Mediating Conflict & Working Through Difficult Conversations

Stone, Patton, & Heen (2010) in their book Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most  provide some suggestions for problem solving, which can also be understood within this particular context as mediating conversations and moving them forward, as well as working through difficult conversation.

One of the strategies talked about is Re-Framing. Reframing in this book is understood as "taking the essence of what the other person says and "translating it" into concepts that are more helpful" (p. 202). As someone who studies frames, framing, and reframing I find this to be an excellent suggestion that can be applicable to many different conversations: interpersonal and face-to-face, as well as larger meta-conversations that may occur through different media. Framing alone is to make some issues more or less salient, and so reframing can be understood as reinterpreting, or in fact changing the initial frames to be understood differently.

Another suggestion that they provide is to listen. For example, "when the other person becomes highly emotional, listen and acknowledge" (p. 206) and "whenever you feel overwhelmed or unsure how to proceed, remember that it is always a good time to listen" (p. 207). The advice to listen is important and useful in these contexts. How many times have you either witnesses or participated in a heated conversation that became problematic in nature to the point where people were getting upset and/or people were feeling unheard? I know I have. And, listening seems to be one of those no-brainer things that gets lost. So, as a reminder- when in doubt- LISTEN. When getting upset, take a step back and LISTEN. And when feeling unheard- LISTEN. And when you notice the other getting upset- LISTEN.

The last one which I will mention is to "name the dynamic" (209). The authors suggest that "when nothing else has worked" you may want to name the dynamic: "You put on the table as a topic for discussion what you see happening in the conversation itself" (p. 209). Although they say to do this when nothing else has worked because it is a blunt move that can escalate tensions, and can potentially take the conversation off topic, I feel that even this may be appropriate even before nothing else has worked. Naming the dynamic is a blunt and straightforward maneuver, that if we did more often, I believe we could have more "real" and down to earth conversations. The fact that we have to wait until nothing else has worked before we can show all of our cards and be blunt I believe says a lot about our culture. The authors are correct when they say that this could escalate tensions, because as we know- "being real" in conversation, being blunt, isn't always well received and can make the speaker anxious. Have you ever avoided putting things on the table in fear of how it will be received? Or have you had someone put something on the table in front of you and you weren't a welcome receiver? These conversations can be tense and uncomfortable, but I think there is something to be said about the person who "names the dynamic" during conflict and in difficult conversations, as well as in regular speaking practice. I know, as hard as those conversations can be, I would rather someone just go ahead and name the dynamic instead of having to jump through a million hoops, dancing around the bush, and slowly taking off the bandaid. Just say it already- "be real"- and lets move forward :)

Difficult Conversations- Complicating interpersonal/ face-to-face conversations and mediated/ larger meta-conversations

Stone, Patton & Heen (2010), in their book Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most provide a section titled "What if the other person really does have bad intentions--lying, bullying, or intentionally derailing the conversation to get what they want?". In this section they give advice if they encounter people in situations who, whether intentionally or not, "manipulate, threaten, delay, obfuscate, bully, or derail in an attempt to get their way". They give us three suggestions for how to handle such behavior: don't reward bad behavior, don't react in kind and "play their games", and seek to understand why they think their intentions and actions are justified (p. 244-5).

I believe that what they provide is some good advice, especially in interpersonal  and face-to-face conversations. However, I do think that these suggestions have potential limitations when thinking about applying them to larger meta-conversations and mediated conversations- such as those that happen through political campaign ads. For example, say an ad is aired on television that is clearly manipulative, threatening, delaying, obfuscating, bullying, or derailing in an attempt to send a particular message- how should those against this ad, its sponsors, and/or its message(s) respond? How do these authors pose responses to such behaviors in such a larger meta and mediated conversation? How should the counter messages "focus on their [own] objective" and move toward it (p. 245) without falling victim to the potential claims and attacks made previously?

