Dear Crucial Skills,
Recently I was teaching Crucial Conversations to a group and we were practicing how to establish psychological safety when one of the learners asked, “What should you do if you don’t feel safe during a conversation?” I muddled through a response but I’m not sure I really answered the question. The course teaches us how to help others feel psychologically safe during a Crucial Conversation, but what should you do if you feel psychologically unsafe?
Signed,
Unsure
Dear Unsure,
The answer is as simple as it is challenging: You are responsible for your own safety.
I’ve learned as much from Ron McMillan (my co-author and long-time business partner) as from any other single person about what healthy communication looks like. One striking moment was during a high-stakes negotiation. Ron and I had gone through three rounds in an effort to strike a deal with the CEO of a partner organization. Each time we proposed a deal, the CEO would begin the next meeting with a substantially lower offer. By the fourth meeting I was about to blow.
Why? Because I felt threatened. I had concluded that this CEO was trying to manipulate and abuse me. I felt like a victim. And I felt like a victim because I had made myself out to be one. I had unconsciously shifted responsibility for my interests to another person. In truth, he couldn’t threaten me. All he could do was walk away from a deal.
When you don’t feel safe, it is for one of two reasons:
- You perceive someone is threatening you physically or materially (“I’m going to fire you” or “I’m going to leave you” or “I’m going to hit you”).
- You perceive someone is threatening you psychologically (“I don’t care about you” or “I don’t trust you” or “I don’t respect you”).
If you lack safety of the first type, there should be no debate that it’s up to you to secure it. You need to find another job, for example, or repair or replace the relationship, or find protection. If you stand around feeling put out that others have fixed your problems, you’ll get run over by life. Type 1 problems are straightforward.
It’s the Type 2 problems that lead us astray. And our straying leads us to a life of victimhood and rescuing.
Victimhood
I felt like a victim in the negotiation with the CEO because I had unconsciously shifted responsibility for my psychological safety to him. I had assumed he was responsible for making me feel respected. That was never his job. I didn’t realize this until I looked at Ron.
The CEO opened the fourth meeting by sliding a piece of paper across the table with a handwritten number that was 40% lower than we had previously agreed to. While my stomach churned with acid, I looked at Ron to discover he was the picture of peace.
Ron looked down at the note, looked confused, and said calmly and sincerely, “I can see why this is a good deal for you. I can’t see why it’s a good deal for us. Can you help me understand why we would accept these terms?”
Color drained from the CEOs face. He stammered, smiled guiltily, then said, “Well, no. I can’t.”
We left with a reasonable deal. But I left with a revelation. Ron wasn’t looking for validation from the CEO. He didn’t need approval or respect. He carried that in himself.
It has taken years of work for me to develop that kind of maturity, but the effort began that day. Whenever I feel like a victim, I look in myself for where I have given up responsibility and where I need to take it back.
Rescuing
The subtle corollary to assuming others are responsible for our sense of psychological safety is that we begin to assume we are responsible for others’ sense of safety. When we aren’t busy playing the role of victim in our own minds, we attempt to rescue those who are.
The argument that you are responsible for your own safety might appear to contradict what we teach in Crucial Conversations. We go to great lengths to teach people how to help others feel safe. But at no time do we suggest you are responsible for making them feel safe. There is a difference between taking responsibility for being respectful and taking responsibility for whether someone feels respected. One is doable.
It is the very belief that we can somehow make others feel respected that justifies the silence, sugar-coating, understating and avoidance that corrupt relationships. We tell ourselves it is our job to rescue others from hurt feelings, so we measure how much of our real selves and honest perspectives we should share before it will cause them to crumble.
As a result, we commit to a life of calculation and manipulation. The result is relationships of alienation rather than true connection.
For a bit more insight, I highly recommend you read Chapter 10 of the third edition of Crucial Conversations. It is a brand new chapter called “Retake Your Pen” that addresses in depth what it takes to deal with Type 2 safety problems. It takes a lifetime of work to develop inner sources of worth and self-respect, but it’s the only real path to peace and connection.
