Dear YS,

We have been practicing crucial conversation skills at work, and overall, things are progressing well. We've enjoyed some fantastic, transparent conversations about these skills and their principles. Nonetheless, a few team members have expressed that these skills only work if both people utilize them. I politely disagreed, asserting that just one participant applying the skills can lead to a fruitful Crucial Conversation. I’m struggling to articulate this idea more clearly. How can I demonstrate that it holds true?

Signed, Ajay

Dear Ajay,

When I first participated in Crucial Conversations, I echoed the same sentiment as your colleagues—that effective disagreement relies on both parties employing the skills and principles taught in the course.

I shared my thoughts with the trainer and asked for his opinion. While I don't recall his exact words, I distinctly remember the clarity his response brought me, best captured by this question: In a crucial conversation with someone who is dishonest or disrespectful, would your lack of skill application still prove efficient?

This inquiry underscores a crucial principle of crucial conversations: personal responsibility. It illustrates that, regardless of the circumstances or the individuals involved, we have the freedom to determine our responses, and those responses can significantly affect the outcomes.

However, before you present this idea to your peers in hopes of convincing them, there's something additional to consider. Your colleagues might be emphasizing what is often termed good faith, an essential element for healthy disagreement.

A discussion in good faith sees both participants treating each other with respect, being open about their intentions, and genuinely aiming for constructive communication.

In contrast, a bad faith discussion is marked by one or both parties focusing on "winning" the argument or pressuring the other, often employing deceitful or manipulative tactics. (Here’s a more detailed explanation of how good faith and bad faith relate to dialogue.)

While the term "good faith" isn’t explicitly used in Crucial Conversations, the principle is indeed taught. We refer to it as good intent, which rests on a foundation of mutual purpose and mutual respect. These elements foster psychological safety, crucial for productive dialogue during conflicts. If I feel disrespected or perceive a lack of understanding regarding my goals, it’s improbable that we will engage in a constructive disagreement.

Over time, numerous people have posed variations of the question, "What can I do in a Crucial Conversation if the other person is acting in bad faith?" Our typical response is to make safety the subject of the conversation. It may be necessary to set aside the disagreement’s specifics to discuss motives and good faith. Often, someone acting in bad faith merely needs a reminder about the value of respectful and honest disagreement.

We also recognize that striving to cultivate a sense of psychological safety can be beneficial. Frequently, an individual engaging in bad faith does so because they feel unsafe, a concern that can often be addressed by creating a sense of safety.

Thus, while productive disagreement requires both individuals to operate in good faith, it only takes one person to spark change.

In other words, your colleagues are correct that both parties must engage in good faith for effective disagreement. Yet your stance is also valid: even when the other party is operating in bad faith, you can apply the skills learned in Crucial Conversations to promote safety and establish ground rules rooted in mutual purpose and respect.

That is my viewpoint. I hope it offers you some insight.

One clarification: in your question, you mentioned a “successful Crucial Conversation.” I have referred to it instead as “productive disagreement” to focus on the process rather than the outcome.

While many disagreements lead to some resolution, and that is indeed the goal, I believe that a productive disagreement does not necessarily mean that a resolution is achieved, that one party convinces the other, or that a compromise is reached—not immediately, at least. It does not imply that emotions such as anger or frustration will not emerge or that these feelings won’t be challenging to navigate. By productive disagreement, I simply mean that viewpoints are shared openly and that good faith, in the end, remains intact.

I’m unsure if this aligns with your interpretation of a “successful Crucial Conversation,” but I encourage you to contemplate what it truly means to you.

Regarding your discussions with colleagues, my suggestion is this: express your perspective with honesty and respect, and remind them that they are welcome to share their thoughts candidly.

In essence, strive to apply the skills you’ve been learning together. This approach could be the most convincing argument you can present.

YS

---

For more details, visit our website: https://byldgroup.com/

Or call at: 1800-102-1345