Crucial conversations in a nutshell
•
0 gefällt mir•1,376 views
This document provides an overview and exercises from the book "Crucial Conversations". It summarizes the Crucial Conversations model which has three parts: 1) The path to action which examines how people react before, during, and after tense conversations, 2) The pool of shared meaning which discusses establishing a common understanding, and 3) Mutual purpose which is about psychological safety and shared goals. It also outlines exercises for understanding one's reactions, contrasting viewpoints, and keeping conversations constructive. The document encourages applying these tools to improve crucial conversations.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Crucial conversations in a nutshell
Ähnlich wie Crucial conversations in a nutshell (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (14)
Crucial conversations in a nutshell
- 1. Crucial Conversations In a nutshell
- 4. Agenda The path to action + exercise The pool of shared meaning Mutual purpose + exercise
- 5. Crucial conversation? Strong emotions High stakes Opposing opinions
- 6. Crucial conversations model 1. The path to action Before During After 2. The pool of shared meaning 3. Mutual purpose Not now
- 7. The path to actionBefore Solution: Why would a reasonable, decent person do this? Observable reality Observable reality Internal mind/body processes
- 9. Silence Violence Masking Controlling Avoiding Labeling Withdrawing Attacking
- 10. Individual exercise: Exploring the path to action Fold a sheet of paper in half Remember the core of a tense conversation Start on the right half, write what you and the other person said Continue on the left half, write what you thought or felt
- 11. Exercise reflection: Exploring the path to action Read the right side and then look at the left side My stories: Were my questions meant to expand my understanding of the subject/situation? Acting: Was I falling into silence/violence?
- 13. The pool of shared meaning Common obstacles 1. Forgetting the intention of conversation 2. I feel attacked/blamed During Solution 1. Why are we having this conversation? 2. What do I really want for myself/others/the relationship? How would I behave if I really wanted these results?
- 14. Mutual purpose Psychological safety Safety first! Definition During
- 15. Establishing mutual purpose Apologize from your heart Contrast During
- 16. Individual exercise: Contrasting Think of a recent conversation in which you felt misunderstood Write down what you said and the reply that you got Use contrasting to reply (I don’t want…, I do want...) Write down your contrasting statement
- 17. Tools to start using right now Keep filling the pool of shared meaning ● Why are we having this conversation? ● What do I want for myself/others/the relationship? How would I behave if I really wanted these results? Prepare yourself by understanding your path to action ● Am I in silence or violence? ● Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person do/say this? Re-establish mutual purpose: apologize, contrast
- 18. I’m enthusiastic about this Feedback? A request Email: me@horiaconstantin.com
- 19. References and more resources Crucial Conversations Worksheet Master my stories extended - ladder of inference Master my stories exercise Crucial conversation style under stress Crucial conversation model
Hinweis der Redaktion
- As I was preparing for this presentation I’ve discovered that my presentation skills are a lot worse than my slide making skills :) I’m doing my best, but… bear with me. During my 1 year sabbatical I’ve had plenty of those, but one of them stayed with me and changed the way I see the world. I’ve come to the understanding that all important moments in my life happened and happening around other people. Even when it seems that I did something by myself, there’s always a mentor or a friend that supported me in achieving that something. I remember very well the moment when I defended my master thesis, it was my work, but both my supervisors were there. My insight is not about how humans socialise all the time. Where I’m going with this is that the social aspect is so much more important that I thought. In my mind I’ve always been a person of business first, human interaction later. But life doesn’t work like that: they’re both equally important. So this is why I’m here… because the human interaction is so important. This is what this workshop is about. When I think of the crucial conversations in my life, I can’t remember any conversations that went well, but a lot of conversations that didn’t happen: I quit my last two permanent jobs because I didn’t clearly state to my manager that I was unhappy with the salary and with they way they were doing things, respectively So, so many conversations with my parents where I concluded that they don’t know what they’re doing or talking about and I stopped listening to them or even talking to them. Since I know this stuff I’ve started to discover the humanity in others: Recruiters have a tendency to call and then not get back to me. Even when I email them multiple times or message them on LinkedIn. So, instead of thinking that they’re not professional, I started to bring it up and discovered they most of them have a strong preference for being called instead of reading email/messages. I learned that they have very different communication preferences and that not everyone is like me, but we can still work well together. I’ve started to meet some old friends again, after having a hard conversation about how we have a lot of “safe, but superficial” conversations. I discovered that for them human contact is more important than the content and that they don’t need to discuss something deep and interesting every time. Slowly, I’m starting to interact more with my parents and to understand that they have the best intentions and they love me no matter what.
