In Crucial Conversations, the authors introduce the Agree, Build and Compare framework for guiding conversations towards agreement. These are the three modes we can assume as we prepare to respond to someone in a conversation. You agree when something is said that you truly agree with, you build upon statements you agree with but feel the need to add more detail to, and you compare between your view and the other persons view when you disagree. The aim of this framework is to find and leverage common ground in agreement such that the points of disagreement can be resolved. It helps us avoid concretizing into a permanent stance of offense or defense.
Agreement must be authentic for it to be recognized by the other party. Authenticity is established by what you say as well as how you say it. When you simply state “I agree”, you’re actually saying you agree with your own interpretation of what you’ve heard. This is a cognitive gap that can be closed with active listening. When you agree, be clear about what you’re agreeing with by restating the point in your own words — and only agree when you truly do agree! When the other party hears their own point being spoken by you that agreement will carry far more weight. This builds the trust and common ground that will become essential when you need to build or compare.
If you agree with the underlying principal of what someone has said, but think there’s more detail to be added, then build upon what the person said. As with agreeing, repeating back your interpretation of the point that you wish to build upon will help establish commonality and avoid you building upon a point the other party may not have intended. This is an opportunity to test the other persons willingness to accept the points that may be contentious or that you want absolute consensus on. It’s not, however, a chance to one-up and pile-on. If you agree with something and do not have something essential to add, then just agree. Before building, consider the value of the exercise. A conversation will become tiring for all parties if there’s an excess of tangential building that does not add value to the conversation.
Never state that you disagree. Instead, present a comparison between what you believe and what you’ve interpreted. This is crucial to avoiding the stalemate of assuming an offensive or defensive posture. Digging in, or concretizing, leaves no room for either party to exit the conversation with any resolution. The effectiveness of the comparison that you present will depend heavily on how much common-ground you’ve already established through agreeing and building. If the conversation is heading to an early point of disagreement then it may be prudent to side step that point. Starting the conversation with a vulnerable diversion by offering up something to the other person that reminds them you’re human establishes rapport and humility. Taking a step back from the contentious point and looking for agreement in broader, higher-level principals can help establish the essential common ground between you. As difficult as it may be to accept, you’re going to be best equipped to navigate this conversation if you’re prepared to disagree with the other persons point of view, but commit to aligning yourself to it nonetheless in order to make progress.
The agree, build and compare technique works because it focuses on finding and leveraging common ground as a means to reach a mutual understanding around points of disagreement. A fundamental common ground that always exists is that all parties in a conversation are human; faults and all. Remembering this is especially important in electronic communication where dehumanization is instant. Agree, build and compare works best in a face-to-face discussion not just because of the immediacy of the that engagement, but also because you can’t escape the fact that it’s another person you’re agreeing with where you can, building with where you want to, and comparing between where you have to.
