Is he a tough guy? "Pretty tough." What will he do? "Understand, probably." Boy, that IS tough.
- Three Days of the Condor
Two ugly options. This pernicious strategy is particularly well suited for keeping us off track. It's known as a Sucker's Choice. In order to justify an especially sordid behavior, we suggest that we're caught between two distasteful options. Either we can be honest and attack our spouse, or we can be kind and withhold the truth. Either we can disagree with the boss to help make a better choice - and get shot for it - or we can remain quiet, starve the pool, and keep our job. Pick your poison.
What makes these Sucker's Choices is that they're always set up as the only two options available. It's the worst of either/or thinking. The person making the choice never suggests there's a third option that doesn't call for unhealthy behavior. For example, maybe there's a way to be honest and respectful. Perhaps we can express our candid opinion to our boss and be safe.
Those offering up a Sucker's Choice either don't think of a third (and healthy) option - in which case it's an honest but tragic mistake - or set up the false dichotomy as a way of justifying their unattractive actions. "I'm sorry, but I just had to destroy the guy's self-image if I was going to keep my integrity. It wasn't pretty, but it was the right thing to do."
...
Search for the Elusive And
The best at dialogue refuse Sucker's Choices by setting up new choices. They present themselves with tougher questions - questions that turn the either/or choice into a search for the all-important and ever-elusive and. (It is an endangered species, you know.) Here's how this works.
First, clarify what you really want. You've got a head start if you've already Started with Heart. If you know what you want for yourself, for others, and for the relationship, then you're in position to break out of the Sucker's Choice.
"What I want is for my husband to be more reliable. I'm tired of being let down by him when he makes commitments that I depend on."
Second, clarify what you really don't want. This is the key to framing the and question. Think of what you are afraid will happen to you if you back away from your current strategy of trying to win or stay safe. What bad thing will happen if you stop pushing so hard? Or if you don't try to escape? What horrible outcome makes game-playing an attractive and sensible option?
"What I don't want is to have a useless and heated conversation that creates bad feelings and doesn't lead to change."
Third, present your brain with a more complex problem. Finally, combine the two into an and question that forces you to search for more creative and productive options than silence and violence.
"How can I have a candid conversation with my husband about being more dependable and avoid creating bad feelings or wasting our time?"
It's interesting to watch what happens when people are presented with and questions after being stuck with Sucker's Choices. Their faces become reflective, their eyes open wider, and they begin to think. With surprising regularity, when people are asked: "Is it possible that there's a way to accomplish both?" they acknowledge that there very well may be.
Is there a way to tell your peer your real concerns and not insult or offend him?
Is there a way to talk to your neighbors about their annoying behavior and not come across as self-righteous or demanding?
Is there a way to talk with your loved one about how you're spending money and not get into an argument?
- Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler, Crucial Conversations
