In the first article in this three-part series, I explored how to tackle the most obvious part of the “difficult conversation”: the question of what has actually happened which makes the conversation necessary and hard to tackle. In the second part , I stressed how important it is, in a difficult conversation, to let the other party know what your feelings are, because feelings are what is really at stake in conflicts, and they cannot be ignored.

In this third and final part, we will come back once again to Pete*, Jenny* and Andrzej*, now better equipped for the difficult conversations they are dreading, but still unaware of how they could be thrown off balance during the conversation by identity issues.

Indeed, why are they still so anxious about having these conversations?

Why is Peter dreading the conversation with Michael? After all, he has a good case to make that Michael owes him respect and that it is not acceptable for him to aggressively criticize him in public.

Why is Jenny anxious about discussing the underperformance of Mona as well as her inappropriate conduct towards other colleagues? Jenny has ample examples to support her evaluation of Mona’s performance. So why is it so difficult to have this conversation?

Why should Andrzej be so worried about asking for feedback from his supervisor? Aren’t thesis supervisors supposed to provide appropriate feedback? Doesn’t he have every right to ask for closer supervision?

As we learned in the previous parts of this series, all difficult conversations are actually made up of three intertwined conversations. The third one – after the “what happened” conversation and the “feelings” conversation – is about our identities, i.e. the image we have forged of ourselves and of who we are in this world. Any action by the other party that threatens this image of ourselves, whether intentionally or not, will throw us off balance and might trigger a strong reaction. Peter truly sees himself as an open-minded person, a highly competent colleague, and a team player. If Michael casts doubt about Peter’s competence, this will send Peter off the rails.

Jenny sees herself as a good manager and a great team leader. If Mona points out that Jenny failed to respond to several requests that she had made in the past and that other team members question her managerial skills, this will deeply hurt Jenny’s self-image.

As Andrzej the only child in his family to study at university, Andrzej feels he is under intense pressure to succeed academically. When Tom pays no attention to his thesis, the thought of not being worth academic attention and of not completing his studies sends Andrzej into a turmoil of self-doubt and anxiety.

These conversations have the potential to disrupt what Peter, Jenny and Andrzej hope they are, but fear they are not.

Being aware of how strongly we feel about ourselves is the first step to mastering this part of the conversation. It allows us to anticipate our reactions if, as in our examples, our competence, open mindedness and managerial or academic skills are questioned.

And, most importantly, these conversations are also opportunities to review our self-image and add more nuance to the all-or-nothing picture we have of ourselves. We may be highly competent, and we can also recognise that we make mistakes. We may be good managers, and we can also admit that sometimes, managing a large team is overwhelming and we tend to ignore some of the problems at hand. We may have followed a great academic path during our studies, and we might have neglected to cultivate those social skills that would be so helpful in the conversation we need to have.

When preparing for their difficult conversations, Peter, Jenny and Andrzej need to be aware of their identity issues but also keep in mind that a) they too may make mistakes, b) their own intentions are complex and c) they surely have contributed to the problem as well.  Finally, they also need to be aware that the other parties, Michael, Mona, and Tom, also have to deal with their own identity issues!

The initial purpose of having a difficult conversation is often to deliver our message, i.e. prove a point, let the other person know what we think or get them to do what we want.

The secret of addressing what we find hard to talk about is to move from this initial purpose to a true learning conversation: understanding what has happened from the other person’s point of view, sharing and understanding our feelings, being aware of our identity issues and working together to manage the problem.

The CERN Ombud can help you prepare for this learning conversation or can facilitate a learning conversation between you and your colleague.

This is my last contribution to the Ombud’s corner. I am passing the baton to Marie-Luce Falipou, and I wish her every success in this great job.

On my departure from this wonderful Laboratory, I would like to wholeheartedly thank each of the 420 colleagues who have met with me during my three-year mandate, shared with me their challenging situation and trusted me to explore possible paths forward with them. They have made this last position at CERN a very meaningful one.

Laure Esteveny

* Names and situations are fictitious.

This article is inspired by the book Difficult conversations by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen, which I strongly recommend. It is available for loan from the CERN Library.

I would like to hear your reactions and suggestions – join the CERN Ombud Mattermost team at https://mattermost.web.cern.ch/cern-ombud/.