I kept leaving meetings that felt like turf wars.

Every concession on my end felt like ground they’d gained, and somehow I felt like I needed to defend my territory. Instead of aligning our troops to march in the same direction, they were colliding head-to-head.

But I had no idea what I was doing to cause this.

Practically, I’d been leading with my opinion: “Here’s how I’m seeing it, what would you push back on?” That sounds open, but stated first, it lands as a verdict to react to. People feel the intent: my specific POV was being presented, but they were told to voice their own opinions, which I by nature of already stating my opinion, felt like I needed to disagree with.

Step 1: Decide what kind of meeting it is before it starts.

I was missing a step before the meeting. The clarifying question: can their input still change the outcome?

• Inform – the decision is made. “This is decided; I want to walk you through the reasoning.”
• Consult – I have a leaning but haven’t decided. “I want your input before I decide.”
• Dialogue – genuinely open. “Let’s talk together about options.”

The trap was presenting the meeting as one to inform, when really what I wanted was a dialog.

Step 2: In a dialogue, their view comes first.

The fix (from Crucial Conversations) is AMPP before STATE: ask, mirror, and paraphrase their view first, then share mine tentatively.

• “How are you seeing this?”
• “What am I missing?”
• “So if I’m hearing you right, your concern is X?”

Then mine: “I might be wrong here — I’m viewing it as X. How does that compare to what you’re seeing? What would you push back on?”

Step 3: Agree without losing ground.

I don’t know how to agree well. Bottom line, that’s something I need to work on. Tactically:

• “You’re right about X, and that changes my view on the timeline. I think Y holds, though.”
• “That’s a good point. Let me think about what that changes.”
• “That’s a better. Let’s do that.”
• “I hear that.”

It’s a work in progress. I’m a work in progress.