Ch 4: Learn To Look

How to Notice When Safety Is At Risk 

By now you are familiar with how successful people, who are skilled in engaging in a dialogue, remain focused on the goal at task; they refuse the "either or option", the Fool's Choice, and they clarify what they want. The next step in mastering crucial conversations involves spotting crucial conversations and redirecting a failing one back on track. Let's pretend that the crucial conversation begins to sour. You leave the heated debate with no solution or results between you and the member(s) holding the discussion. What happened? How does a conversation go from good to bad within a short period of time? Now, recall a time when your last held crucial conversation and it did not end as you expected-neither party ended on good terms. Ask yourself three things: the type of discussion, the behaviors observed, and the responses produced during the conversation. In this play-by-play review, you are able to define what or, the content, and why or, the conditions, that frame the conversation. Once you analyze these events, you will have the tools to that will aid your ability to figure out if the conversation is failing, and If so, to stop it from further damage. 

I have known a thousand scamps; but I never met one who considered himself so. 

Self-knowledge isn't so common.                                                               --Ouida 

In order to do this, one must continuously check the conversation from faltering. This requires you to use the "dual-processing (simultaneously watching content and conditions)" technique during the conversation, which is "when both stakes and emotions are high" (52). This skill is imperative and most important when one is in a conversation that is crucial. The reason for this is because being able to distinguish one type of dialogue versus another will make it easier to spot the crucial conversation when it starts going south. Besides from spotting the crucial conversations and recognizing the what and the why aspects, the next step is to deduce the signs of safety using physical signals, emotional cues, and behavioral indicators. This step is evaluating if there is a safety problem meaning, "watch the signs that people are becoming fearful"(55). It is human nature to guard one's true feelings from others when the cost of vulnerability outweighs the cost of shielding one's feelings. One of the reasons why the conversation may enter a danger zone or risk series setbacks for participants is due to fear that "you're being attacked or humiliated" (55). In this case the problem is not the content, but the conditions. Primarily, the actual subject is not what throws people off; it is the motive or the heart, as mentioned in the previous chapter. 




When safety is challenged, emotions buildup and the rational brain leaves the room before the conversation is even over. The good news is that all of this can be stopped just as it begins to unfold. Therefore, you must stay vigil for these moments of safety violations and call on the brain to engage, which separates you from the conversation and begins the dual-processing. The obstacle here is 

to not fall into man's genetically wired habit-handed down by scriptures that teach an eye for an eye. Do not respond in the same kind to others with silence or violence when it comes to safety problems. Recode these unhealthy paths as way to redirect the ruinous dialogue. You can identify these safety signs by understanding that some will take the silence path or violence path. As mentioned in chapter 2, when safety is threatened, the dialogue stops flowing because one is withholding meaning. This can be done in three ways under the silence path: masking, avoiding, and withdrawing. In the case of masking, one is purposely concealing censoring the true feelings in the form of "[s]arcasm, sugarcoating, or couching" (59). Another case of silence is avoiding the whole subject entirely. 
Lastly, the form of silence is done by withdrawing, which can be leaving the room or removing oneself from the conversation. Violence is the alternative path taken when safety is undermined. It generally plays out in three forms: "controlling, labeling, and attacking". In the case of controlling, "speaking in absolutes, change subjects, and or using directive questions" are possible course of actions in controlling the conversation (60-61). Another possibility is labeling what is said and the person involved into a generalized category. The last option in a violence path is attacking, which is any type of verbal abuse. 


Now that silence and violence are understood, the other key component during the dual-processing is self-monitoring. There are tests you can take to see how well you self-monitor. Follow this link and grade your "Style Under Stress" (67). The scores will give insight to what tactic you employ (silence or violence) most during a crucial conversations so that you can make improvements where it is needed. <https://www.vitalsmarts.com/styleunderstress/>.