Ch 9: Move to Action; Ch10: Yeah, But; Ch 11: Putting It All Together

To do nothing is in every man's power. 

                          - Samuel Johnson 

How to Turn Crucial Conversations into Action and Results 

By this point, the pool of shared meaning has been established and there is a flow of information. What is next and what do you do with all of this meaning? This is where the last final steps are added into the crucial conversation. Before this happens, what a dialogue is must be elucidated to steer away from making common mistakes towards the end of the conversation. There needs to be an understanding that a dialogue is not a decision. When one brings to light an issue and provides the facts of matter and his story, that does not mean both parties have equal authority in the decision making. This is because decisions are often given to those in "the line of authority", like a boss. Nonetheless, there are times when "the line of authority is not clear" and in these times one must look at the various decision methods to determine how to make a decision (180). The four methods range based on the degrees of involvement. Starting from no involvement, there is the command method. In this case, one has no power to decide because that power belongs to someone who has been given authority or because one does not want to or care to take the time to make the decisions. The other option is the consult method, which is when one invites the input of other's ideas to influence his or her decision. Thirdly, there is the vote way, "best suited to situations where efficiency is the highest value" and the options are quickly reviewed and then voted on by everyone involved. Lastly, one can choose to apply the consent way, it takes the most patience and time and so "It should only be used with (1) high stake and complex issues or (2) issues where everyone absolutely must support the final choice"(182). You can gage which of the four methods is best by asking four questions: 

1. Who cares?

2. Who Knows?

3. Who must all agree? 

4. How many people is it worth involving?

All of these are great to alleviate the confusion as to what kind of method would best fit the situation. The decisions that arise from the method can be used to put into action. All this leads to the final step of making the assignments. For this to work, clear roles and timelines must be established. By creating a detailed and measurable assignment, it is easier to follow up. All of the commitments and decisions should be written down for reference and to use for accountability. 

"Good works are worth much and cost little"

-George Herbert 

Chapter 10 provides various examples and different cases that the authors have provided to answer the "yeah, but" questions. Some questions range from "failed trust," "my overly sensitive spouse," the issue of  "failure to live up to agreements" and even to "touchy and personal" (206). The authors provide the danger points and the solution to the problem by applying the lessons learned from the previous chapters. 

"I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me as parties. Often, as a sing of their great respect, they don't even invite me. "

-Dave Barry 

The final chapter deals with how to put it all together. It gives an overview of everything that has been mentioned. This is the big picture moment; every step thus far culminates to help make one's toughest conversations more manageable. Here we are coached through the whole process. Remember the first step involves the heart; "focus on what you really want" and "refuse the Sucker's Choice." The next step is to check if safety is established. The third step is seeing how to get safety back using contrast sentences, "to fix misunderstanding" and apologizing if in the wrong. The fourth step is learning to know what is factual and what is made up in your head about the problem at hand. The fifth step is taking the facts and stating your path of action and telling your story and seeking the other's as well. Next, in encouraging others to state their path, you are giving them the freedom to tentatively listen to their view. Lastly, take the dialogue and use it to decide how you will decide who acts. If you can master these steps, then you can establish and sustain an amiable relationship with any person in the office or in the neighborhood. It all starts with a crucial conversation done right. 

Analysis:

The fall of man and communication has left us at a disadvantage. We are lost in translation. We forgot what meant to converse with God. Adam and Eve gave into the false stories told by Satan. When sin entered this world, proper communication was lost. There was a separation that divided good from evil. Since man gave into sin's rule, mankind was a slave to sin's disorder and chaos. No longer can man regain the perfect self because the good within was stolen and replaced by sin. Man's deprived soul made it so that our actions were grounded on self-love and pride. Cain and Abel's story demonstrates the breakdown in communication. Cain's crooked heart overshadowed his rational mind and it was the loss of communication with God that led him down a destructive path of hate and later murder of his own brother. Abel, on the other hand, gave unselfishly to God and the Lord was pleased with his offering. Instead of taking the moment to search his heart and bring his issues up to God, Cain took a route that would change his relation with God forever. He chose not to love his neighbor, his own blood. 

