We all have to face difficult conversations, i.e. anything that we find hard to talk about, whether in our private life or in the workplace. Such conversations are a normal part of life. Often, visitors come to the Ombud because they need to have such a conversation but don’t know where to start, how to get their messages across or how to have the conversation without damaging a work relationship.

Here are some examples:

Peter^* is made increasingly uncomfortable by the attitude of a colleague, Michael^*, who has recently started to criticise him openly and to isolate him from the rest of the team. A conversation is needed but Peter fears his colleague’s reaction.

Jenny^* needs a serious talk with one of her supervisees, Mona^*, who not only fails to deliver according to expectations but also makes disparaging comments about other team members’ contributions.

Andrzej^* is working hard on his PhD and needs feedback from Tom^*, his supervisor. Despite being asked several times, Tom neglects to give proper feedback. Andrzej is at a loss and needs to have a heart-to-heart discussion with Tom.

The book Difficult Conversations[1] – a great read – claims that every difficult conversation that we are worried about having actually unfolds into three intertwined conversations:

• the “what happened?” conversation: a disagreement about what happened
• the “feelings” conversation: what are the feelings and emotions at stake?
• and the “identity” conversation: what does this say about me and about the other party?

Their analysis resonates very much with what I experience in the Ombud Office. In this and the next two articles, I propose to take you through these three conversations and explore with you what is really at stake in each of them. 

The “what happened” conversation is the most evident and eats up time in a difficult conversation. In the three example cases that I mentioned, the parties will spend a lot of time disagreeing about what happened, who said what and who did what, who is right, who meant what and who is to blame. Disagreeing is not a bad thing but, in difficult conversations, the disagreement seems to be at the heart of what is going wrong.

When preparing for their difficult conversations, Peter, Jenny and Andrzej need to remember that each of us sees the world differently and that no one holds the Truth. We have some limited available information, on the basis of which we make observations. Then we interpret those observations, influenced by our past experiences, by our own implicit rules and, very naturally, by our self-interest. No wonder that our stories collide into a difficult conversation, simply because the two stories are different.

The second error that we all make in a budding conflict is to make assumptions about the other party’s intentions. Peter assumes that Michael suddenly has this attitude because they are competing for the same position. Jenny assumes that Mona has an inflated view of her abilities. And Andrzej assumes that Tom gives no importance at all to the thesis he is working so hard on.

The fact is, we do not know what the other party’s intentions are. But we assume what their intentions are, based on the impact that their behaviour has on us (if I feel bad it is because they had bad intentions) and we judge them (they are a bad person), based on the intentions we that we feel certain they have. Conversely, the other party undoubtedly attributes to you intentions that you do not have, based on the impact your actions have had on them, and judges you based on these supposed intentions. Yet another reason for the conversation to go wrong.

The third error we make in the “what happened?” conversation is to focus on who is to blame. Who is the bad person? Who made the mistake? Who should apologise and who gets to be righteously indignant? The problem with focusing on blaming is that it triggers defensive reactions from the other party, gets in the way of the communication and prevents us from understanding what the problem really is, how we may have contributed to it and how to correct it.

With so many pitfalls in a difficult conversation, how can we have a conversation that allows both parties to move forward?

The authors of Difficult Conversations propose an interesting solution: they propose to place a third story at the centre of the conversation. Not your story, nor the other party’s story, but a story that both parties are ready to discover together and accept:

The first step to the third story is to let go of certainty and try curiosity. If Peter, Jenny and Andrzej start the conversation by being genuinely curious about how the other party sees things, and why they may see things this way, they have a head start for an effective and open conversation.

The second step to get to the third story is to stop assuming what the other party’s intentions are. Remind the person of what they did and what impact this has had on you; point out that you do not know what their intentions were. Very importantly, reflect on the complexity of your own intentions and be honest about them.

The third step to get to the third story is to stop blaming – which gets you nowhere – and to reflect together on your respective contribution(s) to the problem. Reflect with an open mind on how you may be part of the problem.

Easier said than done, but, as CERN Ombud, I find this makes a lot of sense as I observe these mechanisms every day and they become particularly evident during mediation. I would like to encourage you to try these principles when you engage in what you fear will be a difficult conversation. You might not get to the third story the first time, but the conversation will take you and the other party much closer to a solution. The Ombud can help prepare for a difficult conversation. 

In the next article, I propose to explore with you how feelings and emotions play an important part in the conversations that we find so difficult to have and how to untangle that part of the conversation.

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 to 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/.