Thank you for your partnership with us in lifting and changing lives.
Warmly,
Joseph
Joseph this is so well said! I carry my safety inside of me. There is peace and empowerment in that. You and Ron continue to bless me and others. Thank you. 💕
This was absolutely a critical read for me with my current employment climate. Thank you for teaching me about how to be respectful to myself and to my superiors without feeling and displaying inferiority.
What a great response! Reading Ron’s response was definitely thought provoking. I am usually the one that gets upset when a situation like the example takes place and feel frustrated that it doesn’t work out like I want it to. I will try to learn from your experience and reevaluate myself the next time I’m in that position. Thank you for always sharing such great information!
Thank you for this wonderful and so well said insight. I, too, have struggled to answer that question in classes and you have provided the perfect answer.
The clarity of what’s at stake and who’s responsible for psychological safety speaks to real life tools we can use. I am grateful, too, for the personal stories that Joseph shares that demonstrate true empathy. Thanks so much!
So what are women supposed to say to a nation of people who are dead set on forcing women to carry a baby to term, even if the female is a twelve year old female impregnated by incest, rape, or seduction?
“I can see how this is a good deal for the woman. I can’t see how this a good deal for the baby. Can you help me understand why it is okay to kill a baby?”
Jacqueline
Nice use of the message. Often we all take on the position of just going for what we want and not seeing the others point of view without becoming a victim over not getting our own way. All the way up to something as contentions as abortion or COVID vaccine. The hard part is when you ask these hard questions how do we also help people understand it is their responsibility to make their own lives feel safe even if “society” “family” or “employer” do not agree with our opinion. The change over the last 50 years from win-lose in childhood games to participation is the whole game has not helped. Instead of learning to deal with losing and winning with emotional safety, we do not. I believe this has been a disservice to our social self safety responsibility. Now so few have to re-teach generations of Americans, including me, before this lack of self responsibility permanently damages our society.
i dig the challenge of your question and that of its first response; thanks, you two, for exposing a disagreement within this framing.
“why doesn’t this framing work here?” is the question i have for trainers… and the answer i have so far: framing is always personal, and crucial skills depend on personalistic behavior, (i.e. without a socially conscious component), it’s bound to fail in up to half of your interactions (with the half who don’t recognize –or worse, abuse– the power of framing).
…and *when* crucial skills depend on personalistic behavior…
It is interesting that you label “framing” in a crucial conversation as abuse when it doesn’t meet your socially conscious component. It was a statement and a question. All which are not abuse. You don’t agree and don’t want to have the crucial conversation.
ah! that wasn’t the message i intended to get across…I’m open to your input on what i said that made it sound like i didn’t want to have a crucial conversation or that social consciosness was more than just considering the other person in the conversation…maybe emotionally conscious would’ve been more apt?. let’s see if we can make it safe for consumption.
my point about abusive framing was in general that such a thing can happen, not particular to this interaction (between you/me or you/questioner). no, the bigger point i was trying to make is that when crucial skills require another to defend their own safety (i.e. without input from anyone else, esp those who aren’t considering each other’s safety, i.e. not “socially/emotionally conscious”), then the failure rate is higher. for example, when i talk to most people outside this community, i find it helpful to warn them that i intend to use these skills because without warning them i have evidence that i come off creepily calculating about their emotional safety.
anyway i was not trying to take a side in this particular disagreement, just calling attention to the fact that even two crucially skilled students (who presumably pick up on the very “social/emotional consciousness” being taught here) can use the skills and still not reach a resolution (other than to stop the conversation)… i think it’s bound to happen, and i struggle with what comes after such a disconnection…
open to your input, and thanks for considering!
A crucial conversation may not reach a resolution and for either party to feel psychologically safe the best option may be as you suggested to end the conversation. In this teaching the crucial skills are to be respectful in the crucial conversation. You are not responsible if the person feels or does not feel respected. Trying to rescue them to avoid a disconnect puts you back in the victim mode. As Steven Thomas pointed out it is your own social self responsibility to deal with winning or losing, be it a game or a disagreement. At least you had the crucial conversation.
