Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most

by Douglas Stone

  Interestingly, when people take on the job of thinking hard about their own intentions, it sends a profoundly positive message to the other person about the importance of the relationship. After all, you’d only do that kind of hard work for somebody who matters to you.

  We Aggravate Hostility — Especially Between Groups

  This dynamic of attributing intentions, defending ourselves, and ignoring the impact we’ve had on others is especially common in conflicts between groups, whether the groups are union members and management, neighborhood organizations and developers, administrative staff and the professionals they support, or my family and your family. The desire to sanitize impact is especially common in situations involving issues of “difference,” like race, gender, or sexual orientation.

  A few years ago a newspaper was experiencing racial strife among its workers. African American and Hispanic reporters complained about the absence of minority voices at the editorial level, and threatened to organize a boycott unless practices were changed. In response, the executive editors met behind closed doors to consider what to do. No minority staffers were invited to the meeting. When the minority reporters learned of the meeting, they were outraged. “They’re telling us once again that they don’t care what we have to say,” said one reporter.

  When one of the white editors heard this, she felt wrongly accused and sought to clarify the intention of the meeting: “I can see why you felt excluded. But that wasn’t our intention. It was simply a meeting of editors trying to figure out a good next step for how to include minority voices.” The white editor felt that now that her intentions were clarified, the issue of the “meaning of the meeting” was over. After all, everything was now clear. But it’s never that simple. The intentions of the white editors are important. What’s also important is that whether or not the intention was to exclude, people felt excluded. And such feelings may take time and thought on everyone’s part to work through.

  Avoiding the Two Mistakes

  The good news is that the two mistakes around intentions and impact are avoidable.

  Avoiding the First Mistake: Disentangle Impact and Intent

  How can Lori avoid the mistake of attributing intentions to Leo that he may not have? Her first step is simply to recognize that there is a difference between the impact of Leo’s behavior on her and what Leo intended. She can’t get anywhere without disentangling the two.

  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:

  Actions: “What did the other person actually say or do?”

  Impact: “What was the impact of this on me?”

  Assumption: “Based on this impact, what assumption am I making about what the other person intended?”

  Hold Your View as a Hypothesis. Once you have clearly answered these three questions, the next step is to make absolutely certain that you recognize that your assumption about their intentions is just an assumption. It is a guess, a hypothesis.

  Disentangle Impact and Intent

  * * *

  Aware of My intentions

  Unaware of Other person’s intentions

  * * *

  Aware of Other person’s impact on me

  Unaware of My impact on other person

  * * *

  Your hypothesis is not based on nothing; you know what was said or done. But as we’ve seen, this is not a lot of evidence to go on. Your guess might be right and it might be wrong. In fact, your reaction might even say as much about you as it does about what they did. Perhaps you’ve had a past experience that gives their action special meaning to you. Many people find certain kinds of teasing hostile, for example, because of bad experiences with siblings, while others think of teasing (in moderation) as a way to connect and show affection. Given the stakes, however, you can’t afford to level an accusation based on tenuous data.

  Share the Impact on You; Inquire About Their Intentions. You can use your answers to the three questions listed above to begin the difficult conversation itself: say what the other person did, tell them what its impact was on you, and explain your assumption about their intentions, taking care to label it as a hypothesis that you are checking rather than asserting to be true.

  Consider how this would change the beginning of the conversation between Lori and Leo. Instead of beginning with an accusation, Lori can begin by identifying what Leo said, and what the impact was on her:

  LORI: You know when you said, “Why don’t you lay off the ice cream”? Well, I felt hurt by that.

  LEO: You did?

  LORI: Yeah.

  LEO: I was just trying to help you stay on your diet. Why does that make you upset?

  LORI: I felt embarrassed that you said it in front of our friends. Then what I wonder is whether you said it on purpose to embarrass or hurt me. I don’t know why you’d want to do that, but that’s what I’m thinking when it happens.

  LEO: Well, I’m certainly not doing it on purpose. I guess I didn’t realize it was so upsetting. I’m confused about what it is you want me to say if I see you going off your diet . . . .

  The conversation is only beginning, but it is off to a better start.

  Don’t Pretend You Don’t Have a Hypothesis. Note that we aren’t suggesting you should get rid of your assumptions about their intentions. That just isn’t realistic. Nor do we suggest hiding your view. Instead, recognize your assumptions for what they are — mere guesses subject to modification or disproof. Lori doesn’t say “I have no thoughts on why you said what you said,” or “I know you didn’t mean to hurt me.” That would not be authentic. When you share your assumptions about their intentions, simply be clear that you are sharing assumptions — guesses — and that you are sharing them for the purpose of testing whether they make sense to the other person.

