Framing Compelling Arguments

How do you create compelling arguments for change? How do you convince others to comply with your requests? How do you reduce the perceived costs of action or increase the perceived costs of inaction? In The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels, Michael Watkins writes about framing compelling arguments.

Reason, Values, or a Combination
Watkins writes:

"Persuasive appeals can be based on logic and data, or on values and the emotions that values elicit, or on some combination thereof. Reason-based arguments have to directly address the pragmatic interests of the people you want to convince. Value-based arguments aim to trigger emotional reflexes -- for example, by evoking patriotism to win support for sacrifices during wartime."

Appealing to Core Values
Watkins summarizes appealing to core values:

Core Values	Within the Business Environment
Loyalty	Commitment to an ideal Sacrifice to realize that ideal
Commitment and Contribution	Service to customers and suppliers Creating a better organization, society, or world
Individual worth and dignity	Respect for the individual expressed as elimination of exploitative or patronized practices and promotion of decency and opportunity for all Providing the means for individuals to realize their potential
Integrity	Respect for the letter and the spirit of the law Ethical and honest behavior Fairness in all interactions

Key Take Aways
Here's my key take aways:

• Frame your arguments. One approach is to just ask for what you want and see what happens. If the stakes are high, you'll want to frame a compelling argument.
• Know whether you need logic, emotion or a combination. In general, I find a combination is most effective. That said, some people are more emotionally-driven while others are more data-driven. For those that are more emotionally driven, I find that metaphors or emotional picture words work well. If you know somebody is more data-driven, be sure to do your homework. See Know It Alls.
• Know an individual's convincer strategy. You need to know the recipe to how an individual gets convinced. See Seven Meta-Programs for Understanding People.
• Don't misrepresent your argument. There's a difference between improving your argument and manipulation. Present your argument in a compelling, relevant way, but don't mislead. Integrity matters.
• Know the meta-programs. If you know how people filter the world and what they value, you can make your argument more relevant. See Seven Meta-Programs for Understanding People.
• Know the Five Thinking Styles. If you know how people think, you can better frame your argument. See Five Thinking Styles.
• Create a compelling business case. You can use a business case to show how big is the pie and what's your slice. You can use a business case to either support your argument or to argue against an alternative action. See Eight Rules of businessThink.
• Calculate the impact. This includes the impact over time. Many people are driven by impact. They like to know they make a difference. If you help show them how they will make a difference, this will help you frame a more compelling argument. See Calculating Impact.

My Related Posts

• Five Thinking Styles
• Eight Rules of businessThink
• Seven Meta-Programs for Understanding People
• The Lens of Human Understanding
• Cooperative Controversy Over Competitive Controversy
• Six Thinking Hats
• How To Use the But-Rebuttal Method
• No Person
• Know-It-Alls
• PRIEST for Well-Formed Outcomes
• Expectation Management
• How To Paint a Future Picture
• Mutual Purpose
• Searching for the Elusive And
• Putting Good Ideas in Place

Building Your Advice-and-Counsel Network

How do you build an effective support network for getting results? To be an effective leader, you need a combination of technical advisers, cultural interpreters and political counselors. In The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels, Michael Watkins writes about how you can build an effective support network.

Why Build an Advice-and-Counsel Network
Watkins writes:

"No lead, no matter how capable and energetic, can do it all. You need a network of trusted advisers within and outside the organization with whom to talk through what you are experiencing. Your network is an indispensable resource that can help you avoid becoming isolated and losing perspective. As a starting point, you need to cultivate three types of advice givers: technical advisers, cultural interpreters, and political counselors."

Types of Advice Givers
Watkins identifies the types of advice givers and how they help you:

• Technical advisers. Provide expert analysis of technologies, markets, and strategy. They suggest applications for new technologies. They recommend strategies for entering new markets. They provide timely and accurate information.
• Cultural interpreters. Help you understand the new culture and (if that is your objective) to adapt for it. They provide you with insight into cultural norms, mental models, and guiding assumptions. They help you learn to speak the language of the new organization.
• Political counselors. Help you deal with political relationships within your new organization. They help you implement the advice of your technical advisers. They serve as a sounding board as you think through options for implementing your agenda. They challenge you with what-if questions.

Assessment of Your Advice-and-Counsel Network
Watkins provides a table for assessing your advice-and-counsel network:

-	Technical Advisers	Cultural Interpreters	Political Counselors
Internal advisers and Counselors (inside your new organization)
External Advisers and Couselors (outside your new organization)

An Effective Support Network
Watkins outlines an effective support network:

• The right mix of technical advisers, cultural interpreters, and political counselors.
• The right mix of internal and external advice-givers. You want honest feedback from insiders and the dispassionate perspective of outside observers.
• External supporters who are loyal to you as an individual, not to your new organization of unit. Typically these are long-standing colleagues and friends.
• Internal advisers who are trustworthy, whose personal agendas don’t conflict with yours, and who offer straight and accurate advice.
• Representatives of key constituencies who can help you understand their perspectives. You do not want to restrict yourself to one or two points of view

Internal and External Advice Givers
Watkins writes:

"You also need to think hard about the mix of internal and external advice-givers you want to cultivate. Insiders know the organization, its culture and politics. Seek out people who are well connected and who you can trust to help you grasp what is really going on. They are a priceless resource.

At the same time, insiders cannot be expected to give you dispassionate or disinterested views of events. Thus, you should augment your internal network with outside advisers and counselors who will help you work through the issues and decisions you are facing. They should be skilled at listening and asking questions, have good insight into the way organizations work, and have your best interests at heart."

Think Ahead
Watkins suggests preparing ahead:

"Will your existing network provide the support you need in your new situation? Don’t assume that people who have been helpful in the past will continue to be helpful in your new situation. You will encounter different problems and former advisers may not be able to help you in your new role. As you attain higher levels of responsibility, for example, the need for good political counsel increases dramatically.

You should also be thinking ahead. Because it takes time to develop an effective network, it’s not too early to focus on what sort of network you will need in your next job. How ill your needs for advice change?"

Key Take Aways
I think this is a particularly important post. Too many people with great ideas, can't get results because they don't have an effective network. The other scenario is a great person with a great idea, has to work too hard. An effective network would help both scenarios. Here's my key take aways:

• Use technical advisers, cultural interpreters, and political counselors. This is a great breakdown. If you have the best of ideas, but you don't have the political support, you won't get your ideas implemented.
• Include internal and external advisers. Keeping a set of external advisers will help you keep perspective. Otherwise, you can end up the frog in the boiling pot.
• Don't just rely on your past network. Situations change. Needs change. Evolve your network for your changing needs.
• Build your network before you need it. While a friend in need is a friend indeed, building your support network ahead of time will help you avoid desperation. Also, building an effective network takes time.

My Related Posts

• Influence Network
• Securing Early Wins
• Avoiding Vicious Cycles
• Counter-Coalitions
• The Politically Competent Leader, The Political Analyst, and the Consensus Builder
• Putting Good Ideas in Place

Sequencing to Build Momentum

Who you influence and in what sequence matters. People are heavily influenced by their social networks. Monkey see, monkey do. This can work for or against you. The key is to get the right people on your side. If you're doing a project proposal or pitching an idea, who you pitch it to and in what sequence matters. You can either stack the deck in your favor and build momentum, or you can fight an uphill battle. In The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels, Michael Watkins writes about sequencing to build momentum.

