Dear Crucial Skills,

In our hospital, we have a person who made a grave mistake during surgery. As the manager’s pet, she was not disciplined or reprimanded, but anyone else would have been fired on the spot. The rest of the staff noticed the special treatment given to this individual and are extremely resentful. How do I, as one of those staff members, interact with the offending person without letting my resentment show?

Resentful Coworker

 

Dear Resentful,

We studied this very problem in our research, Silence Kills, and found that 84 percent of healthcare professionals observe colleagues take dangerous shortcuts when working with patients and yet less than 10 percent speak up about their concerns.

I applaud you for raising your concerns. Nobody wants to work in an atmosphere of resentment that could compromise your paramount concern of patient safety. However, the situation you describe is complicated. There are many parties and probably many perspectives on the same set of facts. Let’s begin by examining your concerns.

1. Ask yourself, “What do I really want?” Think about what you want long-term for yourself, the other person, and for your relationship. This is what I learned from your question:

• You want fairness and justice. You think your peer is “the manager’s pet,” receives “special treatment,” and perhaps should have been disciplined, reprimanded, or even fired.
• You want to make sure your team provides patients with the safest, best care possible.
• You want a positive set of relationships so people don’t feel resentment toward one another.

2. Master your stories. Each of these concerns is based on a set of facts and/or a series of incidents, including the mistake that happened during surgery. But different staff members, and your manager, may interpret these same facts in different ways. All of you are telling yourselves stories about what these facts mean.

Treat your story as a story, not as a fact. Your story should be your best, most honest interpretation of what the facts mean. But also look out for what we call “clever stories”—interpretations that let you off the hook for feeling resentful and letting your feelings show.

Interrogate your story with two questions: a) “Do I really have all the facts I need to be certain my story is true?” and b) “Is there any other story that could fit this same set of facts?” Let’s examine two of the stories you’re telling yourself:

Your story about fairness and justice: What are the facts or incidents that combine to make you tell yourself a story about injustice? How confident are you that your story is true? Here are a few questions to consider:

It sounds as if you are holding your peer accountable for not being disciplined. Shouldn’t that concern be with your manager more than with your peer?

I wonder whether you and your manager are telling yourselves different stories about the “grave mistake.” Your manager may not have witnessed the mistake and that may mean he/she has less information. On the other hand, your manager may have interviewed your colleague as well as others who were there and this information might be both important and confidential.

Your story about patient safety: Any time you have a concern about patient safety you need to deal with it. It’s one of those non-negotiables. However, before you have this crucial conversation, examine your story.

It would be easy to tell yourself the story that your manager is putting friendship above patient safety. That would be a very troubling conclusion. But is it true?

In the old days, errors were often blamed on whoever touched the patient last. Every error was considered “operator error.” Then the pendulum swung toward “system error.” Errors and near misses were seen as caused by faulty processes and procedures rather than individuals. Of course, sensible people demand both capable systems and capable individuals. Neither is sufficient by itself. Do you see how this interplay complicates the stories you and your manager tell about the very same incident?

I don’t have enough information to know whose story is closer to the truth. But I think there is a lot of room for people who value fairness, justice, and patient safety to disagree. Have this conversation with your manager, but don’t assume he or she has bad intentions.

3. Start with the facts, then tentatively share your story. Take the time to prepare for this conversation. Try writing it out as a script and then review it to make sure you:

• Avoid accusations or any “hot” words or phrases.
• Begin with your good intentions—what it is you really want. Explain that this conversation is about patient safety. That is your mutual purpose.
• Start with the facts. These facts include the incidents you are fairly sure you and your manager will agree on. This is your common ground.
• Tentatively tell your story. Draw the pattern these facts are forming for you. But remember, your manager may see the facts—and almost certainly sees the pattern—differently than you do. Be careful to be respectful of your manager’s story.
• Stop so that your manager can share his or her perspective. Understand that some of the facts your manager has are likely to be confidential.

I also encourage you to review our latest study, The Silent Treatment, at www.silenttreatmentstudy.com or register for The Silent Treatment learning series to learn how to solve critical communication breakdowns and avoid dangerous mistakes in the hospital.

