If you work with other people, it is only a matter of time until there is some form of interpersonal dissatisfaction, dysfunction, or conflict. These problems are rarely effectively resolved without having a difficult and potentially uncomfortable conversation. There are many approaches; of course, every relationship and specific interaction between two or more people is unique. That said, here are some things to consider for those such scenarios.
Your own experience is unarguable. That is, when you explicitly refer to your interpretation of something as just that, you are not claiming that your statement is the absolute truth. Starting a statement with “you” automatically puts the other person on the defensive, ready to argue or explain why what you are saying is not accurate or true (that is, it does not match the other person’s view).
Examples include:
1) I believe . . . think . . . feel . . . perceive . . . imagine . . . wonder.
2) My . . . story is . . . perception is . . . perspective is . . . interpretation is.
3) I . . . assumed . . . concluded . . . reacted . . . behaved.
We all use words such as “trust” and “communication” and assume that the other person is thinking in the same terms. However, words mean different things to each person, especially in the context of a specific interpersonal relationship (and one that includes some unpleasant emotions). Be sure to explain what you mean by the words that seem to come up most in the conversation.
Examples of words that commonly arise and are subject to differing definitions include trust, communication, responsibility, accountability, respect or disrespect, appreciate, and teamwork.
When referring to things the other person did or failed to do, it is easy to slip into describing those events and actions in ways that imply undesirable motives or intentions and character traits. Doing so is very likely to elicit defensiveness, as your judgments are liable to be at odds with the other person’s perspective.
Instead, focus on observable actions. Avoid using exaggeration words such as “always” and “never,” which invariably are not 100 percent accurate, elicit defensiveness, and provide grounds for arguing and counterexamples. Of course, it is probably important to also share your judgments (story) about those actions, but make it clear that you recognize that your perspective is just that: yours and not necessarily the absolute truth.
Be sure to invest time and attention in fully understanding the other person’s perspective. Investigating the underlying meaning of particular words is one such aspect. Another is focusing on the other person’s experience of events related to the conversation at hand. What do they remember, and how did they interpret what happened? Examples of prompts to facilitate such understanding include:
When another person accuses you of something or misunderstands your intentions or reasons, it is natural to get defensive, launch into disagreement, and attempt to set the record straight. Unfortunately, that natural response rarely works and instead frequently escalates the conflict. Why?
Contradicting the other person’s story prompts their defensiveness, as they then launch into correcting you as to how you don’t understand their reality. Changing minds and promoting understanding is unlikely indeed. Instead, fall back into investigator mode, seeking to fully understand the other person’s story (as inaccurate as it obviously may seem to you). Then, use “I statements” to share your perspective and experience. Avoiding statements that start with “you” sends the message that you are not judging the other person’s experience as right or wrong but showing how yours compares (differs). Continue the conversation in this way to facilitate mutual insight into the nature of the conflict.
After engaging in the process described thus far, it is likely that all parties have a more nuanced understanding of each other and what went wrong. What next? Be as specific as possible as to lessons learned and how to apply these from this point forward.
Are there specific requests each person has as to how they would like the other person to respond if or when a similar situation arises? Would it be helpful to schedule a second conversation to check in with each other as to how the relationship is going? Doing so would help ensure that the investment in and progress from this difficult conversation is not lost.
In conclusion, like any skill, development requires preparation, practice, and perspective (reflecting back on your experience and learning from it). It seems that very few people are sufficiently skilled to navigate candid, potentially uncomfortable conversations effectively, yet the benefits are immense.
6 Tips for “Difficult Conversations” at Work
22
0
25.11.2023
If you work with other people, it is only a matter of time until there is some form of interpersonal dissatisfaction, dysfunction, or conflict. These problems are rarely effectively resolved without having a difficult and potentially uncomfortable conversation. There are many approaches; of course, every relationship and specific interaction between two or more people is unique. That said, here are some things to consider for those such scenarios.
Your own experience is unarguable. That is, when you explicitly refer to your interpretation of something as just that, you are not claiming that your statement is the absolute truth. Starting a statement with “you” automatically puts the other person on the defensive, ready to argue or explain why what you are saying is not accurate or true (that is, it does not match the other person’s view).
Examples include:
1) I believe . . . think . . . feel . . . perceive . . . imagine . . . wonder.
2) My . . . story is . . . perception is . . . perspective is . . . interpretation is.
3) I . . . assumed . . . concluded . . . reacted . . . behaved.
We all use words such as “trust” and “communication” and assume that the........
© Psychology Today
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Donald Low
Bradley Blankenship
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Abbas Juma
Michael Kwet
