Crucia1 C0nversations – Part 4

Phew – what a long gap from the last post! My apologies, I’ve been a bit unwell (and my son, too huk huk, tapi dah ok Alhamdulillah), and quite busy with work. (Aiks.. terperasaan pulak, macamlah ada orang dok tunggu heheh..) Anyway, back to the original subject.

In the previous installment Learn to Look, we get some ideas one how to spot when safety is at risk. In Part 4, let’s explore the next topic: Make It Safe. I think the concept of ‘safety’ in a conversation is still a bit strange to fathom. It helps to imagine a situation when you listen to a feedback (negative, in this case) from someone whom you love and trust, and you can accept the feedback well (a dialogue being handled well by both parties) because you trust her and you are convinced that she is telling you that because she cares about you and wants the best for you. In other words, you feel safe. But imagine if that same negative feedback is to be given by someone you barely knew, you’ll perhaps feel some suspicions and distrust, perhaps you’ll choose not to believe him and start to be defensive. You don’t feel safe.

Following from that, the first skill they taught under this topic is the conditions that make a conversation safe, which are Mutual Purpose, and Mutual Respect (rather self-explanatory terms). Both conditions need to exist for an affective dialogue to take place. Mutual Purpose is not a technique; you cannot pretend to care about the other parties’ interest, you have to genuinely care. But perhaps you would say: what about the party? What if they are not aware or don’t care about my purpose? Well, spell it out! Example: “I understand that you, coming from the finance team, has a concern about the budget for this project, but you see - I, on the other hand, as the safety officer, need to make sure that we don’t compromise on any safety standards.” Ideally, the two parties should agree that both objectives are important to their company. If not, well – we’ll come to that later. As for Mutual Respect, if it’s not there, then it is highly likely that the interaction will no longer be about the original purpose, instead it becomes one of defending one’s dignity. If I think you don’t respect for me, everything you say becomes suspect to me. But how is it possible for me to maintain respect when talking talking to someone that I, uh, don’t particularly like? It helps to try find a way to honour and regard the other person’s basic humanity; and to recognize that we, too, have our own weaknesses.

So, once you’ve identified that either Mutual Purpose or Mutual Respect (or both?) is at risk, it’s time to step out and build safety. The book suggested 3 skills: apologize when appropriate, contrast to fix misunderstanding, and CRIB to get Mutual Purpose. Apologize sounds a bit obvious, isn’t it? Well, it’s still the true and tested way to repair damages. Remember that it has to be a sincere apology though. Example: A supervisor has promised to meet his team members to listen to aproposal that they have worked really hard on for two weeks. But near the time, an emergency at their manufacturing line happened that the supervisor has to address quickly and he didn’t have time to let his team know in advance. So, after waiting for some time, his team became upset – they feel that their supervisor didn’t take them seriously and didn’t appreciate the hard work they’ve put in (Mutual Respect at risk). The supervisor feels that he is justified in his action because of the urgent nature of the emergency; but he still needs to apologize. So, instead of saying “There was an emergency! Can’t you guys understand that I have to take care of it first?” he said “Guys, I’m really sorry about not turning up at 10 a.m. earlier as scheduled, but there was an emergency and I didn’t even get to inform you earlier to postpone our meeting. This proposal is important to me and I appreciate all the hard work that you’ve put in, can we reschedule the meeting to tomorrow morning, same time?”

Contrasting is a don’t/do statement that helps to clarify misunderstanding; it denies negative suspicion the other party might have about you, and clarifies your objective or purpose. Example: a grandmother is insistent to see her grandson gets enrolled in her school of choice, but the parents have different ideas. So the father says to his mother: “Mak, kami bukannya tak hargai nasihat mak, malah kami bersyukur sebab mak beri pandangan, cuma dalam kes ni, kami berat nak menghantar anak-anak kami ke sekolah B instead of sekolah A atas sebab 1, 2 dan 3.” In this case, the son suspected that the mother may feel that her advices are not appreciated, so he specifically addressed the potential concern. Or let’s say a guy wants to let his colleague knows that completing her tasks on time would help him with his work but doesn’t want her to get the impression that he doesn’t like working with her so he said: “Mira, I don’t want you to think that I don’t like working you, in fact I think you got very creative analytical skills, it’s just that when you pass the report to me late, it affected my schedule, and it would really help me if you can try get them done on time next time”.

Finally, when apologizing and contrasting is still not enough to secure safety, you may need to CRIB. CRIB actually stands for Commit to seek mutual purpose, Recognize the strategy behind purpose, Invent a higher mutual purpose, and Brainstorm for new ideas. Sounds too academic, aye? And it’s not like one party can lay down these steps for the other party to follow! But I guess the one party that is aware of this CRIB skill can influence the other party, or lead the dialogue to go this direction. Let’s go back to the earlier example of budget vs safety.

A: I understand that you, coming from the finance team, has a concern about the budget for this project, but you see - I, on the other hand, as the safety officer, need to make sure that we don’t compromise on any safety standards.
B: But if we don’t meet the budget, our next project would have to be cancelled!
A: And if we don’t meet the safety standards, we might endanger the lives of people involved! (Mutual purpose at risk)
A: Look, we’re going nowhere. Can we step back and try to find some common objectives?
B: Well, okay. (Commit to seek mutual purpose)
A: I’m concerned about safety because any unwanted incidents might compromise our company’s performance. You’re concerned about the budget because you know better about our company’s financial standing. So I guess, we both want what’s best for our company, just in different ways. (Recognize purpose behind strategies)
B: That’s it then – that’s what we both want. (Invent higher mutual purpose)
A: So how do we solve our differences now?
B: Perhaps there’s another element where we can save some cost?
A: And perhaps I can save some cost if I refer to our internal experts instead of hiring outside consultants?
B: What about if we…. (and so on - they’ve began Brainstorming for new ideas)

I think once we recognize that there is a need for safety in a conversation, how we get to it it’s up to our own creativity and the situation or person we’re dealing with. The three skills mentioned here are just suggestions. Once both sides feel safe, then flow of useful information can take place, instead of each side feeling like they have to defend something. In the next part, we’ll look at the chapter Master My Stories.