Nothing’s a more critical contributor to a company’s success than communication. In many instances, however, we avoid engaging in meaningful communication because we prefer to avoid conflict in hopes that an “issue” will go away, or that we can deal with it via Slack, email, or text. In other cases, we aren’t even aware that in person communication is needed. We’re heads down in our own world, oblivious to the fact that we may have triggered something within someone, either in our own department or in perhaps in another group somewhere across the organizational chart.
Investing in learning how to fully engage in communication — or “crucial conversations” — starts with creating an awareness of the topic and its importance. Next, it takes commitment from everyone within an organization to agree that communication skills are those that everyone should want to improve. Finally, getting better at communication requires that a organization adopt a formal approach to how its team members engage in the crucial conversations that will amplify the collaborative efforts everyone puts towards companywide projects and initiatives.
At Remind we created awhile back a working group focused on helping foster the important relationship between managers and team members, aka the individuals a manager manages. Among the many things this manager development — or “MDev” — working group helps advance throughout our company is curriculum that we can all engage with to help deepen relationships in all directions within Remind. Recently, communication became one of those areas we decided to invest in more extensively, and as a result, we decided to adopt the communication framework described in the book “Crucial Conversations” to help us all enhance how we work together.
“Crucial Conversations” (or “CC” from here forward) establishes a thorough and research based approach that helps all of us talk to each other in a way that encourages two parties to achieve a meaningful outcome through dialogue in a way that removes tension, anger, frustration, anxiety, and essentially any emotion that otherwise might impair our ability to successively deliver and receive candid communication when we need it most. For sure “CC” is too long to fully summarize here in a single post, and as such I highly recommend that you buy your own copy and read it in its entirety. However, for those who might appreciate a simple, high-level summary to come back to as they continue to practice engaging in crucial conversations, well, consider the outline below your cheat sheet to “CC”.
1 What’s a crucial conversation, and how do you know you may be about to enter one or that you should work to create one?
The authors of “CC” identify three key elements that arise between two individuals (or groups of individuals) that you should look for as an indication that a crucial conversation might be in the offing:
First, you find yourself in a situation where “opposing opinions” exist. This point’s pretty straight forward. For example, consider the situation in which your VP of Finance believes that your company should invest in product A, and your VP of Product believes that the company should invest in a very different product B.
Second, “emotions run strong” between you and your counterpart. Staying with the example above, let’s say that discussions in executive team meetings, in cross-functional meetings, and even in one-on-one meetings between your two VP’s, have escalated to become quite heated per the “Product A vs. Product B” debate.
Third, based on the context in which you and another colleague might become engaged, it’s clear that “stakes are high” as relate to the outcome of the conversation. Once again, play out the example above. Your company only has a finite amount of investment, thus you can only invest in either the Product A path or the Product B path, but not both (though as explained below, this last assumption is a false one).
As “CC” highlights, based on studying more than 2,000 projects and programs: “The path to high productivity passes not through a static system, but through face-to-face conversations.” So what do your two VP’s need to do next?
2 How to master crucial conversations through the power of dialogue
Yes, your two VP’s need to engage in real dialogue around the decision between the two product path options. Before engaging in real dialogue though, your two VP’s need to step back and make sure they don’t enter the discussion believing there’s a “fool’s choice” in front of them. A fool’s choice means believing that an either/or outcome awaits you in a dialogue. Your VP of Product mustn’t believe that “if we don’t go with Product B I’ve failed in my job”; nor should your VP of Finance enter the discussion with a belief that “if we don’t pursue Product A we’ll never hit our financial targets.” A crucial conversation built through true dialogue can only exist if both participants enter with an open mindset that’s not anchored to “either/or” or “win/lose” thinking.
Assuming both participants enter with an open mind, how do you create real dialogue? Let’s start with a definition:
Dialogue (n): The free flow of meaning between two or more people.
This is where I’m taking severe liberties — for the sake of creating an abridged version of the “CC” approach — with the full framework outlined in “CC”. That said, let me reiterate that you should read “CC” cover-to-cover so that this summary serves its purpose i.e. to help you “snap back into” crucial conversation mode when necessary. Given this caveat, here’s a simple, abbreviated four step process to help you and your partner engage in dialogue.