I appreciate the way you explained how to attain psychological safety with Type 2 problems and I’m grateful to you for writing this article. I am, however, confused about the way you described Type 1 problems as “straightforward.” I believe the people who have experienced serious Type 1 problems would describe them as anything but straightforward – and often, in a Type 1 situation, the person who is feeling threatened will need help from another person. Indeed, many Type 1 problems occur in the first place because of long-standing systemic imbalances or injustices, which require a community approach to solve. While I agree that this article is not the place to discuss how to respond to Type 1 problems, it would be helpful to offer a few words to acknowledge their complexity and perhaps offer links to some resources.
You got me thinking about how to discuss straightforward problems/situations that have complex solutions. Thank you.
Thank you Joseph, for your insights. This is truly holy work that you do, bringing honesty and peace into human communications. As I read your work, many conversations I have observed or participated in come to mind. I realize that better outcomes are possible. As a LIfe Coach, I will review and revitalize my process and communication style to help me become more effective as well in personal interactions.
Your organizations publications have given me many opportunities for deep reflection and increased awareness. This is really great work.
just wondering if we can find anything to refine here or if we all have to stay exclusively complimentary… i used to notice a lot more criticism (and i don’t think that’s because advice here was much worse a few years ago; the newsletters have often been uber-insightful since i started reading 20ish years ago) … any word on how to invite criticism/exploration here? is it just not the right place?
Thanks, Bean. I think there is always opportunity to refine our understanding here. Has interaction on our blog changed over the last 20 years? Probably, though I couldn’t say why. Is this the right place to explore ideas or critique viewpoints? Absolutely. You can also send us your questions, and we may answer in a new post.
ok, thanks.
i started a convo above trying to come to terms with how the skills fail sometimes… in this case, i’m trying to highlight the implicit dichotomy between the crucially skilled student (who is expected to not only defend their own safety personally but make it safe for the other by being extra cognizant of their approach in order to make it the least offensive) and the other interlocutor (who hasn’t necessarily practiced these skills but will hopefully benefit from them). Even when it doesnt come off patronizing, there’s an emotional burden being assumed by the students here for the greater good (and hopefully a personal benefit too). it’s clearly a valuable approach, but the lop-sidedness of it makes it easy to waste resources unless one is already in a position of leadership. Not only that, the sense of disconnection engendered by having to have enough “relationship” (i.e. R from CPR) conversations can take a major emotional toll. I had to cut off a bunch of relationships after many extra years in a program trying to exercise these skills the best i could. i don’t know that i’m worse off for it, but crucial skills are pretty mum on what happense next…
thanks for listening
my reply didn’t actually reply! burn!
Hey Bean, for some reason your other comment was held up by WordPress and had to be manually approved. It’s up now.
And thanks for raising the points. If I understand you correctly, I agree that Crucial Conversations skills do not guarantee a resolution. They greatly improve your odds of resolving disagreement, but you may find occasions where they don’t.
What should you do then? I come back to what’s suggested in the post above and in the principles generally: treat others with respect, and act responsibly. If you can’t resolve differences or disagreement, how might you end the conversation (or the relationship) respectfully? And, if you exit a Crucial Conversation without resolving the disagreement, how might you then address the challenge responsibly?
In my view, the root of Crucial Conversations is this: a deep respect for where my personhood ends and another’s begins. If I can’t achieve mutually favorable results through dialogue, I must respect the autonomy of the other person and take responsibility for the situation I wish to change. Sometimes that may mean letting go or taking a different course of action altogether.