  Some Defensiveness Is Inevitable. Of course, no matter how skillfully you handle things, you are likely to encounter some defensiveness. The matter of intentions and impacts is complex, and sometimes the distinctions are fine. So it’s best to anticipate a certain amount of defensiveness, and to be prepared to clarify what you are trying to communicate, and what you are not.

  The more you can relieve the other person of the need to defend themselves, the easier it becomes for them to take in what you are saying and to reflect on the complexity of their motivations. For example, you might say, “I was surprised that you made that comment. It seemed uncharacteristic of you. . . .” Assuming this is true (that it is uncharacteristic), you are giving some balance to the information you are bringing to their attention. If there was some malice mixed in with what they said, this balance makes it easier for them to own up to it.

  Avoiding the Second Mistake: Listen for Feelings, and Reflect on Your Intentions

  When we find ourselves in Leo’s position — being accused of bad intentions — we have a strong tendency to want to defend ourselves: “That is not what I intended.” We are defending our intentions and our character. However, as we’ve seen, starting here leads to trouble.

  Listen Past the Accusation for the Feelings. 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.

  Be Open to Reflecting on the Complexity of Your Intentions. When it comes time to consider your intentions, try to avoid the tendency to say “My intentions were pure.” We usually think that about ourselves, and sometimes it’s true. But often, as we’ve seen, intentions are more complex.

  We can imagine how the initial conversation might have gone if Leo followed this advice with
Lori:

  LORI: I really resented it at the party, the way you treated me in front of our friends.

  LEO: The way I treated you? What do you mean?

  LORI: About the ice cream. You act like you’re my father or something. You have this need to control me or put me down.

  LEO: Wow. It sounds like what I said really hurt.

  LORI: Of course it hurt. What did you expect?

  LEO: Well, at the time I was thinking that you’d said you were on a diet, and that maybe I could help you stick to it. But I can see how saying something in front of everyone would be embarrassing. I wonder why I didn’t see that?

  LORI: Maybe you were embarrassed to have to say something.

  LEO: Yeah, maybe. I could have seen you as out of control, which is a big issue for me.

  LORI: That’s true. And I probably was a little out of control.

  LEO: Anyway, I’m sorry. I don’t like hurting you. Let’s think about what I should do or say, if anything, in situations like that.

  LORI: Good idea. . . .

  Understanding how we distort others’ intentions, making difficult conversations even more difficult, is crucial to untangling what happened between us. However, there’s still one more piece to the “What Happened?” Conversation that can get us into trouble — the question of who is to blame.

  4

  Abandon Blame: Map the Contribution System

  The ad agency you work for flies you to Boulder to pitch executives at ExtremeSport, a burgeoning sportswear company and a potentially important client. You turn to begin your presentation, only to discover that you’ve got the wrong storyboards. Right client, wrong campaign. Shaken, you stumble through an unfocused talk. With one slip, your assistant, who packs your briefcase, has undermined weeks of hard work.

  In Our Story, Blame Seems Clear

  You blame your assistant, not just because she’s a convenient target for your frustration or because letting others know it was she and not you who screwed up may help salvage your reputation, but because it is the simple truth: this was her fault.

  When you and your assistant finally discuss what went wrong, you can take one of two approaches. You can blame her explicitly, saying something like “I don’t know how you could have let this happen!” Or, if you tend to be less confrontational (or have been taught that blaming people isn’t helpful), you can blame her implicitly, with something less threatening, like “Let’s do better next time.” Either way, she’ll get the message: she’s to blame.

  We’re Caught in Blame’s Web

  Blame is a prominent issue in many difficult conversations. Whether on the surface or below, the conversation revolves around the question of who is to blame. Who is the bad person in this relationship? Who made the mistake? Who should apologize? Who gets to be righteously indignant?

  Focusing on blame is a bad idea. Not because it’s hard to talk about. Nor because it can injure relationships and cause pain and anxiety. Many subjects are hard to discuss and have potentially negative side effects and are nonetheless important to address.

  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. And because blame is often irrelevant and unfair. The urge to blame is based, quite literally, on a misunderstanding of what has given rise to the issues between you and the other person, and on the fear of being blamed. Too often, blaming also serves as a bad proxy for talking directly about hurt feelings.

  But the advice “Don’t blame others” is no answer. You can’t move away from blame until you understand what blame is, what motivates us to want to blame each other, and how to move toward something else that will better serve your purposes in difficult conversations. That something else is the concept of contribution. The distinction between blame and contribution is not always easy to grasp, but it is essential to improving your ability to handle difficult conversations well.

