comes to climate change, we will never have all the facts or a painless solution. But we will have to act anyway. We can’t afford to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

In Crucial Conversations, we recommend to decide how you will decide. Some climate change decisions may involve consensus targets, but most are likely to be consultative or independent. We can’t let the desire for consensus prevent us from taking action either independently or with small groups of other opinion-leader nations.

Finally, when a problem is profound, persistent, and resistant, its solution will require more than a crucial conversation. It will require a full-fledged Influencer strategy. Next week, I will apply our Influencer model to your question.

Best,
David

David Maxfield Crucial Conversations

In most organizations, the result of the recent recession is an environment brewing with the right mix of stress and concern to breed an unprecedented amount of conflict. Employees lucky enough to keep their jobs are burned out and overworked. Leaders reeling from blows to their bottom line are doing their best just to stay afloat. Everyone is on edge.

Unfortunately, while the conditions are perfectly suited to breed conflict, human beings are perfectly incapable to deal with it.

According to our recent study, 95 percent of a company’s workforce struggles to confront their colleagues and managers about their concerns and frustrations. As a result, they engage in resource-sapping avoidance tactics including ruminating excessively about crucial issues, complaining to others, getting angry, doing extra or unnecessary work, and avoiding the other person altogether.

But while unresolved conflict is never a positive thing, our research revealed the ramifications of conflict go far beyond inconvenient. In fact, avoiding conflict is extremely costly.

We found that employees waste an average of $1,500 and an 8-hour workday for every crucial confrontation they avoid. In extreme cases of avoidance, an organization’s bottom line can be hit especially hard. In addition, a shocking 8 percent of employees estimate their inability to deal with conflict costs their organization more than $10,000. And one in 20 estimates that over the course of a drawn-out silent conflict, they waste time ruminating about the problem for more than 6 months.

The research confirms that those who know how to speak up and hold crucial confrontations waste significantly less time complaining, feeling sorry for themselves, avoiding problems and getting angry. As a result, these people are significantly more productive and influential.

The good news is that speaking up and resolving conflicts is a skill set anyone can learn and master. Here are four tips for confronting your colleagues in a timely and effective manner:

• Confront the right problem. The biggest mistake people make is to confront the most painful or immediate issue and not the one that gets them the results they really need. Before speaking up, stop and ask yourself, “What do I really want here? What problem do I want to resolve?”
• Rein-in emotions. We often tell ourselves a story about others’ real intent. These stories determine our emotional response. Master communicators manage their emotions by examining, questioning and rewriting their story before speaking.
• Master the first 30 seconds. Most people do everything wrong in the first “hazardous half-minute”—like diving into the content and attacking the other person. Instead, show you care about the other person and his or her interests to disarm defensiveness and open up dialogue.
• Reveal natural consequences. The best way to get someone’s attention is to change their perspective. In a safe and non-threatening manner, give them a complete view of the consequences their behavior is creating.

Joseph Grenny Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kerry Patterson is the author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.
READ MORE

Listen to Kerrying On via MP3
Listen to Kerrying On via iTunes

The following article first appeared on August 23, 2006.

When I’ve finished conducting a training session, it’s common for people to approach me with a series of questions about the training’s underlying philosophy. At the top of the list is: “What philosopher influenced you the most?” Sometimes people will insert a guru of their choice. “Was it Kant?” “Did you draw heavily from Rousseau?” “Were you thinking of Socrates when you . . .”

While I have a working knowledge of the icons people mention, I’d have to say that none played a very big role in my work. First, I can’t remember what most of them said, and second, none will ever displace an incident that set me on a philosophical course I continue to follow to this day. Like a lot of useful philosophy lessons, it all started with a Roy Rogers double feature.

In 1954, if you happened to be eight years old, and I did, Roy Rogers sat smack dab in the center of your universe. He was this marvelous cowboy/actor who was always chasing down the bad guys and saving the schoolmarm in the most remarkable and innovative ways. So when the newspaper announced there would be a Roy Rogers double feature showing on Saturday, I anxiously waited for the big event.

At that stage in my life, each day as I’d come home from school, I’d stop off at my Granddad’s place where I’d talk with him about Trigger, Bullet, Nelly Bell, and all of the other members of Roy Rogers’ entourage. Granddad had never seen the singing cowboy in action, but he always showed great interest in whatever caught my attention. He would patiently listen to me as I retold each tale of derring-do.

In truth, while it was Roy who had captured my eight-year-old interest, it was really Granddad who had captured my heart. At five foot four with a fireplug shape, a cigar stub in the corner of his mouth, and an amazing wit, he cut a large swath in my world. He owned and operated the local grocery store and, as far as my friends and I were concerned, that made him a celebrity. In fact, since he was the guy who stood behind the candy counter, it made him a childhood god.

