Head On Read online

  Agreement seemed a long way off.

  ◆◆◆

  Agreement is the conclusion you are striving for in a difficult conversation. If total agreement is not possible, you are at least striving for mutual understanding and a shared view of the situation. This chapter looks at how to generate agreement and how to handle situations where agreement feels out of reach, as it inevitably will in some situations.

  TYPE 1 OR TYPE 2 AGREEMENT

  When agreement can be reached in one conversation, it is what I call Type 1 agreement. Perhaps your employee has been late to work three times in the past two weeks but otherwise has been a dependable and punctual employee. The first time it happened, you didn’t mention it. After all, he’s been so dependable. Anyone can have a little mishap, right? The second time you thought seriously about bringing it up with your employee, but got distracted by a more important matter. Now it’s happened three times-within two weeks-and you’re not the kind of person who saves things up and lambasts employees in their annual performance review. So you bring it up. And it is very likely that you can resolve the matter in one conversation. Type 1 agreement.

  Other times, it will take two or more conversations to reach agreement. I refer to these situations as Type 2 agreement. Perhaps this isn’t the first time you’ve raised the issue. Maybe it’s not even the second or the third. It’s the eleventh time you’ve discussed it … and the behavior hasn’t changed. Or maybe it is an issue that has persisted for a long time without anyone addressing it. Or perhaps trust has been broken (or was never established in the first place). Or in still other cases, you may not have respect for the other person. In any of these situations, it will take two or more conversations to ultimately reach agreement.

  It is important to note that in a Type 2 situation, you want to start by addressing an appropriately sized portion of the situation (think small). Since it is going to take more than one conversation, there is no rush to solve it all at once. In parsing it out into multiple conversations, you create the opportunity to build trust over time, restore respect, and strengthen the relationship. Follow this four-step process in a Type 2 situation in order to provide structure and end with agreement, each step of the way.

  Acknowledge the situation. In the case of Nancy from the previous chapter, the woman who is estranged from her sister: “We haven’t spoken in ten years.”

  State your motivation to change the situation. “You’re my sister and you’re important to me.”

  Share your commitment to your motivation. “I’d like to work on restoring our relationship, and I know it might not be easy.”

  Ask for their commitment in return. “Are you in?” If she says yes, that’s a great place to end the first conversation. Make a commitment to talk again soon, for example, “I’ll see you at mom’s birthday dinner in a few weeks and we can spend a little time together then.”

  It’s important to end each of the Type 2 conversations with agreement. It may be helpful to set parameters at the start of the discussion (i.e., “Let’s just get caught up on our kids’ lives today.”) and stick to those parameters. In Nancy’s case, it was important to build good will and trust with her sister as a foundation for talking about the pain from the past. Their relationship was not strong enough to start with the hurt from a decade ago. Current events including jobs, news of other family members, and the like are a good place from which to begin to restore the relationship in a situation like Nancy’s.

  When stepping into a difficult situation or a difficult conversation, carefully consider whether you intend to reach Type 1 or Type 2 agreement and proceed accordingly.

  INVENT POSSIBILITIES AND RECIPROCATE

  As you move into the agreement phase of the conversation, it is important not to have a fixed, rigid idea of what agreement or a potential solution looks like. It’s only an agreement if it feels like everyone wins. To get started, you want to get a number of ideas on the table, some from each person. Invite your counterpart to share a potential solution. Listen closely. Accept the idea. You do not have to place any valuation or valence on the idea (good/bad/neutral), but rather accept that it is an idea. Reciprocate by putting an idea of your own on the table and continue to build ideas in like fashion. Once you have several ideas on the table, then and only then, does it make sense to begin to sort through them.

  Mix and mingle the ideas you’ve generated, seeing if there is a way to combine together parts and pieces that came from each of you. When agreement is reached with both parties feeling that they have contributed to the outcome, the acceptance and buy-in will be higher. It’s more likely that the agreement will “stick.” Embracing the unknown and letting go of attachment to what the agreement needs to look like will help reach an agreement that has mutual buy-in and acceptance.

  THE COST OF DISAGREEMENT

  When agreement is elusive, it is easy to say, “Well, I guess we just agree to disagree.” When we do this, we leave disagreement as the context for our next conversation with that person. That disagreement hangs in the space like a foul smell, polluting subsequent conversations, even when they are not on the same topic.

  The costs of ending a conversation in this manner are steep. First, this is a disrespectful way to end a search for agreement. Presumably, if this is the note the conversation is ending on, the earlier steps outlined in this book have not been followed or if they have, a trigger was hit and either one or both parties have escalated up the arousal continuum and become defensive. Second, this result does not provide latitude for resuming the conversation at a later date, when agreement might be more feasible. Third, this does not bode well for the development of trust between the two parties. There is no give and take, there is no compromise, and there is no possibility for a different outcome.

  Let me introduce you to a different way to do disagreement.

  DISAGREEMENT WITH POSSIBILITY

  Rather than disrespectfully commenting on the disagreement, there is a way to acknowledge the current lack of agreement and leave room for a different outcome. There are three parts to leaving a disagreement with possibility for future agreement.

  First, clearly and straightforwardly acknowledge the lack of agreement in the present tense. For example, “We do not agree on an outcome for this situation right now.” By specifically stating that you have not reached agreement, you are being straight with the other person. That, by its very nature, is respectful. You are not avoiding the disagreement or dancing around it.

  Note that my word choice is “agree” rather than “disagree.” Recall our discussion from Chapter 5 on how words create reality. In labeling it as “agree” rather than “disagree,” a reality of agreement is created through our vocabulary choices, keeping the compass pointed in the direction toward which we wish to move. The focus remains on agreement rather than disagreement. And, the temporality of the situation is acknowledged. Right now and in the present tense. We do not agree right now. That leaves the possibility of agreeing at some point in the future.

  Second, identify any factors in the situation that might change over time. Your point of view might change, their point of view might change, or the environment (the budget, the economy, the political climate, the actual climate, etc.) may change. When you acknowledge the opportunity for growth or change, including your own viewpoint, you build agreement with the other person that it may be possible to reach agreement in the future.

  Third, suggest a realistic point in the future that would be an appropriate interval to revisit the issue. Depending on the issue, it might be in two days, in two weeks, in six months, or two years. Then, put that possibility into an existent system, most likely a calendar. If you agree to talk about it in two days, send a meeting invitation for two days from now. There’s nothing like a placeholder on the calendar to keep an issue alive. If your interval is longer, much longer, like two years, then I suggest you put the calendar notice in your own calendar and send the meeting notice closer the time you agreed on. Unless of
course, you are able to be lighthearted and not take yourself too seriously (and your colleague can do the same). Then, by all means, send the meeting notice through for two years from now!

  To recap, the process has three steps:

  Acknowledge the lack of agreement in the present tense.

  Identify factors that might change over time.

  Request to revisit the issue at a realistic point in the future.

  When we put all three parts together it sounds like this: “Kimberly, I know we don’t agree on this right now. Perhaps over time something will change. My view of the situation might change. Your view of the situation might change. Or our customer data trends might change, making it clear to both of us which way to go on this issue. I’d like to put a meeting on the calendar for us to discuss this again after our third quarter customer data reports are in. How does that sound?”

  Kimberly will most likely say “yes” to this request and then, shazam, you’ve ended on agreement!

  ACCEPT THE AGREEMENT

  Even if you didn’t get everything you wanted, accept the agreement. Pretending to accept the outcome when you do not is both passive- aggressive and damaging to the relationship. Sometimes we think we are “taking one for the team” when we agree to something we really don’t believe in or fully agree with. The line of thinking goes something like this: “Most everyone else agrees, and I don’t want to make waves/slow the process down/sit through another meeting on this topic.” So feigned agreement passes as agreement. This is bald faced passive-aggressive behavior.

  How do you tell the difference in whether you are pulling a passive-aggressive maneuver or if it really doesn’t matter? Well, if it isn’t a big deal, you won’t give it much thought. The outcome may not be your preferred outcome, but you don’t really give a darn. That’s not passive-aggressive. It just doesn’t matter much to you. And that’s okay.

  On the other hand, if you can’t let go of it and talk about it to anyone who will listen and ruminate about it, then it was passive-aggressive to feign agreement. You’ll know because you’ll still be talking about it in the parking lot, the elevator, and the restroom. You won’t be able to let it go. You’ll be complaining and moaning that it is unfair or inappropriate or just plain wrong. Clearly, there was something to say and you didn’t say it. It doesn’t go away on its own. And you didn’t speak up. Something is yet to be said, which is why it continues to come up, whether in your “out loud” conversations or in the privacy of your own ruminations. Never fear. There’s still time. You can go back to that person or situation and remedy the issue by telling them now that you didn’t agree then and ask to reopen the discussion. Use the Fact AND model to tee up the conversation as discussed in Chapter 5.

  THE MEETING AFTER THE MEETING

  If you are privy to conversations that demonstrate lack of agreement when there was an opportunity to voice concerns, put an end to them. For example, let’s say you and your colleagues listened while the vacation policy change was announced and you all sat quietly without asking the tough questions that were on everyone’s mind. Then, at the end of the day you find yourself in the parking lot amidst several of your colleagues, complaining and moaning about the new vacation policy.

  This is what I call “the meeting after the meeting” and it is not good for you or your organization. When you complain and essentially “relive” the stressful situation, levels of stress hormones such as cortisol rise, which can give way to physical problems like high blood pressure and weight gain. It also brings about a sense of sadness and disempowerment (“I don’t have a voice and I will never get a chance to speak up”) that can damage your mental health.

