Doing the Right Thing for the Right Reason, as I wrote in a recent article, requires having a set of clear Core Operating Principles. In addition, to use that framework with others, requires we have an effective dialogue so that we can reach consensus about what are the Right Things and Right Reasons in any given situation. Failure to do so leaves us in the state of hyper-polarity we so often find ourselves in today.
With so many of us having such diametrically opposed opinions, we’ve become hesitant to have any real meaningful conversation for fear of arousing anger and resentment in others. But with the stakes so high in so many areas of our personal and public lives, do we really have any choice but to engage others in meaningful discussion?
That conclusion lead me recently to pick up a book that’s been on my shelf for a long time – Crucial Conversations, Tools for Talking When Stakes are High.
Written in 2002, the book presents an excellent model of how we can have effective dialogue on important and challenging topics – at home, work, and in social situations. Importantly. it does so in in a way that aligns with many of my own core operating principles – taking a System Thinking approach to situations, striving for Unity Consciousness by placing ourselves in the shoes of the other person, Shrinking the Ego, Aiming for the Highest Intention possible in every situation, and always working towards Truth and Transparency.
The late Stephen Covey wrote the foreword to the book and his definition of what is a Crucial Conversation and his aspiration for what could be achieved by the book is a breath of fresh air:
The challenge has noticeably changed for our lives, our families, and our organizations. Just as the world is changing at frightening speed and has come increasingly and profoundly interdependent with marvelous and dangerous technologies, so too, have the stresses and pressures we all experience exponentially increased. This charged atmosphere makes it all the more imperative that we nourish our relationships and develop tools, skills, and enhanced capacity to find new and better solutions to our problems. These new and better solutions will not represent ‘my way’ or ‘your way’ – they will represent ‘our way’. In short, the solutions must be synergistic, meaning that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Such synergy may manifest itself in a better decision, a better relationship, a better decision-making process, increased commitment to implement decisions made, or a combination of two or more of these. What you learn is that ‘crucial conversations’ transform people and relationships. They are anything but transacted; they create an entirely new level of bonding. They produce what Buddhism calls ‘the middle way’ – not a compromise between two opposites on a straight-line continuum, but a higher middle way, like the apex of a triangle. Because two or more people have created something new from genuine dialogue, bonding takes place.
The authors of Crucial Conversations have created a wonderful framework and set of tools for us to allow this “meeting of the minds” to take place in a more intentional way. With these tools one is able to guide the tone and content of dialogue to the “apex of the triangle” as Stephen Covey described above. Here is a diagram that summarizes the overall approach:
If we start by looking at the outer ring of the circle, we see that the model aims to help us avoid the two extreme reactions of any conversation – either someone has gone into a “violent” mode, where controlling, labeling, and attacking define the tone of the conversation. While at the other extreme, someone can move into a “silent” mode, where withdrawing, avoiding, and masking (their true feelings or opinions) define what transpires in the dialogue. By avoiding these extremes we are more likely to reach our goal which is in the center of the circle – a pool of Shared Meaning. To enable both parties to achieve this conversational nirvana, we learn to See & Hear what each other is saying better, provide insight into why we feel a certain way about a topic by telling a story of how we got there, feel how our information is being received by the other party, and finally act upon that feedback with follow up actions.
Making it safe for people to have difficult conversations is the key to effective dialogue. By making it safe, we are more likely not to veer off into silence or violence and all of the relevant information that needs to come out can make its way into the Pool of Shared Meaning:
When two or more us enter crucial conversations, by definition, we don’t share the same pool. Our opinions differ. I believe one thing, you another. I have one history, you another. People who are skilled at dialogue do their best to make it safe for everyone to add their meaning to the shared pool – even ideas that at first glance appear controversial, wrong, or at odds with their own beliefs. Now, obviously they don’t agree with every idea; they simply do their best to ensure that all ideas find their way into the open. As the Pool of Shared Meaning Grows, it helps people in two ways. First, as individuals are exposed to more accurate and relevant information, they make better choices. In a very real sense, the Pool of Shared Meaning is a measure of a group’s IQ. The larger the shared pool, the smarter the decisions. And even though many people may be involved in a a choice, when openly and freely share their ideas, the increased time investment is more than offset by the quality of the decision. On the other hand, we’ve all seen what happens when the shared pool is dangerously shallow. When people purposefully withhold meaning from one another, individually smart people can do collectively stupid things.
So how do we swim to the promised land of Shared Meaning? I won’t try to summarize the entire book in this relatively short article, but here is an abbreviated top level view to give you a taste of how it’s done.
First, we need to agree with the other person to establish a Mutual Purpose. The authors label this sequence of steps with the acronym CRIB:
- Commit to seek mutual purpose (just agreeing to an intended outcome is half the battle).
- Recognize the real purpose (sometimes it takes a while to understand the real issue…).
- Invent a mutual purpose (sometimes it’s not clear there is a mutual purpose, so invent one that everyone can agree on).
- Brainstorm new strategies to address the situation (sometimes additional work may be necessary to arrive at a mutual purpose).
After you establish your mutual purpose, you can get into the heart of the dialogue by Stating Your Path:
- Share your facts. Start with the least controversial, most persuasive elements from your Path to Action.
