As If It Wasn’t Hard Enough…

Speaker: 00:00:07

,: 2023

Speaker: 00:01:19

During the heat of the moment, a difficult conversation can make us forget every nice-sounding skill and technique we’ve ever learned and start to respond with defensiveness, fear, judgment, or even aggression—all of which we have seen create fertile ground for miscommunication and hostility. Below, we will look at two powerful frameworks to maintain connected communication even during tricky situations. Each of them succeeds, however, because they do one thing: increase positivity and decrease feelings of defensiveness and fear. During a conflict, we may feel that our only aim is to make our point, be vindicated, or place blame. But really, our aim should be completely different: to increase positive feelings for everyone involved. Only then do we have any hope of actually being heard, validated, or respected. Let’s look at a tricky situation and how we can use these two frameworks to help us create more feelings of positivity. The COIN Framework It’s tempting to imagine that other people think as we do, want what we want, and see the world in roughly the same way as we see it. But if you’ve ever been in any conflict, you’ll know what a rude awakening it can be to realize that another person’s mind can be a whole universe of its own.

Speaker: 00:02:53

ecutive coach Anna Carroll in: 2003

Speaker: 00:04:35

What is the context, i.e., when and where and how did this event come to be? More than that, how are your own values and actions playing into it all? O – Observation – Identify your assumptions, observations, thoughts, and beliefs about the context above. Importantly, this is done neutrally—without judgment, analysis, or interpretation. If possible, imagine you are a third party trying to simply describe what is happening. I – Impact – What has been the overall impact on you? Why exactly are you concerned about this situation? However, this is not just the impact on you, but on others and the entire situation—so how are your actions influencing others and affecting things in turn?

Speaker: 00:05:38

N – Next – This is a request for something to change. It’s you sharing your desired results and exploring potential options and opportunities so that some kind of resolution or agreement can be found. Okay, so how can we put this all into practice? First, a COIN conversation is best understood as something that you prepare carefully for in advance. This is a tool for those tricky conflicts that are ongoing and require a choice or decision from you. Whether it’s at work or in a personal context, take a moment to think about the situation on your own first, and then respectfully reach out to the other party, explaining that you’d like to start a conversation. Be willing to be turned down and be open to scheduling a conversation in a way that suits them most. The framework is useful for emergencies, but it never hurts to approach any difficult conversation with a spirit of curiosity, collaboration, and respect. Let’s look at an example to see how the whole process may play out.

Speaker: 00:06:53

Imagine that two sisters are having a recurrent disagreement that’s now reached crisis point. Sister A feels like Sister B continually makes heavy demands on her, which she bends over backward to accommodate, only for Sister B to cancel plans last minute and leave her sister hanging in a flurry of confusion. This has led to Sister A being unwilling to accommodate any further requests, and Sister B feeling that this is rude and hostile behavior. Sister A decides that things are deteriorating and some honest communication is called for. On a day when she knows her sister will not be too distracted or busy, she sends her a text message asking if they can both sit down and have a good chat. This is agreed, and they both have time to process and think carefully about what they’d like to say. Sister A: “Thanks for agreeing to chat with me, Sister B. I know you’re busy at the moment with XYZ.

Speaker: 00:07:58

I wanted to talk to you about some difficulty I’ve been having with the dynamic we seem to have lately. I want to clear things up, though, because you’re my sister and I love you, and I know we can be such a good team when we connect well. Speaking to you about this is a little nerve-wracking, so please bear with me. I wanted to first just tell you how I saw things and tell you my perspective so you can see where I’m coming from. Then I wanted to ask you for your honest perspective, too. Do you think you have, like, twenty minutes to hash this out with me? We can put a pin in this and return to it whenever would work for you best." Sister B: “Well, okay.

Speaker: 00:08:46

Let’s just talk now. I have time." Sister A: “Okay, that’s great, I’m happy to hear that. So, to be more specific, from what I can see, the last three times you’ve asked me to keep a weekend clear for you so we can do something together, you actually ended up cancelling on me at the last minute. The weekend before last, in particular, I drove out to meet you as we agreed, and you only told me an hour after we were due to meet that you could no longer make the meeting. Do you remember that weekend?" Sister B: “Yeah, of course I do." Sister A: “Okay, great.

Speaker: 00:09:22

Well, this last weekend, you got in touch and wanted to meet again, but this time I said I was busy." Sister B: “Well, I remember that too ... I desperately needed your help, and you weren’t there for me." Sister A: “I understand. I’m really interested to hear your perspective on events, but I wanted to first share how things looked from my point of view so you can see my perspective too. What do you think?" Sister B: “Okay, fine. Sorry. Please continue."

Speaker: 00:09:53

Sister A: “Cancelling on me three times in a row like that made me feel like I wasn’t important to you, and I also felt pretty angry, like my time was not as important as yours. It really had a bad impact on me because it’s time that is wasted that I can’t get back. I also worry that it damages trust between you and me, and I don’t like feeling as though I can’t rely on you." Sister B: (sighing) “Yeah, I’m sorry, I do get that ... ” Sister A: “I know things have been pretty tense and awkward between us. Has that been your experience, too?" Sister B: “Yup." Sister A: “I value our relationship so much—you know I do! I always want to be there for you, and I also want to know that if you give me your word, I can rely on it.