That being said, communication is not something that just business people must develop. It is required from all people from any age group. The better one is at communicating with others and with God, the more likely they are to be victims of more stress, frustration, and even heartache. I read this book for personal reasons and the thought I could benefit from it. During the process of reading a few chapters at time, I would use the lessons learned and apply it in every day situation. I haven't had crucial conversations, but I have taken upon myself to take the advice from these authors and provide it for others. The main points I drew from Crucial Conversations: Tools For Talking When Stakes Are High are: how to compose my emotions in times of high stakes, how to see the argument from other's perspective, keeping an eye on the goal and respect, and not letting my sinful ways lead me to a place where I lose sight of the dialogue. This book gives you the understanding that you can take back a failing conversation and transform the negative emotions into a healthy dialogue.

Ch 7: State My Path & Ch 8: Explore Others' Paths

Outspoken by Whom?

-Dorothy Parker,

When told that she was very outspoken

How to Speak Persuasively Not Abrasively

Now that the preparation for holding crucial conversations has been done, the next step in mastering crucial conversation involves talking about one’s opinions. First, always start with the facts because it provides the groundwork for the pool of shared meaning to take place; these facts should also be the “the most persuasive” (138). You do this by “ begin[ing] your path with facts” in order to “earn the right to share your story” (140). Following that, proceed to tell your story, which is potentially offensive since it is the conclusions drawn from the facts. At this point in the conversation, one might have to stop and bring it back to safety. Thirdly, ask for others’ viewpoints. Encourage them to give their side of the story, including facts and stories (150). Here, it gets tricky because one can fall into a trap where he feels the need “to fight for the truth that [he’s] holding… where [he] employ[s] any number of dirty tricks” (150-151).  To avoid this dire mistake, talk sensitively and do not try to make your story appear as a fact. Lastly, “invite opposing views” helps the other person feel safe and encourage them to engage in conversation with you(146). This environment helps prove that your goal was not to harm or win a conversation but to engage in a dialogue. To sum it up, STATE your path when you are about to hold a conversation.

 Ch 8: Explore Others' Paths

 One of the best ways to persuade others is with your ears- by listening to them.

-Dean Rusk

How to Listen When Others Blow Up or Clam Up

Stating one’s path is much easier than exploring others’ paths. This requires patience and the willingness to listen. How do you give people the sense of safety in a heated discussion? You must encourage the free flow of meaning and help others leave silence and violence behind. What does all of this require of you? Simply, this is the power to listen and give the opposing speaker a chance to state his path, which means backtracking the “person’s Path to Action to its origins” (174). This is also where mutual purpose and goals can be established, which in the earlier chapters.  Begin tracing back by asking questions so that you can understand the other’s view.  You can questions that are similar to these: 

“What’s going on?”

“I’d really like to hear your opinion on this.”

“Please let me know if you see it differently”

“Don’t worry about my feelings, I really want to hear your thoughts”

Perceived safety can be increased when you mirror the other person by kindly recognizing their emotions. If the person appears angry or sad in their face or demeanor, respectively acknowledge the body signals and let them know that you notice these emotions. You can provide an environment of safety when you paraphrase parts of the story you heard to demonstrate not that you understand, but that you are letting them feel comfortable to voice their thoughts. If it appears that the other person is struggling to share and put down his guard, try priming. Guess at the possible thoughts that he or she might have and the feelings that they may be holding back.

Analysis:

There is not a more dividing conversation than the one involving abortion. Theological or politicall discussions for pro-life or pro-choice can be a touchy subject and has the potential to damage relationship. Yet these conversations are important to have because governments, doctors, and individuals all must abide by the same rule of law. Right now, abortion is protected under a woman's right to privacy, but past the first trimester each state has the ruling power to regulate it as it pleases. Although the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade provided a federal decision on this issue, it did not stop the ongoing battle between pro-life and pro-choice. In fact, the debate has become so heated that people are not able to listen to other side's viewpoint. That is because the pool of shared meaning has been broken. In the article When does Personhood begin?, "Dialogue between pro-life and pro-choice is almost non-existence" and "As a result, there are many questions that have never been resolved". Many of these unresolved questions have to do with when a person can be recognized as a human being with rights to life. Yet it is rather difficult to understand the Supreme Court's ruling Roe vs. Wade since there is no clear consensus as to when life begins. The problem here is not who is right, but rather what is each side arguing for and on what grounds. The art of crucial conversation can be applied to politics as well. Each side needs to earn the right to share by creating a space for healthy conversations. 

