Some conversations are more difficult than others, and there are generally six reasons this is the case. Understanding where your challenges lie is a helpful first step in making the conversation easier. We can’t avoid conflict, but we can look at the source of the difficulty to help find more productive responses to get it resolved.
It wasn’t always this difficult or stressful. Something’s happened between you and a colleague at work or with your manager and now you have to talk about it. Or you’re the manager and you have to give feedback to someone on your team. Things can’t continue the way they have been lately, but what are you going to say? Are they going to argue with you? Will it get heated? Will it actually get resolved! (Sorry, that was a lot of questions at once and I know conflict is stressful enough.)
Interpersonal conflict is never easy, especially when the future relationship is important. Conflict becomes even more difficult when we factor in what we think about it. You might be worried about how it will go, someone saying the wrong thing, or emotions escalating. Ultimately, it’s our perception of it that shifts our differences to difficulties. For the most part, the longer we put the conversation off, the longer we may stress over it, which could lead to trying to avoid it altogether (one way the brain keeps us safe from danger).
Avoidance is certainly one way to approach it but it’s unlikely to be the solution. The problem has more chance of getting worse than it does going away, so the sooner we undertake the conversation, the sooner we can come to a resolution. There’s other benefits of dealing with your conflict: you may get clarity about values (yours and theirs), you’ll minimize uncertainty, there’s mutual involvement so everyone’s interests get factored in, and it has the potential to bring people together and it can actually improve relationships. Not to mention the relief you’ll feel afterwards and less regret than if you didn’t deal with the situation.
These conversations may be difficult for a combination of reasons. Once we’re able to look at what makes them so challenging, they become much more manageable. Here are six possible reasons that have been identified by Sheila Heen, Bruce Patton and Douglas Stone in their book Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most and my friends over at Stitt Feld Handy in their workshop.
1. What Happened
Each party has a side of the story and their version of what happened. It’s these differences in perspectives that can make the conflict challenging, so it’s important to try and understand why someone is seeing it the way they are. This doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to go on a fact finding mission and prove who is right or wrong – that may not be helpful (*there are situations where fault and consequence are important such as abuse or harassment). There’s likely a contribution from both parties here, and exploring more of this provides additional avenues for ways to resolve the conflict.
This is also the place where intention vs. impact shows up, and in many cases they need to be separated. While we typically assume negative intention when we’re negatively impacted, the absence of negative intention doesn’t mean that there wasn’t an impact. We can inquire about the intention when there was a negative impact, but it’s likely that the conversation will have a hard time moving forward if the impact is not addressed. Good intentions don’t override a negative impact.
I’ll say that again. Good intentions don’t override a negative impact.
2. Identity
In a conflict, our identity and the other party’s may be questioned, and this includes our values, traits and sense of self. This comes out of one of our attribution biases – mental shortcuts we use to speed up our decision making process that aren’t always helpful or accurate. The Fundamental Attribution Error (first coined by Ross in 1967) is used frequently and one of these that can cause problems in how we evaluate a situation. Here, we overemphasize the role of the person’s identity while minimizing the influence of situational or environmental factors when we make an assumption about someone’s behaviour we view as negative (and potentially bringing us to conflict). When we judge our own negative behaviour, we typically acknowledge the situational factors and keep it away from our identity.
If we think of a bad driver as an example – we’re more likely to call them a bad person for cutting us off rather than try to think of other reasons why they may have done so (late for work and distracted, something else going on in their life). On the other hand, if we were to cut someone off, I’m guessing we’d give ourselves more of a break and rationalize the action with a situational factor like being late for something.
This can be one of the hardest parts of a conflict because it’s so automatic and bringing your identity into question is likely to lead to defensiveness. No one likes their identity attacked, and it’s really hard to hear someone after they’ve done this.
In mediation, we recommend trying to separate the person from the problem, and taking the time to listen to the other side’s perspective. I find it helpful to focus specifically on the behaviour in question, and to stay away from any labels about the other party. As soon as I find myself labelling someone, I try to stop and figure out what it is I’m upset about and what behaviour they did specifically that I am having a problem with. Once I can look at the behaviour, I have something that can be discussed without attacking the person’s identity, and I can be more specific about the resolution.