Formidable Barrier or Valuable Asset
Influence networks can be barriers or assets. Watkins writes:

"As we have seen, people consistently look to others in their social networks for clues about 'right thinking,' and defer others with expertise or status on particular sets of issues. The resulting influence networks can be a formidable barrier to your efforts or a valuable asset, or both."

Example of Social Influence
Watkins provides an example of social influence showing how a group is persuaded:

"Let us return once more to the example of asking a group of people to do something embarrassing. Suppose that, in response to my request, a respected member of the group said, "No way, I'm doing that. It is disrespectful and foolish." Almost certainly no one else in the group would do what I had asked. But suppose the same person jumped up, grabbed someone else and said, "Let's do it! It'll be fun!" The odds are that everyone else would eventually follow suit. In fact, the last to rise, would feel social pressure to do so: "What's the matter with you?"

Now suppose I did an analysis of the group before this exercise and identified the most respected person. Suppose I met with that person before the exercise and enlisted his or her aid as a confederate to make some important points about group dynamics and social influence. The odds are good that this person would agree to do so - and that others would follow."

Sequencing Strategy
Gain respected allies early on. Watkins writes:

"The fundamental insight is that you can leverage knowledge of influence networks into disproportionate influence on a group with what my colleague Jim Sebenius termed a sequencing strategy. The order in which you approach potential allies and convincables will have a decisive impact on your coalition-building efforts. Why? Once you gain a respected ally, you will typically find it easier to recruit others. As you recruit more allies, your resource base grows. With broader support, the likelihood increases that your agenda will succeed. That optimistic outlook makes it easier to recruit still more supporters.

If you approach the right people first, you can set in motion a virtuous cycle. Therefore you need to decide carefully who you wil approach first, and how you will do it."

Who to Focus On
Watkins suggests focusing on the following first:

• People with whom you already have supportive relationships.
• Individuals whose interests are strongly compatible with yours.
• People who have the critical resources you need to make your agenda succeed.
• People with important connections who can recruit more supporters.

Key Take Aways
I have several large-scale projects under my belt so I can say with confidence that sequence matters. Here's my key take aways:

• Build incremental support. Divide and conquer. You don't need to win everybody over at once. In fact, unless it's a sure thing, you probably won't.
• Tackle your most influential critics first. This serves three purposes. First, it will expose you to some issues you may need to work through. Second, if you get them on your side, it sends a powerful message, helping you get more supporters. Third, it helps mitigate the risk that a powerful critic will derail your momentum downstream. Put it another way, a stitch in time, saves nine.
• Know when you're not the right person. If you don't have rapport with the people you need on your side, but one of your allies does, see how you can leverage them.
• Don't get blind-sided by social influence. The best ideas can get shot down, regardless of their merits. It's sad, but true. If you purely focus on the results, but ignore the people mechanics, you can fail. Even if you don't, you can find yourself working harder than you should need to.
• Consider an exec sponsor. The social influence of the right exec sponsor can carry you over the hurdles, as well as help shape the support all around you.

My Related Posts

• Political Competence
• Putting Good Ideas in Place
• Counter-Coalitions
• The Politically Competent Leader, The Political Analyst, and the Consensus Builder

Seven Meta-Programs for Understanding People

In Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), meta-programs are the keys to the way you process information. They're basically how you form your internal representations and direct your behavior. In Unlimited Power : The New Science Of Personal Achievement, Tony Robbins writes about meta-programs that people use to sort and make sense of the world.

7 Meta-Programs

• Toward or Away
• External or Internal Frame of Reference
• Sorting By Self or Sorting by Others
• Matcher or Mismatcher
• Convincer Strategy
• Possibility vs. Necessity
• Independent, Cooperative and Proximity Working Styles

Toward or Away
Robbins writes:

"All human behavior revolves around the urge gain pleasure or avoid pain. You pull away from a lighted match in order to avoid the pain of burning your hand. You sit and watch a beautiful sunset because you get pleasure from the glorious celestial show as day glides into night."

External or Internal Frame of Reference
Robbins writes:

"Ask someone else how he know when he's done a good job. For some people, the proof comes from the outside. The boss pats you on the back and says your work was great. You get a raise. You win a big award. Your work is noticed and applauded by your peers. When you get that sort of external approval, you know
your work is good. That's an external frame of reference.

For others, the proof comes from inside. They 'just know inside' when thy'eve done well."

Sorting By Self or Sorting by Others
Robbins writes:

"Some people look at human interactions primarily in terms of what's in it for them personally, some in terms of what they can do for themselves or others. Of course, people don't always fall into one extreme or the other. If you sort only by self, you become a self-absorbed egotist. If you sort only by others, you become a martyr."

Matcher or Mismatcher
Robbins writes:

"This meta-program determines how you sort information to learn, understand,
and the like. Some people respond to the world by finding sameness. They look at
things and see what they have in common. They're matchers.

Other people are mismatchers -- diference people. There are two kinds of them. One type looks at the world and sees how things are different ... The other kind of mismatcher sees differences with exceptions. He's like a matcher who finds sameness with exceptions in reverse - he sees the differences first, and then he'll add the things they have in common."

Convincer Strategy
This meta-program invovles what it takes to convince someone of something. Robbins writes:

"The convincer strategy has two parts. To figure out what consistently convinces someone, you must first find out what sensory building blocks he needs to become convinced, and then you must discover how often he has to receive these stimuli before becoming convinced.

To discover someone's convincer meta-program, ask, 'How do you know when
someone else is good at a job? Do you have to a) see them or watch them do it, b) hear about how good they are, c) do it with them, or d) read about their ability?' The answer may be a combination of these. You may believe someone's good when you see him do a good job and when other people tell you he's good.

The next question is, 'How often does someone have to demonstrate he's good before you're convinced?' There are four possible answers: a) immediately (for example, if they demonstrate that they're good at something once, you believe them), b) a number of times (two or more), c) over a period of time (say, a few weeks or a month or a year), and d) consistently. In the last case, a person has to demonstrate that he's good each and every time. "

Possibility vs. Necessity
Robbins writes:

"Ask someone why he went to work for his present company or why he gought
his current car or house. Some people are motivated priimarily by necessity, rather than by what they want. They do something because they must. They're not pulled to take action by what is possible. They're not looking for infinite
varieties of expeirence. They go through life taking what comes and what is
available. When they need a new job or a new house or a new car or even a new
spouse, they go out and accept what is available.

Others are motivated to look for possibilities. They're motivated less by what they have to do than by what they want to do. They seek options, experiences, choices, paths. "

Independent, Cooperative and Proximity Working Styles
Robbins writes:

"Everyone has his own strategy for work. Some people are not happy unless they're independent. They have great difficulty working closely with other people and can't work well under a great deal of supervision. They have to run their own show. Others function best as a part of a group. We call their strategy a cooperative one. They want to share responsbility for any task they take on. Still others have a proximity strategy, which is somewhere in between. They prefer to workwith other people while maintaining a sole responsibility for a task. They're in charge but not alone."

Additional Considerations
Robbins provides the following suggestions:

• All metaprograms are context-and stress-related
• There's two ways to change meta-programs. One is from a significant emotional event.
• The other way you can change is by consciously deciding to do so.
• Use meta-programs on two levels. The first is a tool to calibrate and guide your communication with others. The second is a tool for personal change.
• Constantly gauge and calibrate the people around you. Take note of specific patternsthey have for perceiving their world and begin to analyze if others have similar patterns.
• Through this approach you can develop a whole set of distinctions about people that can empower you in knowing how to communicate effectively with all types of people.
• Become a student of possiblity. Meta-programs give you the tools to make crucial distinctions in deciding how to deal with people. You are not limited to the meta-programs discussed here.

