Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most

by Douglas Stone

Delivering a difficult message is like throwing a hand grenade. Coated with sugar, thrown hard or soft, a hand grenade is still going to do damage. Try as you may, there’s no way to throw a hand grenade with tact or to outrun the consequences.

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.

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

It turns out that no matter what the subject, our thoughts and feelings fall into the same three categories, or “conversations.”

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 is true, they are about what is important.

In the “What Happened?” Conversation, moving away from the truth assumption frees us to shift our purpose from proving we are right to understanding the perceptions, interpretations, and values of both sides. It allows us to move away from delivering messages and toward asking questions, exploring how each person is making sense of the world. And to offer our views as perceptions, interpretations, and values – not as “the truth.”

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.

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.

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.

We assume the collision is because of how the other person is; they assume it’s because of how we are. But really the collision is a result of our stories simply being different, with neither of us realizing it.

In difficult conversations, too often we trade only conclusions back and forth, without stepping down to where most of the real action is: the information and interpretations that lead each of us to see the world as we do.

Of course, in advance, we don’t know what we don’t know. 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.

Sometimes people have honest disagreements, but even so, the most useful question is not “Who’s right?” but “Now that we really understand each other, what’s a good way to manage this problem?”

It doesn’t mean that all views are equally valid or that it’s wrong to have strongly held beliefs. It will, however, help you evaluate whether your strong views make sense in light of new information and different interpretations, and it will help you help others to appreciate the power of those views.

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.

When we’re the ones acting, we know that much of the time we don’t intend to annoy, offend, or upstage others. We’re wrapped up in our own worries, and are often unaware that we’re having any negative impact on others. When we’re the ones acted upon, however, our story too easily slides into one about bad intentions and bad character.

Perhaps the biggest danger of assuming the other person had bad intentions is that we easily jump from “they had bad intentions” to “they are a bad person.”

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

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.

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.

In the worlds of both business and personal relationships, too often we deal in blame when our real goals are understanding and change.

Blame Can Leave a Bad System Undiscovered

The blame frame creates a difficult burden. You have to feel confident that others are at fault, and that you aren’t, to feel justified in raising an issue. And since, as we’ve described, there are always ways in which you’ve contributed, you’re likely to end up failing to raise important issues. That would be a shame, because you’ll lose the opportunity to understand why communication between you isn’t working well, and how it might be improved.

One of the best ways to signal that you want to leave behind the question of who’s to blame is to acknowledge your own contribution early in the conversation.

In addition to explaining what triggered your reaction, you should be prepared to say what you would have them do differently in the future, and explain how this would help you behave differently as well.

When you are more concerned about others’ feelings than your own, you teach others to ignore your feelings too.

It isn’t the shark that’s changed; it’s the story you tell yourself about what’s happening. In any given situation our feelings follow our thoughts.

The biggest factor that contributes to a vulnerable identity is “all-or-nothing” thinking: I’m either competent or incompetent, good or evil, worthy of love or not.

After observing O Sensei, the founder of Aikido, sparring with an accomplished fighter, a young student said to the master, “You never lose your balance. What is your secret?” “You are wrong,” O Sensei replied. “I am constantly losing my balance. My skill lies in my ability to regain it.”

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.

A good rule to follow is: If you’re going to talk, talk. Really talk. And if you’re really going to talk, you can’t do it on the fly. You have to plan a time to talk. You have to be explicit about wanting ten minutes or an hour to discuss something that is important to you. 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.

The Third Story simply captures the difference. That’s what allows both sides to buy into the same description of the problem: each feels that their story is acknowledged as a legitimate part of the discussion.

Remind yourself that if you think you already understand how someone else feels or what they are trying to say, it is a delusion.

The heading says it all: inquire to learn. And only to learn. You can tell whether a question will help the conversation or hurt it by thinking about why you asked it. The only good answer is “To learn.”

If you don’t have a question, don’t ask a question.

Like free radicals, feelings wander around the conversation looking for some acknowledgment to hook onto. They won’t be happy until they get it, and nothing else will do.

Whether they say it or not, often people need some acknowledgment of feelings before they can move on to the “What Happened?” Conversation.

While you may not agree with the substance of what the other person is saying, you can still acknowledge the importance of their feelings.

Too often we assume that we either have to agree or disagree with the other person. In fact, we can acknowledge the power and importance of the feelings, while disagreeing with the substance of what is being said.

dumb to ask for it.” This is unfortunately all too typical of many difficult conversations. We say the least important things, sometimes over and over again, and wonder why the other person doesn’t realize what we really think and how we really feel. As you embark upon a difficult conversation, ask yourself, “Have I said what is at the heart of the matter for me? Have I shared what is at stake?” If not, ask yourself why, and see if you can find the courage to try.

Being disappointed that someone isn’t reading our mind is one of our contributions to the problem.

presenting your story as the truth – which creates resentment, defensiveness, and leads to arguments – is a wholly avoidable disaster.

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 you have and how you have interpreted it.

A better approach is to proceed as if (however hard it may be to believe) the other person is simply unaware of the impact of their actions on you, and, being a good person, would certainly wish to change their behavior once they became aware of it.

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.

Speak fully the range of your experience and you will be clear. Speak for yourself and you can speak with power.

Reframing means taking the essence of what the other person says and “translating it” into concepts that are more helpful — specifically, concepts from the Three Conversations framework. You are walking down a new path and inviting the other person to join you.

Persistence in a difficult conversation means remaining as stubbornly interested in hearing the other person’s views as you are in asserting your own.

Difficult conversations require a certain amount of compromise and mutual accommodation to the other’s needs. If you find problem-solving difficult and anxiety producing, it may be because you are focused on persuading them.