book-notes

Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most

by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, Sheila Heen and Roger Fisher

Introduction

A difficult situation is any situation of which we fear the consequences.
Avoiding a problem will make you feel taken advantage of, your feelings will fester, you’ll wonder why you didn’t stick up for yourself, and you’ll rob the other person of an opportunity to improve.
Do not set unrealisitic expectaitons. The best we can do is reduce fear and anxiety, and get better results in the face of tolerable odds.

The Problem

Chapter 1: Sort Out the Three Conversations

The gap between what you’re saying and what you’re thinking is part of what makes a conversation difficult.
The what happened? conversation is where we struggle with different stories about who’s right, who meant what, and who’s to blame.
Difficult conversations is almost never about getting the facts right, it’s about conflicting perceptions, interpretations, and values. Not about what is true, but about what is important.
Moving away from the truth assumption, or assuming that you’re right, lets us understand the perceptions, interpretations, and values of both sides.
We assume intentions from other people’s behavior, but such intentions are complex, and so our invented stories are typically very inaccurate.
Talking about blame distracts us from exploring why things went wrong and how we might correct them going forward.
The feelings conversation is how to handle the feelings that will inevitably arise.
Difficult conversations do not just involve feelings, but they are at their very core about feelings, and so you cannot avoid talking about them.
The identity conversation looks inward, and looks at the effects on your self-esteem, your self-image, and your sense of place in the world.
Anytime a conversation feels difficult, something beyond the apparent substance of the conversation is at stake for you.
By moving toward a learning conversation, you increase your chances of persuading the other person, and that you will learn something that changes your understanding of the problem.

Shift to a Learning Stance - The “What Happened?” Conversation

Chapter 2: Stop Arguing About Who’s Right – Explore Each Other’s Stories

One of the hallmarks of the what happened? conversation is that people disagree.
We think the other party is selfish, naive, controlling, or irrational, and our persistence leads to arguments, which in turn lead nowhere.
We don’t see ourselves as the problem because what we are making sense. But what the other person is saying also makes sense.
Arguing inhibits our ability to learn. When we argue, we tend to trade conclusions, neither of which makes sense in the other person’s story.
Telling someone to change makes it less likely that they will, because people almost never change without first feeling understood.
From the available information, our stories are built from our observations, our interpretations, and eventually our conclusions.
Our observations differ because we notice different things, and each person has access to information that the other person doesn’t.
Our interpretations differ because we have differing past experiences that influence us, and we apply different implicit rules by which we live our lives.
Our conclusions differ because we are partisan, and they often reflect our own self-interest.
To move from certainty to curiosity, ask what information they have that you don’t, and how might they see the world such that their view makes sense.
When trying to understand, embrace both stories. This allows you to assert your views and feelings without diminishing those of someone else, and vice versa.
When delivering bad news, understanding their view doesn’t diminish the power to implement your own decision, and to be clear that your decision is final.

Chapter 3: Don’t Assume They Meant It: Disentangle Intent from Impact

One key mistake is that other people’s intentions exist only in their hearts and minds. Consequently our assumptions about them are often incomplete or wrong.
We make an attribution obout another person’s intentions based on the impact of their actions on us.
When we assume intentions, we are never charitable and always assume the worst, and we treat ourselves more charitably.
The biggest danger of assuming that the other person had bad intentions is that we easily generalize this to “they are a bad person.”
An accusatory question meant to share our hurt, frustration, anger, or confusion makes the other person feel falsely accused, and hence that person becomes defensive.
Thinking that someone has bad intentions affects our behavior, which affects how that person treats us, which in turn fulfills our assumption of their bad intentions.
Another key mistake is thinking that upon clarifying that we had good intentions, the other person should not feel hurt.
The problem with focusing only on clarifying our intentions is that we end up missing significant pieces of what the other person is trying to say.
If you clarify your intentions at the beginning of the conversation, you are likely doing it without fully understanding what the other person really means to express.
To avoid the first mistake, disentangle impact and intent. You must be aware of the automatic leap from “I was hurt” to “You intended to hurt me.”
Create an assumption about what the other person intended. Share it with them, and take care to label it as a hypothesis that you are checking rather than asserting as true.
To avoid the second mistake, acknowledge their feelings before your own intentions, and be open to reflecting on the complexity of your intentions.

Chapter 4: Abandon Blame: Map the Contribution System

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.
The urge to blame is based on a misunderstanding of what has given rise to the issues between you and the other person, and on the fear of being blamed.
Blame is about judging; we offer them the role of “the accused,” and so they defend themselves any way they can.
Instead of blame, ask how each person contributed to the current situation, and what everyone can do about it as we go forward.
Even if punishment is appropriate, using it as a substitute for really figuring out what went wrong and why is a disaster.
In the blame frame, you have to believe others are at fault and you aren’t to feel justified raising an issue; but this is rare, so you fail to raise important issues.
Find your contribution, but don’t negate the other person’s contribution. Both of you got into this mess, and it will probably take both of you to get out of it.
When focusing on contribution, don’t put aside your feelings. Speaking more directly about them actually reduces the impulse to blame.
Exploring contribution does not mean blaming the victim; you can find contribution even in situations where you carry no blame.
When searching for your contribution, check whether you have avoided the problem until now, or whether you have an interpersonal style that keeps people at bay.
An intersection of conflicting assumptions about communication and relationships create problems. It is not a quesiton of right versus wrong.
To change how people interact, they need both an alternate model everyone thinks is better and the skills to make that model work better. This is difficult.