Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most

by Douglas Stone

  ASSISTANT: [laughs] Okay, that works for me.

  YOU: And we might also think about how you could track better which appointments are going to be for which campaigns. . . .

  In the second conversation, you and your assistant have begun to identify the contributions that you each brought to the problem, and the ways in which each of your reactions are part of an overall pattern: You feel anxious and distracted about an upcoming presentation, and snap at your assistant. She assumes you want her out of your way, and withdraws. Something falls through the cracks, and then you are even more annoyed and worried the next time you are preparing, since you’re no longer sure you can trust your assistant to help you. So you become more abrupt, increasingly unapproachable, and the communication between you continues to erode. Mistakes multiply.

  As you get a handle on the interactive system the two of you have created, you can see what you each need to do to avoid or alter that system in the future. As a result, this second conversation is much more likely than the first to produce lasting change in the way you work together. Indeed, the first conversation runs the risk of reinforcing the problem. Since part of the system is that your assistant feels discouraged from talking to you because she fears provoking your anger, a conversation about blame is likely to make that tendency worse, not better. If you go that way, she’ll eventually conclude that you’re impossible to work with, and you’ll report that she’s incompetent.

  Contribution Is Joint and Interactive

  Focusing on the contributions of both the boss and the assistant — seeking understanding rather than judgment — is critical. This is not just good practice, it accords more closely with reality. As a rule, when things go wrong in human relationships, everyone has contributed in some important way.

  Of course, this is not how we usually experience contribution. A common distortion is to see contribution as singular — that what has gone wrong is either entirely our fault or (more often) entirely theirs.

  Only in a B movie is it that simple. In real life causation is almost always more complex. A contribution system is present, and that system includes inputs from both people. Think about a baseball pitcher facing a batter. If the batter strikes out in a crucial situation, he might explain that he wasn’t seeing well, that his wrist injury was still bothering him, or perhaps that he simply failed to come through in the clutch. The pitcher, however, might describe the strikeout by saying, “I knew he was thinking curve, so I came in with a high fast-ball,” or, “I was in a zone. I knew I had him before he even got in the batter’s box.”

  Who is right, the batter or the pitcher? Of course, the answer is both, at least in part. Whether the batter strikes out or hits a home run is a result of the interaction between the batter and the pitcher. Depending on your perspective, you might focus on the actions of one or the other, but the actions of both are required for the outcome.

  It’s the same in difficult conversations. Other than in extreme cases, such as child abuse, almost every situation that gives rise to a conversation is the result of a joint contribution system. Focusing on only one or the other of the contributors obscures rather than illuminates that system.

  The Costs of the Blame Frame

  There are situations in which focusing on blame is not only important, but essential. Our legal system is set up to apportion blame, both in the criminal and civil courts. Assigning blame publicly, against clearly articulated legal or moral standards, tells people what is expected of them and allows society to exercise justice.

  When Blame Is the Goal, Understanding Is the Casualty

  But even in situations that require a clear assignment of blame, there is a cost. Once the specter of punishment — legal or otherwise — is raised, learning the truth about what happened becomes more difficult. People are understandably less forthcoming, less open, less willing to apologize. After a car accident, for example, an automaker expecting to be sued may resist making safety improvements for fear it will seem an admission that the company should have done something before the accident.

  “Truth commissions” often are created because of this trade-off between assigning blame and gaining an understanding of what really happened. A truth commission offers clemency in return for honesty. In South Africa, for example, it is unlikely that so much would now be known about past abuses under the apartheid system if criminal investigations and trials had been the only means of discovery.

  Focusing on Blame Hinders Problem-Solving

  When the dog disappears, who’s to blame? The person who opened the gate or the one who failed to grab her collar? Should we argue about that or look for the dog? When the tub overflows and ruins the living room ceiling below, should we blame the forgetful bather? The spouse who called the bather downstairs? The manufacturer who designed an overflow drain that is too small? The plumber who failed to mention it? The answer to who contributed to the problem is all of the above. When your real goal is finding the dog, fixing the ceiling, and preventing such incidents in the future, focusing on blame is a waste of time. It neither helps you understand the problem looking back, nor helps you fix it going forward.

  Blame Can Leave a Bad System Undiscovered

  Even if punishment seems appropriate, using it as a substitute for really figuring out what went wrong and why is a disaster. The VP of Commodity Corp. championed the decision to build a new manufacturing plant as a way to increase profits. However, not only did the plant fail to increase profits, but the resulting increase in market supply actually brought profits down. At the time of the original decision to build the plant, several people privately predicted this, but didn’t speak up.

