40 pages • 1 hour read
Douglas Stone, Sheila Heen, Bruce PattonDifficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1999A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Part 2Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 2: “Shift to a Learning Stance”
Chapter 2 Summary: “Stop Arguing About Who’s Right: Explore Each Other’s Stories”
In the vast majority of cases, people approach life from a perspective that assumes they are correct, and that anyone who does not agree with them is wrong. Even when one attempts to escape this perspective, it usually doesn’t go further than giving people the benefit of the doubt, allowing the space for people to have their own opinions. However, this doesn’t get to the root of the issue: “Deep down, we believe that the problem, put simply, is them” (26). Perhaps, in our disagreements, we think that the other person is selfish or naïve; perhaps they are controlling or selfish. When we attempt to confront the person with whom we are in disagreement, emphasizing our own truth leads inevitably to the argument.
The reality, however, is that this is a half-truth. In many instances, our perspective actually makes sense and follows its own logic; the problem is that we fail to see this reality from a bird’s eye view and recognize that the other party’s truth resonates as well: “What we are saying does make sense. What’s often hard to see is that what the other person is saying also makes sense” (28). The tension between individuals in these difficult conversations arises when narratives and perspectives clash.
Differing perspectives arise from a number of places. First, everyone has unique information at their disposal; people have access to certain information and notice different things. Secondly, even if people have access to the same data, they are almost always going to interpret that data in their own way. Third, interpretations are usually going to reflect only our own self-interest; in other words, we see what we want to see. What is the solution? The authors argue that people need to move from certainty to curiosity: “Instead of asking yourself, ‘How can they think that?!’ ask yourself, ‘I wonder what information they have that I don’t?’” (37).
Chapter 3 Summary: “Don’t Assume They Meant It: Disentangle Intent From Impact”
When people find they are inconvenienced, or made to feel uncomfortable, they often assume that the other person has done this intentionally. When we are the ones who inconvenience another, we are apt to claim how we did not intend such a thing and that if offense was taken it was not intentional—the other person should give us the benefit of the doubt.
When it comes to intentions, there are two major mistakes that are often made, which can derail any conversation from the very start. The first mistake that people will make is to assume that both one’s own intentions, as well as that of others, are perfectly clear. Since we know our own intentions, we assume that what is in our mind is obvious to the other person, and that our words and actions convey this with perfect clarity. At the same time, we assume that we can intuit the other person’s intentions with a similar clarity based on how their words and actions affect us: “We feel hurt; therefore they intended to hurt us […] Our thinking is so automatic that we aren’t even aware that our conclusion is only an assumption” (46). In most instances we assume the worst about the other party while giving ourselves all kind of latitude, but the cost of getting the other person’s intentions wrong can be costly.
The second mistake is that we equate intentions with their impact. Just because someone has good intentions doesn’t make what they have to say, or how they treated us, good. Similarly, if we hurt another with our words, the hurt doesn’t go away just because we clarify that we didn’t mean to hurt them.
Often, people don’t have perfectly singular intentions. A person’s intentions and motivations are complex, and a simple explanation is just as likely to obscure the truth as it is to illuminate it. We need to disentangle intentions from the impact that they have on the other person, realizing that even the best intentions aren’t enough on their own to make a difficult conversation easy.
Chapter 4 Summary: “Abandon Blame: Map the Contribution System”
Human beings have a tendency to want to assign blame, even where it may not be needed: “Blame is a prominent issue in many difficult conversations. Whether on the surface or below, the conversation revolves around the question of who is to blame. Who is the bad person in this relationship? Who made the mistake?” (59). Rather than focus on who is to blame, the healthier and more effective tactic is to shift to asking questions about each person’s contribution to the problem at hand.
Thinking about contribution allows the conversation to move forward, rather than stay focused on the past (which is what blame encourages): “Contribution asks a related but different set of questions. The first question is ‘How did we each contribute to bringing about the current situation?’ […] The second question is ‘Having identified the contribution system, how can we change it?’” (60). When things are framed in terms of contribution, the problem is a question that invites parties to find a solution.
Sometimes there are misconceptions that can accompany shifting to this way of thinking. First, focusing on your own contribution doesn’t mean that you don’t acknowledge that of the other person; one doesn’t cancel out the other, and both are needed. Second, choosing not to focus on who to blame doesn’t mean that you have to be apathetic; the point is that blame doesn’t solve the problem and doesn’t cure hurt feelings, and that finding how each person contributed to the problem at hand will work to solve it. Finally, acknowledging that one person is a victim doesn’t mean that they didn’t contribute to the situation; someone can have contributed to the problem without being the reason that the problem exists in the first place.
The best way to try shifting to this contribution system is to place yourself in the other person’s place, or to try to theorize how the situation might look to an objective third-party observer. In the end, both systems come with risks: “Acknowledging your contribution is a risk. Not acknowledging your contribution also involves risks” (80). Choosing to look at things through the lens of contribution, however, will give the conversation the best chance at success.