Speaker: 00:10:45

I want to ask you if you can think carefully about the next time we make plans, and that you don’t agree to do anything unless you one hundred percent fully intend to follow through. I want us to both agree on that. That way we can both depend a little more on each other and can get rid of some of this awkwardness and confusion. Sister B: “I agree. You’re right and I’m sorry. I’ve been a little difficult lately, I know ... ” And so on. Now, you might notice a few things in reading the above conversation. First, yes, it’s a bit stilted and unnatural sounding.

Speaker: 00:11:32

If you try to use the COIN approach on a loved one, they will notice the carefully deliberate language—and that’s okay. Though it’s awkward, it still works, and it sends a subtle message along the lines of, “this conversation is different from the kinds of interaction we’ve had so far. I mean this and I intend to take this problem seriously." You’d be surprised how conveying this attitude alone can actually put people in a receptive, respectful frame of mind—even while there is plenty of awkwardness. A second thing you might notice is that, in real life, the process will not move in a neat, linear fashion from one step to the next. There needs to be a little flexibility in how the method is deployed, and context, observation, impact, and next may overlap considerably. That’s also okay. You might find that the conversation takes on a complete life of its own—but if you have prepared yourself beforehand and have explored each point thoroughly, then you are able to express yourself effectively without running through the acronym in your mind.

Speaker: 00:12:49

This will make things feel a little more natural. A few things to bear in mind with the COIN framework: •As much as possible, try to use “I” statements and focus on your perceptions, your feelings, your thoughts—not just grammatically but also in spirit. For example, “I feel that you’re a big idiot” is not going to get you far! •Frequently pause during the conversation to confirm that your observations are correct/reasonable. The more you can have the other person agree with you (even if it’s only on superficial details like the date an event happened), the more they are primed to collaborate with you in other ways. Create opportunities for them to concur with you. •When making a request, be clear, direct, and simple. You want to decrease chances for misunderstanding but also present your needs and wants without arousing defensiveness.

Speaker: 00:13:57

In the above conversation, Sister A makes a point of saying “I want us both to agree on that” to emphasize that she is not making a demand, but requesting a joint collaboration for their mutual benefit. Nevertheless, she’s being pretty clear: don’t stand me up again! •Don’t keep repeating yourself. Once ground has been covered and you have been heard, don’t return to the same grievance over and over. Be careful about how you phrase your observations, etc., say them assertively but with kindness, and then drop it, making space for the other person to respond. •Remember your non-verbal body language and maintain eye contact, keep an open posture, regulate your voice, and use inviting, open-handed gestures. •Finally, bear in mind that the conversation may still fail. It’s a sad fact that even if you do your very best to make your case and express yourself with clarity and respect, the situation may still worsen.

Speaker: 00:15:14

Try to detach yourself from the outcome and make your simply to act within your own integrity and express yourself as clearly and kindly as possible. Beyond that, let it go. Making a request will drastically increase your chances of having it granted—but it's never a guarantee. At some point in life, most of us will have to communicate to someone about what they did or said, with the intention of encouraging or reducing that behavior, whether that’s in a professional or personal context. Here, the COIN framework really shines: Focus on the “Next” section and pay attention to what can be done in the future rather than dwelling on what hasn’t been done in the past. For example, instead of saying, “The report was too long,” you could say, “Next time, you could try making the report a lot shorter." Use the COIN acronyms, but remember to include the positive behavior, too, and the impact it had. When you include observations followed by impact, you are essentially telling people why their behavior was positive or negative.

Speaker: 00:16:32

You are not just complaining by showing consequences. This way, both you and the person are standing outside of their performance and looking in. As long as you approach any feedback conversation (including where you receive feedback!) with the same spirit of collaboration, it can be an effective and fruitful way to connect with someone. How to Say No Speaking of conflict, isn’t “no” the epitome? For people who have difficulty saying no, the word seems to be associated only with things like rudeness, violence, or stubbornness. They see no as a word that kids use during tantrums, or something that’s said when someone is trying to be difficult. But no is a word we use to assert boundaries, and there are in fact many different shades and nuances to the practice of asserting ourselves—if we want to become masters at being assertive, we need to be familiar with each one. Basic assertion is when you simply state your need, preference, limit, or personal belief: “My budget for this is five hundred dollars."

Speaker: 00:17:51

“I’m not happy with the service I’ve received." “I’m celiac and can’t eat that." “I’m really upset right now." Basic assertions are when we state facts or express ourselves within our rights. We are most effective at making basic assertions when we keep things simple and neutral. We don’t have to beg, plead, explain, justify, or apologize. It doesn’t only have to be factual, however. We can state how we feel, but remember to use “I” statements to own your feelings, i.e. say, “I don’t think this looks good,” vs. “This is hideous."

Speaker: 00:18:36

For some people, taking responsibility for how they feel, what they believe, what they want and don’t want, and their limits is enormously empowering in itself. Sometimes, it can be hard just to speak up and make these things known. For example, if someone keeps offering you food, it’s a basic assertion to say calmly, “Thank you, but I’m watching my weight and don’t want any more." Finally, a clever way to indirectly make a basic assertion is to say, “What would you like me to deprioritize?” when your boss heaps yet another task on your plate, for example. This way, you are communicating the message, “I can only do so many things at once—which things should they be?" You assert your boundary without being inflexible, and make it the other person’s job to reconcile the overload, not yours. An empathic assertion is a little different, in that it is designed to take into account the other person’s feelings, needs, and wants, even as you state your own. This is especially important to master if you buy into the “saying no means I don’t care” counter-mindset. Using empathic assertions shows the other person that you are asserting your boundary while you acknowledge and are sensitive to their position, too.