Key Take Aways
I think knowing how people work, helps bridge gaps. Here's my key take aways:

• Use meta-programs to understand yourself and others. Meta-programs helps you understand how people sort and make sense of the world. They also help you understand your own values, beliefs and behaviors.
• Remember that people use a blend of meta-programs. It's not this or that, it's a spectrum of possibilities. It's a tool for understanding how or why people behave and adapting your own behaviors to improve communication. They aren't a tool for stereo-typing or pidgeon-holing.
• Change your own limiting meta-programs. If you have a way of processing the world that's limiting your success, find a way to consciously adapt. Identifying your own meta-programs you use is a start. Once you have awareness, you can see how this shows up.

My Related Posts

• Meta-Programs and Instrincis Values in NLP
• Satir Categories
• Generalization, Deletion, and Distortion
• The Lens of Human Understanding
• Five Thinking Styles
• Six Styles Under Stress
• The Entrepreneur, The Manager, and The Technician
• The Fat Guy and The Skinny Guy
• 10 Distored Thinking Patterns
• 13 Negative Motivation Patterns
• Six Thinking Hats
• Expert Know-It-Alls
• Power-Clutchers, Paranoids and Perfectionists
• Stallers, Wafflers, and Super Delegators
• Ogres and Fire-Eaters
• Master My Stories

Beliefs on Which NLP is Based

Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) was founded on a core set of beliefs. NLP was originally used to model excellence, so the beliefs reflect patterns of excellence that show up in people at their best. In Brilliant Nlp: What the Most Successful People Know, Say & Do, David Molden and Pat Hutchinson write about the core beliefs NLP is based on.

Core NLP Beliefs
Molden and Hutchinson write about the beliefs behind NLP:

• The map is not the territory.
• Respect each other's maps of the world.
• The meaning of your communication is the response you get.
• If it's possible for one person, it's possible for others.
• There is no failure, only feedback.
• Mind and body are part of the same system.
• Every behavior has a positive intention.
• The person with the most flexibility will control the system.
• If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always had.
• Your behavior is not who you are.
• Your perception is your reality.
• You are in charge of your mind, and therefore your results.
• Resistance is a sign of a lack of rapport.
• You cannot not communicate.
• You have all the resources you need to change.

Key Take Aways
Here's my key take aways:

• Positive action over positive thinking. NLP is more than just positive thinking. It's about taking action and producing results.
• Communication with yourself and others. NLP focuses heavily on language and communication to produce results for yourself and with others.
• Thoughts, feelings, and actions. NLP is holistic in that it combines thinking, feeling and doing. To change results, you change behavior. To change behavior, you change your feelings and thoughts.
• Individual, interpersonal, and systems excellence. While NLP is a framework for self-development, it's also very focused on improving interpersonal skills and improving results in a system.
• Expediting results and duplicating success. NLP is about spreading success and speeding up results.
• "What works" is the guiding force. NLP is largely about modeling and tuning results. From that perspective, it's more about applied use than theory. The theories aren't in stone. Instead, they are a backdrop and a means to an end. Results are king.

My Related Posts

• Meta-Programs and Intrincis Values in NLP
• Satir Categories
• Generalization, Deletion, and Distortion

Satir Categories

Richard Bandler and John Grinder modelled Virginia Satir when they created Neuro Linguistic Proramming (NLP.) Satir was a highly effective family therapist. She achieved rapid results by using communication categories to identify behavior: Blaming, Placating, Computing, Distracting and Levelling. In Brilliant Nlp: What the Most Successful People Know, Say & Do, David Molden and Pat Hutchinson write about the Satir communication categories.

Incongruent Behavior
Virginia Satir used the communication categories to help individual family members become aware of their incongruent behavior. Incongruent behavior is when your mind thinks one thing, but your body does another (e.g. such as faking a smile.) While you might try and mask your problems, your body gives signals to other people. People intuitively sense something is incongruent and this creates conflict.

Five Satir Categories
Virginia Satir had four categories that were responsible for many family conflicts and one that can be used for resolving conflict and bringing people together.

• Blamer. Blamer behavior finds fault -- never accepting responsibility themselves, always blaming someone or something else. The Blamer hides a feeling of alientation and loneliness behind a tough and complacent mask. Blamers are more likely to initiate conflict.
• Placater (Non-assertive). Placaters are out to please, non-assertive, never disagreeing, and always seeking approval. They avoid conflict. Their main concern is how other people perceive them.
• Computer - Computer behavior is very correct and proper but displaying no emotion, masking a feeling of vulnerability. They often appear cold or unfeeling. A computer can be a firework of emotions inside while appearing very calm and super-rational on the outside. They often say things that are value judgements without indicating who could have made the judgement, which implies that everyone would agree.
• Distractor. Distractors seek attention to compensate for their feelings of loneliness or inadequcy. Rather than positive action, Distractors use a range of emotions from anger to guilt to either avoid an issue or manipulate how others feel. Distractors use a range of behavior from Blamer, Computer and Distractor.
• Leveller (Assertive) - Levellers have emotional balance and can relate to all kinds of people. They are assertive. The goal of levelling is mutual problem solving. Levellers have few threats to their self-esteem. Words, voice tone, body movements and facial expressions all give the same message.

The Leveller communication category of behavior can be used resolve conflict and bring people together. The distinction of the leveller is that the leveller has real-time, congruent responses. All the other responses are the result of negative internal feelings causing words and actions to be incongruent.

Attributes of a Leveller
The Leveller response is the most effective behavior for solving problems creatively. Their body posture communicates the idea that they are being to true to what they think. They come across as ‘on the level’, centered and factual. Molden and Hutchinson attribute levellers with the following:

• look for solutions.
• have a conscious positive intention behind everything they do.
• hold strong positive beliefs about themselves and others.
• operate from strong personal values.
• store positive mind images.
• have flexibility of behavior when communicating with others.
• establish rapport before trying to influence.

You can use NLP to learn leveller behavior and acquire leveller attributes.

Key Take Aways
I work in a high-stakes, high stress environment. I get to see the Satir Categories in action every day. Fortunately, our company focuses on training in interpersonal skills. One of the biggest insights for me among the various training programs was emotional intelligence. From the description of a Leveller, I think a key attribute is exercising a high degree of emotional intelligence. Here's my key take aways:

• Know the effct of Satir Categories. Knowing the effect of the categories on others is a powerful way to have a positive effect and ensure impact and influence.
• Change your behavior. You are not your behavior. You can adopt a different communication style, if your current behavior patterns aren't working.
• Adopt the "assertive" style of a Leveler to resolve conflict. Levellers don't mask their emotions. They are in tune with them. They focus on problem solving and they are aware of others perspectives.

My Related Posts

• Generalization, Deletion, and Distortion
• Meta-Programs and Intrinsic Values in NLP
• Crucial Conversations
• Six Styles Under Stress
• Five Thinking Styles
• Master My Stories
• Learn to Look

Generalization, Deletion, and Distortion

Negative, vague language can work for or against you. Whether self-talk or dialogue with others, generalizations we make, details we leave out, or the way we distort through language, influences how we think, feel, and act. You can choose limiting vague language or artfully vague language patterns that are positive and empowering. In Brilliant Nlp: What the Most Successful People Know, Say & Do, David Molden and Pat Hutchinson write about generalization, deletion and distortion as it pertains to Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP.)

