1

Sort Out the Three Conversations

Jack is about to have a difficult conversation.

    He explains: “Late one afternoon I got a call from Michael, a good friend and occasional client. I’m in a tight spot,’ he told me. ‘I need a financial brochure laid out and printed by tomorrow afternoon.’ He said his regular designer was out and that he was under a lot of pressure.

    “I was in the middle of another project, but Michael was a friend, so I dropped everything and worked late into the might on his brochure.

    “Early the next morning Michael reviewed the mock-up and gave the go-ahead to have it printed. I had the copies on his desk by noon. I was exhausted, but I was glad I’d been able to help him out.

杰克要进行一次不愉快的会谈。

    他解释说：“有一次麦克在下午打电话过来。麦克是我的一位好朋友，有时也有业务来往。他在电话中说有件急事，‘我这里有一份有关金融的策划书需要马上整理出来，明天下午就要印出来。’他说他的设计师不在家，他的压力很大。

    “我正在赶做一个项目，但麦克是朋友，我还是放下手头的活儿，一直忙到半夜把他的策划书做出来了。

    第二天一早麦克重做了模型，并做了印刷的前期安排。中午我把文件送到他的办公桌上。我累得够呛，但是帮了朋友一个忙，我心情还是不错。”

     但是当我回到办公室，就收到了麦克的电话留言：

    “Then I got back to my office and discovered this voice-mail message from Michael:

 

Well, you really screwed this one up! Look, Jack, I know you were under time pressure on this, but … [sigh]. The earnings chart isn’t presented clearly enough, and it’s slightly off. It’s just a disaster. This is an important client. I assume you’ll fix it right now. Give me a call as soon as you get in.

    伙计，你是真行！我给你说，杰克，我知道这回有难度，可是…… [一声叹息]。收入说明表列举得不是很清楚，也有点做偏了。这回够我喝一壶的。这是我的一位重要客户。抓紧帮我改出来。然后马上给我回电话。

   

    “得，你说我那天早晨是什么心情！图表做得有点儿偏，就偏这么一点点儿！我当时就给麦克打电话了”。

    “Well, you can imagine how I felt about that morning. The chart was off, but microscopically. I called Michael right away.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Their conversation went like this:

Jack: Hi, Michael, I got your message –

Michael: Yeah, look Jack, this thing has to be done over.

Jack: Well, wait a second. I agree it’s not perfect, but the chart is clearly labeled. Nobody’s going to misunderstand –

Michael: C’mon, Jack. You know as well as I do that we can’t send this thing out like this.

Jack: Well, I think that –

Michael: There’s really nothing to argue about here. Look, we all screw up. Just fix it and let’s move on.

Jack: Why didn’t you say something about this when you looked at it this morning?

Michael: I’m not the one who’s supposed to be proofreading. Jack, I’m under tremendous pressure to get this done and to get it done right. Either you’re on the team or you’re not. I need a yes or no. Are you going to redo it?

Jack: [pause] Alright, alright. I’ll do it.

对话情景重放：

杰克：麦克，我收到你的留言了 –

麦克：好吧。我给你说杰克，这一次你得重做。

杰克: 别慌，你先听我说。我承认它还有余地，可是图表内容都标全了。反正都能看明白……

麦克：行了行了，杰克。咱俩心里都明白，这么一份东西是拿不出门的。

杰克：可是，我觉着……

麦克：咱别在这里多说了，打住吧。反正得重做。

杰克：今天早上你看的时候怎么当时不说？

麦克:  我干的不是校对的活儿！行了杰克，我的压力很大，必须得做，必须得做好。干就干，不干就不干，我要听你一句，重做！干不干吧？

杰克： 行，行，行！我重做。

 

    This exchange has all the hallmarks of a difficult conversation going off the rails. Months later, Jack still feels lousy about this conversation and his relationship with Michael remains strained. He wonders what he could have done differently, and what he should do about it now.

    But before we get to that, let’s look at what Jack and Michael’s conversation can teach us about how difficult conversations work.

    两个人这次的交流已经具备了“不轻松话题”的特点，从中可以看到火车是如何出轨的。 过了几个月了，杰克还是对此感到窝火，和麦克的关系也大不如前。有时候也反思是否当初能换个办法，如果现在再面对这种情况应该怎么办。

    在我们讨论这点之前，先来看杰克和麦克的对话给我们的启示，了解不轻松的话题是如何发生的。

 

… 人们所谓“最难话题”不外乎三种：

    1. The “What happened?” Conversation. Most difficult conversations involve disagreement about what has happened or what should happen. Who said what and who did what? Who’s right, who meant what, and who’s to blame? Jack and Michael tussle over these issues, both out loud and internally. Does the chart need to be redone? Is Michael trying to intimidate Jack? Who should have caught the error?