Speaker: 00:20:08

“I know that you were really hoping for a better outcome. I’m afraid this is the result for now, however." “I understand that you’re overwhelmed with this project. I nevertheless have to ask that you take these issues to the right channels from now on." “I’m sure you haven’t had an easy time lately. I still need you to fulfil your duties on this project as we agreed." We can use this kind of assertion in many ways. We can use it to ask for extra help and consideration ourselves, but also we can use it to turn down the request for extra help and consideration when we can’t give it.

Speaker: 00:20:51

Sometimes, saying no and asserting boundaries does inconvenience or disappoint people, but that doesn’t mean we can’t express our regret and compassion. Notice that in the above expressions, we avoid following the empathic statement with “but,” which would only end up canceling out any feelings of compassion and even come across as passive-aggressive. For example, “I see your point, but ... ” may only come across as insincere or dismissive. Instead, try to use “and” or soften the sentences so you’re not undermining the empathy you’re expressing. A consequence assertion is, hopefully, not something you have to do all that often. If we set healthy boundaries, communicate them, and assert them when people threaten to overstep, we will seldom need to make this kind of assertion. But occasionally, we need to follow up with consequences when someone violates our boundaries or is aggressive, and we want to respond without becoming aggressive ourselves. The key here is to keep aggression and strong emotion out of it. Keep your voice calm, your tone neutral, and your body language relaxed.

Speaker: 00:22:10

A boundary, remember, is a kind of conditional, i.e. “If X, then Y." To assert this is not to make a threat or ultimatum, but merely to state a fact. “If you talk to me like that again, I’m going to end the conversation and take some time to reconsider this relationship." “I’m afraid I’m not willing to keep taking part in this project until the safety concerns that have been raised are properly addressed." “If this behavior doesn’t change, I will have no choice but to get your supervisor involved." Importantly, consequence assertions are a last resort, and come after gentle boundary assertions have been ignored. The thing is, a boundary isn’t worth much unless it’s actually enforced and there are real consequences for it being violated.

Speaker: 00:23:13

Though this kind of “ultimatum” can be hard to deliver, you may be surprised by how strong you feel afterward. Don’t make this kind of assertion unless you actually have consequences to deliver and are genuinely willing to follow through with them. A discrepancy assertion is something you might need to make well before a consequence assertion is necessary. This is simply you pointing out the difference between what was agreed on and what is actually occurring, i.e. there’s a misunderstanding, contradiction, or broken promise. “We agreed last week that I’d have the final say when it comes to the budget, but now you’re asking for a second opinion on these figures. Can you clarify that that is in fact what we agreed?" “When we signed up for that marathon, you promised me you’d train with me every other day, rain or shine, remember?" A discrepancy assertion gives the other party time to respect the agreement or back off from a boundary by reminding them that it’s there and that you will not tolerate having it pushed back little by little! Negative feelings assertions are needed when you want to express the emotional impact someone’s behavior is having on you. This is not to blame them or make them responsible, but to make them aware of their effect on you and give them time to change.

Speaker: 00:24:54

Start by describing their behavior as objectively and calmly as possible, and then clearly explain the impact on you without making sweeping generalizations or judgments. Describe how you feel and then end with an explanation of what specifically you would like them to do. Don’t say, “You never go to sleep when you should and you keep me up all night, and you make me so groggy in the morning. It sucks." Say, “When you come to bed late, it makes it difficult for me to get sleep. I end up feeling really exhausted in the mornings. I’d really appreciate if you could make an effort to come to bed on time in the future, as we agreed." As you practice the above, another thing to keep in mind is that you may need to repeat yourself (except if it’s a consequence assertion, in which case you should be prepared to follow through if the boundary is still not respected after that).

Speaker: 00:26:01

Try the “broken record” technique where you simply repeat yourself calmly and neutrally over and over. This is a good thing to practice since people who would erode your boundaries often tend to do it by degree, pushing a bit at a time, hoping that your no will gradually become a yes. How to Communicate When You Don’t Agree Dale Carnegie put it best when he once said, “You can’t win an argument. You can’t because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it." This is the spirit with which we’ll approach all three of the following techniques. Technique 1: The Agreement Frame The agreement frame offers a straightforward method of communication that makes it easier for you to convey your viewpoint or a potential solution to the problem. It helps the other person release their resistance to your perspective because you are able to really support their views or values, while at the same time offering them a new choice to take into consideration—yours. There can be no conflict when there is no resistance.

Speaker: 00:27:22

So with that logic, one way to avoid conflict is to lead in such a way that there is as little resistance as possible. Enter the technique called “the agreement frame." This is basically a way to present yourself and your message as fundamentally in agreement with the other person’s. Whether it is or isn’t is not the point—you are framing it as though it were. The main principle is to use the words “yes, and” rather than “yes, but." It’s simple but extremely effective. When people hear “but,” they hear opposition and resistance. It may be slight and unconscious, but internally, they will gear up to push back against you, or else they will perceive that you are positioning yourself against them. The agreement frame is a different approach.

