Friday, November 1, 2019

Teach your child how to think (Edward de Bono) - Summary


Thinking Behavior 
There are only two sorts of thinking behavior:

1. YOU WANT TO THINK: You have a way of doing something, there are no problems and you can carry on doing things in exactly the same way — but you want to see if there is a better way. Could it be done faster? Could it be done in a simpler way? Could it be done at less cost? Could it be done with less errors, wastage, pollution, danger etc.? These are the key questions that are asked in any improvement exercise. This sort of thinking is extremely important in business, in engineering, in government etc. where there is an emphasis on efficiency, effectiveness and cost cutting. The same thing applies almost as much to personal life. The difficulty is that you are not forced to do this thinking but have to want to do it.

2. YOU HAVE TO THINK: There is a problem you cannot solve. There is a dilemma that makes it difficult to reach a decision. There is a conflict that is growing worse. There is a need for a new idea and you cannot get one. You need to find an opportunity but cannot do so. In short you are stuck. You cannot move ahead. You have no choice. You have to think. There is no routine way of tackling the situation. Ordinary thinking will not help you. You have to think hard.

~ * ~

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT OUR BRAIN, A SELF ORGANIZING SYSTEM?
    
If the brain sets up patterns, what can we do? Do we not just have to follow the patterns? 

Imagine a slope. You place a ball at the top of the slope and the ball rolls down the slope. The ball is rolling down the slope on its own — but you have chosen to place the ball at the top of the slope.
    
Imagine that the slope is quite wide and at the bottom there is a matchbox. Your task is to knock the matchbox over. You cannot just place the ball anywhere at the top of the slope. You choose a position such that the rolling ball will hit the matchbox. 

In exactly the same way, thinking is a combination of what the mind does and what we set it up to do.

Add up the numbers 5 + 11 + 16. That is easy enough. Some people might find it easier if the numbers were arranged one under the other (see the image below). Some very young people might find it easier if they were put down as dots in a row and then you just count all the dots. In this example we see how we can arrange things so that the mind finds it easier to work.

If you are asked to tell which of two similar square shapes is the bigger you might have a hard job estimating the difference. But if you are able to place one square over the other, you can instantly see which is the bigger. Again we have re-arranged things to make the mind's task easier.

~ * ~ Carpenters and Thinkers My favorite model for a thinker is that of the carpenter. Carpenters do things. Carpenters make things. Carpenters do things step by step. Carpenters deal with the physical substance of wood — so we can see what they are doing. So the model of the carpenter provides us with all the elements of thinking skill that I shall be describing in this book. ATTITUDES: The attitudes with which we approach thinking. PRINCIPLES: The guiding principles that make for good thinking. HABITS: The routines we seek to make automatic. BASIC OPERATIONS: The fundamental operations of thinking. TOOLS: The thinking tools we practice and use deliberately. STRUCTURES: Formats in which we hold things for convenience. Always keep in mind the model of the carpenter as he or she goes about constructing things. ~ * ~ GOOD ATTITUDES ... Everyone has to think — everyone can think. ... Thinking is a skill that can be developed. ... I am a thinker. ... I can get better and better at thinking. ... Thinking may require a deliberate effort. ... Things that appear complicated at first can often be made more simple. ... Take one step at a time. ... Separate your ego from your thinking. Look at your thinking objectively. ... The purpose of thinking is not to be right all the time. ... Listening and learning is a key part of thinking. ... Always be humble - arrogance is the mark of a poor thinker. ... Thinking should be constructive, not negative. It is not enough to attack and to prove the other party wrong. Start out trying to be constructive and to take things further. ... Explore a subject instead of arguing about it. ... The other party in an argument usually has something useful and constructive to say, if you make the effort to pick this out. Instead of just looking for points of attack, try to see what is of value in an opposing position. ... People with differing points of view are usually right according to their own special perception. Instead of considering others stupid try to see their perception and why they hold the view they hold. ... It is possible to be creative and to have new ideas. ... Do not be afraid to try out ideas. ... At any point in thinking there may be alternatives that you have not yet thought of. ... Avoid dogmatism even when you do feel that you are right. ~ * ~ THE SIX THINKING HATS The six thinking hats is a method for doing one sort of thinking at a time. Instead of trying to do everything at once we 'wear' only one hat at a time. There are six colored hats and each color represents a type of thinking. WHITE HAT: Facts, figures and information. What information do we have? What information do we need to get?

RED HAT: Emotions, feelings, hunches and intuition. What do I feel about this matter right now?

BLACK HAT: Caution. Truth. Judgement. Fitting the facts. Does this fit the facts? Will it work? Is it safe? Can it be done?

YELLOW HAT: Advantages, benefits, savings. Why it can be done. Why there are benefits. Why it is a good thing to do?

GREEN HAT: Exploration, proposals, suggestions, new ideas. Alter-natives for action. What can we do here? Are there some different ideas?

BLUE HAT: Thinking about thinking. Control of the thinking process.

ROLE-PLAYING

... 'Let's have four minutes green-hat thinking on this.'

... 'What are the facts? Some white-hat thinking, please.'

... 'Be realistic. Put on your black hat'

... 'Switch from the black hat to the yellow hat for the moment.'

USE OF THE HATS

1. YOURSELF:

You can choose to put on a hat in order to tell others the sort of thinking you are going to do.

... 'Putting on my black hat I am going to point out what is wrong with the idea...'

... 'I am going to put on my red hat because I have a hunch this is all a trick. I do not know why but that is my hunch’

... 'Putting on my green hat I want to put forward a new idea. Why don't we let people buy their motor-cycles from us?'

... 'I want to do some yellow-hat thinking here. There are the following good points about the idea...'

... 'We do not seem to be getting anywhere. Putting on my blue hat I suggest we make clear what we are trying to do.'

2. SOMEONE ELSE: When talking to someone else you can ask that person to put on a particular hat, to take off a particular hat or to switch hats. This allows you to request a change in thinking —without offending the other person.

... 'Please give me your black-hat thinking on this matter. We do not want to make any mistake.'

... 'Never mind what we can do. I just want some white-hat thinking. What are the facts?'

... 'That is what you feel about it. Now take off your red hat.'

... 'I am going to ask you to switch from black-hat thinking to some yellow-hat thinking.’

3. GROUP: When working with a group the leader of the group, or anyone else, can ask individuals in the group – or the whole group – to put on, take off, or switch hats. This use is similar to use with one other person - except that more people are involved.

... 'Let's all try three minutes of green-hat thinking’

... I want to know what you all really feel about this project - so some red-hat thinking from each one of you.'

...'l think we need some white-hat thinking here. Do you all agree?'

... 'Some blue-hat thinking, please. Suggestions on the direction our thinking should take.'

MENTAL IMAGES FOR REMEMBERING THE HATS:

White hat: Think of blank paper. Think of a computer print-out. The white hat means neutral information. It is not a matter of argument or making suggestions. White-hat thinking focuses directly on the available information.

Information is very important for thinking, so it is useful to have a way of being able to focus directly on information. Under the white hat there are three key questions:

1. What information do we have?

2. What information is missing?

3. How do we get the information we need?

RED HAT

Think of fire and warm. The red hat is for emotions, feelings, hunches and intuition.

In a way the red hat is the opposite of the white hat. The white hat seeks to put down the objective facts and is not interested in what anyone feels about them - facts are facts. The red hat is not interested in the facts but only in people’s feelings.

BLACK HAT

Think of a stern judge. Think of someone who gives you a black mark if you get something wrong.

The black hat is certainly the most used of all the hats. In some ways it is also the most valuable of the hats. The black hat prevents us from making mistakes and doing silly things.

The black hat is concerned with truth and reality. The black hat is the hat of critical thinking: Is this right?'

Under the black hat come a number of questions:

1. Is it true?

2. Does it fit?

3. Will it work?

4. What are the dangers and problems?

YELLOW HAT:

Think of sunshine and optimism. The yellow hat is full of hope but as it is a logical hat the reasons behind the hope must be given.

In general, the yellow hat is looking forward into the future: 'If we do this, then these benefits will arise...’

The yellow hat can also be used for looking backwards into the past: 'This thing happened. There were a lot of harmful effects. But there were also some good effects — let's put on our yellow hat to find the good effects.'

The yellow-hat thinker asks himself or herself the following questions:

1. What are the benefits?

2. Why should it work?

GREEN HAT

Think of grass, trees, vegetation and growth. Think of the energy of growth and fertility. Think of shoots and branches.

The green hat is the 'active' hat.

The green hat is the hat for creative thinking. In fact, the green hat covers both uses of the word ‘creative'.

1. Creative thinking may mean bringing something about or making something happen. This is similar to constructive thinking. The green hat is concerned with proposals and suggestions.

2. Creative thinking may mean new ideas, new alternatives, new solutions, new inventions. Here the emphasis is on ‘newness'.

The white hat lays out the information.

The red hat allows feelings to be put forward.

The black and yellow hats deal with logical assessment. So it falls to the green hat to be the action hat under which ideas are put forward.

When you are asked to put on the green hat you are being asked to come up with suggestions and ideas. This is active thinking, not reactive thinking.

The five main uses of the green hat are as following:

1. Exploration

2. Proposals and suggestions

3. Alternatives

4. New ideas

5. Provocations

BLUE HAT

Think of the blue sky. The sky is above everything. If you were up in the sky you would be looking down at everything below. With blue-hat thinking you are above the thinking: you are looking down at the thinking. With blue-hat thinking you are thinking about thinking.

The blue hat is the overview. The blue hat is the process control. The blue hat is like the conductor of the orchestra. With all the other hats we think about the subject matter, but with the blue hat we think about our thinking.

The blue hat covers the following points:

1. Where are we now?

2. What is the next step?

3. Program for thinking

4. Summary

5. Observation and comment

~ * ~

SEQUENCIAL USE OF HATS:

What is the correct sequence in which the six hats could be used?

There is no single correct sequence because the sequence Will vary with the circumstances. You are free to make up your own sequence but some rules or guidelines are given here.

1. Each hat may be used any number of times in the sequence.

2. In general it is best to use the yellow hat before the black hat since it is difficult to be positive after you have been critical.

3. The black hat is used in two ways. The first way is to point out the weaknesses in an idea. This should then be followed by the green hat, which tries to overcome the weakness. The second use of the black hat is for assessment.

4. The black hat is always used for final assessment of the idea. This final assessment should always be followed by the red hat. This is so that we can see how we feel about the idea after we have assessed it.

5. If you believe that there are strong feelings about a subject, you would always start the thinking with the red hat in order to get those feelings out into the open.

6. If there are no strong feelings you would start with the white hat in order to collect information. After the white hat you would use the green hat to generate some alternatives. Then you would assess each alternative with the yellow hat followed by the black hat. You would then choose an alternative and finally assess your choice with the black hat followed by the red hat.

The major difference in sequence is between the two situations: seeking an idea; reacting to an idea.

Seeking an Idea:

The sequence of hat colors might be:

WHITE: To gather available information.

GREEN: For further exploration and to generate alternatives.

YELLOW: To assess the benefits and feasibility of each alternative.

BLACK: To assess the weaknesses and dangers of each alternative.

GREEN: To develop further the most promising alternatives and to make a choice.

BLUE: To summarize and assess what has been achieved so far.

BLACK: To make the final judgement on the chosen alternative.

RED: To find out the feelings on the outcome.

Reacting to a Presented Idea:

Here the sequence is different because the idea is known and, usually, the background information is also known.

RED: To find out the existing feelings about the idea.

YELLOW: To make an effort to find the benefits in the idea.

BLACK: To point out weaknesses, problems and dangers in the idea.

GREEN: To see if the idea can be modified to strengthen the yellow-hat benefits and to overcome the black-hat problems.

WHITE: To see if available information can help in modifying the idea to make it more acceptable (if the red-hat feelings are against the idea).

GREEN: Development of the final suggestion.

BLACK: Judgement of the final suggestion.

RED: To find out the feelings on the outcome.

Short Sequences:

Quite often short sequences of the hats are used for various purposes.

YELLOW/BLUE/RED: For quick assessment of an idea.

WHITE/GREEN: To generate ideas.

BLACK/GREEN: To improve an existing idea.

BLUE/GREEN: To summarize and spell out the alternatives.

BLUE/YELLOW: To see if the thinking has had any benefits.

~ * ~

TOOLS FOR THINKING >>>

OUTCOME AND CONCLUSION

... 'You have been thinking for twenty minutes — what is the outcome?'

... 'The five minutes' thinking time is up — what is the outcome?'

... This meeting has gone on for three hours. We have had a lot of discussion. What is the outcome?'

In general, there seem to be two possible answers to that question:

... 'Here is the solution to the problem. Here is the answer. Here is the decision. Here is the conclusion.'

... We do not seem to have gotten anywhere at all.

When the thinking has to come to an end what is the outcome? Is it just a matter of either a specific answer or nothing at all? If there is not the specific answer, have we been wasting our time?

If you do not seem to be getting anywhere then thinking is not enjoyable. So it is important to pay attention to the outcome of any thinking. The outcome is not just a matter of right answer or no answer. There are many possible outcomes of thinking, but we can simplify them into three types of outcome:

1. Better map (exploration)

2. Pin-pointing needs

3. Specific answer

BETTER MAP

At the end of your thinking you should have a better map of what you have been thinking about. If nothing else, you have gone over the territory. You have explored. You have a better idea of the information, concepts and feelings in the matter.

PIN-POINTING NEEDS

After thinking about a matter you should have a much clearer idea about why you cannot go further, about why you cannot reach a conclusion.

It may be that there is a need for some vital information and you cannot proceed without that.

SPECIFIC ANSWER

This means that you have come to a conclusion; have reached a decision; have arrived at a design; have a specific plan or strategy; have a solution to the problem; have an answer to the question.

~ * ~

THE FIVE-MINUTE THINKING FORMAT

One Minute

- Be clear about the purpose of the thinking

- Be clear about the focus

- Be clear about the sort of outcome you need

- Be clear about the situation

Next Two Minutes

First of all, you explore the subject in terms of information and your own experience. Then you start to have some ideas.

- Is there an obvious answer?

- What are the usual answers here?

- In very broad terms what would I like to do?

- How can I put that wish into practical action?

- What other ways are there?

Next One Minute

This is the stage of choosing or deciding.

- What alternative is most likely to work?

- Which alternative would be most acceptable in practice?

- Which alternative best fits my needs and priorities?

- Which alternative best fits the circumstances of this thinking exercise?

Final One Minute

If you have reached a conclusion, answer or decision, test it out by going through the reasons why you think it will work. You may have time to compare it with other possible solutions to show why the one you chose is better.

If you do not have a final conclusion, you should spend this minute defining the outcome of your thinking in another way.

What have you learned through thinking about the subject?

What alternatives have you considered (even if you could not decide between them)?

What alternative approaches might there be — even if these are not solutions?

What further information you really need?

What are the sticky points?

What are the key problems?

Output:

At the end of the five minutes you must be able to give your output. You must be able to do this directly without waiting to be asked questions.

~ * ~

FORWARD OR PARALLEL

There are two main directions of thinking: forward or parallel.

You can walk along the path, or you can pause and look around at the garden.

In forward thinking if we are at A we move forward to B and then to C. If we have both A and B, then we move forward to C. In other words, where we get to is determined by where we are now.

In parallel thinking we have A and then B and then C, all in parallel. They are not determined by each other. They exist in parallel. We can look around to find them.

There is food on the table. And we are hungry. So let us sit down to eat. This is forward thinking.

