Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High

Chapter 5 opens with the example of romantic partners who have uneven expectations of intimacy. Jotham wishes to engage in acts of intimacy more often, while Yvonne is satisfied with their current level of intimacy. Jotham’s overtures, and subsequent bad moods, silence, and withdrawal when rejected only make Yvonne less attracted to him, lengthening the period before she feels like engaging in intimacy. While both of them have valid points of view, their actions do not create safety for one another and actually are self-defeating. Jotham, through his pursuit of intimacy, is driving it further away. Yvonne, in her desire for stasis, is creating a space where she is getting less intimacy than before the conflict started, even though Jotham wants more. A bad interaction between them is detailed, showing that Jotham tends to mask, use sarcasm, and physically withdraw when upset. While the writers state that Jotham’s behavior is unacceptable and immature, it also indicates that he does not feel safe.

First, to create safety, Yvonne “Starts with Heart,” figuring out what she really wants to achieve: She wants herself and Jotham to be on the same side of the issue. This introduces the second aspect of establishing safety, creating the “Mutual Purpose.” This is a way of showing all parties that their priorities are important to everyone else. “A shared goal” (69) creates a healthy climate and builds safety. If people feel that everyone else is trying to individually win the argument instead of creating good results for everybody, everyone will feel that they have to protect themselves with “Silence and Violence.” “Mutual Purpose” (See: Index of Terms) also requires “Mutual Respect,” a sincere desire to maintain the dignity of others in the conversation. Recognizing that everyone has weaknesses and strengths helps with establishing Mutual Respect, even when a person isn’t behaving respectfully toward others.

When Mutual Purpose or Mutual Respect are at risk, three skills can be employed to regain and bolster these safety conditions. The first is apologizing. This is an acknowledgement of one’s own role in others’ difficulties. A sincere apology can only occur when “you experience a change in heart” (76). However, this acknowledgement of wrongdoing and its effect on others can go a long way in establishing safety.

The second skill is “Contrasting.” Contrasting involves pinpointing where others “misinterpret your purpose or your intent” and using contrasting statements to affirm respect and make your true purpose clear (77). As an example, Yvonne uses Contrasting when she says to Jotham:

I don’t want to suggest that this problem is yours. The truth is, I think it’s ours. I’m not trying to put the burden on you. I don’t even know what the solution is. What I do want is to be able to talk so we can understand each other better. (78)

She explicitly states what she doesn’t mean, then uses that to clarify her true meaning. This is not the same as apologizing. It is a way of making sure that words “don’t hurt more than they’re supposed to” (79).

The third skill is defined by the acronym CRIB. CRIB is a four-pronged strategy that allows even the thorniest conflict to turn into a pursuit of a Mutual Purpose.

The “C” stands for “committing” to the Mutual Purpose: This involves putting aside the desire to win an argument and instead figuring out a way to “agree to agree” (83). “R” stands for “recognizing” the Mutual Purpose and not getting caught up in the strategy. “I” stands for “inventing” this Mutual Purpose if goals are not initially aligned. “B” stands for “brainstorming” a strategy for moving toward that Mutual Purpose.

The chapter ends with Jotham and Yvonne inventing a Mutual Purpose of “finding ways to be together” that lead to both of them feeling “loved and appreciated” (90). They begin to brainstorm strategies to accomplish this goal.

Chapter 6 explores more skills to further “gain control of crucial conversations” (93). Focusing on emotions as a driving force of conflict, two claims about emotion in conversation are made. The first is that “you and only you create your emotions” (94). No one can make someone else angry or upset. The second claim is that after an individual creates their own emotions, they can either “act on them or be acted on by them” (95). Emotions will not disappear; they will either consciously or unconsciously drive behavior.

As an example, Maria is introduced. Maria, while working with her colleague Louis on a proposal for their boss, finds herself talked over during the presentation. Additionally, Louis took their suggestions to the boss and discussed them without Maria present. Maria believes that Louis is downplaying her contribution because she’s the only woman on the team. She doesn’t want to cause conflict, so instead she uses sarcasm, masking her real anger with “cheap shots” at Louis, who is confused at her hostility. Maria does not feel safe in bringing up her concerns, so she does not, but the upset emotions do not go anywhere, and they continue to influence her actions for the worse.

The established pattern here is that others’ actions create emotions, which create personal actions. The individual experiencing the emotions feels powerless in this process. However, another step occurs between others’ actions and the creation of emotions: The observer tells themselves a story about what is happening. The story—or how the observer is conceptualizing the action—is what actually creates emotions.

“Storytelling typically happens blindingly fast” (100), and people often don’t notice that they’re telling themselves stories that may or may not reflect reality. For instance, Maria is telling herself the story that Louis does not appreciate her contributions because she’s a woman, when Louis’ actions might indicate a number of other things. He might not realize how much Maria cares about the proposal or think he’s being helpful by taking tasks off her plate. These stories match the facts just as well and would create fewer negative emotions.

To master one’s own stories, understanding one’s “Path to Action” is vital. The Path to Action is the journey from observation to storytelling to emotion to action. To understand and adjust the Path to Action, follow four steps:

Observe your behavior: Most people engage in silence or violence when upset, so studying actions can lead to understanding what prompts those actions.

Review and assess your feelings: What emotions inform the actions being made?

Analyze the stories you tell: What story was told to create those emotions?

Consider the facts: What actually happened? What evidence supports the story, the emotion, and the action?

The skill of understanding one’s own stories is further developed by understanding the three different categories of unhelpful “clever” stories. The first is the “Victim Story”: considering the people telling the story to be “innocent sufferers.” While totally innocent victims do exist, they do not often factor into crucial conversations. The Victim Story requires the person telling the story to consider nothing except their own “noble motives,” making themselves out to be a “punished” martyr. The second is the “Villain Story,” which turns “normal, decent human beings into villains” by focusing on the other person’s guilt and poor motives (107). This justifies the conflict but also justifies bad behaviors toward the “villain.” The third type of story is the “Helpless Story,” where the person telling the story justifies their Sucker’s Choice by pretending that there are no other options available. Helpless Stories justify staying in the exact same situation, even though it is causing problems for yourself or others.

These clever stories are sometimes accurate to reality but not often. Most of the time, people tell themselves clever stories to “get [themselves] off the hook” and not reevaluate their own behaviors (109). Clever stories often also indicate that the people telling them feel the need to justify their actions instead of admitting their errors and changing their behavior.

The antidote to clever stories are “useful” stories. Clever stories are, by nature, incomplete, telling only one part of the narrative. Useful stories include all relevant information. Useful stories also refuse to cast villains and victims, instead assuming that everyone involved is “reasonable, rational, and decent” (113). Reflecting on “alternative motives” to other’s actions can open the way to dialogue, which leads to solving problems.

Maria’s conflict begins to recede when she realizes that the story she was telling herself was “incomplete, defensive, and hurtful” (115). She schedules a meeting with Louis and discusses the actions he took. He explains that he speaks more when he is nervous and hadn’t realized that he dominated the presentation. They come up with a plan for making sure that each of them get equal amounts of presentation time and therefore solve the conflict without any hurt feelings.