  To address the situation, the VP was fired and a new strategic planner was brought on board. By removing the person who made the bad decision and replacing him with someone “better,” it was assumed that the management issue was now fixed. But while the company had changed one “part” in the contribution system, it had failed to look at the system as a whole. Why did those who predicted failure keep silent? Were there implicit incentives that encouraged this? What structures, policies, and processes continue to allow poor decisions, and what would it take to change them?

  Removing one player in a system is sometimes warranted. But the cost of doing so as a substitute for the hard work of examining the larger contribution system is often surprisingly high.

  The Benefits of Understanding Contribution

  Fundamentally, using the blame frame makes conversations more difficult, while understanding the contribution system makes a difficult conversation easier and more likely to be productive.

  Contribution Is Easier to Raise

  Joseph runs an overseas office for a multinational corporation. His greatest frustration comes from headquarters’ unwillingness or inability to communicate with him effectively. Joseph doesn’t hear about policy changes until after they’re made, and is often informed by clients (or in one case, the newspaper!) about work his own firm is doing in his region. Joseph decides to raise the matter with the home office.

  Before he does, one of Joseph’s managers points out Joseph’s own role in the problem. Joseph installed a computer system incompatible with the one at headquarters. And he rarely takes the initiative to ask the kinds of questions he probably should. Unfortunately, instead of seeing his own contributions as part of the whole system, Joseph falls into the blame frame and begins to wonder whether the fault really lies with him rather than with headquarters. He doesn’t raise the issue after all, and his frustration continues.

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

  Contribution Enco
urages Learning and Change

  Imagine a couple confronting the wife’s infidelity. Accusations fly as questions of blame are raised. After much anguish, the husband chooses to stay in the marriage under the condition that such infidelity never happen again. There is an apparent resolution, but what has each person learned from the experience?

  As one-sided as an affair may seem, it often involves some contribution from both partners. Unless these contributions are sorted out, the problems and patterns in the marriage that gave rise to the affair will continue to cause difficulty. Some questions need to be asked: Does the husband listen to his wife? Does he stay at work late? Was his wife feeling sad, lonely, undesirable? If so, why?

  And to understand the system, the couple then needs to follow up with more questions: If the husband doesn’t listen to his wife, what’s she doing to contribute to that? What does she say or do that encourages him to shut down or withdraw? Does she work every weekend, or withdraw when she’s feeling upset? How does their relationship work? If the factors that contributed to the infidelity are to be understood and addressed, these questions must be explored — the contribution system must be mapped.

  Three Misconceptions About Contribution

  Three common misunderstandings can keep people from fully embracing or benefiting from the concept of contribution.

  Misconception #1: I Should Focus Only on My Contribution

  Advice that you should search for joint contribution to a problem is sometimes heard as “You should overlook the other person’s contribution and focus on your own.” This is a mistake. Finding your contribution doesn’t in any way negate the other person’s contribution. It has taken both of you to get into this mess. It will probably take both of you to get out.

  Recognizing that everyone involved in a situation has contributed to the problem doesn’t mean that everyone has contributed equally. You can be 5 percent responsible or 95 percent responsible — there is still joint contribution. Of course, quantifying contribution is not easy, and in most cases not very helpful. Understanding is the goal, not assigning percentages.

  Misconception #2: Putting Aside Blame Means Putting Aside My Feelings

  Seeking to understand the contribution system rather than focusing on blame doesn’t mean putting aside strong emotions. Quite the contrary. As you and the other person look at how you have each contributed to the problem, sharing your feelings is essential.

  Indeed, the very impulse to blame is often stimulated by strong emotions that lie unexpressed. When you learn of your wife’s infidelity, you want to say, “You are responsible for ruining our marriage! How could you do something so stupid and hurtful?!” Here, you are focusing on blame as a proxy for your feelings. Speaking more directly about your strong feelings — “I feel devastated by what you did” or “My ability to trust you has been shattered” — actually reduces the impulse to blame. Over time, as you look ahead, it frees you to talk more comfortably and productively in terms of contribution.

  If you find yourself mired in a continuing urge to blame, or with an unceasing desire for the other person to admit that they were wrong, you may find some relief by asking yourself: “What feelings am I failing to express?” and “Has the other person acknowledged my feelings?” As you explore this terrain, you may find yourself naturally shifting from a blame frame to a contribution frame. You may learn that what you really seek is understanding and acknowledgment. What you want the other person to say isn’t “It was my fault,” but rather “I understand that I hurt you and I’m sorry.” The first statement is about judgment, the second about understanding.

  Misconception #3: Exploring Contribution Means “Blaming the Victim”

  When someone blames the victim, they are suggesting that the victim “brought it on themselves,” that they deserved or even wanted to be victimized. This is often terribly unfair and painful for both the victim and others.