Generalization
Generalization is where the speaker takes a particular experience applies it generically to a multitude of other situations (generalizes.) Molden and Hutchinson provide examples, words to look for and questions to ask:

Examples:

• You can't run a family and work full-time.
• Children need discipline
• Nobody loves me.

Words to listen for:

• Can't, unable, not possible
• Need, must, have to, go to, necessary, requirement.
• Everobydoy, nobody, anyone, every, always, never.

Questions to ask:

• What can you do? What stops you? What tells you that? Who can't? Do you know anyone who does? How many hours and days are you thinking of? What if you could?
• Need? Which children? Discipline in what way? What else do they need? who says?
• Noboyd? Is there one person who doesn't? What tells you that? How are you measuring love? How do you love anyone?

Deletion
Deletion is where details are deleted as the speaker chooses what to focus on. Molden and Hutchinson provide examples, words to look for and questions to ask:

Examples

• He's a failure.
• Her children are not very bright.
• She rejected me.
• They were left to fend for themselves.

Words to listen for:

• Instances where a verb has been turned into a noun such as 'failing at' beomce 'failure' or 'he is performing' becomes 'his performance' or 'he is succeeding' becomes 'his success.'
• Those which require an opposite such as good, bad, cold, hot, bright, dull, insincere, happy, sad, rich, poor.
• Verbs which require clarification.
• Non-specific references to people/things such as they, people, computers, children.

Questions to ask:

• How did he fail exactly? What did he fail at? Who says so? Has he failed at everything he's done? Is there nothing he has succeeded at? Has he not succeeded at drawing your attention? What else is he succeeding with?
• Compared to whom? What standard/who are you measuring them against? Bright in what way?
• What did she do that you are calling rejection?
• Who are they? What do you mean by fend?

Distortion
Distortion is when the speaker distorts something to mean something it was not intended to mean. Molden and Hutchinson provide examples, words to look for and questions to ask:

Examples:

• He never buys me flowers so he doesn't love me.
• My children are driving me crazy.
• I know you don't want to support my initiative.
• Families should stick together through all life's challenges.

Words to listen for:

• Statements that don't 'add up,' where a conclusion stated in the second part is based on the meating attached in the first part.
• Statements in which one thing causes another.
• Statements which include conjecture and suggest mind-reading.
• Statements lacking reference to the author.

Questions to ask:

• In what way does him not buying you flowers mean that he doesn't love you? So what ways does he show that he loves you?
• What specifically are you doing that causes you to feel crazy? What are your children doing when you choose to go crazy?
• How do you know? What tells you that? You can read my mind?
• Who said that? Who are you quoting?

Key Take Aways
Here's my key take aways:

• It works. I see the impact of generalization, deletion and distortion every day. I've long been a fan of shaping language for results. Words inspire or they can cut you down. The pen really is mightier than the sword.
• Your language choice exemplifies your values and beliefs. I think by paying attention to your language choice and the language of others, you learn the underlying values and beliefs.
• You can use language to be empowering or disempowering. Generalizations, deletions and distortions can work for or against you. Learn to pay attention to how your language or the language of others has an impact. See 10 Distorted Thinking Patterns.
• If you want better results, start by changing your language. Your language impacts how you think, feel and behave. You have choices over your language. Change your language, change your results. A similar concept is to change the stories you tell yourself, to influence your emotions. See Master My Stories to learn how.

My Related Posts

• Meta-Programming and Intrinsic Values in NLP
• Master My Stories
• Can't Lose System
• How To Use the TIC-TOC Technique
• Learn to Endorse Yourself
• How To Use the But-Rebuttal Method
• 10 Distorted Thinking Patterns
• 13 Negative Motivation Patterns

Master My Stories

How do you stay in dialogue when you're angry, scared, or hurt? How do you rethink yourself back into control? How do you take charge of your emotions and gain control of crucial conversations? You learn to exert influence over your own feelings. You can master your emotions by mastering the stories you tell yourself. In Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler write about mastering your stories to rethink yourself back into control.

Retrace Your Path and Tell the Rest of the Story
If strong emotions keep you stuck in silence or violence, Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler suggest retracing your path and telling the rest of the story.

Retracing Your Path:

• Notice your behavior. Are you in some form of silence or violence?
• Get in touch with your feelings. What emotions are encouraging you to act this way?
• Analyze your stories. What story is creating these emotions? Can you create a more resourceful story?
• Get back to the facts. What evidence do you have to support the story? (watch out for three clever stories: Victim, Villain, and Helpless Stories.)

Tell the Rest of the Story:

• Are you pretending not to notice your role in the problem?
• Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person do this?
• What do you really want?
• What would you do right now if you really wanted these results?

Emotions Don't Just Happen
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler write the following claims about emotions:

• Claim One. Emotions don't settle upon you like a fog. They are not foisted upon you by others. No matter how uncomfortable it might make you feel saying it -- others don't make you mad. You make you mad. You and only you create your emotions.
• Claim Two. 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 come sto strong emotions, you either find a way to master them or fall hostage to them.

The Best Think Out Their Emotions
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler write how the best at dialogue shape their emotions through their stories:

"The good at dialogue realize that if they don't control their emotions, matters will get worse. So they try something else. They fake it. They choke down reactions and then do their best to get back to dialogue. At least, they give it a shot.

The best at dialogue do something completely different. They aren't held hostage by their emotions, nor do they try to hide or suppress them. Instead, they act on their emotions. That is, when they have strong feelings, they influence (and often change) their emotions by thinking them out. As a result, they choose their emotions, and by so doing, make it possible to choose behaviors that create better results."

Our Stories
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler make the following points about stories:

• Stories explain what's going on. Stories are how you explain to yourself what's going on and whether it's good or bad. Stories are theories you use to explain why, how and what.
• Even if you don't realize it, you are telling yourself stories. Storytelling typically happens blindingly fast.Any set of facts can be used to tell an infinite number of stories. Lots of stories can fit the facts, but the different stories can create very different emotions.
• If we take control of our stories, they won't control us. Tell different stories to break the loop. Until you tell different stories, you can't break the loop. The best at dialogue influence their emotions during crucial conversations. They recognize that while it's true that at first we are in control of these stories we tell - once they're told, the stories control us. They control how we feel and act. And, as a result, they control the results we get from our crucial conversations.

Path to Action
The path to action is: See/Hear -> Tell a Story -> Feel -> Act:

• Stories Drive Feelings. Your stories drive your feelings. For example, when you see or hear something, the story you tell yourself about it, determines how you feel. Did that person mean you harm? Was their comment an insult?
• Feelings Drive Actions. Your feelings drive your actions. For example, if you feel hurt or worried, you might act with silence or cheap shots.

Simply put, your stories create your feeling and your feelings drive your actions.

Path to Action Example
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler give an example of a typical Path to Action:

• See/Hear. Louis makes all the points, meets privately with the boss.
• Tell a Story. He doesn't trust me/thinks I'm weak. If I speak up I'll look too emotional.
• Feel. Hurt; worried.
• Act. Silence; cheap shots.

Retrace Your Path
The key to rethinking yourself back into control is to retrace your Path to Action. To retrace your Path to Action, work backwards:

• Act. Notice your behavior. Ask if you are in some form of silence or violence (Six Styles Under Stress)
• Feel. Get in touch with your feelings. What feelings are causing you to feel this way? Words matter. Knowing what you're really feeling helps you take a more accurate look at what's going and why. You might say you're angry, but you're really embarrassed and surprised. You might say you're unhappy, but you really feel violated.
• Tell a Story. What story is creating these emotions? Analyze your stories. Question your feelings and stories. Given the circumstances, is it the right feeling? Are you telling the right story? Feelings come from stories and stories are our own invention. Don't confuse stories with facts.
• See/Hear. What evidence do you have to support this story? Separate fact from story by focusing on behavior. What did you see or hear? To avoid confusing stories with fact, also watch for "hot" terms. For example, "Her eyes pinched shut and her lips tightened," as opposed to "She scowled at me.""Scowl" is a hot term expressing judgement that creates strong emotion. Hot terms are story, not facts.

Watch for Three Clever Stories
We often tell clever stories because they get us off the hook or keep us from acknowledging our own sellouts.

• Victim Stories - "It's not my fault."
• Villain Stories - "It's all your fault."
• Helpless Stories - "There's nothing else I can do."

Tell the Rest of the Story
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler suggest the following:

• Turn victims into actors. If you notice you're talking about yourself as an innocent victim, ask, are you pretending not to notice your role in the problem?
• Turn villians into humans. Humanize it. If you're labeling or vilifying others, stop and ask, why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person do what this person is doing?
• Turn the helpless into the able. Stop and ask, what do you really want? For yourself? For others? For the relationship? What would you do right now if you really wanted these results?

Key Take Aways
I think Master My Stories is one of the most important, yet most difficult skills to master. Here's my key take aways.

• Work backwards from your negative behavior. Are you showing one of your Styles Under Stress? What emotion is behind your action? What story did you tell yourself about what you saw or heard is causing that emotion? Did you check your facts before jumping to conclusions?
• Factor stories from conclusions, assumptions and facts. Sanity check your facts by asking what did you see or what did you hear? It's easy to conclude that you saw John get angry. What you actually saw was he threw his desk. What you didn't see was there was a bee that scared him and he was trying to escape. You won't have time to check your assumptions all the time, but when the stake are high, stop and take the time.
• Watch out for Villain, Victim and Helpless stories. They are limiting, not empowering. Choose stories that empower you to take action and produce more effective results.
• Choose your stories to shape your emotions. You'll physically react based on the story you tell yourself. Choose the right story for the circumstance.

My Related Posts

• Learn to Look
• Six Styles Under Stress
• Crucial Conversations
• Make It Safe
• Mutual Purpose
• Start With Heart
• Work on Me First
• Searching for the Elusive And

Learn to Look

What do you look for when you're caught in the middle of a crucial conversations? What do you need to see in order to catch problems before they become too sever? It's helpful to watch for three conditions: the moment a conversation turns crucial, signs that people don't feel safe (silence or violence) and your own Style Under Stress. In Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler write about how to Learn to Look.

Learning to Look
How do you Learn to Look and what do you look for? Patterson, Greeny, McMillan and Switzler suggest the following:

• Look to spot crucial conversations.
• Look for safety problems.
• Look for your style under stress.

Look to Spot Crucial Conversations
To help catch problems early, reprogram your brain to pay attention to the signs that you're in a Crucial Conversation:

• Physical signs. Think about what happens to your body when conversations get tough. Does your stomach get tight? Do your eyes dry out?
• Emotional signs. Are you reacting to or supressing feeling scared, hurt, or angry?
• Behavioral signs. As if watching yourself in a movie, do you see yourself raising your voice, pointing your finger like a loaded weapong or becoming very quiet?

Look for Safety Problems
If you can catch signs that the conversation is starting to turn crucial, then you can start dual processing immediately. Pay attention to the content and watch for signs that people are afraid.

Keys to looking for safety problems:

• When it's safe you can say anything. Dialogue calls for the free flow of meaning. Nothing kills dialogue like fear.
• When it's unsafe you start to go blind. When your emotions crank up, key brain functions shut down. Watch for safety violations so you can see when dialogue is in danger, and so you can reengage your brain. Pull yourself out of the content of an argument and watch for fear.
• Don't let safety problems lead you astray. See attacks as a sign that safety is at risk. If somebody is trying to trying to make fun of you, insult you, or bowl you over with their arguments, it's easy to see it as an attack. Recode silence and violence as signs that people are feeling unsafe. Do something to make it safe.

See Make It Safe.

Look for Your Style Under Stress
Which of the six Styles Under Stress do you use?

Silence Patterns

• Masking - you understate or selectively show your true opinions.
• Avoiding - you steer completely away from sennsitive topics.
• Withdrawing - you pull out of a conversation altogether, exiting the conversation or the room.

Violence patterns

• Controlling - you coerce others into your way of thinking.
• Labeling - you put a label on people or ideas to dismiss them as a stereotype or category.
• Attacking - you move from winning to making the person suffer.

For more information, see Six Styles Under Stress.

Key Take Aways
Here's my key take aways:

• Identify crucial conversations. Pay attention to your emotional, physical, and behavioral cues. If you can spot crucial conversations, you can better keep your brain engaged while keeping your emotions in check. You can help others do the same.
• Learn your Styles Under Stress. Figure out your silence and violence patterns that you fall back on in a conversation when you are in fight-or-flight mode.
• Know the Styles Under Stress. Learn to identify the silence patterns (Masking, Avoiding, Withdrawing.) Learn to identify the violence patterns (Controlling, Labeling, Attacking.) If you know the six silence and violence patterns, then you can better identify your default styles as well as what others do.
• Pay attention to the free flow of meaning to the pool. Fear kills the flow of meaning. If opinions are being forced into the pool or withheld either through silence patterns or violence patterns, you know there's a problem.

My Related Posts

• Six Styles Under Stress
• Crucial Conversations
• Make It Safe
• Mutual Purpose
• Start With Heart
• Work on Me First
• Searching for the Elusive And

Six Styles Under Stress

As you begin to feel unsafe in a conversation, you start down one of two unhealthy paths. You either move to silence (withholding meaning from the pool) or to violence (trying to force meaning in the pool). If you know a few of the common forms of silence and violence, you can see safety problems when they first start to happen. In Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler write about six styles we use when we're under stress, so that you recognize the patterns, step out, restore safety and then return to dialogue - before the damage is too great.

Six Styles Under Stress
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler identify six Styles Under Stress:

• Masking. Consists of understating or selectively showing our true opinions. Sarcasm, sugarcoating, and couching are some of the more popular forms.
• Avoiding. Involves steering completely away from sensitive subjects. We talk, but without addressing the real issues.
• Withdrawing. Means pulling out of a conversation altogether. We either exit the conversation or exit the room.
• Controlling. Consists of coercing others to your way of thinking. It's done through either forcing your views on others or dominating the conversation. Methods include cutting others off, overstating facts, speaking in absolutes, changing subjects, or using directive questions to control the conversation.
• Labeling. Is putting a label on people or ideas so we can dismiss them under a general stereotype or category.
• Attacking. You've moved from winning the argument to making the person suffer. Tactis include belittling and threatening.

Silence Patterns
Silence patterns consist of any act to purposefully withhold information from the pool of meaning. It's almost always done as a means of avoiding potential problems, and it always restricts the flow of meaning. Methods range from playing verbal games to avoiding a person entirely. The three most common forms of silence are masking, avoiding, and withdrawing.

