Principles for difficult conversations

Peter Levine shared a video today of a panel he was on back in June, discussing practical ways to have difficult conversations. We could all do with a little more practice in this these days. I know I certainly could.

I found the audio hard to hear, but Peter’s post helpfully summarizes what each presenter practices, and I have gathered these principles here in a list for future reference. Each person is working in a different context, but the gathering was about teaching civics in schools in the United States. I think there is some useful transferrance of these principles, so I’m going to slightly rephrase them to be more general.

Sarah Stitzlein:

• Ground discussions in shared principles, such as living well together or a desire to find common ground
• Explore tensions (such as between equality and liberty(
• Use historical rather than current examples.
• Let the other lead.

Winston C. Thompson:

• Set norms for addressing identities
• Allow a person to opt-out of “representing” a group
• Take responsibility for imbalances in credibility

Janna Mohr Lone:

• Give full attention to the other
• Practice receptivity, curiosity and open-heartedness
• Allow long pauses to allow quieter voices to emerge
• Make the conversation multi-centred, in other words allow it to become a real conversation rather than a mediated exchange of ideas through one person with power in the situation.

Alison Cohen:

• Ask “What are you concerned about?” to uncover core values
• Legitimate concerns without needing to agree with them.
• Ground the discussion in a shared moral foundation
• Understanding your own philosophical, moral or ethical principles can help you generate good questions.
• Listen for understanding, not debate or attack.

Peter Levine (my summary , because he doesn’t cover his own talk in his post!)

• Name your own biases and make them visible
• Find a share ground of values
• Ask questions that are neither too abstract but also not settled.
• Explore unresolvable tensions

I recently found myself in a difficult conversation and I handled it really badly. It stemmed from a poor comment I made on a social media post during an election campaign where I accused my interlocutor of posting a hoax becasue a meme he shared did not reflect the data that was contained in the report it referenced. I know this person in real life, and the conversation did not go well online. When I saw him in real life, I apologized. A few days later we found ourselves together in the community and we started discussing the point of the post he made. It became a dogfight. I was triggered and upset, feeling some shame and guilt that I had kicked this whole thing off with what he perceived as a personal attack online. For his part, he is a lawyer, so the conversation became a debate, both of us convinced we were right. I was without any kind of skillfulness in creating a good curiosity based conversation. It wasn’t a proud moment.

Practicing these kinds of conversations is incredibly hard. None of us are saints. Principles like the ones above are just basic good sense for anyone hosting or participating in a difficult conversation, but they are incredibly difficult to remember and practice when we are in an emotional state and when the conversations we are having may ultimately have existential implications for the folks in the discussion.

I think at the end of the day one of the key principles that is my own personal responsibility to take is “I want this to go well, for me and the person I’m talking too.” I don’t mean that we should avoid conflict and just be civil to each other, or that we should deny any part of our emotional response to a situation. What I mean is that we should embrace a relationship, even if only for a few minutes, that can hold different experiences, different points of view and different aspiration side by side. For that we need a practice ground and before we step out onto that mat, we need some principles to guide us.

Here are some. What are yours?