    2. The Feeling Conversation. Every difficult conversation also asks and answers questions about feeling.

    3. The Identify Conversation. This is the conversation we each have with ourselves about what this situation means to us.

The “What Happened?” Conversation:

What’s the Story Here?

The “What Happened?” Conversation is where we spend much of our time in difficult conversations as we struggle with our different stories about who’s right, who meant what, and who’s to blame. On each of these three fronts – truth, intentions, and blame – we make a common but crippling assumption. Straightening our each of these assumptions is essential to improving our ability to handle difficult conversations well.

 

The truth assumption

 

As we argue vociferously for our view, we often fail to question one crucial assumption upon which our whole stance in the conversation is built: I am right, you are wrong. This simple assumption causes endless grief.

 

人们总在喋喋不休地表达自己的观点，通常不会考虑在辩论中支持我们论点的一个基础：我对你不对！有此一点，则不尽烦恼滚滚而来！

 

    What am I right about? I am right that you drive too fast. I am right that you are unable to mentor younger colleagues. I am right that your comments at Thanksgiving were inappropriate. I am right that the patient should have received more medication after such a painful operation. I am right that the contractor overcharged me. I am right that I deserve a raise. I am right that the brochure is fine as it is. The number of things I am right about would fill a book.

     我哪里对？我说是你开车太快了，没说错吧？年青人的工作没做好，是你没带好，没说错吧？你在圣诞过节时说的那些话不大合适，对不对？我说过病人做完这种痛苦的手术后要加大用药量，是不是？那些签约商就是多收了我的钱；我就该涨工资了；我说过广告策划书已经做得很好了。我对，我对，就是我对！我对！有无数个例子都证明就是我对！

 

There’s only on hitch: I am not right.

只是有一个小问题：我其实不对。

 

How could this be so? It seems impossible. Surely I must be right sometimes!

这怎么可能？这不可能吧？至少有时候我肯定没错！

 

    Well, no. The point is this: difficult conversations are almost never about getting the facts right. They are about conflicting perceptions, interpretations, and values. They are not about what a contract states, they are about what a contract means. They are not about which child-rearing book is most popular, they are about which child-rearing book we should follow.

    They are not about what is true, they are about what is important.

    可惜，你还真是不对。关键在于：困难的话题从来就不是在澄清事实。其实这些话题是一些理解不一致、表述不同以及价值观冲突等。并不是因为合同条款表述不清而争论，而是要弄清合同条款的意义。不是在讨论哪一本有关抚养幼儿的书最流行，而是说我们应该按哪一本书中所说的去做。

    人们其实不是在讨论真相如何，而是在讨论什么最重要。

 

    Let’s come back to Jack and Michael. There is no dispute about whether the graph is accurate or not. They both agree it is not. The dispute is over whether the error is worth worrying about and, if so, how to handle it. These are not questions of right and wrong, but questions of interpretation and judgment. Interpretations and judgments are important to explore. In contract, the quest to determine who is right and who is wrong is a dead end.

    回到杰克和麦克尔争论的话题上来。其实对于图表的准确与否，双方并没有不同看法。两个人都说图表不准确。分歧在于图表的错误部分是否严重，以及如果是很严重的话，应该如何处理。这不是是非的问题，而是理解与表述的问题。理解和表述都非常重要，需要探讨。而在签署合同时，想要探讨和明确正确一方与错误一方时，就走入了死胡同。

 

    In the “What Happened?” Conversation, moving away from the truth assumption frees us to shift our purpose from proving we are right to understanding the perceptions, interpretations, and values of both sides. It allows us to move away from delivering messages and toward asking questions, exploring how each person is making sense of the world. And to offer our views as perceptions, interpretations, and values – not as “the truth”.

    在有关“事实真相”的争论中，不去纠缠一定要得出事实真相的结论，才能将目标转移到对观点的理解、表述和对双方价值观的协调上来。双方不用再浪费时间互相表明观点，争辩，探讨彼此世界观的认识等无益的问题。现在可以直截了当地陈述观点、说明自己的理解并且进入到价值这个核心问题上来 – 不需要打破砂锅问到底，千方百计要弄清楚“事实真相”了。

 

The Intention Invention

The second argument in the “What Happened?” Conversation is over intentions – yours and mine. Did you yell at me to hurt my feelings or merely to emphasize your point? Did you throw my cigarettes out because you’re trying to control my behavior or because you want to help me live up to my commitment to quit? What I think about your intentions will affect how I think about you and, ultimately, how your conversation goes.

