Family and relationships
Crucial Conversations
Safety first
Crucial Conversations (2002 · Patterson, Grenny, McMillan and Switzler) — Safety first.
What actually happened?
They did not start from a theory. They asked large numbers of people to point at the colleague who was unusually good at exactly this — the one you would want in the room when the subject was money, or blame, or somebody's performance — and then went and watched those people work, for years. What came back was not vocabulary and not tone of voice. Those people were all doing something before the content: watching for the moment the other person left the conversation, and dealing with that first.
Watch the state before the content
Two things need your attention at once: what is being said, and where the other person is. The moment he turns to silence or to attack, stop the content, because nothing said now will be taken in. Repair outranks finishing your point, always.
Sure, whatever you think, is not agreement. Do not ask so are we agreed; ask whether something you said came out too hard.
Start with heart: what do I really want
As feeling rises the goal changes without permission, from solving this to winning, or to not looking foolish. Their method is to ask on the spot what result you actually want and what you want this relationship to be. The question pulls the goal back.
You notice halfway that what matters to you is not letting him think you were wrong. The goal has moved, and admitting it is how the conversation comes back.
Contrasting: say what you are not saying
When your intent has been misread, deny the misreading first and restate the meaning second: I am not saying you cannot do the job, I am saying we both underestimated the schedule. Take the threat down and the content goes in. In the other order it is never heard.
One line before the criticism, saying you are not raising it to pin it on anyone, stops most of the defending before it starts.
The pool of shared meaning
Disagreement is often not two conclusions but two people holding different facts. Put the facts and the reasoning from both sides on the table before discussing conclusions, and a good share of the argument dissolves while you are laying them out.
Two departments fighting over priority each say what data they saw and what they were promised, and often find they were arguing about two different things.
How do I use it today?
When a conversation goes rigid, do not turn up the argument. Work out whether the other person has gone to silence or to attack, stop the content and repair the safety. Before you open your mouth, ask once what result you actually want. And when you are misread, use I am not saying, I am saying.
Deep read
Read alongside
Further
Lines to keep
At the heart of most chronic problems sits a conversation never held.