Chapter 5 Summary: “Have Your Feelings (Or They Will Have You)”
In any difficult conversation, emotions will play an inevitably important role: “Feelings are too powerful to remain peacefully bottled. They will be heard one way or another, whether in leaks or bursts. And if handled indirectly or without honesty, they contaminate communication” (85). The question is not whether or not to include feelings in the equation, but how this should be done to good effect. We trick ourselves into thinking that our emotions are somehow tangential to the issue at hand. We focus on solving the problem, assuming that once we solve the problem, our feelings will magically be fixed too.
The downside to this way of thinking is that feelings will typically get in the way of solving the problem in the first place; they will inhibit our ability to listen with genuine empathy and understanding. There is The Need for Self-Reflection and Self-Awareness. One should genuinely explore one’s own feelings, even though “recognizing feelings is challenging” (91). In addition, feelings are changeable; oftentimes we think we feel one way, when taking a little bit of time and space will reveal that in fact we feel a differently than we initially thought: “In fact, our feelings are based on our perceptions, and our perceptions (as we have seen in the preceding three chapters) are negotiable. As we see the world in new ways, our feelings shift accordingly” (100).
Both parties in the conversation need to know that their feelings have been heard, acknowledged, and taken seriously. When the feelings of the other are ignored or left unacknowledged, or worse, rejected, the conversation will fail to proceed, as the dialogue partner will realize the other person is not taking their experience seriously. If, on the other hand, feelings are acknowledged and taken into account in a genuinely empathetic manner, the difficult conversation can proceed under the mode of mutual trust.
Chapter 6 Summary: “Ground Your Identity: Ask Yourself What’s at Stake”
One reason that difficult conversations prove to be difficult is that they force us to look in the mirror and acknowledge what we see there:
The conversation has the potential to disrupt our sense of who we are in the world, or to highlight what we hope we are but fear we are not. The conversation poses a threat to our identity—the story we tell ourselves about ourselves—and having our identity threatened can be profoundly disturbing (112).
The conversation will force the participants to ask three important questions about their identity: Am I a competent person? Am I a good person? Am I a person who is worthy of love?
The question of personal identity is so crucial, and so fraught with tension, because human beings tend to think in categories of black and white, of stark dichotomies, or all or nothing: “The primary peril of all-or-nothing thinking is that it leaves our identity extremely unstable, making us hypersensitive to feedback” (114). A genuine and honest look in the mirror will never result in a purely monochromatic image; nobody is perfectly good or perfectly wicked, and individuals need to be able to move past the denial that is common in everyday, typical self-assessment.
When assessing yourself, there are three things to accept about yourself. The first is that you will make mistakes; nobody is perfect, and the more you accept that mistakes are simply a part of life, the quicker you make that a normal part of your life and identity, and the easier it will be to cultivate a healthy self-image. The second is that intentions are always complex; not every thought or action is purely altruistic, and it’s okay to want things to occur that benefit you as well. Third, nobody lacks responsibility when it comes to problems, tensions, and arguments; everyone has a part to play, and it always takes two to create a problem.
Part 2 Analysis
The authors ask readers to shift their mindset when it comes to what is actually going on when difficult conversations are initiated. Typically, someone initiates a difficult conversation because something has gone wrong, or there is some conflict that needs to be resolved. As such, the typical person enters such a conversation with clear ideas about how they are right, the other person is wrong, and believing that the solution is to persuade the other person to see things their way.
The authors are clear that while questions about the truth are relevant, conversations will rarely make progress when they are approached this way. Rather, the parties need to approach their attempt at conflict resolution with a view to learning more about themselves, more about the other person, and more about what has actually occurred between them.
Most importantly, the question about what actually happened needs to be raised. Focusing on this aspect of the conversation will allow each party to reassess whether or not their perspective is the only valid one, and if perhaps the other person has access to information that they do not. A person can only make judgments based on the information they have; they often forget that perhaps they simply don’t have all the information. In addition, part of the search for as much information as possible involves searching for the other person’s true intentions. Everyone has had experiences where their objective has been misunderstood.
The authors also make the point that while intentions do matter, what matters equally is how one’s words or actions impact the other person. Good intentions don’t automatically make unkind words palatable, and they don’t undo hurt feelings.
Practically speaking, difficult conversations tend to bring out the worst in people: People can get tense, anxious, angry, and defensive. The shift to a defensive stance is natural because a difficult conversation can feel like an attack. The solution is to move away from the question of who is to blame, which is unhelpful, and toward discerning what each party has contributed to the misunderstanding or conflict. This is key to The Importance of Effective Communication. The solution doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing proposition; the conversation can become one of understanding how each party has participated in the conflict. Sometimes that will in fact reveal that one person has been the sole source of the conflict, but more often this process will result in each party seeing how they could have made things better or easier for all involved.
Personal identity allows other aspects of the conversation to flow easily—or hinders them. When someone has a weak or warped sense of their own identity, conversations that would otherwise resolve easily and with a minimum of tension can be derailed. When one’s personal identity isn’t grounded and stable, one won’t be able to identify their own perspective, desires, or motivations to communicate them effectively. The first step in learning effective communication is learning to judge and recognize one’s own self. Here, the authors emphasize a key theme, The Need for Self-Reflection and Self-Awareness.
