No Such Thing as a Diplomatic Hand
Grenade
As much as we enjoy sharing good
news; we also are called upon to deliver difficult news. No matter how we attempt to sugar coat
difficult information, the “hand grenade” is still going to do damage. Try as much as you like, there is no way to
hand off a hand grenade. But there are
communication skills and strategies to support you in sharing difficult
information. The skills are learned and need
to be practiced to be facilitated well.
This assignment will outline the skills and strategies I would draw on
to deliver difficult information to an employee who has been performing at a
substandard level, displays confrontational behavior and attempt to outline a
plan for improvement.
The Harvard Negotiation Project, who
wrote Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, would
remind us in every difficult conversation we need to have three different
conversations: The “What Happened?”
conversation, the “feelings” conversation and “what we can’t change and what we
can change” conversation.
The “What Happened?” Conversation is
where we spend much of our time in difficult conversations because we usually
have different stories we want to tell. We
both feel our story is the most important and usually, the most correct. We struggle with who is right, who is wrong,
and who is to blame. It is imperative
that we clarify the different stories in order to improve our ability to have a
deeper conversation. Many times we
spend do much time jumping to who is right and who is wrong, that we do not
have a fluent dialogue around the data.
Before coming into a conversation with an employee I would spend a good
deal of my time making sure the data was correct. I would be gathering information on dates,
times and employees involved in any situation that I wanted to dialogue
around. If there are customer service
reports or co-worker reports; I would have those reports as data so that we
could look at each. I would have a copy
of all written data for the employee, as well as myself. Having the data allows you to use “Third
Point.” Michael Grinder would explain
that “third point” is a strategy that established a triangle, with the
facilitator at one point, the employee at a second point and the data at a
third point. Having the data separated
from the two individuals in the conversation allows for safety, it separates
the information from each person without eye contact, which helps to
depersonalize the data. This makes it
much easier to talk about the data because its just data (Tipton & Wellman,
2003). Having all the data validated
and prepared to share allows the dialogue to be about facts instead of
personalities.
Once I had the data prepared and I
felt secure in understanding the data; I would find a time and place for this
dialogue to take place. I would invite the employee to come into my
office and explain that we needed to find a time to meet and dialogue around
his performance. I would offer several
times that would allow the employee to also gather his data and thoughts, and
within a time frame that accommodates both parties. The location for this meeting should support
both parties in time, location and amount of time set aside. The location should always provide privacy
and the climate should be positive.
Conflict management fails to produce constructive and positive results
when it suffers from a harmful conflict climate (Shockley_Zalaback, 2009). I would want to be assured that the meeting
did not consist of threats of power abuse, competition, distrust and
defensiveness. The climate should be
nurturing and consist of a balance of power, cooperation, trust and supportive
behaviors that encourage dialogue, and mutually satisfactory outcomes. My outcome would be to have better
understanding of the data, and to collaborate on a plan to achieve better
outcomes for the employee as well as my company. Dialoguing with the employer should also open
up the opportunities for both parties to reflect and discover who each might
want to change their own behaviors.
Being very planful in preparing for the meeting and having positive
presuppositions for positive outcomes for the meeting will build a foundation
for success when the actual meeting takes place.
Harvard Negotiating Project would
say the second phase of this conversation could be the “Feeling Conversation”
(Heen, Patton & Stone, 2000). Once my employee and myself had reviewed the
data, and come to a basic mutual understanding around the facts, we would move
to a conversation that involves emotion.
In the presence of an emotional meeting, many of us work to stay
neutral. Bringing up feelings and
emotions can make us feel vulnerable.
Difficult conversations do not just involve feelings – they are at their
very core about feelings. Harvard would
explain that “engaging in a difficult conversation without talking about
feelings is like staging an opera without the music!” Engaging in a conversation without putting
your feelings forward may save you time and reduce your anxiety; but if you do
not share your feelings, what have you accomplished without sharing your
feelings and addressing them.
In order to put your feelings on the
table, we need to be very mindful of the emotion that comes with those
feelings. We would need to practice some
basic Adaptive School Skills: pausing,
paraphrasing, probing for specificity, inquiring, assuming positive
presuppositions, putting ideas on the table and being watching of our behaviors
(Garmstron & Wellman, 2009). We would want to be mindful of our body
language. Remember that over 80 percent
of our communications are read through body language. Am I giving my employee my full
attention? Am I offering an inviting
voice? Am I using welcoming body
language, nodding my head, smiling, and listening intently? Am I paraphrasing when the emotions are
running high so that my employee knows I am attending and want to understand
him fully? Am I asking my employee if he
needs additional information, or if he has questions? Am I pausing, so I am giving both of us time
to have a deeper richer conversation? Am
I providing an atmosphere of trust and support?
The third stage Harvard explains is
the “Identity Conversation.” This stage may be subtle and the most
challenging because it asks us to looking inward. This phase asks you to look at your own self-esteem,
your self-image and who you are in this world. As we enter into the third stage, we begin to
understand the errors we might have all made, and hopefully we will be entering
into a conversational shift. We would
have a better understanding of the data, a common understanding of the issues
from both perspectives and we would have heard each other talk about how this
issue affects our feelings. We are now
ready to shift to how we take that information and collaborate in developing a
plan that supports both parties. What
does each person need to do to reach shared outcomes? This could be an opportune time to ask the
employee, “What would you like to see change?”
This allows the employee to offer his own resolution. This may also be a time when both parties may
need to break. Some people require more
reflection. Would it be beneficial for
both parties to “take a balcony view of the situation” and suspend the
dialogue? Could you agree to come back
together in a few days to complete the dialogue? When conversations are intense and stressful,
taking a break and allowing each party to reflect and soul search gives each
party an opportunity put themselves in each other shoes. Putting the opportunity to “suspend” the
dialogue may be a very positive opportunity.
Allowing additional time could support a shifting in our stance to
invite each other into the conversation.
The conversation moves from “me-ness to we-ness” in how “we” can improve
our work to reach positive outcomes for everyone.
Conflict is good, if it is managed
appropriately. Conflict is like waking
up every morning; it is part of our everyday life. Learning to deal with the conflict and how to
“fight gracefully” is a skill that enhancing our communication with family,
community and work (Shockley-Zalaback, p. 295).
“Conflict was like having a big wave
come at me on the beach. If I moved fast
enough, I might be able to dive under it.
Sometimes I could just stand my ground against it. And other times, it knocks me on my
rear. But until recently, I didn’t
really think I could ride that wave, to turn it around into something
productive” (Managing Conflict Through Communication, pg. 2). All communication is processual; conflict
resolution is a kind of communication situation that has particular
characteristics, which, if not handled effectively, can make an interpersonal
relationship problematic and even end a relationship. It is essential that we recognize this as a
part of our life, develop the skills we need to facilitate those conversations
with our families, co-workers and our community.
References:
Garmston,
R. (2009). The Adaptive School: A Sourcebook for Developing
Collaborative Groups. Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Norwood, MA.
Heen,
S., Patton, B. & Stone, D. (2000).
Difficult Conversations: How to
Discuss What
Matters Most. Harvard Negotiation Project. Penquin Books.
Lipton,L.
and Wellman, B. (2004). Data-Driven
Dialogue: A Facilitators Guide to
Collaborative Inquiry. MiraVia, LLC.
Sherman, CT.
Managing
Conflict Through Communication.
VitalSource eBook for Ashford
University, 4th
Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions.
Shockley-Zalabak,
P. (2009). Fundamentals of
Organizational Communication.
Knowledge, Sensitivity, Skills
and Values. Seventh Edition. Allyn & Bacon.
