In fact, the topic of assertiveness is nothing other than the central idea of the four authors of the book on Crucial Conversations, which I have repeatedly recommended: how to avoid the traps of passive or aggressive behavior (and how to maintain the Safety Zone).
Similarly to assertiveness theory, the authors here are concerned with the question of how, in dialogue with another person, we can remain within the territory of mutual respect—the only place where a real meeting between us and the other is possible. Instead of offering “rights for assertive behavior,” however, they propose questions designed to help us step out of the vicious circle of circular interactions.
These are questions that make it possible to look at what is happening from above or from the side, and thus to see a way out of what had previously been a dead end (this is why I call them meta-questions). Among them, the most important question is:
— What is our shared goal?
This is the question that opens creative possibilities for thinking on a level different from the level of confrontation. This single question alone can be enough to find a way out of a conflict situation! And if it does not suffice (because communication is a complex matter), here are several more questions that carry the power to offer solutions:
-
What is my true intention for this conversation, and to what extent is my behavior aligned with that intention—or does it reveal a discrepancy?
-
If I notice a discrepancy between my intention and my behavior, what could I do differently in order to bring the two into alignment?
-
What do I truly not want for this conversation—that is, how can I achieve my goal while avoiding what I do not want?
-
Do I show a tendency in the conversation toward any of the forms of silence or violence that are the primary killers of dialogue between people? And what about the other person?
-
What threatens communicative safety between me and the other—do we have a shared goal, do I treat them with respect, what can I do so that they feel safe?
-
What is my version of what is happening between us? Is it possible that I am pretending not to be aware of my own contribution to the problem? Why would a reasonable, intelligent, and well-intentioned person do that?
-
Am I truly open to the other person’s opinion? Are we talking about the real issue? Am I actively exploring the other person’s perspective?
If we manage to ask ourselves these questions when a conversation with another person becomes difficult, we will be able to keep our thinking open and unbiased. This, in turn, creates the conditions for the other person also to open toward us and to be unbiased. These are questions that not only help us overcome our cognitive limitations, but also help us name—accurately—what prevents dialogue between us and the other from taking place in a full and meaningful way.
If you have already read Crucial Conversations, you have probably noticed that all the communication techniques proposed in the book represent different ways of shifting the conversation from the level of content to the level of relationship. All of them. This is because difficulties in our relationships usually arise not because we have trouble expressing what we think, but because there are barriers in the two-way exchange of our viewpoints. These barriers vary in nature, but what they have in common is that they are different forms of bias and insufficient openness to the other person’s perspective.
I know that the likelihood of applying something in practice increases when the knowledge is maximally simplified. That is why, in conclusion, I will offer a single key for conducting difficult conversations: to be unbiased and to genuinely want to understand the grounds of the other person’s perspective. Such an attitude opens doors that rigid certainty in our own rightness (especially regarding what is right for the other) keeps firmly closed.
The authors of Crucial Conversations also reduce communication skills to two basic communicative attitudes that should activate automatically when emotions are intense and a person wonders where to begin and how exactly to proceed. These are:
-
The attitude of being a vigilant observer of one’s own behavior (so that you can notice in time when a conversation has become crucial and take control of your own emotions),
-
Ensuring communicative safety when you notice that the dialogue is no longer a dialogue, because the free exchange of meaning has been interrupted.
The outer world is a reflection of the inner world. If we approach communication with others from this perspective and try to give them what we ourselves would like to receive from them when there is a divergence of views, we open the door through which a genuine meeting between us becomes possible. What is shared in Crucial Conversations shows what that door looks like. But whether we will walk through it depends on us—because the key to it is in our own pocket.
Kameliya Hadzhiyska