David

Dear Crucial Skills,

When one of my managers comes to me with a problem that involves another department, I have taken the stance that he or she should work it out with the other party. If they cannot work it out on their own, I offer to sit down with both of them. However, I know at least one manager who thinks I should intervene on his behalf and probably sees me as passing the buck. Do I need to explain the value of resolving the issue independent of my judgment, or am I passing the buck too soon?

Signed,
Carry Your Own Water

  Dear Carry,

First, let me tell you that, in principle, I think you’re doing exactly what a leader should do. In most organizations, leaders enable their employees’ weakness at holding crucial conversations by allowing them to escalate far too many issues. The measure of a high-accountability organization is NOT—as most leaders think—the quality of downward (boss-to-direct report) conversations that get held, but the quantity of horizontal (peer-to-peer) conversations that get held. Building a culture where people are both willing and able to address crucial issues is the essence of a high performance team.

Now let me play devil’s advocate.

There are times when it is your job to hold a crucial conversation on your employee’s behalf. Here are two I can think of:

When the solution requires resources or authority unavailable to the employee. For example, if a colleague chronically fails to perform and key contributors to the problem are policies, new software, overtime approvals, or other things the employee cannot address, it may be wise for you to at least participate in the conversation—and possibly lead it.

However, I encourage you to use a policy I learned from Tom O’Dea, a colleague at Sprint—he called it Mutually Agreed Escalation—that is, both parties have to discuss the decision to escalate, and cooperate in doing so. This will help you assure the employee has dealt with any elements of the concerns he or she should deal with at his or her own level and only involves you in those issues you should uniquely address.

When it is a “relationship” conversation. In our book, Crucial Confrontations, we describe three levels of conversations you need to have:

• Content: An immediate problem that is generally occurring for the first time.
• Pattern: A problem that is becoming chronic.
• Relationship: A more fundamental challenge dealing with competence, trust, or respect—and generally calling for a change in relationship if a solution cannot be developed.

One of the best practices I’ve seen leaders use is to teach this concept to employees and help them understand that it is their responsibility to deal with content and pattern problems. The first time something happens, they should address it at their level. If—after receiving assurances it will not happen again—it happens again, they should address the pattern. However, if they have candidly addressed the problem at those two levels and do not see appropriate change, then they should escalate the problem. However, in the healthiest of situations, they should also notify the other person(s) when they have the pattern conversation that if the solution does not work, they will need to escalate to find some other answer. That lets the other party understand all of the consequences of noncompliance—hopefully adding motivation to follow through—and avoids the accusation that they are simply pulling a power play when they later escalate the problem to you.

For example, let’s say I have a colleague who is supposed to fill out patient reports before the end of his shift to ensure we have safe handoffs. I notice that on occasion, he fails to do so, so I have a crucial conversation with him. Things are good for a couple of weeks, then it begins again. So I raise the issue of the pattern and check to see if a larger solution is needed. At the end of this conversation I add, “Great, it sounds like we have something that works—but if we can’t reach a solution on our own, I think we should talk about this with our managers. Do you feel the same way? Or is there something else I should do if this doesn’t work?” This statement puts the responsibility where it belongs—on the other person—lets the other person know what can be done at your level before escalating, and helps him or her see your point of view in needing to escalate after this attempt.

Good luck in your wise effort to create a culture of candid and crucial conversations.

Joseph

Dear Crucial Skills,

I have been a certified Crucial Conversations trainer for more than a year. Prior to my certification, I learned the strategies by teaching them to my family. While we aren’t perfect, we have come a long way in improving our communication.

I have a friend who is miserable in her marriage mostly because she and her husband frequently move to silence and violence or toggle between the two during even everyday conversations. It is painful to watch their marriage crumble. I lent them my copy of the Crucial Conversations audio companion, but I’m not sure they bothered to listen to it. I want to offer to mediate an argument so I can show them how to communicate effectively during a crucial conversation. What do you suggest?

Sharing the Love

Dear Sharing,

One of the toughest challenges is knowing how to help someone—especially if they haven’t asked for your help. There are some principles in Crucial Conversations that will help you, and I’ll use a couple in my advice to you.