  Distinguish Blame from Contribution

  At heart, blame is about judging and contribution is about understanding.

  Blame Is About Judging, and Looks Backward

  When we ask the question “Who is to blame?” we are really asking three questions in one. First, did this person cause the problem? Did your assistant’s actions (or inaction) cause you to have the wrong storyboards? Second, if so, how should her actions be judged against some standard of conduct? Was she incompetent, unreasonable, unethical? And third, if the judgment is negative, how should she be punished? Will she be yelled at? Warned? Perhaps even fired?

  When we say “This was your fault,” it is shorthand for giving condemning answers to all three questions. We mean not only that you caused this, but that you did something bad and should be punished. It’s no wonder that blame is such a loaded issue, and that we are quick to defend ourselves when we sense its approach.

  When blame is in play, you can expect defensiveness, strong emotion, interruptions, and arguments about what “good assistants,” “loving spouses,” or “any reasonable person” should or shouldn’t do. When we blame someone, we are offering them the role of “the accused,” so they do what accused people do: they defend themselves any way they can. Given what’s at stake, it’s easy to see why the dance of mutual finger-pointing often turns nasty.

  Contribution Is About Understanding, and Looks Forward

  Contribution asks a related but different set of questions. The first question is “How did we each contribute to bringing about the current situation?” Or put another way: “What did we each do or not do to get ourselves into this mess?” The second question is “Having identified the contribution system, how can we change it? What can we do about it as we go forward?” In short, contribution is useful when our goal is to understand what actually happened so that we can improve how we work together in the future. In the worlds of both business and personal relationships, too often we deal in blame when our real goals are understanding and change.

  To illustrate, let’s return to the ExtremeSport story and imagine two contrasting conversations between you and your assistant. The first conversation focuses on blame, the second on contribution.

  YOU: I wanted to talk to you about my presentation at ExtremeSport. You packed the wrong storyboards. The situation was unbelievably awkward, and made me look terrible. We simply can’t work this way.

  ASSISTANT: I heard. I’m so sorry. I just, well, you probably don’t want to hear my excuses.

  YOU: I just don’t understand how you could let this happen.

  ASSISTANT: I’m really sorry.

  YOU: I know you didn’t do it on purpose, and I know you feel bad, but I don’t want this to happen again. You understand what I’m saying?

  ASSISTANT: It won’t. I promise you.

  All three elements of blame are present: you caused this, I’m judging you negatively, and implicit in what I am saying is that one way or another you will be punished, especially if it happens again.

  In contrast, a conversation about contribution might sound like this:

  YOU: I wanted to talk to you about my presentation at ExtremeSport. When I arrived I found the wrong storyboards in my briefcase.

  ASSISTANT: I heard. I’m so sorry. I feel terrible.

  YOU: I appreciate that. I’m feeling bad too. Let’s retrace our steps and think about how this happened. I suspect we may each have contributed to the problem. From your point of view, did I do anything differently this time?

  ASSISTANT: I’m not sure. We were working on three accounts at once, and on the one just before this one, when I asked about which boards you wanted packed, you got angry. I know it is my responsibility to know which boards you want, but sometimes when things get hectic, it can get confusing.

  YOU: If you’re unsure, you should always ask. But it sounds like you’re saying I don’t always make it easy to do that.

  ASSISTANT: Well, I do feel intimidated sometimes. When you get really busy, it’s like you don’t want to be bothe
red. The day you left you were in that kind of mood. I was trying to stay out of your way, because I didn’t want to add to your frustration. I had planned to double-check which boards you wanted when you got off the phone, but then I had to run to the copy center. After you left I remembered, but I knew you usually double-checked your briefcase, so I figured it was okay.

  YOU: Yeah, I do usually double-check, but this time I was so overwhelmed I forgot. I think we’d both better double-check every time. And I do get in those moods. I know it can be hard to interact with me when I’m like that. I need to work on being less impatient and abrupt. But if you’re unsure, I need you to ask questions no matter what kind of mood I’m in.

  ASSISTANT: So you want me to ask questions even if I think it will annoy you?

  YOU: Yes, although I’ll try to be less irritable. Can you do that?

  ASSISTANT: Well, talking about it like this makes it easier. I realize it’s important.

  YOU: You can even refer to this conversation. You can say, “I know you’re under pressure, but you made me promise I’d ask this . . . .” Or just say, “Hey, you promised not to be such a jerk!”