- For SDL: Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I am aware that most of you are experiencing the after-lunch dip right now, the timing is not really optimal for learning new stuff, but in a sense it’s a good practice because hard conversations Disclaimer 1: detection and correction of errors. You will feel terrible while learning this Can we all agree to be extra nice and patient with ourselves during this 1 hour? Check with the audience? Also, feel free to take care of your needs: coffee, water, toilet. Just go for it. I don’t want it to get in the way of you listening
- It’s the first time in my life when I read a book about communication and my brain goes: “I get it, it makes sense”. Packed with techniques that make it easier to navigate through difficult conversations. And it’s actionable. Why I like the subject so much is that the skills are reusable in all areas of life: in the office, at home or in new situations. There aren’t so many skills that you could learn right now that will bring you value on such a large scale. My promise: I promise you that by the time this workshop is over you will have some tools to make your future hard conversations easier. In order to achieve that promise, I need us to agree on one rule of engagement: interact with me, ask questions, let me know when you’re getting bored or when I’m losing you. I am going to share the slides with you after the presentation.
- Engagement question: Can anyone come up with an example of what a crucial conversation might be? What might or might not be a crucial conversation, is depending on your context and your past experience with the situation. Most of the time the relationship is the thing which is at stake. Giving feedback to a colleague that is bad at receiving feedback might be a CC. Giving feedback to a colleague that you gave feedback multiple times and is good at receiving feedback might not be a crucial conversation because the emotions might not be strong. What is not a crucial conversation: a conversation about tabs versus spaces. The stakes are not high.
- I’m going to tell you about 3 separate concepts
- Engagement question: Who is familiar with the concept of the ladder of inference? Explanation via one of my concrete life examples: the standing in line at the cashier in the supermarket. See&hear -> tell a story (add meaning to the facts + makes assumptions to fill in the gaps in knowledge + good/bad judgement) -> feel ->act This is something that they call the path to action. Or how the stories change based on how I’m involved: if someone cuts me off: jerk. If I do it, they’re slow and I need to get somewhere. Personally, I notice myself being very good with making the stories when I don’t know the other very well. --------------------- Extra ---------------- The story is something that you bring with you in the conversation. Once the story is told, it controls us. You need to rewrite it BEFORE the conversation starts. Or how the stories change based on how I’m involved: if someone cuts me off: jerk. If I do it, they’re slow and I need to get somewhere. What I notice happening now, after 6 months of practice: I’m still doing it, but I catch myself doing it and I start challenging the story immediately. Understand that you do it all the time. And that the others are also doing it all the time.
- Engagement question: did anyone here notice fear while being in a conversation with someone? Let’s talk about fear a bit. And how it affects our conversations.
- Engagement question: Where do you think that sugarcoating or sarcasm fit? What about: convincing or exaggerating facts? Before we move forward, I need to define 2 concepts in relation to conversation Silence: any strategy of avoiding problems by withholding information Violence: any verbal strategy that attempts to convince, control or compel others Masking -> understating or selectively showing true opinions. Sarcasm or sugarcoating or being indirect/subtle or obscure Avoiding -> not addressing the elephant in the room Withdrawing -> exiting the conversation or the space of the conversation. Controlling: coercing others into your way of thinking by forcing your views on others or dominating the conversation. E.g. convincing, cutting others off, exaggerating facts, using directive questions, changing subjects Labeling: putting a label so you can dismiss them under a general stereotype of category Attacking: has the purpose of punishing the other or making them suffer in another way. E.g. belittling or threatening
- As I was saying before, my intent with this talk is to give you some tools that you can start using immediately in your conversations. So, let’s start practicing. Think of a small conversation that you just had. Focus on the core exchange
- As you will keep doing this, you might notice that patterns start to emerge. For example: I ask a form of the question “why would you do that?” “how did you think of that?” with a specific tone that actually has the underlying message that I think it’s stupid that you did it like that. Or, when someone talks a lot and takes over the conversation, I don’t share anything anymore. -------Extra---------- I’ve switched curiosity, which was in the original exercise, with my stories I’ve switched transparency, which was in the original exercise, with action
- Engagement question: In your life, when you’re part of a team, what process would you ideally use to make decisions? Ideally, they’ll say brainstorm, discuss. In the book, the authors use the metaphor of a pool to help visualize this process. The personal pool of meaning: beliefs, opinions, feelings, theories, experiences. Informs us and drives our actions. When a conversation starts, our pools of meaning are different and unknown to the other. The idea is to bring all relevant information in a shared pool of meaning. How it works: You don’t need to agree, but all the ideas need to get into the shared pool.
