The Stitt Feld Handy Group

Difficult Conversations Course

Notes from the Online Course

By Francis J. Handy Elinor Whitmore

2

CONTENTS

Handling Strong Emotions 3 Getting Beyond The What Happened Conversation 8 Coping with Identity Issues 14 Beginning a Conversation and Confronting 23

3

DEALING WITH STRONG EMOTIONS IN DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS*

How you feel about the issue being discussed or the way the issue is being discussed plays a critical role in a difficult conversation. How you feel during a conversation can be the most significant criteria for determining whether you find the conversation “challenging”: because a discussion makes us sad or angry or afraid or concerned or frustrated, we think of it as a difficult conversation. While how people feel during a conversation can determine whether you find it a difficult conversation, they frequently fail to recognize the role of emotions in difficult conversations. People often tend to try to “edit out” the emotional content of a conversation. Below are some key ideas about feelings and some tips about handling emotions effectively in difficult conversations. Simply Suppressing Emotions Is Generally Not Effective People often try to suppress their emotions or the emotions of the other person (calm down!) in an attempt to keep the conversation “rational”. While in many cases people can refrain from explicitly stating or discussing their emotions or the emotions of the other person, they are seldom able to keep their emotional state a complete secret. For example, your spouse may not tell you that your comments have upset him or her, and yet you will know they have, by the way he or she behaves. The emotions are still present: they are simply not being included explicitly in the discussion. In most cases, emotions will eventually come out. Either you will act out your emotions immediately (become sarcastic, angry, weepy, frosty) or you may act them out in your behaviour towards the other person in the long run (avoid the colleague you don’t like, disengage from your spouse). Therefore, trying to hold your emotions back (keep them out of the conversation) may only ensure that they burst onto the scene when they have got to the point that you can’t told them back. Keeping them in may become like putting a finger in a dike, the water pressure is still there, and eventually the dam will break and the water will engulf everyone. There are times when denying or not expressing feelings serves a deeper psychological function: in the face of overwhelming anxiety, fear, loss, or trauma, removing yourself from your feelings can help you cope with daily life. As the saying goes, “don’t knock down a wall until you know why it was put up”. But suppressing emotion in a difficult

* © 2006 Stitt Feld Handy Group: Used with permission. This material is based, in part, on concepts contained in Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen. This material may not be reproduced without the permission of the Stitt Feld Handy Group. C31125

4

conversation is generally not an effective way to lead to a resolution when another person is involved. If the point is that emotions will come out, then working on how and when they will come out becomes the issue to manage in a difficult conversation. If unconsidered reactions or untimely outbursts are not effective, then being conscious of and effectively presenting our emotions is part of the skill of dealing with others in a difficult conversation. Feelings Can Interfere with Listening Often when people are experiencing strong emotions, they are so busy managing the emotional response internally that they cannot listen to what the other person is saying. Therefore, in addition to being at risk of bursting out in a counter-productive way, unexpressed emotions can make it hard to listen to the other person, interfering with effective communication. Emotions Are Part Of Who You Are When you keep your emotions out of a relationship or discussion, you keep a significant part of yourself apart from the situation. If you don’t tell someone when you have been hurt or upset by their behaviour, how can that person know to change their behaviour so as not to hurt your feelings or make you angry in the future? If you pretend that everything is fine, the other person is not getting accurate feedback about the impact of their behaviour on you. Emotions Just Exist As we grow up, each of us develops a characteristic “emotional footprint”. The shape of our emotional footprint is determined by which feelings we believe are okay to have and express and which are not. How we respond internally or externally to our emotions can lead to great trouble. But the emotions themselves just exist, until they are acted upon. Emotions, like arms or legs can be used for good or ill. If you hit or kick someone, then your arms or legs are causing trouble, but there is nothing inherently wrong with arms or legs. The same is true of our feelings. Good People Have Negative Emotions Another assumption many of us make is that there are certain emotions “good” people should not feel. For example, some believe that good people don’t get angry at people they love, they don’t cry, they don’t feel jealous, and they are never tempted to lash out. But “good” people are people, and experience the whole range of emotions that all normal human beings do.

5

HANDLING EMOTIONS IN DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS Against this backdrop of assumptions and ideas about emotions, the following strategies and tips might be useful, depending on the situation. Don’t Confuse Judgments For Feelings We often think we are sharing our feelings when we are sharing judgments. Saying to someone “you are selfish” is not sharing a feeling, it is rendering a judgment. The feeling that triggers the evaluation is yours, not theirs; the feeling in this example might be that you (or others) are being overlooked or put to too much effort without recognition. Look for ways to describe the reaction you are having as your emotion, rather than your judgment about the other person’s intentions or actions. Remember That Their Emotions Are As Critical To The Conversation As Yours When we are experiencing a strong emotional reaction, it can blind us to the emotions the other person is feeling. It is important to remember that the other person’s response is an equally important part of the conversation. Learn That Your Emotions Are As Important To The Conversation As Theirs Some of us aren’t aware of our own feelings because we have been taught that other people’s feelings are more important than ours. When you are more concerned about other’s feelings than your own, you enable others to ignore your feelings too. One of the reasons you may not have raised an issue is that you don’t want to jeopardize the relationship. Yet by not raising it, the resentment you feel will grow and slowly erode the relationship anyway. Sometimes What We “Feel” Is Not Really How We Feel Feelings we are uncomfortable with will often disguise themselves as feelings we are comfortable with. You may feel vulnerable or threatened but you experience it as anger because anger is more comfortable to you. Look for the root emotional content that triggers or “hooks” you, not the surface response. Find The Bundle Of Emotions Behind The Simple Labels In many situations, we are blinded to the complexity of our emotions by one strong feeling that trumps all the others. The more accurate and specific you can be, the more you will be able to manage the situation, your responses, and to look for effective ways to raise and deal with them with the other person. Don’t Treat Feelings As Gospel; Negotiate With Them