A healthy space is one in which all are free to share and ask questions. This type of environment can be useful in the debate over abortion. Here, there is a need for both sides to avoid painting the other as the villain. It is not until we understand where we come from, our background, and what are the factors that dictate our decisions that we begin to the process of a healthy dialogue. First, safety must be restored from years of fighting. What needs to be realized is that we all have a mutual goal and that is to make the best decision for the woman, the life she may be caring inside, and the potential impact on society. There are so many people involved in this issue that every different viewpoint needs to be heard and given a place to state that side's path, fact and story. For example, if Roe was on the side of pro-choice and St. John Paul the 11 was for pro-life and they are having a conversation on this topic, then each should let the other clarify the facts and provide the story based on those facts. After which the other would listen attentively and ask questions to understand what is meant by women’s rights or the right to live. Here in this scenario, the conversation would be centered on mutual goal and respect. Since neither knows what is the right or wrong answer definitively speaking, there is no need to judge. 

Another way of looking at this is from the perspective of Christ. What did Jesus do for the sinners, the persecuted, and for the outcasts? He humbled himself, carried the cross, and he did all this out of the Father's love for mankind. Jesus did not reject the Samaritan woman because she was not a Jew. The Samaritan's held a differing view than that of the Jewish people in those periods, but Jesus disregarded that and loved her; He took the time to tell her of the good news. Therefore, do not become like the Jewish community in the story who rejected those who were different from them. Christians shall love their neighbor even their neighbor holds an opposing viewpoint. For as Jesus, a rabbi, spoke with the Samaritan so shall a pro-life Christian speak to a pro-choice believer/non-believer. There will be a day when all sins are washed away and there will be no pain; that time will come with consummation. For now, we shall wait and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and love for every member of our community. If we act as a community, sharing our goods and ideas for a common goal, then the problems of today will be those of the past. Abortion is not just a case of women's rights or the right to life, but it the struggle to find love in a world so broken. It is important to create a space in which such issues can be discussed freely and without judgment.

Ch 6: Master My Stories

How to Stay in Dialogue When You’re Angry, Scared, or Hurt

It’s not how you play the game, it’s how the game plays you.

Once you have learned how to make a conversation safe for the other person, the next step in the art of crucial conversations is mastering one’s story. Holding a dialogue when stakes are high, emotions are strong, and viewpoints vary makes it extremely difficult to command control over your emotions. The success of that dialogue is greatly influenced by one’s attitude and feelings. In order to monitor and keep emotions at check, it will require one to govern the intermediate step, “a point of leverage or control” (109), which can be found in the Path to Action model. Here we learn there is a step before the intermediate, what others do and say, and after this point, your response to them. The Path to Action model provides a simple explanation of how feelings, thoughts, and observations influence our actions. The first step is observing others (see and hear). After comes the telling your story, the intermediate step. Then the emotions emerge out of the stories from where meaning is drawn. Lastly, these previous steps combine to create a response. The part that dictates the types of emotions or feelings one may during the discussion are directed by the “intermediate step between what others do and how we feel”, your story (109). Here is where all the power over the emotions can dramatically change the end result of any conversation. The reason why your story, created in your head, is so vital for determining the kind of emotions that will transpire is because “Stories provide our rational for what’s going on”(109). It is how one “[interprets] … the facts…also help explain how” and all of these things build to create the emotions, which are “directly linked to our judgments of right/wrong, good/bad, kind/selfish, fair/unfair” (109-110). It all happens with or without your knowledge in merely few seconds. Hence, mastering your story will be effective in moderating your emotions and ultimately the actions thereafter.

