e-mail

January 18, 2006
Volume 4 Issue 2Previous Issues
IN THIS ISSUE
  • Editor's Note: Reminder—My Account
  • Crucial Tip
  • Q&A: Mixing Family and Business
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Where Can I Learn More?
  • Contact Us
  • EDITOR'S NOTE
    Reminder: My Account

    If you're still receiving this newsletter in HTML and would prefer plain text, or vice versa, please visit My Account and be sure to adjust your setting accordingly. My Account links are also found under "Contact Us" and below in the footer. Besides changing delivery preference, you will be able to modify your account settings, including updating your e-mail address.

    You should be receiving the newsletter in the format of your choice by the next issue. Please contact us if your preferences are not updated by Jan 25.

    Thank you for your patience,

    Editors, Crucial Skills Newsletter

    CRUCIAL TIP
    Using Consensus Decisions

    When everyone in a group is affected by a decision, everyone cares about the outcome, and there are several options (not equally liked), the crucial conversation calls for a consensus decision—everyone must agree. When trying to reach a consensus decision, observe the following tips:

    Don’t pretend everyone gets his or her first choice. Consensus isn’t about everyone getting his or her way; it’s about doing what’s right for the family or team.

    Don’t engage in post-decision lobbying. Consensus decisions should be made in the open; don’t hold back your reservations until after the decision is made and then approach individuals with your agenda. Make the decision together.

    Don’t say “I told you so.” Once you’ve decided on something as a group, support the idea. If it doesn’t work out, own the failure together.

    WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE?

    Crucial Conversations
  • 1/24-25  Boston, MA
  • 1/24-25  Atlanta, GA
  • 1/24-25  Portland, OR
  • 2/7-8 Chicago, IL
  • 2/7-8 Phoenix, AZ
  • 2/21-22 Toronto, ON
  • 2/28-3/1 Irvine, CA
  • 2/28-3/1 New York, NY
  • 3/2-3/3 Falls Church, VA
  • 3/7-3/8 San Francisco, CA
  • 3/21-3/22 Miami, FL
  • 3/21-3/22 Houston, TX
    More
    Crucial Confrontations
  • 1/24-25  Irvine, CA
  • 2/7-8  Washington, DC
  • 3/28-29  San Diego, CA
    More


    Crucial Conversations
  • 2/8, 11:00-12:15 PM MT  Overview
  • 2/15, 11:00-12:15 PM MT  Overview
  • 2/16, 11:00-12:15 PM MT
     Healthy Work Environment for   Healthcare
  • 3/9, 11:00-12:15 PM MT  Overview
  • 3/16, 11:00-12:15 PM MT  Overview
    Crucial Confrontations
  • 1/19, 11:00-12:15 PM MT  Overview

    Register today by contacting your VitalSmarts representative by calling 1-800-449-5989 or by clicking here.
  • CONTACT US
    Questions, feedback, or information you would like to see? E-mail us at editor@vitalsmarts.com.

    Submit your question online to the authors of Crucial Conversations and Crucial Confrontations.

    About the Authors
    Submission Guidelines
    My Account
    Newsletter Archive
    "A good listener is not only popular everywhere,
    but after a while he knows something."
    – Wilson Mizner

    Mixing Family and Business

    About the Author


    Kerry Patterson is coauthor of the New York Times bestseller, Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High.more

    Dear Authors,

    Before partnering with my brother in a small business, I knew that it would be difficult to get along. I insisted on defining responsibilities, and tried at the beginning to manage huge differences. We ended up disagreeing and clashing; the business went down, we lost our savings, and I decided not to talk about our differences anymore. Now I just do what needs to be done and let the chips fall where they may.

    I am convinced that certain situations cannot be resolved within a given time frame, and a decision needs to be made about what is more important—our working relationship or business success—in order not to lose both. Is it a far fetched justification to our situation?

    Signed,
    Family Feud


    Dear Feud,

    You’re correct about the fact that it can take time to solve some problems and that certain business choices may not fit neatly in the required timeframe. I’m reminded of a couple of occasions in my own experience where a person who worked for me and I were still talking about a certain decision, hadn’t resolved it to both our satisfaction, and the clock then decided for us. That is, it became too late to execute one of the choices so the choice was made for us. From this experience I learned that on particularly tough decisions I should set a time for the decision (before the drop-dead date) and then suggest that if we hadn’t come to an agreement by that time, I’d make the decision.

    These are the circumstances under which you step away from dialogue and act because of time demands. You let people know what you’re doing up front, do your best to come to a shared resolution, and if necessary, make the choice on your own (or turn it over to a higher power)—rather than let the clock decide for you.