6

Before saying what you are feeling, negotiate with your feelings. Our feelings are based on our perceptions, and our perceptions are negotiable. How we feel about something depends on what information we have. You may be afraid of a shark. If you are told that this is a kind of shark that doesn’t prey on humans, your fear will lessen. The shark hasn’t changed, but your feelings about the shark have. Therefore, the root to changing your feelings is through altering your thinking. You need to examine your own story. What is the story you are telling yourself that is giving rise to how you feel? What is your story missing? What might the other person’s story be? Almost always, an increased awareness of the other person’s story changes how we feel. Next we need to explore our assumptions about the other person’s intentions. To what extent are our feelings based on an untested assumption about their intentions? Don't Vent; Describe Feelings Carefully Too often we confuse being emotional with expressing emotions clearly. Three guidelines for expressing your emotions: 1. Frame Feelings Back Into The Problem Almost every challenging conversation will involve strong feelings. It is always possible to define a problem without reference to feelings. But that is not true problem- solving. If feelings are the real issue, then feelings should be expressed. Once emotions are on the table, acknowledge them. Acknowledgement simply means letting the other person know that you have heard how they feel, that their feelings are important to you and that you are aware of them now. 2. Express The Full Spectrum Of Your Feelings 3. Don’t Evaluate - Just Share You can establish an evaluation-free zone by respecting the following guidelines: share pure feelings (without judgments, attributions, or blame); save problem solving until later; and don’t monopolize. Each side must have their feelings acknowledged in order to be able to move to a resolution of the situation. This does not mean agree with the feelings: it means expressing that you heard and understand them.

7

Getting Beyond The What Happened Conversation Learning From The Past For The Future Many challenging conversations involve a discussion about something that has taken place in the past. Most people involved in these conversations believe they know what happened. That is, each person believes that he or she has a clear recollection of what transpired. so now he or she needs to explain to the other person how or why the other person’s behaviour was not appropriate or helpful, etc. As many of us have experienced, focusing on the past can be fruitless or, worse, can create even greater problems. Focusing on the past can be fruitless or destructive for a variety of reasons, including:

• What happened in the past cannot be changed (although we can dramatically alter our view of what the past means);

• People can invest a lot of energy trying to prove they were “right” and the other

person was “wrong”; doing so can provoke defensive behaviour which further escalates the conflict and polarizes the discussion; and

• Even if one person can convince the other person that the other person’s

behaviour was “wrong” (which is rare), it doesn’t yield the results that they want. Mostly people want the other person to admit wrongdoing in part to confirm that the bad behaviour will not be repeated.

While discussions about “what happened” are generally fruitless and potentially harmful to a relationship, at times there are some benefits that can be obtained by an effective discussion. To a large degree, deciding whether to discuss what happened depends on the reasons why one is looking to the past. To the degree that one is looking back to find out who was “wrong” and to assign blame, focusing on the past has the potential to be destructive without sowing the seeds for the future. To the degree one looks back to determine what went wrong (as distinct from who’s at fault) so that a similar situation can be avoided in the future, the past holds many clues as to how we might change and improve. Therefore, the question is not whether we should discuss what happened in the past, but how and for what purpose. There are many traps we can fall into when discussing the past which lead us away from our goal of having a productive discussion and improving the situation in the future. Three of the most common traps are:

• Looking to lay blame; • Presenting conclusions based on past conduct; and • Failing to separate impact from intention.

8

Examining each of these traps provides clues as to how to have productive discussions about the past. Looking to Lay Blame There are circumstances where it may feel important to determine who was at fault and to see that person punished for their behaviour. If the goal is to punish wrongdoers, and in some cases that is the goal, finding fault and assigning blame is an important part of the process. If, however, the goal is to improve the situation for the future, finding fault and laying blame can work directly against that goal. When people fear that they may be found to be at fault and be blamed, they become defensive. They may take steps to try to cover up their behaviour or to point the finger at someone else in an effort to avoid punishment. As people become defensive and accusatory they may hold back information or provide the information in a way that promotes finding someone else responsible. When information is withheld or distorted, it can become even more difficult to figure out exactly what happened. If the goal of the conversation is to find out what happened so as to avoid the same situation recurring in the future, actively try to put aside the need for finding fault and laying blame, and instead promote a discussion designed to explore all of the factors which contributed to the present situation. With the focus on learning from the past to improve the future, the need for defensive or accusatory behaviour is reduced. For many people, conversations about the past have often focused on assigning blame. As a result, when they are asked to participate in a conversation about the past, it is hard for them not to assume that it is a “blame or be blamed” conversation in which they are about to partake. Consequently, you will need to use your skill to maintain focus and make clear that the goal of the conversation is not to find fault and assign blame, but rather to develop an understanding of the factors that contributed to the present situation so as to allow you both to be strategic going forward. One of the most powerful ways to demonstrate that the conversation about what happened is not about blame is to acknowledge early in the conversation your own contribution to the present situation. Acknowledging your own contribution gives a strong message that you are looking to develop understanding and not simply lay blame. Also, recognizing how you may have contributed to the situation gives you some valuable information about how you can contribute to the solution. It may not be possible to make the other person change his/her behaviour, but we can always change our own. Presenting Conclusions Based on Past Conduct We are frequently unconscious of the process we use to arrive at certain conclusions. We are conscious of having decided that the local grocer is “rude”, our new boss is “controlling”, or a child in our daughter’s class is a “bully”, but we may not be exactly aware of how we arrived at that conclusion. That is not to say that we couldn’t point, if

9

asked, to a series of incidents which occurred and which led us to form these conclusions. The whole process is not unconscious, but often parts of it are. Before we can reach a conclusion of any kind, we must have some information. Fortunately, or at times unfortunately, a world of information presents itself to us constantly. Upon entering my office, I could notice any or all of the following things:

• what my colleagues are wearing; • the colour of the walls; • the noise of the construction outside; • whether the phone is ringing; • is the carpet clean; • who is talking to whom; • what is being said; • is the air conditioning on; • someone new in the reception area; • how am I feeling; • did the receptionist smile at you; • and on and on.