The silence patterns:

• Masking
• Avoiding
• Withdrawing

Examples of Silence Patterns

• I think your idea is, uh, brilliant. Yeah, that's it. I just worry that others won't catch the subtle nuances. Some ideas come before their time, so expect some, uh, minor resistance. (Masking)
• Oh yeah, that'll work like a charm. Offer people a discount, and they'll drive all the way across town just to save six cents on a box of soap. Where do you come up with this stuff? (Masking)
• How does your new suit look? Well, you know that blue's my favorite color." (Avoiding)
• Speaking of ideas for cost-cutting - did you see Friends last night? Joey inherited a bunch of money and was buying stupid stuff. It was a hoot." (Avoiding)
• Excuse me. I've got to take this call. (Withdrawing)
• Sorry, I'm not going to talk about how to split up the phone bill again. I'm not sure our friendship can stand another battle. (Withdrawing)

Violence Patterns
Voilence patterns consist of any verbal strategy that attempts to convince, control, or compel others to your point of view. It violates safety by trying to force meaning into the pool. Methods range from name-calling and monologuing to making threats. The three most common forms are controlling, labeling, and attacking.

The violence patterns:

• Masking
• Avoiding
• Withdrawing

Examples of Violence Patterns

• There's not a person in the world who hasn't bought one of those things. They're the perfect gift. (Controlling)
• We tried their product, but it was an absolute disaster. Everyone knows that they can't deliver on time and that they offer the worst customer service on the planet. (Controlling)
• Your ideas are practically Neanderthal. Any thinking person would follow my plan. (Labeling)
• You're not going to listen to them are you? For crying out loud! First, they're from headquarters. Second, they're engieers. Need I say more?" (Labeling)
• Try that stupid little stunt and see what happens. (Attacking)
• Don't listen to a word Jim is saying. I'm sorry Jim, but I'm on to you. You're just trying to make it better for your team, while making the rest of us
  suffer. I've seen you do it before. You're a real jerk, you know that? I'm sorry, but someone has to have the guts to tell it like it is.(Attacking)

Which Patterns Do You Use Under Stress?
Here's some questions to check which styles you use under stress.

Masking

• Rather than tell people exactly what you think, do you sometimes rely on jokes, sarcasm, or snide remarks to let them know you're frustrated?
• When you have something tough to bring up, do you sometimes offer weak or insincere compliments to soften the blow?

Avoiding

• Sometimes when people bring up a touchy or awkward issue, do you try to change the subject?
• When it comes to dealing with awkward or stressful subjects, do you sometimes hold back rather than give your full and candid opinion?

Withdrawing

• At times, do you avoid situations that might bring you into contact with people you are having problems with?
• Have you put off returning phone calls or emails because you simply don't want to deal with the person who sent them?

Controlling

• In order to get your point across, do you sometimes exaggerate your side of the argument?
• If you seem to be losing control of a conversation, do you cut people off or change the subject in order to bring it back to where you think it should be?

Labeling

• When others make points that seem stupid to you, do you sometimes let them know it without holding back at all?
• When you're stunned by a comment, do you sometimes say things that others might take as forceful or attacking - comments such as "Give me a break!" or "That's ridiculous!" ?

Attacking

• Sometimes whnen things get heated, do you move from arguing against other's points to saying things that might hurt them personally?
• If you get into a heated discussion, are you known to be tough on the other person. In fact, does the person feel a bit insulted or hurt?

It's Almost Unfair
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler write:

"It's almost unfair. The bigger the deal, the less likely you are to bring up your newly acquired skill-set into the conversation. Like it or not, if your adrenaline is flowing, you're almost guaranteed to jump to your Style Under Stress."

Keys Take Aways
Here's my key take aways:

• Know the patterns. Knowing the patterns is half the battle. Knowing your styles under stress is a key to improving. Once you recognize your own reactions, you can shape your behavior to be more effective.
• Identify silence versus violence patterns. I think extraverts or more assertive or aggressive individuals will lean towards violence patterns, while intraverts, or passive individuals will move to siolence patterns. While there's exceptions, this is the pattern I've noticed.
• Use the patterns as a vocabulary. I think the power of patterns is efficient communication. Whether you're using them for yourself or for others, having a name for a pattern helps build and share knowledge.

My Related Posts

• Make It Safe
• Mutual Purpose
• Start With Heart
• Work on Me First
• Searching for the Elusive And

Crucial Conversations

What is a crucial conversation? A crucial converations is where the stakes are high, opinions vary, and emotions run strong. In Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzer define a crucial conversation.

3 Keys That Define a Crucial Conversation
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler write about three keys that make a conversation crucial:

"Now, what makes your conversation crucial as opposed to plain vanilla? First, opinions vary. For example, you're talking with your boss about a possible promotion. She thinks you're not ready; you think you are. Second, stakes are high. You're in a meeting with four coworkers and you're trying to pick a new marketing strategy. You've got to do something different or your company isn't going to hit its annual goals. Third, emotions run strong. You're in the middle of a casual discussion with your spouse and he or she brings up an "ugliy incident" that took place at yesterday's neighborhood block party. Apparently not only did you flirt with someone at the party, but according to your spouse, "You were practically making out." You don't remember flirting. You simply remember being polite and friendly. Your spouse walks off in a huff."

Human Nature is Avoidance
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler write that it's natural to avoid crucial conversations:

"By definition, crucial conversations are about tough issues. Unfortunately, it's human nature to back away from discussions we fear will hurt us or make things worse. We're masters at avoiding these tough conversations. Coworkers send email to each other when they should walk down the hall and talk turkey. Bosses have voice mail in lieu of meeting with their direct reports. Family members change the subject when an issue gets too risky."

Stephen Covey on Crucial Conversations
I particularly like the way Stephen Covey paints crucial conversations in the foreword of the book:

"From my own work with organizations, including families, and from my own experience, I have come to see that there are a few defining moments in our lives and careers that make all the difference. Many of these defining moments come from "crucial" or "breakthrough" conversations with important people in emotionally charged situations where the decisions take us down one of several roads, each of which leads to an entirely different destination.

Examples of Common Crucial Conversations
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler give examples of common crucial conversations:

• Ending a relationship
• Talking to a coworker who behaves offensively or makes suggestive comments.
• Asking a friend to repay a loan.
• Giving the boss feedback about her behavior.
• Approaching a boss who is breaking his own safety or quality policies.
• Critiquing a colleague's work
• Asking a roommate to move out
• Resolving custody or visitation issues with an ex-spouse.
• Dealing with a rebellious teen.
• Talking to a member who isn't keeping commitments.
• Discussing problems with sexual intimacy
• Confronting a loved one about a substance abuse problem.
• Talking to a colleague who is hoarding information or resources
• Giving an unfavorable performance review.
• Asking in-laws to quit interferring.
• Talking to a coworker about a personal hygiene problem.

Handling Crucial Conversations
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler lay out the options for handling crucial conversations:

• We can avoid them.
• We can face them and handle them poorly.
• We can face them and handle them well.

Based on that list, I think facing them and handling them well is the obvious choice.

