https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-... Based on the description. I read this too and it was enlightening. So +1.

I would say both. If you had to pick one, go with DC. However, there were some things in CC that I didn't find elsewhere. As an example, it focuses on how a lot of people don't realize they're in a poor/tense conversation until it's too late, and it emphasizes the need to develop the skill to become aware of this.

OTOH, CC attempts to prescribe how to behave are pretty poor. I would not focus too much effort on emulating those.

At first read, all 3 sound like fairly different books. A year after I read them, I was going over all the notes I had made for them, and was surprised to find out that all 3 are mostly saying the same things.

As for the authors:

Difficult Conversations: https://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-What-...

Crucial Conversations: https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...

NVC is just a tool. There are a number of them that accomplish the same or similar things using similar techniques and principles. Fundamentally, they are just tools for someone who actually wants to move the conversation forward. There are people who abuse the language for manipulation, and it comes across as insincere because they aren't actually trying to solve the problem at hand. I can name a few from my own past. NVC doesn't make people seem more or less selfish than they already are.

It's sort of like a programming language. It won't turn a shitty programmer into a good one, but it will turn a good programmer into a more situationally effective one. The hardest part isn't learning the programming language, it's becoming a better programmer.

The first lesson in the book I learned from, Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...), is to recognize when you are becoming emotionally driven (angry, defensive, etc.) and to step back from it. Another key lesson is to focus on identifying and solving the collective problem - the key point is that in the vast majority of cases, especially in the workplace, there is a formulation of the problem such that everyone is trying to solve it, but they are just disagreeing on how to approach it. In my own experience that's been consistently true.

These are both introspective processes of first getting yourself into the right mindset and then employing the communication tools. Learning to first be generous to other people was the hardest and also the most crucial change, whether or not I had communication tools to go with it.

Crucial Conversations - https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...

Crucial Accountability - https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Accountability-Resolving-Expe...

Radical Candor - https://www.amazon.com/Radical-Candor-Kim-Scott/dp/B01KTIEFE...

Boundaries - https://www.amazon.com/Boundaries-Updated-Expanded-When-Cont...

Sorry to hear.

Check out Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...). It's a framework that I've found immensely helpful.

If interested, I do recommend you read the book, but you can still get something out of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFaXx3pgaxM (it's a summary masquerading as a review).

It plays out exactly as described in "Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High"[1]. Recommended.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...

No, not really. For this specific example, Damore knew the issue is a divisive one. If he didn't, then he does need to have some basic sensitivity training. From what I remember reading, he did acknowledge the issue was contentious. In that respect, there are ways and techniques to have that conversation. What Damore did was not that way. He should have consulted a resource like Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...) first.

I liked Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...) a lot.