  If you find yourself included in “the meeting after the meeting,” suggest to your colleagues that you take some productive action regarding the situation instead of just rehashing it. It might sound like this: “Yeah, none of us said anything to Susan in the meeting. Let’s see if she’s available first thing in the morning so that we can let her know we have some concerns.”

  Sometimes it isn’t feasible to bring a quick end to the meeting after the meeting due to rank or organizational politics. You may feel outranked in position, years of service, or any number of other factors. If that is the case, excuse yourself from the conversation. If you remain, even if you are not an active participant in the conversation, you are guilty by association. And, there’s a good chance the complainers will think you agree with them. Silence equals consent.

  Recall Anthony and Eric from the beginning of the chapter. They did not reach agreement in their first conversation. They did not share the same views on whether or not developers should communicate directly with clients. It became clear to Anthony that this would be a Type 2 situation.

  After some coaching on the Fact AND model so that he could tee up the next conversation without defensiveness, Anthony began by stating a premise that both he and Eric shared. “Making our customers happy and keeping them happy is critical in our business,” he began. Eric nodded. Anthony continued, “We don’t agree right now on how to best make that happen.” Eric nodded again. “How about we both do some research with our teams about how to best handle direct client communication and then talk again in a few days?” Eric consented.

  Agreement, even inside of disagreement, is possible.

  CONCLUSION

  As you work on creating agreement, use the exercises at the end of the chapter to strategize agreement and keep yourself accountable.

  Presumably, you’ve cleared your emotional state, opened the conversation without making the other person defensive, practiced good listening skills and asked questions using objective inquiry, acknowledged the various stories that are at play in the situation and now, have reached some sort of agreement (or are actively working toward agreement with a series of small agreements if it is a Type 2 situation).

  Great work! You are on your way to a life that is more courageous, direct, and intentional, one in which you can take the tough stuff life throws at you head on.

  EXERCISES

  #15: Accept the Agreement

  Sometimes we don’t get everything we want in an agreement. This is especially true when we weren’t the one to initiate the difficult conversation. When that is the case, it is important to give voice to our concerns as we work toward agreement and then be accepting of the agreement for now. We can always reopen the issue at a later date, but for now we need to accept it.

  Jot down a few situations from the past where you have agreed on the surface, but not fully accepted the agreement or solution.

  Now think about the durability of those agreements. Did they hold, even though you were not 100% on board? If the agreement fell apart, how did it fail? Did you negotiate a new agreement?

  #16: Agreeing Inside of Disagreement

  There is a way to acknowledge a lack of agreement and leave room for a different outcome. I call it “agreeing inside of disagreement” and there are three parts to the process.

  First, clearly and straightforwardly acknowledge the lack of agreement in the present tense. For example, “We do not agree on an outcome for this situation right now.”

  Identify any factors in the situation that might change over time. Your point of view, their point of view, or environmental factors may change.

  Suggest a realistic point in the future that would make sense to revisit the issue and put that date on the calendar.

  Think of a situation where you currently don’t have agreement. Write out what it would sound like to have the “agreeing inside of disagreement” conversation.

  Part 3

  Difficult Conversations in Context

  CHAPTER 9

  TACKLING TOUGH STUFF IN TEAMS AND MEETINGS

  ”Let me back up to give a little more context on this,” James interjected into the meeting. As he began to share two decades worth of history, Elizabeth felt like she could recite it along with him. She struggled to contain her frustration. Her chest tightened, she felt her
eyes widen and she balled her fists in her lap. After a couple of sentences she burst out, “James, we all know the history of the agency. You don’t have to begin in the 1960s every time you have an idea. Get to the point. What is it?”

  James recoiled physically as if he’d been slapped. Others shifted uncomfortably in their seats. Although James rambled on about the past frequently during meetings, he usually concluded his remarks with a contribution that helped the team. This time, he wasn’t given the chance to get there.

  James stammered for a moment and then said, “I’ve lost my train of thought.” He looked at his notebook, uncomfortable and unable to make eye contact with his colleagues. He’d never been dressed down like that in a meeting in his two and half decades with the company. The meeting continued with James unable to find his voice. He was humiliated. And furious. Serious damage was done to the relationship between James and Elizabeth.

  ◆◆◆

  Competing agendas, difficult personalities, and office politics often give rise to difficult conversations in team settings and in meetings. This chapter discusses team and meeting dynamics and offers exercises and techniques to use in those contexts to turn difficult conversations into creative, constructive conversations and promote healthy, productive disagreement without doing damage to individual or team relationships.

  Team members, by their very nature, bring a diverse set of skills and talents to their group: the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. The diversity in a well-constructed team, be it diversity of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or diversity of thought, will inevitably lend itself to disagreement and competing points of view. When handled effectively, creative disagreement contributes to higher-quality outcomes. When handled ineffectively, competing points of view can lead to disengagement, hurt feelings, and lower output, as we saw with James’ reaction to Elizabeth’s outburst.