Monday, September 3, 2012
Crucial Conversations
I found something interesting while reading the first couple of chapters of Crucial Conversations. The definition of crucial conversations that Patterson used is "a discussion between two or more people where stakes are high, opinions vary and emotions run strong" (Patterson, Grenny, Mcmillan & Switzler, 2012). I found this intresting because is is difficult for me to have crucial converstations even with my family. You would think with your family you would be able to tell them anything that was crucial or important to you. It is definitely difficult to have those converstations with someone at work so you would not think it would be difficlut with family, but I find that, that is the hardest converstation to have because you do not want to hurt anyones feelings or you may feel that it may cause a rift between you and your family. That is why this topic interested me so much because I want to learn how to have better crucial conversations with my family and when collaborating at work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Shanyse, Thank you for bringing my attention back to Crucial Conversations! I agree with you that the definition of these types of conversations, "a discussion between two or more people where stakes are high, opinions vary and emotions run strong" (Patterson, Grenny, Mcmillan & Switzler, 2012) and what the definition means when applied to life is very interesting and thought-provoking. I also agree that crucial conversations can be very tough with family as well as colleagues. With anyone really! The point you bring up about why these conversations might be difficult is important to consider -- " you do not want to hurt anyones feelings or you may feel that it may cause a rift between you and your family." Your point proves that stakes are high, and there is risk in having these conversations. The risks are many, depending upon the situation and how the conversation is conducted, but I have been thinking about the risks involved in NOT having the conversations. When we don't have these conversations, either with family or colleagues or whomever, there are also risks, and damage that is done, but in my opinion and experience, the risks and damage are ignored. Just because we ignore the risks and damage done by not having the crucial conversations doesn't mean they are not there though. I have found, and am finding now in certain personal conversations I am having, that damage has been done for staying quiet for too long. It is hard to know when or how to voice one's opinion or concerns, however. This takes practice, I think. I think another important tool we need to help us have the courage to take the risk to engage in these crucial conversations is the ability/skill/habit of listening to our intuitions or as I call it "Little Voice." I think we all have a deep wisdom inside of us that knows what to say and do, and has the courage to engage in these crucial conversations, messy as they may be, but it takes time, practice and commitment to learn to listen to the Little Voice. Do you know what I mean?
ReplyDeleteOnce we get the courage to have the conversation, however, it is not enough to just do our best with how the conversation moves forward or even to make a plan. It needs to be an informed plan. "Let’s say that you actually planned for a tough conversation—maybe you’ve even mentally rehearsed. You feel prepared, and you’re as cool as a cucumber. Will you succeed? Not necessarily. You can still screw up, because practice doesn’t make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect"
(Patterson, Kerry; Joseph Grenny; Ron McMillan; Al Switzler (2007-03-26). Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High (p. 5). McGraw-Hill. Kindle Edition). We are lucky to be reading this book so we can learn how to practice for these conversations in a way that will bring positive results! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Carmen
Thanks for both of your thoughtful reflections. I think even with practice that having crucial conversations is difficult. That's because the issues seem and could be, well, crucial. And each situation is unique. Sometimes I find that I think I know what the other person means before I even talk to the person. It is often easier to open crucial conversations with an invitation to the other person to clarify or explain. Here's an example:
ReplyDeleteTeacher assistant to teacher: The other day you mentioned that you are opposed to direct instruction. Did you mean to imply that I should not assist by teaching directly how to blend words when sounding out?
Teacher: Oh my goodness, no. I meant to say that I am opposed to being committed to ONLY using direct instruction or any one approach for that matter.
OR
Teacher: Thank you for bringing this up. I guess I was being indirect. I am not opposed to you assisting with teaching students to sound out. I do want you to follow our program--it is so important for students to hear one voice from us. And, I am sorry for being indirect. What do you need to be able to do this?
Thanks for the example, Dr. Delaney. Good point! I know that in these situations, the "start with heart" mantra has always helped me when I already have an idea of what the other person means and I don't necessarily like it. Asking for clarification would be a logical next step.
ReplyDelete