- the default here is to get into the traps, it’s the natural thing to do; we need to pay conscious attention to this. I forget the intention of conversation and go into silence of violence 1 Fix: Why are we having this conversation? 2 Fix: What do I really want for myself/others/the relationship? How would I behave if I really wanted these results? 3 brain (triune) theory doesn’t really work,
- When a conversation becomes crucial and it’s starting to break down, it’s because psychological safety is no longer present. Engagement question: Who is familiar with the concept? Psychological safety is "a condition in which you feel (1) included, (2) safe to learn, (3) safe to contribute, and (4) safe to challenge the status quo- all without fear of being embarrassed, marginalized or punished in some way. It’s a universal pattern that reflects the natural progression of human needs in social settings. The authors say that one of the best ways to re-establish safety is to start paying attention to mutual purpose. Mutual purpose means that others perceive that you’re working toward a common outcome in the conversation, that you care about their goals, interests and values. And vice versa. Note: you must really find & believe in the mutual purpose, don’t fake it. It has to be mutual. We can’t continue a conversation and get something useful out of it if we don’t believe the other’s intent. The disbelief will transform into fear and then into violence and silence. You can’t move on with the rest of the conversation until safety is re-established. Let’s see how we can fix a lost mutual purpose.
- Each is a tool, if one doesn’t work, go for the next one. Until safety is re-established, do not move forward. Apologize tips&tricks: really believe what you’re saying, if you don’t believe you made a mistake, don’t do this. Contrast tips&tricks: use it when you think that there’s a or will be a misunderstanding: address the other’s concerns (say it as a don’t want) and confirm your real purpose (as a do want part). It’s not an apology and do not water down your initial message. Clarify it…
- Contrasting is a don’t/do statement that: Addresses others’ conclusions that you don’t respect them or that you have a malicious purpose (the don’t part). Confirms your respect or clarifies your real purpose (the do part). I don’t want to put anyone on the spot or to make this uncomfortable, but I would like to discuss one or two of your situations, for the sake of understanding. Is anyone willing to share their conversation and contrasting statement with us? H: I’ve just looked at the time and I am disappointed that we didn’t stop the conversation earlier. O: I don’t like to be blamed like that H: I don’t mean to blame you and, actually, what i’m saying is not about you at all. What I wanted to say is that I want to respect your time and I feel disappointed in myself that I forgot to keep track of time.
- By this time I hope that you already found some favorite tools to take with you from this talk. These tools from the book are the ones that I found the easiest to implement in my own conversations.
- Distribute the summary at the end of the presentation Gather feedback 1 minute: 2 post-its: green/red. On each, I would like to ask you to write a word/very small sentence. Green: what went well; red: what could be improved. If you don’t have a positive or negative, that’s also fine, just put in the pool a single post-it. This is what I love doing and I need help - if you have ideas or situations you can create (with your friends, family, colleague...) where I can share this knowledge and more, would you be willing to let me know?
- Coworker that behaves offensively/defensive; that isn’t keeping commitments; that is withholding knowledge/information; Repeatedly talking to a coworker about the same problem; Giving feedback to your boss/coworker; Talking to a coworker about lack of initiative/proactivity I have a feeling that these presentation notes should be switched with what’s on the slide...
- See&hear -> tell a story (add meaning to the facts + makes assumptions to fill in the gaps in knowledge + good/bad judgement) -> feel ->act This is something that they call the path to action. The story is something that you bring with you in the conversation. Once the story is told, it controls us. You need to rewrite it BEFORE the conversation starts. Explanation via one of my concrete life examples: the standing in line at the cashier in the supermarket. Or how the stories change based on how I’m involved: if someone cuts me off: jerk. If I do it, they’re slow and I need to get somewhere. What I notice happening now, after 6 months of practice: I’m still doing it, but I catch myself doing it and I start challenging the story immediately. Personally, I notice myself being very good with making the stories when I don’t know the other very well. Understand that you do it all the time. And that the others are also doing it all the time. Tools for rewriting stories: Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person do what this person is doing? What do I want? For me, for others, for the relationship?
- 3 ways of handling: Avoiding (default) Handling them badly (default) Handling them well
- Disclaimer 1: clear enough Disclaimer 2: just knowing is not enough. Practice is crucial. Piano metaphor. Conversations are a skill, not a matter of knowledge. Disclaimer 3: not a silver bullet. hard conversations are hard conversations. Even with this new knowledge and practice that will not change. What will change is the outcome of that conversation.
- Do you remember this model from information theory? This model is interesting because it explains what’s happening during any conversation.
- Somehow, no one told me how important meta (non-verbal communication) really is. As a developer… Mistake: not knowing to pay attention to the meta (body sensations, feelings, change of posture of other). There’s no point in continuing the conversation if the communication channel has broken down and if the other is not receiving what I’m saying. First fix the communication channel. For me this is the hardest part because: it’s hard to notice and even, when I notice I don’t know what to do/say