You’re in a session doing your utmost to train some people up. You ask a question. A participant responds. He’s somewhat correct, but also somewhat wrong in his response. What would you do?

Would you. . .

A) Affirm the participant for responding, and fill in with the more accurate information.
B) Inform the participant he was inaccurate, and fill in with the more accurate information.
C) Ask another participant to respond.
D) Start answering your own questions to avoid future problems.

If you answered A or B, you’d be grouped in with the majority of the trainers I interact with. They use the “yes-and” approach (say something like, “yeah that’s right,” and proceed to correct the mistake) to address the gap. The problem here is that if you use this approach with a response that is inaccurate rather than incomplete, you send the participant away thinking he or she was correct, and set him or her up to experience difficulties later on during attempts to apply the flawed understanding.

And the correct answer is. . . E) none of the above. Drat that trick question!

During a recent meeting with one of my ultra-favorite, really-smart, rock-star heroes Dr. Ethna Reid (If you’d like to know more about Ethna, her research, and her results, click here), I found myself pondering the following comment: “The fewer errors students are allowed to make, the more discriminating they will be about correct usage.” The more I thought about it, the more it really resonated with me.

In many ways this flies in the face of what seems like the best response in the moment. A participant makes a flawed attempt to use a skill or makes a comment that falls short of the mark. You want to correct the point without making the participant look bad so you jump right in, bridge the inaccuracy with a “yes-and,” and transition to the next idea or concept. Old habits (and the bamboo plant gift in my office) die hard.

Instead of giving way to this urge, prepare your participants to be more effective by 1) pointing out the correct and incorrect portions of their responses, and 2) giving them an opportunity to correct it themselves. Do this and you’re sure to see your participants move beyond a surface understanding of training skills to discriminating usage.

How do you balance discussion (i.e., answering questions, debriefing, taking stories from participants) with staying on track with material—especially if it is a really good discussion?

This is such a good question. I like to do two things. Right up front, when we establish the ground rules for participation in the program, I say that I’m going to assume the role of discussion leader—for the purpose of keeping us on track so that we can get to the practical, skill-building part of the program. I’ll add that there’s often a need for folks to process the content by talking it out. To honor that, we’ve built in several small group discussions where they will have the time and space to do a lot of sharing. We do want to hear from individuals in our large-group discussions too—and that’s where I’ll keep everyone mindful of the time constraints! When we hit a point where the discussion threatens to go on too long, I’ll interrupt, acknowledge the value of what the person’s saying (e.g., “The situation you’re describing is a great example of this principle”), and add, “As the ‘time warden/discussion leader,’ let me suggest that we move on so we can get some practice using our new tools.” (Or something like that.) I find that people really appreciate it when you take a firm stand to manage the time you have together wisely and when you set things up at the beginning so it’s safe to do so.

Is it ever appropriate to move to silence?

The first question to ask yourself is, “Is this conversation crucial?” If the stakes aren’t high (someone was rude, but you’ll never see them again), emotions aren’t strong (sure you disagree, but you’re not upset or that passionate about it), or there are no opposing opinions (it may be a touchy issue, but you’re all in agreement), then silence may be an appropriate course of action. That said, know that your silence communicates something, and by not speaking up, you inherently give other people the power to determine your meaning rather than stating it clearly yourself.

If the conversation is crucial, then what?

If you find that your motive for speaking up is not healthy, your negative emotions are controlling you, you lack respect for someone, and/or you don’t feel safe, it may be appropriate to move to silence—but only temporarily while you take a quick step back. Be careful not to use this “pause” as an excuse to sweep the problem under the rug or venture down a road of paralyzing analysis and unending preparation. Taking an hour or two to collect your thoughts, connecting to a healthy motive, finding a way to respect the other person’s dignity, and/or finding a private space to talk can make a big difference. Your opinion that someone else is an idiot is better left unsaid. Starting a dialogue about working better together with that same person in a private, safe space is essential.

