Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most

by Douglas Stone

We believe a major reason change efforts so often fail is that successful implementation eventually requires people to have difficult conversations – and they are not prepared to manage them skillfully.

Think about it: Do the people in your organization deal with conflicts directly, routinely, and well? Or does the e-mail and water-cooler chat continue to focus on all the ways the organization is dysfunctional, even as important conversations are avoided?

We all know this dilemma. We go round and round on the same questions – Should I raise this? Or should I keep it to myself?

Why is it so difficult to decide whether to avoid or to confront? Because at some level we know the truth: If we try to avoid the problem, we’ll feel taken advantage of, our feelings will fester, we’ll wonder why we don’t stick up for ourselves, and we’ll rob the other person of the opportunity to improve things. But if we confront the problem, things might get even worse. We may be rejected or attacked ; we might hurt the other person in ways we didn’t intend; and the relationship might suffer.

Most difficult conversations involve disagreement about what has happened or what should happen. Who said what and who did what? Who’s right, who meant what, and who’s to blame?

Three Conversations: What Happened Conversation, Feelings Conversation, Identity Conversation

Every difficult conversation also asks and answers questions about feelings. Are my feelings valid? Appropriate? Should I acknowledge or deny them, put them on the table or check them at the door? What do I do about the other person’s feelings? What if they are angry or hurt?

We conduct an internal debate over whether this means we are competent or incompetent, a good person or bad, worthy of love or unlovable. What impact might it have on our self-image and self-esteem, our future and our well-being?

Typically, instead of exploring what information the other person might have that we don’t, we assume we know all we need to know to understand and explain things.

“What Happened?” Conversation is where we spend much of our time in difficult conversations as we struggle with our different stories about who’s right, who meant what, and who’s to blame. On each of these three fronts – truth, intentions, and blame – we make a common but crippling assumption.

our whole stance in the conversation is built: I am right, you are wrong. This simple assumption causes endless grief.

difficult conversations are almost never about getting the facts right. They are about conflicting perceptions, interpretations, and values.

It isn't about being right

The error we make in the realm of intentions is simple but profound : we assume we know the intentions of others when we don’t. Worse still, when we are unsure about someone’s intentions, we too often decide they are bad.

Most difficult conversations focus significant attention on who’s to blame for the mess we’re in.

When competent, sensible people do something stupid, the smartest move is to try to figure out, first, what kept them from seeing it coming and, second, how to prevent the problem from happening again.

The Identity Conversation looks inward: it’s all about who we are and how we see ourselves. How does what happened affect my self-esteem, my self-image, my sense of who I am in the world? What impact will it have on my future? What self-doubts do I harbor? In short: before, during, and after the difficult conversation, the Identity Conversation is about what I am saying to myself about me.

Identity, Feelings, and What Happened (Facts to suit your feeelings / identity) all overlap. When hear something that does not fit with your identity / facts, emotions are triggered

Instead of wanting to persuade and get your way, you want to understand what has happened from the other person’s point of view, explain your point of view, share and understand feelings, and work together to figure out a way to manage the problem going forward.

Changing our stance means inviting the other person into the conversation with us, to help us figure things out. If we’re going to achieve our purposes, we have lots we need to learn from them and lots they need to learn from us. We need to have a learning conversation.

In a charitable mood, you may think, “Well, everyone has their opinion,” or, “There are two sides to every story.” But most of us don’t really buy that.

Especially when emotions kick in

We can’t just pretend there is no disagreement, that it doesn’t matter, or that it’s all the same to us. It does matter, it’s not all the same to us. That’s why we feel so strongly about it in the first place.

When she complains, it’s not because she wants answers, it’s because she likes the connection she feels when she keeps people current on her daily comings and goings.

Why is it always the other person who is naive or selfish or irrational or controlling? Why is it that we never think we are the problem?

We don’t see ourselves as the problem because, in fact, we aren’t. What we are saying does make sense. What’s often hard to see is that what the other person is saying also makes sense.

Opposing perspectives are better understood by the other person.

Telling someone to change makes it less rather than more likely that they will. This is because people almost never change without first feeling understood.

To get anywhere in a disagreement, we need to understand the other person’s story well enough to see how their conclusions make sense within it. And we need to help them understand the story in which our conclusions make sense. Understanding each other’s stories from the inside won’t necessarily “solve” the problem, but as with Karen and Trevor, it’s an essential first step.

overwhelming. We simply can’t take in all of the sights, sounds, facts, and feelings involved in even a single encounter. Inevitably, we end up noticing some things and ignoring others. And what we each choose to notice and ignore will be different. Second, we each have access to different information.