Key Take Aways
I think mastering crucial conversations is one of the most important skills for life. Here's my key take aways:

• Manage crucial conversations or they will manage you. Crucial conversations are a part of life. You can run but you can't hide.
• Use crucial conversations as a chance to improve. What if instead of fearing your crucial conversations, you embrace them as a chance to learn a life long skill?
• Competence builds confidence. I think that crucial conversations are so tough because you don't learn these skills in school. While the skills come naturally to some, they aren't natural for most. In fact, we're basically wired with a fight-or-flight mode that is counter-produtive for constructive crucial conversations. Learning effective communication techniques for dealing with crucial conversations is a key to competence and confidence.

My Related Posts

• Make It Safe
• Mutual Purpose
• Start With Heart
• Work on Me First
• Searching for the Elusive And

Make It Safe

How do you make it safe to talk about almost anything? If you spot safety risks as they happen, you can step out of the conversation, make it safe, and find a way to dialogue. In Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler write about a pattern that skilled experts at communication use to Make it Safe.

Steps to Make It Safe
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan and Switzler outline the following steps:

• Step 1. Step out
• Step 2. Decide which Condition of Safety is at Risk
• Step 3. Apoligize When Appropriate
• Step 4. Contrast to Fix Misunderstanding
• Step 5. CRIB to Get to Mutual Purpose

Step 1. Step out
When you or others move to silence or violence, step out of the conversation and Make It Safe. When safety is restored, go back to the issue at hand and continue the dialogue.

Patterson, Grenny, McMillan and Switzler write:

"The best don't play games. They know the 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, and then step back in.

Once you've spotted safety problems, you can talk about the most challenging of topics by stepping out of the content and building enough safety that almost anything becomes discussable."

Example of talking about a challenging topic by stepping out of the content and building safety:

"Can we change gears for a minute? I'd like to talk about what happens when we're not romantically in sync. It would be good if we could both share what's working and what isn't. My goal isn't to make you feel guilty, and I certainly don't want to become defensive. What I'd really love is for us to come up with a solution that makes us both satisfied in our relationship."

Step 2. Decide which Condition of Safety is at Risk
Watch for signs that Mutual Purpose is at risk. Watch for signs that Mutual Respect is at risk. Examine your motivies. Look for mutuality.

How to spot if Mutual Purpose is at risk:

• Ask yourself, do others believe you care about their goals in this conversation?
• Ask yourself, do they trust your motives?

How to spot if Mutual Respect is at risk:

• To spot that respect is violated and safety is at risk, watch for signs that people are defending their dignity.
• Ask, do others believe you respect them?

How to examine your own motives, as yourself the following Start with Heart questions:

• What do I want for me?
• What do I want for others?
• What do i want for the relationship?

Example of looking for mutuality with your boss:

"I've got some ideas how I can be much more reliable and even reduce costs by a few thousand dollars in preparing the report each month. It's going to be a bit of a sensitive conversation - but I think it will help a great deal if we can
talk about it."

Tip - if you're having trouble respecting somebody with different values or objectives than you, remember the phase "Lord, help me forgive those those who sin differently than I."

Step 3. Apoligize When Appropriate
When you've clearly violated respect, apologize. An apology is a statement that sincerely expresses your sorrow for your role in causing - or at least not preventing - pain or difficulty for others.

Example of an apology:

"I'm sorry I didn't give you a call when I learned that we wouldn't come by. You've worked all night, it would have been a wonderful chance to showcase your improvements, and I didn't even explain what happened. I apologize."

An apology is not really an apology unless you experience a change of heart.

Step 4. Contrast to Fix Misunderstanding
When others misunderstand either your purpose or your intent, use Contrasting. Start with what you don't intend or mean. Then explain what you do mean.

Contrasting is a don't/do statement that:

• Addresses other's concerns 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)

Key points:

• Contrasting is not apologizing. It's not a way of taking back something you said that hurts someone's feelings. It's a way of ensuring something you said doesn't hurt more than it should have.
• Contrasting provides context and proportion. When you're in a heated conversation, others can hear things bigger or worse than intended.
• Use Contrasting for prevention or first aid.

Examples of Contrasting:

"The last thing that I wanted to do was communicate that I don't value the work you put in or that I didn't want to share it with the VP. I think your work has been nothing short of spectacular."

Step 5. CRIB to Get to Mutual Purpose
When you are at cross-purposes, use four skills to get back to Mutual Purpose.

• Commit to seek Mutual Purpose.
• Recognize the purpose behind the strategy.
• Invent a Mutual Purpose.
• Brainstorm new strategies.

See Mutual Purpose.

Key Take Aways
Here's my key take aways:

• If you need to have a crucial conversation, Make It Safe. I think it's easy to either get wrapped up in emotions or focus on the outcome at the expense of staying connected. Make It Safe is a way to stay connected throughout the conversation, staying assertive, while staying respectful.
• Step out. Make It Safe. Then step back in. If it's not safe, step out, rather than escalating silence and violence. Make it safe and then continue. I think this is particularly important because it's easy to say things you don't mean, that are tough to take back, when you're in the heat of the moment.
• Watch for clues that it's not safe. Emotions are the key.
• Clarify what you don't want and what you do want. Contrasting what you don't want helps keep things in perspective. Simply calling out what you don't want can help eliminate the threat or ambiguity. I use this technique at work fairly often because it helps clarify intent and to deal with the many assumptions that float in the air while you're having a conversation.
• Find something about the person you respect. You can always find something you respect in somebody, even you're enemies, even if it's the simple fact they're a fellow human being. Respecting somebody shines through. If you don't respect somebody, you'll have a hard time, if not impossible time, influencing them.
• Apologize when you violate respect. It's that simple. That fastest way to win back mutual respect is to apologize. Take ownership for violating respect.

My Related Posts

• Mutual Purpose
• Start With Heart
• Work on Me First
• Searching for the Elusive And
• 5 Thinking Styles
• 7 Planning Questions for Coping with a Difficult Boss

Mutual Purpose

Sometimes we find ourselves in the middle of a debate because we clearly have different purposes. There is no misunderstanding here. Contrasting won't do the trick. You need to get to Mutual Purpose. In Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler write about how to use four skills, CRIB, to get to Mutual Purpose.

CRIB to Get to Mutual Purpose
When you sense that you and others are working at cross-purposes, step ouf of the content of the conflict, stop focusing on who thinks what, and CRIB your way to Mutual Purpose. CRIB is an acroynym for the following steps:

• Step 1. Commit to Seek Mutual Purpose
• Step 2. Recognize the Purpose Behind the Strategy
• Step 3. Invent a Mutual Purpose
• Step 4. Brainstorm New Strategies

Step 1. Commit to Seek Mutual Purpose
Agree to agree. Make a unilateral public commitment to stay in the conversation until you come up with something that serves everyone. Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, Switzler write:

"As is true with most dialogue skills, if you want to get back to dialogue, you have to Start with Heart. In this case, you have to agree to agree. To be successuful, we have to stop using silence or violence to compel others to our view. We must even surrdender false dialogue, where we pretend to have Mutual Purpose (calmly arguing our side until the other person gives in). We Start with Heart by commiting to stay in the conversation until we come up with a solution that serves a purpose we both share."

When you commit to Mutual Purpose, consider the following points:

• To stop arguing, you have to suspect your belief that your choice is the absolute best and only one, and that you'll never be happy until you get exactly what you currently want.
• You have to be willing to verbalize this commitment even when your partner seems committed to winning.
• If your partner seems stuck in silence or violence, act on faith that if you demonstrate more commitment to finding a Mutual Purpose, that your partner will feel more confident that dialogue could be a productive avenue.

