Reviewed by Will Phillips

We all face them. At home and at work. Each of us struggles with how to address them. Avoid or confront? We live in a culture in the US which encourages people especially mangers, to "tell it like it is." Thus many managers attempt to deliver "diplomatic" hand grenades, if confronting the person with respect and thoughtfulness. Only problem is that hand grenades are never diplomatic no matter how well they are wrapped. So what to do? Avoidance does not seem to address the issue either. In fact the experts say that the unaddressed "difficult conversation" will always influence the interaction, but often in such an indirect manner that it creates more problems and side effects. So what to do? Here are some ideas from a recent bookDifficult Conversations by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen. All three a part of the long running Harvard Negotiation Project.

This Project was kicked off by Roger Fisher author of Getting to Yes. This seminal book describes how to negotiate with principle—even in situations where one side refuses to negotiate. Getting To Yes has been a business best seller for decades. The principles developed in the Project have been central in major international negotiations such as the Iranian hostage conflict, the 1978 Middle East Camp David summit. And numerous peace negotiations in Central and South America. Hopefully your difficult conversations are not on this scale!

No matter the scale, here are some guidelines for discussing what matters most. These are core tools and skills for dialogue as presented in the Qm2 New Visions Process.

• DO tease apart different components of the difficult conversation.

• • What happened = "The facts". Rarely do these alone resolve the situation.
  • The feelings = These are usually at the very core of the difficult conversation.
  • Identity Impact = How did the event and your image of yourself interact.

• Read the book for more depth on this one.

• DON'T fall in to the four usual traps which turn difficult conversations into messy interpersonal swamps. To do this you must learn not to jump to:

Truth Seeking—Trying to find the truth in a difficult conversations is one of the best ways to not discussing what really matters most. In a difficult conversation there is always two or three or four sides and each is convinced it has the truth. Holding on to your "truth" usually prevents you from understanding and acknowledging the other person's "truth." This leads to a further distancing between the parties. The issues in a difficult conversations are rarely about the facts, but rather about their impact and meaning.

Interpretations of the other persons behavior. We are almost always wrong about their intentions. Focus instead on explaining the impact on you of what they did or did not do.

Assigning Blame about who and what caused the problem. The more complex or sensitive or difficult the problem, the more likely, a superficial or self serving cause is identified. Superficial because we just do not know enough; self serving because the selected cause supports our imputed intentions or provides a platform for your favorite solution. A solution we like, but one which may have no relationship to the cause of the problem. Fixing blame often feels good to the afixer, but rarely addresses the causes. Blaming creates disagreement, denial and little learning.

A Solution—Coming up with a solution before the impact on feelings and identity are acknowledged often prevents any solution, no matter how good, from being implemented.

As you explore each part do this by seeking to articulate how it contributed to the problem. Completely set aside your desire or instinct to identify who and what to blame. Blaming quickly puts all parties on an escalator of polarization which is very hard to off of. Blaming puts an end to the real inquiry. By focusing on understanding and contribution instead of blaming the inquiry can occur. The goal at this point is not to solve or interpret or blame, but to learn. Seek first to learn, then to solve.