To broach (a difficult topic) or not to broach—that is the question. Or even better, how to broach without reproach? And it’s not simply a question of whether or not to bring up a particular topic, but also how to do it in way that’s positive and impactful. I find that when people are facing this, and similar challenges, they merge these two separate and distinct questions into one. And since they usually don’t have a good response to how to be positive and impactful, they easily dismiss the answer regarding whether to bring up the topic in the first place. In essence we think, “I’m not sure I’d be able to address - fill in your concern here - so it’s probably not worth bringing up.” We choose to “live” with the situation despite the negative consequences.... The outcome from either choice seems to have a big downside....In Crucial Conversations, we describe the pull toward these two alternatives as choosing between silence and violence....regardless of which you choose, you lose. So we end up choosing the more palatable option out of two bad alternatives - silence. Essentially, this means we’ve lost from the outset, before we’ve even taken any action. By choosing silence, we believe that we’re voting in favor of maintaining the relationship while really undermining the relationship we’re trying so hard to maintain.
What we don’t talk out, we act out. It never ends well. To get out of this trap, try drafting a more complete consequence list....What do I mean by that? When faced with a difficult conversation, our head quickly volunteers to do the hard work of calculating the potential outcomes for speaking up and quickly saves itself from any additional hard work by quickly convincing you that a conversation won’t be worth it. We tend to focus on the short-term, negative consequences - like straining your relationship - and look past the long-term, positive consequences of actually sharing our concerns - like helping (someone) avoid a terminal illness (by quitting smoking. - Relieve your brain of this responsibility by capturing all of the consequences on paper. When you’re able to consider a more complete and accurate list, you can make a more informed decision about how to proceed.
Many times, when talking with intelligent people about strongly entrenched habits like smoking, our approach invites defensiveness....Why? Because we approach it as if the person needs more information about the negative impacts of his or her choices - the unsavory smell, coughing, emphysema, lung cancer, the list goes on. - The other person has seen the ads, and likely know the statistics. More information is not the problem....(The other person) is already well-informed. Instead, try getting him to consider an insightful question.... It’s very natural for people to resist when confronted head-on about issues that require significant effort to change. They hear your argument and treat it as an argument. That means taking a position, digging in to defend the position, and actively looking for ways to reinforce that position—which is not very conducive to an honest exploration. If you’re looking to create motivation, don’t start with sharing more information. Bill Miller pioneered an approach that focused on influential questions. He found that exploration can be more powerful in creating the conditions conducive to change than explanation. For example, lead with a question like, “I was wondering how smoking interferes with - insert (the other person's) favorite activity or even an important role he plays, like at work, for example?” - This probing question produces far less defensiveness than, “let me tell you why I wish you wouldn’t smoke.” You’re not forcing him to take the opposite position from you, and it’s directing him towards something he regularly experiences. Get him to explore the implications of his choices so he is less ambivalent about making different choices. These types of conversations are tricky and usually require a lot of love, concern, and patience.
Framing is the act of sharing background and rationale for one’s behavior in order to dispel assumptions—or biases—about it. It’s useful for dealing with a broad or vague context where behavior can be misinterpreted.
Just Try It. One of the first principles in motivating someone to change their behavior is to have him or her gain direct experience and/or generate different data.
Get specific, observable behaviors. You need to understand where his story came from so that you’re not in the position of trying to talk your way out of a situation you behaved your way into.
So often, our efforts fall short because we deliver our solution at the wrong time. We miss, or misinterpret, when the teachable moment is.
A popular tenet of the Kaizen method teaches that it is better to have the wrong solution to the right problem, than the right solution to the wrong problem.
I realized even when others’ motives are bad and directed at me, I can still choose to respond in a productive, positive way. I don’t have to be a victim; I can simply choose to get out of the line of fire.
Our strengths are often tied to weaknesses, so someone with a lot of potential has to be aware of how and where their strengths turn into liabilities.
You’ve discovered one of the biggest challenges with checking out potential undiscussables: right in the middle of discussing an undiscussable, new undiscussables emerge. This is why these types of interactions can become really tricky, really quickly.
CPR stands for Content, Pattern, and Relationship, and represents different types of issues that can be addressed in any conversation. Content is a single instance of a problem or concern and is best addressed when the issue first comes up. A Pattern issue is a continuation of the Content concern over a longer period of time. And Relationship is an issue that has changed the way you’re relating to another person. Often, Relationship issues result from Pattern issues left unchecked. Most of the chronic problems that people experience are not, I repeat, not Content in nature. They are Pattern or Relationship issues, usually with a heavy lean toward Relationship.
