The 3 Components of Difficult Conversations - Duke Kelly
"Conflict is inevitable, but combat is optional."
I write this post because of a startling fact in the teaching profession. We all know that a huge percentage of teachers leave the profession with a handful of years. What is rarely talked about, however, is WHY they leave. From my non-scientific research, many teachers leave for reasons that have nothing to do with money and, here's the kicker...nothing to do with teaching kids! Yes, as you may have guessed, many (if not most) leave the profession because of problems with other adults. Did I take your breath away with that revelation? Probably not. I hope to help a tiny bit with this post. Read on...
Difficult conversations are a normal part of life. No matter what personal or professional gains you make, there will always be difficult conversations that have to take place. So what could you learn that would make them easier? Better yet, what could you learn that would make them more impactful? I’m about to tell you.
This approach was born out of collaboration between the Family Institute of Cambridge and Harvard Law School’s negotiation workshop. What can this new approach suggest that you haven’t already tried? Probably, quite a bit.
So, assume you have a difficult situation to deal with. Perhaps a parent is coming to contest a grade. Or maybe a teacher you work with has done something you consider out of bounds and you have been "volunteered" to talk to her.
The Harvard Negotiation Project teaches us that with each difficult conversation, there are actually three conversations happening. That is, there are three undercurrents driving the energy behind the conversation.
1) The “What Happened” Conversation
This is the disparity between each parties’ interpretation of what has happened. Who is right? Who is to blame?
2) The Feelings Conversation
Whose feelings are valid? Should they be acknowledged, or peeled off of the conversation? How can that happen? How should you address feelings without walking into a landmine?
3) The Identity Conversation
What does this situation mean to each of us? What judgments are we likely making about each other? How is this affecting self-esteem and self-image?
Let's discuss these three concurrent conversations
Let’s face it, in the “What Happened” conversation, no matter how we phrase it, we are usually telling the other side that they are to blame. The fact is that there may not be a clear right or wrong, depending on who you ask. You may think, “But I KNOW that he is wrong!”
Actually, the only certainty in a difficult conversation is that you and your counterpart have completely conflicting perceptions, interpretations and, maybe, values. Move away from the “truth” assumption (from proving you are right), to understanding the differing perceptions of each side. Shift the focus away from establishing blame and toward an acknowledgment that we can never truly know other peoples’ intentions.
The “Feelings” conversation is taking place at the same time. Regardless of how much you try to check your emotions at the door, there are emotional undercurrents to most difficult conversations. Even more, difficult situations don’t just involve feelings, they are based on feelings. Sometimes a situation is so sensitive that feelings can’t even be broached. Typically, you will benefit from knowing how to acknowledge and talk about the feelings associated with the situation.
The “Identity” conversation is often the most subtle and complex. However, it offers leverage in managing anxiety and improving your results in the other two conversations. This conversation asks “What does this say about me?” Even when you are the one who may be delivering bad news, identity still comes into play. How will people see you after this conversation?
Here is a checklist from Difficult Conversations, by The Harvard Negotiation Project. Use this as a map for your next difficult conversation.
As you can tell from this checklist, this is really about conflict resolution and starts by being able to effectively understand (not just listen to) the perspectives of the other person in the conflict situation and depersonalize the conflict. What would the conversation be like if you spent the first two minutes of every interaction just making sure you’ve understood the other party’s perspective? We've heard that before, but the knowledge of these three simultaneous conversations gives us new avenues to explore.
I look forward to your comments,
Duke Kelly
Education Illustrated LLC - CEO
