Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most

by Douglas Stone

We don’t outgrow difficult conversations or get promoted past them. The best workplaces and most effective organizations have them. The family down the street that everyone thinks is perfect has them. Loving couples and lifelong friends have them. In fact, we can make a reasonable argument that engaging (well) in difficult conversations is a sign of health in a relationship. 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” emerge with a stronger sense of trust in each other and the relationship, because now they have a track record of having worked through something hard and seen that the relationship survived.

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.

They provide the stance of mind and heart and the skills of expression needed to achieve effective communication across the gulf of real differences in experiences, beliefs, and feelings, whether in personal relations, business dealings, or international affairs.

In addition to our own research and reflection, this work incorporates and builds on ideas from many other disciplines. Our training was originally in negotiation, mediation, and law, but this book draws at least as much from the fields of organizational behavior; cognitive, client-centered, and family therapies; social psychology; communication theory; and the growing body of work around the idea of “dialogue.”

A way to deal creatively with tough problems while treating people with decency and integrity. An approach that is helpful to your peace of mind, whether or not others join in. We are going to help you get out of the hand grenade business altogether, by getting you out of the business of delivering (and receiving) messages. We will show you how to turn the damaging battle of warring messages into the more constructive approach we call a learning conversation.

To make the structure of a difficult conversation visible, we need to understand not only what is said, but also what is not said. We need to understand what the people involved are thinking and feeling but not saying to each other. In a difficult conversation, this is usually where the real action is.

The facts are usually clear, but this is important - assigning value to them is what is the cause of conflict

Trevor is telling Karen what she is supposed to do, but has not yet engaged her in a two-way conversation about the issue. When Trevor shifts his purposes from trying to change Karen’s behavior – arguing why being late is wrong – to trying first to understand Karen, and then to be understood by her, the situation improves dramatically:

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.

Like Doug and Andrew, what we notice has to do with who we are and what we care about. Some of us pay more attention to feelings and relationships. Others to status and power, or to facts and logic. Some of us are artists, others are scientists, others pragmatists. Some of us want to prove we’re right; others want to avoid conflict or smooth it over. Some of us tend to see ourselves as victims, others as heroes, observers, or survivors. The information we attend to varies accordingly.

Often we go through an entire conversation – or indeed an entire relationship – without ever realizing that each of us is paying attention to different things, that our views are based on different information.

Two especially important factors in how we interpret what we see are (1) our past experiences and (2) the implicit rules we’ve learned about how things should and should not be done. We Are Influenced by Past Experiences. The past gives meaning to the present. 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.

You may have done something stupid, and they will have contributed in important ways to the problem as well.

Lol Reg team But if you adopt the and stance, how do you deal w someone who doesn’t? Hope the book addresses this.

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 the fact that you are willing to try to understand their view doesn’t diminish the power you have to implement your decision, and to be clear that your decision is final.

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.”

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. If the father responds to his son’s complaint by saying “I didn’t intend to hurt you,” he’s not addressing his son’s real concern: “You may not have intended to hurt me, but you knew you were hurting me, and you did it anyway.”

Remember that the accusation about our bad intentions is always made up of two separate ideas: (1) we had bad intentions and (2) the other person was frustrated, hurt, or embarrassed. Don’t pretend they aren’t saying the first. You’ll want to respond to it. But neither should you ignore the second. And if you start by listening and acknowledging the feelings, and then return to the question of intentions, it will make your conversation significantly easier and more constructive.

In the second conversation, you and your assistant have begun to identify the contributions that you each brought to the problem, and the ways in which each of your reactions are part of an overall pattern:

So what do you do with this?

Indeed, the very impulse to blame is often stimulated by strong emotions that lie unexpressed.

If we are looking to punish someone for what happened, we would punish the mugger. If we are looking to help you feel empowered in the world, we would encourage you to find your contribution. You may not be able to change other people’s contributions, but you can often change your own.

Wow.

I apologize for not bringing this up earlier, before it became such a big deal for me. Also, I realize that arranging for us to work together at the beginning of the project may have sent a confusing signal, though all I intended was to improve our professional relationship. What was your reaction? She might also ask, “Are there other things I’ve done that were ambiguous or that suggested I might be interested in something else?” Sydney would learn important information about her own impact, and also set the stage for discussion of Miguel’s contribution.

Make Your Observations and Reasoning Explicit. To make sure that you’re working from the same information and understand each other’s interpretations, share, as specifically as you can recall it what the other person did or said that triggered your reaction.

I want to do a better job of listening to you and not withdrawing in the future. One thing that would help me to listen is if you could first ask me how my day was, and whether this is a good time to talk. Sometimes I’m preoccupied or anxious about work, and when you start telling me about the problems you’re having with your boss, I just get overloaded and shut down. And sometimes I feel angry, because it makes me think you don’t care about what’s going on with me. So if you just asked first, I think I’d be in a much better place to listen to you. Is there anything that would make that difficult?

Once those feelings are expressed (“Here’s what I’ve contributed, here’s what I think you’ve contributed, and, more important, I ended up feeling abandoned”),

In each case, it is what this conversation seems to be saying about us that rips the ground from beneath our feet.

He determined he would show greater emotion around his family, and at first, the going was not smooth. There were awkward moments, and some members of his family wondered why he was acting differently. But Jimmy persisted, and in time a more genuine set of relationships replaced the old ones.