Like all septuagenarians at the time, whenever Granddad visited downtown he wore a wool suit and a gray fedora. Since it was now the 1950s, the felt hat put him in a distinct minority. Most men had dropped any form of head gear at the same time women had stopped wearing gloves (in the late 40s), but Grandfather wouldn’t think of going outside without being covered. To him, you weren’t fit for public appearance if you weren’t in a suit and the suit had to have a matching hat. In Granddad’s case, it was the gray fedora.

The day of the double feature finally arrived and I stopped by Granddad’s store to let him know I’d be catching the bus that stopped in front of his establishment in order to go downtown and see Roy in action. He smiled broadly and explained that he too would be heading into the city to stock up on supplies. Maybe we’d run into each other. With the prospect of bumping into my Grandfather in mind, I headed downtown.

Later that day I merrily walked from the movie theater to the bus stop a few blocks away. While sucking on a Tootsie Pop and still musing about Roy’s latest conquest, I was confronted by an image that stopped me in my tracks. The Tootsie Pop actually fell from my mouth as I stood agape. There, at the end of the block no more that twenty yards away, lay Grandfather on the sidewalk. He appeared to be dead. His body lay askew while a withered hand clutched something bottle-shaped in a brown paper bag. What had happened? Did Granddad have a heart attack on the way to the wholesale house?

As I drew closer my fear turned to confusion and then despair. Why was nobody helping him? It was a busy Saturday afternoon and lots of people were walking right past him without even glancing. One person even stepped over him and sneered. Had the world gone mad? Were there no real heroes in Bellingham? Roy Rogers routinely shot it out with bad guys in order to right a wrong; couldn’t somebody stop and check Granddad? How hard could that be?

When I finally fell to my knees next to Granddad and moved the gray fedora that was covering his face, I discovered that it wasn’t him after all. It was a stranger—an old man who hadn’t shaved in days, smelled of wine, and who wasn’t dead, but instead was dead drunk.

Quickly I leaped to my feet. And then a warm wave of relief swept over me. It wasn’t Granddad and he wasn’t dead! It wasn’t Granddad! I stood there and cried tears of sheer joy until a kindly lady stopped and asked if I was lost. I mumbled that I was okay as I scuffled off to catch the bus.

As I rode the bus home I realized that I had equated a gray fedora with Grandfather, so when I saw a man wearing Granddad’s hat of choice, I made a logical leap that had caused me a great deal of grief. I wouldn’t make that mistake again. And then my emotions darted in another direction as my wide-eyed innocence took over. The better me couldn’t be so readily consoled. Yes, this stranger wasn’t my Grandfather, but surely he was somebody’s Grandfather. Where were his grandkids? And the strangers who passed by—why hadn’t they done anything? I sobbed for the stranger all the way home.

When I finally arrived home, I burst through the front door and told my mom how I thought Granddad was dead and how it had turned out to be somebody else. She smiled knowingly and explained that the poor fellow I had stumbled upon was known as a “wino” who was probably sleeping it off.

“But where were his grandkids?” I asked. Where was the little boy who would fall to his knees and help him home? Mom didn’t have an answer.

I was forever changed that day. First, I opened the door into the harsh part of life that my parents had protected me from. Some people become indigents who die on the street. Worse still, we don’t always know what to do about it. But the second lesson I learned was far more important and returns me to the question of the philosophy underlying our training. It’s the philosophy of the fedora. I learned that if I put Granddad’s fedora on a stranger—instantly transforming him or her into a person I loved dearly—the stranger became someone worthy of my care and attention. Putting a face on the faceless masses, assigning a name to a crime or war victim, thinking of the people who cause you grief—thinking of them as real people with children of their own—well, this humanizing act has a dramatic impact on how you first think about and then treat them.

For example, if I put the fedora on the elderly man driving the car in front of me at fifteen miles an hour in a thirty-five-mile-an-hour zone, my impatience and disgust transform into sympathy.

If a person at work lets me down and I can’t believe how uncaring he or she is, I place him or her under the fedora and I won’t be so quick to pass judgment and become angry. “Maybe,” I think, “he or she had a good reason for missing the deadline. Go find out.” Instantly I transform into a far better problem-solver than when I don’t assume the best of others but instead angrily wade into the discussion with hostile, and often groundless, accusations.

So, if you want to know what philosophy most influenced my training theories, remember the power of the fedora. Take it in your hands, turn it over and peer into its crown. There, somewhere between the manufacturer’s label and the hat size, you’ll find one of the most useful philosophies ever discovered by an eight-year-old.

Kerry Patterson Crucial Conversations, Kerrying On