Difficult conversations
Apr. 27th, 2010 05:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kimberkitDifficult Conversations is an amazing book on how to have hard conversations. It taught me a lot about how I get in my own way sometimes, and about some of my assumptions.
The first section of the book deals with some of the more standard thoughts on dealing with hard conversation: when we go in, emotions hot, we often fail to consider that we don't have all of the information we need. We often think we have all of the pieces of information we need, but none of us is coming from the same emotional and familial background -- to say nothing of any actual facts that people aren't stating.
Better listening comes from a place of curiosity: what is it that makes someone feel and behave the way they do? (I know what you're thinking: it's easier to be curious when you're not quite so upset/angry/frustrated. But it is possible to take a step back, try to view the situation in a neutral way, express anger and frustration AND still ask, "What's going on, and why?")
This first section of the book also talks about how, when emotions are high, we also make emotional judgments about people ("Why are they so inconsiderate?") without actually mentally taking into account that the judgment is almost completely emotionally based.
We frame our emotions out of our own heads somehow when we talk to ourselves. What we really mean by "you're a selfish bitch" is closer to, "I feel hurt and angry." So the general advice is: Frame your emotions back into the conversation. Also, try to give context for those emotions, so that they're not quite so explosive. "I feel angry when you tell me to do this because I am afraid of falling short of your expectations." This is waaaaay less likely to get a defensive response than even something so innocuous-sounding as "I thought that you acted badly."
Suspend the judgments; focus on trying to understand what happened first. Only then can you work on problem-solving -- recognizing that both of you contributed to a situation and asking what to do about it, rather than blaming.
--
The middle section of the book deals with when and why we're having these hard conversations. It feels so intuitive that we are talking to vent, or to have a conversation with the goal of trying to change a situation -- but while we want our feelings acknowledged, this is not the full picture as to why you should be having a tricky conversation.
The goal, again, is for understanding; it's about remembering that we don't have all the pieces. Only then do you get to both figure out how you might move forward. It is not a two-way conversation if you're the only one throwing your weight around -- and generally, actually, this leads to defensiveness and anger anyway.
We cannot control other people's emotions, or their reactions. We can't force them to listen to us, either, as frustrating as this is. But you're both more likely to be able to work together if you can ask why someone is reacting a certain way -- and then they are more likely to listen back, too. (When doing this: don't hit and run. Don't go "Argh, I'm so frustrated" or "Oh, this one thing might help" and then not make the time to follow up on it. You quickly lose the point of mutual cooperation that way. Hard conversations are hard partly because they're openings to figuring out new ways of looking at the world, and you don't get that in one go all the time.)
What gets in our way when we attempt to control other people is often an issue of identity; it's really hard to let go of some of these patterns of attempting control because some aspect of whatever is happening is wrapped up in our identities. The book suggests some assumptions to make before you go in to a hard conversation, my favorites of which are:
"It's not my responsibility to make things better; it's my resposibility to do my best." So many of us are goodhearted, well intentioned folk -- so we do the 'I am a helpful person so I want to fix it and make it all better' thing. But...
(1) It is just not always possible to make a situation better, especially not all on your own
(2) If there are two people in a situation, the responsibility for fixing things is on both of your shoulders, not just yours
(3) Attempts to control another person often come across as not listening, which leads to defensiveness and blowback
"They have limitations too." Other people aren't perfect. Sometimes you both share how you feel and you manage to state your feelings, you both agree to change things.... and things don't change. Accepting that this is a possibility is part of caring about the other person, and sometimes it's easier to work around that than to bang your head into a wall because nothing's changing. Did you do your best? That's good enough.
--
So, how to start the conversation?
(1) Start from a neutral perspective, or, if they start, be able to reflect back, "It sounds like you're feeling this way... I have problems too, and we clearly have different perspectives, so it seems like it would be a good thing for us to talk about..."
(2) Invite, don't force -- let them contribute to the stated purpose of the conversation. This does not mean you can't be persistent in asking them to have the conversation -- it takes a bit of time sometimes before someone can hear that you're not yelling at them right off the bat.
(3) Make them your partner, not the person you have to teach or drag along.
--
This stuff only works if you feel authentic in your ability to genuinely be curious and caring. That's when asking "tell me more" actually sounds non-fake, when you have the ability to "hear" (and verbally acknowledge) unspoken feelings/questions.
--
Checking understandings: questions like, "Do you see it differently?" actually are better than, "Does that make sense?" because the goal of understanding is to get the whole picture, including all the points where you disagree, not just where you overlap.
--
Whew, that was a long review. But I feel like I pulled quite a lot from it...
The first section of the book deals with some of the more standard thoughts on dealing with hard conversation: when we go in, emotions hot, we often fail to consider that we don't have all of the information we need. We often think we have all of the pieces of information we need, but none of us is coming from the same emotional and familial background -- to say nothing of any actual facts that people aren't stating.
