As superintendents we are faced with having tough conversations on a frequent basis. The reality is we operate in a political context and serve varying constituencies which rarely agree. So, the question is how do we succeed in this environment? Also, what techniques can we use to make the inevitable tough conversation easier?
First, we must recognize that tough conversations are typically borne out of conflicting ideas, perceptions, conclusions or behaviors. It may be that a party does not agree with a decision, or wants you to pursue a certain goal, or is mad at someone and wants you to take action in alignment with their desires. Research shows that two types of conflict exist: 1) Substantive (Cognitive) Conflict and, 2) Affective (Personality-Based) Conflict. Substantive Conflict relates to differences of principle or information, while Affective Conflict focuses on issues between people or concerns with relationships.
Our initial step toward achieving a successful outcome with tough conversations is to understand the type of conflict we are facing. If the issue is one of Substantive Conflict our approach may be to maintain focus on the specific concern and to provide lots of data or information to support our decision. Alternatively, if the issue falls into the Affective Conflict realm, we must find ways to frame the conversation around the root issue at hand rather than the person or personalities involved.
Three techniques which can help superintendents when engaged in tough conversations are the “Levers of Change” concept discussed in a previous blog post (a term coined by Howard Gardner), “Framing Conversations” (a concept coined by researcher Erving Goffman), and “Temporary Suspension of Opinion” (a concept coined by researcher, Edgar Schein).
Levers of Change can be used by superintendents when facing Substantive Conflict issues. “Levers” such as reason, research or resonance can be powerful tools in helping others to understand your position. Understanding the levers enables superintendents to use them fluidly when required to do so.
Affective Conflict matters can be addressed by Framing Conversations, as stated earlier. The idea being that you set parameters around the conversation at the outset, establishing a focus on the issue, not the personalities. If the other party attempts to divert the conversation back to individuals, you can simply restate the frame which is guiding the conversation.
Temporary Suspension of Opinion can be used with both Substantive and Affective Conflict; it really should be your first step in addressing issues from either category. The concept is simply the method of drawing out a person who has a concern through allowing them to talk through the issue without you commenting or responding. If you don’t allow the individual to get the concern “off their chest” you can’t move forward toward collaboratively solving the problem.
Outlined here are three tools which can be used in addressing Substantive and Affective Conflict, but I know there are many more. How do you deal with tough conversations? Please share so that we can all gain from each other’s wisdom on this challenging topic.