Speaker: 00:28:24

Let’s say your spouse says to you, “The priority right now is to save money, not spend it on expensive gifts for family." Imagine you disagree with this and are trying to communicate toward some kind of compromise without arousing defensiveness or resistance. Instead of saying, “Yes, but we can still save a little and make sure we get people Christmas presents,” you say, “Yes, and we can still save a little and make sure we get people Christmas presents." It's a small change that makes all the difference in the world. Essentially, you are framing your position as one of alignment. If someone perceived that you’re broadly on the same “side” as them, there is nothing to argue about. In this example, wanting to save money and wanting to spend it on Christmas presents for relatives is not set up as a fundamental war. Rather, the two ideas are put together, and the “yes, and” between them expresses that they can comfortably exist in the same universe.

Speaker: 00:29:39

You might be thinking surely this isn’t enough to magically dissolve all conflict? After all, there is only a fixed amount of money, and at some point or another, you have to decide to put it toward either presents or savings, right? While this is true, the fact is that so long as you perceive your position and the other person’s position as opposites, conflict is inevitable. It is only when you can start to conceive of both positions as compatible that you can begin to think about creative solutions, compromises, and ways forward. In this example, it may be that the solution to the conflict is to do a bit of both: save some money but still buy small-ish gifts for family. Here are a few other phrases you can use to create an agreement frame: •“I respect ... and ... ” •“I appreciate ... and ... ” •“I agree with ... and ... ” You might find it valuable to literally say, “I’m on your side here,” or, “Let’s figure this out together." Simply using language that puts you and the other person in agreement somehow will remove resistance and friction enough so that you can start seeing solutions. A variation on this approach is called the Ransberger Pivot.

Speaker: 00:31:16

sberger and Marshall Fritz in: 1982

Speaker: 00:33:05

As you continue to talk, move to the final point of owning up to your own misunderstandings. You might think, “But I haven’t misunderstood! And I haven’t done anything wrong!" Well, you will need to let go of this idea a little if you hope to come to a harmonious resolution. The good news is that if you can do this, you may be surprised by just how ready other people are to follow suit, to drop grievances, and to find a happy way forward. It might work to find not just points that you agree on, but goals that you both share. It may be that the only thing you agree on is that you would both like the argument to be resolved so you can get on with your respective lives. There is always a sense of cooperation when people feel as though they’re striving toward the same thing—even if that thing is to be rid of one another!

Speaker: 00:34:06

A few tips to bear in mind: •Make people feel like they matter. Just because you’re having an argument, it doesn’t mean that they’re your enemy or that they’re bad people. Make sure they know this! If appropriate, you can literally say, “I care about you,” or, “this relationship matters to me." •Acknowledge and label emotions, including your own. But it’s important to do this without judgment or placing blame. Nobody feels how they feel because of anybody else. •Don’t assume the worst in others.

Speaker: 00:34:50

Yes, there may have been an offense committed—but how big is it really? Was it intentional? Is it really something that can’t be managed? When you scale down the size of the problem, it’s easier to deal with. •Convey an attitude of cooperation no matter what. Validate the other person by saying things like, “I can see where you’re coming from,” or, “That’s a good point." •If you must argue, argue with the best version of the message the other person is presenting—not the worst. The opposite of attacking a strawman is engaging respectfully with a “steel man."

Speaker: 00:35:38

Take some time to reflect what the other person is saying, making their position look as good as possible. If they see that you not only understand but sincerely respect their position, your disagreement with it will be far easier to accept. •Understanding is different from agreeing. Work hard to show you understand—even if you don’t agree. “It seems like you mean XYZ. Have I got that right?" This way, you are connecting and harmonizing, even as you recognize that you both have different perceptions, values, or goals. •Suspend your ego!

Speaker: 00:36:25

Don’t preach, teach, or be condescending. Entertain the fact that you could be wrong—yes, even you! Say things like, “Oh, I didn’t know that,” and immediately admit when you’ve made a mistake. Not only will it inspire connection and resolution, it will make the other person far more willing to accept other claims you make more forcefully. •Normalize. Conflict-averse people treat disagreement as a disaster—it’s not. It’s a normal part of life. In fact, it’s an honor to face a worthy adversary or to come up against a worldview that challenges your own.

Speaker: 00:37:12

So, thank the other person for disagreeing. Thank them for talking to you. Thank them for being honest. Just because you’re having a conflict, it doesn’t mean there’s nothing of value there or that you cannot value the other person and what they’re bringing to that conflict. What determines the quality of a relationship is not the lack of conflict but the way in which that conflict is managed. Technique 2: VOMP VOMP is a simple four-step conflict-resolution technique that improves honesty and opens up communication in stressful relationships. The idea is to resolve small conflicts before they turn into big ones. The acronym stands for the following: V – Voice or Vent O – Own M – Moccasins (stepping into someone else’s shoes with empathy) P – Plan You start by voicing or venting your own feelings on the matter, whatever they are.

Speaker: 00:38:23

Here is your chance to say your piece without interruption. Be careful to use only “I” statements that do not implicate or blame the other person, and be as honest as you can without veering into disrespect. And then—you guessed it—it’s the other person’s turn. In formal mediation, there is usually someone to make sure that each person is given a fair chance to vent/voice. In everyday conflict, you will need to have enough discipline to do this for yourself, even in the heat of the moment. Then, each person owns their part of the conflict, accepting responsibility for what is rightly their contribution. What words, actions, and even attitudes have you each brought to the conflict to make it what it is? Crucially, this is not about weighing up who was more wrong or who the victim is, and it’s not about blame.

