More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
People who are best at dialogue understand this simple fact and turn it into the principle “Work on me first, us second.”
As much as others may need to change, or we may want them to change, the only person we can continually inspire, prod, and shape—with any degree of success—is the person in the mirror.
So here’s the irony. It’s the most talented, not the least talented, who are continually trying to improve their dialogue skills. As is often the case, the rich get richer.
To him who has will be given more. To him who has not even what little he has will be taken. The parable of the talents.
Skilled people Start with Heart. That is, they begin high-risk discussions with the right motives, and they stay focused no matter what happens.
First, they’re steely eyed smart when it comes to knowing what they want. Despite constant invitations to slip away from their goals, they stick with them.
Second, skilled people don’t make Fool’s Choices (either/or choices). Unlike others who justify their unhealthy behavior by explaining that they had no choice but to fight or take flight, the dialogue-smart believe that ...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
When under attack, our heart can take a similarly sudden and unconscious turn. When faced with pressure and strong opinions, we often stop worrying about the goal of adding to the pool of meaning and start looking for ways to win, punish, or keep the peace.
Unfortunately, as we grow older, most of us don’t realize that this desire to win is continually driving us away from healthy dialogue.
First, we correct the facts. We quibble over details and point out flaws in the other person’s arguments.
Punishing. Sometimes, as our anger increases, we move from wanting to win the point to wanting to harm the other person.
“You know what? We need to talk about this. I’m glad you asked the question. Thank you for taking that risk. I appreciate the trust it shows in me.”
“It was easy,” Greta explained. “At first I did feel attacked, and I wanted to strike back. To be honest, I wanted to put that guy in his place. He was accusing me in public, and he was wrong.” “And then it struck me,” she continued. “Despite the fact that I had 400 eyeballs pinned to me, a rather important question hit me like a ton of bricks: ‘What do I really want here?’”
As Greta contemplated this goal, she realized that the biggest barrier she faced was the widespread belief that she was a hypocrite.
Interestingly, by transforming her motives Greta simultaneously transformed the way she saw the man who asked the question.
In fact, this man had just handed her the best chance she could get to influence the audience by letting her publicly address a primary source of resistance to the cost-cutting effort.
In order to move back to motives that allow for dialogue, you must step away from the interaction and look at yourself—much like an outsider. Ask yourself: “What am I doing, and if I had to guess, what does it tell me about my underlying motive?”
What do I really want for myself? What do I really want for others? What do I really want for the relationship? Once you’ve asked yourself what you want, add one more equally telling question: How would I behave if I really wanted these results?
Asking questions about what we really want serves two important purposes. First, it reminds us of our goal. Second, it juices up our brain in a way that helps us keep focused.
That’s why those who are skilled at crucial conversations present their brain with a more complex question. They routinely ask: “What do I want for myself, the other person, and the relationship?”
We adore the ease of simply choosing between attacking or hiding—and the fact that we think it makes us look good.
You’ll find there is a way to share your concerns, listen sincerely to those of others, and build the relationship—all at the same time. And the results can be life changing.
wow that would be great.
“How can I have a candid conversation with my husband about being more dependable and avoid creating bad feelings or wasting our time?”
When things start turning ugly, I watch the content of the conversation (the topic under discussion) along with the conditions (what people are doing in response). I look for and examine both what and why. If you can see why people are becoming upset or holding back their views or even going silent, you can do something to get back on track.”
the longer it takes to notice you’re not in dialogue, the harder it is to get back and the higher the costs.”
So what do you look for when caught in the middle of a crucial conversation? What do you need to see in order to catch problems before they become too severe?
Actually, it helps to watch for three different conditions: the moment a conversation turns crucial, signs that people don’t feel safe (silence or violence), and your own Style Under Stress.
To help catch problems early, reprogram your mind to pay attention to the signs that suggest you’re in a crucial conversation. Some people first notice physical signals—their stomach gets tight or their eyes get dry. Think about what happens to your body when conversations get tough.
Others notice their emotions before they notice signs in their body. They realize they are scared, hurt, or angry and are beginning to react to or suppress these feelings.
If you can catch signs that the conversation is starting to turn crucial—before you get sucked so far into the actual argument that you can never withdraw from the content—then you can start dual-processing immediately.
People who are gifted at dialogue keep a constant vigil on safety.
they watch for signs that people are bec...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
When it’s safe, you can say anything. Here’s why gifted communicators keep a close eye on safety. Dialogue calls for the free flow of meaning—period. And nothing kills the flow of meaning like fear.
We’re suggesting that people rarely become defensive simply because of what you’re saying. They only become defensive when they no longer feel safe. The problem is not the content of your message, but the condition of the conversation.
If you can learn to see when people start to feel unsafe, you can take action to fix it. That means the first challenge is to simply see and understand that safety is at risk.
Why in this instance were you able to absorb potentially threatening feedback so well? If you’re like the rest of us, it’s because you believed that the other person had your best interest in mind. In addition, you respected the other person’s opinion. You felt safe receiving the feedback because you trusted the motives and ability of the other person.
By pulling yourself out of the content of an argument and looking for signs that safety is a risk, you reengage your brain and your full vision returns.
Now, since they’re feeling unsafe, you should be thinking to yourself: “Hey, they’re feeling unsafe. I need to do something—maybe make it safer.” That’s what you should be thinking. Unfortunately, since others feel unsafe, they may be trying to make fun of you, insult you, or bowl you over with their arguments. This kind of aggressive behavior doesn’t exactly bring out the diplomat in you. So instead of taking their attack as a sign that safety is at risk, you take it at its face—as an attack. “I’m under attack!” you think. Then the dumb part of your brain kicks in and you respond in kind.
We’re asking you to undo years of practice, maybe even eons of genetic shaping that prod you to take flight or pick a fight (when under attack), and recode the stimulus. “Ah, that’s a sign that the other person feels unsafe.” And then what? Do something to make it safe.
For now, simply learn to look for safety, and then be curious, not angry or frightened.
As people begin to feel unsafe, they start down one of two unhealthy paths. They move either to silence (withholding meaning from the pool) or to violence (trying to force meaning in the pool).
Silence consists of any act to purposefully withhold information from the pool of meaning.
The three most common forms of silence are masking, avoiding, and withdrawing.
Masking consists of understating or selectively showing our true opinions. Sarcasm, sugarcoating, and couching are some of the more popular forms.
Avoiding involves steering completely away from sensitive subjects. We talk, but without addressing the real issues.
Withdrawing means pulling out of a conversation altogether.
Violence consists of any verbal strategy that attempts to convince, control, or compel others to your point of view. It violates safety by trying to force meaning into the pool. Methods range from name-calling and monologuing to making threats. The three most common forms are controlling, labeling, and attacking.
Controlling consists of coercing others to your way of thinking. It’s done through either forcing your views on others or dominating the conversation.
Labeling is putting a label on people or ideas so we can dismiss them under a general stereotype or category.
Attacking speaks for itself. You’ve moved from winning the argument to making the person suffer. Tactics include belittling and threatening.
Perhaps the most difficult element to watch closely as you’re madly dual-processing is your own behavior.
