Introduction
The book to be reviewed is Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High by Patterson et al. (2011). It is about the best approach to use when participating in crucial conversations. A model has been developed concerning how best to prepare for high-stake situations, control emotions, and transform anger into robust dialogue. Doing these makes it possible to communicate in any situation and be persuasive. Through a carefully drafted model, the book outlines the best approaches to high-stake conversations, a technique applicable to the workplace to resolve conflicts, and promotes a healthy organizational culture.
Main Points of the Book
The book focuses on how to effectively hold conversations, especially when the environment is full of highly charged emotions. High-stakes communication is bound to lead to disagreements and conflicts of interest, but Patterson et al. (2011) suggest a working model which can help avoid a stalemate situation. The premise on which this book is written is that whenever people are stuck in a given state of affairs, there is a crucial conversation keeping them from realizing their desired results. Patterson et al. (2011) define a crucial dialogue as an engagement between two or more people, which involves high-stakes, thereby resulting in a variation of opinions, leading to high emotions. Therefore, this book offers the techniques to start crucial conversations and handle them well while working towards the anticipated target.
The Model Developed by the Authors
The model of handling crucial conversations developed by the authors includes seven essential steps. The first one is to start with the heart, positive intent, and empathy. It is vital to be in the right state before creating ample space for another person during crucial dialogues (Patterson et al., 2011). Thus, it is important to approach the situation with the right emotions and mindset, avoiding revenge, resentment, and anger. The second and third steps are connected, and they include staying in the dialogue and making it safe. These require ensuring communication lines do not falter for a smooth flow to reach the desired resolution. Patterson et al. (2011) suggest four ways of powerful listening in such conversations as an acronym AMPP. A stands for asking to keep the conversation going, M for mirroring to understand another person’s feelings, P for paraphrasing, and P for priming by giving a hint of what their feelings might be. This technique aims at allowing another person to feel safe in the conversation.
The model’s fourth step is to avoid being controlled by feelings. As mentioned earlier, emotions run strong during crucial conversations; therefore, it is vital to steer clear of reactions. Three actions that Patterson et al. (2011) suggest taking in such a situation include remaining focused on the desired outcome, refusing to get controlled by the emotion, and avoiding the dilemma of either keeping quiet or being reckless with words. Thus, it is important to avoid being trapped in emotions.
The last three steps are crucial and aim to find a balance between the two sides of the dialogue. The fifth phase is to agree on both sides’ mutual purpose, while the sixth is separating facts from opinions. A lack of mutual agreement indicates that the conversation will not be successful. Patterson et al. (2011) emphasize the need to find common ground using the acronym CRIB. It stands for being committed to finding a mutual purpose, recognizing the need for a common goal, inventing a mutual aim, and brainstorming on new strategies towards finding a common solution. Thus, these actions help improve the situation to ensure both sides of the conversation obtain their result.
The Model’s Applicability for Conflict Resolution in the Air Force Work Environment
The air force work environment deals with important decisions, which need to be thoughtful. This feature of the industry makes this model applicable to the workplace. When a technical error occurs, it is blamed on any employee or department, which causes a clash. Resolving this conflict requires listening carefully to each side of the misunderstanding. For example, the STATE acronym can be adopted to resolve conflicts in the air force work environment. At the beginning of the conversation, it is important to share (S) the facts. The next action is to tell (T) the story with any assumptions in mind. The third one is to ask (A) for the other party’s side of the story. The fourth suggestion is to talk tentatively (T), considering that these assumptions are not facts. Lastly, it is essential to encourage (E) testing by welcoming the other person to tell their story even if it may be different (Patterson et al., 2011). This process is particularly important to the Air Force workplace since it can help every worker be accountable for their actions and feel a part of the conversation.
Pros of the Model
One advantage of this model is that it creates a safe environment for all sides of the dialogue. Crucial conversations mostly lead to high emotions, making a person avoid them. However, this model gives everyone a chance to speak freely, thereby ensuring they feel valued. Another pro is that it can be used to resolve conflicts in many settings. In the work environment, careful decision making is paramount to ensure possible solutions are generated from conflicts through such processes as STATE and AMPP. Therefore, this model is beneficial in ensuring effective crucial conversations.
Cons of the Model
Although this model has some benefits, it is not without flaws. The first disadvantage is that it allows for too much consultation, making the decision-making process unnecessarily lengthy. This model aims to ensure that each side of the conversation does not feel threatened but valued. Thus, it takes a long time to listen to the facts and opinions shared by everyone, which may not work during emergencies and crises. The second shortcoming is that it gives a false impression that it is a person’s right to change another individual. People have different perceptions of others, and it is not easy not to judge someone. Therefore, this model generalizes that a conversation has to follow a specific route, which is not true.
Promotion of a Healthy Organizational Culture Using This Model
Using this model could promote a healthy organizational culture in the Air Force. This work environment involves making crucial technical and security decisions, requiring detailed consultations. Applying this model will help avoid emotional impulses, which can lead to poor, costly choices. Patterson et al. (2011) suggest that starting with the wrong mindset contaminates the pursuit of the desired goal. Since there are well-defined targets in the Air Force, this model can help drive this army branch to achieve its preferred results; every member feels valued. Moreover, the Air Force engages in numerous high-stake conversations calling for total sensory acuity. Therefore, this model can help promote a healthy organizational culture in the Air Force.
In conclusion, approaching high-stake situations call for a high level of preparedness. However, with the seven-step model provided in the book by Patterson et al. (2011), it is possible to participate in crucial conversations with moderation to achieve the anticipated goal. The Air Force employers make essential decisions, which need to be carefully arrived at. Although this model has some disadvantages, adopting it will promote a healthy organizational culture and ease conflict resolution.
Reference
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2011). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill.