Ryan Trimble Quotes

The scarier a conversation seems, the more likely it is we are telling ourselves a story.

So, first, take responsibility for what you can: how you will respectfully speak your mind.

When we seek the effect but step over the cause, we diminish our influence.

I know how easy it can be in crucial moments to get wrapped up in thinking that if we just say the right things in the right way, we can get others to believe or behave how we’d like them to. But the skills taught in Crucial Conversations don’t enable us to change others—that’s not their promise. They improve our ability to communicate with others, and through better communication we can increase connection, collaboration, trust, respect, and—yes—even influence. But that increased influence is a consequence of increased trust, respect, and so on. The skills are largely ineffective when our motive is to change people rather than communicate with them.

The point is to communicate after you’ve got your heart in a good place. When we do this, a critical shift happens: we come to the conversation with a perspective to share, not an agenda to enforce.

People get defensive because they sense a threat, whether real or imagined. What you’re essentially asking is, “Why would a person sense a threat when there isn’t one?” The answer: because “normal” is relative to the beholder. What’s innocent to you may trigger another, and vice versa. It’s a matter of perspective.

If given the choice, I’d rather be hit with a bomb of truth than a watered-down or candy-coated version of it.

If I don’t bring awareness of my motives to my interactions, I’m likely to find myself irritated when people take offense to clear and direct communication, prioritize feelings over clarity, or share their opinions in ambiguous niceties.

Understanding that different personalities have different driving motives can help you appreciate why someone might take offense to a “normal” question.

The point is we find ourselves triggered by the innocuous behaviors of others because we interpret their behavior through our own motivational lens. We think of what we would do and say, and we judge the actions of others accordingly. If you want to communicate better and not chalk up defensiveness to a “you” problem, you should work on your perspective first.

...it occurred to me that those who prioritize kindness, consideration, and loyalty see people as a kind of principle. And those who take risks, act quickly, and buck convention see achievement as a kind of principle.

A good faith argument is one in which both parties treat each other with respect, are transparent with their motives, and have a sincere interest in communicating productively. A bad faith argument or discussion, by contrast, is one in which one or both parties are set on “winning” the disagreement or coercing the other and involves duplicity or other manipulative tactics.

Whenever we assume responsibility for another’s feelings, we struggle to speak up.

Not taking responsibility for another’s feelings does not mean to disregard their feelings. There is a difference between respecting another’s feelings and trying to manage them.

While you may benefit from having a conversation and trying to resolve conflict or find closure, it is reasonable to assume that others, at times, will weigh the benefits and risks of talking and determine that moving on, without talking, is less risky and more beneficial. This can be incredibly difficult to accept when we find ourselves on the side of conflict that wants to work things out or find closure.

When you let go of expectations for how or whether the other person shows up, you are free to better contemplate how you want to show up.

Remembering what it’s like to not want to communicate may help you empathize with the person who doesn’t want to communicate with you.

Finally, reflect on your relationship and see if you can identify anything you’ve said or done that may have influenced the other to retreat and refuse your requests, which seems inevitable given your estrangement. The easier story to tell ourselves in such situations is that the other person has given up on communication, that we are the noble and willing party, while the other is ignoble and unwilling. But there are more generous—and probably more accurate—interpretations of what’s going on inside the other person.

Humility offers your best chance of restoring a sense of safety.

If you have hurts that you need to share, hold onto them for a while. Don’t risk safety before it has stabilized.

Restoring safety in personal relationships that have been strained to the point of silence and separation is rarely linear or predictable, and certainly not guaranteed. You likely have a circuitous and arduous path ahead. But, like many challenging paths in life, it can be richly rewarding and worth the work.

It is said that “The truth is hard to swallow,” and it may be you are struggling to hear what this person has to say. It is also said “The truth shall set you free.” So, again, focus on facts.

Paradoxically, it is only through recognizing and respecting each other as separate, individual, autonomous human beings that we can create effective and meaningful connections.

A fact is observable

These Crucial Conversations skills should help you express your viewpoint rather than withhold it. You may struggle a bit at first, and this other person may be taken back by your frankness. If you meet resistance, stay respectful. And should this person try to avoid a discussion of facts, make that the topic of conversation.

Most of our interpersonal conflicts result from failing to respect where “I” end and “You” begin.

We often behave as though others are extensions of ourselves, employing various tactics to get them to behave as we wish they would—demands, threats, putdowns, sarcasm, silence, and so on. Sometimes we do this overtly, but usually we are subtle about it.

Our particular challenge today is that we live in era of “fake news,” “alternative facts,” “disinformation,” and conspiracy theories—an era that is called “post-truth”—and yet we fight each other with facts, or what we believe are facts. This is like firing cannonballs at each other in a gravitational vacuum: the weapon has no weight. Those who watch “fake news” don’t consider their news fake, and those who believe in so-called conspiracy theories don’t think they believe in “theories.” We will not reach each other with facts unless and until we reach out to each other.

Nothing has an equivalent power to deescalate a disagreement as genuine kindness.

You won’t successfully resolve this disagreement if there are ill feelings in your heart, because whatever you are feeling you will end up expressing, whether in body language, tone, or words.

This simple formula—kindness, curiosity, common ground—will help you establish psychological safety. Once it’s clear you have safety, you can begin to disagree meaningfully.