Dealing With Those Difficult Conversations

by Joseph Shaub

Have you ever had to fire anyone?  Or tell a partner that their compensation was going to be adjusted because their productivity had declined?  Have you ever had to explain to a client why the bill they just received was double your estimate?  How do you tell a supervising attorney that they are rude and abusive?   

The list of “difficult conversations” goes on and on and you would think that we lawyers - professional communicators that we are - would find a way to effectively deal with these problems (while everyone else would probably melt with anxiety).  But in fact, and as we all know, lawyers have about as tough a time with these kinds of confrontations as anybody - and heaven help us if things ever turn emotional. 

We have our own idiosyncratic ways of facing these hard exchanges.  Some of us convince ourselves that it would do no good to say anything so we clam up and live in frustration.  Others don whatever institutional armor we can grab and relay our message from behind this mask.  There’s always the tactic of dropping hints, obliquely saying what has to be said so that the recipient doesn’t really get the message, but we can state, “Well I told them....sort of.” 

It’s probably fair to say that most lawyers would rather try a case with Attila the Hun representing the other side and their client’s ex-husband on the bench than take on these kinds of conversations.  But help has arrived...in the form of an excellent new book by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen of the Harvard Negotiation Project (the people who brought us the dispute resolution classic Getting to Yes).  Their guide, entitled Difficult Conversations - How to Discuss What Matters Most, which has just been published in paperback, is the most effective guide to managing stressful communication that has come out in years. 

As the authors note, while tact is valuable, it won’t make your employee less hurt and angry over being let go...or your managing partner less defensive in the face of hard feedback.  The authors liken difficult messages to hand grenades - “coated with sugar, thrown hard or soft, a hand grenade is still going to do damage.  Try as you may, there’s no way to throw a hand grenade with tact or to outrun the consequences...Choosing not to deliver a difficult message is like hanging on to a hand grenade once you’ve pulled the pin.” 

The solution (and the way to make such conversations both less stressful and more productive) is to view each conversation as actually being three conversations: The “What Happened” Conversation; The Feelings Conversations and The Identity Conversation. 

The “What Happened” Conversation can be a really tough one for attorneys, because we have been trained for years to think in terms of who’s right and who’s wrong.  Think about all the things you are “right” about - that person made a stupid mistake; this person is too sensitive; you deserve better compensation; your in-laws are difficult people to deal with; if only your partner cared to listen, they’d understand what you are trying to tell them. 

The “What Happened” Conversation naturally devolves into a blame game - and once again, as lawyers, trained persuaders that we are, we expend a great deal of energy laying out the case for why the other person should take the blame for whatever isn’t working out.  However, this lens will always bring a distorted view of reality - as the authors tell us, “talking about fault is similar to talking about truth - it produces disagreement, denial and little learning.”  The solution?   Acknowledge that there are always two points of view - and while you may have all the information you need to draw your conclusion, you usually won’t have a very good idea, at all, about the kinds of information the other person has.  So they counsel that rather than turning the “What Happened” Conversation into a blame game, convert the exchange into an opportunity to learn about the other person’s view of what’s going on. 

Now comes the part that’s particularly uncomfortable for lawyers...The Feelings Conversation.  Stone, Patton and Heen note that “difficult conversations do not just involve feelings, they are at their very core about feelings.”  The authors tell us that engaging in difficult conversations without talking about feelings is like staging an opera without the music. 

We are so used to reducing conflict and interaction into what is “reasonable.”  Again, it’s part of our training.  (In studying Torts in law school, we didn’t learn about “The Average Emotional Man.)  However, this education and training has dulled our sight to the myriad of emotions which dance on the field of our lives.  Think about how you would tend to describe your feelings in the face of your most recent conflicts.  If you are like most people in our legal culture you will often be aware of a rather limited pallet, which may include “angry” and “frustrated” (and variations thereof).  Less clear (or comfortable) may be tones like “anxious,” “ashamed” or “disappointed.”   

Today, a paralegal in my suite asked me how I would define the “holding” of a case, and I had to smile, remembering the drill in law school inculcating that knowledge into my skull.  It was definitely not something that came naturally.  With study, we all learned to read cases for their holdings (something our lay clients certainly would do only with great difficulty).  The same is true of learning to identify and talk about feelings.  We often want our feelings and their expression to be either spontaneous or kept under wraps because they suggest a loss of control.  Developing the skill of bringing out what makes a conversation emotionally charged for us - and in a way that is constructive and enlightening is a tremendous and powerful gift. 

Finally, recognizing and handling The Identity Conversation addresses the hidden risk in every difficult conversation.  When we are confronted with conflictual relationships, our fundamental notion of who we are will be challenged.  Three fundamental questions that are often raised are: Am I competent?  Am I a good person?  Am I worthy of love?   In a nice turn of the phrase, the authors note that, “Working to keep negative information out during a difficult conversation is like trying to swim without getting wet.” 

If we maintain a view of ourselves in which we cannot make mistakes; our motivations can only be laudable or that we have not contributed to the problem, then we are walking on very thin ice, indeed, when we initiate a conversation which may bring up some defensiveness and which are emotionally charged. 

So if you need to engage in one of these “difficult conversations,” check this book out.  It’s is full of examples and extremely useful advise.  I also suggest that you practice your presentation and, if you need to, get a sympathetic non-involved third person or coach to bounce ideas off of - and to help you with the personal exploration which is bound to be stimulated.

Back to Articles