Difficult Conversations

Most conflict, as highlighted last month, is hidden in the day-to-day interactions of our social and work lives.  It is to these interactions and the difficult conversations that may need to take place to deal constructively with them that is our focus this month.  I draw on some of the excellent work of Stone, et al. from the Harvard Negotiation Project to explore some core issues.

Conflict often escalates because we avoid having the difficult conversations needed to deal with tough or messy issues that arise in the course of our every day living.  It may be a disagreement with the neighbour over their dog continually barking at night, challenging a boss about disrespectful or hurtful behaviour or telling a client about unexpected charges for the extra time worked.  Many people may not even label these as conflicts but dealing with them requires core capabilities needed to deal constructively with more substantial conflicts. And many major conflicts have started from similar lowly beginnings on the escalation scale.

There is always a dilemma in relation to perceived conflict - should I raise it or keep it to myself?  It sometimes feels like - damned if you do and damned if you don't.  If I raise it I might upset a valued relationship, harm my promotion prospects or lose future work from my client.  If I don't I may have sleepless nights, low self-esteem or end up doing work for nothing.  Often we become indecisive - neither raising the issue nor deciding to let it go.  We gossip, leak frustration and resentment at inappropriate times and suffer the worst of both options without the benefits of either.

Tact, though valuable, wont make these situations go away.  There is no such thing as a diplomatic hand grenade and confronting difficult issues can be like throwing a hand grenade. Nor can you outrun the consequences.  Choosing to stay silent is like holding onto the grenade after you have thrown away the pin.  Stone et al. suggest a better alternative to a message battle - a learning conversation.

It is more likely to be peoples' thinking and feeling rather than their behaviour that is at the heart of many conflicts.  Behaviour is more visible and so easier to fault.  Getting at the way we think and feel about conflicts is more difficult but potentially more fruitful in terms of changing the way we deal with them.  For example we often tend to avoid responsibility by blaming, attributing incorrect intentions to opponents and having dilemmas and identity struggles within ourselves that distort how we relate during conflicts.  We are sure that we are right, or in possession of "the truth" - often partial or erroneous.  These thoughts and feelings influence our behaviour significantly but are difficult to detect in ourselves, not to mention in others.  In short, it is uncovering the meaning I and others give to a conflict that is likely to be of most benefit in resolving and transforming conflict.

We can reflect on what was said in the course of a difficult conversation and begin to ask ourselves what we were thinking and feeling, what we were aware of during the conversation, what we did or did not communicate and what effect that might have had.  This can help us inquire into and illuminate the kinds of dilemmas we were experiencing; the split second decisions we made which turned the conversation for better or worse; the residue or unfinished business remaining in the aftermath of the conversation; and what we can learn from it. In doing so we are engaging in a reflective practice - a kind of learning inquiry which takes place after the event and which will help improve the way we interrelate next time round. 

This is just practise however for what we are really aiming at - to shorten, or even eliminate the gap between the action and the inquiry.  The goal is to engage in action that is simultaneously inquiring, and inquiry that is simultaneously a mode of action.  Action and inquiry are interacting in real time enabling us to adapt our behaviour during the conversation.

To achieve this we need to be able to engage in three simultaneous "conversations" which intertwine and illuminate each other.  These conversations are based on an underlying structure common to all conflictual interactions.  To understand them we need first to separate them.  They are:

• The "What Happened" conversation focuses on the effort to establish "the truth".  It usually presents as an "I am right" stance, which is often not the full truth, or at least excludes others being right.  While ostensibly being about facts this conversation is usually about conflicting perceptions, interpretations and values.  It is more about what is important to the individual or group rather than what is true.
• The Feelings conversation is focused on what we do with our feelings and the consequences of our choices, how we experience and manage feelings, communicate or don't communicate them, and so on.  Feelings are at the core of conflicts, not an optional extra, yet we often try to avoid them or at least wonder whether is it better to get into the feelings or stick to the "business".  They have to be addressed sooner or later - preferably sooner, i.e. in the midst of the interaction. 
• The Identity conversation is about what is at stake and what is at risk in terms of who we are, what we stand for and how we see ourselves.  How does what is happening affect my self-esteem, my self image, my sense of who I am in the world, and what impact the conflict may have on it in the future?  It is about what I am saying to myself about me.  It is about what I think my thoughts and actions say about me - how that does or does not fit with how I see myself and how I want others to see me.  All this impacts on how anxious we are in the interaction, how confident or balanced we feel and ultimately how effectively we relate.

By using this framework to reflect on our conflictual interactions and using them to rehearse the difficult conversations we need to have, we can develop the capability needed to ensure a healthy use of conflict.  Continued practise will enhance our awareness, enable us to reflect in the midst of action and engage in those difficult conversations - leading to strengthened relationships, valuable learning and more sustainable outcomes.

Tips for Resolving and Transforming Organisational Conflict:

More heat than light: Confronting the tough issues can be a heated affair - the closer to the nub of the conflict the hotter the interchange is likely to be.  Too much heat can be counterproductive and limit understanding, too little may mean we are not dealing with the real issues or going too slowly.  If we can monitor and vary the temperature during conflict we can contain and manage risk better. There is only so much heat people can take without it becoming counterproductive.  When we are attempting to bring about change or challenge the status quo we can:

Raise the temperature:  Keeping up the pressure, using leverage to rebalance power and drive change; drawing attention to and keeping the focus on the tough issues and feelings; bringing conflicts to the surface; challenging people to take more responsibility for tackling issues than they are comfortable with; confronting work avoidance; etc.

Lower the temperature: Slowing the pace of change; building relationships; focusing on technical aspects of the problem; structuring the problem-solving process; breaking the problems into parts and creating timeframes, decision rules and clear role assignments; temporarily reclaiming responsibility for the tough issues; employ work avoidance mechanisms; easing up on the level of challenge.