Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High

“When conversations turn from routine to crucial, we’re often in trouble. That’s because emotions don’t exactly prepare us to converse effectively. Countless generations of genetic shaping drive humans to handle crucial conversations with flying fists and fleet feet, not intelligent persuasion and gentle attentiveness.”

This quote shows the emotions that rise when a crucial conversation occurs. Adrenaline prompts the human brain to engage in fight-or-flight responses instead of safety-oriented thoughtful discussion, a biological reaction that has to be strategically counteracted. The alliteration of “flying fists and fleet feet” emphasize the performativity of these actions and contrasts them with the more pragmatic—and less melodically sounding—solutions of “intelligent persuasion and gentle attentiveness.”

“Our research has shown that strong relationships, careers, organizations, and communities all draw from the same source of power—the ability to talk openly about high-stakes, emotional, controversial topics.”

The importance of mastering crucial conversations is laid bare in this quote. Crucial conversations occur across a wide range of scenarios. In every scenario, though, crucial conversations handled well have the potential to improve relationships and communities in multiple ways. The authors preface this by referring to “[o]ur research” to build trust in the legitimacy of their statements.

“This was a crucial conversation, and Kevin played no games whatsoever. He didn’t resort to silence like his colleagues, nor did he try to force his arguments on others […] When Kevin was done, one of his peers turned to us and said, ‘Did you see how he did that? If you want to know how he gets things done, figure out what he just did.’”

This quote shows the first concrete example of dialogue skills in action. Kevin’s ability to engage in crucial conversations successfully impressed both his colleagues and the researchers, leading them to study Kevin’s singular approach more closely. This is an example of anecdote that makes the information personal and hence engaging.

“At the core of every successful conversation lies the free flow of relevant information. People openly and honestly express their opinions, share their feelings, and articulate their theories.”

This quote explains the concept of the “Pool of Shared Meaning”: the endpoint of a “free flow” of information, made possible through dialogue. The language in this section is prosaic in order to make the information clear and direct, reflecting the processes of sharing information.

“How do you encourage the flow of meaning in the face of differing opinions and strong emotions? Given the average person’s track record, it can’t be all that easy. In fact, given most people’s long-standing habit of costly behaviors, it’ll probably require a lot of effort.”

The authors use a rhetorical question in order to pose a clear problem to the reader. However, rather than use hypophora (posing and answering a question), the authors instead further acknowledge the extent of the problem. This conveys empathy for—and hence aims to engage—the reader by noting that the authors, too, find the solution to be a difficult “effort.”

“The best don’t play games. They know that dialogue is the free flow of meaning, with no pretending, sugarcoating, or faking. So they do something completely different. They step out of the content of the conversation, make it safe, then step back in.”

Throughout the book, comparisons are periodically made between the worst, the good, and the best communicators. This simplifies the ethical considerations of communication. This quote indicates that the “best” see pitfalls before they happen and counteract them.

“Respect is like air. If you take it away, it’s all people can think about. The instant people perceive disrespect in a conversation, the interaction is no longer about the original purpose—it is now about defending dignity.”

This quote points out the importance of establishing respect. The analogy of “air” illustrates the point by comparing respect to the embodied experience of suffocation, making respect appear both tangible and urgent.

“Contrasting is not apologizing. It is not a way of taking back something we’ve said that hurt others’ feelings. Rather, it is a way of ensuring that what we said didn’t hurt more than it should have.”

This quote explains the purpose of “Contrasting,” which is to specify the precise bounds of a criticism. The authors are meta-referential in this explanation, since they use “contrasting” itself to explain what contrasting both is and “is not,” reinforcing the meaning of the term.

“Sometimes when we recognize the purposes behind our strategies, we discover that we actually have compatible goals. From there you simply come up with common strategies. But we’re not always so lucky. For example, you find out that your genuine wants and goals cannot be served except at the expense of the other person’s. In this case you cannot discover a Mutual Purpose, so you must actively invent one.”

This quote explains a strategy to deal with conflict when all parties are totally at odds with one another. The authors use the first-person construction of “we” to continue to convey empathy for the reader and create a less didactic and more motivating tone.

“Once you’ve created your emotions, you have only two options: you can act on them or be acted on by them. That is, when it comes to strong emotions, you either find a way to master them or fall hostage to them.”

This quote continues the discussion of the significance of emotional control in successful dialogue. The language of “master” and “hostage” is histrionic and used to convey the high stakes of being “acted on by” emotions.

“Just after we observe what others do, and before we feel some emotion about it, we tell ourselves a story. That is, we add meaning to the action we observed. To the simple behavior we add motive. Why were they doing that? We also add judgment—is that good or bad? And then, based on these thoughts or stories, our body responds with an emotion.”

This quote uses rhetorical questions in order to present the progression of thought processes during an emotional reaction and evoke reader reflection. The series of questions shows how rapidly people come up with stories to explain others’ actions and their own emotional response.