Speaker: 00:39:26

It’s about gaining clarity on why the conflict is happening and mutually making a show of accepting one’s role in that. With empathy (“step into another person’s moccasins”), you deliberately enter into their perspective and try to see things through their eyes. This is not a cognitive exercise but an emotional one. As we’ve seen already, we don’t have to agree with, like, or even comprehend a person’s unique experience to validate it and have empathy for it. Finally, the plan part of the acronym is about moving forward in a concrete way. The best way to resolve any tension and dispute is to mutually agree on a path of action in the future. Where do you both now stand? What will change going forward?

Speaker: 00:40:27

What happens next? You don’t need to have a perfectly worked out strategy to fix all issues, but at least identify the very next step forward that you both agree on. You want to end a discussion with a shared feeling of having achieved something and worked together on creating a plan that serves you both. Here's a brief example. A: “You lent my camera and returned it damaged, and I’m really angry that it’s broken because I need to use it now. I trusted you and I feel really irritated right now." (Vent/voice) B: “I know, I know ... but the camera was already damaged when you gave it to me. I would never break something of yours and then lie about it."

Speaker: 00:41:17

A: “Okay, fine, I believe you. I guess I just lost my temper because it seemed like you were trying to say the camera wasn’t broken, or that it wasn’t your fault." (Owning their part) B: “Well, I am saying that it wasn’t my fault. But I think the way I worded it was probably a bit too rude. I really am sorry that it’s broken; I know how much you love that camera." (Owning their part, plus some empathy) A: “No, it’s understandable that you were rude—I was accusing you of something you didn’t do. I would have responded the same way!" (Returning empathy) B: “Look, I have a friend who does repairs on this kind of thing.

Speaker: 00:42:05

Shall I ask him for his opinion?" A: “Yeah, thanks, that might be helpful." Technique 3: Nonviolent Communication Unless we’re in the habit of punching people who disagree with us, most of us wouldn’t consider the way we communicate to be “violent." But according to Marshall Rosenberg, an expert mediator, author, and originator of the nonviolent communication framework (NVP), we may be doing just that when we are forceful, coercive, manipulative, judgmental, passive aggressive, or controlling. NVP is a much loved and useful model for all kinds of conflicts and disputes—provided the parties involved are committed to using the framework in good faith. In fact, Rosenberg’s techniques have been used for everything from divorce mediation and marriage counseling to supporting peace talks in the Middle East. The process is not so much a technique as an entire paradigm. The four simple stages/steps are as follows: Observation You begin with impartial observation.

Speaker: 00:43:28

We note what is actually factually true with the impartiality of a neutral third-person observer. Instead of saying, “You don’t value my opinion,” you say, “I notice that you frequently interrupt me when I’m talking." When we make observations, there are no judgments or interpretations. We are just finding an agreed upon foundation on which to build. This cannot be done if you are leading with accusations, distortions, and defensiveness. Feelings You then share your feelings on the above observed facts. Truthfully, it can be quite difficult to tell the difference sometimes! Again, these are emotions that you own.

Speaker: 00:44:21

They’re yours, so you describe them that way. “I feel sad,” instead of, “You’re making me so depressed." Of course, we are all interconnected and constantly influence one another, but we do not seek the source or cause of emotions (i.e., other people). We just state what they are. If you fail to take ownership and honestly express your emotions, the other person is likely to take it personally (and suddenly, it’s not about you anymore!) or fight back and argue. If you share your emotions neutrally, however, the other person can respond to that, or else do the same and share their emotions in the same way. Needs According to Rosenberg, people communicate primarily to get their needs met. That’s the underlying purpose of all communication. Once you’ve located yourself in the context of the conflict, made observations, and shared how you feel, you can express what all this means to you and what exactly you’re trying to achieve.

Speaker: 00:45:36

Everybody has needs, and every human shares the same basic human needs: to be heard, to be able to contribute, to be respected, to be valued, to belong, etc. There are of course different types of needs and different ways to express them. “I need you to stop sending me documents in the wrong format” is a very specific need, whereas “I need you to consider my position before you act” is a far more universal one. We also need to take care how we frame our needs, again not implicating other people. Consider the previous two needs—both were expressed as something the other person needs to do. Rosenberg would say that this is in fact violent. Instead, we should express our needs without coercion, blame, or obligation. “I need to receive correctly formatted documents."

Speaker: 00:46:42

“I have a need to be considered and respected." See the difference? Requests Only once the previous three bases have been covered is it a good idea to move on to requests of others. Too many people have conversations that begin with demands and expectations. This seldom works. Rather, let the request come naturally from you expressing your need. “I have a need to receive correctly formatted documents. This lets me do my job more quickly and easily.

Speaker: 00:47:23

Can I ask that you only send me documents that fit the specifications I’ve given you?" While the previous steps are about observation, listening, and expressing, this step is about making a direct request for change or action on someone else’s part. Requests have the best chance of being met when they are expressed as naturally connected to observations, emotions, and needs; when they’re reasonable and realistic; and when they’re presented as a request and not a demand. The most important thing here is that requests are just that—requests. The other person is never obliged to comply. Even if you have a universal need (“I need to not be abused or mistreated”), that doesn’t strictly entitle you to force this behavior from someone else. You might be wondering, then, what happens if someone refuses your request. Well, each of us is always at liberty to terminate a relationship.