This question was first asked on our LinkedIn Training Community. To Join visit us on LinkedIn.
How can I measure the ROI of a VitalSmarts training?

The challenge with any kind of skills training is that people can learn the skills, but then either fail to use them or use them in areas that don’t produce a return on the organization’s investment. For example, a participant might use the skills to save his/her marriage, jumpstart his/her career, mend a broken relationship at work, or resolve a long-standing customer problem. These are all positive outcomes, but they may or may not produce a return for the organization. This post is designed to show practitioners how to develop measuring and implementation tools that make sure their training results in significant returns.

1. Identify Crucial Moments, Failure Modes, and the Costs of Failing. Conduct an organizational assessment to identify leverage points where improvements lead to bottom-line payoffs. In addition, get a clear picture of what failure looks like in these crucial moments, and what it costs.

Example. We are working with a joint venture between two Fortune 500 firms. Their collaboration has great potential, but they’ve also identified six Crucial Moments when their teams tend to fail. Below are three of these six Crucial Moments.

• Absence of Move to Action (lack of ownership and follow up). This crucial moment happens when one party believes they have a commitment from the other party to take action, but then they don’t see the action being taken. Sometimes there is ambiguity over who owns the task or has responsibility for executing it. Other times there are disagreements about the priority of the task, the timeline for the task, the resources that will be put toward the task, etc. In summary, people are not seeing the cooperation and responsiveness they expected.
• Willingness to Increase Shared Pool of Meaning (Trust and Humility). This crucial moment happens when people begin to suspect they are being given a “sugar-coated” version of the truth. Often they believe others are hiding bad news from them, or that others are overly focused on protecting their reputations.  In summary, people are beginning to question whether they are getting the full truth. They want the good, the bad, and the ugly, and they don’t’ think they are getting it.
• Unwillingness to budge on requirements. This crucial moment happens when the business or the project is unwilling to budge on requirements or timeline when more obstacles or difficulties are encountered than were assumed during initial scope.

In this particular case, the typical Failure Mode is silence followed by violence. People build up grudges for several weeks, often until a key milestone is missed, and then launch a round of blame directed at their business partner.

Measurement. We measure these Crucial Moments along four dimensions: frequency, severity, dialogue, and solvability. We ask participants how often they find themselves in each of these Crucial Moments; how costly the Failure Mode is when it happens; how well participants engage in frank, honest, dialogue during each Crucial Moment; and how quickly and successfully they solve the problem.

Our expectation is that the frequency and severity of the Crucial Moments won’t change. They are a function of working in a tough environment. But we expect dramatic improvements in dialogue and solvability. In other words, problems still happen, but now people solve them quickly and successfully.

2. Train to the Crucial Moments. If you haven’t identified high-leverage Crucial Moments, then participants will select their own targets—based on what they care about most. While their targets may produce excellent returns for the organization, they are usually too varied to accurately measure.

Instead, identify Crucial Moments and then use the applications and contracts in the training to focus on these moments. Make sure participants practice the skills to solve the problems you have identified as highest leverage. Of course, participants will still use the skills to improve their marriages and get their kids to complete their homework, but there will be a much better chance they will also use the skills to create a return for the organization.

Measurement. Build assessment points into the training. We measure participants’ efficacy expectations—their confidence that they can use the skills to solve the problems described in the Crucial Moments. For example, “How confident are you that you can use these skills to solve XXX when it happens?”

3. Employ all Six Sources. Often, training is the final puzzle piece that makes change happen. These are cases where the organization has built alignment around the need for change, and has removed the barriers to change, so that individual skill building is all that’s left to do.

But, other times, training is relied upon as silver-bullet solution to a problem that requires more than individual ability. Make an honest assessment of the non-training barriers that could prevent your training solution from working, then take action to remove these barriers.

Example. We often work with clients who need front-line employees to speak up to their managers, and who need managers to speak up to executives. We use our Influencer approach to help them discover the range of barriers—beyond training—that can prevent the honest dialogue they need. The intervention then addresses all of these barriers, often using the training as the context. For example, we might have the training led by the participants’ manager and focus the applications and contracts on speaking up to him or her.

Measurement. We work with the client to identify potential obstacles in each of the Six Sources of Influence, and then use surveys to track our progress at removing each of these obstacles.

4. Measure Return and Investment. It’s difficult to estimate returns. We focus our measurement on the Crucial Moments, and ask, “If this problem becomes one that is quickly and successfully solved, what would that be worth to your organization?” Often the benefits aren’t purely transactional; they also include benefits to the brand, to reputation, and to opportunity. And this makes them a bit subjective.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Get the best estimate of dollar returns that you can. Involve multiple stakeholders and combine their estimates.
Investments are somewhat easier to measure. We usually include the costs of the training, of the time spent by trainers and participants, and any travel included. When a Six Source approach is used, then we add in the costs of the various non-training solutions.

Like many of you, I spend a majority of my time on the road (hence the title of this column). So it was a new experience to be off the road for a three-week stretch. It also allowed for a new type of teaching experience.

It happened at the conclusion of a lesson I sat through at church. The instructor, Joe, asked me to stay behind after class, and despite the painfully vivid warnings my seventh grade memories generated, I agreed.

When everyone left, Joe confessed, “I studied this thing forever. I must have read it three to four times, and spent about two and half hours prepping for this twenty-minute lesson. Then one tough question, and bam, I’m rambling man Joe. I guess I need to spend more time in prep.”

Now right up front, you need to know that insufficient prep time was not the big problem. Something was happening during his teaching time that is a little more difficult to observe from the instructor’s vantage. Someone would ask a question that couldn’t be answered in the set of points he was supposed to make, he’d open his mouth, and introduce rambling man Joe to the group.

What Joe really needs is better stalling skills. The best teachers, trainers, and facilitators use stalling skills to create a little space so they can process the question before they respond. They don’t feel as though they have to know the answer to every question. But they are skilled at creating a little time to allow themselves to think before they respond.

If this sounds (or feels) familiar to you, here are a couple of my favorite tips:

1. Ask the group what they think. This old standby gives you a chance to think, gets the group involved, and other students often give really good answers.
2. Defer until later. It’s ok to say something like, “That’s interesting. I haven’t thought of that before. Let me think about it and get back to you in the morning.” Or even, “That’s interesting. Could we talk about that during the break?”
3. Ask the person for some clarification. Either ask them to give a little more detail, or even ask them why they are asking the question.

If you create a little space for yourself to think, there is no need for long pauses, slowing the rate of your speech, or jumping in with a half-thought-out response.

If you have additional ideas, let’s continue the conversation below. Hope to see you at REACH!

What if the other person doesn’t change despite my efforts to use the skills?

Great question.  I hear someone ask this almost every time I teach. While it’s true that Crucial Conversations skills don’t fix everything, there are a few things I have found helpful when feeling at a loss on how to improve a relationship with a challenging person:

• Don’t forget motive — The best place to start when the conversation goes badly is with our heart, our motive. What is that you REALLY want? Do you want the other person to “change?” Or do you want to stay in dialogue and build a relationship? If you are hoping, wishing, and praying for the other person to change (believe me, I’ve been there), chances are your behavior might become more forceful, coercive, and maybe even manipulative (I’ve been there too).  When we can focus on good goals (dialogue, results, relationships), we’re more likely to have a more open approach to others, which in turn allows us to get what we really want.
• It takes work — a lot of work. Not too long ago I asked a Crucial Conversations graduate what she had learned from the course and how she’d benefited. Her answer changed my perspective completely. She said, “I had a thirty-year-long relationship that was struggling significantly. I learned the skills and went to work on it. I worked and I worked and I worked . . . and I can honestly say it’s gotten better.” Isn’t that interesting? What she didn’t say was, “The other person is finally fixed,” or, “Everything is perfect now.” She saw progress for what it was—progress. She wasn’t looking for perfection in the other person but for improvement. Often we need to shift our expectations of what “progress” really looks like.
• Make it safe — I’ve come to realize that creating safety can take time . . . a lot of time. Sometimes safety is created quickly in just one conversation and other times it requires more effort over a longer period of time. When we think of safety as more than a few quick-fix tactics and see it as a true principle of creating mutual purpose and mutual respect between two people, we realize how much time (and work) it really requires to establish a safety zone that allows for healthy dialogue. As much as we’d like situations that are causing us pain, grief, and frustration to be resolved overnight, that’s not always the case. These things take time, so remember safety is conversational and relational.
• If all else fails — Sometimes we give a relationship all we’ve got and things still don’t improve. That’s the reality of life. In cases like this we may choose to end the relationship (personal or professional), and move forward with our lives. Sometimes that means moving departments  or not interacting anymore with a friend; either way that decision is personal. I find that if I care about the relationship at all, even if things are not going well, I owe it to myself and the other person to come back tomorrow and give it another shot…hopefully a better shot.

Best of luck,
Justin

I’m writing this article, as I have many times in the past, during my plane ride home (Woo-Hoo!). However, I’m not returning from conducting a training, as is often the case, but rather from a number of certified trainer workshops that were held on the East Coast.

These sessions really reinvigorate me. I see familiar faces of those I’ve certified and worked with in the past. I get to hear about how others are using the materials. I’m exposed to a whole range of best practices (e.g., some people have taken questions submitted to the authors via the newsletter and sent them as part of the invitations to attend training with a teaser like, “Come to training to find out how to best respond to this and other similar questions.”). And I especially enjoy hearing the firsthand accounts of how participants responded to and utilized their newly acquired skills.

This whole last week has got me really excited to see everyone at the REACH Conference this year. I can hardly wait. So help me out. Give me something to tide me over. Please send me some of your recent experiences with the training or cool new ideas you can share with me to help the time go more quickly.

When trying to commit to seek mutual purpose, what if the other person refuses to open up and share his or her meaning to find and/or create a mutual purpose?

It can be difficult when the other person seems to be holding back what it is they really want. There are a couple of things you might keep in mind when dealing with this situation.

Sometimes the refusal to open up is a sign others are not feeling safe. One of the first things you may want to do is ask yourself a couple of “heart questions”: A) Do you really care about what they care about? B) Do you really care about them? If you can’t answer in the affirmative for both, you may merely be going through the motions of seeking mutual purpose having failed to start with heart.

Next, keep in mind that you can only do your best to create conditions that make it safe for them to open up. You cannot force them to open up. You cannot dialogue with someone who doesn’t really want to dialogue, but you can demonstrate your willingness to solve the problem by your commitment. Remember that the first step in finding mutual purpose is to “commit to seek.” By definition, “seeking” doesn’t mean this is going to be easy or quick. Demonstrating with heart and actions that you are willing to commit to the time needed for the search can show your level of commitment to the process.

I would also spend time on step # 2 —recognize the purpose behind the strategy. Make the needed effort here to make it clear to others that you really want to better understand what it is they want and why they want it. This is more than merely asking “What do you want?” Take time to dig a little deeper here so that they feel you really want an understanding of their purpose.

If things still are not moving in a direction you feel is productive—if others seem guarded and not willing to open up—you might ask them about the issue from your perspective. You might say: “I’m not sure that I have a better understanding of what you want and why you want it. I could be wrong, but it seems like you may be holding back. Am I doing something that is making it difficult for you to be open and honest with me? If so I would really like to know.”

Since this is a process of seeking, end well by stating that you are willing to continue this search. If the other person would like to think about this a little more and perhaps get back together at some later time, it would be okay with you. This demonstrates your commitment to finding something that will work for both of you.

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.

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.