In parallel thinking we might say: there is bread on the table; there is butter on the table; there is soup on the table etc., etc. All these exist in parallel.

Strangers standing around in a crowd are parallel. A woman moving towards someone she recognizes as a friend is 'forward'.

The key question for parallel thinking is: What else is there?

This means what other things, what other alternatives. What other points of view, what other perceptions etc.?

The key question for forward thinking is:

So what follows?

If we have 'this' then what follows? Where do we go from here? What can we deduce?

It is obvious that 5+3 give the answer 8. That is forward thinking.

The answer 8 could have been the result of 5+3. But it could also have been the result of 4+4, 7+1 and 6+2. This is parallel thinking.

We use parallel thinking for exploring both what is there and also possibilities.

We use forward thinking for going forward to solutions or conclusions.

The two key questions to ask as a habit of thinking are:

- “What else might there be?”

- “So what follows?”

~ * ~

LOGIC AND PERCEPTION

Perception is how we see the world around us.

Logic is how we make the best use of those perceptions.

The two main aspects of perception are: breadth and change.

So the key habit questions to ask are:

- How broad a view am I taking?

- In what other ways is it possible to look at things?

One shoe salesman wrote: “This is a terrible market – no one wears shoes.” The other salesman wrote: “This is a wonderful market – no one wears shoes.”

~ * ~

CAF: Consider All Factors

CAF is an attention-directing tool. CAF is a tool designed to increase the breadth of perception. What are the factors that have to be considered in this matter?

The more you use the tool in a deliberate manner the more of a tool it becomes. If you are shy about mentioning the tool, it does not become usable as a tool but remains as a weak attitude.

~ * ~

APC: Alternatives, Possibilities, Choices

This is another attention directing tool. Instead of moving ‘forward’ with our thinking we look at ‘parallel’ possibilities.

There are many sorts of alternatives:

PERCEPTION: The same thing can be looked at in many different ways.

ACTION: Alternative courses of action that can be taken in a situation.

SOLUTIONS: Alternative solutions to a problem.

APPROACHES: Different ways of tackling the problem in order to find a solution.

EXPLANATIONS: Alternative explanations of how something happened. Alternative hypotheses in science.

DESIGN: Alternative designs, each of which fulfils the purpose of the design (machines, buildings, posters etc.).

Sometimes we are forced to look for alternatives because the traditional way does not work. Sometimes we want to look for alternatives because we believe we might find a better way than the one we now use. If someone tells you that there are only two possible solutions to a problem, you might spend a few moments thinking of further alternatives. You may or may not find further alternatives, but it is always worth spending some time looking for them.

Perhaps the most difficult thing to do is to stop to look for alternatives when you do not have to. Gillette invented the safety razor when he stopped to look for an alternative way of shaving. We often assume that things are done in the best possible way, but that is not always so. Often things are done in that way for historical reasons or because no one has tried to find a better way.

Whenever you set out to look for alternatives you must be very clear about the purpose of the alternative.

... I want alternative ways of blocking this hole.

... I want alternative ways of carrying water to that point.

... I want alternative suggestions as to how this system might fail.

'I want alternative colors for the carpet' is quite different from 'I want alternative ways of covering the floor'. If you just say, 'I want alternatives to a carpet,' it is not clear whether you want alternative ways of covering the floor or alternatives that are as warm as a carpet. As with CAF, the more formally and the more deliberately the tool is used the more valuable it becomes as a tool.

~ * ~

VALUES

In mathematics and in logic puzzles it is enough to get the right answer. Real life is very different because values are involved. Values are part of thinking. Values usually involve other people. A logically correct solution to a problem may be unacceptable because it goes against people's values (which may be illogical).

If we are going to think in the real world, we have to be conscious of values in all our thinking.

In all thinking there are two key questions which should become a thinking habit. These questions should be asked routinely whenever we are thinking about something:

1. What are the values involved?

2. Who is affected by the values?

Both yellow-hat and black-hat thinking are concerned with values. With yellow-hat thinking we look for the benefits. With black-hat thinking we look for the problems and dangers.

In looking at values we need to look at the people involved. The specific OPV (Other people’s views) tool is explained in the next few pages.

In looking at values we need to look at the “Consequences” of any action. The specific C&S tool is explained in the next few pages.

In looking at values we need a quick way of assessing the “Plus, Minus and Interesting” aspects. The specific PMI tool is explained in the next few pages.

~ * ~

OPV: Other People’s Views

The world is full of people. Thinking is done by people. Thinking affects people.

The two key questions are:

1. Who is affected by this thinking (action)?

2. What are the views (thinking) of those affected?

The OPV and values are very closely linked because the views of those affected are going to be determined by the values involved. So in doing an OPV we need to look closely at the values involved.

Two sides in an argument: One obvious use of the OPV is to consider the thinking of both sides in an argument or conflict. If you are on one side of the conflict, you make an effort to see things from the other side.

This effort to see the other point of view or other perception of the situation must be objective. How do they see things?

~ * ~

C&S: Consequences and Sequel

Never mind about the 'sequel' part. treat this perception tool as 'consequences'. The tool is pronounced 'C and You could make a case for saying that this is the most important of all the thinking tools in real life. If your thinking is going to result in action of any sort (decisions, choices, plans, initiatives etc.) then that action is going to take place in the future. So you have to look at the consequences of that action.

Will it work out?

What are the benefits?

What are the problems and dangers (risks)?

What are the costs?

TIME SCALE

IMMEDIATE: The immediate consequences of the action.

SHORT-TERM: What happens after the immediate.

MEDIUM-TERM: What happens when things have settled down.

LONG-TERM: What happens much later. The actual timings will vary from situation to situation. For example, with a new electric power station, immediate is five years, short-term is ten years. medium-term is twenty years and long-term is up to fifty years. With a quarrel with your friend, immediate is now. short-term is one day, medium-term is one week, and long-term is one month.

For each situation set the specific time scales before starting to do the C&S.

RISK

Will it work out as I hope it will?

What might go wrong?

What are the actual dangers?

Another way of looking at risk is to ask yourself:

What is the worst thing that can go wrong?

If you can imagine the worst and still face it, you may want to go ahead with your action.

You could also ask:

What is the ideal (best) outcome?

In between these two you might ask:

What is the most likely outcome?

CERTAINTY

You can never be certain about the future. You can never have full information about the future. That is one of the reasons why thinking is so important. When we look at the future with a C&S there are different levels of certainty or uncertainty.

I am sure that things will turn out like this.

This is the most likely outcome.

It could be like this, or like this.

This is a possibility - but I cannot be sure.

I have no idea what will happen.

We often do have to act with low levels of certainty. We cannot always wait for full certainty (which may never become available). The important point is to be aware of the level of certainty. If you really are guessing - then know that you are guessing.

~ * ~

PMI: Plus, Minus and Interesting

Many highly intelligent people use their thinking to back up or defend their immediate judgement of a matter. The PMI is a perception-broadening tool (attention-directing) which forces a thinker to explore the situation before coming to a judgement.

The PMI is an exploring tool and also an evaluation tool. Let us see what we will see if we look in all directions.

At first sight the PMI may look like a mini-version of the six thinking hats. It resembles the yellow hat, black hat and green hat (interesting). There is a resemblance, but the PMI is directly concerned with good (plus), bad (minus) and interesting points. The black hat is not concerned with minus points directly but with judgement of how something fits facts or experience. Also the black and yellow hats do have to be logical, whereas the PMI does not —and can even include feelings.

The PMI is a very simple, overall, exploration scan.

INTERESTING

... 'Interesting to see what would happen ...'

... 'Interesting to see what this might lead to ...'

... 'What would happen if ...'

You can use phrases like this in order to collect the interesting points. Interesting points are neither good nor bad but points of interest. Interesting points are observations and comments. Neutral points (neither good nor bad) also come under interesting.

SCAN

The PMI is a scanning tool. It is not a matter of thinking of the points as they come up and then dropping each point into a box labelled. P. M or I. It is a matter of specifically looking in the Plus direction first and noting what you see (ignore any other points); then looking specifically in the Minus direction and noting what you see (ignore any other points); and finally looking specifically in the Interesting direction.

Always keep the PMI sequence in that order (Plus points first, then Minus, then Interesting).

~ * ~

FOCUS AND PURPOSE

KEY QUESTIONS

All thinking habits have some key questions that we should be asking ourselves all the time. For focus and purpose these are:

What am I looking at (thinking about) right now?

What am I trying to do?

You can ask yourself such questions from time to time in your thinking. You can raise such questions at a meeting which seems to be getting nowhere.

SETTING THE FOCUS

Just as we need to be aware of the focus and purpose so we should also be able to set the focus and purpose.

What do you want to focus on?

Both from moment to moment and also in setting a thinking agenda (blue hat) you should be able to pick out and define different focus areas — and what you want to do with each focus area.

TYPE OF THINKING

We can consider four broad types of thinking:

EXPLORING: Looking around, increasing our knowledge and aware-ness of the subject. We want to make a better map of it.

SEEKING: Here we have a definite need. We want something. We want to end up with something specific. We may need a solution for a problem. We may need a design or a new creative idea. We may need to resolve a conflict.

CHOOSING: There are a number of alternatives and we have to make a choice or decision. There might be just one action course and our choice is whether to use it or not.

ORGANIZING: Here all the pieces are present just as the pieces of a puzzle might all be present. We have to put the pieces together in the most effective way. We move things around. We try one way or another. We use various thinking tools (AFC OPV. C&S etc.). Designing a house is part of creative thinking and part of 'seeking' thinking. Putting the house up is part of organizing thinking. Laying out a plan and carrying out the plan can both be part of organizing thinking.

CHECKING: Is this correct? Is this right? Does it fit the evidence? Is it safe? Is it acceptable? This is black-hat thinking or critical thinking. We react to what is put before us. We judge it. We check it.

~ * ~

AGO: Aims, Goals and Objectives

Pronounced: A-G-O

This is another of the CoRT perception-broadening, attention-directing tools.

AGO is related to the thinking habit of wanting to know the focus and purpose of thinking at every moment. AGO, however, is more concerned with the over-all purpose or objective of the thinking than the moment-to-moment focus.

What is the objective of our thinking?

What do we want to end up with?

As soon as you have a clear view of the ideal outcome of your thinking effort — then you have a clear AGO.

ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS OF THE OBJECTIVE

An AGO is often a matter for discussion. Someone may do an AGO and others may not be happy with the definition of the objective that has been suggested. It is always worth trying alternative definitions. There is no one right way of defining a problem (until after you have solved it) but some ways are much more helpful than others.

SUB-OBJECTIVES

On the way to a distant town there may be other towns that we pass through on the way. So we may set up sub-objectives on the way to solving the over-all problem. This is related both to breaking down the big problem into smaller ones and also to picking out focus areas. Deciding between these definitions is not important. What is important is to know the objective of the thinking that is taking place.

What is the objective of our thinking?

What is the focus at this moment?

~ * ~

FIP: First Important Priorities

This attention-directing tool is pronounced 'FIPP'.

Many of the attention-directing tools are designed to broaden perception (CAF, CBS, OPV, PMI, APC). This is part of 'parallel' thinking: what else? We try to add to the list just as we try to think of more factors in CAF. With FIP as with AGO we try to narrow things down.

FIP is concerned directly with priorities. With FIP we direct attention to priorities.

What are the priorities here?

Not everything is of equal importance. Some things are much more important than others. Some values are much more important than others.

The FIP tool is related to the AGO tool and also to focus and purpose. because just as we need to know our objective at the beginning so we also need to know our priorities.

The objective is what we are trying to reach. The priorities are the guidelines which tell us how we get there. Priorities are things that have to be taken into account. These are usually priority values and priority factors.

INCLUDE AND AVOID

Some priorities have to be included. Safety is a priority that has to be included in any thinking on airplanes and air traffic. Human rights and justice are priorities that have to be included in law and police matters. Ease of manufacture is usually a priority that has to be included by designers. Cost is a factor that has usually to be included in setting up any business — so are profits.

Some priorities have to be avoided. We should try to avoid pollution. We should try to avoid sharp edges and detachable pieces in toys for young children. We should try to avoid fear in medical care. We should make it difficult to cheat systems (fraud). We try to reduce risk.

Through language we can sometimes convert one type of priority into another: we should seek hygiene in food retailing; we should avoid food contamination. We should seek efficiency in energy use; we should avoid energy waste.

HOW MANY PRIORITIES?

When you look at a list of factors (for example in choosing a holiday) you might find that all of the factors seem to be priorities. Usually a case can be made for the importance and value of most things — if we try hard enough. But the point of FIP is to force us to make choices: what are the really important things (not what would we like to have).

So it is useful when doing a FIP exercise to set an artificial limit on the priorities. This limit could be three. four or five. You cannot go beyond these. You may be able to condense several factors or values into one priority.

In serious matters you need not stick to this artificial limit. but such a limit provides good thinking discipline.

~ * ~

If you want to go through a review of reading done till now by the author, refer to this: “FIRST REVIEW SECTION” in the book at page 141.

~ * ~

PART THREE

BROAD AND DETAIL

Moving from broad idea to detailed idea and back again is both an important thinking habit and an important thinking operation.

... 'Get me a drink.'

... 'Get me a soft drink.'

... 'Get me a lemonade.'

We move from the broad to the detailed. In this case there are three levels. The detail level is always the one we can carry out. If any soft drink would do. that would be the detail level.

... 'I am going to reward him.'

... 'I am going to give him some money as a reward.'

... 'I am going to give him $50 as a reward.'

Again we move from the broad intention to the actual detail of what is to be done. In much of our thinking we do have to be detailed and specific and sometimes being 'broad' means being unable to give a detailed answer. But there are other times when it is very useful to be able to work at the 'broad' level.

GENERATING ALTERNATIVES

In a concrete floor there is a hole that is filled with water. You want to get the water out of the hole.

... 'I could suck the water out.'

... 'I could lift the water out.'

... 'I could displace the water.'

Each of these is a broad idea, a general method or a broad concept. Once we have the broad idea we then go on to see in what ways that broad idea could be carried out as a detailed idea. 'Suck the water out' suggests a pump or a siphon. 'Lift the water out' suggests a small bucket, spoon, sponge or mop. 'Displace the water' suggests putting in stones or even a plastic bag filled with water and then removing these objects later.

Instead of immediately trying to find the detailed idea it is often more useful to define some broad ideas. Once you have the broad idea, you look around for actual ways of carrying it out in a detailed way.

EXTRACTING THE BROAD IDEA

If we are seeking to improve or change something, the way we do it is to extract the broad idea. Once we have the broad idea we can do two things. We can see if a different broad idea may serve the purpose (what we want to achieve). Or. we can see if the broad idea can be carried out in a different and better way.

What are we trying to do?

What is the broad idea here?

Is there a better broad idea?

How else can we carry out the broad idea?

CONCEPT AND FUNCTION

We often use a lot of different words to describe the 'broad idea'.

broad idea

general method

principle

broad concept

concept

function

In some cases, it is more appropriate to use one word rather than another.

... 'What is the function of this switch?'

... 'The concept in this course is teach-yourself.'

... 'The principle is that of paying people by what they actually produce, not by time.'

... 'The general method we use here is to separate casualties into three groups: those who can wait; those who cannot be saved; those who need urgent attention.'

BASIC THINKING OPERATIONS

We will look at the three basic operations that a carpenter performs as an analogy to the thinking operations.

The cutting operation, The sticking operation and The shaping operation.