But rather than assuming we already know everything we need to, we should assume that there is important information we don’t have access to. It’s a good bet to be true.

This 100 times

Often, it is only in the context of someone’s past experience that we can understand why what they are saying or doing makes any kind of sense.

Whether we are aware of them or not, we all follow such rules. They tell us how the world works, how people should act, or how things are supposed to be.

We get into trouble when our rules collide.

Raiffa found that sellers, in their heart of hearts, believed the company to be worth on average 30 percent more than the independently assessed fair market value. Buyers, in turn, valued it at 30 percent less.

curious. Instead of asking yourself, “How can they think that?!” ask yourself, “I wonder what information they have that I don’t?”

The process by which we construct our stories about the world often happens so fast, and so automatically, that we are not even aware of all that influences our views.

The mere act of understanding someone else’s story doesn’t require you to give up your own. The And Stance allows you to recognize that how you each see things matters, that how you each feel matters.

The And Stance is based on the assumption that the world is complex, that you can feel hurt, angry, and wronged, and they can feel just as hurt, angry, and wronged. They can be doing their best, and you can think that it’s not good enough. You may have done something stupid, and they will have contributed in important ways to the problem as well. You can feel furious with them, and you can also feel love and appreciation for them.

Does the suggestion to “understand the other person’s story” always apply, even when, for example, I’m firing or breaking up with someone?

It’s about the terrible fear and sadness you feel as you imagine her becoming sick, and your rage at feeling powerless to make her stop. It’s about her need to feel independent, to break out of the “good girl” mold that feels so suffocating. It’s about her own ambivalence doing something that makes her feel good and at the same time truly frightens her.

find that being the one who’s right doesn’t get you very far.

important. Remember, understanding the other person’s story doesn’t mean you have to agree with it, nor does it require you to give up your own.

Intentions strongly influence our judgments of others: If someone intended to hurt us, we judge them more harshly than if they hurt us by mistake.

We also often attribute malice when it was just a mistake.

When Lori says “You have this need to control me or put me down,” she is talking about Leo’s intentions. Her mistake is to assume she knows what Leo’s intentions are, when in fact she doesn’t.

Leo’s mistake is to assume that once he clarifies that his intentions were good, Lori is no longer justified in being upset.

As a result, he doesn’t take the time to learn what Lori is really feeling or why.

we make an attribution about another person’s intentions based on the impact of their actions on us. We feel hurt; therefore they intended to hurt us. We feel slighted; therefore they intended to slight us.

fundemental attribution error, we use current or prior info / beliefs to come to (pre-ordained) conclusions.

We attribute intentions to others all the time. With business and even personal relationships increasingly conducted via e-mail, voice mail, faxes, and conference calls, we often have to read between the lines to figure out what people really mean. When a customer writes “I don’t suppose you’ve gotten to my order yet . . . ,” is he being sarcastic? Is he angry? Or is he trying to tell you that he knows you’re busy? Without tone of voice to guide us, it is easy to assume the worst.

When your husband forgets to pick up the dry cleaning, he’s irresponsible. When you forget to book the airline tickets, it’s because you’re overworked and stressed out.

we easily jump from “they had bad intentions” to “they are a bad person.” We settle into judgments about their character that color our view of them and, indeed, affect not only any conversation we might have, but the entire relationship.

Our assumptions about the other person’s intentions often come true, even when they aren’t true to begin with. You think your boss isn’t giving you enough responsibility. You assume that this is because she doesn’t trust you to do the work well. You feel demotivated by this state of affairs, figuring that nothing you do will change your boss’s mind.

When we think others have bad intentions toward us, it affects our behavior. And, in turn, how we behave affects how they treat us. Before we know it, our assumption that they have bad intentions toward us has come true.

He assumes that because he had good intentions, Lori should not feel hurt.

Good intentions don't minimize bad impact

When they say, “Why were you trying to hurt me?” they are really communicating two separate messages: first, “I know what you intended,” and, second, “I got hurt.” When we are the person accused, we focus only on the first message and ignore the second. Why? Because we feel the need to defend ourselves.

defensivness is part of the identity / emotion connection. We don't see ourselves as the bad guy