    The error we make in the realm of intentions is simple but profound: we assume we know the intentions of others when we don’t. Worse still, when we are unsure about someone’s intentions, we too often decide they are bad.

    The truth is, intentions are invisible. We assume them from other people’s behavior. In other words, we make them up, we invent them. But our invented stories about other people’s intentions are accurate much less often than we think. Why? Because people’s intentions, like so much else in difficult conversations, are complex. Sometimes people act with mixed intentions. Sometimes they act with not intention, or at least none related to us. And sometimes they act on good intentions that nonetheless hurt us.

    Because our view of others’ intentions (and their views of ours) are so important in difficult conversations, lapin got unfounded assumptions can be a disaster.

   

 

The Blame Frame

The third error we make in the “What Happened?” Conversation has to do with blame. Most difficult conversations focus significant attention on who’s to blame for the mess we’re in. When the company loses its biggest client, for example, we know that there will shortly ensue a ruthless game of blame roulette. We don’t care where the ball lands, as long as it doesn’t land on us. Personal relationships are no different. Your relationship with your stepmother is strained? She’s to blame. She should stop bugging you about your messy room and the kids you hang out with.

    In the conflict between Jack and Michael, Jack believes the problem is Michael’s fault: the time to declare your hypersensitivity to formatting is before the brochure goes to print, not after. And, of course, Michael believes the problem is Jack’s fault: Jack did the layout, mistakes are his responsibility.

    我们对于“事实真相”的对话中常犯的另一毛病是寻找替罪羊。处理最麻烦的话题就是要找出一个人来，由他来对我们现在面对的麻烦负责。比如当公司最大客户流失的时候，大家都明白，紧跟着就要面对一个无情的、轮盘赌式的责任追究。球落下来的时候没人在乎它往哪里落下，只要不落在我的头上就行。人际关系也是一样。你和继母关系不好的时候，肯定怪她！她一天到晚嫌你不收拾房间，还对你的朋友们说三道四。

    在杰克与麦克的矛盾中，杰克认为是麦克一手造成的问题：想要挑毛病就早说，别等到策划书都印出来了，再来说事儿。而麦克则肯定觉得杰克是罪魁祸首：是你设计的，所有的错误要由你来负全责。

    But talking about fault is similar to talking about truth – it produces disagreement, denial, and little learning. It evokes fears of punishment and insists on an either/or answer. Nobody wants to be blamed, especially unfairly, so our energy goes into defending ourselves.

    Parents of small children know this well. When the twins act up in the back seat of the car, we know that trying to affix blame well always yield an outcry: “But she hit me first!” or “I hit her because she called me a baby.” Each child denies blame not just to avoid losing her dessert, but also from a sense of justice. Neither feels like the problem is solely her fault, because it isn’t.  

    事实上谈论失误与谈论真相一样 – 多了些分歧与辨解而已，对于解决问题却于事无补。还有就是对承担责任的担心。怕承担责任，对于已经说出口的解释，打死也不改口。大家都不要做替罪羊，感觉特冤，拼命为自己解脱。

    有小孩子的父母对此都不陌生。一对同胞姐妹在汽车后座上闹起来了，只要你一问，马上就是哇哇大叫：“她先打我了！”“她先说我是小娃娃，我才打她！”并不是说会闹的孩子才有奶吃，而是要寻求公平的感觉。谁也不认为完全是自己的错，事实上也确实如此: 一个巴掌拍不响。

    From the front seat looking back, it is easy to see how each child has contributed to the fight. It’s much more difficult to see how we’ve contributed to the problems in which we ourselves are involved. But in situations that give rise to difficult conversations, it is almost always true that what happened is the result of things both people did – or failed to do. And punishment is rarely relevant or appropriate. When competent, sensible people do something stupid, the smartest move is to try to figure out, first, what kept them from seeing it coming and second, how to prevent the problem from happening again.

    从前面的座位上往后看，其实很容易就能看到是谁挑起的这场争斗。困难在于当我们插手解决这事儿的时候，我们要明白我们做了什么。造成谈话中分歧的原由，往往是在于双方都做了点什么不对劲儿的事，或是都忽略了什么该做的。谈论惩罚在这种情况下是不合适的。而相应的惩罚却并分明或者不准确。原本是正常的人却做了傻事，那么最应该做的就是先要找出是什么让他们没能预见到要发生的事情，然后是如何防止以后再发生类似的事情。

    Talking about blame distracts us from exploring why things went wrong and how we might correct them going forward. Focusing instead on understanding the contribution system allows us to learn about the real causes of the problem, and to work on correcting them. The distinction between blame and contribution may seem subtle. But it is a distinction worth working to understand, because it will make a significant difference in your ability to handle difficult conversations.