By necessity, we ignore a lot of this information. Some of it, however, we pay attention to. The information we do notice is then interpreted by us which leads us to certain conclusions. Perhaps you notice that the receptionist didn’t say “hello” when you walked in and, in response to your “good morning” simply nodded her head without smiling. It has been your experience that when people do not say “hello” and fail to smile when greeted that they are in a bad mood. This interpretation of the receptionist’s behaviour leads you to conclude that she is in a bad mood. In this way, you have moved from the pool of information available (you could have failed to notice the receptionist’s behaviour and focused instead on the client sitting in the waiting room), to noticing certain information, to interpreting that information, to reaching a conclusion. All of this is done in a matter of seconds and frequently is unconscious. From then on, your interactions with the receptionist that day may be informed by “well, she’s in a bad mood today”. Your colleague may have entered the building directly behind you and may have noticed completely different information. Or may have noticed the exchange between you and the receptionist but had a completely different interpretation of the data. Perhaps your colleague interprets the receptionist’s behaviour as a sign of a bad attitude or perhaps shyness. In difficult conversations, we frequently talk about our conclusions ( e.g.“You were in a bad mood that day”) and not about the information we received (“you didn’t smile and didn’t respond to my greeting”) or the interpretation we placed on that information (“When someone doesn’t smile, I assume they are in a bad mood”). Conversations can become difficult because each of us has a different set of facts that we are interpreting in different ways and that are leading us to different conclusions. We have different sets of “facts” because we have access to different information and we notice different things from the information available. We notice the information that is important to us. Also, we frequently pay more attention to information that supports our view of the world than the information that might challenge that view.

10

We interpret information differently because we have different life experiences, we are from different cultures, etc. All of this can result in us arriving at very different conclusions about a “shared experience”. Difficult conversations frequently arise in circumstances where our conclusions collide with those of the other person. In these circumstances, we can try to make our reasoning explicit to ourselves. We may want to try to revisit the experience to look for information we may have missed or to consider alternative interpretations that could be drawn from the information. If we decide to speak with the other person about the situation, we can start by sharing the information we noticed and how we interpreted that information, rather than simply sharing our conclusion. We then want to invite the other person to add to the pool of information and to share their interpretations and conclusions. Separate Intention from Impact We often judge other people, in part, by our assumptions about their intentions. If we receive feedback from a colleague in a meeting about how we might improve a particular product, we will react very differently if we think the colleague was trying to make us look bad in front of our boss than if we think the colleague was genuinely trying to help us improve the product. In either case, we may feel embarrassed or foolish or angry, but exactly what we feel and how strongly we feel it will be influenced by our beliefs about the other person’s intentions. Sometimes we work back from the impact on us to determine what the other person’s intentions were. So, if we are embarrassed by a comment made by a colleague in a meeting, we attribute to that colleague negative intentions. The impact on us was negative so the intention is assumed to be negative. Similarly, we work forward from our intentions to determine our impact on others. If we meant our comments in the meeting to be constructive, we assume that they will be received that way and we feel unjustly accused when our colleague reports back that our comments landed negatively for him. In both cases, we are assuming that there is an obvious connection between intention and impact. This may not be the case. Another mistake we can make is to make an assumption about the other person’s intentions based on what we would have presumably had to intend to behave the way the other person did. For example, a friend fails to visit you in hospital after major surgery. You would always visit the hospital if you cared about the person so you assume that if your friend didn’t visit, he doesn’t care. In this way, you have made an assumption about his intentions based on how you would have behaved in the circumstances. In fact, it may be that he thought it was important to let you rest in hospital and to visit you at home when you might need more assistance from friends while you recuperated. While we can always be clear about how the behaviour of others has impacted us, we cannot be clear about their intentions. While our colleague may have been intending to make us look bad (there was a connection between the impact and the intention), he may not have had that intention. Therefore, when discussing what happened at the

11

meeting, you may wish to explicitly recognize that the impact on you was what it was (and you are entitled to want to discuss the impact on you), and that the impact may have been completely divorced from their intentions. Also, you may wish to explicitly state to the other person that while the impact on you was negative or hurtful, this impact may not have been their intention. Similarly, our good intentions can have a bad impact on someone else. Just because we had good intentions does not mean that we should ignore the impact of our actions. Our impact may have been very different than what we intended. Often when we are confronted by the negative impact of our behaviour, we try to defend ourselves by asserting the purity of our intentions. Even if your intentions were pure (which sometimes they are not), it is, once again, important to distinguish impact from intent. So, while our intentions may have been good, the impact of our behaviour was not. Therefore, it can be helpful to acknowledge to the other person the impact of your behaviour on them and then explain that your intentions were positive. The sequencing of this discussion can be important. Notice that it may be more helpful to acknowledge the impact before asserting the goodness of your intentions. TIPS

• Determine whether your primary goal in exploring the past is to lay blame and proscribe a punishment or to develop understanding and improve the situation in the future. If your goal is to develop understanding, try to put aside the need to be “right”. Instead, focus your energies, and those of the other person, on identifying all of the factors that contributed to the present situation.

