“I sometimes struggle with the concern that I am ‘sugarcoating’ tough messages that I have to deliver to my colleagues and the people who work in the court.   How can I ‘make it safe,’ even when the results of the conversation will most likely be negative, such as providing people with constructive criticism, talking about serious issues, or letting someone know how their actions/words have hurt me?”

The essence of successful conversations is to maintain absolute candor with absolute respect. Far too many times people believe that if they were completely candid, they would destroy their relationships with others—or irreparably harm the other person.

The most important challenge in a tough conversation is to be both 100% honest and 100% respectful.

Now with that as your goal, there are two things to keep in mind as you measure your crucial conversations progress:

• Volatility or Sugary is Not Honesty. The show of emotion many people use during their crucial conversations often undermines their message rather than enhances it.  Angry or sugary sweet emotion can come across to some as an attempt to control or manipulate people and distracts from the power of the message itself.   That’s not to say the ideal is to be emotionally flat.  All I’m suggesting is that excessively harsh or sugary emotion is not a measure of candor—it’s crossing a line into something else. Deliver your tough message respectfully and calmly and you will come across has being 100% honest.
• Making it Safe to Share Tough Information:  The measure of success in a tough conversation is not that they like—or even agree with—the message you are delivering. 

You ask: “How can I make it safe when the result of the conversation is going to be negative?”

 That very question demonstrates a misunderstanding of this key point. Dialogue does not mean everyone is happy at the end.  It just means they are able to hear you and understand your point of view—and in the end, see how a “reasonable, rational, decent person” might think what you think—even if they disagree.  There are times when your conversation might lead someone to revise their view of themselves, their world, etc. and that revision can be painful.  They may want to deny the truth of what you share for a period of time in order to forestall the painful revision, but if the conditions for dialogue are present in the conversation, you’ll significantly increase the likelihood that they will eventually get there.

Years ago, I had a crucial conversation with an employee where my message was, “You’re fired.” I sat down with my employee and explained the facts of the situation.  He had committed a crime.  It was just before the holidays and I was sick at the thought of how this news would affect his family.  I was also in agony over the effect his criminal proceedings would have on him and his family.  But the truth was the truth.  I laid out the facts and asked him if there was any other reasonable way to interpret them.  His shoulders slumped and he confessed to what he had done.  I told him I was letting him go as a result of that offense.  And then I added, somewhat choked with emotion, “I am sorry.  I love your family and I know this will break their hearts. I will help in any way I appropriately can through this.”  I then elaborated on some ways I thought I could help.  He went to jail.  His family suffered.  And yet a year after he got out of jail, I was happy to receive a note from him thanking me for how I handled things and reporting on the better direction of his life.

He did not like my message, but he heard it. And because he felt safe with me—felt I cared about his interests and cared about him—he was more capable of contemplating what I was sharing with him.  That’s the measure of whether we get it right.

Best wishes to you in your ongoing effort to do the same!

Excerpts from Crucial Confrontations by Joseph Grenny