To master your story requires reflection and a different story. The change originates with retracing this Path to Action. This involves close examination of your behavior. Ask if your response took the “form of silence or violence”; this means you have to get in touch with your feelings (112). Then figure out what emotions are encouraging the response by identify the feelings that lead to the behavior. Next, separate the facts and the story you invented about the situation to find what part of the story is creating the emotions. Consequently, this will reveal the type of story that was used to justify the action or response. These types of stories are known as clever stories (victim, villain, and helpless clever stories). Once this has been done, tell the rest of the story by asking:

1. Am I pretending not to notice my role in the problem?

2. Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person do this?

3. What do I really want?

4. What would I do right now if I really wanted these results?

(130)

[Figure 6-2 The Path To Action]

Analysis:

Nothing in this world is good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

--William Shakespeare 

The concept of a clever story is very intriguing, not just in terms of crucial conversations. The manipulation of facts to crafty stories in order to justify one’s mistakes or to appease one’s conscious is unethical. Clever stories give one the freedom from acknowledging his error and assuming responsibility. In topic of pornography as a form of adultery begs me to question if some men’s justification of pornography can be equated to a clever story? In reaction to the male population use of porn, do women disregard the harm of pornography, use as a way to soothe their discomfort, with a clever story of their own? I think it is safe to say yes. Now men or women can use pornography, but for the purpose of simplification I will refer to men as the porn users. There is no doubt that the industry of pornography eats away at the heart young men and women who fall pray to its grip: it enslaves people and reinforces sex trafficking industry, it degrades the human body as something to be respected, and it destroys the way men and women view relations with one another.

In contemporary times, men have used clever stories to refute the evil that proliferates from the pornography business. The clever stories are shaped by false claims and skewed facts. The idea “all guys do it” is the typical or commonly observed rational that gives consent pornography’s use. This is a sweeping generalization that cannot be proven. Also, the problem with this rational is that it frees the blame from those who consume it, despite pressing issues of human trafficking and the amount of injustice committed as a result. Men invent clever stories to ignore the fact that pornography is not right in any circumstance. There is no good that can come from the objectification of women. 

Some say that pornography has lowered the rate of rape and sexual abuse. This may be due to other lurking factors that can be attributed to reducing rape. In addition, there are many places in society where rape has not lessened. For example, college campuses in the United States are witnessing more cases of rape and sexual harassment. Furthermore, the future implications and the greater influence pornography will have on young children, who are being aggressively targeted by this industry, will be one that will require attention to aid those who are addicted.

Like I mentioned before, many females support the use of clever stories to convince that a man’s use of pornography is justifiable. Women have been feed the lie that is natural for men to look at porn. The clever story here is that it is “perfectly normal” for men and it should be accepted because it is better than the alternative, an affair or an infidelity. The facts are not there to tolerate the purchase of pornography. Every individual must acknowledge this wrong and question his intensions when acting on lustful desires. The evils that arise from pornography can be blamed on those who use it, distribute it, and produce it. The use of pornography should not be an outlet for one’s feelings. If the person viewing these services understood the injustice that occurs as of result (indirectly or directly linked to his actions), would he acknowledge his actions as unacceptable and change his ways? Hopefully, he would revise his story.

Ch: 5 Make it Safe

A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in baskets of silver.

Proverbs 25:1

How to Make It Safe to Talk About Almost Anything

Previously, Crucial Conversations taught us how to spot when safety is at risk within a heated conversation. Now we need to learn the process of restoring safety once it has been broken. This was done through the use of a scripted scenario between a couple holding a sensitive conversation about physical intimacy. At pinnacle moments in the conversation, the authors intentionally stop the script for the reader. At these points of the reading, the authors address the safety issues that are in danger throughout the couple’s intense dialogue to provide the reader with realistic solutions on how to redirect an argument back to safety.