• Recognize that each person has their own view of the world and, while these

views may be altered by discussion, one is not intrinsically better or worse than the other. Therefore try to understand your world view, the world view of the other person, and where these world views may collide.

• Gather more information before developing a conclusion

• Provide facts to support how you reasonably arrived at your conclusions (and to

provide examples of behaviour you would like them to avoid in future).

• To separate intentions from impact, ask yourself what happened (i.e. what would a third person have observed in terms of conduct), then ask yourself what was the impact on you (I was hurt, embarrassed, etc.) and then try to figure out what assumptions you are making about the other person’s intentions. Always keep in mind that this IS an assumption you are making about the other person’s intentions. The assumption may be right or wrong.

• Ask yourself:

• What information am I ignoring?

• What information might the other person have that I don’t?

12

• In what way might the other person be interpreting the information to

arrive at a different conclusion from mine?

13

IDENTITY ISSUES IN DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS† IDENTITY ISSUES GENERALLY Each of us has a sense of self. We are often aware of some of the key elements that we believe define who we are (You can always count on me. My word is my bond. I always look out for the underdog. I am great with kids. Etc.). While there may be some aspects of our identity that feel quite solid, there may be areas where we are ambivalent, or feel sensitive or uncertain that we are what we describe to others. Although different people have different identity issues, some common underlying identity issues include challenges to our sense of our own competence, our inherent value or goodness, or our worthiness of being loved, respected, or cared about by others. Some conversations are upsetting because a key attribute of self-definition is felt to be under attack. For instance, if one of the ways you define yourself and you pride yourself on is being a good father, hearing your daughter say she was disappointed that you missed her recital is not only about the missed recital, it may feel like it is about you and your role and sense of being as a father. If you pride yourself on being a competent, hard-working employee, your boss’ feedback on a particular project may strike at the heart of your view of yourself as competent. In this way, while the conversation on the surface may appear to be about a missed recital or a project that went over budget, on a deeper level you may feel the conversation is about who you are as a person. Similarly, a conversation you have with a staff member about his or her performance may challenge his or her sense of identity, even in situations where you have no such intention and are merely trying to prevent an error from recurring, for instance. A conversation that challenges one’s sense of identity may easily become a difficult conversation to manage. Often people are unaware that they are reacting to an identity issue until the reaction has occurred. If on some level you experience the conversation as being about whether you are a good father (or a good worker or a good person), you are likely to go to great pains to defend yourself. Generally, the more one experiences the conversation as being about one’s identity, the less able one is to take in and respond appropriately to the immediate information and the issue that the other person wishes to address (your daughter’s feelings were hurt because you didn’t come to her recital, your boss is concerned about unforeseen expenses, etc.). Challenges to one’s identity that create difficult conversations are most common when people have consciously or unconsciously bought into an either/or view of identity issues. If one views the world in absolutes (“Either you are a good person or you are not”), then almost any negative feedback or interaction about a difficult situation or event is liable to raise identity issues. Either the person will take it too hard (“Yes, I did †© 2007 Stitt Feld Handy Group. Used with permission. This material is based, in part, on concepts contained in Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen. This material may not be reproduced without the permission of the Stitt Feld Handy Group. C31125

14

forget your birthday so I am a horrible person”) or he or she will resist the input at all costs (“It’s not my fault, your brother was supposed to remind me …”) so as to protect his or her perception of self. There are two perspectives related to identity that may need to be addressed, therefore, if the conversation becomes difficult: one is one’s own self-image; the other is impact on the other’s self-image. And of course, as in most difficult conversations, there is no neat line around identity issues; they will generally overlap with aspects of the “What happened?” conversation and/or trigger powerful emotional responses that are partially hidden or unconsciously present, so working your way through identity issues in such conversations requires awareness, focus, and adaptability. CHALLENGES TO ONE’S OWN SENSE OF IDENTITY For challenges to one’s self image, the first task is to manage one’s own reactions; deciding how to respond is the first problem we face because we are not always conscious during the event of the impact on our identity, nor do we understand in the moment why we react the way we do, losing some of our self control or sense of balance. We may even on reflection defend our sense of self so thoroughly and unconsciously that we do not realize our identity is the underlying issue (“I know I missed the recital, but I had to work”, rather than, “I feel I am not a good parent because I felt compelled to choose work over seeing your recital”). Three keys to managing challenges to our sense of identity are the ability to know oneself--thereby learning to identify and understand what one’s own “triggers” are--the ability to understand how we naturally react to those triggers (“fight or flee” e.g.), and finally setting up the focus to concentrate in a conversation on the issues outside of oneself that are the subject of the conversation. Know Yourself If adopting an “either/or” sense of identity puts one at risk of viewing all feedback as an assault on one’s core, one way to enhance one’s ability to participate in difficult discussions is to develop a strong, grounded (accurate) sense of self which includes some room for being human. A grounded sense of self includes an understanding that no one is perfect. Having such a sense of self will allow you to absorb “negative” feedback and make changes (if you wish to). Developing self-awareness about identity issues is often challenging and difficult to achieve, especially if one is not naturally inclined to be reflective, or has limited experience and training in developing effective reflection techniques. The massive opportunity that such work affords is the chance to manage oneself more effectively in a wide variety of situations, to not react destructively, and to improve one’s capacity, therefore, to get the most out of conversations, especially conversations where you receive feedback about or have to deal with fallout from a project that has gone poorly. Personal coaching, further study, and the development of peer groups and other management support mechanisms will all assist with developing the skill of self-reflection and knowledge about your own identity issues. At one level, developing self-

