Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most

by Douglas Stone

Often we say “You intended to hurt me” when what we really mean is “You don’t care enough about me.” This is an important distinction.

Separating impact from intentions requires us to be aware of the automatic leap from “I was hurt” to “You intended to hurt me.”

by asking yourself three questions: 1. Actions: “What did the other person actually say or do?” 2. Impact: “What was the impact of this on me?” 3. Assumption: “Based on this impact, what assumption am I making about what the other person intended?”

Note that we aren’t suggesting you should get rid of your assumptions about their intentions. That just isn’t realistic. Nor do we suggest hiding your view. Instead, recognize your assumptions for what they are – mere guesses subject to modification or disproof.

Focusing on blame is a bad idea. Not because it’s hard to talk about. Nor because it can injure relationships and cause pain and anxiety. Many subjects are hard to discuss and have potentially negative side effects and are nonetheless important to address. Focusing on blame is a bad idea because it inhibits our ability to learn what’s really causing the problem and to do anything meaningful to correct it.

When blame is in play, you can expect defensiveness, strong emotion, interruptions, and arguments about what “good assistants,” “loving spouses,” or “any reasonable person” should or shouldn’t do. When we blame someone, we are offering them the role of “the accused,” so they do what accused people do: they defend themselves any way they can.

It has taken both of you to get into this mess. It will probably take both of you to get out. Recognizing that everyone involved in a situation has contributed to the problem doesn’t mean that everyone has contributed equally.

‘Ingabilungu,’ ” . . . . a Xhosa expression that means, “It is the whites.”

One of the most common contributions to a problem, and one of the easiest to overlook, is the simple act of avoiding. You have allowed the problem to continue unchecked by not having addressed it earlier.

The flip side of not bringing something up is having an interpersonal style that keeps people at bay. You contribute by being uninterested, unpredictable, short-tempered, judgmental, punitive, hypersensitive, argumentative, or unfriendly.

Seeing yourself through someone else’s eyes can help you understand what you’re doing to feed the system.

Unspoken feelings can color the conversation in a number of ways. They alter your affect and tone of voice. They express themselves through your body language or facial expression. They may take the form of long pauses or an odd and unexplained detachment. You may become sarcastic, aggressive, impatient, unpredictable, or defensive. Studies show that while few people are good at detecting factual lies, most of us can determine when someone is distorting, manufacturing, or withholding an emotion. That’s because, if clogged, your emotional pipes will leak.

Because good listening requires an open and honest curiosity about the other person, and a willingness and ability to keep the spotlight on them. Buried emotions draw the spotlight back to us.

There are several reasons why you may choose to honor others’ feelings even when it means dishonoring your own. The implicit rule you are following is that you should put other people’s happiness before your own. If your friends or loved ones or colleagues don’t get their way, they’ll feel bad, and then you’ll have to deal with the consequences.

Notice what Emily has communicated. She said, “You are self-absorbed. You are thoughtless.” Both of these are judgments about Roz. Neither of them is a statement of how Emily feels. Prodded by this observation, Emily is able to focus more clearly on her own feelings: “I guess I feel hurt.

I wanted to tell my story, to share my feelings. So why am I crying? Because now I know: they care enough about me to just listen.”

what concerns us most during difficult conversations: Am I competent? Am I a good person? Am I worthy of love?

You Will Make Mistakes. If you can’t admit to yourself that you sometimes make mistakes, you’ll find it more difficult to understand and accept the legitimate aspects of the other person’s story about what is going on.

Your Intentions Are Complex. Sometimes we get nervous about upcoming conversations because we know that our past behavior was not always motivated by good intentions.

You Have Contributed to the Problem. A third crucial step for grounding yourself involves assessing and taking responsibility for what you’ve contributed to the problem.

There’s nothing wrong (and plenty right) with not wanting to hurt someone, or wanting them to like you even after you convey bad news. Yet holding this as a purpose in the conversation leads to trouble.

The same dynamic applies to giving bad news at work. When you fire someone, that person will likely be upset, and possibly upset at you. Don’t measure the success of the conversation by whether or not they get upset. It’s their right to be upset, and it’s a reasonable response. Better instead to go in with the purposes of giving them the news, of taking responsibility for your part in this outcome (but not more), of showing that you care about how they feel, and of trying to be helpful going forward.

You’re not at a place where you can take in more information or untangle your thoughts. Maintaining the charade of participation in the conversation at times like this is unlikely to be helpful to anyone. Ask for some time to think about what you’ve heard:

We sometimes ascribe valor to those who suffer in silence. But when suffering is prolonged or interferes with accomplishing what we want with our lives, then such suffering may be more reckless than brave. Whatever it is, if you’ve worked to get over it and can’t, we encourage you to ask for help.