  Looking for joint contribution is not about blame of any kind. Imagine that you are mugged while walking alone down a dark street late at night. Blame asks: “Did you do something wrong? Did you break the law? Did you act immorally? Should you be punished?” The answer to all of these questions is no. You didn’t do anything wrong; you didn’t deserve to be mugged. Being mugged was not your fault.

  Contribution asks a different set of questions. Contribution asks: “What did I do that helped cause the situation?” You can find contribution even in situations where you carry no blame; you did contribute to being mugged. How? By choosing to walk alone at night. If you’d been somewhere else, or in a group, getting mugged would have been less likely. If we are looking to punish someone for what happened, we would punish the mugger. If we are looking to help you feel empowered in the world, we would encourage you to find your contribution. You may not be able to change other people’s contributions, but you can often change your own.

  In his autobiography, A Long Walk to Freedom, Nelson Mandela provides an example of how people who have been overwhelmingly victimized can still seek to understand their own contribution to their problems. He describes how he learned this from an Afrikaner:

  Reverend Andre Scheffer was a minister of the Dutch Reformed Mission Church in Africa. . . . He had a dry sense of humor and liked to poke fun at us. “You know,” he would say, “the white man has a more difficult task than the black man in this country. Whenever there is a problem, we [white men] have to find a solution. But whenever you blacks have a problem, you have an excuse. You can simply say, ‘Ingabilungu,’” . . . . a Xhosa expression that means, “It is the whites.”

  He was saying that we could always blame all of our troubles on the white man. His message was that we must also look within ourselves and become responsible for our actions — sentiments with which I wholeheartedly agreed.

  Mandela does not believe blacks are to blame for their situation. He does believe that blacks must look for and take responsibility for their contribution to the problems of South Africa, if the nation is to move forward successfully.

  By identifying what you are doing to perpetuate a situation, you learn where you have leverage to affect the system. Simply by changing your own behavior, you gain at least some influence over the problem.

  Finding Your Fair Share: Four Hard-to-Spot Contributions

  “The concept of contribution makes sense,” you may be thinking. Even so, as you reflect on your own most pressing entanglement, you are baffled: “In this particular situation, I just don’t see how I have any contribution.” Spotting your own contribution becomes easier with practice. But it helps to be familiar with four common contributions that are often overlooked.

  1. Avoiding Until Now

  One of the most common contributions to a problem, and one of the easiest to overlook, is the simple act of avoiding. You have allowed the problem to continue unchecked by not having addressed it earlier. It may be that your ex-husband has been late every time he’s picked up your kids for the last two years, but you’ve never mentioned to him that it was a problem. It may be that your boss has trampled thoughtlessly on your self-esteem since you began work four years ago, but you’ve chosen not to share with her the impact on you.

  One of your store managers deserves a warning or even to be fired. But his file is full of “Satisfactory” performance reviews dating back years. Why? Partly because you wanted to avoid the effort of documenting the problem, but mostly because you and other supervisors haven’t wanted the hassle of having an ongoing difficult conversation with an argumentative person. And because managers in your company tolerate and collude in a norm of avoiding such conversations.

  A particularly problematic form of avoiding is complaining to a third party instead of to the person with whom you’re upset. It makes you feel better, but puts the third party in the middle with no good way to help. They can’t speak for you, and if they try, the other person may get the idea that the problem is so terrible that you can’t discuss it directly. On the other hand, if they keep quiet, t
he third party is burdened with only your partisan and incomplete version of the story.

  This isn’t to say that it’s not okay to get advice from a friend about how to conduct a difficult conversation. It does suggest that if you do so, then you should also report back to that friend about any change in your feelings as a result of having the difficult conversation, so that they aren’t left with an unbalanced story.

  2. Being Unapproachable

  The flip side of not bringing something up is having an interpersonal style that keeps people at bay. You contribute by being uninterested, unpredictable, short-tempered, judgmental, punitive, hypersensitive, argumentative, or unfriendly. Of course, whether you are really any of these things or intend this impact is not the point. If someone experiences you this way, they are less likely to raise things with you, and this becomes part of the system of avoidance between you.

  3. Intersections

  Intersections result from a simple difference between two people in background, preferences, communication style, or assumptions about relationships. Consider Toby and Eng-An, who have been married for about four months. Their fights have begun falling into a predictable pattern. Toby is usually the one to initiate a discussion about an issue — who is doing more of the housework, why Eng-An didn’t stick up for him with her mother, whether to save or spend her year-end bonus. When things become heated, Eng-An ends the discussion by saying, “Look, I just don’t want to talk about this right now,” and walking out.