Dear Crucial Skills,

It seems to me the Crucial Conversations skills presume a degree of privilege not afforded to many, that they work best if you’re in a position of power.

For example, imagine you’re in a cutthroat culture where people use authority and popularity and politicking to achieve ends and get their way when faced with disagreement. Wouldn’t the Crucial Conversations skills be moot in that situation—unless you were one of those who has power and authority?

I always thought the skills were essentially democratic, but now I’m second-guessing myself. And if they are, doesn’t that put the conversational burden on the person with the skills? What benefit is there to using the skills with someone trying to wield their power over you?

Signed,
Crucial Questioner

Dear Questioner,

We have received this question in many different forms over the years: Will these skills work with my boss? My parent? Does gender make a difference? What about ethnicity? Popularity? Education? Wealth?

It’s not that they work best if you’re in a position of privilege or power, it’s that you need them most if you are.

At the outset of a high-stakes disagreement, we experience a fight-or-flight response. Should I back down or step up? Give in or dig in?

Whether we flex or flee, argue or attempt to escape, often depends on what advantage we hold, or think we hold, in that given situation.

If we are predisposed to arguing (and some of us are) or believe we have the upper hand, the temptation is to wield our advantage in order to “win” the disagreement. This is known as coercion or manipulation, not dialogue.

Think of a recent heated and high-stakes disagreement you’ve had. Even if you are versed in the skills from Crucial Conversations, and even if you used them, for a brief moment you may have been tempted to wield whatever advantage you had or think you had. Or you may have recognized the other person doing this.

The problem with this approach is that it damages trust and respect. When we damage trust and respect, we compound our problems and disagreements.

Remember Kevin, from the book? In the second chapter of Crucial Conversations we describe our early research, in which we followed several top managers to see what set them apart. It didn’t take long for us to discover why Kevin’s peers had told us he was exceptional. It wasn’t because he was the VP.

What we learned from watching Kevin and others like him over the years is that top managers don’t wield their authority in crucial moments. Nor do they succumb to coercion when threatened with it. Whether they hold an advantage or disadvantage, they handle disagreements with respect and candor.

Here’s the thing. Wherever two or more people gather, there will be social disparity. Sometimes those disparities are obvious and outward. Usually they are subtle and nuanced and don’t appear until we disagree, for disagreement brings our differences to the surface. And in every disagreement, somebody will have an advantage. But to seek that advantage and wield it is to lean on a crutch that has the capacity to cripple you.

Why?

Because having the advantage is relative to context. How will you attempt to resolve disagreement when you find yourself at a disadvantage?

You may find it interesting that over the years we have just as often received the inverse of your question. People who find themselves in a position of privilege or power want to know how the skills will work for them. Will these dialogue skills work with my child? My sensitive direct report? My younger peer? My introverted partner?

These questions come from people who are mindful of an advantage they may hold, and they don’t want to wield it. They recognize that if they use their authority or seniority or any other social edge to coerce or compel, they will likely damage trust and respect.

In my view, your original thinking is correct: the skills taught in Crucial Conversations are essentially democratic. They are a great equalizer in those moments when we may be tempted to exploit social disparity to manipulate others. They teach us how to disagree with another person as a person, period.

Now, that doesn’t guarantee you can dissuade someone from malintent. You can only control how you show up. So, why should you use your Crucial Conversations skills with someone bent on not using them or ignorant to them? I’ll leave it to you to ponder that question.

Finally, does having good dialogue skills place a burden on you? Yes—if you see them as a burden. You might also see them as a blessing and a boon. An opportunity. I think this is why our company tag line is Power to Improve. By this we do not mean power as in force, but power as in personal sovereignty. You have it—the capacity to hold the center.

I appreciate you raising this question. I think it’s healthy to question the efficacy and the ethics of the skills we teach. Through critical thinking we might improve our understanding. And through a better understanding we might improve our ability. For me—and I think for most of us—both represent a lifelong endeavor.

Sincerely,
Ryan

PS. If you want to know whether you’re prone to arguing or retreating in high-stakes disagreements, take our Style Under Stress assessment. You’ll learn about your tendencies and get a free ebook on the ethics of disagreement, called The Heart of the Matter.