    忙着追究责任会使人们分心，忽略找出问题所在和丧失改正错误、以利以后做好工作的机会。而如果集中精力去理解导致错误的系统，则有助于了解问题所在，并能有效解决问题。追究责任与寻求纠错的区别看起来很微妙。但这是一个很应该好好理解的区别，理解好了将会对你大有裨益，再遇到类似的事情就不会头痛了。

 

The Feelings Conversation:

What Should We Do with Our Emotions?

Difficult conversations are not just about what happened; they also involve emotion. The question is not whether strong feelings will arise, but how to handle them when they do. Should you tell your boss how you really feel about his management style, or about the colleague who stole your idea? Should you share with your sister how hurt you feel that she stayed friends with your ex? And what should you do with the anger you are likely to experience if you decide to talk with that vendor about his sexist remarks?

令人头痛的话题还不限于对所发生的事情的争议。有时涉及到情感问题。问题不在于是否会达到激动而发作，而是激愤的时候要不要爆发。对上司处理问题的方式该不该直截了当地表达意见？要不要揭穿同事剽窃了你的创意？你的妹妹和你原来的男友好上了，你会向她倾诉你痛苦的感受吗？街头的贩夫走卒肆意地议论，说你行为不端，你该如何发泄你的愤怒？

    In the presence of strong feelings, many of us work hard to stay rational. Getting too deep into feelings is messy, clouds good judgment, and in some contexts –for example, at work – can seem just plain inappropriate. Bringing up feelings can also be scary or uncomfortable, and can make us feel vulnerable. After all, what if the other person dismissed our feelings or responds without real understanding? Or takes our feeling to heart in a way that wounds them or irrevocably damages the relationships? And once we’ve gotten our feelings off our chest, it’s their turn. Are we up to hearing all about their anger and pain?

    This line of reasoning suggests that we stay out of the Feelings Conversation altogether – that Jack is better off not sharing his feelings of anger and hurt, or Michael his sense of disappointment. Better to stick to questions about the brochure. Better to stick to “business.”

    Or is it?

    强烈的情绪来临时，多数人会尽量表现出理性的一面。为情绪控制是一种思绪混乱，思路不清晰的判断，发生在诸如工作之类的场合则明显是不合适的。发泄情绪是可怕的或者不愉快的，而只会使自己感到脆弱。况且，如果对方并不理解你的感受，或者根本不理会的话，你该怎么办？很有可能是对方因此而怀恨在心，不可挽回地伤害了彼此的感情呢？而一旦你把愤懑发作出来，就该轮到对方了。你会耐着性子倾听对方把一肚子苦水和满腔怒火倾倒出来吗？

    理性的底线是双方都不要情绪化。对于杰克来说最好不要表现感到委曲和气愤愤的一面，而麦克则无需把失望的情绪表达出来。最好的办法是就事论事，只讨论策划书的问题。要交流，就是说“事儿”。

    还能怎么着？

 

An Opera Without Music

The problem with this reasoning is that it fails to take account of one simple fact: difficult conversations do not just involve feelings, they are at their very core about feelings. Feelings are not some noisy byproduct of engaging in difficult talk, they are an integral part of the conflict. Engaging in a difficult conversation without talking about feelings is like staging an opera without the music. You’ll get the plot but miss the point. In the conversation between Jack and Michael, for example, Jack never explicitly says that he feels mistreated or underappreciated, yet months later Jack can still summon his anger and resentment toward Michael.

    Consider some of your own difficult conversations. What feelings are involved? Hurt or anger? Disappointment, shame, confusion? Do you feel treated unfairly or without respect? For some of us, even saying “I love you” or “I’m proud of you” can feel risky.

    In the short term, engaging in a difficult conversation without talking about feelings may save you time and reduce your anxiety. It may also seem like a way to avoid certain serious risks – to you, to others, and to the relationship. But the question remains: if feelings are the issue, what have you accomplished if you don’t address them?

    Understanding feelings, talking about feelings, managing feelings – these are among the greatest challenges of being human. There is nothing that will make dealing with feelings easy and riskfree. Most of us, however, can do a better job in the Feelings Conversations than we are now. It may not seem like it, but talking about feelings is a skill that can be learned.

    Of course, it doesn’t always make sense to discuss feeling. As the saying goes, sometimes you should let sleeping dogs lie. Unfortunately, a lack of skill in discussing feelings may cause you to avoid not only sleeping dogs, but all dogs – even those that won’t let you sleep.