- Tell your story. Explain what you’re beginning to conclude.
- Ask for other’s paths. Encourage others share both their facts and their stories (the background on how they have arrived at their current conclusions).
- Talk Tentatively. State your story as a story – don’t disguise it is a fact (this is what you currently believe – but you are open to learning more).
- Encourage Testing. Make it safe for others to express differing or even opposing opinions.
Now, as you engage into deep discussion, you will need to stay vigilant to ensure safety is being maintained:
Whenever you notice safety is at risk, you should step out of the conversation and restore it. When you have offended others through a thoughtless act, apologize. Or if someone has misunderstood your intent, use contrasting. Explain what you do and don’t intend. Finally, if you’re simply at odds, find a mutual purpose.
To get other’s to share their path is not always easy. Some people don’t open that easily or perhaps have some other issues that are clouding their mind at that moment. Crucial Conversations provides a protocol of steps called AMPP to help:
Ask to get things rolling.
- “What’s going on?”
- “I’d really like to hear your opinion on this.”
- “Please let me know if you see it differently.”
Mirror to confirm feelings.
We create safety when our tone of voice says we’re ok with them feeling the way they’re feeling. If we do this well, they may conclude that rather than acting out their emotions, they can confidently talk them out with us instead.
- “You say you’re ok, but by the tone of your voice, you seem upset.”
- “You seem angry at me.”
- “You look nervous about confronting him. Are you sure you’re willing to do it.”
Paraphrase to Acknowledge the Story
- Simply rephrase in your own words what the person has said and do it in a way that suggests that it’s ok, you’re trying to understand, and it’s safe for him or her to talk candidly.
Prime when you’re getting nowhere
- Sometimes you have to offer your best guess at what the other person is thinking or feeling. You have to put some meaning into the pool before the other person will do the same.
Ultimately, we need to consolidate our mutual understanding to create our Pool of Shared Meaning. Use the ABC protocol as follows:
- Agree when you do to build a shared base.
- Build. If others leave something out, agree where you do, then build. “Absolutely. In addition, I noticed that…”
- Compare. When you differ significantly, don’t suggest others are wrong. Compare your two views. “I think I see things differently. Let me describe how.”
Ultimately, having a successful Crucial Conversation comes down to some basics:
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. The key to sharing sensitive ideas is to blend confidence and humility. We express our confidence by sharing our facts and stories clearly. We demonstrate our humility by then asking others to share their views.
Conclusion
Crucial Conversations is a classic and indispensable book. Much like The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People, it is one of those books that should be required reading for all of us humans experiencing the material world together on this beautiful planet. It educates us in a crucial skill necessary for us to live here in the most harmonious and productive way possible.
_________________________________________________________________________
Advanced Technique for Group Consensus Decision Making
For Advanced students of Consciousness and Spirituality, here is a process for group decision making called Attunement which was pioneered by the Quakers. This passage comes from the wonderful book – Spiritual Politics – Changing the World from the Inside Out, by Corrine McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson. Both authors have been trailblazers in working and living within alternative communities (Findhorn, Sirius) and have used this process in those groups.
A number of transformational groups use a process called ‘attunement’ to make decisions based on the inner spiritual guidance of everyone present. All participants are recognized as having the potential ability to reach a decision that is for the highest good of all concerned. The assumption is that there is a right decision that will work for everyone, and the task of the group is to discover it. Everyone in turn is asked to offer their unique perspectives and contributions to the governance of the whole.
This approach was first pioneered by the Quakers over two hundred years ago and is actively used today by many new transformational groups. At both Findhorn Foundation in Scotland and at our community, Sirius, in Massachusetts, we personally experienced how effective this attainment process can be, and we’ve used it for over fifteen years. Group members first discuss the facts about the relevant issue under discussion, then honestly express their own feelings about it. This is essentially like putting all the cards on the table, and it lays the groundwork for the next step. Participants then work on releasing their personal opinions and go into a quiet reflection or meditation to ask for guidance from their own inner source of highest wisdom, the Soul. For some, this source might be called the God within. For others it might be called the Universal Mind. For still others it is simply the Greatest Good.
Afterward everyone takes turns sharing what they experience in the time of silence – words, feelings images. Generally a clear consensus emerges from this – all the different views begin to fit together like pieces of a puzzle, forming a whole picture that comes clear to everyone. Guidance from a higher levels always reflects ‘Divine Economy’. It will serve the needs of the individual and the group at the same time and may also stretch people into new areas of growth.
If no clear consensus develops, members may feel that it isn’t the right time to make the decision, as other factors or information need to come into the picture. Or perhaps one or more members of the group haven’t really released their personal opinions and may be still personally and emotionally involved in the outcome rather than detached. The group then tries to directly address the emotional issues of those involved to see if they’re able to work through them and so to release any blocks to consensus. On the other hand, an individual blocking consensus may not have any emotional issues to clear but instead have an important perspective that needs to be included in the decision. Learning to tell the difference requires intuitive listening.
Imagine using this technique at your next business meeting! A radical new world indeed. If that’s too big a jump, perhaps start smaller by using it with your family. No better place for the uniting of heart and mind.
~Jay Kshatri
www.ThinkSmarterWorld.com