15

knowledge is the work of a lifetime and the primary goal of philosophy. However, at a more immediate level it is the key to changing and improving one’s ability to interact more effectively in personal and professional situations. Despite these efforts, there will of course be situations that challenge ones’ sense of identity. When in these situations, there are some ideas about managing the situation that may be helpful. Know your Reactions First, when faced with negative feedback, try to remember that it is only part of the picture. The negative feedback may be a significant part of the picture under discussion, but it is not the whole picture. Remembering this point is something you will likely have to do on your own, so you should try to have an example of a positive experience where you did well available to think about. Recognize and accept that you will make mistakes. Excellence is not the same as perfection. This attitude makes the feedback the commencement of improvement, rather than merely criticism. Learn to integrate new information into your perception of yourself in a healthy way. If a weakness if identified, you have the choice of working to improve, working around, or accepting and choosing a different course that takes advantage of your strengths and is more attuned to your personal values. In certain circumstances you may want to raise your identity issues explicitly so the other person can be sensitive to them in the conversation: “I really want to receive your feedback on how I ran that staff meeting. I want you to be aware that it is very important for me to feel that I am a good manager of my staff, so, while I certainly want to hear the ways that I could improve, it would also be helpful for me to hear about the things that you thought I did well so I can get a balanced perspective on my skills.” Develop Focus Another way to enhance one’s ability to participate in an identity challenging conversation is to prepare for it. If you are going into a meeting where a project is going to be reviewed, for instance, try to create a balanced view of the project: what went well, what did not go well and why? Once this perspective has been established, focus then on your emotional responses about the project, whether you feel responsible for problems, for example, or anxious or defensive about the results. The presence of such feelings, whether they are justified or rational if viewed objectively, are clues that your sense of identity may be affected; better to prepare for these situations so that you can be in control of your emotions than be suddenly confronted with a challenge. CHALLENGE TO THE OTHER’S SENSE OF IDENTITY

16

For certain types of typical workplace conversations, especially manager to staff about staff work performance, discipline, interpersonal relations with peers or similar discussions, the hierarchical nature of the conversation may add power imbalance to the identity issue, and trigger longstanding personal aspects of identity, such as the perception of independence and autonomy, to the mix. In such conversations, the primary challenge is likely to be the reaction of the person being spoken to, although, as we see in the animated modules, that person’s reactions may inadvertently or strategically challenge one’s own identity and the perception of the relationship between the parties. Being aware that others may have adopted an “either/or” sense of self will make you mindful that your comments may be experienced by the other person as fundamentally challenging to his or her positive sense of self. Remember that as a manager or supervisor you have the inherent authority of the organization in helping to define a sense of identity in the workplace for the staff member. As a co-worker you can have an influence on others’ self perception in the workplace. Of course, personal conversations affecting identity are common when dealing with a spouse, friend, or child, and repeated conversations may develop into patterns of identity that can be either positive or negative. Negative self-perceptions like being the “problem child” are often exacerbated by the unconscious attribution of identity characteristics by parents.

17

Help to create a balanced view You may wish to help the other person in a difficult conversation maintain a balanced sense of themselves, e.g. when giving feedback, you may want to make an effort to embed your immediate feedback in a larger sense of who they are: “I know you are a considerate person and that you think about the impact of your behaviour on other people, so when the argument occurred, I do not think you intended to insult your co-workers.” In the personal context, as a parent, for example, the dialogue will of course be far more intimate, even if the principle is the same: “I know you love your sister and are a good sister to her, even when the two of you fight about your chores; what I would like to do is make sure that when the two of you do fight that you argue over what is really bothering you, which appears to be what is a fair way to divide your responsibilities and each take your fair share, rather than about whether you care about each other.” Maintaining Focus Another key tool, having discovered that an identity issue has been triggered, is to maintain focus on the topic and not get sidetracked. Maintaining focus is not, however, a matter of simply ignoring the underlying issue that has been raised, and bulling ahead with the immediate subject. Rather, it is making the topic explicit, acknowledging it, establishing a framework for the conversation that puts the topic in the correct place, and dealing with it appropriately. The more explicit and conscious we can be about what is happening in a conversation, and the more we can make what is happening explicit to everyone who is participating, the more we can maintain focus. An abbreviated and somewhat exaggerated example:

John: I would like to talk about the errors in this month’s report. I want to make sure we don’t run into this problem next month. Fred: I always screw up; I’m no good at this. John: Fred, I think that you are very good at your job, and when you say you always screw up I can tell you that is not my experience of your work. You make very few errors; I just don’t want to have these errors occur again. Fred: Don’t try to butter me up; I know I suck at this. John: Fred, we can have a discussion about your job skills. I understand that this review of the monthly report affects your view of your competence at your work. As I have said, I think you are very good at your job, so I would prefer to have a discussion in your concerns at our regular quarterly performance review. We can go over your performance evaluations then, and I hope you will have a more positive view of your work skills once we do that. At the moment, we are trying to complete corrections for this report and make sure the next report is better. That way you will feel more competent and I will have an accurate report

18

to distribute. Can we concentrate on the report for the moment and come back to the your performance concerns later? Fred: Okay, but I still think I suck at this. John: So let’s look at the report then, shall we?

Maintaining focus requires concentration and work on your part, in particular not to be sidetracked a second time after providing acknowledgment, not to fall into a loop of repetition that entrenches positional attitudes, not to fight over whose perception is “right”, not having to “win” before moving on, and so on. Focus is keeping the eye on the big picture goals for the conversation and ensuring that all your decisions support those goals. Responsibility for Sense of identity As mentioned above, identity is deeply rooted and has a powerful influence on how people think and react to situations. Contrary to popular depictions, people do not often undergo significant transformations in their sense of identity as a result of single conversations. One builds and influences identity for oneself through vast numbers of interactions. Therefore, despite your best efforts in a conversation, remember that each adult is ultimately responsible finally for his or her sense of identity, so while you can contribute to a more positive view that makes conversations easier, there is a limit to what you are responsible for as a supervisor, peer, friend, significant other, even as a parent, in relation to another person. Some conversations that trigger identity issues with particular people will always be challenging, and having done your best, you will need to accept that you have reached the limit of what can be done in the circumstances and end the conversation.

19

BEGINNING THE CONVERSATION‡ Why focus on the beginning of the conversation? There are two important reasons to develop our ability to begin a difficult conversation effectively. First, we often avoid a difficult conversation precisely because we don't know how or where to start. Second, how we begin a conversation will have a dramatic impact on how the conversation proceeds. Therefore, by refining our ability to begin a difficult conversation, we give ourselves another tool to have conversations we need to have and we increase the likelihood of achieving our goal in the conversation because we started off on the right foot. We sometimes refer to beginning the conversation as "framing" the conversation, as we are trying to create the right frame within which to have the conversation. Also, the term "framing" can remind us that we are trying to bring the right frame of mind to the conversation. There are many different ways to begin a conversation. While the techniques described below are being offered as ways to begin a "difficult" conversation, they could also be used to begin a conversation that you do not anticipate being difficult. That being said, it is particularly important when preparing for a difficult one to spend some time thinking about how best to begin the conversation. In some situations, a difficult conversation may take you by surprise because the other person began the conversation and you weren't expecting it. In that case, you may still want to take a moment to think about whether you want to use some of the techniques below to “reframe” or change the direction of the conversation. Goals One of the first questions to ask yourself when preparing for a difficult conversation is "what is my goal in having this conversation?" Too often people are provoked into a difficult conversation by something someone else has said or done. Once provoked, it is easy to lose sight of (or completely fail to develop) any goal for having the conversation. If we don't have clarity about the goal we are trying to reach, we are very unlikely to obtain a desirable outcome. Also, to the degree we fail to have a goal in mind, we may achieve some "goals" we didn't have in mind!

‡ © 2007 Stitt Feld Handy Group Used with permission. This material may not be reproduced without the permission of the Stitt Feld Handy Group.

20

Some examples of goals for a conversation might include:

• Finding ways to improve a situation for the future (or avoid a problem recurring);

• Changing the other person's perspective on a situation;

• Getting the other person to change his or her behaviour;

• Creating shared understanding. We each make sense to ourselves in our version

of the story; creating a shared understanding requires each of us to understand how the other person’s story makes sense to him or her;

• Recognizing that you have some of the information about what happened and

want to learn about the information the other person has;

• Recognizing that usually both people have contributed to the present situation, you may have a goal of developing an understanding of the different ways people have contributed to the existing problem (without blaming). You may then want to strategize together about how to avoid having the problem arise again; and/or

• Learning about the other person’s story, sharing your views and feelings, and

then problem-solving together. It is quite common to begin a conversation with the goal of having the other person change their mind or behave differently in the future. While these goals are often understandable, they can create problems for us. They can create problems because those goals are completely out of our hands. That is, if my goal is "to get Wilson to change his mind about topic X", then my success or failure is completely in Wilson's hands, as only he can decide whether to change his mind. While I may ultimately hope that Wilson changes his mind, I might reframe my own goal for the conversation as "providing facts and information to Wilson about topic X in a coherent and rational way". In that way, I have framed my goal to be something that it within my control. Beware of shifting goals! When the conversation is under way, pay attention to whether your objectives are changing during the conversation. Your original goal may have been to find the best way to complete the project efficiently, when suddenly you find your objective has switching to proving that you came up with the best idea or saving face. Once again, while it may be understandable to want to save face or prove you are right, achieving those goals may come at the expense of forfeiting some of your other goals. Therefore, if you find your goal changing to proving you are right or saving face, remind yourself of the goals you originally identified for the conversation.

21

Beginning a Conversation and Confronting Let's get started! There is no one best way to begin a difficult conversation. Much will depend upon the relationship you have with the other person. That is, it will depend on whether you are equals (e.g. colleagues, spouses, friends) or whether there might be some imbalance of power (e.g. supervisor and employee, parent and child (we leave you do decide who has the power there). Then there is the question of the quality and culture of a relationship. Is the relationship a strong one of mutual respect in which open discussions have been encouraged, or is it more fraught with tension or suspicion? These factors create a context that may influence how you wish to begin the conversation. In the end, every conversation takes place between unique individuals in unique circumstances, so there can be no one right way of starting every conversation. The techniques below are offered as suggestions, and include an invitation to modify the steps in any way that you believe will help you to achieve your goal. While the invitation to modify is freely extended, we would encourage you to reflect on why you are making those changes. That is, we sometimes want to jump over a step that we think might be difficult for us and we come up with reasons for doing so when, in fact, our goals for the conversation are more likely to be achieved if we include the difficult step. We are going to look at three ways of beginning a conversation. As noted, each can be modified for different circumstances. Generally speaking, the first method is a template that could be used for beginning almost any difficult conversation. The second method is a variation of the first and is mostly applicable in situations where you wish to "confront" the other person about unacceptable behaviour and there is some way of imposing a consequence on the other person if he or she does not change the behaviour. The third method is often most applicable in circumstances where you are planning to have a conversation with someone on a topic about which you have previously disagreed. A template for beginning a conversation§ The goal of this template is to provide you with a mechanism for beginning a difficult conversation that is clear and concise. To that end, you should try, where possible, to cover the steps listed below in one uninterrupted statement in no more than a minute or two. The benefit of being brief is two-fold. If you are someone who finds it challenging to begin a difficult conversation or raise a controversial issue, the benefit of this template is that you need only master a few simple steps and speak for only a minute to get things started. If you are someone who finds it hard to get to the point or you often "soften" your message too much, the template will help you to be clear and succinct. The suggested steps for beginning the conversation are:

1. Name the issue. § This material is based on concepts contained in Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success at Work & in Life One Conversation at a Time by Susan Scott.

