Crucia1 C0nversations – Part 3

Before I begin on the next principle which is Learn to Look, I would like to try and describe the model of a dialogue as illustrated by the authors. I tried to google the image but couldn’t find any, and I’m too lazy to scan the hardcopy (sorry!), so I guess I just have to attempt to describe it as best as I can.

Imagine a circle in the middle called ‘pool of shared meaning’. Then there are two arrows (taking the case of a dialogue between two people, me and you) pointing towards the pool, one on the left and the other right. These arrows represent our contributions (facts, thoughts, ideas etc) to the pool of shared meaning. The objective of a good dialogue is to fill the pool of shared meaning as much as possible so that the best decision can be made to achieve results. Now imagine there’s another circle which is cocentric with the pool, called the ‘safety zone’. When people involved in the dialogue feel ‘safe’, they contribute freely to the pool (more about safety in the next principle Make It Safe). But if they don’t feel safe, the conversation wouldn’t be hold so well, where people may go either into silence or violence. More on silence and violence later in this Part 3.

To illustrate the model above, let me tell you a real life example that happened between me and MHH one or two years back. Occasionally, there would be instances when MHH would need to pick me up from work (for various reasons). He would tell me what time he expects to arrive, and I was expected to be down at the waiting area before then. Sometimes I managed to come down on time, but there were also times when I came down later than agreed, hold on by several reasons for example being called by the boss, or had something urgent to complete. When I came down late, he would reprimand me “Kan Abang dah suruh turun pukul sekian sekian?” (violence) Being emotionally hurt and confused as to why he would mind waiting for just several minutes, I just murmured “Sorry lah, Abang” and continued to pout (silence). The next time, I would try harder to come down on time, but I did so with a bit of resentment and fear. This cycle had to repeat several times until one day I finally learned why the several minutes is a big deal: “Abang bukannya kisah kena tunggu, tapi kan tempat pickup kat sini takde tempat parking, dan sangat crowded, tak boleh tunggu, Abang selalu kena marah dengan guard.” (pool of shared meaning being filled) Oh, I see – baru saya faham! Sometimes things that may be obvious to you may not be so for others. And after that, I tried much harder to be down on time with greater commitment and success (get results) because the motivation for doing so has changed: it’s no longer sebab ‘takut Abang marah’, but sebab ‘tak nak susahkan Abang too much’.

Phew.. personal story aside, moving to the actual principle for this part, Learn to Look – we have to learn to watch for conditions. More often than not, during crucial conversations, we are so caught up in the content of the conversation that we missed to observe the conditions. Admittedly, this is not something easy to do, it’s almost like trying to detach yourself from the conversation and put yourself in an observer’s point of view. But personally, I found that even the simple difference of being aware (or knowing) that there are two parts to a conversation: content and condition, has helped.

But what does it mean ‘watch for conditions’? It helps to break it down further to three different bits; the first one being to spot the moment a conversation turns crucial. Besides identifying the three elements that’s usually involved in crucia1 c0nversations as written earlier in Part 1, ie high stakes, strong emotions and differing opinions, we can also recognize if a conversation has just turned crucial via the following signals: physical (eg flushes/hot at the face, palm starts sweating, increased heartbeat etc), emotional (feel hurt, angry, scared, etc), and behavioral (start to point fingers or raise voice, become quiet etc).

The next bit to look out for is to look for safety problems. When we feel unsafe in a conversation, we tend to choose either one of these two unhealthy options: silence (withhold meaning from pool) or violence (trying to force meaning into pool).

Some sub-category and example of silence:
Masking – understating, sugarcoating, sarcasm etc
Example: I think your idea is great, but perhaps it’s a bit ahead of it’s time?
Avoiding – steering away from the real issue
Example: I think your idea may or may not work, but you know, the slides that you prepared – wow, those are impressive!
Withdraw – pulling out from the conversation or situation
Example: I think.. ah well, never mind.

Some sub-category and example of violence:
Controlling – coercing others to your way of thinking by forcing your views on others or dominating the conversation. Methods include: cutting others off, overstating your fact, using hyperboles etc
Example: That’s the silliest idea I’ve ever heard in my whole entire life!
Labelling – putting label on people or ideas so we can dismiss them under general stereotyping or category
Example: What kind of primitive idea is that? Do they teach you this in the engineering school?
Attacking – trying to make the other person suffer for example by belittling and threatening
Example: Are you confident your idea would work? I heard your last project was a flop.

The last bit to look out for is to look for your own style of stress (silence or violence). Again, it is perhaps more difficult to notice your own behaviour compared to other people’s behaviour. Imagine this: Your spouse says to you “Please don’t be angry.” “I’m not angry!!!” you shout at the top of your lungs while crossing your arms. Or your spouse says “Are you upset about something?” “No, I’m not”. But you continued to pout and looked at the floor and fidgeted. Familiar? Think about what you do when you are faced with tough conversations. Do you tend to go the silence way or the violence way? Sometimes we may react both ways depending on situations and who we’re talking to, but usually we’re prone to either one. I, for one, am a clear silence person. I would withdraw, thinking I’m avoiding controversies and preferring peace. There’s a questionnaire to help determine your style of stress, but again, as in the case of the dialogue model, it’s not available online nor am I going to type the whole thing down (sorry!). But it contains questions which are quite obvious anyway, like “I have put off returning calls or emails simply because I didn’t want to deal with the person who sent them. TRUE or FALSE?” After you’ve identified you style under stress, you have a tool to Learn to Look, because when you enter a crucia1 c0nversation, you can make a special effort to avoid your silence or violence habits.

So how does knowing ‘how to look’ help in a crucia1 c0nversation? Well, once you can identify signs that there’s a safety problem, you can step back, restore safety, and then return to dialogue – before the damage is too great. More about safety coming in the next part.