More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
What does it take to be able to step out of an argument and watch for process—including what you yourself are doing and the impact you’re having? You have to become a vigilant self-monitor. That is, pay close attention to what you’re doing and the impact it’s having, and then alter your strategy if necessary. Specifically, watch to see if you’re having a good or bad impact on safety.
If you spot safety risks as they happen, you can step out of the conversation, build safety, and then find a way to talk about just about anything. In this chapter, we’ll fulfill that promise by teaching what it takes to restore safety.
So here’s the game. The more Jotham insists and pouts, the less attractive and interesting he is to Yvonne. The more Yvonne succumbs and then resents, the less she’s interested in the relationship. The more both of them act out rather than talk out this crucial conversation, the more likely they are to end up going their separate ways.
The key is to step out of the content of the conversation. Don’t stay stuck in what’s being said.
Rather than talking openly about his concern and adding to the Pool of Shared Meaning, he’s taking a potshot. Why would he do that? Because he doesn’t feel safe using dialogue.
If you really want to have a healthy conversation about a topic that will make or break your relationship, then for a moment or two you may have to set aside confronting the current issue—i.e., Jotham’s sarcasm.
The good realize that safety is at risk, but they fix it in exactly the wrong way. They try to make the subject more palatable by sugarcoating their message.
They try to make things safer by watering down or dressing up their content. This strategy, of course, avoids the real problem, and it never gets fixed.
The best don’t play games. Period. They know that in order to solve their problem, they’ll need to talk about their problem—with no pretending, sugarcoating, or faking. So they do something completely different.
They step out of the content of the conversation, make it safe, and then step back in. Once safety is restored, the...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Mutual Purpose—the Entrance Condition Why Talk in the First Place?
In order for this person to be able to deliver the delicate message, you must have believed he or she cared about you or about your goals and objectives. That means you trusted his or her purposes so you were willing to listen to some pretty tough feedback.
Crucial conversations often go awry not because others dislike the content of the conversation, but because they believe the content (even if it’s delivered in a gentle way) suggests that you have a malicious intent.
this is key.
Mutual Purpose means that others perceive that you’re working toward a common outcome in the conversation, that you care about their goals, interests, and values. And vice versa. You believe they care about yours. Consequently, Mutual Purpose is the entry condition of dialogue.
First, when Mutual Purpose is at risk, we end up in debate. When others start forcing their opinions into the pool of meaning, it’s often because they figure that we’re trying to win and they need to do the same. Other signs that purpose is at risk include defensiveness, hidden agendas (the silence form of fouled-up purpose), accusations, and circling back to the same topic.
sounds like areligious debate.
Do others believe I care about their goals in this conversation? • Do they trust my motives?
To succeed in crucial conversations, we must really care about the interests of others—not just our own. The purpose has to be truly mutual.
sounds like you need jesus first.
Mutual Respect—the Continuance Condition Will We Be Able to Remain in Dialogue?
Mutual Respect is the continuance condition of dialogue.
Telltale signs. To spot when respect is violated and safety takes a turn south, watch for signs that people are defending their dignity. Emotions are the key. When people feel disrespected, they become highly charged.
Can You Respect People You Don’t Respect?
In essence, feelings of disrespect often come when we dwell on how others are different from ourselves. We can counteract these feelings by looking for ways we are similar.
the form of a prayer—“Lord, help me forgive those who sin differently than I.”
When we recognize that we all have weaknesses, it’s easier to find a way to respect others. When we do this, we feel a kinship or mutuality between ourselves and even the thorniest of people.
Apologize When Appropriate When you’ve made a mistake that has hurt others (e.g., you didn’t call the team), start with an apology. An apology is a statement that sincerely expresses your sorrow for your role in causing—or at least not preventing—pain or difficulty to others.
Now, an apology isn’t really an apology unless you experience a change in heart. To offer a sincere apology, your motives have to change. You have to give up saving face, being right, or winning in order to focus on what you really want.
But like many sacrifices, when you give up something you value, you’re rewarded with something even more valuable—healthy dialogue and better results.
When others misinterpret either your purpose or your intent, step out of the argument and rebuild safety by using a skill called Contrasting.
[The don’t part] “The last thing I wanted to do was communicate that I don’t value the work you put in or that I didn’t want to share it with the VP. [The do part] I think your work has been nothing short of spectacular.”
Jotham appears to believe that Yvonne’s motive is to reshape him. It’s unsafe. Mutual Purpose is at risk. Rather than responding to his sarcasm, Yvonne should step out of the content and clarify her real motives.
It’s important to understand that Contrasting is not apologizing. It is not a way of taking back something we’ve said that hurt others’ feelings. Rather, it is a way of ensuring that what we said didn’t hurt more than it should have.
When we’re aware that something we’re about to drop into the pool of meaning could create a splash of defensiveness, we use Contrasting to bolster safety—before we see others going to either silence or violence.
The worst at dialogue either ignore the problem and push ahead or roll over and let others have their way. They opt for either competition or submission.
The good at dialogue move immediately toward compromise. For example, the couple facing the transfer sets up two house-holds—one where the transferred spouse will be working and one where the family currently lives.
The best at dialogue use four skills to create a Mutual Purpose. If it helps you remember what to do, note that the four skills used in creating Mutual Purpose form the acronym CRIB.
To be successful, we have to stop using silence or violence to compel others to our view. We must even surrender false dialogue, where we pretend to have Mutual Purpose (calmly arguing our side until the other person gives in).
Simply say, “It seems like we’re both trying to force our view on each other. I commit to stay in this discussion until we have a solution that satisfies both of us.” Then watch whether safety takes a turn for the better.
When we find ourselves at an impasse, it’s because we’re asking for one thing and the other person is asking for something else. We think we’ll never find a way out because we equate what we’re asking for with what we actually want. In truth, what we’re asking for is the strategy we’re suggesting to get what we want. We confuse wants or purpose with strategies. That’s the problem.
Before you can agree on a Mutual Purpose, you must first know what people’s real purposes are. Step out of the content of the conversation—which is generally focused on strategies—and explore the purposes behind them.
By releasing your grip on your strategy and focusing on your real purpose, you’re now open to the idea that you might actually find alternatives that can serve both of your interests
Sometimes when you recognize the purposes behind another person’s strategies, you discover that you actually have compatible goals. From there you simply come up with common strategies.
you find out that your genuine wants and goals cannot be served except at the expense of the other person’s. In this case you cannot discover a Mutual Purpose. That means you’ll have to actively invent one.
israeli palestinian conflict.
To invent a Mutual Purpose, move to more encompassing goals. Find an objective that is more meaningful or more rewarding than the ones that divide the various sides.
Commit to seek Mutual Purpose. Make a unilateral public commitment to stay in the conversation until you come up with something that serves everyone.
Recognize the purpose behind the strategy. Ask people why they want what they’re pushing for. Separate what they’re demanding from the purpose it serves.
Invent a Mutual Purpose. If after clarifying everyone’s purposes you are still at odds, see if you can invent a higher or longer-term purpose that is more motivating than the ones that keep you in conflict.
Brainstorm new strategies. With a clear Mutual Purpose, you can join forces in searching for a solution that serves everyone.
Before a crucial conversation begins, think about which skills will help you most. Remember, when it comes to these high-stakes conversations, a little progress can produce a lot of benefit.
Finally, as is the case with most complicated problems, don’t aim for perfection. Aim for progress.
Claim one. Emotions don’t settle upon you like a fog. They are not foisted upon you by others. No matter how comfortable it might make you feel saying it—others don’t make you mad. You make you mad.