Better listening comes from a place of curiosity: what is it that makes someone feel and behave the way they do? (I know what you're thinking: it's easier to be curious when you're not quite so upset/angry/frustrated. But it is possible to take a step back, try to view the situation in a neutral way, express anger and frustration AND still ask, "What's going on, and why?")
This first section of the book also talks about how, when emotions are high, we also make emotional judgments about people ("Why are they so inconsiderate?") without actually mentally taking into account that the judgment is almost completely emotionally based.
We frame our emotions out of our own heads somehow when we talk to ourselves. What we really mean by "you're a selfish bitch" is closer to, "I feel hurt and angry." So the general advice is: Frame your emotions back into the conversation. Also, try to give context for those emotions, so that they're not quite so explosive. "I feel angry when you tell me to do this because I am afraid of falling short of your expectations." This is waaaaay less likely to get a defensive response than even something so innocuous-sounding as "I thought that you acted badly."
Suspend the judgments; focus on trying to understand what happened first. Only then can you work on problem-solving -- recognizing that both of you contributed to a situation and asking what to do about it, rather than blaming.
--
The middle section of the book deals with when and why we're having these hard conversations. It feels so intuitive that we are talking to vent, or to have a conversation with the goal of trying to change a situation -- but while we want our feelings acknowledged, this is not the full picture as to why you should be having a tricky conversation.
The goal, again, is for understanding; it's about remembering that we don't have all the pieces. Only then do you get to both figure out how you might move forward. It is not a two-way conversation if you're the only one throwing your weight around -- and generally, actually, this leads to defensiveness and anger anyway.
We cannot control other people's emotions, or their reactions. We can't force them to listen to us, either, as frustrating as this is. But you're both more likely to be able to work together if you can ask why someone is reacting a certain way -- and then they are more likely to listen back, too. (When doing this: don't hit and run. Don't go "Argh, I'm so frustrated" or "Oh, this one thing might help" and then not make the time to follow up on it. You quickly lose the point of mutual cooperation that way. Hard conversations are hard partly because they're openings to figuring out new ways of looking at the world, and you don't get that in one go all the time.)
What gets in our way when we attempt to control other people is often an issue of identity; it's really hard to let go of some of these patterns of attempting control because some aspect of whatever is happening is wrapped up in our identities. The book suggests some assumptions to make before you go in to a hard conversation, my favorites of which are:
"It's not my responsibility to make things better; it's my resposibility to do my best." So many of us are goodhearted, well intentioned folk -- so we do the 'I am a helpful person so I want to fix it and make it all better' thing. But...
(1) It is just not always possible to make a situation better, especially not all on your own
(2) If there are two people in a situation, the responsibility for fixing things is on both of your shoulders, not just yours
(3) Attempts to control another person often come across as not listening, which leads to defensiveness and blowback
"They have limitations too." Other people aren't perfect. Sometimes you both share how you feel and you manage to state your feelings, you both agree to change things.... and things don't change. Accepting that this is a possibility is part of caring about the other person, and sometimes it's easier to work around that than to bang your head into a wall because nothing's changing. Did you do your best? That's good enough.
--
So, how to start the conversation?
(1) Start from a neutral perspective, or, if they start, be able to reflect back, "It sounds like you're feeling this way... I have problems too, and we clearly have different perspectives, so it seems like it would be a good thing for us to talk about..."
(2) Invite, don't force -- let them contribute to the stated purpose of the conversation. This does not mean you can't be persistent in asking them to have the conversation -- it takes a bit of time sometimes before someone can hear that you're not yelling at them right off the bat.
(3) Make them your partner, not the person you have to teach or drag along.
--
This stuff only works if you feel authentic in your ability to genuinely be curious and caring. That's when asking "tell me more" actually sounds non-fake, when you have the ability to "hear" (and verbally acknowledge) unspoken feelings/questions.
--
Checking understandings: questions like, "Do you see it differently?" actually are better than, "Does that make sense?" because the goal of understanding is to get the whole picture, including all the points where you disagree, not just where you overlap.
--
Whew, that was a long review. But I feel like I pulled quite a lot from it...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-28 12:58 am (UTC)Thanks for sharing your insights, love. You really do a great job of reviewing stuff. *hugs*
no subject
Date: 2010-04-28 02:23 am (UTC)This is so true! i'm very aware of it but have trouble figuring out how to handle it in the last few days, when i realize that my reaction to something mildly annoying is way way out of proportion because i'm upset about unrelated things, but the mildly annoying thing still seems as though it's the saddest thing in the world. when you go around near tears, it doesn't require much to start crying, but it gets really hard to isolate the causes and explain to someone WHY you just burst into tears at something they said.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-28 02:45 am (UTC)I'm on gchat as kimicat if you'd like to talk about whatever it is...
no subject
Date: 2010-04-28 01:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-29 02:45 am (UTC)And it is also perfectly reasonable to have friends as a source of stabilization, too, actually -- it's not that there's anything wrong with leaning on people. But I find that sometimes more "legs" helps there -- if you're only standing on 2 friends, and they both are going through random-crisis, that leaves you with no legs ;)