First, I point to chapter eleven of Crucial Conversations, “Yeah, But . . . Advice for Tough Cases.” Some situations are tougher than others and we discuss seventeen of these situations in this chapter. Here are a few subtitles that might deal with the challenge you face:

• My Overly Sensitive Spouse
• Failure to Live up to Agreements
• Failed Trust
• Won’t Talk About Anything Serious
• Shows No Initiative
• Endless Excuses
• Regretting Saying Something Horrible

One of the findings of our research is that sustaining good results and strong relationships is based on how rapidly and respectfully people can resolve differences. Our work supported the findings of Howard Markman, a friend and one of the best researchers on relationships in the world. In his book, Fighting for Your Marriage, he states that the number-one predictor of lasting, happy relationships is “how people argue.”

You mentioned that you lent them your audio companion, and I think that is a good first step. This conversation might have sounded something like this. “My husband and I have found this CD very useful. It has helped our family communicate more effectively. I was wondering if you’d like to listen to it.”

A little note here. You said that you lent “them” the CD. Were they both present, or did you lend it to your friend and expect her to find a way to invite her husband to listen? If so, that may have been the problem.

You might want to get permission from your friend to see if you could try a more proactive step with both of them. By getting her permission, you would avoid any surprises. As an important side note, a recent study shows that when individuals have problems in their relationships and they go to their “friends,” the vast majority of the “friends” are quick to join in criticizing the spouse or partner rather than encouraging them to save the relationship. It looks like you’ve tried to help, but it’s important to note that your friend’s husband may not see the relationship the same way.

I suggest you use contrasting to clarify what you are not intending and what you are intending. In tough conversations, make sure your intentions or motives are clear before you engage in the conversation. So make sure both of them are in the room and that it is a safe and private environment.

It might sound like this. “I’d like to share some of the skills I train. I don’t want to be pushy or step in where I’m not invited. What I want to do is offer something that is helpful to both of you. I’m wondering if it might help if I share some of the communication skills I train at work and that I’ve found useful in my marriage?” And then you pause.

You might choose different wording, but the point I want to make is that clarifying your intentions first helps make it safe. Your friends might say no. They might say yes. They might question your expertise. They might get mad. But you made it clear that you were trying to be a friend—trying to be helpful and not wanting to meddle if your offer wasn’t accepted.

Even if they refuse your help, speaking up is so much better than saying nothing. I’m sure there are many, many individuals and couples who wish they had a friend like you.

Al

Dear Crucial Skills,

I have a longtime friend who is an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, experiences combat stress, and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He was being treated at a Veterans Affairs hospital and things seemed to be going well. But recently, I’ve seen a change and increased symptoms—angry outbursts, avoidance, etc.—and can even see the strain reflected on his face. I tried to gently tell him I was worried about him and he told me he’s fine and “not going to group hug therapy.” And now that he knows I’m concerned, he is avoiding me.

I know many of the veterans who finally get appropriate help do so under extreme duress. Do you have any suggestions on how to broach this with my friend and let him know he should think about modifying his approach to managing his condition?

Signed,
PTSD & Me

Dear PTSD & Me,

I asked for some extra advice on your question from my father—a WWII and Korean War Veteran with a PhD in counseling who still helps dozens of vets from the past seventy years of conflicts, even at age 84. Yes, I’m proud of him. I want to be sure I don’t speak beyond my competence in your very sensitive situation with one of our beloved servicemen—so I forwarded your question to him.

He suggests your friend’s delay in getting help is quite common. There are a host of “stories” he may be telling himself in order to justify delay—anything from minimizing the symptoms, trusting time will heal all wounds, doubting the efficacy of treatment, or fearing a loss of self-esteem by admitting he has a mental health problem.

The line you walk in this crucial conversation is determining when you are exerting influence and when you are provoking resistance. Push too hard and your friend will resent your intrusion on his autonomy. Say too little and you’re enabling his illness and unwittingly prolonging his suffering. Each of us is likely in a similar situation with one or more loved ones. Here are some thoughts to keep in mind as you find the balance between influence and patience:

Make it about him not you. When someone ignores counsel, it’s easy to take it personally. You can tell you’re taking it personally when you start feeling hurt and angry rather than concerned and fearful. It’s so easy to begin with well-intended motives, but let them drift into a desire to control others—without even being aware of the seismic shift. Keep focused on what you really want, “For my friend to be as happy as he can be on the time schedule of his choosing.”