Instead of waiting for some type of direct experience to present itself, design a process so that one of the very first, if not the first, activities you engage in are direct experiences.
To successfully inspire a person to change his or her behavior with this skill, you need to show how their behavior is leading to consequences that they find undesirable.
So first of all, remember to be patient. This can take time—especially when the frequency of your interactions is every two years versus every four to six months. The challenge you face is a data challenge. The impression members of your extended family have is based on experiences, third party information exchanges between relatives, and distant memories—the kind that feel 100% fresh and accurate, but are more likely half distorted and fuzzy. All these things come together to form impressions which remain long after the data supporting them has ceased. And while communication can help in this type of situation, what really needs to happen is to alter their data stream, or in most cases, create a whole new data set based on who you are today.
We discovered that the key to changing these assumptions was to change the experiences—or data—that created, and perhaps more importantly, reinforced these assumptions.
A symbolic action is any action you take where other people who are watching will walk away having concluded what you care about, what your priorities are, and even what you value. Now for those of you who have leadership positions, what percentage of your actions would you guess are symbolic? Did you guess 100%? If you did, you would be correct; it’s everything you do, or don’t do.
And it’s not simply a question of whether or not to bring up a particular topic, but also how to do it in way that’s positive and impactful. I find that when people are facing this, and similar challenges, they merge these two separate and distinct questions into one. And since they usually don’t have a good response to how to be positive and impactful, they easily dismiss the answer regarding whether to bring up the topic in the first place.
People usually dismiss attempts at verbal persuasion but can’t so readily dismiss things they’ve experienced firsthand. These direct experiences are both more memorable and more meaningful.
I don’t think people realize how difficult it is to watch the conditions of respect and civility erode right in front of you. Like you, most choose to stay out of it—and it’s not usually a case of bystander apathy. Usually, these are well-intentioned individuals who suffer from bystander agony. They’d like to step in and stop the mayhem, but just aren’t sure how to do so. It turns out, it’s only slightly more painful to be involved directly in a conflict than to watch it happen.
Remember, emotions are chemical while thoughts are electrical. You’re likely much further ahead in your crucial conversations thought process than either of the chemically-overpowered individuals you’d like to coach. Be patient. It takes time for the effects of the chemicals to subside so the brain can think clearly again. Look for a time when the person or persons can be reflective and open to suggestion.
I realized that in order to get to the right solution, I had to make sure I started with the right problem. I’ve since discovered that having the right timing for the right solution is also important.
My understanding started to expand as I realized that the biggest benefit of my Crucial Conversations skills across many different types of interactions was that they helped me to not become part of the problem... Just because you’re engaging in dialogue doesn’t mean the resulting decisions have to be consensus. You always have options to escalate, or even terminate, interactions. When you’re in a position where you believe your safety (psychological or physical) is purposefully being threatened, it’s appropriate to disengage. And you can use your Crucial Conversations skills to do so respectfully.
Consider Their Current State. Sometimes others aren’t expecting a more open, honest approach and it catches them off guard. Or they are in such a heightened emotional state that they need to allow the chemicals in their body time to dissipate before they engage. A poor response tells you where that person is emotionally.
To broach (a difficult topic) or not to broach—that is the question. Or even better, how to broach without reproach? And it’s not simply a question of whether or not to bring up a particular topic, but also how to do it in way that’s positive and impactful. I find that when people are facing this, and similar challenges, they merge these two separate and distinct questions into one. And since they usually don’t have a good response to how to be positive and impactful, they easily dismiss the answer regarding whether to bring up the topic in the first place. In essence we think, “I’m not sure I’d be able to address - fill in your concern here - so it’s probably not worth bringing up.” We choose to “live” with the situation despite the negative consequences....
The outcome from either choice seems to have a big downside....In Crucial Conversations, we describe the pull toward these two alternatives as choosing between silence and violence....regardless of which you choose, you lose. So we end up choosing the more palatable option out of two bad alternatives - silence. Essentially, this means we’ve lost from the outset, before we’ve even taken any action. By choosing silence, we believe that we’re voting in favor of maintaining the relationship while really undermining the relationship we’re trying so hard to maintain.