    On the other hand, deciding to systematically cut off your business partner because you don’t have time to work through the issues may be too extreme. Not everything is so time sensitive that you can’t involve others in some way—including getting their best ideas. When you choose to implement a unilateral leadership style in the name of time constraints, you not only harm the relationship, you also harm the business. Surely every idea your brother has can’t be wrong. Involving him provides his perspective and expertise, and as a general rule your decisions will benefit. But then again, you argue so much, you probably won’t ever come to a shared decision anyway—right?

    Talk with your brother about how you make choices and the methods you’d like to follow in the future. Point out that you’ve often argued about key issues, putting you in the tough position of having to make a decision at the last minute rather than let the opportunity pass. This has led to you adopting a rather one-sided style—which isn’t working for you.

    Explain that you’d like more of his involvement, but in order for that to happen you’ll need to move away from debating and more toward dialogue. That means that both of you will need to break away from your habit of trying to convince each other, and become better at sharing your ideas in a way that doesn’t lead to defensiveness or an unhealthy battle. Both of you will have to become better at listening, doing your best to understand one another rather than attacking each other’s views on the spot. Try discussing relevant skills from Crucial Conversations and ways in which you can help each other implement them in your interactions.

    In summary, start by suggesting that you want to improve both your relationship and your business outcomes. Let your brother know that you want to work with him in a collaborative fashion, that you haven’t always been able to do so, and that you’re interested in improving both the quality of your decisions and the quality of your work life. Acknowledge that all hasn’t gone well to this point, that over the long haul your relationship is far more important than any specific business issue, and that your goal is to turn your little enterprise into a company that is not only well run, but also a place you’re both proud to work.

    Best wishes,
    Kerry

    Back to Top

    Re: “Choking Up” (Jan 11, 2006)

    Dear Editor,

    I appreciate the question posed by "Choking Up" and the response from Mr. Switzler. I would like to add information that I have found helpful in my own experience.

    I have found it is very helpful to recognize that it is OK to be a visibly emotional person. Taking a "time out" is a great tool when emotions are high. But if you fail to take a time out and end up with an emotional display, I believe an apology may not be the best course of action.

    Mr. Switzler suggested saying, “Last week, when we were talking about budget, I got ‘choked up.’ . . . I'm sorry it happened and I'm working on improving in that area.” To say that you are "sorry it happened" does not make it clear that you are sorry the conversation was derailed. It sounds more like you are sorry for getting choked up. I would suggest being honest and telling the other person that you are a person with visible emotions. Perhaps something like, "Last week, when we were talking about budget, I got ‘choked up.’ I realize that this may have caught you off guard, and I'm sorry it made you feel uncomfortable. I tend to have pretty visible emotions, and I hadn't recognized how strongly I felt about things until we started talking. I've done more reflecting and am prepared to take up the discussion again. I would like for us to have effective conversations in the future, and I am committed to making that a reality."

    I believe it is important to simply recognize emotional signs and treat them neutrally, not view it as negative to have the emotions. This helps you focus more on your behavior and action in a crucial conversation, and not attach a value to the emotion itself.

    Thanks very much for the newsletter. It helps keep the Crucial Conversations information fresh.

    Have a good day,
    Michelle

    ------------------

    Re: “Doing the right thing” (Dec 29, 2005)

    Dear Editor,

    As a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, publicly traded companies are now required by law to have an ethics statement. Thanks to Congress, we're finally all safe from otherwise would-be frauds in management who, upon signing a federally mandated ethics statement, had their eyes opened and decided to change the error of their ways.

    Sincerely,
    George S.

    ------------------

    Re: “Looking for a Way Out” (Dec 7, 2005)

    Dear Editor,

    Thank you for the refreshing perspective on leaving a present job. Often it is said that the professional, white-collar world is a dog-eat-dog world where people can run over each other, bad-mouth, and push people around.

    But I am impressed to know that there are those in the professional world who still believe in professionalism and common, humane courtesy.

    Thank you,
    SR

    ------------------

    Re: “Looking for a Way Out” (Dec 7, 2005)

    Dear Editor,

    I currently work in a position where, despite my best efforts to improve the working relationship with my immediate supervisor, there is still no safety at the relationship level. I have an upcoming interview at another City. Any recommendations on how to handle the potential question regarding my relationship with my immediate supervisor? Also, I have a good relationship with my supervisor's boss and I'm using him as a reference with his permission, but not my immediate supervisor.

    Thanks,
    Paul F.

    ------------------

    Response from Kerry Patterson, coauthor of Crucial Conversations and Crucial Confrontations:

    Dear Paul,

    Don’t sugarcoat your past relationships. This can get tricky when the person you're talking with about a new job wants to speak with your current boss. Start by being up front with the potential employer about the fact that you don't have a very good relationship with your boss, and therefore you are choosing to move on. Don’t give details. Explain that you hope to get a job offer on the basis of your resume, experience, and the interview—not on the basis of what your current boss has to say. If he or she still insists on calling your previous employer, give permission. Just make sure the person calling is aware of the situation.

    Best of luck,
    Kerry



    Back to Top