Make it safe. Make your motives crystal clear—and don’t just create present safety—create it for the likely future conversations you’ll hold. If your friend is resistant to being treated, get ready for the long haul. When you have your crucial conversation with him, anticipate the likely need of periodic conversations until he concludes he is ready to take action. If this were a dear friend of mine, here’s how it might sound. Please adapt to your own level of relationship and verbal style.

“Hey bro—I want to talk to you again about getting checked for PTSD. Would you please tolerate me for the next two minutes so I can make my pitch? If you think I’m full of it at the end, please know that I am okay with that. Even if you disagree with me, I just want to be sure you know that the only reason I’m bringing it up is because I love you. Also, I want to warn you in advance that if I continue to see things that make me think a real friend should speak up, I’ll probably bug you again. Is that cool?”

Your goal here is to clear a path for future conversations while asking permission to have this one. And of course if he says, “Back off!” you are obligated to do so. But even in doing so, I would make the following statement:

“Okay. I’m sorry to come across as crowding you—but I want you to know I am concerned and if you ever change your mind about involving me, I am here. Until you give me that permission, I’ll honor your request to leave it alone.”

Your goal here is to make sure he interprets your silence in the next few weeks not as agreement that there is no issue, but as respect for his autonomy. Of course, you should break this agreement if he begins to do something that puts himself or others in harm’s way.

Share facts not judgments. If he allows you to have this conversation, watch to see if your words sound like judgments or threats, or make him feel guilty. If so, you’ve crossed over to controlling rather than influencing. “You’re blowing it, dude” or “Your family can’t take any more of this” are attempts to coerce him not influence him. If he is defensive at this point, you cannot motivate him. All you can do is help him find his own motivation to get attention. An attempt to rush it will cross the line into provoking resistance rather than exerting influence.

When you hold a crucial conversation with your friend on this topic, come armed with a handful of the most persuasive facts you can find to help your friend self-discover the need to be treated. For example, you could share that:

Psychological injuries are common. A recent study showed more than one in five Iraqi war veterans received psychological injury.
Typical symptoms include . . . The Nebraska Government has a brief self-survey on their Web site—you could pick the two to three symptoms which are most akin to what you see in your friend and use them for reference in your conversation.
Treatment can help. Often people avoid taking action not because they aren’t motivated, but because they doubt the efficacy of solutions. So they try to cope with things as they stand. A brief factoid sharing the percentage of people who see reduced symptoms after a couple of sessions might give him more confidence in trying a new treatment. It could be that his mental image is of laying on a couch for five years regurgitating pain with no real benefit.

Invite dialogue about his views. The only way to help a resistant person find motivation to change is to help him or her discover his or her own reasons. You could open that possibility by ending this little monologue with a statement like, “Are things working out the way you’d like lately? If so, then I’m off base. If not, let’s talk about what’s going on, what you don’t like, and what it might cost you in the future if it continues or escalates. We don’t have to have that conversation now—but I’m here when you want to have it.”

I hope something in what my father and I have said provides a useful direction for you and for him. You have my heartfelt and sincere best wishes for your positive influence on this good man.

Warmly,
Joseph

Dear Joseph,

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I think you were right on target with every single remark you made. I believe I originally read the situation wrong and judged incorrectly, and you gave me a much needed wake-up call!

I have talked this through with my boss and now have a much greater understanding of his vision and strategy for the company. He also understands why I think the way I do, and wants to better explain his decisions to the management team. We agreed that expenditures in excess of a certain amount will be brought before the management team for discussion before a final decision is made.

I believe that while we may have different opinions, it will still help us gain understanding and trust with one another if we can talk through our concerns and offer suggestions. Holding this conversation has strengthened our relationship and improved our ability to manage the company effectively.

I really look forward to the Crucial Skills Newsletter each week. You do an excellent job!

Many thanks,
Following the Money

Editor’s Note: This letter was received in response to a question Joseph Grenny answered in the December 29, 2010 Crucial Skills Newsletter titled, “A Boss On a Spending Spree.” If you would like to share similar feedback about the authors’ advice, please e-mail us at editor@vitalsmarts.com.

Dear Crucial Skills,

I have been with my company for five years and consistently receive “exceeds expectations” ratings on my performance reviews. I recently found out that a newly hired business partner is planning to take over my office. There are a handful of open offices in our area that he could take without interrupting another employee, and this individual will not be in the office on a daily basis. I have worked very hard to get where I am and do not feel it’s right for a new employee to make me move.

I get upset every time I think about this situation because I do not want to get pushed around, but I fear I will become emotional and rude if I speak up. I feel completely insulted that someone would think their title allows them to kick another employee out of their office. Can you give me some advice on how to approach the situation calmly, yet effectively?

Sincerely,
Not looking to move

Dear Not looking,

I can tell you’re frustrated because you feel like your options are limited. You can bite your lip and take it, and then move and lose. Or, you can speak up, blow up, and then move and lose. As I try to explore these and other options, I acknowledge that I don’t know all the facts, so I’m basing my advice on my experience with similar issues.

My approach to addressing this challenge is rooted in a poem that comes from Mathematics Theory. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but the poem has a great point:

“What one does is only one of many things one might have done;
to appreciate the thing selected one must know the things rejected.”

Realizing I could have the facts wrong—and hoping you’ll forgive me if I do—I think there are a couple of good lessons we can learn from exploring your situation from several perspectives.

Action: You don’t speak up. If you’re like most people, you can’t keep your emotions and your words inside. Or, as we say in Crucial Confrontations, “If you don’t talk it out, you’ll act it out.” So you sprinkle a negative comment here or there when talking with your friends and that leaks out as gossip. You find yourself frowning at and avoiding the new business partner. Probable outcome: you move and your reputation is hurt because of the gossip and your bad attitude.

Action: You speak up with emotion. Forget about the namby-pamby courteous stuff. This is about what’s right and what’s just. You storm into your boss’ office and tell him or her all the good reasons you should stay and make the case that the new person should take a different office—all in one breath, no pauses, with fervor. If you take this approach, there are several possible outcomes:

1. Your boss listens and says, “Oh, I thought you knew the new partner has a son with disabilities in the facility across the parking lot. I thought it would be nice if he could see him when his son had recess or outings.” (A challenge that occurred at VitalSmarts a few years ago.) Probable outcome: You move, your reputation is a bit tarnished, and you feel guilty. You have a new problem, this time with your boss.

2. Your boss listens and says, “Are you finished? Look, I didn’t want to do it, but corporate policy requires that a business partner must have a window that is over sixty square feet in size. Yours is the only office that qualifies. What can I tell you? It’s policy.” (By the way, this policy is real in some organizations—you can’t make up stuff like this.) At least now you know what the real problem is and you can tackle the real issue if you choose to do so. Probable outcome: You move, you feel frustrated about red tape and bureaucracy, and your reputation is likely a bit tarnished. When people blow up only a little, other people start looking for this behavior a lot.

3. The boss says, “Whoa, don’t badmouth the new business partner; he doesn’t even know I’m moving him to your office. I made the decision; and it’s final. Now quit your whining.” Probable outcome: You move and it’s pretty clear what your boss thinks and you have another challenge to deal with—relationship and trust issues with your boss.

While some of these outcomes might occur no matter how skilled your approach, I know with 100 percent certainty that you’ll feel better about yourself and you’ll make it safe to have future tough conversations if you start this one in a positive way. This leads me to your third possible action.

Action: You speak up with candor and courtesy. You look at this situation, ask the humanizing question—”Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person do this?”—overcome your fears, practice in private with a friend, then set an appointment with your boss and explain the situation.

It could sound something like this: “Jan, I read your e-mail saying the new business partner is moving into my office and I am moving to office 2C. I’m wondering how that decision was made and if it’s final. I think there are several reasons for me to stay in that office and have the new business partner take a different office. Can we talk?”

Your boss responds: “Oh, I didn’t know it was an issue. If you like, stay where you are.”

For an instant, you hesitate. You have eleven good reasons you should stay put and she’s not asking for them, but you swallow all of them and say thanks. You realize you assumed you knew the reasons for the office change—this caused you to get upset and potentially rude. However, you prepared and practiced, spoke up, and found that there wasn’t really a reason. Probable outcome: you stay in your office and you maintain your reputation.

