Beginning Difficult Conversations

And our topic – I almost hate to say it – is "Difficult Conversations." There are times and situations where we, in a variety of settings in which we walk into a conversation we know is gonna be difficult, where we know there's disagreement, and those conversations can either provide an opportunity for mutually benefiting the participants, or it can blow up. And so, we want to talk about those conversations and what's involved in them.

And let me begin this way, Michelle, with you. What are the dangers in pursuing a difficult conversation? What are some of the things that we do that can damage the possibility of actually making progress in such a conversation? And maybe a second question – bad to ask two questions at once, but I'll do it –

So, that leads, oftentimes, to a downward spiral of someone hearing incorrectly. And because of that, they now want to be right. And now, if I have to be right, I have to present my position, and now that leads to defenses and people not hearing because they're too busy being right.

And so, one of my natural ways of thinking, to come out on the good end of that, is if I can win over the difference. And even if you win you lose in terms of the relational outcome and also having the opportunity to really understand the difference.

And so, a big, big part of it is just being aware of what's going on within me that makes a difficult conversation difficult. So, I think that's really the first most important thing is that awareness personally of what is it that's kind of welling up within me that becomes a barrier for me actually moving towards the other person with their difference.

And oftentimes, people think they're only talking about the top layer, and they don't think about the other two layers. But the other two layers are actually driving what's happening in the conversations.

So, active listening, again, that's where we have to start. And without it, the other side of that – and you mentioned it earlier – is when those hidden agendas come in, you're not hearing any longer.

Usually, if I'm in a combative mode, or I have an agenda, then I'm in default rebuttal mode in terms of engaging with the person. Are there other indicators of how you can sense whether you're being open to what the person is saying other than that?

So, how do I listen to you in a way that I'm actually gonna be able to let you know I'm understanding whatever it is you want me to understand.

We've already mentioned, in just our initial exchanges, that oftentimes the goal is, "Well, I've gotta win this conversation. I gotta get what I want in one way or another." We say that in one way or another.

And there's a whole nother conversation – probably a whole nother podcast – about the way in which there are oftentimes power dynamics at work in these conversations that are in play, depending on how those conversations are perceived and the relative positions of the people participating, and that kind of thing. But we'll stay out of that for now.

And as we move into trying to engage, the first goal, in a good conversation, is probably the goal to simply understand each other.

And my part one total goal and strategy is built around understanding. That's it.

A lot of times, we're not being heard because, as the speaker, we're getting in the way of the other person hearing us. We're actually promoting a defensive response back from them.

I may walk into difficult conversations where I either don't – where I either don't trust the person, I don't know the person well enough to have any capital – you know, any conversational relational capital to draw upon.

So, this commitment to understand really has to be – particularly the less well I know the person, or the more hostile I might be towards the person going in – really has to be a self-commitment – doesn't it? – to the nature of the conversation and the way I'm gonna pursue it?

So, you don't just assume trust, and you don't just grant trust; it gets established in the exchange as you grow to deeper and deeper exchanges with one another.

"Well, they never" – they never or they always – "blow me off."

I said, "Well, first of all, if they're absolutes" – that's probably not accurate, but even if it is – "stop playing the same old tape."

And that also breaks or breaches that relationship and that trust factor, because you're playing the old tape, "He always said it this way. He didn't want me to think about things in this way."

So, you want to be very, very intentional at the very beginning. And even if you – you're needing to identify and discuss gripes, you can package that in constructive ways. See? But the way you package, the way you deliver, especially in that first three minutes, that's going to really determine – even if you have a three-hour conversation after that, that's all determined in the first three minutes.

And the first hand goes up, and it's a woman sitting over here, and she said, "I think you just helped me with my marriage."

And I think the pushback that sometimes initially comes is, well, when I go into a conversation, particularly about something I care about or something I have a conviction about, and particularly – I mean one of the discourses is gonna be religious discourse – I'm gonna go in and I'm gonna have a conviction.

And so, your convictions have a way less chance of ever being heard if you take that approach going into it.

What role does having some sense of – I don't know how else to say this – having some sense of empathy for or connection with the other person, being willing to hear something different? Again, not because you're gonna agree with it, but because you understand that by doing that, you're gonna advance your opportunity to actually have a better conversation.

