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, 4^th Edition.  Pearson Learning Solutions.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2009).  Fundamentals of Organizational Communication. 
            Knowledge, Sensitivity, Skills and Values.  Seventh Edition.  Allyn & Bacon.