Reframing Difficult Communication

1. Reframing Difficult Communication Turning Hard Talks and Big Conflicts into Opportunities for Growth and Understanding

2. Conflict is a human universal. • Everyone experiences some conflict. However, not everyone does so openly. • Important to assess how conflict or potential conflict is developing • Gauge the type of communication that best fits both the circumstance(s) and the audience(s)

3. You are ALREADY an expert – this seminar will make you BETTER. “Much of the activity occurring during an encounter can be understood as an effort on everyone’s part to get through the occasion and all the unanticipated and unintentional events that can cast participants in an undesirable light, without disrupting the relationships of the participants” (Goffman, 1967, p. 41)

4. Today’s Objectives • Tools to figure: is it them, or is it me? • Reframing to encourage win-win outcomes • Rules for productive (as opposed to destructive) conflict • Avoiding a shame and anger response • Reframing via positive psychology • “Letting it go”

5. “It’s not me, it’s them!” (or is it?) • Is conflict open and ongoing at present, or behind-the-scenes? (e.g., is this a “fight,” or not?) • What is core issue and what are the stakes? • Are there ‘sides’ or third parties involved? • Who is more upset? Invested? Worried? • Do they use the same phrases over and over in conflict? If so, what are they?

6. Is it the topic, or the person?(or a combination of both?) • Does the person become angry easily around specific topics? • Does the person become angry with other people, and in varied situations? • Do you “walk on eggshells” around the person? • If the situation were switched, would you have a hurt or angry reaction to this same news?

7. But we’re not actually fighting. • Likely this is because of power dissimilarity. • Passive-aggression likely • Definition of POWER: what is it, how does it play into difficult communication? • Technique for communicating difficult subjects, facts different depending on which side of the scale you are on! • Watch out for negative sublimating behaviors

8. Four styles of conflict (adapted from Withers & Wisinski, 2007) • Aggressive • Nonassertive • Passive-aggressive • Assertive

9. AGGRESSIVE • Sense of righteousness, entitlement • Verbal cues include “must,” “warning,” “have to” • When you engage in this type of conflict, it tends to become zero-sum quickly • Tends to lead to bullying-type behavior, such as misuse of authority, intimidation, attack • Benefit: quicker resolution possible • Cost: Need to win can become its own goal with objective lost; potential for serious damage to relationships

10. NONASSERTIVE • Classic example of this behavior: ‘going along to get along’ • Avoidance, sublimation • Verbal cues: “I wish,” “if only,” “I should,” “I’ll never be able to” • Main genesis: FEAR • Divides the self – going along on surface, but inside not agreeing • Benefit: temporarily keeps the peace • Cost: loss of control, possible feeling of inferiority, unconsciously “gunnysacking” or saving up of grievances may worsen conflict later

11. What happens when we gunnysack? Picture a large burlap sack, like the type that might hold seeds, or grain. BIG. And it starts out empty. This sack is where you stuff your grievances and complaints. When you address a complaint with the other person, it comes out of the sack. How full are you going to let it get? How full can you let it get? What happens if you keep stuffing it with more and more?

12. PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE • Nonconfrontational but not nonconflictual • Behind the scenes, sneaky • Verbal cues: “I was just kidding!,” “I told you so,” “well, ok, if you say so” etc • Often occurs when someone starts out nonconfrontational and gets fed up – but not brave • Call it out! • INTENTIONAL passive-aggression more difficult to deal with – gunnysacking with gotcha motive

13. ASSERTIVE • Assertive conflict is balanced and reasonable • Able to measure our desires against desires of other person without abusing either side • Willingness to hear out other party, not afraid to let other side present case • Willingness to compromise on non-critical issues, but not willing to compromise to extreme detriment of own position or needs

14. Clarity and Listener Backchannels • The back-forth nature of some conflict encourages mis-hearing • Important to ensure you address and react to what is actually meant, rather than what you perceive the other person meant • “Listener backchannels” are important for checking meaning • Affirming sounds indicating comprehension • Paraphrasing/restating other’s position • Checking in regarding accuracy of perception

15. Stakeholder exercise: mapping the lines of conflict

16. Beware triangular communication! • Triangular communication: is this really your fight, or are you acting as the “Diplomat”? (Lang, 1992: 43) • Entrenchment more likely with he-said, she-said • Harder to trust, compromise when third parties involved -- PUBLIC conflict more likely to be shaming • SOLUTIONS • Bring all parties to the table • Keep record of communications

17. what if there’s no compromise to be had? Can you think of scenarios where unilateral solutions are required?

