Crucial Conversations Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler Page A

games. Period. They know that in order to solve their problem, they’ll need to talk about their problem—withno 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 safety is restored, they can talk about nearly anything.
    For example, Yvonne gets back on the path of dialogue by saying: “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.”
NOTICE WHICH CONDITION IS AT RISK
    Now, let’s look at what Yvonne just did to establish safety—even though the topic was high risk, controversial, and emotional. She realized that the first step to building safety comes with understanding which of two different conditions of safety is at risk. Each requires a different solution.
Mutual Purpose—the Entrance Condition
Why Talk in the First Place?
    Remember the last time someone gave you difficult feedback and you didn’t become defensive? Say a friend said some things to you that most people might get upset over. In order for this person to be able to deliver the delicate message, you must have believed he or she cared about you or about your goals and objectives. That means you trusted his or her
purposes
so you were willing to listen to some pretty tough feedback.
    Crucial conversations often go awry not because others dislike the
content
of the conversation, but because they believe the content (even if it’s delivered in a gentle way) suggests that youhave a malicious
intent
. How can others feel safe when they believe you’re out to harm them? Soon, every word out of your mouth is suspect. You can’t utter a harmless “good morning” without others interpreting it in a negative way.
    Consequently, the first condition of safety is
Mutual Purpose
. Mutual Purpose means that others perceive that you’re working toward a common outcome in the conversation, that you care about their goals, interests, and values. And vice versa. You believe they care about yours. Consequently, Mutual Purpose is the entry condition of dialogue. Find a shared goal, and you have both a good reason and a healthy climate for talking.
    For example, if Jotham believes that Yvonne’s purpose in raising this delicate topic is to make him feel guilty or to get her way, this conversation is doomed from the outset. If he believes she really cares about making things better for both of them, she may have a chance.
    Watch for signs that Mutual Purpose is at risk
. How do we know when the safety problem we’re seeing is due to a lack of Mutual Purpose? It’s actually fairly easy to spot. First, when Mutual Purpose is at risk, we end up in debate. When others start forcing their opinions into the pool of meaning, it’s often because they figure that we’re trying to win and they need to do the same. Other signs that purpose is at risk include defensiveness, hidden agendas (the silence form of fouled-up purpose), accusations, and circling back to the same topic. Here are two crucial questions to help us determine when Mutual Purpose is at risk:
    â€¢ Do others believe I care about their goals in this conversation?
    â€¢ Do they trust my motives?
    Remember the
Mutual
in Mutual Purpose
. Just a word to the wise. Mutual Purpose is not a technique. To succeed in crucial conversations, we must really care about the interests of others—notjust our own. The purpose has to be truly mutual. If our goal is to get our way or manipulate others, it will quickly become apparent, safety will be destroyed, and we’ll be back to