Applying the Crucial Conversations skills is not always straightforward. The fact that you’re questioning them and testing their application makes you a true practitioner and scientist in my view. Thank you.
huh! i didn’t get a message about it being stalled, so thanks for letting me know
I agree with your points for the most part (i believe in a fundamental respect for another’s autonomy and want to go around in the wolrd responsible for how my behaviors reach my goals), but you and I (an anyone else here who agress) are in the same silo; i wonder how to deal with (situations where lacal leaders who have enouhg power to set the culture. (leaving is not an option in some cases, and in many other cases it’s the culture itself ,i.e. high-turnover environments) let’s take tribespeople in a not-too-remote african village being recruited for civil wars; leaving is not an option, and fighting is all that remains in some (hopefully rarer and rare) cases. Too extreme? we could apply it to high-turnover environments we know and/or care more about: academia, finance, other cuthroat competitions where power rules by popularity.
i hope to make it apaarent that the skills we practice presume a level of privilege not afforded to many, i.e. in general,i think you can bet crucial skills will work best when you’re the one already in power…
(i just realized … i guess i always saw the foundational ideologies here to be more deomcratic than that! but i don’t know that they have to be… open to your –and others’– input. wasn’t the crucial skills system developed for situations like these? my sense of burden reminds me of that quote: “is it better to fix the world or appreciate it?”)
if we’ve veered too far off-topic…, then maybe you could hire me for your philosophy/ethics program! haha
thanks for engaging
Nope, haven’t veered too far off topic. I think what I’d like to do, though, is consolidate your points into a question and share it with the team, if you don’t mind. Perhaps we can publish in a forthcoming Q&A. I think the topic deserves a wider audience and is one our readers will find illuminating.
Wow, this was gold. Summarizing for myself: If we assume that our sense of safety is at the mercy of someone else, we likely start assuming that the same is true for others. We start projecting our own victimhood onto others who we believe may be victims too. Then, without being asked, we take on the responsibility of trying to rescue them, likely because that is what we wished someone else would have done for us in the past. We anoint ourselves ‘defenders of the oppressed’, but in doing so, disempower these ‘victims’ and rob them of their agency. I see a similarity to overprotective parenting. Instead of trying to save and protect people from the emotional discomfort they are experiencing in a negotiation ‘defeat’, we need to teach people to stop surrendering their power to victimhood mentality and remove their own ego from the process. We need to realize that our worth is not at stake. A negotiation is a skill assessment (a test of how good we are at negotiating), not an evaluation of our individual worth as a human being.
Ok, that was long but it sparked a lot of thoughts for me. Thanks for the brilliant insight, Joseph.
Interesting I have misunderstood this from my earlier Crucial Conversations trainings where I really thought it was up to the boss to make it safe for the subordinates and had talked about that with other organization leaders. Now I think we need to do more training to subordinate staff on their responsibility in the conversation to “make it safe” Thanks for this new clarity. Will especially help when dealing with family members including myself who occasionally adopt the victim role and insist on others making it safe.
just seeing if this one also gets hung up… i wonder if there’s a word limit…?
huh! i didn’t get a message about it being stalled, so thanks for letting me know
I agree with your points for the most part (i believe in a fundamental respect for another’s autonomy and want to go around in the wolrd responsible for how my behaviors reach my goals), but you and I (an anyone else here who agress) are in the same silo; i wonder how to deal with (situations where lacal leaders who have enouhg power to set the culture. (leaving is not an option in some cases, and in many other cases it’s the culture itself ,i.e. high-turnover environments) let’s take tribespeople in a not-too-remote african village being recruited for civil wars; leaving is not an option, and fighting is all that remains in some (hopefully rarer and rare) cases. Too extreme? we could apply it to high-turnover environments we know and/or care more about: academia, finance, other cuthroat competitions where power rules by popularity.
i hope to make it apaarent that the skills we practice presume a level of privilege not afforded to many, i.e. in general,i think you can bet crucial skills will work best when you’re the one already in power…
(i just realized … i guess i always saw the foundational ideologies here to be more deomcratic than that! but i don’t know that they have to be… open to your –and others’– input. wasn’t the crucial skills system developed for situations like these? my sense of burden reminds me of that quote: “is it better to fix the world or appreciate it?”)
if we’ve veered too far off-topic…, then maybe you could hire me for your philosophy/ethics program! haha
thanks for engaging