# Difficult Conversation Skill

The conversations we avoid are usually the ones that matter most — and we botch them by winging it or
over-rehearsing into a script that shatters on first contact. This skill preps the hard talk the way the
research says works: get clear on the *actual* goal, understand the other person's story, open without
triggering defensiveness, and plan for their reactions — so you go in calm and come out with the
relationship intact.

## Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:

- **The situation** — what's happened, with whom, and the relationship (manager, report, peer, client).
- **What you want** — the real outcome (often a changed behaviour or a restored relationship, not "to be right").
- **Their likely view** — how they probably see it, and what they care about.
- **The stakes & history** — what makes it hard, and anything that's been tried.

## Output Format

### Difficult Conversation: [topic] with [who]

**1. Your real goal** — name it plainly (and the *un*-goal — e.g. "not to win, but to change X"). Conversations go wrong when the unspoken goal is to be proven right.

**2. Their story** — how they likely see it and what they need to feel (heard, respected, safe). You can't move someone you haven't understood.

**3. Open** — a specific opening line that states the issue from the **facts + your impact**, not blame ("When the deadline slipped, I was left explaining it to the client" — not "You always miss deadlines"). The first 30 seconds set the tone.

**4. Key points** — the 2–3 things you must convey, each separating **observation from story/judgement**.

**5. Likely reactions → your response** — defensiveness, deflection, emotion, counterattack — and a calm, non-escalating reply prepared for each.

| If they… | You respond… |
|---|---|

**6. Land it** — the ask or agreement you want, and how to close on a concrete next step.

**Stance note** — stay curious, not certain; aim for a shared understanding, not a verdict.

## Quality Checks

- [ ] The real goal is named (and separated from the ego-goal of "being right")
- [ ] The other person's perspective is genuinely represented, not strawmanned
- [ ] The opening uses facts + impact, not blame or character judgement
- [ ] Observation is separated from interpretation throughout
- [ ] Likely reactions each have a prepared, non-escalating response
- [ ] It closes on a concrete next step or agreement

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not open with blame or "you always/never" — it triggers defensiveness and ends learning
- [ ] Do not confuse your story with the facts — "the deadline slipped" is fact; "you don't care" is a story
- [ ] Do not over-script — plan the open and the points, then stay responsive; a rigid script breaks
- [ ] Do not aim to win — if the goal is to be right, the relationship loses even if you "win"
- [ ] Do not avoid the actual ask — name the change or agreement you need, kindly and clearly

## Based On

Crucial Conversations (Patterson et al.) and Difficult Conversations (Stone, Patton, Heen) — facts vs. story, the third story, safety.