22

2. Provide an example of the behaviour or situation you want to change. 3. Describe your emotions about this issue. 4. Name how you contributed to the situation. 5. Indicate your wish to resolve the issue. 6. Invite your partner to respond.

Step 1

Finding examples of the behaviour or situation that we would like to see change is often easy; however, naming the issue is usually not so simple. For example, if a colleague speaks sharply to you in front of a client, how would you name the issue? Is this a conversation about his tone of voice? Although his tone of voice was problematic, it is, perhaps, only one example of a larger issue. The bigger issue might be respectful behaviour or the company's reputation or an attitude concern, for examples. For this reason, it is important to really clarify for yourself how you would define the underlying issue of which the behaviour is an example or symptom.

Step 2

Providing an example of the behaviour or situation to illustrate your concern is critical. If you don't provide an example, the other person may not have any idea what you are talking about. If you simply jump from "I need to speak with you about respectful behaviour in the workplace" to "I feel strongly about this"…the person may have no idea that it is his tone of voice that makes you feel that he is not treating you with respect in front of our clients.

While it is important to provide an example, the number of examples should be limited. Remember that your goal is to provide a clear and concise message. Providing too many examples may work against you by inviting a debate about each example, simply overwhelming the other person, and or interfering with the power of a short clear message. You do not need to provide all of the details regarding the example at this point, you just need to name the example. If the person truly has a different view about the example you have provided or is unclear about why the behaviour is problematic, you can have that discussion later in the conversation. Do not risk losing the impact of your message or making them defensive by elaborating unnecessarily about the example.

If, using the above example, the issue is respectful behaviour in the workplace, you might want to provide the example about the tone of voice he used in front of the client and an example where he used a derogatory term about a colleague after a meeting. An example or two should likely be all you need to make your point. The other reason to limit your examples to one or two is that if you have a long list of examples, one has to wonder why the earlier examples were not brought to his attention in a more timely way.

Step 3

23

Particularly in our professional lives, people are often drawn to try to keep the conversation "rational" by avoiding any reference to emotions. As we discuss in the handout on emotions, emotions are often central to why a situation is problematic. Our emotional responses—how we feel the impact of a colleague using a sharp tone of voice or making a derogatory comment—often is a key to defining the problem. Therefore, to remove all traces of emotions from the conversation may mean we are not accurately and fully identifying the problem.

If we can understand the value of keeping emotion in the conversation, the question clearly becomes how to do that effectively. Typically, the type of emotion and degree will depend on the circumstances. In our personal lives, we might feel it is appropriate to say that someone has "hurt" us. In our professional lives, we might describe the behaviour as "concerning" or "upsetting". In either case, we are providing accurate feedback to the person that the behaviour has an emotional impact. Also, notice that in each case we are describing the emotion, not acting it out through our behaviour. There can be enormous impact if a supervisor says "I am truly concerned about this behaviour" or a spouse says "I was really hurt and embarrassed by how you treated me".

Step 4

In order to demonstrate that the conversation is not about blame, that you want to have a dialogue about the situation, and to decrease the likelihood of the person responding defensively, we can name how we may have contributed to the problem. In some cases, our contribution may be more significant and obvious. For example, if you said something insulting to your colleague moments before the two of you had to meet with a client to discuss a problem, you may have contributed to him being upset and, consequently, using a poor tone of voice in front of the client. In some cases, your contribution may be subtler. For example, it may be that your colleague has used a poor tone of voice many times in the past and you didn't say anything about it to him at the time (thereby contributing to his sense that his tone of voice was acceptable).

Step 5

There are two goals for this step. The first important goal is to make clear that your goal in raising the issue is to try to resolve the situation for the future, and not to simply download a problem onto your conversational partner. Also, in many circumstances you will want to indicate that you are willing to help with the resolution of the problem, and are not simply leaving it to the other person to deal with on his or her own.

Step 6

The main goal of this step is to indicate that your comment was designed to begin a conversation, as opposed to being the final statement on the issue.

Example

24

This is how one of our colleagues used this technique when he was the member of a condominium board talking to the head of the management company that had been retained to manage the condominiums:

1. We need to talk about the day-to-day management of the site.

2. There are half a dozen cases of residents not being responded to, and their concerns are not being brought to the Board’s attention. The manager has been leaving at 3:30 on a regular basis, and is often not around during the day.

3. We are feeling very frustrated and our residents are angry.

4. We may have contributed to this problem by not establishing clear protocols on communication and office hours for Managers.

5. We would like to resolve this concern and prevent future problems.

6. What are your thoughts on these issues?

(*Please note: the numbers are included to identify the steps listed above. That is, the technique does not include saying " Number 1…., Number 2…." )

Following the opening statement, you need to give the other person an opportunity to provide his or her perspective on the situation. That is, this is a template is designed to begin a conversation not to be the entire conversation. While the other person is providing his or her perspective, we encourage you to sincerely listen to that viewpoint and ask questions to deepen your mutual understanding of the situation. Once you have developed a shared understanding of the present situation and what contributed to it, you are then able to discuss what will happen next and how each of you will be held responsible for your part of any agreement Confronting** Many of us feel uncomfortable with the idea of confronting someone. In many cases, this discomfort leads us to find other ways of handling a situation and this is probably a healthy approach in many circumstances. There are, however, some circumstances where it may be necessary to confront someone’s behaviour;having a simple tool to assist us in that process can be invaluable.

In circumstances where you have decided you must confront someone, the template outlined above can be very useful provided you add one crucial step. The additional step requires you to identify the consequence that you will impose if the behaviour doesn't change.