Identity

"Our anxiety [of having difficult conversations] results not just from having to face the other person, but from having to face ourselves. The conversation has the potential to disrupt our sense of who we are in the world, or to highlight what we hope we are but fear we are not. The conversation poses a threat to our identity -the story we tell ourselves about ourselves -and having our identity threatened can be profoundly disturbing" (111-112).

One of the most interesting portion of this book, imho, is this idea that every time we have a conversation (difficult or not) our own identity is somehow at stake. I wonder, though, how this may be different than the rest of our outward expressions on a given day. It seems like every time we get dressed in the morning, our identity is at stake. Every time we decide what radio station to put on, every time we decide which poster to hang, which restaurant to take our significant other out to, which potato dish to serve at a formal dinner, each time we make a decision, the possibility that our conception of our own identity might be altered is very real.
This idea brings me back to Lynch, George, and Cooper's ideas that learning something about yourself is possibly the reason students are unwilling to take a complex inquiry into a given topic. It's not so much that students will change a topic based on the research they do, but rather that a topic, if startling information threatens to unseat the carefully constructed reality of that student, might work to change the student. Like I talked about on the blog last week, this can be the scariest thing of all.
But while L, G, & C call for keeping the possibility of change open, even encouraging it in our students, I'm not sure Stone, Patton, and Heen make that same assertion. In Difficult Conversations, especially in the "Identity Conversation" section, we see many interesting strategies for understanding what your conversational counterpart is going through. The authors instruct that we keep their identity in mind, that we realize the complexity of the identities in question, and that we learn to ask for help when we just can't make the expectations of the identities mesh. The one aspect missing, however, is the idea that our identities are evolving. In this section, there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgment that difficult conversations can change our identity, can help us see ourselves in a different light. There is plenty of anxiety caused by people holding too much stock in their own identity, but the scary possibility that we might be an evolving identity is never quite addressed.

Who knows, someday I may want to hang the framed painting on my walls instead of the Angus Young poster....

Difficult Conversations

Hi all.
I'm done reading Difficult Conversations. If anyone would like to borrow my copy, hollaatcherboy.*

* you could also let me know via the comments section of this post :P

Difficult Conversations and the HNP

I'm rather enjoying this book. The guiding principles of Difficult Conversations have carried my interest as I move through it. Principles like understanding the other person in a difficult conversation (or any conversation for that matter) underlie each step of this process. For example, the key to the 'what happened' conversation is knowing that each party has his/her own way of describing the events that led up to the conversation, and that neither view is completely accurate. One of the ways to mitigate the problems this can cause, is by trying to see how the other party viewed it and then comparing their narrative to one's own. The same is true with when trying to untangle intent. It's imperative to be able to relate to the other party in a difficult conversation. If an action has a negative affect on someone, it's unlikely that the offending party purposefully set out to hurt them. That being the case, it's key for the offender's intent to be explicitly stated to clear the air. It's also key for the offending party to understand why his/her words had the impact on the other person. Either way, if one is unable to relate, sympathize, put oneself in someone else's shoes, difficult conversations are unavoidable. It's true with the 'feelings conversation' and the 'identity conversation' as well.
This must have something to do with argumentation (and Rhetoric and Dialectic). Perhaps the most effective way to be persuasive to someone is by fully understanding that person. What do they need? What do they relate to? How can you identify with them? It seems like a straightforward way of thinking about persuasion, but it seems like contemporary argumentation is more about asserting ones own will over another party, heedless of the realities of a situation.

In the introduction to my version (newly published for the 10th anniversary, thanks for that Penguin), the authors mention that this work came from the Harvard Negotiation Project. Curious to see just what Harvard negotiation might entail, I went to the HNP Website. It seems like this group of scholars are doing interesting things with argumentation, dialogue, and negotiation. I was quite interested in their focus on negotiation in Middle East peace talks. A worthy endeavor to be sure. Like Difficult Conversations, the HNP seems to focus on business and personal situations for negotiation, which isn't all that interesting to me. However, I'm glad to see that this type of work is going on.

If you get a chance, check out the website. If you find anything interesting, leave a comment and let me know :)