Scenario – A Tense Encounter

Summary

This scenario deals with the challenge of having a difficult conversation with another person. It is in the form of a story. It covers some important points regarding preparation and then suggests issues such as communication, creating space for others and for oneself, the skills of labelling, mirroring and asking the right questions, and finally the method of including the “no” in decisions. This scenario emphasises the meta-skils of empathy, presence and non-judgement and illustrates the dialogic framework.

The Context

She was going to meet a person whom she knew was aggressive and angry. He had turned his anger towards her before. It could take the form of outward aggression: accusations, insults, criticism. It could also take on a more passive form: silence, ignoring her questions, pretending she had nothing to say that was of value, speaking down at her.

She had prepared herself for the encounter (link). Thought about her triggers and how she would consciously choose not to be hooked and provoked. She imagined different scenarios and how she would handle them. She also tried to empathise with him in advance: what was it that fuelled his anger? What was it that he was projecting onto her? Could she identify with that deeper emotion she imagined in his unconscious?

The Challenge

How does one use the skills, the meta-skills, the dialogic framework and the methods in a situation where one is facing somebody who is angry, upset or aggressive?

A possible scenario

She made sure that he knew she was coming to see him. She didn’t want him to be surprised by her visit, even though they had made an appointment to meet some time before. She also texted him about the issue that she needed to discuss with him and referred to an email she had sent him with some questions she had.

She was nervous. She knew that his behaviour triggered deep emotions of being discounted inside her. On the way, she made sure that she breathed deeply and tried to reassure herself that she was only doing what she had to do. It was her job after all.

When she arrived, he acknowledged her greeting with a curt nod and a grunt. She asked him how he was, but he simply responded that he was fine and asked what she wanted. She consciously took a breath, reminding herself of the space between stimulus and response where she could choose how to respond. She chose not to remind him of her email and text message, knowing that he would see that as blame. She asked him whether they could sit somewhere or take a walk. He pointed to a bench under a tree, and they sat down.

She started by thanking him for seeing her and said: it seems as if my visit is an intrusion (see the pattern on labelling), so could I ask you a few questions, then I will be on my way. He responded as she had hoped he would: yes, you are right, I don’t have much time. I am also tired of having to constantly deal with you lot. The first criticism. She chose not to become defensive and switched to curiosity (link): when you say that you are tired of dealing with us, what do you mean? (link to pattern Ask questions for elaboration). He launched into a long angry monologue about how he felt that he was not taken seriously and how he was the victim of an unfair system.

Her response? To ask more questions: first questions that made him speak more. She used labelling and mirroring consistently and felt that he started to relax. Here is one exchange from their conversation:

He: You lot want us to abandon our way of life.

She: Abandon your way of life?

He: Yes, city-folk decide everything. They don’t care about us in the countryside. We are nothing to them.

She: It seems as if you feel discriminated against. Has this always been the case or is it something that happened recently?

He: It used to be very different. We were valued. Our culture was acknowledged.

She: Culture seems to be important to you. Can you help me understand what that means to you?

As he became less aggressive, it became easier for her to keep herself from being defensive. She was aware of an inner voice that was protesting, but she reminded it that they would deal with the issue later.

She realised that he indeed felt a sense of hopelessness and powerlessness and that this was driving his aggression. Several times he became angry, and every time she could step aside and not take the anger personally, following up with mirroring and helpful questions.

When she felt that he had said what he needed to say, she posed her question, but reframed it to acknowledge the strong “no” that she had heard:

I understand from what you have told me that you feel that my organisation is acting in an unreasonable way. I am not sure if I can change their decision, but I wonder: what would make it easier for you to accept it? Is there anything that would help you live with the decision even if you don’t agree with it? (see the pattern on including the no in the decision)

He thought for a while and made some suggestions. She agreed to take up the suggestions and get back to him as soon as she had a response from the leadership. He surprised her by thanking her for the conversation and then he said: it is not you I am angry at. At least you are prepared to listen, and I appreciate that.

Links

Notice the use of the various basic skills:

Notice also that she prepared herself in advance and how she used the meta-skills:

She also used the method of including the “no” in decisions

In her mind she kept the dialogic framework in mind:

Find out what is going on
Deepen the conversation
Look for potential
Concretise

More

This scenario is based on several real experiences. They are woven into one story.

Prepare yourself for a difficult conversation

A Scenario

Summary

This scenario is a suggestion as to how you could prepare yourself for conversations where the person you are speaking to may be antagonistic, critical or aggressive. It suggests getting to know your triggers, considering different scenarios and planning in advance to avoid stress.

The Context

You are about to have a difficult conversation – or a number of these. You expect the person or people you will be speaking with to be antagonistic, critical, or even aggressive. You need to prepare yourself for the conversation.

The Challenge

How will you keep yourself from becoming defensive? How will can you ensure that the conversation is productive? How can you prepare yourself for the conversation you will have?

