It’s something that nearly all of us dread. How do we engage in a difficult conversation and achieve a positive result? It’s all about understanding that a good outcome embraces two sides, not one.
Bob Bordone has spent his entire professional life teaching conflict resolution. The former Harvard Law Professor and Founder of the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Programme, is an expert and consultant specialising in the art of successful negotiation and how to manage difficult conversations.
It’s something that doesn’t come naturally to many of us. When we’re feeling hurt or upset, it’s so much easier to lash out at the person we feel is causing our pain than to try and understand their point of view.
But in the following Q&A, Bob tells Medix why this rarely achieves what either side wants. Difficult conversations are about listening to understand rather than to blame, the acknowledgment of strong emotions and an appreciation that none of us have all of the answers.
Q: Let’s start off with the basics. How do you define a difficult conversation?
A: I think the answer is something that we can all relate to. A difficult conversation is one we dread in some way. It might make us feel anxious, or provoke strong emotions.
But not everyone finds the same things difficult. For example, some doctors might find it very straightforward to discuss difficult health choices with their patients. For others, it might bring a lump to their throat.
Q: And either way, most of us put difficult conversations off.
A: Yes. We might fear being rejected, hurting someone’s feelings, not getting the outcome we want, or making the situation worse. There are a whole host of reasons.
But instead of putting these conversations off, it’s important to consider what the costs of avoiding them are. For there will be a cost. The problem could get worse, the other person’s behaviour might not change, or we just feel bad about ourselves for avoiding.
Often our fear of having a difficult conversation is almost the same as the cost of avoiding it.
You can also mark how difficult a conversation is likely to be by the gap between what someone says and what they’re thinking. For example, if your work colleague says “good to see you,” but is actually thinking, “I hate you,” then you’ve got a big gap to bridge.
Q: How do you bridge it?
A: There are four critical shifts in thinking that can help.
The first one involves moving from away from being certain to being curious. We shouldn’t approach a difficult conversation believing that we know the truth and that our role is to explain it to the other person.
Start from the assumption that there are some things we know and some things we don’t. The purpose of the conversation is to learn from the other person so that we can come up with a good solution together.
The second shift relates to intentions and impact. We might know what impact someone’s words or deeds have on us, but don’t assume that this was their intention in the first place.
Thirdly, shift from blame to contribution. So when we start talking about how a certain situation arose, we need to examine how both of us might have contributed to it, not just one of us.
Finally it’s about a shift from downplaying emotions to acknowledging their existence. It’s no use telling someone not to get emotional when they’re clearly upset. It’s far better to acknowledge how they feel even if we don’t agree with the reasons why.
Q: So you don’t believe that anyone holds an absolute truth?
A: Well, of course there are absolute truths. Two plus two equals four and the sky is blue. But it is also the case that all of us suffer from partisan perceptions, the tendency to believe our view of the world is more accurate, more fair, and closer to reality than someone else’s. That’s part of the human condition, not a character flaw.
This reality is even more acute in conflict situations.
Sometimes, we have partisan perceptions because the two people engaged in a conversation are looking at different sets of data. But even when we both have the same data set, we can still come to very difficult conclusions.
In almost all conflict situations, this is the case.
We all tell ourselves different stories, stories with villains and victims and heroes.
And it’s almost always the case that we never cast ourselves as the villain. We are always the victim or the hero of our own stories.
Q: So how can we implement all of this advice in a real-life conversation?
A: It goes back to point one. Don’t start from the assumption that you’re right. You probably only have one piece of the puzzle. Assume the other person has another piece.
Ask them what data they were looking at and why that led them to the conclusion it did.
Then we should present our data and explain the reasoning behind it. While we’re doing this, it’s good to show that we’re open to learning from their perspective.
Q: That all sounds well and good, but what if the other person starts pushing our buttons, or we think they’re deliberately hurting us so they feel better?
A: There’s another interesting trait at play here called accuser bias. We’re prone to assume that someone else’s intentions are bad, while ours are good.
We feel upset because they’ve hurt us, but we tell them to stop overreacting because it wasn’t our intention to hurt them. This often leads to conflict spirals whether it’s between nations or people.
If we think someone’s deliberately hurt us, we retaliate. If we think they didn’t mean it then we don’t.
The best way to avoid these spirals is to try and take a step back and separate the impact of their behaviour – I feel hurt – from the intention. Our expertise only extends to our feelings and actions, not theirs.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate reasons why we’re upset. But that doesn’t mean to say they meant it.
Q: How can we navigate issues around apportioning blame for things that have happened in the past?
A: This is often the reason why someone wants to have a difficult conversation in the first place. Something bad has happened and we want to investigate it.
That’s absolutely understandable, but the other person generally won’t learn from their behaviour because they’re afraid of being blamed. The best way to get round this is to examine how each of us might have contributed to the situation so that we can both learn from it.
Q: You also talked about acknowledging emotions. But isn’t this often the reason why things spiral?
A: If someone tells you to keep your emotions out of it, then they clearly have no understanding about the art of difficult conversations.
To be good at difficult conversations, we don’t pack our emotions into a box but we find ways of handling them well.
There is a real difference between sharing your emotions in a difficult conversation than just “being emotional.”
The former can be very helpful, especially if you invite a conversation about their emotions and try to acknowledge them.
Q: How do we deal with their negative emotions?
A: The most important thing is to acknowledge how they’re feeling. Don’t tell them to calm down, or that it’s not that bad. Don’t tell them that you have a solution. This normally irritates people even more.
Q: So don’t try and solve the problem for them?
A: No because sometimes they’re not ready for the solution. They want someone to acknowledge how they feel first. Then they’ll be more receptive to a potential solution. Acknowledgement creates space for a solution.
Q: What about if the person you’re dealing with isn’t overtly emotional, but the opposite? They might be stonewalling for example.
A: When I think about stonewalling, I sense that someone is operating on the basis of certain fears or interests. That’s when it’s important to double down on good listening.
You might say, “Gosh I sense reluctance to move forwards here. What’s making this challenging from your perspective?”
They might say, “No it’s fine. There’s no impasse.”
You might then respond by saying, “OK, so from your perspective things are fine and from mine, they seem to be going slowly. What do you think might be contributing to this?”
Q: And what if that still doesn’t yield a result?
A: Try to think more creatively. Who else may have some influence on them other than you?
The person you’re having difficulties with might not defer to you, but maybe there’s someone else you have a good relation with. Deploy them instead.
Handling a difficult conversation well doesn’t always mean that it is going to yield the result you’d like. But the more skilful you can be, the more likely you’ll deepen the relationship, learn something valuable, and find a way to work through hard issues together.