Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most

by Douglas Stone

Relationships that deal productively with the inevitable stresses of life are more durable; people who are willing and able to “stick through the hard parts”

the ability to handle difficult conversations well is a prerequisite to organizational change and adaptation.

At the same time, the need to be responsive to the market – nimble, flexible, adaptive – has driven many organizations to be less hierarchical and to operate in a matrix that introduces more complexity to decision making and the ability to get things done. This is a recipe for more conflict – and for more difficult conversations.

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?

Businesses have spent the last twenty years focusing on process and technology improvements, and on cost cutting, and by now there’s not much left to cut.

Yet in both negotiations and daily life, for good reasons or bad, we often don’t talk to each other, and don’t want to. And sometimes when we do talk, things only get worse. Feelings – anger, guilt, hurt – escalate.

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.

Choosing not to deliver a difficult message is like hanging on to a hand grenade once you’ve pulled the pin.

“message delivery stance” to a “learning stance.”

In fact, the gap between what you’re really thinking and what you’re saying is part of what makes a conversation difficult.

Instead of working to manage our feelings constructively, we either try to hide them or let loose in ways that we later regret.

The point is this: difficult conversations are almost never about getting the facts right. They are about conflicting perceptions, interpretations, and values.

They are not about what a contract states, they are about what a contract means.

Did you throw my cigarettes out because you’re trying to control my behavior or because you want to help me live up to my commitment to quit?

we assume we know the intentions of others when we don’t.

Nobody wants to be blamed, especially unfairly, so our energy goes into defending ourselves.

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.

Focusing instead on understanding the contribution system allows us to learn about the real causes of the problem, and to work on correcting them.

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.

Disagreement is not a bad thing, nor does it necessarily lead to a difficult conversation. We disagree with people all the time, and often no one cares very much.

If the other person is naive, we try to educate them about how life really is, and if they are being selfish or manipulative, we may try to be forthright and call them on

We persist in the hope that what we say will eventually make a difference.

But instead, our persistence leads to arguments. And these arg...

Arguing inhibits our ability to learn how the other person sees the world.

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.

Some of us tend to see ourselves as victims, others as heroes, observers, or survivors. The information we attend to varies accordingly. Of

“We never have sex,” Alvie Singer complains in the movie Annie Hall. “We’re constantly having sex,” says his girlfriend. “How often do you have sex?” asks their therapist. “Three times a week!” they reply in unison.

Every strong view you have is profoundly influenced by your past experiences.

There’s only one way to come to understand the other person’s story, and that’s by being curious. Instead of asking yourself, “How can they think that?!” ask yourself, “I wonder what information they have that I don’t?”

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.

The And Stance gives you a place from which to assert the full strength of your views and feelings without having to diminish the views and feelings of someone else.

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.

“And” helps you to be curious and clear.

you deal with difficult conversations, you will notice that the question of how we each make sense of our worlds follows you like the moon in the night sky.

Coming to understand the other person, and yourself, more deeply doesn’t mean that differences will disappear or that you won’t have to solve real problems and make real choices. It doesn’t mean that all views are equally valid or that it’s wrong to have strongly held beliefs.

We Assume Bad Intentions Mean Bad Character.

jump from “they had bad intentions” to “they are a bad person.”

The worse our view of the other person’s character, the easier it is to justify avoiding them or saying nasty things behind their back.

What is it based on? If it’s based on feeling powerless, fearing manipulation, or being frustrated, notice that your conclusion is based solely on the impact of their behavior on you

which is not a sufficient basis to be sure of someone else’s intentions or character.

Those are the two classic characteristics of the cycle: both parties think they are the victim, and both think they are acting only to defend themselves. This is how well-intentioned people get themselves into trouble.

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.

Most of us on the receiving end make little distinction between “He wanted to hurt me” and “He didn’t want to hurt me, but he didn’t make me a priority.” Either way, it hurts.

Interestingly, when people take on the job of thinking hard about their own intentions, it sends a profoundly positive message to the other person about the importance of the relationship. After all, you’d only do that kind of hard work for somebody who matters to you.

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?”

Disentangle Impact and Intent

Share the Impact on You; Inquire About Their Intentions. You can use your answers to the three questions listed above to begin the difficult conversation itself: say what the other person did, tell them what its impact was on you, and explain your assumption about their intentions, taking care to label it as a hypothesis that you are checking rather than asserting to be true.

Blame is a prominent issue in many difficult conversations. Whether on the surface or below, the conversation revolves around the question of who is to blame.

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.

“Truth commissions” often are created because of this trade-off between assigning blame and gaining an understanding of what really happened. A truth commission offers clemency in return for honesty.