The first step in this process involves stepping outside of the conversation. Like mentioned before, safety (in a conversation) is at risk when people move towards silence (as a way to avoid the problem) or violence (as a way to hurt the person). Pay attention to signs of silence or violence and decide which of these is being used. Then step back from the dialogue and restore safety between you and the other person so that the pool of shared meaning can continue.

In order to restore safety, one must realize which condition is at risk. The second step involves “understanding which of two different conditions of safety is at risk. Each requires a different solution” (76).  It can be either mutual purpose or mutual respect; the first deals with shared goals and the latter deals with respect. Once this step is actualized, the third phase involves apologizing if respect was violated; however, if there was a misunderstanding of purpose or intent, then state what was not intended. After this, explain what was really meant to the other person. This alternative consists of contrasting and fixing the false impression made by the other person. The last step in restoring safety entails the act in which mutual purpose is established. When it appears that “cross-purposes,” the possibility of no mutual purpose that satisfies each person, is the problem then create mutual purpose by using four skills (97): committing to seek mutual purpose, recognizing the purpose behind the strategy, inventing a mutual purpose, and brainstorming new strategies (102).

Analysis:

Before I begin this analysis, I must reiterate concisely the prior chapters’ primary concerns. The first four chapters lay down the basic terms and definitions that are to be understood while reading the rest. In chapter 1, “What’s is Crucial Conversation”, the authors clearly outline what makes a conversation crucial. Following this, chapter 2 explained that crucial conversation is mastered when there is a dialogue as opposed to an argument. Next, chapter 3 reveals that the art of dialogue begins with the heart and altering one’s bad habits when crucial conversations arise. Lastly, chapter 4 offers ways to deal with crucial conversations that are failing or in other words noticing when safety is at risk. Those chapters are the fundamentals of crucial conversations that will assist in the trajectory of the remaining chapters and the overall analysis of the book. I begin my analysis in chapter 5 because it allows me to apply all I need to relate the information gained from this book and to extend it’s meaning in other disciplines. With the coming chapters, I will continue to summarize the main points and expand them with my own analysis.

The subject of chapter 5 would be useful in any conversation, most notably, one about homosexuality and Christian ethics. When it comes to homosexuality, there has been a long battle over the ethics and the biblical stance in light of this issue. Based on my knowledge, very few crucial conversations have taken place between two opposing camps (Church leaders and the LGBT community) of this debate where a healthy dialogue was engaged. In Crucial Conversations we learn that a dialogue cannot occur unless all who are involved in the conversation feel safe to share ideas and provided feedback so that a conclusion can be made. In the case of homosexuality, both the Church and the LGBT community have not been able to have a dialogue because respect on both sides has been infringed upon and there seems to be a continuous misunderstanding. In applying the lesson learned in chapter 5, I propose that the Church leaders follow the steps to create safety so that they can hold a crucial conversation with the LGBT community. For one, the Church is responsible for bringing lost sheep in relation to Christ, the shepherd. The Church is supposed to be a city upon a hill, the salt of the earth, and the hands and feet of Jesus. Thus, church leaders should first step back from this failed conversation and remember their purpose and spot where safety has been violated for those that are in the LGBT community. First, an apology from the church is a must for all the wrong that has been committed, regardless of what the other side has done. Then, the church leaders must come together to state what they did not intend to do, ostracize the gays and separating them from knowing the love of Christ. Moreover, the church leaders should state what they intend to do, which is to demonstrate Christ’s love and proclaiming the good news that all mankind falls short of the glory of God but are forgiven through Christ. Lastly, the church leaders must find a mutual purpose so that the LGBT community can no longer blame the church as an excuse to stray from the Creator. The last part will be difficult, but it can be done. God is judge of all and so the church leaders must seek to love and not take God’s role as the supreme judge. Only advice as to what is ethical and moral based on sound biblical analysis on this topic should be given. The LGBT community can choose to agree to accept the Church’s stance on this issue and decide individually how they will move from there. The fight between LGBT community and the church leaders should not take place. Instead, creating a pool of shared meaning where people feel safe to have different perspectives and openly discuss them should be the mutual purpose between these two camps.