A possible scenario

Take time to prepare yourself in advance.
Go for a walk or find time to sit quietly in a place where you won’t be disturbed. If possible, don’t take calls. Create space for yourself (Link to pattern).

Remember that between stimulus and response there is a space. In this space, you have the power to choose your response. In your response lies your growth and your freedom (paraphrased from Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People).
This thought is central to dealing with verbal aggression. You can access the power to choose your response if you pause – if even for a second or two while you take a deep breath.

The alternative to accessing this power to choose your response is to react without reflection. Such a reaction is often motivated by unconscious emotions.
Many of our reactions are triggered by unconscious thoughts and emotions. They will determine our actions if we are unconscious of them. In fact, research has shown that most decisions that are made are based on our feelings and not our conscious, rational thoughts. This, even though we imagine ourselves to be rational beings making conscious, rational decisions. (See the reference to Antonio Demasio’s work below)

Becoming aware of unconscious emotions that are triggered in response to outer events, is essential to being a good listener (link to the pattern on Listening). It is the essence of creating space for others (Link to pattern).
Listening in its turn is one of the most effective ways of de-escalating tension.

Becoming aware of possible triggers and the emotions they activate, allows you to make a simple choice not to become defensive (See the pattern Switch from defence to curiosity).
For example, you might be triggered by people who act in an authoritarian way because I grew up in an authoritarian environment. You instinctively act in a defensive way when such people seek to express their authority. Becoming aware of this instinctive reaction, allows you to notice the reaction before you act upon it. It helps a great deal to have done this work in advance.

You can also use the preparation time to imagine different scenarios that might occur. Think of the worst and best scenarios and play them through in your mind. How will you respond in each case?
The worst scenarios seldom occur, but it gives you the confidence to have thought through your own responses. The positive scenarios prepare you to respond to positive signals.

Finally, think practically about giving yourself time and not being stressed before the meeting. Do whatever you can to avoid additional stress.
If it is possible, arrive early rather than just on time. Give yourself a breathing space before or between meetings. Make sure somebody can fetch the kids if you are delayed.

Links

Listening

Awareness of your state

Asking perspective questions

A Dialogic Framework

More

This scenario is drawn from the experience of a mediator who has faced many difficult conversations in his line of work.

Antonio Damasio proposes with his somatic marker hypothesis that human decisions are strongly influenced by emotions and feelings. https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/3/295/449599 . See also this article in the Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2006/01/decisions-and-desire

Negotiating conditions for dialogue

A Scenario

Summary

When trust is lacking between parties to a large societal problem it may require a skilful negotiation process in order to get them to agree to “enter into the room”. This pattern describes a way to approach this problem.

The challenge

How can you get parties into the room in the first place and how do you enable them to attend without feeling threatened?

The context

Dialogue on complex societal problems has very little chance of succeeding in large groups. Smaller groups of representatives for various perspectives are more conducive to a fruitful dialogue. The level of trust may be low or there may be obvious tension between groups. They need to talk but agreeing to do so is not self-evident.

The problem this pattern resolves

When there is resistance or even refusal to participate in dialogue because there is no trust between parties, this presents a serious obstacle. Either the parties refuse to be part of the dialogue or they “enter the room” with a defensive or aggressive attitude.

The design element

Getting the parties into the room may require some form of negotiation. Refusal to participate may be met with the response along these lines: right now, you are not willing to enter into the dialogue. What is behind your unwillingness? And would you need in order to change your mind? This conversation will help to identify the reason for a party’s reticence to engage in dialogue and then give them a chance to suggest conditions they would need in order to feel comfortable (and safe) to do so.

Listening without judging and with an attitude of empathetic presence (see Listening) is essential in order to explore what is behind the refusal to engage in dialogue. The listener needs to build trust through the quality of their listening. Unless this trust is established, the question following is unlikely to lead to the stating of clear conditions.

Of course, you would need to approach the other parties with the set of conditions and check with them whether they could agree to them. They might in turn have their own conditions and these would need to be checked with the other parties. This (somewhat cumbersome) process is worth the time it takes. Providing a sense of safety is essential to a productive dialogue – and of course without the key players the dialogue will not be effective. Following this course of action also sends a clear signal to parties that they are able to contribute to both the form and the content of the dialogue.

An example of such a negotiation: In a conflict following the closure of the maternity section of a rural hospital, activists occupied the foyer of the hospital. After more than two years of continuous occupation, the authorities finally proposed dialogue as a possible solution. However, several years of refusing to meet those opposing the closure led to an atmosphere of distrust on the part of the activists. Even the authorities were dubious as there had occurred threats and a great deal of hateful comments on social media platforms. The activists were initially very sceptical about the idea of dialogue. When asked what would help them to agree to speaking to the authorities, they wanted assurances that the dialogue would be honest and open and that the (for them) central issues needed to be addressed. The negotiations preceding the first meeting took several weeks and an agreement to enter into dialogue was reached. The first meeting dealt entirely with the conditions both parties required for a constructive dialogue.