THE CUTTING OPERATION

You cut a piece of wood, you cut a piece of cake, you cut a slice of watermelon. ‘Cutting’ means that you do not want the whole thing. You want to remove part of the whole.

When we direct attention to part of the world around us we are ‘cutting’ a piece out of the whole. So all attention directing is a form of cutting.

FOCUS: We direct attention to part of the whole. We may eventually pay attention to the whole but do it bit by bit.

EXTRACT A FEATURE: From the whole situation we pull out or extract a feature. This is much used operation in thinking and is the basis of other operations.

ANALYSIS: When we extract a feature we can leave the rest behind. With analysis, however, we seek to be comprehensive. There should no left-overs. We seek to break down the situation into parts or pieces. These parts and their relationship describe the whole situation.

EXPANSION: Suppose there is a drawing of a square. You could pay attention to the whole square. Or, you could pay attention to just a corner of the square. When we pay attention to the whole square we are really cutting that square out of its surroundings. Expansion means taking a bigger cut which includes not only the square but more of its surroundings. Though ‘expansion’ seems to be the opposite of ‘cutting’ this is not really the case. The mind is just taking a bigger view of the surroundings.

So expansion and exploration are actually part of the ‘cutting’ process of thinking. Think of a wide-angle lens on a camera. This takes a bigger picture.

THE STICKING OPERATION

The sticking operation is where things are put together and they do not just fall apart. If you put two random things together for no reason at all and no connection develops between them, they remain 'unstuck'. Placing two pieces of wood together is not sticking the pieces together. For that there must be some sort of attachment or glue.

CONNECTIONS: The mind is very good at making connections. These may just be associations. Things have occurred together in space or time, so there is an association. Sometimes the link is stronger and there is a functional connection. If we place things together in a group or category, there is a linking factor (or factors) which all members of the group possess.

RECOGNITION: This is a fundamental thinking operation that arises directly from connection. What is before our eyes (or ears etc.) connects up with a pattern we already have stored in our mind. So we recognize the object and know what to do with it.

Pattern recognition and extrapolation into the future are based on a combination of recognition and checking.

SYNTHESIS: This is where we deliberately put things together to produce an effect. Writing any sentence is an example of synthesis. Combination of any sort is a form of synthesis (which was originally supposed to be a combination of thesis and anti-thesis).

CONSTRUCTION: This could be regarded as being the same as synthesis but I prefer 'construction' as this has a broader meaning. Synthesis suggests putting together what is now present. Construction may imply building things up step by step.

DESIGN: This is a form of construction. Things are put together in a certain way to achieve a defined objective. in design there are elements of creativity and, sometimes, aesthetics.

In general, the 'sticking operation' consists of two things:

1. Recognizing connections that are there.

2. Putting things together for a purpose.

THE SHAPING OPERATION

The carpenter has a shape in mind. The carpenter may even have that shape drawn up on a piece of cardboard (a template). As the carpenter shapes with the plane he or she continually checks the emerging shape against the planned shape.

It is this constant checking between the desired shape and the actual shape that is the basis of the thinking operation of shaping.

In fact, the operation could be called 'checking'.

JUDGEMENT: Is this correct? Does this fit what I know? Does this fit the facts? These are all aspects of black-hat checking. There is something against which we are checking or judging what is placed before us.

In real life, ‘assessing’ is often a complex form of both exploration and judgement. We explore the effects of a planned action both now and into the future. We then just those effects against norms.

MATCHING: Here we set out with specific needs and then check to see whether what we find matches those needs. Whenever you ask a question you are setting up a need for information. When you are given an answer you check whether the answer matches your needs.

HYPOTHESIS: Usually we check what we find against something that we already know (laws, facts etc.). With a hypothesis we imagine a possible mechanism (or explanation) and then see how well evidence supports that hypothesis. In speculation (what if...?) we do the same. We throw up tentative and even provocative ideas and then seek to check them out. Scientific thinking includes the ability both to set up such hypotheses and also to check them out.

COMPARISON: Often in judgement or checking we compare something in front of us with something we have in mind. With comparison we may have two (or more) things in front of us and we set about comparing them. In essence this means looking for points of similarity and points of difference.

~ * ~

TRUTH, LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

In practical terms there are two sorts of truth. There is 'game truth' and 'reality truth'.

GAME TRUTH: If you set up a game with rules and definitions, matters which agree with those rules and definitions are true and matters which do not agree are false.

REALITY TRUTH: How true are our ideas and information to the actual real world? We rely on perceptions and imperfect knowledge. From time to time even scientists are convinced they are right — but find out they have been mistaken. Reality truth is very important for most practical thinking. Even with mathematics there is a stage in which our perceptions of the real world have to be translated into symbols.

We live in a practical world and we do have to get on with things. We have to make decisions and plan action. We cannot always wait for absolute truth. So there are different levels of practical 'reality truth' that we use.

1. Checkable truth. You can check something again and again and always come up with the same answer. Other people can check it and will also get the same answer. It is quite possible that everyone's methods of checking (or instruments) are intrinsically faulty.

2. Personal experience. We tend to believe the evidence of our own eyes. But we can be mistaken. Memory may play tricks on us. There is illusion, deception and even hallucination.

3. Second-hand experience. That what other people tell us. Even if an-other person is sincere and reliable, that person may have got the information from someone who is not so reliable. In any case people may be reliable and sincere and yet mistaken.

4. Generally accepted. It is part of the culture or accepted know-ledge. The earth goes around the sun. Deficiency of vitamin C will cause scurvy. We only need to look back in history to see that over and again generally accepted ideas turn out to be false.

5. Authority. The authority of parents, teachers, reference books, scientists, religious leaders can provide a higher check on truth than is available to most people — so we tend to accept these matters. Again, history has shown us that authority can be mistaken.

THINKING HABIT

As part of our thinking habits we should always be asking the question:

What is the truth value here?

You then determine the truth value level, as in the examples about the cow. You need not accept everything you are told. You can try to check things (especially information) for yourself.

Perhaps the most important difficulty in thinking, particularly where other people are involved, is the 'claimed' truth value.

... 'This is so.'

... 'This is absolutely true.'

... 'This is always true.'

If that is the claim made for the truth value, then you need to check the value very closely. On the other hand, if the claim is more modest, you might accept it.

... This is sometimes the case.'

... 'I remember reading that.'

... 'This could be true.'

... 'Someone once told me.'

There is always the balance between the claimed truth value and the actual truth value.

Unfortunately, in thinking and argument, people tend to be dogmatic and certain in order to make their point. Also, our normal everyday habits of logic often make us insist on words like 'all'. 'always', 'never' because without these absolutes the logic would not work. If we were just to say 'by and large', 'in general', 'on the whole', 'in my experience', we would be closer to the truth but unable to use the power of inclusion/exclusion logic.

LOGIC

With logic we move from the present position to a new. one. No new outside information is coming in. We work forward from what we have (deductive logic).

Our first examination of truth value was whether something corresponded with reality.

Our second examination of truth value is whether something follows from what we have (according to the line of argument).

The habit questions to be asked are:

Does this follow?

Even more important is the question: "Must this follow (as claimed)?"

A logical argument depends on something that must follow. If we are content ‘it can follow’ then that is a suggestion and an exploration (and useful as such).

~ * ~

LOGIC, INFORMATION AND CREATIVITY

We very often forget that the 'must follow' of a logical argument is actually based not on logic but on a lack of creativity or information.

A man enters a room in which there is a beautiful crystal vase. The room is sealed. No one can enter the room. There are no windows or apertures into the room. Ten minutes later the man comes out. The vase is found broken in the room. He denies breaking the vase. But surely he must have broken the vase — there is no other possible explanation.

We need creativity or information to think of the possibility of a high-pitched tone shattering the glass. Once we have such thoughts, we can no longer say he 'must' have done it. That is what a good criminal lawyer is all about.

Creativity suggests alternative outcomes.

By definition contradictory things cannot both exist. The difficulty is to decide whether two things really are contradictory. We have love—hate relationships and in Japan it is perfectly possible for someone to be friend and not-friend because the Japanese do not have the Western horror of contradictions.

The original purpose of critical thinking was to uncover the truth by attacking and removing all that was false - so the truth would be revealed. This has a considerable value in discouraging the sloppy use of language, concepts and false arguments, but it lacks generative and constructive power.

To be sure the removal of weaknesses - as in black-hat thinking - will strengthen an idea, but that is not enough for constructive thinking.

Critical thinking does have a value as does one wheel on a motor-car. But the teaching only of critical thinking is quite insufficient.

Reactive thinking by itself is insufficient.

Water puts out fires.

Water is a liquid.

Gasoline is a liquid.

So gasoline should put out fires.

Critical thinking would point this out as a classic error of reasoning. John loves eating oysters. John is a boy. Peter is also a boy - so Peter must love eating oysters. We can easily see that this does not follow.

The reasoning might have gone differently.

All the liquids I have ever come across (water, mud, milk, urine) put out fire.

This may be due to their liquid nature which prevents air getting to the fire.

Gasoline is a new liquid (which I have not come across before) so it is reasonable to suppose it might put out a fire.

This line of inductive reasoning seems quite valid. It is only my experience with gasoline or knowledge about gasoline which tells me otherwise.

~ * ~

UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?

'There is something wrong with this thermometer. The reading won't go higher than 96 degrees but the water seems to be boiling. Shouldn't it read 100 degrees?'

Everyone knows that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade (212 degrees Fahrenheit). Right? Wrong. Water boils at 100°C only at sea-level. If the air pressure decreases as you go up a mountain, water boils at a lower temperature. So the scientific truth that water boils at 100°C holds only under special circumstances.

Salt is good. Salt makes food taste better. The human body needs salt. But too much salt on food tastes bad.

In all these examples something which seems to be obvious and true turns out to be true only under certain circumstances.

Whenever we claim a truth we need to specify the circumstances under which the truth holds.

Often both parties to the disagreement are right - but under different circumstances.

Does this mean that all truth is relative? Not at all. It means that some truth is relative. It is just that we have to be careful with those words 'all' and 'always' which are the foundation of our usual logic. We could say 'by and large' instead of 'always' but if we do want to say 'always' we need to define the circumstances. There are some exceptions to most generalizations.

THINKING HABIT - We need to get into the thinking habit of asking an important question:

Under what circumstances is this true (does it apply)?

~ * ~

HYPOTHESIS, SPECULATION AND PROVOCATION

Hypothesis, speculation and provocation are very important thinking skills for progress, change, science and creative thinking of any sort. Unfortunately, most traditional approaches to thinking ignore these important matters.

Hypothesis, speculation and provocation allow us to play in our minds. We try out new things. We carry out the 'thought experiments' that Einstein used to generate his powerful ideas.

JUMP AHEAD

In push thinking, we say:

“This is so – and as a result that follows.”

In pull thinking we say:

“This could be so and if we make this jump then that might follow.”

LEVEL OF SPECULATION

The levels of certainty range from the full certainty of good logic to the deliberate provocation of lateral thinking.

CERTAIN: The result of good logical deduction.

REASONABLY SURE: Not yet absolutely certain but very likely indeed. Just needs final confirmation. Also anything to do with the -future where absolute certainty is difficult.

GOOD GUESS: We know it is a guess but it is a good guess and certainly the best available guess.

POSSIBLE: This is no more than a possibility. There is not much supportive evidence but it is a possibility. Sometimes it is no more than 'just possible'.

TENTATIVE: This is 'flying a kite'. This is putting forward an idea that is not thought to be very reasonable to see what effect it has.

PROVOCATION: Here there is no claim at all for reasonableness or probability. A provocation is designed to get us out of our usual thinking. The provocation can be signaled with the word 'po', which indicates that it is indeed a provocation. 'Po cars should have square wheels.'

---

CREATIVE ATTITUDE

In argument and in much of thinking we want to confirm what we already know. With a creative attitude we want to move forward to something new.

Speculation allows us to open up new possibilities and then to pursue these possibilities.

Speculation allows us to set up new frames so that we can look at the evidence in a new way.

Speculation and provocation allow us to develop deliberate creative thinking tools to get us out of the traditional thinking patterns.

Without speculation we can get the steady development and improvement of an idea, but we are not likely to get a really new idea.

The creative attitude involves risk and play and trying things out.

BUSINESS THINKING

New initiatives, new ventures, new enterprises are all examples of speculative thinking. The idea is put together and then we seek to check it out through collecting information and doing market re-search. There may still be an element of risk — even though the entrepreneur is convinced that he or she is logically correct.

In launching new products or new strategies there is always speculative thinking: 'What if we do this ...?' The response of competitors has to be guessed at.

Because business is always dealing with action and with the future there is always speculation. Should we then not try to reduce the amount of speculation rather than to increase it? We need to do both at the same time. We need to reduce speculation and risk by collecting information, using monitoring and having back-up strategies. At the same time, we need to increase the speculation in terms of new ventures and new directions and new methods.

~ * ~

LATERAL THINKING

There are different levels of definition. 'You cannot dig a hole in a different place by digging the same hole deeper.'

Trying harder with the same ideas and the same approach may not solve the problem. You may need to move 'laterally' to try new ideas and a new approach.

'Lateral thinking is for escaping from established ideas and perceptions in order to find new ones.'

Our existing ideas have been established by particular sequences of experience. We tend to defend the established ideas and to see the world through the established perceptions. Lateral thinking is a means of escaping from the existing ideas and perceptions in order to find better ones.

'A self-organizing information system allows incoming information to organize itself into patterns. These patterns are not symmetric. We need a means for cutting across patterns (moving laterally). Lateral thinking provides that means.'

Obviously this is a technical definition and will not mean much to those who do not understand what is meant by a self-organizing system. This is the technical definition of lateral thinking and indicates that it is more than just a descriptive term. Lateral thinking is based on information behavior in self-organizing systems.

The specific meaning of 'lateral thinking' covers the use of specific techniques which are used to help us generate new ideas and new perceptions. This is directly concerned with creative thinking.

The general meaning of 'lateral thinking' covers thinking that sets out to explore and to develop new perceptions instead of just working harder with the existing perceptions. In this sense lateral thinking is closely connected with perceptual thinking. Many of the attention directing tools (CAF, OPV. C&S) are part of this general exploration of lateral thinking.

~ * ~

PROVOCATION AND PO

We come now to the specific techniques of lateral thinking. These techniques can be used deliberately by a thinker who needs to generate a new idea.

... 'Po cows can fly.'

... 'Po cars have square wheels.'

Both the above statements are totally unreasonable. They are contrary to experience and to the truth. Why should we make such absurd statements?

Provocation goes beyond hypothesis and speculation. In hypothesis and speculation, we guess that something might be so but we cannot yet prove it. With provocation, there is no pretense whatever that something might be true.

Because a provocation is not intended to be true we need some way of signaling to our listeners that a statement is put forward as a provocation — otherwise the listeners might think we have gone mad. We need a specific signal word for a provocation. Ordinary language does not contain such a word. The word 'suppose' and the phrase 'what if ...' are too weak, since they can be used to signal guesses that might be true. So several years ago I invented a new word, 'po'.

The word 'po' means: 'What follows is put forward directly as a provocation.' The letters 'p' and 'o' can be taken to represent “Provocative Operation”. Although it seems crazy and directly contrary to normal logic, a provocation is actually a logical operation in a patterning system.

SETTING UP PROVOCATIONS

Where do provocations come from? How do you set up your own provocations?

