Crucial Conversations Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High (19 page)

It's one thing to argue that your company needs to shift from green to red packaging; it's quite another to tell a person that he or she is offensive or unlikable. When the topic turns from things to people, it's always more difficult, and to nobody's surprise, some people are better at it than others.

When it comes to sharing touchy information, the
worst
alternate between bluntly dumping their ideas into the pool of meaning and saying nothing at all. Either they start with, “You're not going to like this, but, hey, somebody has to be honest . . .” (a classic Fool's Choice), or they simply stay mum.

Fearful they could easily destroy a healthy relationship, those who are
good
at dialogue say some of what's on their minds, but
they understate their views out of fear of hurting others. They talk all right, but they carefully sugarcoat their message.

The
best
at dialogue speak their minds completely and do it in a way that makes it safe for others to hear what they have to say and respond to it as well. They are both totally frank and completely respectful.

In order to speak honestly when honesty could easily offend others, we have to find a way to maintain safety. That's a bit like telling someone to smash another person in the nose, but, you know, don't hurt him. How can we speak the unspeakable and still maintain respect? Actually, it can be done if you know how to carefully blend three ingredients—confidence, humility, and skill.

Confidence
. Most people simply won't hold delicate conversations—well, at least not with the right person. For instance, your colleague Brian goes home at night and tells his wife that his boss, Fernando, is micromanaging him to within an inch of his life. He says the same thing over lunch when talking with his pals. Everyone knows what Brian thinks about Fernando—except, of course, Fernando.

People who are skilled at dialogue have the confidence to say what needs to be said to the person who needs to hear it. They are confident that their opinions deserve to be placed in the pool of meaning. They are also confident that they can speak openly without brutalizing others or causing undue offense.

Humility
. Confidence does not equate to arrogance or pigheadedness. Skilled people are confident that they have something to say, but also realize that others have valuable input. They are humble enough to realize that they don't have a monopoly on the truth nor do they always have to win their way. Their opinions provide a starting point but not the final word. They may currently
believe something but realize that with new information they may change their minds. This means they're willing to both express their opinions and encourage others to do the same.

Skill
. Finally, people who willingly share delicate information are good at doing it. That's why they're confident in the first place. They don't make a Fool's Choice, because they've found a path that allows for both candor and safety. They speak the unspeakable, and people are grateful for their honesty.

To see how to discuss sensitive issues, let's look at an enormously difficult problem. Bob has just walked in the door, and his wife, Carole, looks upset. He can tell from her swollen eyes that she's been crying. Only when he walks in the door, Carole doesn't turn to him for comfort. Instead, she looks at him with an expression that says, “How could you?” Bob doesn't know it yet, but Carole thinks he's having an affair. He's not.

How did Carole come to this dangerous and wrong conclusion? Earlier that day she had been going over the credit card statement when she noticed a charge from the Good Night Motel—a cheap place located not more than a mile from their home. “Why would he stay in a motel so close to home?” she wonders. “And why didn't I know about it?” Then it hits her—“That unfaithful jerk!”

Now what's the worst way Carole might handle this (one that doesn't involve packing up and moving back to Australia)? What's the worst way of
talking
about the problem? Most people agree that jumping in with an ugly accusation followed by a threat is a good candidate for that distinction. It's also what most people do, and Carole is no exception.

“I can't believe you're doing this to me,” she says in a painful tone.

“Doing what?” Bob asks—not knowing what she's talking about, but figuring that whatever it is, it can't be good.

“You know what I'm talking about,” she says, continuing to keep Bob on edge.

“Do I need to apologize for missing her birthday?” Bob wonders to himself. “No, it's not even summer and her birthday is on . . . well, it's sweltering on her birthday.”

“I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about,” he responds, taken aback.

“You're having an affair, and I have proof right here!” Carole explains holding up a piece of crumpled paper.

“What's on that paper that says I'm having an affair?” he asks, completely befuddled because (1) he's not having an affair, and (2) the paper contains not a single compromising photo.

“It's a motel bill, you jerk. You take some woman to a motel, and you put it on the credit card?! I can't believe you're doing this to me!”

Now if Carole were certain that Bob was having an affair, perhaps this kind of talk would be warranted. It may not be the best way to work through the issue, but Bob would at least understand why Carole made the accusations and hurled threats.

But, in truth, she only has a piece of paper with some numbers on it. This tangible piece of evidence has made her suspicious. How should she talk about this nasty hunch in a way that leads to dialogue?

If Carole's goal is to have a healthy conversation about a tough topic (e.g., I think you're having an affair), her only hope is to stay in dialogue—at least until she confirms or disconfirms her concerns. That holds true for anybody with any crucial conversation
(i.e., It feels like you micromanage me; I fear you're using drugs). That means that despite your worst suspicions, you shouldn't violate respect. In a similar vein, you shouldn't kill safety with threats and accusations.