Speaker: 00:48:29

We cannot decide what other people’s actions are. But we can decide our own, and we can make conscious choices to identify our needs and determine how we are going to get them met. If we are with someone who continues to abuse us, we can communicate our need and request that they meet it. But if they don’t, then the onus is on us to extract ourselves from that relationship. In this way, we increase our connection and interdependence on other people while simultaneously taking responsibility for meeting our own needs. Communicating with Difficult People Sooner or later, despite your very best efforts, you will encounter someone who refuses to communicate or come to a resolution. Most people find themselves in conflict because they’re hurt, confused, or defensive—but this can be worked through. On the other hand, if someone is not willing to meet you halfway or find common ground, then a different approach becomes necessary.

Speaker: 00:49:42

Being assertive does not mean being rude or confrontational. It simply means standing strong in what you believe and defending what is important. We can all become better communicators by dropping our ego, being more open and receptive, and welcoming a bit of vulnerability. BUT there are certainly circumstances when you need to do the opposite—firm up, enforce a boundary, and stand strong. If we use NVC, we are able to honestly express our feelings and needs without encroaching on the needs and rights of others. But what about when they encroach on us? Here are two quick techniques to protect yourself and stand your ground while still respecting the other person. •Fogging.

Speaker: 00:50:40

When dealing with an upset and noncooperative person, it doesn’t make sense to try to engage. So don’t. Fogging means calmly going along with aggressive people so as not to further encourage any defensiveness or argument. In effect, you are making yourself a smooth, gray, boring surface onto which nothing sticks! That way, the strong feeling has to pass eventually. In the meantime, you haven’t upset yourself or prolonged the conflict. •The broken record technique. If you’re stating a boundary or saying no and someone keeps pushing at that, it’s a good idea to plainly and simply keep repeating your no/boundary again and again without adding any further information onto which they can “hook."

Speaker: 00:51:41

Be polite, be calm, but don’t budge. Be a broken record that gives precisely the same answer each time. It’s a way to be firm without being rude. Both fogging and the broken record technique can be used together. “Please lend me that money. I’ll pay you back, honest." “I’m sorry, no, I can’t." “But why not?

Speaker: 00:52:12

I don’t see what the big deal is. You’re making it seem like I’m asking you for a kidney." “Uh huh." “So will you give it to me?" “No, sorry. I can’t lend you the money." “I can’t believe this. You’re being so rude."

Speaker: 00:52:29

“Mm." “You’ve always been stingy like this. I bet you love lauding it over me. Well, I don’t need it, not from you, anyway!" “Okay." “Typical! And it’s not even that much I’m asking for. So what do you say, come on, please?"

Speaker: 00:52:50

“I can’t give you the money, sorry." As you can see in the above exchange, one person is valiantly trying to coerce, pressure, and guilt the other into doing what they want, but the person is holding strong—without being rude. By combining neutral and even bland responses (“uh huh, okay”) with the broken record message of saying no, eventually the other person runs out of steam and gives up. The trick here is to constantly maintain a calm, composed demeanor that is non-reactive. If you lose your temper or get hooked into arguing over details, the conversation will only escalate. Don’t take any bait. Naturally, as soon as you can, remove yourself as far as possible from people who push boundaries this way! The Six-Step Apology Of course, it’s always possible that you could be the one who is the main cause of the conflict!

Speaker: 00:54:04

We’ll end this chapter on what just might be one of the hardest communication skills to master—the art of apology. If you truly listen and are open and respectful, you will find that conflict of all kinds diminishes in your life. But none of us are perfect, and sometimes we will find ourselves needing to smooth over ruffled feathers, accept our culpability, and make a clear show of our remorse and our willingness to put things right. According to Roy Lewicki, a professor emeritus of management and human resources at the Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University, there is a six-point narrative framework that every excellent apology ought to follow. Lewicki is a renowned authority on the art of negotiating and spent years studying what constitutes a good apology. He came to the realization that, like any other good story, an apology needs to hit all the right notes and follow the right structure. Lewicki’s suggestion is to apologize as early as possible, do it sincerely, and do it without being forced. Let’s say you are Sister B in the example we covered earlier.

Speaker: 00:55:24

You deliberately asked Sister A to juggle her schedule to squeeze in a meeting with you, and then dropped her when you realized that you yourself were double-booked. There’s no getting around it—you messed up. Now how do you apologize so that it truly restores harmony again? First of all, a few things not to do: •Don’t rush as though you were only interested in having the other person absolve you of wrong-doing and move on, pretending like nothing ever happened. •Don’t give a faux apology along the lines of “sorry you felt offended." •Don’t get angry or upset—it’s not about you! Step 1: Express genuine regret It sounds obvious, but you have to begin at the beginning and say that you’re sorry. Not passively sorry that the thing happened, but sorry for what you did.