RECEIVED PROVOCATIONS: You hear or read a stupid remark. This remark is not intended as a provocation. It may be intended as a serious idea or as a silly idea (for a laugh). You have a choice. You can dismiss the idea or you can choose to treat the idea as a provocation. Radar was invented this way. Some mad person suggested that a radio beam could be used to shoot down airplanes. From this crazy idea (because the power of such a beam was very low) came the useful idea of using the radio beam to 'detect' airplanes.

So you can choose to treat any received idea as a provocation.

REVERSAL: You look at the way things are normally done and then you deliberately go in the opposite direction. We normally try to make wheels as round as possible — so let us make them 'un-round' or square. You normally pay to buy goods -- so let us have the store 'paying' the purchaser. This might have led to ideas like trading stamps. What is the normal direction? What is the reverse (opposite) direction?

ESCAPE: In this method you look at some feature that we normally take for granted in the situation (it should never be a negative feature) and then we drop that feature or cancel it. For example, we take for granted that watch dogs should bark. We drop that feature — escape from it — and so we get: 'Po watch dogs do not bark'. This leads on to the idea of small highly intelligent watch dogs that do not bark. Instead they quietly slink off into a corner where there is a button they have been trained to press. This button sets off a sophisticated alarm and security system — it could also trigger a tape-recorder playing a recording of many dogs barking.

WISHFUL THINKING: This should not just be a mild desire, like reducing the cost of an object by 10 per cent, but it should be a fantasy. You can say: 'Wouldn't it be nice if ...' Wouldn't it be nice if polluting factories were downstream of themselves on the river? This leads to the practical idea of legislating that inputs from the river must always be downstream of the output — so the factory is the first to sample its own pollution.

OUTRAGEOUS: Quite simply this covers anything at all which you want to set up as a provocation. Po cars are made of spaghetti. Po breakfast cereals should grow in their packets. Po everyone votes every day on government decisions. This last provocation could lead to the idea that each day at 10 pm every householder would switch on an electric fire if that householder disagreed with an announced policy. The surge in electricity usage could instantly be measured at the power station — so giving an instant total vote. For a vote of agreement, you switch on the fire at another time.

In general people are much too timid about setting up provocations. You are protected by the word 'po'. A provocation is meant to be a provocation. Whether you can use the provocation is not important. If you are setting up good provocations, at first you might only be able to use half of them. As you become more skilled at 'movement' you will be able to use more of them. A weak or timid provocation is very little use.

You should say: 'Here is my provocation.' Then you try to make use of it. It is a two-stage operation. Do not think of how you might use the provocation as you are setting it up.

~ * ~

MOVEMENT

A provocation is useless if we cannot do anything with it. We use 'movement' to move from the provocation to a new idea. Provocation and movement go together as a combined process.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that 'movement' is different from judgment. Many traditional approaches to creative thinking talk about 'delaying judgement' or 'suspending judgement' but this is much too weak. Just refusing to 'judge' does not indicate what the thinker should do instead. 'Movement' is an active operation that we can use deliberately. As we practice the operation of 'movement' we become more skilled at this operation. Eventually we can become so skilled that we are able to get 'movement' from almost any provocation.

With judgement (black-hat thinking) we compare what is before us with what we know. If what is before us is wrong. we reject it. With 'movement' we are operating outside the judgement/truth system. With movement we look at what is before us (usually a provocation) and we see how we can 'move' forward from this to a useful new idea.

WAYS OF GETTING MOVEMENT

There are a number of ways of moving forward from a provocation. Some of these ways are given here. These ways can be practiced until skill in the operation of movement has been built up. Without such skill lateral thinking is not effective. It is not too difficult to set up provocations — the skill lies in getting movement from these provocations.

ATTITUDE: There is the general attitude of 'movement'. We make a general effort to go forward from the provocation. What does this lead to? What does this suggest? Where does this take me? What is of interest here?

MOMENT-TO-MOMENT: This may be the most powerful way of getting movement. We visualize the provocation in action — no matter how absurd this seems. So we visualize cows flying. We visualize a car bumping along on square wheels. We visualize a plane landing upside down. As we visualize these things we watch for what happens moment-to-moment. This is totally different from seeing what happens 'in the end'. In the end the car with square wheels would shake to pieces. In the end the plane landing upside down would crash. it is this moment-to-moment observation of the provocation in action that can lead to new ideas.

EXTRACT A PRINCIPLE: Could we pick out or extract some principle from this provocation and then make use of this principle in a practical idea? In looking for a new advertising medium we might say: 'Po we should bring back the town crier.' in the operation of the town crier we find an interesting principle: you cannot 'switch off' the town crier. We take this principle and look around for a medium we would be unable to switch off. We think of advertising tele-phones. If you did not want to pay for a call you press a special button and get a free call — but at intervals advertising messages come on the line and interrupt your conversation. In addition to extracting a principle we can also extract a key feature or a specific aspect of the provocation. This becomes a sort of 'seed' that we take to plant in order to grow a new idea.

FOCUS ON THE DIFFERENCE: How is this different from what we normally do? What are the points of difference? By focusing on these points of difference we seek to move on to a new idea. The difference between a plane landing upside down and the right way up is that in the upside-down position the wings would give down-ward thrust. This leads on to the idea of 'positive' landings. From this we can actually get to some useful ideas — such as cancelling a negative bias to get instant extra lift in an emergency.

Focusing on the difference is extremely important when a thinker is faced with that most powerful killer of new ideas, the phrase: 'This is the same as ...' You suggest a new idea and this is dismissed by someone using that phrase. The phrase is so powerful because it does not attack the idea but simply indicates that it is not worthy of any attention since it is already known or being used. The only way to counter this phrase is to say: 'It may seem the same as (something) but let us focus on the difference ...' You then proceed to list the points of difference.

SEARCH FOR VALUE: Is there any value at all in this provocation? Are there any directly positive aspects? Are there any special circumstances under which the provocation would have a direct value? The provocation 'Po ambitious employees should wear a yellow shirt or blouse' leads to several interesting ideas. For example, in a service business a customer would always try to choose a service assistant wearing a yellow shirt or blouse.

The more our minds become sensitive to value, the abler we become to sense value in almost everything — including provocations.

Once we have detected the value, we strengthen it, build upon it and try to make it practical. A dog detects a faint scent. The dog pursues that scent. The scent gets stronger. Finally, the dog has tracked down its quarry. In the same way we can 'scent' value and can pursue that scent until we find value strong enough to be the basis of a new idea.

INTERESTING: What is 'interesting' about this provocation? The term ‘interesting' covers many of the other ways of getting movement. There may be an interesting point of difference. There may be an interesting principle. 'Interesting' forms the third part of the PMI attention-directing tool that was described earlier in this book. A creative person notices and seeks out what is interesting. You may have to make the effort to find out something interesting.

~ * ~

THE RANDOM WORD

The 'random-word' method is a powerful lateral-thinking technique that is very easy to use. It is by far the simplest of all creative techniques and is now widely used by people who need to create new ideas (for example, for new products). I first described this technique many years ago.

The history of inventions and ideas has many instances where a valuable creative idea seems to have been triggered by a chance happening (like the apple that is supposed to have fallen on to the head of Newton and inspired his concept of gravity as a force).

It is said that Archimedes, playing around with the soap. (or some other object) in his bath, suddenly hit on the idea of how to test whether a crown was made of real gold or not (by the difference between the weight of the crown in water and out of water). Do we have to sit around and wait for chance events to spark a new idea? Do we have to sit under trees and wait for an apple to fall on our heads? We can do that. But we can also get up and shake the tree. We can produce our own chance events. That is exactly what we do in the random-word lateral-thinking technique.

GETTING THE RANDOM WORD

We cannot choose the stimulus word because, if we chose the word, that word would merely fit in with our existing ideas (that would be the basis for the 'choice'). So instead of choosing the word we get a word by chance. That is why it is called a 'random word'.

You could have a bag full of thousands of words written on slips of paper. You put your hand into the bag and pull out one word.

You could think of a number of a page in a dictionary: say page 87. Then you think of the position of a word on that page: say the sixth word from the top. You open the dictionary at that page and count down to the sixth word. Here is your random word. If it is not a noun, keep going down until you come to the first noun.

You can close your eyes and circle your index finger above an open newspaper. You bring your finger down on to the newspaper and take the noun nearest to your finger.

You can have a list of sixty words (like the list given opposite). You glance at the seconds reading on your watch. If the reading shows 27 seconds you just take the 27th word from your list. If your watch can deal with 1/100ths of a second, your list can have 100 words and then you stop the reading (on a stop watch) and use that number to get a word.

It is much easier to use nouns than verbs, adjectives or adverbs. If you construct a list of your own, they should be well-known words with many associations, functions or features. Always try to use the first word you get. If you do not like the first word and try for another, and another, you are just waiting for a word to connect with ideas you already have. This is no use at all. So if the first word you get does not work move on to another technique and only try the random word again later.

USE OF THE TECHNIQUE

We want some new ideas about copiers.

The seconds reading on the watch shows '19' so the word is 'nose' (from the list given here).

We say: 'Copier po nose.'

Nose suggests smell.

What value could smell have (movement)?

Perhaps a copier could give off different smells depending on what was wrong with it. So we could use smell as a fault indicator. If your copier is not working you just sniff. The smell will immediately tell you what is wrong.

You are asked to entertain some people and have to find something for them to do. The watch reading is 49 seconds, so the word is 'heart'.

You might think of the little red 'heart' symbol that is now often used to mean: 'I "heart" New York' (I love New York). So you set the group the task of suggesting other symbols that might suggest various things such as: I 'hate' New York; I 'don't know anything about' New York; I 'laugh at' New York; I 'am saddened' by New York.

So the technique is very simple to use.

We follow the associations and the functions of the stimulus word.

We use the various methods of movement. We use aspects of the word as a metaphor.

Do not take too many steps in making the connection because if you take too many steps you will simply get back to ideas you already have and will not be using the special stimulating value of that random word.

Do not start out by putting down a list of aspects of the word because you will then just go down the list to find the aspect which fits ideas you already have. instead, think of some one aspect of the random word and try hard to work with that aspect. Only after a good try should you go on to another aspect.

~ * ~

PRINCIPLES OF THINKING

1. Always be constructive.

2. Think slowly and try to make things as simple as possible.

3. Detach your ego from your thinking and be able to stand back to look at your thinking.

4. At this moment, what am I trying to do? What is the focus and purpose of my thinking?

5. Be able to ‘swipe gears’ in your thinking. Know when to use logic when to use creativity, when to seek information.

6. What is the outcome of my thinking – why do I believe that it will work?

7. Feelings and emotions are important parts of thinking but their place is after exploration and not before.

8. Always try to look for alternatives, for new perceptions and for new ideas.

9. Be able to move back and forth between broad-level thinking and detail-level thinking.

10. Is this a matter of ‘may be’ or a matter of ‘must be’? Logic is only as good as the perception and information on which it is based.

11. Differing views may all be soundly based on differing perceptions.

12. All actions have consequences and an impact on values, people and the world around.

~ * ~

PART 4

THINKING STRUCTURE – TO/LOPOSO/GO

This is a very simple five-stage general-purpose thinking structure. This structure or framework can be applied to most thinking situations.

Each of the five steps in the structure is represented by a syllable. All five syllables have a consonant followed by '0'. This is so the structure is easy to remember.

TO:

Where are we going 'TO'?

'TO'wards what are we going?

What is the objective?

What is the destination?

What do we want to end up with?

What is the focus?

Problem definition and alternative problem definitions.

Use of the tool AGO to define objectives.

Use of the blue hat to define where we want to go.

The syllable 'TO' indicates the objective of our stage we need to define very clearly what we are not enough to have only a vague and general idea the thinking. This must be precisely spelled out. This first step in the process should not be rushed. We should try with a clear statement.

LO:

The word 'LO' comes from the old English word 'to look'. We sometimes might say lo and behold'. Some hymns use the expression. it means 'look at this'.

What have we here?

What is the scene?

What information do we have?

What information do we not have?

White-hat thinking.

Use of CAF. What are the factors to be considered?

Use of OPV. Who are the people involved here?

What is the context of the thinking? It may be friendly, antagonistic, legal, emergency etc.

What are the attitudes involved?

Who is doing the thinking?

What is the terrain?

The 'LO' stage is the stage of looking around. What is available? What are the pieces of the puzzle? This is exp'LO'ratory thinking. This is parallel thinking. We are scanning to see what we can see. We are not trying to reach conclusions. At the end of this stage we want to have collected all the information we need — or specified what we would like to have. We want a good map of the scene. We want a list of factors that have to be considered. We want to know the context of the thinking. We want to know who is involved. Think of an explorer who is given the task of mapping out a new country.

PO:

This is the 'PO' syllable that I invented to signal provocation in lateral thinking. Here the use is similar but broader. Here under 'PO' we put forward possible ideas as well as provocations.

What are the alternatives?

Use of the APC tool to generate alternatives.

Putting down some 'broad-idea' alternatives and then going on to work out the detailed way of carrying out these broad ideas.

Suggestions.

Proposals.

Possibilities.

Hypotheses.

Speculations.

Constructive ideas.

Green-hat thinking. What comes up under 'PO' will depend somewhat on the nature of the thinking needs. If action is called for there will be action alternatives. If a problem has to be solved there will be solution alternatives. If an explanation is needed there will be alternative hypotheses. This 'PO' stage is the stage of green-hat thinking, which means it is the generative stage. We put forward ideas and suggestions.

At this point we do not decide between the alternatives put forward. We just present them all in parallel.

'At this point we have four possible explanations of why the plane crashed.'

'At this point we have these three alternative solutions to the problem of future water supplies.'

'At this point we have four alternative suggestions as to where we can hold the party.'

'At this point I have two alternative things that I would like for my birthday.'

All the alternatives should be put forward. There should be no pre-selection at this stage. but you may group the alternatives to indicate the most feasible.

SO:

This is the ordinary language word 'SO' which is used in one of its meanings.

'SO' what does this amount to?

'SO' what do we have here?

'SO' what do we do next?

This is the stage of choice between the possible alternatives.

We compare and examine the alternatives.

We need to come down to one choice of action (or explanation).

We do a FIP to assess the priorities.

We check the alternatives against the priorities and against the objectives of the thinking.

We assess each alternative using PMI. C&S and OPV.

What would happen if we used this alternative (C&S)?

What are the benefits and values (yellow-hat thinking)?

Does this fit what we know (black-hat thinking)?

What are the dangers and problems (black-hat thinking)?

We also seek to modify or improve ideas after black-hat thinking has pointed out the weaknesses.

The input to the 'SO' stage is a number of alternatives.

The output from this stage is a choice, decision or conclusion.

In cases where a single conclusion, decision or choice is not possible, the outcome has to be defined very carefully. What is the sticking point? Where have we got to? A new thinking task may be defined and the whole thinking process repeated on this newly defined task.

At the end of the 'SO' stage there must always be a clearly defined outcome.

'The conclusion is that we should stand firm and not give in to the demands.'

'I have finally decided that I want a camera for my birthday.'

'The decision is that we hold the party in John's barn.'

'The choice is that we offer the job to Mr. Jones.'

'The outcome is that we cannot make a decision. This is because we do not have the costs of the alternative plans. We must now proceed to get those costs.' 'The outcome is that none of the suggested sites is suitable. We must now try to find some new sites.'

'The outcome is still disagreement. We have a clearer understanding of the positions on each side but no agreement. The sticking point is payment for weekend work'

Anyone who is not happy with the definition of the outcome at the end of the 'SO' stage is entitled to put on a blue hat and to say that he or she is not satisfied and that a further attempt should be made to define the outcome.