18. Zero-sum topics • Some issues do not lend themselves to compromise • Either/or scenarios must be handled carefully • Setting important: PRIVACY is key • How to save face for the other party • Leaving the door open (if possible and desirable)

19. Identifying Triggers that Escalate Conflict • Common triggers which, for many people, will escalate conflict, include: • Use of the word “always” or “never” • Direct attribution of fault • Passive-aggressive withdrawal (not ‘table for later’) • Mind reading • Expecting other person to somehow ‘know’ your issues • Stating that you ‘know’ what the other person is thinking • Individualized triggers unique to the individual

20. Using your worksheet on identifying triggers

21. Help! They’re really angry!

22. You have the power. • Understanding the dynamic • Encouraging a partnering stance if possible • Give on little things There is a difference between an “authoritative” leader and an “authoritarian” one – both in worldview AND effectiveness! Don’t become aggressive just because you can….

23. They have the power. • What, if anything, do you stand to lose if you engage? What, if anything, will be lost if you choose to not engage? • Framing the issue -- find a lever -- draw upon precedent (but carefully!) -- stay away from emotion

24. We’re equals.

25. You messed up. Sometimes we make mistakes. It happens to everyone. You said the wrong thing, at the wrong time. Now: how to fix it? FIRST CRITICAL STEP – WHERE IS THE FAULT?? Excuse? Justification? What is the difference? You may cause insult, and actually make things worse! (Goffman, 1967) If it is your fault, or the other firmly perceives that it is, do NOT offer excuse or justification – move directly to the four-step corrective process!

26. Four more: The corrective process Goffman (1967) describes a multi-step process for the repair of relationships:

27. Reframing • Drop the “winners and losers” mentality • If you are feeling angry and criticized – is the other person really being critical? • Is what I believe FACTUAL, or only APPEARANCE? • Where is the value in the criticism? • Find the benefit, and encapsulate embarrassment

28. “Shaking it Off” • Don’t globalize! • Determine if relationship characterized by conflict • NO: conflict isolated, minimize impact • YES: conflict habituated, consider minimizing contact if feasible • Other people’s issues are not about you • Where there is no reasonable resolution, you may be able to agree to disagree

29. Email smarts. • In email, remember many of the ‘tone’ cues of conversation are missing. Efficient can come off as brusque. • Email is discoverable. Be careful. Emails are not gone once you delete – they are almost always still on the server. • Best not to engage in conflict via email if possible to avoid. If not, never hit ‘send’ angry. • Be clear! Use topical subject line and put main point up front.

30. To Recap • Conflict is universal and unavoidable • Both the topic, and the person, can be difficult • Four basic styles of conflict • Positive communication techniques • Avoid triangular communication • Triggers linked to conflict escalation • Five pieces to corrective process when conflict goes wrong • Reframing the situation, shaking off anxiety • Maximizing effectiveness in online communication

31. References • Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction Ritual. New York: Pantheon. • Hansen, Brock (2007). Shame and Anger: The Criticism Connection. • Johnson, David. “Business Hacks” column, bnet.com • Lang, Denise (1992). How to Stop Your Relatives from Driving You Crazy: Strategies for Coping with “Challenging” Relatives. New York: Simon & Schuster/Fireside. • Owens, Erica (2006). "Conversational Space and Participant Shame in Interviewing." Qualitative Inquiry 12(6): 1160-1179. • Withers, Bill and Jerry Wisinski (2007). Resolving Conflicts on the Job. AMACOM.