Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High

The chapter begins by introducing Kevin, an “exceedingly influential” individual in a corporation at which the authors conducted research. Kevin was identified by his colleagues and bosses as someone who consistently impressed others with his ability to “really get things done” (18). In an observed meeting, Kevin showed an exceptional ability to remain calm under pressure. When the chief executive officer engaged in hypocritical behavior, most of Kevin’s colleagues were too intimidated to push back. Kevin, however, was able to respectfully bring up the hypocrisy and solve the conflict without any emotional distress to himself or others.

This introduces the concept of the “Pool of Shared Meaning” (21), a space defined by the free flow of relevant information between individuals. People who are skilled at communication not only add their own opinions into the pool—they also make it safe for others to add their meaning, facts, and opinions to the pool, even if their introduced thoughts carry controversy or conflict. The Pool of Shared Meaning (See: Index of Terms) helps people by allowing them to access relevant information. This aids them in making good decisions on an individual level. Additionally, it helps groups make better decisions together.

When “people purposefully withhold meaning from one another” (22), it creates a shallow Pool of Shared Meaning, which leads to bad decisions on individual and collective levels. People withhold information for many reasons, some of which are valid and others less so. Resorting to silence or indirect communication (sarcasm, wordless expressions, hints) withholds information from the larger community. Attacking others and forcing them to accept opinions, discrediting others, and engaging in disingenuous rhetorical “games” constitutes another form of withholding information.

Withholding information is easily combatted, however, through relatively simple dialogue skills. Through years of research, the authors of Crucial Conversations pinpointed the skills necessary for “interactions that yield success and results” (25).

In Chapter 3, “it’s time to turn to the how of dialogue” (27). The first admonition points out that dialogue skills, while learnable, require work. The most important part of that work is to “Start with Heart” (27). This means that understanding personal weaknesses is key to successful communication. The communication styles modeled for people by their parents, teachers, communities, and loved ones may need to be unlearned before honest dialogue can begin. “When faced with a failed conversation, most of us are quick to blame others” (29). However, good communicators understand that only rarely is a conflict entirely one person’s fault. By working on their own approach, good communicators can often nip conflict in the bud, reducing or eliminating the need for argument in the first place.

“Starting with Heart” is the first aspect of self-focused dialogue skills, and the second is avoiding the “Sucker’s Choice” (See: Index of Terms). The Sucker’s Choice is a false either/or scenario that people use to justify their own less-than-ideal behavior. The Sucker’s Choice implies that people in conflict are caught between “two distasteful options” (38); it involves refusing to acknowledge that other options may exist. Using the example of a boss, Greta, who is running a meeting to figure out ways to cut costs, a potential Sucker’s Choice is presented. An employee points out that while Greta is asking others to trim their budgets, she’s having a second office built, using up much of their budget for something that the employees don’t consider necessary. Rather than becoming defensive or capitulating entirely (the two false options presented in a Sucker’s Choice), Greta instead takes the opportunity to look at the cost of the office, and after seeing the numbers commits to either cutting the cost in half or canceling the project completely. The interaction was a success: Everyone felt heard, and Greta’s reputation was bolstered by her honesty. She mastered that crucial conversation by asking herself: “[W]hat do I really want here?” (33). By doing so, she was able to bypass her original impulse to shut the employee down for being disrespectful. She realized that what she really wanted was for her employees to see that she was not a hypocrite and to encourage those same employees to embrace reducing costs. Neither of those goals would be accomplished by scolding the employee or focusing on perceived slights. So, she “moved to dialogue” instead and solved the problem (33).

The desire to “win,” the desire to feel safe or not attacked, and the stress of the body’s fight-or-flight response at the thought of conflict all stand in the way of skillful dialogue. To combat these obstacles and avoid the Sucker’s Choice, “the elusive And” (40) is introduced. The “And” recontextualizes the options people often use to justify unhelpful behaviors. First, someone wishing to engage in dialogue must, like Greta, figure out what they really want. Next, they have to figure out what they don’t want. Then, combine the two with an “and.” For example, one might speak to a partner about their spending habits and avoid an argument. This exercise allows the participant to start to think creatively and take responsibility for their own actions in a conflict.