Start with (your) heart. Simply put, this means being really clear with yourself what you want out of the dialogue. Ask yourself why you’re so “charged” by this interaction and what would make you feel better on the other side of the discussion? For example, the VP of Finance enters the discussion wanting a product decision that helps the company most accelerate revenue growth; while the VP of Product may enter the discussion hoping for a product path that ensures that the company will be able to capture significant market share from competitors.
Make it safe. Nobody likes a dialogue with another individual when they don’t feel safe, therefore both participants must feel safe in order to fully share their perspectives, facts, and other information while in dialogue. This means that individuals who sit organizationally at a higher level may need to speak to this safety dynamic explicitly in order to ensure that other participants won’t be negatively impacted by what they say. For example, the VP of Product may feel less equipped to fully contribute for fear they don’t fully understand all the financial impacts implied by pursuing each product path. In this setting, the VP of Finance must take the lead in creating an environment that enables a discussion such that the VP of Product feels safe sharing all their information related to each product opportunity.
Create a pool of shared meaning. Once a safe dialogue environment has been established, it becomes much easier for each participant to share their unique “meaning”. In this instance, meaning represents the collection of facts, perspectives, and other information salient to facilitating a full fidelity dialogue. Starting with facts is always a great way to begin as this allows the dialogue to commence in an objective versus subjective manner. The true power of each party filling the “pool of shared meaning” implies that when combined to the true underlying desires that each party brings to the table in terms of a desired outcome from the dialogue, this approach can illuminate real alignment between the participants around truly shared goals. For example, through a real dialogue the VP of Product and the VP of Finance might recognize that their respective desires to accelerate revenue growth and increase market share might be viewed as the same objective.
Recognize when you’re ready to move to action. Again, I’m purposefully omitting a number of steps along the path here, but through a dialogue that’s “safe” for all participants — while also combining each participant’s desired outcome with their willingness to share personal meaning throughout the discussion — both parties may simultaneously recognize an opportunity to take action towards a desired outcome. “CC” provides crisp points on “deciding how to decide” e.g. are decisions made through command, consultation, voting, or consensus; and on how to document decisions and put them into action by assigning follow up tasks e.g. who will do what, by when, in what form of follow up, and through what form of documenting everything so nothing slips through the cracks? Back to our two VP’s for a moment. Through their dialogue, they may agree that based on their shared meaning, Product A gives the company the best opportunity to increase market share and therefore grow revenues faster than Product B. However, because they aren’t 100% certain given the limits to current facts and understanding — and because neither wants to make a “fool’s choice” here — they agree in parallel to invest significantly in Product A, while also investing a small “test case” amount that will allow them to further explore the opportunity related to Product B.
3 Always bring it back to two important levers
If there’s only one piece of the “CC” framework you internalize and come back to consistently, it’s the following two “levers” that are outlined at the end of the book. Essentially, think of these two levers as the simplest and quickest way to apply the “CC” approach in any setting where it might prove useful.
Learn to look. Recognize whether the three signs that a crucial conversation might be appropriate exist, and then observe whether you are truly in a dialogue with another person or group. (One hint that you may not be fully in dialogue: Is the other person or some individuals in the other party exhibiting silence or violence during your interactions? If so, you’re not fully in dialogue.). Ask the question: “Are we in dialogue or have we moved away?”
Make it safe. As you move towards establishing a setting for real dialogue — or you’ve already entered a state of true dialogue — keep your “make it safe” antennae constantly tuned to all participants. Again, two clear signs that the setting for a “safe” dialogue may not be in place are if a participant (or participants) remains in silence and/or acts out in violence. If participants don’t feel safe they likely won’t share all the meaning they possess, or conversely they may feel threatened and as a result will choose to react in a more violent manner. The “CC” framework provides a number of helpful tools for encouraging those who may be exhibiting silence or violence to feel safer in a dialogue and therefore participate in a manner that leads to a positive outcome for all.
The “Crucial Conversations” framework by no means represents the only approach people and organizations might employ to facilitate healthy and candid communication. Indeed, the most important step a company can take is acknowledging that real dialogue between and across your team is a vital part of how you work — and succeed — together. Once you’ve made the commitment to invest in company-wide communication, pick an approach and stick with it over time. That’s how your organization will reap the long-term benefits from really engaging in crucial conversations.
Originally published on Medium on October 7, 2018. This Substack version is maintained as the canonical archive.