In cases where action is needed (as with a doctor) it may not be possible to wait until there is more information. The best possible decision under the circumstances is the one that is used.

GO:

This is the normal use of the word 'GO' and it implies action.

Let's 'GO'.

'GO' forward into action.

Where do we 'GO' from here?

If there is no decision, choice or conclusion at the end of the 'SO' stage, then the 'GO' stage defines the action steps that must now be taken. This may involve collecting more information. Having a further thinking session. Setting a deadline.

What is the plan of action?

How do we implement this?

What practical steps do we take?

How do we put this into effect?

How do we monitor progress?

What is the fallback position?

The output of the 'GO' stage is always action. There must always be a definite output from this 'GO' stage. Imagine you are walking. You take the next step. There must be a direction in which you take the next step. The output of the 'GO' stage is action for a purpose. 'Doing nothing' is only acceptable if this is actually a positive action. For example, not lowering prices because a competitor lowers prices. Or, not giving in to ransom demands. 'Doing nothing' as a result of indecision is not acceptable.

'Here is the action plan.'

~ * ~

ARGUMENTS AND DISAGREEMENTS

This is a very common thinking situation. Or, rather, it is a very common situation that needs more thinking than it usually gets. People have different views or opinions. People want to do different things. One person feels that another person should do a particular thing and the other person disagrees.

The range extends from quiet intellectual arguments to fierce emotional disagreements and disputes.

For checking your “EMOTIONS ANS FEELINGS”: Use the RED hat frequently.

PERCEPTIONS:

Perception, and not logic, is the basis of most disagreements and disputes. Each of the parties is being perfectly logical on the basis of his or her perceptions.

The three basic steps in the settlement of disagreements can also be applied to perceptions:

1. These are my perceptions. This is how I see the situation.

2. This is how I think you see the situation.

3. How do you see the situation?

SIMILARLY, FOR VALUES:

1. These are my values (relevant to the situation).

2. This is how I see your values.

3. What are your values?

SIMILARLY, FOR LOGIC:

1. This is the logic of my argument.

2. I believe this is the logic of your argument.

3. Tell me, once again, what is the logic of your argument.

EMOTIONS

In the end all decisions and choices are emotional. On the whole we do not feel this is a very good way to make decisions or choices, so we sometimes try to apply some thinking.

The purpose of thinking is to so arrange matters that when we do finally make the 'emotional choice' it is on a much better basis.

Most choices and decisions are based on three emotions: greed, fear and laziness.

GREED: More money, achievement, being ahead, being noticed, acquiring more skill, getting new friends, being better at your hobby, better self-image etc. I am not using 'greed' in a bad sense but in the sense of achievement and of wanting more.

FEAR: Fear of making a mistake, fear of being silly, feat of upsetting others, fear of the unknown, fear of losing money, insecurity of any sort, fear of change. Fear may prevent us making one type of decision and fear may force us to make another type of decision.

LAZINESS: In a sense this is the opposite of greed but it also has elements of fear. Not being motivated, not wanting to make an effort, being content, not wanting the bother and hassle of doing something, not wanting to be caught up in complicated matters, not wanting problems, wanting an easy life.

When you have made a decision it is a useful simple check to say to yourself: 'What contribution have greed, fear and laziness made to this decision?'

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Crucial Conversations (Kerry Patterson) - Summary



Crucial Conversations

Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler (2002)

CH. 1: What's a Crucial Conversation?

And Who Cares?

Now, what makes one of your conversations crucial as opposed to plain vanilla?

First, opinions vary.

Second, stakes are high.

Third, emotions run strong.

HOW DO WE TYPICALLY HANDLE CRUCIAL CONVERSATIONS?

• We can avoid them. (as in Silence)

• We can face them and handle them poorly. (as in Violence)

• We can face them and handle them well.

Now: We're on Our Worst Behavior

When conversations matter the most-that is, when conversations move from casual to crucial-we're generally on our worst behavior.

Why is that?

We're designed wrong. When conversations tum from routine to crucial, we're often in trouble. That's because emotions don't exactly prepare us to converse effectively. Countless generations of genetic shaping drive humans to handle crucial conversations with flying fists and fleet feet, not intelligent persuasion and gentle attentiveness.

For instance, consider a typical crucial conversation. Someone says something you disagree with about a topic that matters a great deal to you and the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. The hairs you can handle. Unfortunately, your body does more. Two tiny organs seated neatly atop your kidneys pump adrenaline into your bloodstream. You don't choose to do this. Your adrenal glands do it, and then you have to live with it.

And that's not all. Your brain then diverts blood from activities it deems nonessential to high-priority tasks such as hitting and running. Unfortunately, as the large muscles of the arms and legs get more blood, the higher-level reasoning sections of your brain get less. As a result, you end up facing challenging conversations with the same equipment available to a rhesus monkey.

We're under pressure.

Let's add another factor. Crucial conversations are frequently spontaneous. More often than not, they come out of nowhere. And since you're caught by surprise, you're forced to conduct an extraordinarily complex human interaction in real time-no books, no coaches, and certainly no short breaks while a team of therapists runs to your aid and pumps you full of nifty ideas.

What do you have to work with? The issue at hand, the other person, and a brain that's preparing to fight or take flight. It's little wonder that we often say and do things that make perfect sense in the moment, but later on seem, well, stupid.

"What was I thinking?" you wonder.

The truth is, you were real-time multitasking with a brain that was working another job. You're lucky you didn't suffer a stroke.

We're stumped.

Now let's throw in one more complication.

You don't know where to start. You're making this up as you go along because you haven't often seen real-life models of effective communication skills. 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.

This means that first you have to know what to practice. Sometimes you don't. After all, you may have never actually seen how a certain problem is best handled. You may have seen what not to do-as modeled by a host of friends, colleagues, and, yes, even your parents. In fact, you may have sworn time and again not to act the same way.

Left with no healthy models, you're now more or less stumped. So what do you do? You do what most people do. You wing it. You piece together the words, create a certain mood, and otherwise make up what you think will work-all the while multiprocessing with a half-starved brain. It's little wonder that when it matters the most, we're often at our worst behavior.

We act in self-defeating ways.

In our doped-up, dumbed-down state, the strategies we choose for dealing with our crucial conversations are perfectly designed to keep us from what we actually want. We're our own worst enemies-and we don't even realize it. Here's how this works.

Let's say that your significant other has been paying less and less attention to you. You realize he or she has a busy job, but you still would like more time together. You drop a few hints about the issue, but your loved one doesn't handle it well. You decide not to put on added pressure, so you clam up. Of course, since you're not all that happy with the arrangement, your displeasure now comes out through an occasional sarcastic remark.

"Another late night, huh? Do you really need all of the money in the world?"

Unfortunately, and here's where the problem becomes self-defeating, the more you snip and snap, the less your loved one wants to be around you. So your significant other spends even less time with you, you become even more upset, and the spiral continues. Your behavior is now actually creating the very thing you didn't want in the first place. You're caught in an unhealthy, self-defeating loop.

OUR AUDACIOUS CLAIMS ABOUT HAVING THE CRUCIAL CONVERSATIONS IN THE RIGHT WAY:

1. Kick-Start Your Career

Twenty-five years of research with twenty thousand people and hundreds of organizations has taught us that individuals who are the most influential-who can get things done, and at the same time build on relationships-are those who master their crucial conversations.

2. Improve Your Organization

Okay, so individual careers may sink or swim based on crucial conversations, but how about organizations? Surely a soft-and gushy factor such as how you talk to one another doesn't have an impact on the not so soft-and-gushy bottom line.

What's behind their success? It all comes down to how people handle crucial conversations. Within high-performing companies, when employees fail to deliver on their promises, colleagues willingly and effectively step in to discuss the problem. In the worst companies, poor performers are first ignored and then transferred. In good companies, bosses eventually deal with problems. In the best companies, everyone holds everyone else accountable-regardless of level or position. The path to high productivity passes not through a static system, but through face-to-face conversations at all levels.

Solve pressing problems. The best companies in almost any critical area are the ones that have developed the skills for dealing effectively with conversations that relate to that specific topic. For example:

• Safety. When someone violates a procedure or otherwise acts in an unsafe way, the first person to see the problem, regardless of his or her position, steps up and holds a crucial conversation.

• Productivity. If an employee underperforms, fails to live up to a promise, doesn't carry his or her fair share, or simply isn't productive enough, the affected parties address the problem immediately.

• Diversity. When someone feels offended, threatened, insulted, or harassed, he or she skillfully and comfortably, discusses the issue with the offending party.

• Quality. In companies where quality rules, people discuss problems face-to-face when they first come up.

• Every other hot topic. Companies that are best-in-class in innovation, teamwork, change management, or any other area that calls for human interaction are best-in-class in holding the relevant crucial conversations.

3. Improve Your Relationships

Consider the impact crucial conversations can have on your relationships. Could failed crucial conversations lead to failed relationships? As it turns out, when you ask the average person what causes couples to break up, he or she usually suggests that it's due to differences of opinion. You know, people have different theories about how to manage their finances, spice up their love lives, or rear their children. In truth, everyone argues about important issues. But not everyone splits up. It's how you argue that matters.

Now, what about you? Think of your own important relationships. Are there a few crucial conversations that you're currently avoiding or handling poorly? Do you walk away from some issues only to come charging back into others? Do you hold in ugly opinions only to have them tumble out as sarcastic remarks or cheap shots? How about your significant other or family members? Are they constantly toggling from seething silence to subtle but costly attacks? When it matters the most (after all, these are your cherished loved ones), are you on your worst behavior? If so, you definitely have something to gain by learning more about how to handle crucial conversations.

4. Revitalize Your Community

Next, let's look at our neighborhoods and communities. If the fate of an organization is largely determined by how pivotal conversations are habitually handled, why should the communities that surround them be any different? The truth is, they aren't.

The difference between the best communities and the good or the worst is not the number of problems they have. All communities face problems. Once again, the difference lies in how they deal with problems. In the best communities, key individuals and groups find a way to engage in healthy dialogue. They talk through important issues. In contrast, communities that fail to improve play costly games. During community meetings people insult one another, become indignant, and act as if individuals with differing views are sick or deranged. Battles ensue.

In addition to how people behave in public forums, private behavior affects community health as well. Take, for example, the problem of crime. You might be shocked to discover a rather tragic statistic. Not everyone in prison is a career criminal who was born into a horrible family, then shaped by abuse and neglect into a seething sociopath. In fact, over half of the people who are convicted of violent crimes are first-time offenders who commit crimes against friends or loved ones.

How could this be? Violence is often preceded by prolonged periods of silence. Most inmates once held a job, paid their bills, and remembered their friends' birthdays. Then one day, after allowing unresolved problems to build up and then boil over, they attacked a friend, loved one, or neighbor. That's right, convicted first-time offenders are often not career criminals. They're our frustrated neighbors. Since they don't know what to say or how to say it, they opt for force. In this case, the inability to work through tough issues devastates individuals, ruins families, and poisons communities.

What about where you live? What crucial issues does your community face? Are there conversations that people are not holding or not holding well that keep you from progress? Is crime skyrocketing? Do your community meetings look more like the Jerry Springer show than an energetic forum for healthy communication? If so, both you and the community have a lot to gain by focusing on how you handle high-stakes discussions.

5. Improve Your Personal Health

Those who routinely failed their crucial conversations have far weaker immune systems than those who find a way to resolve them well. Of course, the weaker the immune system, the worse their health.

The negative feelings we hold in, the emotional pain we suffer, and the constant battering we endure as we stumble our way through unhealthy conversations slowly eat away at our health. In some cases, the impact of failed conversations leads to minor problems. In others it results in disaster. In all cases, failed conversations never make us happier, healthier, or better off.

CH. 2: Mastering Crucial Conversations

The Power of Dialogue

di·a·logue or di·a·log (di' a-lOg", -log) n

The free flow of meaning between two or more people.

HERE'S HOW DIALOGUE WORKS

When two or more of us enter crucial conversations, by definition we don't share the same pool. Our opinions differ. I believe one thing, you another. I have one history, you another.

People who are skilled at dialogue do their best to make it safe for everyone to add their meaning to the shared pool-even ideas that at first glance appear controversial, wrong, or at odds with their own beliefs. Now, obviously they don't agree with every idea; they simply do their best to ensure that all ideas find their way into the open.

The Pool of Shared Meaning is the birthplace of synergy.

Not only does a shared pool help individuals make better choices, but since the meaning is shared, people willingly act on whatever decisions they make. As people sit through an open discussion where ideas are shared, they take part in the free flow of meaning. Eventually they understand why the shared solution is the best solution, and they're committed to act.

---

Every time we find ourselves arguing, debating, running away, or otherwise acting in an ineffective way, it's because we don't know how to share meaning. Instead of engaging in healthy dialogue, we play silly and costly games.

For instance, sometimes we move to silence. We play Salute and Stay Mute. That is, we don't confront people in positions of authority. Or at home we may play Freeze Your Lover. With this tortured technique we give loved ones the cold shoulder in order to get them to treat us better (what's the logic in that?).

Sometimes we rely on hints, sarcasm, innuendo, and looks of disgust to make our points. We play the martyr and then pretend we're actually trying to help. Afraid to confront an individual, we blame an entire team for a problem-hoping the message will hit the right target. Whatever the technique, the overall method is the same. We withhold meaning from the pool. We go to silence.

On other occasions, not knowing how to stay in dialogue, we rely on violence-anything from subtle manipulation to verbal attacks. We act like we know everything, hoping people will believe our arguments. We discredit others, hoping people won't believe their arguments. And then we use every manner of force to get our way. We borrow power from the boss; we hit people with biased monologues. The goal, of course, is always the same-to compel others to our point of view.

Now, here's how the various elements fit together. When stakes are high, opinions vary, and emotions run strong, we're often at our worst. In order to move to our best, we have to find a way to explain what is in each of our personal pools of meaning especially our high-stakes, sensitive, and controversial opinions, feelings, and ideas-and to get others to share their pools. We have to develop the tools that make it safe for us to discuss these issues and to come to a shared pool of meaning.

CH. 3: Start with Heart

How to Stay Focused on What You Really Want

This is the first principle of dialogue - Start with your own Heart. If you can't get yourself right, you'll have a hard time getting dialogue right.

WHEN WE DON'T WORK ON ME FIRST

Two little girls are fighting to get into a single-holer restroom and neither of the two realize that had they let the other one use it first, they would have been able to use it gazillion times in the time that they had been fighting.

DON'T LOOK AT ME!

Although it's true that there are times when we are merely bystanders in life's never-ending stream of head-on collisions, rarely are we completely innocent.

People who are best at dialogue understand this simple fact and tum it into the principle "Work on me first." They realize that not only are they likely to benefit by improving their own approach, but also that they're the only person they can work on anyway. As much as others may need to change, or we may want them to change, the only person we can continually inspire, prod, and shape-with any degree of success-is the person in the mirror.

There's a certain irony embedded in this fact. People who believe they need to start with themselves do just that. And here's the irony. It's the most talented, not the least talented, who are continually trying to improve their dialogue skills.

START WITH HEART

That is, begin high-risk discussions with the right motives, and stay focused no matter what happens.

Skilled people maintain this focus in two ways. First, they're steely-eyed smart when it comes to knowing what they want. Despite constant invitations to slip away from their goals, they stick with them. Second, skilled people don't make Sucker's Choices (either/or choices). Unlike others who justify their unhealthy behavior by explaining that they had no choice but to fight or take flight, the dialogue-smart believe that dialogue, no matter the circumstances, is always an option.