Speaker: 00:56:26

“I’m sorry I asked you to make plans to meet me and then dropped at the last minute." Your tone makes all the difference. Don’t be stroppy, insincere, annoyed, or sarcastic. Literally use the words “I’m sorry” and say them as early as possible. Step 2: Explain what went wrong and why This is your chance to explain what happened, letting the other person know that there was in fact a reason that you made the mistake you did. When we’ve been wronged, it’s easy to get angry because we imagine that the other person did what they did simply because they didn’t care, or even because they blatantly meant to hurt us. So begin by making it clear that this isn’t the case. Be careful, though; you don’t want to give the impression that you’re making excuses or not accepting responsibility.

Speaker: 00:57:24

You just want to provide some context to let the person understand a little more about what went wrong. According to Lewicki, “It’s trying to help the other party understand how this happened in a way where they can understand that it was a mistake or an error. It’s an effort to put them in your shoes to get a sense of how and why it happened." In our example, you could say, “What happened is that I accidentally double booked something else that weekend without realizing." Step 3: Acknowledge your responsibility This one can be a big stumbling block, but if you can do this genuinely, you will go a long way to lowering the defensiveness of the other person and will come across more sincerely. You need to own your actions. Don’t accept that you did something and immediately follow it with “but” or an excuse. Just accept that you did it.

Speaker: 00:58:31

Don’t shift blame—especially not onto the person you wronged!—but at the same time, it’s not necessary to beat yourself up. It sounds cheesy, but it can be therapeutic for someone to hear another person say, “I was wrong. I accept responsibility for that." Be crystal clear about the role you played. Try not to make it seem like your actions were just a silly misunderstanding or an accident that isn’t really your fault. For example, “It’s my fault; I didn’t pay attention to what I had written on my calendar, and I take responsibility for that." Step 4: Repent! Sounds dramatic, but if a person is sincerely apologetic, their apology needs to contain a declaration for repentance.

Speaker: 00:59:25

This means you need to show a believable and genuine level of remorse. The best way to do this is to offer your assurance that it will never happen again—and mean it. Think about the last time you made a complaint as a customer. It’s likely that endless platitudes only made you angrier—what you really wanted to hear was that the company truly was sorry for what they had done and regretted it. While it’s not likely that many companies genuinely repent, you can be sure that you do when you give an apology.

Speaker: 01:00:01

“I wish I’d handled this whole scheduling thing better.

Speaker: 01:00:04

I can’t go back and change the past, but I can promise you that this will not happen again."

Speaker: 01:00:12

Naturally, you really do need to keep this promise going forward.

Speaker: 01:00:18

Step 5: Make an offer of reparations Saying you’re sorry is a wonderful thing, but often, it’s difficult to move forward because your actions have created a real inconvenience or even damage.

Speaker: 01:00:33

You need to plainly acknowledge this and make a real gesture toward putting things right.

Speaker: 01:00:40

This can be tricky sometimes because you cannot go back and undo the past.

Speaker: 01:00:43

But what you can do is demonstrate to the other person that you have given things some thought and have come up with a realistic plan for what you can do in the future.

Speaker: 01:00:55

“I’ve set things up on a new calendar app so I don’t get muddled again.

Speaker: 01:01:00

I’ve also made sure to completely clear the next two weekends so we can get together soon—if you’re available, that is."

Speaker: 01:01:09

“If there were actual damages, you can offer to pay for or repair the damages, or if there were [emotional] damages, then a dozen roses or a box of chocolates might do the work.

Speaker: 01:01:22

I’m serious about that.

Speaker: 01:01:23

Token offers of repentance that are above and beyond just the words are quite often quite symbolic,” says Lewicki.

Speaker: 01:01:33

Step 6: Request forgiveness Lewicki’s research showed him something interesting: This aspect of the apology process was actually the least important.

Speaker: 01:01:45

And yet, many people start with this part and immediately request to be forgiven ... before they’ve even properly apologized.

Speaker: 01:01:54

If you’ve covered each of the previous five steps as thoroughly as possible, though, then asking for forgiveness will seem like a natural progression and no big deal.

Speaker: 01:02:06

It can be simple: “Can you forgive me?"

Speaker: 01:02:09

Remember to phrase this as a request—not a demand.

Speaker: 01:02:14

If you come across as being entitled to forgiveness just because you’ve presented a nice apology, the other person will sense this, and you could undo all your hard work and end up with hurt feelings again.

Speaker: 01:02:29

You might be wondering—what happens if the other person doesn’t accept your apology?

Speaker: 01:02:34

There is only one thing to do: accept that.

Speaker: 01:02:39

Remember that nobody is ever required to accept your apology or to forgive.

Speaker: 01:02:45

Nobody likes to feel that they are the bad guy or that someone is still unhappy with them, but that is an unfortunate possibility if we’ve done them wrong—especially if the transgression is a pretty big one.

Speaker: 01:03:00

In that case, one of the most respectful things you can do is to honor that person’s unhappiness and don’t try to badger them into forgiving you.

Speaker: 01:03:11

Especially don’t try to rush them or make them feel bad for not immediately accepting your apology.

Speaker: 01:03:18

Again, it’s not about you.

Speaker: 01:03:22

Even if they do accept your apology, try not to barge ahead and act as though nothing happened.

Speaker: 01:03:28

An apology is a gesture offered in good will, and so is forgiving someone.

Speaker: 01:03:36

Treasure that forgiveness and don’t take it for granted or act entitled to it.

Speaker: 01:03:42

Handled correctly, a mistake followed by a sincere apology can actually strengthen a relationship and create more feelings of trust and connection.