**

25

For this technique to be effective, the consequence must be something the other person wishes to avoid (it has to be a consequence that matters to them). It must also be something over which you have control and that you are willing to follow through with (or it becomes an empty threat). To be clear, the purpose of identifying a consequence is not to punish or threaten, it is to state as simply as possible that there are clear unequivocal consequences that will flow if the behaviour does not cease or change. It is very important to be willing to name the consequence and make it clear that you will impose the consequence if necessary. The suggested steps for beginning the conversation are:

1. Name the issue. 2. Provide an example of the behaviour or situation you want to change. 3. Describe your emotions about this issue. 4. Identify the consequence you will impose if the behaviour doesn't change 5. Name how you contributed to the situation. 6. Indicate your wish to resolve the issue. 7. Invite your partner to respond.

Using these steps might sound like: "John, I need to speak with you about disrespectful language in the office. Yesterday you called Michael “a stupid idiot" in the meeting and you have used this kind of language before. I am disturbed by this language and concerned about the impact on people in the office. If I hear you using that kind of language again, I will take disciplinary action. I may have contributed to this problem by not making it clear the last time we spoke that I consider this to be a serious breach of our office policy and, as a result, a disciplinary matter. I hope this will not happen again. Was there anything you wish to say?" In most circumstances, confronting would not be your first response. As noted in the example above, we would typically encourage you to have a more open conversation with the other person the first time the behaviour occurs (unless you consider the behaviour to be utterly egregious). If that conversation does not have the desired impact, then you may need to confront the person. If you have discussed the matter on more than one occasion, you may not even wish to invite the other person to respond. The strength of your confrontation may come from delivering a clear and concise message and then ending the discussion. Note that confronting someone does not require you to be loud or physically imposing. Rather than threatening the other person, you are, in essence, merely pointing out that if the behaviour continues in the same direction, there will be consequences that you think the person would likely prefer to avoid. In most circumstances, if you really think about it, you are powerless to get them to stop the behaviour. Using the example above, unless the supervisor is prepared to muzzle John and put him in a soundproof room, the supervisor cannot stop John from walking the halls and calling everyone an idiot. The supervisor cannot stop the behaviour, only create a consequence for it. It can often be very helpful to let go of the idea that we can "stop" the other person from engaging in the problematic behaviour and, instead, recognize that the other person has a choice as to how he or she behaves and we can, at best, create a consequence if he or she makes a poor choice. As a result, the message is often most effective when delivered in a rather calm and detached manner

26

If there is no consequence that is within your control that you believe will impact the other person, you may wish to reflect on whether you have any ability to influence the behaviour. That is, if you have spoken with the person on a few occasions about a behaviour and the behaviour continues, you may decide to confront them. As you prepare for the conversation, if it becomes clear that there is no consequence you can impose, it may be that you have done everything in your power to influence the other person. In that case, rather than trying to confront when you have no power to create a consequence, you might be best served by directing your energy to other tasks over which you will have some control and influence. Spending your energy on a fruitless task is a waste of your energy. Here we go again…maybe not! In some cases, you and a colleague, friend, child, or spouse may have already discussed a particular issue and it may be clear from that discussion that you have very different views of the situation. If the situation has not been resolved, you may wish to revisit the conversation with the other person. If that is the circumstance you face, you may wish to use the technique of "3-2-1 Problem Solve"†† to assist you in getting off on the right foot. In the circumstances in which you are revisiting a conversation with someone you have previously disagreed with on the topic, a common problem is to start a conversation by discussing our own viewpoint. We begin the conversation from “inside” our own story, and we start by advancing our view. Starting from this point is usually starting from the very perspective the other person finds problematic: if they shared our view of things we likely wouldn’t have to have the conversation. Also, our stories can often trigger their identity issues since embedded in our story is often a judgment about the other person. Rather than beginning the conversation from within our own story, it can be helpful to try to begin the conversation by describing the “difference” between the two stories, then acknowledge their perspective and finally identify your own perspective. This process may be captured as “3,2,1 - problem solve”. For instance, you and your spouse may have disagreed in the past on whether to move to a new house or renovate your current home. Here is how you might frame this conversation using the 3-2-1 Problem Solve approach: “We seem to have different ideas about how we can make sure we have the comfort and amenities we both want in a home. From what I have heard, I think that you think moving to a new home would be the best way to add space, while I suggested that renovating here would be my preference. I think it would be helpful if we talk about how each of us sees the situation and then we can talk about how we proceed . . . That is, you have started by describing the conversation the way a neutral 3rd party might (“we seem to have different ideas about…”, then you have moved to the 2nd viewpoint (“I think you think moving . . . would be the best way”) and finished with your 1st person perspective (“I suggested renovating here would be my preference”). You have completed the “frame” by

27

suggesting that you work together to problem-solve once you both have had an opportunity to understand each other’s perspective. To help you find the right “frame” for a conversation, try to focus on your overarching goals. Ask yourself: What do I really want for myself in this situation? What do I really want for the other people involved? What do I want for the relationship? Once you have been reminded of your overarching goals, try to identify the goals for this conversation. Notice, for example, that the goal of the conversation between the business partners was to "complete the project efficiently and within budget". It is important to keep that goal in mind. The conversation is NOT about "do we hire outside consultants or use our staff". Those are merely the options identified to date as to how best to achieve the goal. Conclusion Knowing how to begin a conversation effectively will allow us to have the difficult conversations we need to have and increase the likelihood of those conversations being productive. In this handout we have outlined a template for beginning a difficult conversation, for confronting someone about problematic behaviour, and for beginning a conversation where you and the other person have disagreed about the issue in the past. We hope you will find these techniques helpful.