Review of Crucial Conversations
By Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, & Al Switzler

Reviewed by: Kelsey Ebben, Performa Research Associate

Crucial Conversations

How easy is it for you to critique a peer's work? Confront a peer who behaves offensively? Ask a friend to repay a loan? Approach a supervisor who is breaking his or her own policies? Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler (2002) in Crucial Conversations explore ways to help people overcome high emotions in tense situations in order to communicate effectively. The accessible, yet information-packed lessons in Crucial Conversations benefit individual relationships as well as entire organizations. Patterson et al. (2002) assert,

It all comes down to how people handle crucial conversations.In the worst companies, poor performers are first ignored and then transferred. In good companies, bosses eventually deal with problems. In the best companies, everyone holds everyone else accountable - regardless of level or position. The path to high productivity passes not through a static system, but through face-to-face conversations at all levels. (p. 11) Patterson et al. (2002) utilize interactions they observed in their research on U.S. companies and in personal

relationships to demonstrate crucial conversation skills. They begin with an explanation of the importance of dialogue. The success of any crucial conversation is contingent on getting relevant information from all participants into a "shared pool of meaning," and this is achieved through dialogue. Dialogue begins with thinking about your preferred outcomes for the interaction. Patterson et al. suggest asking: What do I really want for myself? What do I really want for others? What do I really want for the relationship? (p. 34). In tense situations, our emotions often cause us to behave in a way that is divergent from our real motivations. If we identify what we want, we can better refocus our efforts. Also, people often get trapped in "either/or" thinking. The authors recommend "searching for the elusive and," which means finding ways to get what you want, while also not getting what you do not want. For example, Is there a way to tell your peer your real concerns and not insult or offend him? (p.41).

Once an individual creates a proper dialogue mindset, it is necessary to monitor how others perceive the dialogue content and process. When people become overwhelmed by crucial conversations, they either become silent (i.e., shut down and refuse to speak) or violent (i.e., use name calling and insults). At these moments, safety is at risk because individuals do not feel comfortable adding to the shared pool of meaning. Crucial conversationalists must be cognizant of when the safe environment for dialogue deteriorates, and work to re-establish mutual purpose and mutual respect through the use of three skills: apologizing, contrasting, and CRIB. When you've made a mistake that hurts others, you must first apologize. Contrasting is "a don't-do statement addresses others' concerns that you don't respect them or that you have a malicious purpose, while confirming your respect and clarifying your real purpose" (p. 77). For example, "The last thing I want to do is communicate that I do not value your hard work. Your work has consistently been high quality and extremely well-written." Once you have made the dialogue environment safe again, you can continue with your main issue: "However, the tardiness of your last assignment disappointed me."

The third skill, CRIB, involves committing to seek a mutual purpose, recognizing the purpose behind the strategy, inventing a mutual purpose, and brainstorming new strategies. Patterson et al. (2002) walk readers through the CRIB steps, while providing detailed examples to demonstrate how these skills function in everyday conversation. For example, imagine you and a peer disagree about which program should receive a major annual award. First, you would commit to ending the discussion with an agreement that will be satisfactory to each individual. Next you would recognize the purpose behind the strategy, which means identifying true interests of each individual. For example, during the discussion you may uncover that your peer wants to give the award to one department because the faculty have produced high-quality scholarship, while you favor another department's high student achievement outcomes. The third step is inventing a mutual purpose, which involves reminding participants of the importance of their relationships over the final outcome of the decision. You might say, "Let's make sure whatever we do, we don't drive a wedge in our working relationship" (p. 87). The final step is brainstorm new strategies, which means searching for a solution that will serve everyone. For example: "What if we looked for a department that performed well in both faculty scholarship and student achievement? What if we gave out two awards this year?"

The ability to self-monitor your behavior during crucial conversations can be difficult, especially when emotions run high. However, Patterson et al. (2002) suggest, "Others don't make you mad. You make you mad. You and only you create your emotions" (p. 94). They further argue that we generate emotions through creating stories, or interpretations of what we observe. Often these stories are not grounded in truth, and they usually fall into three categories: Victim stories - "it's not my fault," Villain stories - "it's all your fault," and Helpless stories - "there's nothing else I can do." In order to effectively navigate crucial conversations, individuals must learn to recognize when they create stories, and ensure they separate facts from stories. Dialogue participants need to use facts as the foundation for dialogue, rather than emotionally-charged stories.

Patterson et al. (2002) offer two more sets of skills for crucial conversation. The first set is STATE, which stands for share your facts, tell your story, ask for others' paths, talk tentatively, and encourage testing. Sharing, telling, and asking form the three "action" steps, while talking tentatively and encouraging testing (i.e., inviting opposing perspectives) are the "how" techniques. For example, perhaps a peer did not ask your input when crafting reports about the project you lead. A way to approach this issue would be to first tentatively share your facts: "I notice you've written about my project but did not ask me about it prior to publication." You would then tell your story: "My initial reaction was that you do not value my opinions, but I realize I could be wrong. I hope we can speak about this more objectively so I can better understand this situation." It would then be useful to encourage testing by asking for the other person's path. For example: "Am I completely off base here? Do you see it differently?"

As previously mentioned, it is likely many people will not feel safe sharing their opinions and perspectives during a dialogue. Therefore, Patterson et al. also offer four Power Listening Tools. These include: Ask to get things rolling, Mirror to confirm feelings (i.e., it appears you do not feel comfortable speaking about this with me.), Paraphrase to acknowledge their story (i.e., so what you're saying is..), and Prime, or take a best guess at what the other person might be thinking (i.e., I'm guessing you might be feeling angry right now.).

In the final chapters, Patterson et al. (2002) suggest all parties in a crucial conversation discuss the decision-making process and make explicit how a final decision will be made at the conclusion of the dialogue. It is also important to determine how the group will follow through on the issues they discuss. The authors conclude with practical ways to hone crucial conversation skills, including rehearsing with a friend and practicing the skills during less crucial conversations.

Patterson et al. (2002) admit putting these skills into practice is not easy. However, they maintain that it is highly important for leaders to be adept at crucial conversations. After an individual masters crucial conversation skills, they can "Help strengthen organizations, solidify families, heal communities, and shore up nations one person -one crucial conversation- at a time" (p. 228). With these essential dialogue skills, college administrators can be more confident and effective when dealing with the many crucial conversations that determine the future of their institutions and the health of their collegial relationships. Higher education professionals consistently encourage students to grapple with crucial conversations such as roommate conflicts and negotiating their autonomy with their parents. However, rarely do upper-level administrators follow suit. All too often, higher education professionals avoid crucial issues altogether, or shift problems (or even problematic staff) to other departments rather than engage in crucial conversations. The skills Patterson et al. (2002) offer would be beneficial in creating a more productive workplace where staff feel valued and issues can be resolved efficiently and respectfully.