difficult conversations

Difficult Conversations

by

Stone, Patton and Heen

Notes

(These are my notes on Difficult Conversations.  I am only about 20 pages into the book, but have enjoyed it immensely.)

The reasons conversations can be difficult can range from sexuality, race, gender, politics, religion, or a host of others. Conversations involving these topics don't have to be! Once we understand the 3 conversations, we can gain first an understanding, then appreciation for these conversations.

The 3 types of categories, or conversations:

1. The “What happened?”

2. The Feelings” conversation

3. The “Identity” Conversation

1. “What Happened?”

Often difficult conversations are about what has happened, what will happen, or what should happen. This is the immediate cause for the conversation in the first place. The conversation normally starts with each participant assuming they, and they alone, know the truth. Let's take an example of a manager giving a struggling employee a job that need immediate attention. This comes on short notice, and the employee cancels evening plans to work all night on this new project. In the end, the job is not done correctly.

The manager may say that the employee didn't do the job right, while the employee believes he is overworked and didn't have enough time to properly complete the project. Who is right? Who is to blame for the poorly done job? Who should take the time to fix it?

The employee and the manager both assume they know the truth. The other is the one to blame, not them. They both communicate that the other, then let their relationship deteriorate. But this doesn't have to happen!

3 things to pay attention to:

Who is right?

What meant what?

Who is to blame?

Who is right? This question hints that there is an absolute truth to every conversation. In the example given above, the only thing not disputed in the managers and employees conversation is that the job was not done correctly. They both agree on this point. Beyond this there is disagreement. The boss considers the employee sloppy and lazy. They wish they had hired the other qualified candidate for the job instead of this one. He blames the employee for not doing his job correctly.

The employee resents the manager's demand from the previous day. This has not been the first time the manager has sprung an unexpected project on him at the last minute. He had to cancel a dinner date with his girlfriend. He blames the manager for the whole thing.

How each of the participants feel is not about right and wrong. Neither is to blame in this instance. The manager gave the employee as much time as possible under the circumstances, and the employee gave it his best shot. The way both the manager and employee feel is important. The feelings are matters of interpretation and judgment, not about truth.

Once we understand this point, that the way we feel in a conversation is not about truth, we can move shift our focus during these types of conversations from proving we are right to understanding how the other perceives the problem, their interpretations, and the value of their opinion. And to not offer our perceptions, interpretations, and values as truths.

What meant what? This conversation is about intent. Yours and mine. Sometimes our intentions are hard to interpret. Did I do the dishes because I love you, or because I wanted you to feel guilty for choosing to do something else? Am I trying to keep you out of trouble, or do I want you to be miserable? Did I throw away your beer to help you keep your promise to stay sober or am I trying to control your behavior?

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. Often when we make these kinds of assumptions we assume they are bad.

But the reality is that there is no way to judge others motives. They may or may not be doing something with you in mind. I can shower daily, without once considering how you would feel if I didn't. We most often base our assumptions based on others actions. This is a terrible thing to do. Humans often act in a way they know they shouldn't. I sometimes don't live up to every promise I make, even though I know I need to be trustworthy.

Because our view of others' intentions (and their view of ours) are so important in difficult conversations, leaping to unfounded assumptions can be a disaster.

Who is to blame? Most difficult conversations focus significant attention on who is to blame for the current predicament. When something isn't done, each party concerned will make immediate judgments about the other party. They are lazy, incompetent, or a constant nag.

In the conflict between the manager and the employee, the manager blames the employee. He feels the employee should have stayed a little later to finish up little details in the project. The employee resents the fact that he had to cancel his plans for the evening. He had planned to relax and enjoy dinner with his girlfriend. The employee feels like the manager doesn't appreciate all his hard work.

But talking about fault produces disagreement, denial, and little learning. Nobody likes to take blame, so we put most of our effort to defend our actions, and to point out deficiencies in others. We all like to have a self-image of ourselves as competent, hard working and sensible adults. Then why is it that when having difficult conversations we can become so childish?

I believe we behave the way we do when discussing difficult things is because we have feelings. We care about what others think of us, how they perceive us. We may claim differently, but deep down we know this is true. And taking blame can ruin how we think others perceive us.

Talking about blame distracts us from exploring why things went wrong and how we might avoid future mistakes. Understanding how we can avoid blaming someone will enable us to see the real problems that caused the first problem. It can make a big difference in how you handle and feel about difficult conversations.