Of course, there are other variations of these three actions—don’t speak up, speak up with emotion, speak up with candor and courtesy—but this is the point I want to reinforce: when facing a crucial conversation, we have three options:

1. We can avoid the issue, but our feelings generally leak out as gossip and we don’t get the results we want.

2. We can attack and unleash pent-up frustration and demands, but even if we get what we want in the short term, our actions almost always tarnish our reputation.

3. We can address the issue with candor and courtesy and fill the pool of shared meaning with information from all sides of the issue. When we engage in dialogue, we are likely to get the best result—even if it isn’t always the one we wanted—and we are likely to maintain our good reputation and strong relationships.

I hope my advice will help you hold the right conversation to achieve the right result.

Al

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.

Dear Crucial Skills,

My father-in-law is a very powerful person and I don’t feel comfortable speaking honestly about anything with him. If I ask him a question about an issue I want to resolve, he announces his opinion then cuts off any discussion by saying, “Well, that’s how life is sometimes” as he stands up to leave.

I think he is very wise and would like to learn from him, but I can’t get him to engage in any kind of dialogue. As a result, I leave feeling like I don’t exist and that he thinks he knows all. My husband seems to take after him so I feel like I’m in a communication desert all by myself. Do you have any suggestions?

Sincerely,
Craving Communication

  Dear Craving,

I would have given a different answer twenty years ago than I will today. I’m still very much a believer in people’s potential to change. However, some life experiences with a wonderful variety of loved ones have led me to conclude that everyone is a package. Myself included. We all have idiosyncrasies, habits, and proclivities—some of which are the source of our genius and some of which drive everyone around us batty. And sometimes, the genius and the quirkiness flow from the exact same attribute.

I say this as prelude because, while I will advise you to hold a crucial conversation, I will also encourage you to work on yourself first. Clarify your motives before even attempting the conversation. If your motive is to “fix” or “change” your father-in-law, you’re more likely to be disappointed than effective. If instead your goal is to share feedback then accept his freedom to accommodate or ignore it, you will not only come across entirely differently (i.e., not needy or pushy), but you will be more likely to have influence. Ironically, if your motive is to control, you not only fail to gain control, but you lose your influence. If you give up trying to control others, you gain influence in the bargain.

With that said, here is some advice about how to hold the conversation itself.

Hold the right conversation. Often, we fail at the outset because we dive into the wrong topic. For example, we talk about content—what just happened—when we want to talk about a pattern—something that happens regularly. This could happen in your case because you address something your father-in-law just said to you when your real issue is a pattern of these sorts of comments over time. Your goal needs to be to have a pattern conversation. And that calls for a special approach.

Timing is everything. Don’t wait until you’re bugged to talk. That’s what most of us do with our pattern conversations. We wait for yet another instance of someone behaving badly then we pounce on it; not to address what just happened, but to dump our laundry list of grievances from ages past. If you want to talk about a pattern, pick a time that is not clouded with a recent transgression. It not only helps you be in a proper mindset, but it helps avoid giving the other person an opportunity to make excuses about the pattern by pointing to special issues in the present instance. For example, your father-in-law might say, “I had to walk out just now because I have a conference call in half an hour!”

Make it safe. You have all the right information in your question to create safety at the beginning of this conversation. Read it again. You clearly care about your father-in-law. You respect him. You want something from him that he is likely to feel flattered giving, so that’s what you need to make clear as you start.

For example, you might say, “I’d like to talk about some ways I could have a better relationship with you. I value the relationship we have, and I’d like to be even closer and more comfortable. I admire you, sometimes to the point of feeling intimidated around you. I also see you as a great source of wisdom, something I’d like to take advantage of even more than I do now. And yet, there are some things in how we interact that don’t work for me. I’m hoping it is okay to share how I see it and find out how either you, or I, or both of us could communicate better.

Ask permission. One of the best ways to ensure others feel safe is to sincerely ask for permission before launching into the crucial conversation. If your father-in-law might be uncomfortable with this level of communication, it is all the more important to help him feel in control by asking his consent before launching into your concerns. All you need do is add, “Would that be okay?” to the above monologue.

Change media. Judging from your description, it may be that your father-in-law will be too uncomfortable to have this conversation face-to-face. If that is the case, you may want to try mixed media. If you choose to write a letter, I would make the same “make it safe” statement from above then add, “I think the best way to express some of what I wanted to say is in writing—so I’ve written this out. But my hope is that we can discuss it afterward if you’re comfortable doing so. If not, then I understand and will be fine keeping things the way they are now.” You’ll notice that the last phrase tests whether you have surrendered your hope of controlling him or not. Be sure you have or your words will ring hollow.

