The first thing that surprised me was the comments from folks that made it clear that they were not familiar with the book or the work. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. Not everyone can have read everything that I find to be important.

Still, I’d suggest that anyone who has not read Crucial Conversations or Crucial Confrontations, and is working on/with/around any team, and particularly an agile team, should read one or the other (or both) immediately.

So there is my bias, right out there – these books are transformational and essential.

Second was the question “How does this apply to agile teams, specifically?”

That’s like saying “How does that computer keyboard apply to agile teams, specifically?”

Does a tool that works have to be specific to agile to be included in the conference? I’m a bit stumped by that. While I feel that these works do apply very specifically to agile teams, I’m still stumped. People will be talking about programming tools and process approaches and teaching games, any of which could be applied anywhere. So why is this different?

Interpersonal communication is one of the most critical skills someone on an Agile team can have. Knowing how to say “I felt upset” or “You made a commitment, but didn’t fulfill that commitment” is essential. And really, most people I know don’t know how to talk about this stuff. Without it, I believe that teams will fail. Without these skills, team members bottle up their upsets and frustrations – even happiness, sometimes – and they fester and then the team’s ability to work together breaks.

I’m hoping that this session gets accepted, because I really want to deliver it.  Really.

You give your hand to me
Then you say hello
I can hardly speak
My heart is beating so
And anyone can tell
You think you know me well
But you don’t know me

Relevance? Ah – well – I’ve mentioned that we all live in our own heads. Our understanding of the world, including the people in it, is all internal. So when I say “I know…” what I really mean is “I believe…”

There is no knowing, especially when it comes to others. The only things we can “know” are others’ behavior, because it’s the only thing we can see/experience directly. Even so, our experience/vision is colored and filtered by our own brains and our past experience, our current emotions, and so forth. There are times when my “reality” is entirely generated within my own head.

What does that mean? It means, first of all, that I must question all my assumptions about other people. Especially when I say things like “you were angry” or ” I know what you meant”. After all, I can’t really know these things, now can I?

Rather I can say “I think you were angry” or “I wonder if you were angry” or “Did you mean…?”

I’m back, once again, to the work of Patterson et al in Crucial Conversations. Because what I think I know is really my story – what I tell myself as a result of experiencing your behavior.

Lest you think I’m only talking about personal relationships, let me assure you once again that this applies to all relationships. It applies when I’m in meetings with people I hardly know (“What a jerk!”), when I’m having a conversation with a co-worker (“Why is she always…?”), or having coffee with a close friend (“He must be angry with me.”). All we know of each other is behavior – the observable stuff.

And what we think we know is really our perception of what happened.

I know that there have been many times when my wife and I have been in the same place at the same time, and remembered things differently. Everything from our first meeting (I say her outfit was mustard colored, she says it was greenish) to a conversation we had yesterday.

In police work, it’s ironic that so much weight is placed on eye witnesses, given the evidence that eye witnesses are incredibly unreliable. Consider the implications: all of us are unreliable when it comes to what we believe we saw or heard, and yet we generally remain convinced that we are right – that what we remember is reality, truth.

I’m with Descartes – the only thing I know for sure is that there is some entity doing the thinking (cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am). Everything else is subject to reasonable, rational doubt.

The next time you find yourself saying “Oh, I know her, and what she meant was…”, stop, think, and perhaps phrase it as a question or as a guess.

“I wonder if…”

“Do you think…”

“If it were me, I would mean…”

And then, ASK.

Motto

They are willing to argue, fight, persuade, convince, and argue some more to win you over to their point of view. This means that they have the tendency to dominate a discussion, in their passion for what they know to be true/right.

This has the effect of taking over a meeting so that it is entirely focused on the Zealot’s issue. Which suits the Zealot just fine, but does not contribute to the group’s overall success.

It is important to realize that the Zealot is thoroughly well-intentioned, believing that they are serving you/the group by convincing anyone and everyone of the rightness of their view. They have nothing but good intentions, in fact. You might find yourself having the opportunity to ask “the question” (see I feel sad) from Crucial Conversations.

Dealing with this requires the strength to choose when to cut off a conversation (The Facilitation Four-Step), offer to either park it or consider it done, and keep the group moving forward. Challenging, but relatively straightforward.  This also requires the support of the other participants, which is usually forthcoming.

I find myself thinking “I did X. I didn’t do Y. Debbie* will probably be upset that I did/didn’t.”

Do you do that?

When I catch myself, I stop, take a breath, and think “When’s the last time Debbie got upset about that? Hmm. Never, maybe? So why are you getting yourself all worked up about it?”

This ties back to the idea that we all live in our own heads, and interact with the world through behaviors – speech, action, results. I define results as the things I observe that can reasonably and rationally be assumed to be the result of someone’s behavior. Like coming home and finding that the bed is made. I didn’t make it, so someone must have. My wife was the only one home, so it was probably her. “Thanks for making the bed, Sweetie!”

In Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, Patterson et al (yes, I’m going to keep referring to this work – I think it’s seminal) talk about the Stories we tell ourselves, and understanding our Paths. In the example above (I did/didn’t whatever), my Path was the thinking that led me from what I did or didn’t do to assuming something about Debbie’s feelings, with no evidence to support that.  Assumptions – you know about assumptions.  Once I recognize my Path, and I can see my Story: “Debbie will probably be upset.” What happens when I tell myself that story? I feel angry/defensive/upset/hurt. That leads to me stepping out of the shower/kitchen/living room and acting on those feelings towards Debbie.

Poor Debbie is then sitting there wondering what she might have done to lead me to feel that way, or what kind of an ass am I for treating her that way, or…

The thing is, for a moment – just a moment – whatever is in my head seems to be real. What I expect, what I think someone else has/does/will feel, and therefore my emotional, mental, and physical reactions are based on that pseudo-reality that exists only inside of my head.

The challenge, therefore, is to stop and think in STATE terms: what has actually happened. Not what I think will happen or interpret, but what has actually happened. Has Debbie actually gotten upset? Do I have evidence to expect that she will feel upset? If so, I can choose my behavior, informed by what I know of her.

But thus far, it’s all in my head. Reacting based on what is in my head is something I can take control over. Now. Right now.

* Debbie is my amazing wife of 32.5 years. She hasn’t killed me or dumped me yet, so I’m hopeful that is’ going to last.