Speaker: 01:03:53

By the same token, a bad apology is a missed opportunity and, in some cases, can be perceived as even worse than the original offense.

Speaker: 01:04:05

Let’s put it all together.

Speaker: 01:04:06

Here are a few badly constructed apologies: “I feel so, so bad for smashing your car.

Speaker: 01:04:15

I’ve been up all night and I feel just sick about it.

Speaker: 01:04:19

Of course I’ll pay for everything, but I want you to know it wasn’t my fault.

Speaker: 01:04:24

That guy just came out of nowhere.

Speaker: 01:04:27

I’m still shaken up by it.”—While this apology has a definite offer to make things right, there isn’t much else.

Speaker: 01:04:36

The lack of repentance, regret, or responsibility, and the continued focus on bad they feel (i.e., not on how bad you feel for having a smashed car!) makes the apology ring hollow.

Speaker: 01:04:53

“Of course I’m sorry we’ve had this little misunderstanding.

Speaker: 01:04:56

I’ve already said that.

Speaker: 01:04:57

We can’t do anything about it now, though, and what’s done is done.

Speaker: 01:05:01

Can you just move past it already?”—This apology is likely to cause more offense.

Speaker: 01:05:08

It contains none of the elements except a request—demand, even—for forgiveness.

Speaker: 01:05:14

It also minimizes the event (“misunderstanding”) and frames the offense as something passive and completely out of their control, implying that the person who is offended is really to blame.

Speaker: 01:05:28

A great way to start a fight!

Speaker: 01:05:32

“Oh my God, I am so sorry!

Speaker: 01:05:35

I’ve been such a moron.

Speaker: 01:05:38

It was one hundred percent my fault.

Speaker: 01:05:40

I don’t know how it happened.

Speaker: 01:05:41

I can’t believe it.

Speaker: 01:05:42

I’m sorry, truly.

Speaker: 01:05:45

I wish I hadn’t even gotten into your car; none of this would have happened.

Speaker: 01:05:49

Oh my God!”—This apology comes from a genuine place of regret and remorse ... but that’s not really enough.

Speaker: 01:05:58

Over-the-top expressions of remorse need to lead to a sense that something will change in the future.

Speaker: 01:06:05

There needs to be a feeling that all this remorse and regret will have a positive outcome somehow.

Speaker: 01:06:14

Let’s end with a quick look at a model apology, according to Lewicki.

Speaker: 01:06:21

“I am so truly sorry about what happened.

Speaker: 01:06:25

It was a stupid mistake that I regret; I just lost control of the vehicle.

Speaker: 01:06:31

I accept total responsibility for everything, and I know I should have done better.

Speaker: 01:06:36

If I could go back and do things differently, I would in a heartbeat, but I can’t.

Speaker: 01:06:43

What I can do, though, is offer to pay for any and all damage.

Speaker: 01:06:48

Please let me know if there’s anything else I can do to make it right.

Speaker: 01:06:52

I hope that in time, you can forgive me."

Speaker: 01:06:58

Note that a really good apology doesn’t have to be long or overwrought.

Speaker: 01:07:03

It just needs to cover all six bases and be sincere.

Speaker: 01:07:08

That’s it.

Speaker: 01:07:12

Summary: •The goal during conflict is to increase positive feelings for everyone involved.

Speaker: 01:07:20

One way to do this is with Carroll’s COIN framework—context, observations, impact, and next (follow-up actions).

Speaker: 01:07:32

Use plenty of “I” statements, pause often, and be as clear and direct as possible.

Speaker: 01:07:39

When giving feedback, focus on what can be done in the future rather than what has already been done.

Speaker: 01:07:47

•There are many ways to navigate communication when you disagree.

Speaker: 01:07:51

The agreement frame helps the other person release their resistance to your perspective because you are able to really support their views or values first and seek common ground that puts you on the same team.

Speaker: 01:08:07

•The art of saying no includes understanding the different kinds of assertions, including basic assertions (statements of facts and limits), empathic assertions (asserting needs and limits whilst acknowledging others’ with kindness), consequence assertions (following through with consequences of not respecting your boundary), discrepancy assertions (drawing attention to difference between what was agreed and what is happening), and negative feeling assertions (owning your own emotions and stating them).

Speaker: 01:08:48

•VOMP is another technique and stands for voice/vent, own, moccasins, and plan.

Speaker: 01:08:57

Say your piece and allow the other person to say theirs, own your part in the conflict, show empathy for their perspective, and then move forward with a concrete plan on how to act in the future.

Speaker: 01:09:13

•Marshall Rosenberg’s nonviolent communication is about making neutral observations, expressing feelings with “I” statements, sharing needs, and making reasonable and respectful requests.

Speaker: 01:09:29

•If none of these three techniques work, you can manage a difficult person by “fogging” (being as neutral and non-reactive as possible) or repeating boundaries like a “broken record” until they lose interest.

Speaker: 01:09:45

•Finally, learn the six elements of a successful and genuine apology: express regret and remorse, explain yourself, accept full responsibility, repent, make an offer for reparations, and, only at the end, request forgiveness.

Speaker: 01:10:07

Realize that you are not entitled to forgiveness, and accept whatever happens with grace.

Speaker: 01:10:25

Episode of social skills coaching.

Speaker: 01:10:27

Don't forget to join us next week for another episode.

Speaker: 01:10:30

Thank you for listening.