“When we don’t admit to our own mistakes, we obsess about others’ faults, our innocence, and our powerlessness to do anything other than what we’re already doing. We tell a clever story when we want self-justification more than results. Of course, self-justification is not what we really want, but we certainly act as if it is.”

This quote explains the self-defeating technique of telling clever stories. The use of the first-person plural indicates the ubiquity of these stories as psychological tools to defend questionable actions or attitudes.

“When we reflect on alternative motives, not only do we soften our emotions, but equally important, we relax our absolute certainty long enough to allow for dialogue—the only reliable way of discovering others’ genuine motives.”

This quote illustrates the efficacy of strategies that force people to mitigate their emotions in order to engage in productive dialogue. The final statement is separated from the rest of the sentence by a dash to be emphatic about one of the book’s main thematic points: Relationship Building Through Dialogue.

“How can we speak the unspeakable and still maintain respect? Actually, it can be done if you know how to carefully blend three ingredients—confidence, humility, and skill.”

The skills outlined in this quote detail how to present potentially upsetting information without belittling the recipient of said information. This quote uses a list of traits to simplify those skills and make them easier to remember in the heat of the moment.

“Some people are so worried about being too forceful or pushy that they err in the other direction. They wimp out by making still another Sucker’s Choice. They figure that the only safe way to share touchy data is to act as if it’s not important.”

This quote points out the danger of erring in either direction when presenting delicate information. By using a Sucker’s Choice as an example, it shows the fruitlessness of both options, either “forceful” or “wimp”-like. The authors use colloquial language of “wimp out” and “sucker” to make high-level concepts accessible.

“If you think others may be hesitant, make it clear that you want to hear their views—no matter their opinion. If they disagree, so much the better. If what they have to say is controversial or even touchy, respect them for having the courage to express what they’re thinking. If they have different facts or stories, you need to hear them to help complete the picture.”

This quote uses the second-person to indicate the immediacy of the instructions. The strategies outlined here are meant to counteract the physical emotional response involved in a crucial conversation, so they are presented firmly and unequivocally. The tone is more didactic than when the authors use “we” in other sections in order to emphasize the significance of their lessons.

“To avoid overreacting to others’ stories, stay curious. Give your brain a problem to stay focused on. Ask: ‘why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person say this?’”

This quote, written in second-person plural instructive form, issues a command to the reader. It also presents a rhetorical question that acts as a springboard into more empathetic approaches to dialogues.

“The most important element of mirroring is our tone of voice. It is not the fact that we are acknowledging others’ emotions that creates safety. We create safety when our tone of voice says we’re okay with them feeling the way they’re feeling. If we do this well, they may conclude that rather than acting out their emotions, they can confidently talk them out with us instead.”

This quote discusses the importance of nonverbal cues in establishing safety in dialogue. The authors contrast a negative with an affirmative—saying what safety “is not” before saying what it is—to clarify the concept.

“As you watch families and work groups take part in heated debates, it’s common to notice a rather intriguing phenomenon. Although the various parties you’re observing are violently arguing, in truth, they’re in violent agreement. They actually agree on every important point, but they’re still fighting. They’ve found a way to turn subtle differences into a raging debate.”

This quote points out that expansive common ground between arguers is the norm, not the exception. It uses histrionic language and warlike metaphors of “violent” and “raging” to emphasize the stakes of the debate and underscore the significance of methods of dialogue.

“The two riskiest times in crucial conversations tend to be at the beginning and at the end. The beginning is risky because you have to find a way to create safety or else things go awry. The end is dicey because if you aren’t careful about how you clarify the conclusion and decisions flowing from your Pool of Shared Meaning, you can run into violated expectations later on.”

This quote points out that crucial conversations often have key points on which the burden of productive dialogue rests. The language is informal—including phrases such as “things go awry” or words such as “dicey”—which exemplifies the accessible tone of the book.

“People often assume that trust is something you have or don’t have. Either you trust someone or you don’t. That puts too much pressure on trust […] Trust doesn’t have to be universally offered. In truth, it’s usually offered in degrees and is very topic specific.”

This quote delves into the necessity for specificity in terms and definitions while engaging in dialogue. The authors use the introductory phrase of “[i]n truth” to pause the flow of the narrative and prepare readers for a thesis statement.

“When you look at a continuum of dialogue skills, most of us (by definition) fall in the middle. Sometimes we’re on, sometimes we’re off. Some of us are good at avoiding Sucker’s Choices; others are good at making it safe.”

This quote uses the anaphora of “sometimes we’re” followed by an antithesis—“on” or “off”—to emphasize the diverse talents that people possess and neutralize the idea of being “on” or “off.”

“Crucial conversations are defined by their emotional characteristics. Your ability to pull yourself out of the content of a discussion and to focus on the process is inversely proportional to your level of emotion.”

This quote drives home the inevitable emotional aspect to crucial conversations by using the dynamic metaphor of “pulling yourself out” to vividly illustrate the struggles involved in emotional conversations.