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 :)