Let's look at each of these important heart-based assumptions in turn.

A MOMENT OF TRUTH

FIRST, FOCUS ON WHAT YOU REALLY WANT

Refocus your brain.

Now, let's move to a situation you might face. You're speaking with someone who completely disagrees with you on a hot issue. How does all of this goal stuff apply? As you begin the discussion, start by examining your motives. Going in, ask yourself what you really want.

Also, as the conversation unfolds and you find yourself starting to, say, defer to the boss or give your spouse the cold shoulder, pay attention to what's happening to your objectives. Are you starting to change your goal to save face, avoid embarrassment, win, be right, or punish others? Here's the tricky part. Our motives usually change without any conscious thought on our part. When adrenaline does our thinking for us, our motives flow with the chemical tide.

In order to move back to motives that allow for dialogue, you must step away from the interaction and look at yourself much like an outsider. Ask yourself: "What am I doing, and if I had to guess, what does it tell me about my underlying motive?" As you make an honest effort to discover your motive, you might conclude: "Let's see. I'm pushing hard, making the argument stronger than I actually believe, and doing anything to win. I've shifted from trying to select a vacation location to trying to win an argument."

Once you call into question the shifting desires of your heart, you can make conscious choices to change them. "What I really want is to genuinely try to select a vacation spot we can all enjoy-rather than try to win people over to my ideas." Put succinctly, when you name the game, you can stop playing it.

But how? How do you recognize what has happened to you, stop playing games, and then influence your own motives? Do what Greta did. Stop and ask yourself some questions that return you to dialogue. You can ask these questions either when you find yourself slipping out of dialogue or as reminders when you prepare to step up to a crucial conversation. Here are some great ones:

What do I really want for myself?

What do I really want for others?

What do I really want for the relationship?

Once you've asked yourself what you want, add one more equally telling question:

How would I behave if I really wanted these results?

Find your bearings.

There are two good reasons for asking these questions. First, the answer to what we really want helps us to locate our own North Star. Despite the fact that we're being tempted to take the wrong path by (1) people who are trying to pick a fight, (2) thousands of years of genetic hardwiring that brings our emotions to a quick boil, and (3) our deeply ingrained habit of trying to win, our North Star returns us to our original purpose.

Take charge of your body.

The second reason for asking what we really want is no less important. When we ask ourselves what we really want, we affect our entire physiology. As we introduce complex and abstract questions to our mind, the problem-solving part of our brain recognizes that we are now dealing with intricate social issues and not physical threats. When we present our brain with a demanding question, our body sends precious blood to the parts of our brain that help us think, and away from the parts of our body that help us take flight or begin a fight. Asking questions about what we really want serves two important purposes. First, it reminds us of our goal. Second, it juices up our brain in a way that helps us keep focused.

Common Deviations

Wanting to win. This particular dialogue killer sits at the top of many of our lists.

Seeking revenge. Sometimes, as our anger increases, we move from wanting to win the point to wanting to harm the other person.

Hoping to remain safe. Of course, we don't always fix mistakes, aggressively discredit others, or heartlessly try to make them suffer. Sometimes we choose personal safety over dialogue. Rather than add to the pool of meaning, and possibly make waves along the way, we go to silence. We're so uncomfortable with the immediate conflict that we accept the certainty of bad results to avoid the possibility of uncomfortable conversation.

SECOND, REFUSE THE SUCKER'S CHOICE

Two ugly options. This pernicious strategy is particularly well suited for keeping us off track. It's known as a Sucker's Choice. In order to justify an especially sordid behavior, we suggest that we're caught between two distasteful options. Either we can be honest and attack our spouse, or we can be kind and withhold the truth. Either we can disagree with the boss to help make a better choice-and get shot for it-or we can remain quiet, starve the pool, and keep our job. Pick your poison.

What makes these Sucker's Choices is that they're always set up as the only two options available. It's the worst of either/or thinking. The person making the choice never suggests there's a third option that doesn't call for unhealthy behavior. For example, maybe there's a way to be honest and respectful. Perhaps we can express our candid opinion to our boss and be safe.

Open Yourself to Change

Search for the Elusive "And"

First, clarify what you really want.

Second, clarify what you really don't want. This is the key to framing the and question. Think of what you are afraid will happen to you if you back away from your current strategy of trying to win or stay safe.

Third, present your brain with a more complex problem. Finally, combine the two into an and question that forces you to search for more creative and productive options than silence and violence.

"How can I have a candid conversation with my husband about being more dependable and avoid creating bad feelings or wasting our time?"

CH. 4: Learn to Look

How to Notice When Safety Is at Risk

WATCH FOR CONDITIONS

In truth, most of us do have trouble dual-processing (watching for content and conditions)-especially when it comes to a crucial conversation. When both stakes and emotions are high, we get so caught up in what we're saying that it can be nearly impossible to pull ourselves out of the argument in order to see what's happening to ourselves and to others. Even when we are startled by what's going on, enough so that we think: "Yikes! This has turned ugly. Now what?" we may not know what to look for in order to turn things around. We may not see enough of what's happening.

1. Learn to Spot Crucial Conversations

First, stay alert for the moment a conversation turns from a routine or harmless discussion into a crucial one. In a similar vein, as you anticipate entering a tough conversation, pay heed to the fact that you're about to enter the danger zone.

To help catch problems early, reprogram your mind to pay attention to the signs that suggest you're in a crucial conversation. Some people first notice physical signals-their stomach gets tight or their eyes get dry. Think about what happens to your body when conversations get tough. Everyone is a little bit different. What are your cues? Whatever they are, learn to look at them as signs to step back, slow down, and Start with Heart before things get out of hand.

Others notice their emotions before they notice signs in their body. They realize they are scared, hurt, or angry and are beginning to react to or suppress these feelings. These emotions can also be great cues to tell you to step back, slow down, and take steps to turn your brain back on.

Some people's first cue is not physical or emotional, but behavioral. It's like an out-of-body experience. They see themselves raising their voice, pointing their finger like a loaded weapon, or becoming very quiet. It's only then that they realize how they're feeling.

2. Learn to look for Safety Problems

If you can catch signs that the conversation is starting to tum crucial- before you get sucked so far into the actual argument that you can never withdraw from the content-then you can start dual-processing immediately. And what exactly should you watch for? People who are gifted at dialogue keep a constant vigil on safety. They pay attention to the content-that's a given-and they watch for signs that people are afraid. When friends, loved ones, or colleagues move away from healthy dialogue (freely adding to the pool of meaning)-either forcing their opinions into the pool or purposefully keeping their ideas out of the pool they immediately tum their attention to whether or not others feel safe.

When it's safe, you can say anything.

Here's why gifted communicators keep a close eye on safety. Dialogue calls for the free flow of meaning-period. And nothing kills the flow of meaning like fear. When you fear that people aren't buying into your ideas, you start pushing too hard. When you fear that you may be harmed in some way, you start withdrawing and hiding. Both these reactions-to fight and to take flight-are motivated by the same emotion: fear. On the other hand, if you make it safe enough, you can talk about almost anything and people will listen. If you don't fear that you're being attacked or humiliated, you yourself can hear almost anything and not become defensive.

When it's unsafe, you start to go blind.

By carefully watching for safety violations, not only can you see when dialogue is in danger, but you can also reengage your brain. As we've said before, when your emotions start cranking up, key brain functions start shutting down. Not only do you prepare to take flight, but your peripheral vision actually narrows. In fact, when you feel genuinely threatened, you can scarcely see beyond what's right in front of you. Similarly, when you feel the outcome of a conversation is being threatened, you have a hard time seeing beyond the point you're trying to make. By pulling yourself out of the content of an argument and watching for fear, you reengage your brain and your full vision returns.

Don't let safety problems lead you astray.

Let's add a note of caution. When others begin to feel unsafe, they start doing nasty things. Now, since they're feeling unsafe, you should be thinking to yourself: "Hey, they're feeling unsafe. I need to do something- maybe make it safer." That's what you should be thinking. Unfortunately, since others feel unsafe, they may be trying to make fun of you, insult you, or bowl you over with their arguments. This kind of aggressive behavior doesn't exactly bring out the diplomat in you. So instead of taking their attack as a sign that safety is at risk, you take it at its face-as an attack. " I'm under attack! " you think. Then you respond in kind. Or maybe you try to escape. Either way you're not dual-processing and then pulling out a skill to restore safety. Instead, you're becoming part of the problem as you get pulled into the fight.

Silence

Silence consists of any act to purposefully withhold information from the pool of meaning. It's almost always done as a means of avoiding potential problems, and it always restricts the flow of meaning. Methods range from playing verbal games to avoiding the person entirely. The three most common forms of silence are masking, avoiding, and withdrawing.

• Masking consists of understating or selectively showing our true opinions. Sarcasm, sugarcoating, and couching are some of the more popular forms.

• Avoiding involves steering completely away from sensitive subjects. We talk, but without addressing the real issues.

• Withdrawing means pulling out of a conversation altogether. We either exit the conversation or exit the room.

Violence

Violence consists of any verbal strategy that attempts to convince, control, or compel others to your point of view. It violates safety by trying to force meaning into the pool. Methods range from name-calling and monologuing to making threats. The three most common forms are controlling, labeling, and attacking.

• Controlling consists of coercing others to your way of thinking. It's done through either forcing your views on others or dominating the conversation. Methods include cutting others off, overstating your facts, speaking in absolutes, changing subjects, or using directive questions to control the conversation.

• Labeling is putting a label on people or ideas so we can dismiss them under a general stereotype or category.

• Attacking speaks for itself. You've moved from winning the argument to making the person suffer. Tactics include belittling and threatening.

3. Look for Your Style Under Stress

Low self-monitors.

The truth is, we all have trouble monitoring our own behavior at times. We usually lose any semblance of social sensitivity when we become so consumed with ideas and causes that we lose track of what we're doing. We try to bully our way through. We speak when we shouldn't. We do things that don't work-all in the name of a cause. We eventually become so unaware that we become a bit like this fellow of Jack Handy's invention.

"People were always talking about how mean this guy was who lived on our block. But I decided to go see for myself. I went to his door, but he said he wasn't the mean guy, the mean guy lived in that house over there. 'No, you stupid idiot,' I said, 'that's my house.'"

Become a Vigilant Self-Monitor

What does it take to be able to step out of an argument and watch for process-including what you yourself are doing and the impact you're having? You have to become a vigilant self-monitor. That is, pay close attention to what you're doing and the impact it's having, and then alter your strategy if necessary. Specifically, watch to see if you're having a good or bad impact on safety.

CH. 5: Make It Safe

How to Make It Safe to Talk about Almost Anything

STEP OUT. MAKE IT SAFE. THEN STEP BACK IN

How can she get back to honest and healthy dialogue after a glitch?

What do you do when you don't feel like it's safe to share what's on your mind?

The key is to step out of the content of the conversation. Don't stay stuck in what's being said.

So, what should she do in a crucial conversation?

In these circumstances, the worst at dialogue do what both Jotham and Yvonne did. Like Jotham, they totally ignore the crying need for more safety. They say whatever is on their minds with no regard for how it will be received. Or like Yvonne, they conclude the topic is completely unsafe and move to silence. The good realize that safety is at risk, but they fix it in exactly the wrong way. They try to make the subject more palatable by sugarcoating their message. They try to make things safer by watering down their content. This strategy, of course, avoids the real problem, and it never gets fixed.

The best don't play games. They know that dialogue is the free flow of meaning-with no 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 you've spotted safety problems, you can talk about the most challenging of topics by stepping out of the content and building enough safety that almost anything becomes discussable.

NOTICE WHICH OF THE TWO CONDITIONS FOR SAFETY IS AT RISK

Mutual Purpose

Why Talk in the First Place?

The first condition of safety is Mutual Purpose. Mutual Purpose means that others perceive that we are working toward a common outcome in the conversation, that we care about their goals, interests, and values. And vice versa. We believe they care about ours. 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.

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 and foremost, when 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 some crucial questions to help us determine when Mutual Purpose is at risk:

• Do others believe I care about their goals in this conversation?

• 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 not just 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 silence and violence in no time. Before you begin, examine your motives.

Ask yourself the Start with Heart questions:

• What do I want for me?

• What do I want for others?

• What do I want for the relationship?

Mutual Respect

Will We Be Able to Remain in Dialogue?

While it's true that there's no reason to enter a crucial conversation if you don't have Mutual Purpose, it's equally true that you can't stay in the conversation if you don't maintain Mutual Respect. Mutual Respect is the continuance condition of dialogue. As people perceive that others don't respect them, the conversation immediately becomes unsafe and dialogue comes to a screeching halt.

Why? Because respect is like air. If you take it away, it's all people can think about. The instant people perceive disrespect in a conversation, the interaction is no longer about the original purpose-it is now about defending dignity.

Telltale signs.

To spot when respect is violated and safety takes a turn south, watch for signs that people are defending their dignity. Emotions are the key. When people feel disrespected, they become highly charged. Their emotions tum from fear to anger.

Then they resort to pouting, name-calling, yelling, and making threats. Ask the following question to determine when Mutual Respect is at risk:

• Do others believe I respect them?

Can You Respect People You Don't Respect?

Some people fear they'll never be able to maintain Mutual Purpose or Mutual Respect with certain individuals or in certain circumstances. How, they wonder, can they share the same purpose with people who come from completely different backgrounds or whose morals or values differ from theirs? What do you do, for example, if you're upset because another person has let you down? And if this has repeatedly happened, how can you respect a person who is so poorly motivated and selfish?

Dialogue truly would be doomed if we had to share every objective or respect every element of another person's character before we could talk. If this were the case, we'd all be mute. We can, however, stay in dialogue by finding a way to honor and regard another person's basic humanity. In essence, feelings of disrespect often come when we dwell on how others are different from ourselves. We can counteract these feelings by looking for ways we are similar. Without excusing their behavior, we try to sympathize, even empathize, with them.

A rather clever person once hinted how to do this in the form of a prayer-"Lord, help me forgive those who sin differently than I." When we recognize that we all have weaknesses, it's easier to find a way to respect others. When we do this, we feel a kinship, a sense of mutuality between ourselves and even the thorniest of people. It is this sense of kinship and connection to others that motivates us to enter tough conversations, and it eventually enables us to stay in dialogue with virtually anyone.

WHAT TO DO ONCE YOU STEP OUT

When you see that either Mutual Respect or Purpose is at risk, we've suggested that you shouldn't ignore it. We've also argued that you should be able to find a way to both find Mutual Purpose and enjoy Mutual Respect-even with people who are enormously different.

But how? What are you supposed to actually do? We've shared a few modest ideas (mostly things to avoid), so let's get into three hard-hitting skills that the best at dialogue use:

• Apologize

• Contrast

• CRIB

Each skill helps rebuild either Mutual Respect or Mutual Purpose.

Apologize When Appropriate

When you've made a mistake that has hurt others (e.g., you didn't call the team), start with an apology. An apology is a statement that sincerely expresses your sorrow for your role in causing-or at least not preventing-pain or difficulty to others.

Contrast to Fix Misunderstanding

Sometimes others feel disrespected during crucial conversations even though we haven't done anything disrespectful. Sure, there are times when respect gets violated because we behave in clearly hurtful ways. But just as often, the insult is entirely unintended.