Along with that, I would say it takes patience. Something else that most people don't like and what's awkward and uncomfortable for them are moments of silence. Moments of silence are deafening. And so, because of that, the natural tendency is, "I have to fill in; I have to jump in." And not giving people a chance to process what's being said is also important.

So, a part of understanding is not just listening, but waiting for the person to respond and then take time to process that in a way that's not forced or awkward.

And in spiritual conversations, I think that's very, very important because there might be an experience in their past or something like that that has predisposed them to look at their spiritual experience in a certain way. And if you can discover that that's there, that actually helps you connect and empathize with the person and why they might be reacting in the way they are.

Because another thing that we tend to do that undercuts conversations is we'll impute motive –

And so, as I'm looking, I'm getting a different picture of what I'm looking at because my lenses are changing the filtering of what I'm seeing and understanding. And then that sets me up to naturally and automatically attach a wrong meaning, understanding, interpretation, motivation, conclusion – that's not even what's going on in the present.

And we're gonna get to the point, hopefully, in the midst of this conversation, that we can identify what it is that we are actually talking about, 'cause that's actually part of the goal.

The understanding phase is to actually pinpoint not what you think is going on, or what you have intuited has gone on, but what actually is, at least in the perceptions of the participants, what their mutual perception is about what's going on and the nature of those differences.

But what you're also doing is you're placing yourself in a interaction with someone where you're being teachable. As well as learning about them, you're learning about yourself. I don't know what I don't know. I have blind spots, but I don't know how that's affecting me, and it's in that exchange that I get opportunities to learn what those are.

But what I think we're slow to see, and what I think this process does oftentimes times play with in reality, is it may not be an all-or-nothing conversation. It may be that there are certain things that I see – using your blind spots picture – that need tweaking, that need nuancing, that what's something I may treat as an absolute may not, in fact, be an absolute.

And so – and I'm sitting here saying, "So, are you telling me that every Muslim that you've met automatically goes kind of a negative meter in effect?

And basically, he was saying, "Yes."

And I said, "Well, have you met and had conversations with many Muslims? Have you actually seen what they think about certain areas?"

And he wrote me back and said, "Well, not that many."

And so, we pursued this. And what I was actually doing, in that conversation, was to try and tweak, for lack of a better description. It wasn't that I was denying that there isn't an element of Islam to be concerned about, from a Christian point of view, but it was to say that if I evaluate every Muslim through the same lens and see them all the same way in this generic kind of way, that somehow I might miss something that's coming at me that actually creates an opportunity as opposed to necessarily being something I need to be defensive about.

But if you think about tolerance, it's really a sneaky exclusion, because what tolerance becomes is a commitment to assimilation to where, you know, if you have the truth, then that becomes excluding. And so, in order for us to be included, nobody can have truth.

And so, it's – if I'm not operating from a freed heart, I'm not gonna be able to apply the information and the skills. I mean there's guys that write books, they're experts on marriage, who get divorced. Okay?

So, everybody starts off with a vertical relationship of some kind of a caregiver. Right? Maybe a mother, maybe not, but in the experience of that vertical relationship, if the caregiver is whole and healthy enough to give in a relationship that's one way, not mutual, that helps to shape a secure attachment and identity development for that individual.

And so, my identity becomes freed up from all those expectations I put into future horizontal relationships.

Let's introduce another model, another picture, 'cause I think this is helpful, too. When I'm in a conversation, I can – there're really, probably, basically three ways to respond. I can move against someone.

And if I'm actually moving towards a person, that is an act of love, not a feeling of love. And in that moving towards, I'm actually loving that person by willing the good of that person. When I'm moving against the person, I'm actually acting against what's good for that person. When I'm moving away from the person, I'm indifferent to that person, and so, I'm moving away from the opportunity of doing something good for this person.

As I've said, some of the things that we'll be pursuing will be the types of things that we do that undermine ability to have a good, difficult conversation, the things that we can do that contribute to making it work, those kinds of things.

But I think we've laid a good groundwork for people to understand that going into a difficult conversation to win is not gonna help you. Going into a difficult conversation to listen and learn about the person – I think that might be the way to say it –

If you have topics or interests that you want to submit to the table, you can communicate with us at Dallas Seminary, dts.edu, and there's a page tied to the Hendricks Center, and the Table Podcast that will allow you to give us feedback. We'd love to hear your ideas, and we thank you for being a part of the table today.