I hope these ideas help. It sounds like you’ve fallen into the same pattern with your husband, so I hope these suggestions are a step toward creating the relationship you clearly want to have with him as well.

Sincerely,
Joseph

Dear Crucial Skills,
I have some very tough news to deliver and would appreciate your help. My colleagues and I have to tell some good performers in our company that pay increases are only going to a select few of the highest performers. I know they’ll feel the compliment is disingenuous and will wonder why they weren’t one of the few who got the increase. Any advice?

Sincerely,
Can’t Spare a Dime

  Dear Can’t Spare,
Yikes. This is not a fun conversation to have. All of us who have had to disappoint, fire, or critique a dear colleague sympathize with you. When my partners and I looked at the gloomy economic predictions for 2009, we faced some similarly uncomfortable conversations. We did not know what the year would bring, but felt a need to be honest about the prospects while expressing optimism about our incredible team’s capacity to rise to the challenge. We held everyone’s wages flat for the first half of the year while we leaned into the headwinds hoping—and working—for the best.

Your message is even trickier because you have some discretion to offer increases. It’s easier to say, “No one gets a raise” than it is to say, “We’ve singled you out as someone specially qualified to not get a raise!”

Here’s how I would approach that tender message.

Why before what. Don’t share the policy until you’ve outlined the principles. Be sure you, as a management team, have made principle-based decisions; then share the principles. For example, you might say, “One of our principles in determining increases is that we must be market-competitive. Our only hope for getting through tough times is keeping the team together, and the truth is some positions are at greater risk of turnover due to wage discrepancies than others. It would be bad for all of us if we failed to address that and lost precious capacity in those priority areas. This is NOT about who we value more, it is a simple question of externally determined economics.”

Don’t say it if you don’t believe it. As you share the principles behind the policies, be sure you keep your integrity in check by describing only those that have been consistently applied. If, for example, you have cut special deals with certain people that violate principles you are comfortable stating publicly, then do not claim you have been consistent. If you do so, you will certainly be found out and will violate trust in a way you are unlikely to recover from.

Invite feedback without compromising authority. After sharing your principles and your policy, invite feedback. Be clear that the decision is already made and that it could not be made by consensus, but demonstrate your willingness to learn by allowing people to share how they see things similarly or differently. Don’t put yourself in a position of trying to convince anyone you’re right. Rather, begin by saying, “I’d like to just listen to your views. I know I won’t satisfy many of you, so I’m not going to try to make excuses or explain this away. But I care about your opinions and I’d like to hear them if you want to share. Perhaps, at a minimum, they may influence our decisions in the future.”

Acknowledge disagreement. It is likely that, following your candid description of principles, reasonable people will disagree—especially if the principles mean they get the short straw. Few people listen to such a description and conclude, “I see now that I am worth less than others. I am happy that they got the increase.” Your goal is not to garner applause. It is more modest. Your goal is to build trust by sharing your thinking and listening to that of others. After sharing the principles and policy, just listen. Acknowledge views that have merit without suggesting you’re revisiting the decision. Remind them this is a leadership decision and involved tough tradeoffs.

Ask for the long-term view. Conclude the discussion by orienting your employees to the future. Apologize for any hurt or disappointment you’ve caused, but do your best to engage them in contributing in a way that makes the pie bigger for all in the future.

Good luck with this very crucial conversation.

Joseph

How do you handle a crucial conversation/crucial confrontation with somebody who is a really difficult, or even malicious, person?

Great question! We should first define “difficult” and “malicious.” Likely we are talking about some form of silence or violence in either case. Remember that any time you see silence or violence, it indicates a lack of safety.

The fix here is to use a safety tool. If you think the “maliciousness” is due to the other person feeling disrespected, apologize to restore the respect. If you think it stems from the other person believing that you don’t care about him or her, create mutual purpose. If perhaps the other person has misunderstood you, use a contrasting statement.

Perhaps most important is to remember that tough issues don’t necessarily get resolved in one conversation. It may take several interactions to build, or rebuild, trust with the other person.