The same can happen with Mutual Purpose. You can start by innocently sharing your views, but the other person believes your intention is to beat him or her up or coerce him or her into accepting your opinion. Clearly an apology is not appropriate in these circumstances. It would be disingenuous to admit you were wrong when you weren't. How, then, can you rebuild Mutual Purpose or Mutual Respect in order to make it safe to get back to dialogue? When others misinterpret either your purpose or your intent, step out of the argument and rebuild safety by using a skill called Contrasting.

Contrasting is a don't/do statement that:

• Addresses others' concerns that you don't respect them or that you have a malicious purpose (the don't part).

• Confirms your respect or clarifies your real purpose (the do part).

Of the two parts of Contrasting, the don't is the more important because it deals with the misunderstanding that has put safety at risk. The employees who worked so hard are acting on the belief that you don't appreciate their efforts and didn't care enough to keep them informed-when the opposite was true. So you address the misunderstanding by explaining what you don't intend. Once you've done this, and safety returns to the conversation, then you can explain what you do intend. Safety first.

Contrasting is not apologizing. It's important to understand that Contrasting is not apologizing. It is not a way of taking back something we've said that hurt others' feelings. Rather, it is a way of ensuring what we said didn't hurt more than it should have.

Contrasting provides context and proportion. When we're in the middle of a touchy conversation, sometimes others hear what we're saying as bigger or worse than we intend.

For example, you talk with your assistant about his lack of punctuality. When you share your concern, he appears crushed. At this point you could be tempted to water down your content - "You know it's really not that big a deal." Don't do it.

Don't take back what you've said. Instead, put it in context. For instance, at this point your assistant may believe you are completely dissatisfied with his performance. He believes that your view of the issue at hand represents the totality of your respect for him. If this belief is incorrect, use Contrasting to clarify what you don't and do believe. Start with what you don't believe.

Use Contrasting for prevention or first aid. Contrasting is useful both as a prevention and as first aid for safety problems. So far our examples have been of the first-aid type. Someone has taken something wrong, and we've intervened to clarify our true purpose or meaning.

When we're aware that something we're about to drop into the pool of meaning could create a splash of defensiveness, we use Contrasting to bolster safety-even before we see others going to either silence or violence.

CRIB TO GET TO MUTUAL PURPOSE

Let's add one more skill. Sometimes we find ourselves in the middle of a debate because we clearly have different purposes. There is no misunderstanding here. Contrasting won't do the trick. We need something sturdier for this job.

The worst at dialogue either ignore the problem and push ahead or roll over and let others have their way. They opt for either competition or submission. Both strategies end up making winners and losers, and the problem continues long beyond the initial conversation.

The good at dialogue move immediately toward compromise. For example, the couple facing the transfer sets up two households- one where one spouse will be working and one where the family currently lives. Nobody really wants this arrangement, and frankly, it's a pretty ugly solution that's bound to lead to more serious problems, even divorce. While compromise is sometimes necessary, the best know better than to start there.

The best at dialogue use four skills to look for a Mutual Purpose.

The four skills they use form the acronym CRIB.

Commit to Seek Mutual Purpose

As is true with most dialogue skills, if you want to get back to dialogue, you have to Start with Heart. In this case, you have to agree to agree. To be successful, we have to stop using silence or violence to compel others to our view. We must even surrender false dialogue, where we pretend to have Mutual Purpose (calmly arguing our side until the other person gives in). We Start with Heart by committing to stay in the conversation until we come up with a solution that serves a purpose we both share.

This can be tough. To stop arguing, we have to suspend our belief that our choice is the absolute best and only one, and that we'll never be happy until we get exactly what we currently want. We have to open our mind to the fact that maybe, just maybe, there is a different choice out there-one that suits everyone.

Recognize the Purpose behind the Strategy

Wanting to come up with a shared goal is a wonderful first step, but it's not enough. Once we've had a change of heart, we need to change our strategy. Here's the problem we have to fix: When we find ourselves at an impasse, it's because we're asking for one thing and the other person is asking for something else. We think we'll never find a way out because we equate what we're asking for with what we want. In truth, what we're asking for is the strategy we're suggesting to get what we want. We confuse wants or purpose with strategies. That's the problem.

For example, I come home from work and say that I want to go to a movie. You say that you want to stay home and relax. And so we debate: movie, TV, movie, read, etc. We figure we'll never be able to resolve our differences because going out and staying home are incompatible.

In such circumstances we can break the impasse by asking others, "Why do you want that?" In this case,

"Why do you want to stay home?"

"Because I'm tired of running around and dealing with the hassle of the city."

"So you want peace and quiet?"

"Mostly. And why do you want to go to a movie?"

"So I can spend some time with you away from the kids."

Before you can agree on a Mutual Purpose, you must know what people's real purposes are. So step out of the content of the conversation-which is generally focused on strategies-and explore the purposes behind them.

Invent a Mutual Purpose

Sometimes when we recognize the purposes behind our strategies, we discover that we actually have compatible goals. From there you simply come up with common strategies. But we're not always so lucky. For example, you find out that your genuine wants and goals cannot be served except at the expense of the other person's. In this case you cannot discover a Mutual Purpose, so you must actively invent one.

To invent a Mutual Purpose, move to more encompassing goals. Find an objective that is more meaningful or more rewarding than the ones that divide the various sides. For instance, you and your spouse may not agree on whether or not you should take the promotion, but you can agree that the needs of your relationship and the children come before career aspirations. By focusing on higher and longer-term goals, you can find a way to transcend short-term compromises, build Mutual Purpose, and get to dialogue.

Brainstorm New Strategies

Once you've built safety by finding a shared purpose, you should now have enough safety to return to the content of the conversation. It's time to step back into the dialogue and brainstorm strategies that meet everyone's needs. If you've committed to finding something everyone can agree on, and surfaced what you really want, you'll no longer be spending your energy on unproductive conflict. Instead, you'll be actively coming up with options that can serve everyone.

Suspend judgment and think outside the box for new alternatives. Can you find a way to work in a job that is local and still meets your career goals? Is this job with this company the only thing that will make you happy? Is a move really necessary in this new job? Is there another community that could offer your family the same benefits? If you're not willing to give creativity a try, it'll be impossible for you to jointly come up with a mutually acceptable option. If you are, the sky's the limit.

CH. 6: Master My Stories

How to Stay in Dialogue When You 're Angry

One thing's for certain. No matter who is doing the button pushing, some people tend to react more explosively than others and to the same stimulus, no less. Why is that? For instance, what enables some people to listen to withering feedback without flinching, whereas others pitch a fit when you tell them they've got a smear of salsa on their chin? Why is it that sometimes you yourself can take a verbal blow to the gut without batting an eye, but other times you go ballistic if someone so much as looks at you sideways?

EMOTIONS DON'T JUST HAPPEN

To answer these questions, we'll start with two rather bold (and sometimes unpopular) claims. Then, having tipped our hand, we'll explain the logic behind each claim.

Claim One. Emotions don't settle upon you like a fog. They are not foisted upon you by others. No matter how comfortable it might make you feel saying it-others don't make you mad. You make you mad. You and only you create your emotions.

Claim Two. Once you've created your emotions, you have only two options: You can act on them or be acted on by them. That is, when it comes to strong emotions, you either find a way to master them or fall hostage to them.

Here's how this all unfolds.

MARIA'S STORY

Consider Maria, a copywriter who is currently hostage to some pretty strong emotions. She and her colleague Louis just reviewed the latest draft of a proposal with their boss. During the meeting, they were supposed to be jointly presenting their latest ideas. But when Maria paused to take a breath, Louis took over the presentation, making almost all the points they had come up with together. When the boss turned to Maria for input, there was nothing left for her to say.

What's Making Maria Mad?

The worst at dialogue fall into the trap Maria has fallen into. Maria is completely unaware of a dangerous assumption she's making. She's upset at being overlooked and is keeping a professional silence. She's assuming that her emotions and behavior are the only right and reasonable reactions under the circumstances. She's convinced that anyone in her place would feel the same way.

Here's the problem. Maria is treating her emotions as if they are the only valid response. Since, in her mind, they are both justified and accurate, she makes no effort to change or even question them. In fact, in her view, Louis caused them. Ultimately, her actions (saying nothing and taking cheap shots) are being driven by these very emotions. Since she's not acting on her emotions, her emotions are acting on her-controlling her behavior and driving her deteriorating relationship with Louis. The worst at dialogue are hostages to their emotions, and they don't even know it.

The good at dialogue realize that if they don't control their emotions, matters will get worse. So they try something else. They fake it. They choke down reactions and then do their best to get back to dialogue. At least, they give it a shot. Unfortunately, once they hit a rough spot in a crucial conversation, their suppressed emotions come out of hiding. They show up as tightened jaws or sarcastic comments. Dialogue takes a hit. Or maybe their paralyzing fear causes them to avoid saying what they really think. Meaning is cut off at the source. In any case, their emotions sneak out of the cubbyhole they've been crammed into and find a way into the conversation. It's never pretty, and it always kills dialogue.

The best at dialogue do something completely different. They aren't held hostage by their emotions, nor do they try to hide or suppress them. Instead, they act on their emotions. That is, when they have strong feelings, they influence (and often change) their emotions by thinking them out. As a result, they choose their emotions, and by so doing, make it possible to choose behaviors that create better results.

Stories Create Feelings

As it turns out, there is an intermediate step between what others do and how we feel. That's why, when faced with the same circumstances, ten people may have ten different emotional responses. For instance, with a coworker like Louis, some might feel insulted whereas others merely feel curious. Some become angry and others feel concern or even sympathy.

What is this intermediate step? Just after we observe what others do and just before we feel some emotion about it, we tell ourselves a story. That is, we add meaning to the action we observed. To the simple behavior we add motive. Why were they doing that? We also add judgment-is that good or bad? And then, based on these thoughts or stories, our body responds with an emotion.

SEE / HEAR -> TELL A STORY -> FEEL -> ACT

Even if you don 't realize it, you are telling yourself stories.

When we teach people that it's our stories that drive our emotions and not other people's actions, someone inevitably raises a hand and says, "Wait a minute! I didn't notice myself telling a story. When that guy laughed at me during my presentation, I just felt angry. The feelings came first; the thoughts came second." Storytelling typically happens blindingly fast. When we believe we're at risk, we tell ourselves a story so quickly that we don't even know we're doing it. If you don't believe this is true, ask yourself whether you always become angry when someone laughs at you. If sometimes you do and sometimes you don't, then your response isn't hardwired. That means something goes on between others laughing and you feeling. In truth, you tell a story. You may not remember it, but you tell a story.

Any set of facts can be used to tell an infinite number of stories. Stories are just that, stories. These fabrications could be told in any of thousands of different ways.

If we take control of our stories, they won 't control us. People who excel at dialogue are able to influence their emotions during crucial conversations. They recognize that while it's true that at first we are in control of the stories we tell-after all, we do make them up of our own accord-once they're told, the stories control us. They control how we feel and how we act. And as a result, they control the results we get from our crucial conversations. But it doesn't have to be this way. We can tell different stories and break the loop. In fact, until we tell different stories, we cannot break the loop.

If you want improved results from your crucial conversations, change the stories you tell yourself-even while you're in the middle of the fray.

SKILLS FOR MASTERING OUR STORIES

Retrace Your Path

To slow down the lightning-quick storytelling process and the subsequent flow of adrenaline, retrace your Path to Action-one element at a time. This calls for a bit of mental gymnastics. First you have to stop what you're currently doing. Then you have to get in touch with why you're doing it. Here's how to retrace your path:

• [Act] Notice your behavior. Ask:

Am I in some form of silence or violence?

• [Feel] Get in touch with your feelings.

What emotions are encouraging me to act this way?

• [Tell story] Analyze your stories.

What story is creating these emotions?

Question your feelings and stories.

Don't confuse stories with facts.

• [See/hear] Get back to the facts.

What evidence do I have to support this story?

Spot the story by watching for "hot" words.

Watch for Three "Clever" Stories

Victim Stories - "It's Not My Fault"

Villain Stories - "It's All Your Fault"

Watch for the double standard. When you pay attention to Victim and Villain Stories and catch them for what they are unfair characterizations-you begin to see the terrible double standard we use when our emotions are out of control. When we make mistakes, we tell a Victim Story by claiming our intentions were innocent and pure. On the other hand, when others do things that hurt us, we tell Villain Stories in which we invent terrible motives for others based on how their actions affected us.

Helpless Stories- "There's Nothing Else I Can Do"

Why We Tell Clever Stories

They match reality. Sometimes the stories we tell are accurate. The other person is trying to cause us harm, we are innocent victims, or maybe we really can't do much about the problem. It can happen. It's not common, but it can happen.

They get us off the hook.

Clever stories keep us from acknowledging our own sellouts.

Tell the Rest of the Story

Turn victims into actors. If you notice that you're talking about yourself as an innocent victim (and you weren't held up at gunpoint), ask:

• Am I pretending not to notice my role in the problem?

Turn villains into humans. When you find yourself labeling or otherwise vilifying others, stop and ask:

• Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person do what this person is doing?

Turn the helpless into the able. Finally, when you catch yourself bemoaning your own helplessness, you can tell the complete story by returning to your original motive. To do so, stop and ask:

• What do I really want? For me? For others? For the relationship?

Then, kill the Sucker's Choice that's made you feel helpless to choose anything other than silence or violence. Do this by asking:

• What would I do right now if I really wanted these results?

MARIA'S NEW STORY

To see how this all fits together, let's circle back to Maria. Let's assume she's retraced her Path to Action and separated the facts from the stories. Doing this has helped her realize that the story she told was incomplete, defensive, and hurtful. When she watched for the Three Clever Stories, she saw them with painful clarity. Now she's ready to tell the rest of the story. So she asks herself:

• Am I pretending not to notice my role in the problem?

"When I found out that Louis was holding project meetings without me, I felt like I should ask him about why I wasn't included. I believed that if I did, I could open a dialogue that would help us work better together. But then I didn't, and as my resentment grew, I was even less interested in broaching the subject."

• Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person do what Louis is doing?

"He really cares about producing good-quality work. Maybe he doesn't realize that I'm as committed to the success of the project as he is."

• What do I really want?

"I want a respectful relationship with Louis. And [ want recognition for the work I do."

• What would I do right now if I really wanted these results?

"I'd make an appointment to sit down with Louis and talk about how we work together."

CH. 7: STATE My Path

How to Speak Persuasively, Not Abrasively

SHARING RISKY MEANING

Adding information to the pool of meaning can be quite difficult when the ideas we're about to dump into the collective consciousness contain delicate, unattractive, or controversial opinions.

When it comes to sharing touchy information, the worst alternate between bluntly dumping their ideas into the pool and saying nothing at all. Either they start with: "You're not going to like this, but, hey, somebody has to be honest..." (a classic Sucker's Choice), or they simply stay mum.

Fearful they could easily destroy a healthy relationship, those who are good at dialogue say some of what's on their minds but understate their views out of fear of hurting others. They talk, but they sugarcoat their message.

The best at dialogue speak their minds completely and do it in a way that makes it safe for others to hear what they have to say and respond to it as well. They are both totally frank and completely respectful.

MAINTAIN SAFETY

In order to speak honestly when honesty could easily offend others, we have to find a way to maintain safety. That's a bit like telling someone to smash another person in the nose, but, you know, don't hurt him. How can we speak the unspeakable and still maintain respect? Actually, it can be done if you know how to carefully blend three ingredients-confidence, humility, and skill.

Confidence. Most people simply won't hold delicate conversations- well, at least not with the right person.

People who are skilled at dialogue have the confidence to say what needs to be said to the person who needs to hear it. They are confident that their opinions deserve to be placed in the pool of meaning. They are also confident that they can speak openly without brutalizing others or causing undue offense.

