crucial learnings from crucial conversations
In order to grow, my goal is to more deliberately seek out topics that I am afraid of. Reflecting on my inclination to avoid challenging conversations, I got introduced to the work of the authors of crucial learning, called “crucial conversations”. My aim was to expose myself to and learn how to have crucial and, more importantly: uncomfortable conversations. Similar to previous challenges, the guiding principle is: “if you voluntarily confront what you are afraid of, you get stronger”. Even though on a first glance the book didn’t reveal anything spectacular new to me, I do feel more confident in seeking out challenging conversations. However, there is still a lingering thought that even being confident enough not to shy away from tough conversations doesn’t mean I would actively pursue them. And it’s the latter part that I believe I was hoping to get more clarity on.
The three main lessons that apply to me were the following:
Have a clear goal for a conversation
As simple as this sounds, for me, this is a nagging point of frustration with myself. Knowing what the goal is, or rather, my goal should be. Not necessarily just in conversations, but in life. For conversations, the authors suggest you ask yourself three questions before: 1) What do I want for myself? 2) What do I want for the other person ? and 3) What do I want for the relationship? Upon reflection, I noticed myself stumbling into conversations and meetings without a clear goal. Just “winging” it. Which leads to outcomes that aren’t planned. Not necessarily bad, but unplanned and unpredictable. Do conversations get derailed? Of course. But having some plan, imperfect as it might be, beats having no plan.
Use “contrasting” as a tool to create safety in a conversation (I do not want to… , but I do want to…)
Contrasting is a technique that creates safety in a conversation. It is meant as a prevention mechanism, best used before people get defensive or hostile. Contrasting splits into two parts: the “I do not want to…” part and the “I do want to… “ part. It builds upon knowing what the real goal of the conversation is (which can be used as the “I do want to ….” part) and helps clear up potential misunderstandings. The authors believe the first part is more important, as it deals with the " misunderstanding that puts safety at risk”. Contrasting helps to: “address others’ concerns that you don’t respect them or that you have a malicious purpose (the do not part) and confirms your respect or clarifies your real purpose (the do part)”. The authors put three case’s into the book that let you practice, and frankly this was one of the best nuggets of this book. I love a good role play to practice and make mistakes in a low-stakes environment. The examples forced me to sit down and think. And due to that practice, I was able to use contrasting in a recent 1:1 with a new employee. I didn’t use it perfectly, but I could visibly tell by my employee’s facial expression and demeanor that I created a safe space to open up. And that felt really rewarding.
Following the path of action
As humans, we tend to jump to conclusions early and assign meaning to facts, without acknowledging that sometimes facts can be interpreted in multiple ways. And sometimes that intuitive, first interpretation leads us to believe in the worst (or best). The example in the book is about a woman finding a dubious motel credit card booking on her husbands credit card statement. She immediately jumped to the conclusion that he must be having an affair, when in reality, there is just a credit card booking. Turns out, the hotel belongs to the owner of a restaurant that the couple had gone to earlier. And the owner used the same machine in both locations. Crisis averted. This lesson speaks to me, as it emphasizes the separation of facts and feelings/interpretations in a conversation, in a way that gives merit to both. Interpretations of facts are important: it is how we make sense of the world. Yet they are different than facts. And when we approach a conversation with another person, we must account for different possible interpretations. You can disagree with the interpretation, and ultimately, facts should prevail. But we’re having the conversation as a mechanism to bring out all the necessary facts in itself. It is that realization that other people might know something that you don’t. And therefore you have to have an open mind in a conversation. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be skeptical, but it doesn’t mean they are right. But you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. At least initially.