Example of Seeking Mutual Purpose:

"This isn't working. Your team is arguing to stay late and work until we're done, and my team wants to go home and come back on the weekend. Why don't we see if we can come up with something that satisfies everyone?"

Step 2. Recognize the Purpose Behind the Strategy
Ask people why they want what they're pushing for. Separate what they're demanding from the purpose it serves.

Break the impass by asking others, "Why do you want that?." Before you can agree on Mutual Purpose, you must know what people's real purposes are. Step out of the content -- which is generally focused on strategies - and explore the purposes behind them. When you do this new options become available. You open up the possibility of finding new alternatives that can serve Mutual Purpose.

Example of Finding the Purpose:

"Exactly why don't you want to come in Saturday morning? We're feeling fatigued and are worried about safety issues and a loss of quality. Why do you want to stay late?"

Step 3. Invent a Mutual Purpose
Create common ground. If you can't discover a Mutual Purpose, invent one. Sometimes you recognize the purpose behind the strategies, you discover that you actually have compatible goals. From there, you can simply come up with common strategies. When that's not the case, such as when you find that your genuine wants and goals cannot be served except at the expense of the other person's, then you need to invent a Mutual Purpose. See if you can invent a higher or longer-term purpose that is more motivating than the ones that keep you in conflict.

Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, Switzler write:

"To invent a Mutual Purpose, move to more encompassing goals. Find an objective that is more meaningful or more rewarding than the ones that divide the various sides. For instance, you and your spouse may not agree on whether or not you should take the promotion, but you can agree that the needs of your relationship and the children come before career aspirations. By focusing on higher and longer-term goals, you can find a way to transcend short-term compromises, build Mutual Purpose, and get to dialogue."

Example of Inventing a Mutual Purpose:

"I certainly don't want to make winners and losers here. It's far better if we can come up with something that doesn't make one team resent the other one. We've voted before or flipped a coin, and the losers just end up resenting the winners. I'm more worried about how we feel about each other than anything else. Let's make sure that whatever we do, we don't drive a wedge in our working relationship."

Step 4. Brainstorm New Strategies
Suspend judgment and think outside the box for new alternatives. Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, Switzler write:

"Once you've built safety by finding a shared purpose, you should now have enough safety to return to the content of the conversation. It's time to step back into the dialogue and brainstorm strategies that meet everyone's needs. If you've committed to finding something everyone can agree on, and surfaced what you really want, you'll no longer be spending your energy on unproductive conflict. Instead, you'll be actively coming up with options that can serve everyone."

Example of Brainstorming New Strategies:

"So we need to come up with something that doesn't joepardize safety and quality and allows your team to attend their colleague's wedding on Saturday. My team members don't care about the game a bit. What if we were to work the morning and early afternoon and then you come in after the game and take over from there? That way we'll be able ..."

Key Take Aways
Here's my key take aways:

• Find the higher, common ground. Finding the higher ground is a proven practice for results. From experience, I know it's particularly effective for cross-group collaboration scenarios. Turf wars happen because of a scarcity mentality. While there are times when there really is a scarcity scenario, usually the problem is you haven't framed out a bigger playground for everyone to play.
• Don't get stuck on the how, focus on the why. If you get stuck on arguing for your implementation or "how," you limit options and better alternatives, or options that might be more inclusive. Instead, focus on the "what"and the "why."
• Stay focused on Mutual Purpose. If the other person doesn't trust that you have their best interest at heart, you're going to face resistance. Buy-in might take time.

My Related Posts

• Searching for the Elusive And
• Start With Heart

Start With Heart

When conversations get tough, it's easy to fallback to bad patterns including saving face, wanting to win, seeking revenge, and hoping to remain safe. Skilled people start with heart and stay focused on intentions. In Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler write about starting with heart.

Skilled People Start with Heart
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler write:

"Although it's difficult to describe the specific order of events in an interaction as fluid as a crucial conversation, we do know one thing for certain: Skilled people Start with Heart. That is, they begin high-risk discussions with the right motives, and they stay focused no matter what happens."

Two Ways to Maintain Focus
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler write:

"They maintain this focus in two ways. First, they're steely-eyed smart when it comes to knowing what they want. Despite constant invitations to slip away from their goals, they stick with them. Second, Skilled people don't make Sucker's Choices (either/or choices). Unlike others who justify their unhealthy behavior by explaining that they had no choice but to fight or take flight, the dialogue smart believe that dialogue, no matter the circumstances, is always an option."

Work On Me First
Remember that the only person you can directly control is yourself. See Work On Me First.

Focus on What You Really Want
When you find yourself moving toward silence or violence, stop and pay attention to your motives. Whether you fall off track in a conversation or you need to prepare for a crucial conversation, stop and ask yourself the following questions:

• What do I really want for myself?
• What do i really want for others?
• What do I really want for the relationship?
• How would I behave if I really wanted these results?

There's two reasons for asking yourself these questions:

• The answer to what we really want helps you find your bearings and locate your own North Star to guide you.
• You effect your entire physiology. You shift your body from fight or flight mode to problem solving mode.

Refuse the Sucker's Choice
As you consider what you want, notice when you start talking yourself into a Sucker's Choice:

• Watch to see if you're telling yourself that you must choose between peace and honesty, between winning and losing and so on.
• Break free of the Sucker's Choices by searching for the and.
• Clarify what you don't want, add it to what you do want, and ask your brain to start searching for healthy options to bring you to dialogue.

See Searching for the Elusive And.

Key Take Aways
Here's my key take aways:

• Use focusing questions to move away from fight or flight mode. I'm a fan of using questions as a technique to change your focus or get into a more resourceful state. It works. If you don't believe it, ask yourself "How might that be true?"
• Work on me first. You can change yourself faster than you can change someone else.
• Focus on what you want. If you know the outcome you want, you can stay focused on that. You can ask yourself questions like "how's that going to land" or "am I acting consistent with my intentions or am I having an emotional response?" to stay on track.
• Avoid Sucker's Choices. Don't limit yourself to "either / or" choices. Raise your bar and go for the "and" solutions.

Work On Me First

The only person you can directly control is yourself. In Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler write about how the most effective way to improve your effectiveness with others, is to first work on yourself.

Work On Me First
Remember that the only person you can directly control is yourself. Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler write:

"Although it's true that there are times when we are merely bystanders in life's ever-ending stream of head-on collisions, rarely are we completey innocent. More often than not, we do something to contribute to the problem's we're experiencing.

People who are the best at dialogue understand this simple fact and turn it into the principle "Work on me first." They realize that not only are they likely to benefit by improving their own approach, but also that they're the only person they can work on anyway. As much as others may need to change, or we may want them to change, the only person we can continually inspire, prod, and shape - with any degree of success - is the person in the mirror.

There's a certain irony embedded in this fact. People who believe they need to start with themselves do just that. As they work on themselves, they also become the most skilled at dialogue. So here's the irony. It's the most talented, not the least talented, who are continually trying to improve their dialogue skills. As is often the case, the rich get richer."

Key Take Aways
Here's my key take aways:

• Change yourself first. I agree with the concept of change yourself first. You can spend a lot of energy trying to change others, or you can change yourself (whether your thoughts, feeling, actions, approaches ... etc.) , which can often be more effective and efficient.
• It takes two to tango, but you can take the lead. Take the lead on the changes you'd like to see.