So what should you do? Start with Heart. Think about what you
really
want and how dialogue can help you get it. And master your story—realize that you may be jumping to a hasty Victim, Villain, or Helpless Story. The best way to find out the true story is not to
act out
the worst story you can generate. That will lead to self-destructive silence and violence games. Think about other possible explanations long enough to temper your emotions so you can get to dialogue. Besides, if it turns out you're right about your initial impression, there will be plenty of time for confrontations later on.

Once you've worked on yourself to create the right conditions for dialogue, you can then draw upon five distinct skills that can help you talk about even the most sensitive topics. These five tools can be easily remembered with the acronym STATE. It stands for:

•
S
hare your facts

•
T
ell your story

•
A
sk for others' paths

•
T
alk tentatively

•
E
ncourage testing

The first three skills describe
what
to do. The last two tell
how
to do it.

In the last chapter we suggested that if you retrace your Path to Action to the source, you eventually arrive at the facts. For
example, Carole found the credit card invoice. That's a fact. She then told a story—Bob's having an affair. Next, she felt betrayed and horrified. Finally, she attacked Bob—“I should never have married you!” The whole interaction was fast, predictable, and very ugly.

What if Carole took a different route—one that started with facts? What if she were able to suspend the ugly story she told herself (by intentionally thinking of alternative plausible stories) and then start her conversation with the facts? Wouldn't that be a safer way to go? “Maybe,” she muses, “there is a good reason behind all of this. Why don't I start with the suspicious bill and then go from there?”

If she started there, she'd be right. The best way to share your view is to follow your Path to Action from beginning to end—the same way you traveled it (
Figure 7-1
). Unfortunately, when we're drunk on adrenaline, our tendency is to do precisely the opposite. Since we're obsessing on our emotions and stories, that's what we start with. Of course, starting with our ugly stories is the most controversial, least influential, and most insulting way we could begin.

Figure 7-1. The Path to Action

To make matters worse, this strategy creates still another self-fulfilling prophecy. We're so anxious to blurt out our unflattering conclusions that we say things in extremely ineffective ways. Then, when we get bad results (and we
are
going to get bad results), we tell ourselves that we just can't share risky views without creating problems. So the next time we've got something sticky to say, we're even more reluctant to say it. We hold it inside where the story builds up steam, and when we do eventually share our horrific story, we do so with a vengeance. The cycle starts all over again.

Facts are the least controversial
. Facts provide a safe beginning. By their very nature, facts aren't controversial. That's why we call them facts. For example, consider the statement: “Yesterday you arrived at work twenty minutes late.” No dispute there. Conclusions, on the other hand, are highly controversial. For example: “You can't be trusted.” That's hardly a fact. Actually, it's more like an insult, and it can certainly be disputed. Eventually we may want to share our conclusions, but we certainly don't want to open up with a controversy.

Facts are the most persuasive
. In addition to being less controversial, facts are also more persuasive than subjective conclusions. Facts form the foundation of belief. So if you want to persuade others, don't start with your stories. Start with your observations. For example, which of the following do you find more persuasive?

“I want you to stop sexually harassing me!”

or

 

“When you talk to me, your eyes move up and down rather than look at my face. And sometimes you put your hand on my shoulder.”

While we're speaking here about being persuasive, let's add that our goal is not to persuade others that we are
right
. We aren't trying to “win” the dialogue. We just want our meaning to be added to the pool to get a fair hearing. We're trying to help others see how a reasonable, rational, and decent person could end up with the story we're carrying. That's all.

When we start with shocking or offensive conclusions (“Quit groping me with your eyes!” or “I think we should declare bankruptcy”), we actually encourage others to tell Villain Stories about us. Since we've given them no facts to support our conclusion, they make up reasons we're saying these things. They're likely to believe we're either stupid or evil.

So if your goal is to help others see how a reasonable, rational, and decent person could think what you're thinking, start with your facts.

And if you aren't sure what your facts are (your story is absolutely filling your brain), take the time to think them through
before
you enter the crucial conversation. Take the time to sort out facts from conclusions. Gathering the facts is the homework required for crucial conversations.

Facts are the least insulting
. If you do want to share your story, don't start with it. Your story (particularly if it has led to a rather ugly conclusion) could easily surprise and insult others. It could kill safety in one rash, ill-conceived sentence.

B
RIAN
: I'd like to talk to you about your leadership style. You micromanage me, and it's starting to drive me nuts.

F
ERNANDO
: What? I ask you if you're going to be done on time and you lay into me with . . .

If you start with your story (and in so doing, kill safety), you may never actually get to the facts.

Begin your path with facts
. In order to talk about your stories, you need to lead the others involved down your Path to Action. Let them experience your path from the beginning to the end, and not from the end to—well, to wherever it takes you. Let others see your experience from your point of view—starting with your facts. This way, when you do talk about what you're starting to conclude, they'll understand why. First the facts, then the story—and then make sure that as you explain your story, you tell it as a possible story, not as concrete fact.

B
RIAN
: Since I started work here, you've asked to meet with me twice a day. That's more than with anyone else. You have also asked me to pass all of my ideas by you before I include them in a project. [
The facts
]