3. Emotions
Again, our emotions and theirs, and the impact can happen whether these are expressed or not. Heightened emotions in a conversation can make it really hard for us to respond instead of reacting automatically. All emotions are valid, but some are a lot harder to experience or express than others. If we can take a chance and express what we’re feeling, it may help increase understanding. Emotions are easier to deal with once they are brought up instead of repressed.
One of the especially difficult emotions to deal with in a conflict is anger, because it can be scary for people based on their past experience with it. Anger may have been something that was discouraged, meaning it was not to be shown or expressed, and so any demonstration of it may be scary because it was so avoided. Or it may be something the person has seen a lot of, and so bringing it into a current conflict can be a trigger of what they have previously experienced.
In mediation, we try to provide space for anger and validate the emotion while ensuring the intensity is something both parties can handle. For example, if one party was very angry we would try to encourage them to describe their anger and what it’s about, but we would stop them if they were shouting or demonstrating their anger in a threatening way, or attacking the other party.
4. Assumptions/Expectations
We all make assumptions and may have positive or negative expectations – we just don’t know what is going on in the other person’s head so we attach our own meaning here. It’s hard to listen to someone else’s perspective when you’ve already made up your mind about what that is.
Can you ask questions to increase understanding rather than stick to what you believe to be true? Can you be open to really listening to what the other party is saying, even if it is very different from what you were expecting?
The other challenge to watch out for is the perception that the other person will block the achievement of your goals. This can heighten the competitive element of the conversation, and the need to win can override a productive conversation. If we treat someone as our enemy in this way, we’re also likely to be on the receiving end of this kind of treatment. This can look like blocking information or having an extreme, locked in position.
Your mediator may discuss some of these things with you privately (that’s called “in caucus”) and they’ll be checking to see how you benefit from being positional or not providing certain information. They’ll also be looking to see what benefits you may get from not coming to a resolution, and checking the strength of these compared to achieving one. These private conversations can be really helpful to air some of these expectations and the mediator can help transform these into productive elements of the conversation.
5. Unspoken Issues
These might be the real issues under the surface that need to be discussed, and the conflict is a way of starting the conversation before asking for what’s really important to you. For example, an argument about the dishes may really be about role expectations and how household responsibilities are distributed. If one party has a hard time asking for help, it could turn into a conflict over expectations and something not getting done. Sometimes unspoken issues come out in other ways, like eye rolling or sarcastic comments. Call it passive aggressive if you want, but ultimately it’s an expression of an unmet need. It can be really hard to ask for what you need, and not everyone has the language they need to do this.
6. Process Issues
If there are process issues it’s really hard to have a meaningful conversation. This includes the location (privacy), the time and how long we need, will we be interrupted? If we look at how we’re communicating (in person, email , etc), there can be other challenges – the potential for heightened emotions in an in person conversation, the lack of visual cues in a phone call, the possibility of misinterpretation in an email. Process issues also include how you’re feeling according to HALT (hungry, angry, lonely, tired).
Don’t argue hungry. Ever.
Any of these sound familiar for you? There may be links across these challenges and one can even lead to another. These are challenges that can derail a meaningful conversation, but there are ways to get it back on track. You can ask for space (a bit of time) to gather your thoughts,, calm your nervous system down, or prepare what you would like to communicate. There’s also nothing saying you have to get it perfect, or right the first time. Don’t give up! See if you can determine what worked and what didn’t and try to approach the conversation again.
If you need support working through and preparing for a difficult conversation, conflict coaching can help. Mediation is another great tool where you have someone in the room to facilitate the conversation for you.
Learn more about how we can help you deal with your conflict here
References
Jones, E.E.; Harris, V.A. (1967). “The attribution of attitudes “. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 3 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0
Stitt Feld Handy Group (2020). Six Primary Challenges of Difficult Conversations
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2000). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. New York, N.Y: Penguin Books.
(I earn a small commission from Bookshop.org if you decide to purchase the book through this link)