Related patterns and references

Listening

Design to create trust

Summary

When designing a public dialogue process, we need to consider both the institutional and collective dimensions in order for the dialogue to lead to sustainable results

The challenge

How do you design dialogue that will contribute to increased trust between the different actors regardless of their power and prior history?

The problem

Dialogue can contribute to improving the relationship and trust between citizens and the authorities (or those in power in a given situation and those who are not). While this may be true, authorities often emphasise unilateral relationships with civil society actors (vertically). The relationship between the actors (horizontally) is often regarded as secondary or unimportant. If we are aiming toward a collective approach to resolving problems, we need, in addition to collaboration between authorities and citizens, to consider the ability of the citizens to collaborate with each other. The consciousness of both the horizontal and vertical aspects of designing a process is required. How do you design such a process?

Design element

Think 360 degrees. Include both the authority structure and the horizontal in your planning. This means considering all concerned actors in the process. When preparing for the dialogue, consider how both the authority and the citizens describe the problem that needs to be addressed. Be open to the necessity for dialogue within organisations and between citizens. Listen in 360 degrees – this includes politicians, civil servants, other public institutions, societies, networks and individual citizens. How do they describe the problem? Who do they need or wish to speak to about it? These questions will help you to design the dialogue in a meaningful way. There may be a need for conversations on a horizontal level, in smaller homogenous groups, before all the actors meet together. It may be necessary to clear up differences between actors (horizontally) before an inclusive dialogue takes place. Sometimes this need arises even when the dialogue is underway.

Consider this example: The local authority wants to address security and safety and has identified certain problem areas and problem groups. Their approach is that they need to have a dialogue with these groups in order to resolve the problems they have identified. Your design, however, provides for an inventory phase consisting of individual interviews with all concerned actors. During this process, you hear from certain citizen groups that they will not participate if the far right is present. Others tell you that the authorities and the police are the real problem. When you ask who they might need to speak to, the youth tell you that they have a problem with the way in which the police seem to have a repressive and a relational approach at the same time and that this destroys trust in them. Some politicians maintain that the groups they have identified need to “be convinced that they need to change or face severe consequences”. Other politicians and officials disagree with this approach. Having listened to all of these, you realise that there is no agreement on what the problem is and that a number of conversations and even negotiation may be needed before a meaningful dialogue is possible.

Your mandate needs to include designing the dialogue from the views that are gathered in the planning phase. The form of the dialogue cannot be dictated by one sector of the circle only.

In some dialogue processes, it has been necessary to have a conversation about a) whether dialogue is possible and b) what form it should take in order to ensure the participation of everybody who needs to be part of it. This involves conversations on both the “horizontal” and “vertical” dimensions of trust.

Linked patterns

Setting clear meeting objectives

A Scenario

Summary

Trust in a group dialogue process is partly built up by being clear and by following through on stated intentions. Stated negatively, trust is broken down by saying one thing and doing another. If meaningful participation is the aim of the dialogue (as it should be) this should be respected and be made clear from the start. In order to be clear about the purpose, it is useful to start from the end and think in a reverse direction.

The Problem

Those wanting to involve a group in dialogue as part of a process may think that it is a good idea but have not thought through the implications regarding trust. If people feel that they are simply being used to justify a decision that is already made or that they are asked to participate so that they can’t say that they were not involved, trust can be seriously jeopardised. This is a typical example of a double message that leads to tension and conflict. How do you avoid this? How do you create clarity regarding meeting content, purpose and limitations from the start?

The Pattern

Start from the end.

What is the purpose of the process? What is the change that the dialogue will contribute to?

It is important to be clear about the intended goal before you start. Think in terms of the change you want to see rather than specific actions. Specific actions may be answers to the wrong questions and should not be decided in advance.

In what way will a group dialogue contribute to this process and how will the results of the dialogue directly lead to the goal being realised?

Here one needs to ask whether the dialogue will contribute to the change that needs to happen? If not, don’t do it. If it is intended to contribute to ideas, support collaboration or make joint decisions this should be clear at the outset. (If the intention is a pleasant conversation so that people will get to know each other – that needs to be clear and a meeting or dialogue should not be marketed as anything else)

Which conditions need to be in place for such a dialogue to take place?

What is required for the participants in the meeting to be part of the process? Here are some examples: Those who have power need to agree to the intended purpose in advance. Participants need to feel safe to participate freely. They may need to commit to the process and agree to abide by its outcomes.

Now you can invite those who need to be part of the dialogue and be clear about the intentions and goals of the meeting or meetings.

The thinking in this scenario is based on the idea of formulating a theory of change.

The Context

You are planning a meeting and want to be clear about the purpose of the meeting. Doing so, will provide clarity and thereby a sense of safety for those participating in the meeting.