Hard Conversations: A Simple “Rule” To Make Them Easier.
Within any high-powered team, conflict and tension will inevitably occur at times.
As a result, sometimes you’ll need to have what I call “hard conversations” – conversations tackling difficult issues.
Leaving an issue unresolved creates noise in the system, making it harder to get accurate information and feedback on which to base decisions.
At the same time, people are emotional creatures. If you don’t handle those conversations well, they can become a source of… uhhh, conflict and tension.
Which would be ironic if you think about it.
Now, there’s definitely a right and a wrong way to go about having a hard conversation.
The first wrong way is to avoid the conversation entirely. The reality is a problem only exists in the absence of the right conversation.
The second wrong way is to dance around the conversation adding verbal pillows that obscure the truth so completely, the ‘hard’ message is never even heard.
The third wrong way would be to drag people into the back room, call them imbeciles... and repeatedly shout “WHY ARE YOU LIKE THIS???”
Perhaps you can relate to one of these tendencies? Turns out, there is a better way.
To start, it helps to create a climate in which hard conversations are actually encouraged... along with the structures to support them, so they’re not treated with suspicion or fear.
For example, you could put aside a special day every fortnight for one-on-one discussions, where information can flow freely in both directions.
A word of warning, though.
It’s probably best not to call this special day ‘Will You Be Fired?’ Wednesdays... to avoid the “suspicion” and “fear” thing I literally just mentioned.
Then there’s the hard conversation itself.
Next time you need to have a talk with someone who is irritating you, has under-performed, or needs to be confronted… follow this simple rule:
Focus your feedback exclusively on (1) what you can observe directly, and (2) what they can control.
In other words: focus only on the impact of their words or behaviors. Avoid talking about motives or character traits.
For example, let’s say someone is producing what you consider to be sloppy work… which means their reports are lacking the information you need to make critical decisions.
You might assign a motive, like say...they don’t care about their assignment, or you might be tempted to assign a character flow, like they’re just plain lazy. However, your assumptions won’t always be accurate.
Even if you’re right, if you start hurling accusations at people they tend to do things like... not agree with you, get defensive, lose motivation, fly off the handle, throw things at your head. Stuff like that.
Now, don’t just take MY word for it here.
My “Accusation Hurling Laboratory” has already done much of the experimental research, and they will be publishing their results any day now.
Look, I don’t want to give out too many spoilers here about their conclusions… but what I CAN reveal to you right now in regard to hurling accusations at people is: yeah, they don’t like it.
Anyway, people have more immediate control over changing behavior rather than character traits.
For example, we humans can’t necessarily just “snap out” of feeling unmotivated or remove a flaw in our character upon request. Those things are complex, take time, and often require deep awareness.
On the other hand, we can, when directed, put more details into a report, so it contains the specific information requested.
This is an example of something we have more direct control over.
A simple question to ask yourself before you confront someone about an issue is:
What has the person done specifically... that leads me to conclude something about their motives or character?
The answer to this question will help you figure out where to focus your feedback… and make “hard conversations” easier.
