SOME IDEAS ABOUT DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS WITH COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS
Copyright: The Program on Intergroup Relations, The University of Michigan, www.umich.edu
(This paper is heavily indebted to the ideas of Learning as Leadership, www.learnaslead.com)
When experiencing difficult interactions with colleagues and friends, most of us have an
automatic tendency to blame the other person for the problem. That makes us feel better, at least
temporarily (and sometimes our analysis might even be mostly true).
However, when doing this we deprive ourselves of power. Usually, since we cannot easily
change others, blaming them permits the problem to continue or even worsen. We act as if the
situation can improve only if and when the other changes. Thus, we remain relatively powerless to
improve the situation, and we find ourselves at the mercy of the problem.
If, instead, we can find our own leverage in the situation, then we have power to attempt realistic
improvement. If by changing ourselves and our behavior, we can alter the situation, then we have
found the power to better achieve our values.
This is not a matter of “finding fault in ourselves” or of “accepting blame.” Instead, it is a way to
move BEYOND blame of both self and others. The focus becomes not on “whose fault it is,” but
instead on finding realistic ways to create improve difficult relationships. This search can give us
increased power to promote our highest values and most positive goals.
SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR SELF-REFLECTION PRIOR TO DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS
1.
What do I myself do to add to the difficulty of my interactions with the other person? What is
my role (even if “small”) in making the situation bad? What behaviors of mine might help
trigger the behaviors that I dislike in my friend? (The “case study” below provides an example of
this phenomenon.)
2.
What changes in my own behavior am I willing to make in order to improve the interaction, even
if the other person seems to maintain the status quo?
 SPECIFICALLY how will I make these changes—what’s my plan?
3.
In the upcoming conversation, can I make it a goal to increase my understanding of the other
person? Regardless of who is “right or wrong,” increased understanding can often lead to more
honesty, deeper interaction, and the discovery of common ground. So, rather than focusing on
attempts to persuade the other, or to convince them of the correctness of my point of view, am I
willing to focus instead on increasing my understanding of my colleague?
 While interacting, remember to ask myself repeatedly “Do I understand what my friend
is feeling and experiencing? Regardless of whether or not I agree with her, am I better
understanding her and her point of view?”
 Can I suspend judgment of myself and the other as I increase my understanding?
 How can I help my colleague feel more safe and listened to? How can I make myself
more safe and therefore more able to listen?
4.
How might my most positive goals and values be served by improving my relationship with my
colleague? Remembering these goals, and looking for ways to act on them, might provide
motivation and insight for my improving the interaction. While being honest about our
differences, can my colleague and I work together to make positive contributions to our mission?
A TIP: After making plans (perhaps based on these questions) for the upcoming conversation,
double back and recheck your ideas. Given our psychological tendency to blame, we often develop
plans that seem positive, but that are in fact not. They may unconsciously be passive aggressive, or
they may be subtle ways to blame others and pass the responsibility for change to them. Do any of
my plans fall into this trap?
 Additionally, does my plan lead to more honesty on both our parts? The goal of difficult
conversations is not to avoid conflict by “appeasement.” It is to increase honesty,
understanding, and the ability to work together with integrity on both our parts.
 If you have trouble coming up with a positive plan, it may be that on some unconscious
level, you gain some temporary benefits from the conflict. If we can become aware of
those short-run benefits, we are better able to give them up for long-term gain. (Here’s
a couple of examples of how unconscious factors might sabotage well-intentioned people:
For some people, conflict at work can distract them and give them excuses not to do tasks
which they dislike or fear. Or, sometimes conflict can make persons feel “morally
superior” to their colleagues and give them ego satisfaction.) Can you uncover any
hidden “benefit” that might sabotage you as you try to process your own conflict?
A CASE STUDY
Miles felt that his supervisor was controlling and micromanaging. This created a great deal
of conflict between him and her, and it significantly reduced his pleasure and effectiveness at work.
Thinking deeply and empathetically, Miles realized that the supervisor seemed generally
nervous about job security, especially in light of cutbacks of persons in her job rank. Perhaps she
feared that Miles’s performance might come back to reflect negatively on her.
Ordinarily, Miles would have felt insulted and angry about this lack of trust in him. This
time, however, Miles examined his behavior, asking if there might be ways in which he reinforced her
mistrust.
He realized that, in order to try to prevent her control, he had become increasingly nontransparent with her about what he was doing. In fact, he actively concealed some of his plans until
work was completed. He realized that this might make him look like a “loose cannon,” especially to a
supervisor who was worried about her own job security. Perhaps, in his efforts to avoid her control,
he was actually engaging in behaviors that triggered her to be even more controlling and mistrustful
of him.
He experimented with being very transparent with his supervisor, giving her weekly plans
regarding his projects, and explaining why he felt strongly about certain of the projects.
In fact, this helped their relationship and morale improve. His transparency, and his
openness regarding his values and motivations, seemed to help reduce the supervisor’s anxiety and
micromanaging.
This, ironically, was the lesson Miles learned: When he was critical and judgmental toward
his colleague, and when based on this, he tried to avoid her control, he had in fact prompted her to be
more controlling. He helped her INCREASE the behavior he most disliked about her. On the other
hand, when he decided to give her the benefit of the doubt, and when he tried to empathize with her,
he prompted her to DECREASE the behavior he disliked. Paradoxically, when he placed himself in a
position where he was more vulnerable to her, her controlling nature seemed to decrease.
AUTHORSHIP/COPYRIGHT
All materials remain property of The Program on Intergroup Relations at The University of Michigan, 1214 S.
University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2592. 734-936-1875. www.igr.umich.edu.
Materials may only be used WITH PERMISSION and proper citation of their source.