Difficult conversations: how to make them more productive and useful

Any conversation that makes us feel vulnerable, uncertain or simply uncomfortable can be difficult.

These are the conversations we are likely to put off. Asking for a pay rise, telling your boss you have found another job, breaking up with your partner or returning a purchase to a shop—sound familiar?

In their book Difficult Conversations, Douglas Stone, Sheila Heen and Bruce Patton explore the difficult conversations we all have. After studying hundreds of conversations, the authors developed the idea that three types of conversation underlie every difficult exchange. The book offers guidance on specific techniques so that we can stop avoiding difficult conversations and make them more productive and useful.

Type 1: The “What happened?” conversation

These conversations involve disagreements about what happened or what should have happened. They can take many forms, often turning towards who said what, who did what, who is right, what someone meant and who is to blame.

How can we make it more productive?

Put yourself in the other person’s shoes. Accept that they are a different person with a different perspective, so it is natural for them to reach different conclusions. Differences in views often stem from differences in the information available to each of you. Instead of taking offence when someone disagrees, explore whether they know something you do not yet know.

The authors suggest avoiding the assumption that the other person has bad intentions. They give this example: a friend comments on how tired you look. Instead of taking it as an insult, consider that your friend cares about your health and wellbeing. In other words, do not automatically expect the worst of the other person.

Stop blaming others. If the other participant misunderstood you during a heated conversation, it is not necessarily their fault. Identify each person’s contribution and take responsibility for working through the situation together. Adopting this approach will help you reach mutual understanding.

Type 2: The feelings conversation

Every difficult conversation involves uncertainty about whether participants’ feelings are valid. Should you be angry or upset? Is it acceptable for the other person to disregard how you feel? Are you worried that you have hurt their feelings? Emotions need to be addressed in the conversation.

How can we make it more productive?

Pay attention to your own emotions during difficult conversations. Consider why you react as you do in particular situations. Reflect on how you handled emotions as a child and whether this is consistent with how you handle difficult conversations now. Think about how the people around you responded to the way you handled difficult conversations when you were younger.

This process identifies your natural emotional pattern during difficult conversations. Your perceptions and views underpin your emotions. Try to reconsider your perceptions in these situations. Instead of reacting automatically, try looking at other perspectives. Even considering an alternative viewpoint can calm your immediate emotional reactions.

The authors recommend sharing your emotions, both positive and negative. Avoid accusatory exaggerations when explaining how the conversation makes you feel and why: “always” and “never” unfairly label the other person. Instead, help them understand your perspective and emotional response. Then ask how their perspective and emotional response differ, and why.

Type 3: The identity conversation

The identity conversation is the one we have with ourselves. It concerns what the situation means to us. During difficult conversations, we often consider whether we come across as competent, considerate and polite. We worry that these conversations will affect our self-esteem and how we see ourselves.

How can we make it more productive?

It is easy to list a few terms describing how we identify ourselves. The problem with identity conversations is that we usually rely on labels: loyal or disloyal, loved or hated. Yet identities are never absolute, one-dimensional or static.

When we identify ourselves through such labels, we see difficult conversations as attacks on our self-image. They can quickly make us question our identity. Perhaps you see yourself as a loyal person. Imagine receiving an offer from a competing company with a high salary and a better position. Accepting it may leave you confused about your identity if you rely on labels, because it would apparently make you disloyal, wouldn’t it? Instead, consider how loyal you have been for years, but that the time has come for a change. You would also be prioritising loyalty to your family by providing a better income.

The authors advise remembering that we cannot control another person’s actions. We can only control how we respond to them. Try to look at the conversation from a distance. It will probably seem unimportant in the long run, so use it as a learning opportunity. These conversations also serve to share and solve problems and productively explore differences in participants’ information and perceptions.