The paradox is that trying to change someone rarely results in change. On the other hand, engaging someone in a conversation where mutual learning is the goal often results in change. Why? Because when we set out to try to change someone, we are more likely to argue with and attack their story and less likely to listen.

An employee wanders into work late, something you’ve been meaning to talk to them about, so you say, “Late again, eh?” and leave it at that. Or you visit your son for the weekend, notice the empty beer bottles in the garbage, and say, “I see you’re still drinking up a storm.” These comments are intended to help. You hope your employee or your son will take the message to heart. But while your comments may help you feel a bit better (“At least I’ve said something”), they make the other person defensive

You can’t have a real conversation in thirty seconds, and anything less than a real conversation isn’t going to help. If hit-and-run is all you can muster, it’s better not to raise the issue at all.

But while the beginning is fraught with peril, it is also an opportunity. It’s when you have the greatest leverage to influence the entire direction of the conversation.

The Third Story is the one a keen observer would tell, someone with no stake in your particular problem. For example, in the battle between bicycles and cars for the streets of the city, the Third Story would be the one told by city planners, who can understand each side’s concerns and see why each group is frustrated with the other.

See, and I thought we’d agreed to a definite plan — that you’ll be here no matter what. So you and I are misunderstanding each other. I’d like to sort this out, because it’s awfully hard on Alexis when you and I get our signals crossed. Can we spend some time trying to figure this thing out?

delivering bad news should be a conversation, and it’s usually best to put the bad news up front. Don’t try to trick the other person into saying it first, by asking, for example, “So, what do you think of the relationship?”

we have a deep desire to feel heard, and to know that others care enough to listen. Some people think they are already good listeners. Others know they are not, but don’t much care.

assertiveness isn’t Greta’s problem. What’s missing from her stance is curiosity. In a follow-up conversation, Greta shifts her goal from persuasion to learning. To do this she limits herself to listening, asking questions, and acknowledging her mother’s feelings:

This is perhaps the most obvious benefit of listening: learning about the other person.

Ironically, when Greta shifted away from trying to persuade her mother to exercise and toward simply listening and acknowledging, she ended up achieving the goal that had eluded

She asks questions. She paraphrases what her mother says to make sure she understands it, and to make sure her mother understands that Greta understands. Greta is also listening for the feelings that might be behind what her mother is saying, and acknowledges them when she hears them.

Finding and paying attention to your own internal voice – what you’re thinking but not saying – is the crucial first step in overcoming the biggest barrier to inauthentic listening.

In addition to the stance of curiosity, there are three primary skills that good listeners employ: inquiry, paraphrasing, and acknowledgment.

Can you say a little more about how you see things? • What information might you have that I don’t? • How do you see it differently? • What impact have my actions had on you? • Can you say a little more about why you think this is my fault? • Were you reacting to something I did? • How are you feeling about all of this? • Say more about why this is important to you. • What would it mean to you if that happened?

Unless they get the acknowledgment they need, feelings will cause trouble in the conversation – like a kid desperate for attention, positive or negative.

what I wished and wanted for my life, however short it might be, priorities and omissions became strongly etched in a merciless light, and what I most regretted were my silences....

Lorde sees substantial risks in expressing oneself. But she recognizes that the costs of silence are even greater.

You presume that they will not respect or like or admire you as much if they knew the way you really think and feel. But it’s hard to present only this sanitized version of yourself. Often, to hide parts of who we are, we end up hiding all of who we are. And so we present a front that appears lifeless and removed.

This is a common and understandable fantasy – our ideal mate or perfect colleague should be able to read our mind and meet our needs without our having to ask. Unfortunately, such people don’t exist.

Easing in is where you try to soften a message by delivering it indirectly through hints and leading questions. This is all too common in performance reviews: “So, how do you think you’ve done?” “Do you think you’ve really done as much as you could have?” “I have the same problem, but it probably would have been a little better to . . . . Wouldn’t you agree?” Easing in conveys three messages: “I have a view,” “This is too embarrassing to discuss directly,” and “I’m not going to be straight with you.” Not surprisingly, these messages increase both sides’ anxiety and defensiveness.

“Based on what I know, it seems to me that you might have gotten more done. However, you know more about what happened. In what ways would you see it differently?”

Me-Me And statements sound like this: I do think you are bright and talented, and I think you’re not working hard enough.

The first step toward clarity, then, is to share your conclusions and opinions as your conclusions and opinions and not as the truth. The second step is to share what’s beneath your conclusions — the information

If the other person seems puzzled or unpersuaded by your story, rather than putting it more forcefully or trying to tell it in a different way, ask how they see it. In particular, ask how they see it differently.

You can’t move the conversation in a more positive direction until the other person feels heard and understood. And they won’t feel heard and understood until you’ve listened.