Humility. Confidence does not equate to arrogance or pigheadedness. Skilled people are confident that they have something to say, but also realize that others have valuable input. They are humble enough to realize that they don't have a monopoly on the truth. Their opinions provide a starting point but not the final word. They may currently believe something but realize that with new information they may change their minds. This means they're willing to both express their opinions and encourage others to do the same.

Skill. Finally, people who willingly share delicate information are good at doing it. That's why they're confident in the first place. They don't make a Sucker's Choice because they've found a path that allows for both candor and safety. They speak the unspeakable, and people are grateful for their honesty.

STATE MY PATH

Once you've worked on yourself to create the right conditions for dialogue, you can then draw upon five distinct skills that can help you talk about even the most sensitive topics. These five tools can be easily remembered with the acronym STATE. It stands for:

• Share your facts

• Tell your story

• Ask for others' paths

• Talk tentatively

• Encourage testing

The first three skills describe what to do. The last two tell how to do it.

The "What" Skills

Share Your Facts

Facts are the least controversial. Facts provide a safe beginning. By their very nature, facts aren't controversial. That's why we call them facts. For example, consider the statement: "Yesterday you arrived at work twenty minutes late." No dispute there. Conclusions, on the other hand, are highly controversial. For example: "You can't be trusted." That's hardly a fact. Actually, it's more like an insult, and it can certainly be disputed. Eventually we may want to share our conclusions, but we certainly don't want to open up with a controversy.

Facts are the most persuasive. In addition to being less controversial, facts are also more persuasive than subjective conclusions. Facts form the foundation of belief. So if you want to persuade others, don't start with your stories. Start with your observations.

Facts are the least insulting. If you do want to share your story, don't start with it. Your story (particularly if it has led to a rather ugly conclusion) could easily surprise and insult others. It could kill safety in one rash, ill-conceived sentence.

Begin your path with facts. In order to talk about your stories, you need to lead the others involved down your Path to Action. Let them experience your path from the beginning to the end, and not from the end to-well, to wherever it takes you. Let others see your experience from your point of view-starting with your facts. This way, when you do talk about what you're starting to conclude, they'll understand why. First the facts, then the story-and then make sure that as you explain your story, you tell it as a possible story, not as concrete fact.

Tell Your Story

Sharing your story can be tricky. Even if you've started with your facts, the other person can still become defensive when you move from facts to stories. After all, you're sharing potentially unflattering conclusions and judgments. Why share your story in the first place? Because the facts alone are rarely worth mentioning. It's the facts plus the conclusion that call for a face-to-face discussion. In addition, if you simply mention the facts, the other person may not understand the severity of the implications.

It takes confidence. To be honest, it can be difficult to share negative conclusions and unattractive judgments (e.g., "I'm wondering if you're a thief").

Don't pile it on. Sometimes we lack the confidence to speak up, so we let problems simmer for a long time. Given the chance, we generate a whole arsenal of unflattering conclusions.

Look for safety problems. As you share your story, watch for signs that safety is deteriorating. If people start becoming defensive or appear to be insulted, step out of the conversation and rebuild safety by Contrasting.

Ask for Others' Paths

We mentioned that the key to sharing sensitive ideas is a blend of confidence and humility. We express our confidence by sharing our facts and stories clearly. We demonstrate our humility by then asking others to share their views.

The "How" Skills

Talk Tentatively

Talking tentatively simply means that we tell our story as a story rather than disguising it as a fact. When sharing a story, strike a blend between confidence and humility. Share in a way that expresses appropriate confidence in your conclusions while demonstrating that, if appropriate, you want your conclusions challenged. To do so, change "The fact is" to "In my opinion." Swap "Everyone knows that" for "I've talked to three of our suppliers who think that." Soften "It's clear to me" to "I'm beginning to wonder if."

Encourage Testing

Invite opposing views.

Mean it. Sometimes people offer an invitation that sounds more like a threat than a legitimate call for opinions. Invite people with both words and tone that say "I really want to hear from you."

Play devil's advocate. Occasionally you can tell that others are not buying into your facts or story, but they're not speaking up either. You've sincerely invited them, even encouraged differing views, but nobody says anything. To help grease the skids, play devil's advocate. Model disagreeing by disagreeing with your own view. "Maybe I'm wrong here. What if the opposite is true? What if the reason sales have dropped is because..."

CH. 8: Explore Others' Paths

How to Listen When Others Blow Up or Clam Up

EXPLORE OTHERS' PATHS

Start with Heart-Get Ready to listen

Be sincere. To get at others' facts and stories, we have to invite them to share what's on their minds.

Be curious. When you do want to hear from others (and you should because it adds to the pool of meaning), the best way to get at the truth is by making it safe for them to express the stories that are moving them to either silence or violence.

Stay curious. When people begin to share their volatile stories and feelings, we now face the risk of pulling out our own Victim, Villain, and Helpless Stories to help us explain why they're saying what they're saying. Unfortunately, since it's rarely fun to hear other people's unflattering stories, we begin to assign negative motives to them for telling the stories. To avoid overreacting to others' stories, stay curious. Give your brain a problem to stay focused on.

Be patient. When others are acting out their feelings and opinions through silence or violence, it's a good bet they're starting to feel the effects of adrenaline. Even if we do our best to safely and effectively respond to the other person's possible onslaught, we still have to face up to the fact that it's going to take a little while for him or her to settle down.

Encourage Others to Retrace Their Path

Every sentence has a history. Crucial conversations can be equally mysterious and frustrating. When others are in either silence or violence, we're actually joining their Path to Action already in progress. Consequently, we've already missed the foundation of the story and we're confused. If we're not careful, we can become defensive. After all, not only are we joining late, but we're also joining at a time when the other person is starting to act offensively.

Break the cycle. And then guess what happens? When we're on the receiving end of someone's retributions, accusations, and cheap shots, rarely do we think: "My, what an interesting story he or she must have told. What do you suppose led to that?" Instead, we match this unhealthy behavior. Our defense mechanisms kick in, and we create our own hasty and ugly Path to Action.

AMPP

To encourage others to share their paths we'll use four power listening tools that can help make it safe for other people to speak frankly. We call the four skills power listening tools because they are best remembered with the acronym AMPP-Ask, Mirror, Paraphrase, and Prime. Luckily, the tools work for both silence and violence games.

Ask to Get Things Rolling

The easiest and most straightforward way to encourage others to share their Path to Action is simply to invite them to express themselves.

Mirror to Confirm Feelings

If asking others to share their path doesn't open things up, mirroring can help build more safety. In mirroring, we take the portion of the other person's Path to Action we have access to and make it safe for him or her to discuss it. All we have so far are actions and some hints about the other person's emotions, so we start there.

Paraphrase to Acknowledge the Story

Asking and mirroring may help you get part of the other person's story out into the open. When you get a clue about why the person is feeling as he or she does, you can build additional safety by paraphrasing what you've heard. Be careful not to simply parrot back what was said. Instead, put the message in your own words-usually in an abbreviated form. "Let's see if I've got this right. You're upset because I've voiced my concern about some of the clothes you wear. And this seems controlling or old-fashioned to you." But: Don't push too hard.

Prime When You're Getting Nowhere

On the other hand, there are times when you may conclude that others would like to open up but still don't feel safe. Or maybe they're still in violence, haven't come down from the adrenaline, and aren't explaining why they're angry. When this is the case, you might want to try priming. Prime when you believe that the other person still has something to share and might do so with a little more effort on your part.

The power-listening term priming comes from the expression "priming the pump." If you've ever worked an old-fashioned hand pump, you understand the metaphor. With a pump, you often have to pour some water into it to get it running. Then it works just fine. When it comes to power listening, sometimes you have to offer your best guess at what the other person is thinking or feeling. You have to pour some meaning into the pool before the other person will do the same.

REMEMBER YOUR ABCs

Agree

As you watch families and work groups take part in heated debates, it's common to notice a rather intriguing phenomenon. Although the various parties you're observing are violently arguing, in truth, they're in violent agreement. They actually agree on every important point, but they're still fighting. They've found a way to turn subtle differences into a raging debate.

Most arguments consist of battles over the 5 to 1 0 percent of the facts and stories that people disagree over. And while it's true that people eventually need to work through differences, you shouldn't start there. Start with an area of agreement.

So here's the take-away. If you completely agree with the other person's path, say so and move on. Agree when you agree. Don't turn an agreement into an argument.

Build

Of course, the reason most of us turn agreements into debates is because we disagree with a certain portion of what the other person has said. Never mind that it's a minor portion. If it's a point of disagreement, we'll jump all over it like a fleeing criminal.

Now when the other person has merely left out an element of the argument, skilled people will agree and then build. Rather than saying: "Wrong. You forgot to mention..." they say: "Absolutely. In addition, I noticed that..."

If you agree with what has been said but the information is incomplete, build. Point out areas of agreement and then add elements that were left out of the discussion.

Compare

Finally, if you do disagree, compare your path with the other person's. That is, rather than suggesting that he or she is wrong, suggest that you differ. He or she may, in fact, be wrong, but you don't know for sure until you hear both sides of the story. For now, you just know that the two of you differ. So instead of pronouncing "Wrong!" start with a tentative but candid opening such as "I think I see things differently. Let me describe how."

CH. 9: Move to Action

How to Turn Crucial Conversations into Action and Results

DIALOGUE IS NOT DECISION MAKING

The two riskiest times in crucial conversations tend to be at the beginning and at the end. The beginning is risky because you have to find a way to create safety or else things go awry. The end is dicey because if you aren't careful about how you clarify the conclusion and decisions flowing from your Pool of Shared Meaning, you can run into violated expectations later on. This can happen in two ways.

DECIDE HOW TO DECIDE

Both of these problems are solved if, before making a decision, the people involved decide how to decide. Don't allow people to assume that dialogue is decision making. Dialogue is a process for getting all relevant meaning into a shared pool. That process, of course, involves everyone. However, simply because everyone is allowed to share their meaning-actually encouraged to share their meaning-doesn't mean they are then guaranteed to take part in making all the decisions. To avoid violated expectations, separate dialogue from decision making. Make it clear how decisions will be made-who will be involved and why.

When the line of authority is clear. When you're in a position of authority, you decide which method of decision making you'll use. Managers and parents, for example, decide how to decide. It's part of their responsibility as leaders.

When the line of authority isn't clear. When there is no clear line of authority, deciding how to decide can be quite difficult.

The Four Methods of Decision Making

Command

Let's start with decisions that are made with no involvement whatsoever. This happens in one of two ways. Either outside forces place demands on us (demands that leave us no wiggle room), or we tum decisions over to others and then follow their lead. We don't care enough to be involved-let someone else do the work.

Consult

Consulting is a process whereby decision makers invite others to influence them before they make their choice. You can consult with experts, a representative population, or even everyone who wants to offer an opinion. Consulting can be an efficient way of gaining ideas and support without bogging down the decision making process. At least not too much. Wise leaders, parents, and even couples frequently make decisions in this way. They gather ideas, evaluate options, make a choice, and then inform the broader population.

Vote

Voting is best suited to situations where efficiency is the highest value-and you're selecting from a number of good options. Members of the team realize they may not get their first choice, but frankly they don't want to waste time talking the issue to death. They may discuss options for a while and then call for a vote. When facing several decent options, voting is a great time saver but should never be used when team members don't agree to support whatever decision is made. In these cases, consensus is required.

Consensus

This method can be both a great blessing and a frustrating curse. Consensus means you talk until everyone honestly agrees to one decision. This method can produce tremendous unity and high quality decisions. If misapplied, it can also be a horrible waste of time. It should only be used with (1) high-stakes and complex issues or (2) issues where everyone absolutely must support the final choice.

HOW TO CHOOSE

Four Important Questions

When choosing among the four methods of decision making, consider the following questions.

1. Who cares?

Determine who genuinely wants to be involved in the decision along with those who will be affected. These are your candidates for involvement. Don't involve people who don't care.

2. Who knows?

Identify who has the expertise you need to make the best decision. Encourage these people to take part. Try not to involve people who contribute no new information.

3. Who must agree?

Think of those whose cooperation you might need in the form of authority or influence in any decisions you might make. It's better to involve these people than to surprise them and then suffer their open resistance.

4. How many people is it worth involving?

Your goal should be to involve the fewest number of people while still considering the quality of the decision along with the support that people will give it. Ask: "Do we have enough people to make a good choice? Will others have to be involved to gain their commitment?"

DECISION-MAKING BLUNDERS AND SOLUTIONS

Appropriate Use of Command

So as you face a potential "command decision," consider the following:

• Don't pass out orders like candy

• When you face a command decision, ask which elements are flexible.

• Explain why.

The Dos and Don'ts of Consultation

• Don't pretend to consult.

• Announce what you're doing.

• Report your decision.

Holding a Good Vote

• Weigh the consequences

• Know when to vote.

• Don 't cop out with a vote.

Surviving the Joys of Consensus

• Don't force consensus onto everything.

• Don't pretend that everyone gets his or her first choice.

• No martyrs please. Healthy teams and families are good at coming to consensus because they're good at dialogue. They don't toggle from silence to violence or otherwise play games in order to get their way.

• Don't take turns

Decisions should be based on merit, not on who offers up the options. Don't take turns getting your way.

• Don't engage in post decision lobbying.

• Don't say "I told you so."

MAKING ASSIGNMENTS - PUTTING DECISIONS INTO ACTION

As you might suspect, when you're involved with two or more people, there's a chance that there will be some confusion. To avoid common traps, make sure you consider the following four elements:

• Who?

• Does what?

• By when?

• How will you follow up?

DOCUMENT YOUR WORK

Write down the details of conclusions, decisions, and assignments. Remember to record who does what by when. Revisit your notes at key times (usually the next meeting) and review assignments.

CH. 10: Putting It All Together [Tools for Preparing and Learning. This chapter has a quick revision of all the concepts.]

CH. 11: Yeah, But Advice for Tough Cases [Some examples and practical notes.]

CH. 12: Change Your Life

How to Turn Ideas into Habits?

TRANSFER TIPS

Given the challenges of altering routine scripts, can people actually change? Early in our research, we (the authors) once examined forty-eight front-line supervisors who were learning how to hold crucial conversations. As we watched the trainees back at work, it became clear to us that only a few of them transferred what they had learned in the classroom back to their work site. The bad news is that most of them didn't change an iota. The good news is that some of them did. In fact, they used the new skills precisely as instructed. The supervisors who found a way to apply the new skills taught us the following four principles for turning ideas into action:

• First, master the content.

That means not only do you have to be able to recognize what works and why, but you have to generate new scripts of your own.

• Second, master the skills.

You must be able to enact these new scripts in a way that is consistent with the supporting principles. As it turns out, simply understanding a concept isn't enough. While it's helpful, even necessary to talk the talk, you have to be able to walk the talk. You have to be able to say the right words with the right tone and nonverbal actions. When it comes to social skills, knowing and doing are two different animals.

• Third, enhance your motive.

You must want to change. This means that you have to care enough about improving your crucial conversation skills to actually do something. You have to move from a passive sense that it would be a good idea to change, to an active desire to seek opportunities. Ability without motive lies dormant and untapped.

• Fourth, watch for cues.

To overcome surprise, emotion, and scripts, you must recognize the call to action. This is usually people's biggest obstacle to change. Old stimuli generate old responses. If a problem doesn't cue your new skills, you'll return to your old habits without even realizing you missed a chance to try something new.