The question is not whether you will get knocked over. You will. The real question is whether you are able to get back on your feet and keep the conversation moving in a productive direction.

Good framing

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. This approach increases the likelihood that they will feel defensive rather than open to learning something new. They are more likely to change if they think we understand them and if they feel heard and respected. They are more likely to change if they feel free not to.

Janet can see it as an opportunity to learn Sylvie’s story, share her own, and then figure out how they might work together better.

They Have Limitations Too. Sometimes you’ll tell the other person about your feelings and perspectives, or about the impact they are having on you, and they say they understand, and you each agree to change your behavior.

Rob’s sense of self was perhaps too aligned with his role in the conflict. Such dynamics play an important part in ethnic conflict. Our sense of who we are as a community is often defined in terms of who we are not, who we are against, and what hardships we’ve endured. Tragically, we can feel threatened by the prospect of reconciliation, because it can rob us not only of our role, but also of our communal identity.

Even in situations much more mundane than David’s, letting go of the emotions and identity issues wrapped up in a difficult conversation can be one of the most challenging things you do. Difficult conversations operate at the core of our being — where the people and the principles we care about most intersect with our self-image and self-esteem. Letting go, at heart, is about how to handle with skill and grace not having a difficult conversation. Of course, the better you become at engaging difficult conversations, the less there will be for you to let go of. One key to improving is having sound purposes.

“Jill, you and I seem to have different preferences about when the dishes get done or beliefs about when they should be done. I wonder if that’s something we could talk about?” Jason can offer that without sacrificing his own views (soon enough, he’ll ask about Jill’s story, and describe his own), and Jill can sign on without defensiveness.

From the Third Story: I wanted to talk about Dad’s will. You and I obviously have different understandings of what Dad intended, and of what’s fair to each of us. I wanted to understand why you see things the way you do, and to share with you my perspective and feelings. In addition, I have strong feelings and fears about what a court fight would mean for the family; I suspect you do too.

Good framing

From the Third Story: I wanted to share with you my concerns about Nathan’s behavior in class, and hear more about your sense of what might be contributing to it. I know from our past conversation that you and I have different thinking on this. My sense is that if a child is having trouble at school, something is usually bothering him at home, and I know you’ve felt strongly that that’s not true in this case. Maybe together we can figure out what’s motivating Nathan and how to handle it.

If, on the other hand, you say, “Can you help me understand . . . ?” you offer the role of advisor. “Let’s work on how we might . . . .” invites a partnership. “I wonder whether it’s possible to . . . .” throws out a challenge, one which offers the other person the potential role of hero.

Good framing

RUTH: 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?

Andrew’s story demonstrates something that is true for all of us: we have a deep desire to feel heard, and to know that others care enough to listen.

Especially, listen for feelings, like frustration or pride or fear, and acknowledge those feelings. See whether that person doesn’t become a better listener after all.

“I understand that you feel you did everything you could to make the sale. To me, that seems inconsistent with the fact that Kate made the sale right after you gave up. What’s your thinking about that?”

Open-ended questions are questions that give the other person broad latitude in how to answer. They elicit more information than yes/no questions or offering menus,

SUPERVISOR: What I’m saying is that I can see how upset you’re feeling, and it hurts me to see you so upset. I also think I understand why you think this transfer is unfair, and why it could feel like I’ve betrayed your loyalty. Those factors made the decision to transfer you very difficult for me. I fought hard to make this work. I feel badly about how it’s turned out, but I do think it’s the right decision, and overall I don’t think it’s unfair. We should talk about why.

In a difficult conversation your primary task is not to persuade, impress, trick, outwit, convert, or win over the other person. It is to express what you see and why you see it that way, how you feel, and maybe who you are. Self-knowledge and the belief that what you want to share is important will take you significantly further than eloquence and wit.

THEY SAY: You are the nastiest person I’ve ever met. YOU REFRAME: It sounds like you’re feeling really badly.

THEY SAY: I am not a bad neighbor! YOU REFRAME: Heavens, I don’t think you are either. And I certainly hope you don’t think I’m a lousy neighbor. I do think that we disagree about how this should be handled, and I think that’s pretty normal between good neighbors. The question is whether we can work together to figure out how to address both of our concerns.

Robin probably wants to feel loved, that she belongs, and that she has a valued role in the family. In addition, we can assume from her frustration level that Robin feels unheard. She wants to tell someone that she’s upset with her sister, but can’t get anyone to listen. Addy needs an approach that acknowledges these core interests and at the same time points the conversation in a different direction.

So you might say to your boss, “I know there are lots of factors you have to take into consideration, and at the end of the day, I’m onboard with whatever you decide. I just want to make sure that as you think about it, you are aware that. . . .” Your boss is now more likely to be open to influence, because they don’t need to push back, defend their turf, or clarify that this is their decision to make. You’ve given them a clear signal acknowledging their status, which will help them relax and be receptive. Now tell your boss what matters to you and why. It’s surprising how often people will tell us they’ve “tried everything” to influence their boss, yet when we ask, “Have you told your boss this is important to you?” they respond, “Well, I assume my boss must know.” They’ve never actually said, “This matters to me.” Being clear that something matters to you, and why, has an impact on the other person. It may or may not persuade them – that will depend on the strength of your argument and competing considerations – but it will have an impact. The purpose is not to threaten, but to provide your boss the information they need to make an informed decision.