50 Psychology Classics (55 page)

Skinner attended Hamilton College in New York, graduating with a BA in English, and had dreams of becoming a writer. He lived a bohemian life in Greenwich Village in New York for a while, but with no real success in his poetry and short story writing, and having come across writings by Pavlov and John B. Watson, behaviorism's founder, he applied to study psychology at Harvard University
.

At Harvard he completed his Master's degree and doctorate, undertook research, and taught. It was at the University of Minnesota (1937–45) and the University of Indiana (1945–8), where he was chairman of the psychology department, that Skinner did much of the experimentation that made him well known. He returned to Harvard in 1947 as William James Lecturer, later becoming Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology
.

Skinner's many honors included the National Medal of Science, awarded in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Books include
The Behavior of Organisms
(1938),
Walden II
(1948),
Verbal Behavior
(1957, famously criticized by Noam Chomsky),
Science and Human Behavior
(1953), and
About Behaviorism
(1974). His three-part autobiography was published as
Particulars of My Life
(1976)
, The Shaping of a Behaviorist
(1979), and
A Matter of Consequences
(1983)
.

Skinner died of leukemia in 1990
.

“[The] people we've worked with… report less anxiety and greater effectiveness in all of their conversations. They find they are less afraid of what others might say. They have a heightened sense of freedom of action in tough situations, more self-confidence, and a stronger sense of integrity and self-respect. They also learn that, more often than not, dealing constructively with tough topics and awkward situations strengthens a relationship. And that's an opportunity too good to pass up.”

In a nutshell

Difficult conversations carry the chance to transform a relationship, but only if you shift your stance from delivering a message to discovering why the other person is acting as they are.

In a similar vein
Robert Bolton
People Skills
(p 32)
Robert Cialdini
Influence
(p 62)
Susan Forward
Emotional Blackmail
(p 94)
Carl Rogers
On Becoming a Person
(p 238)

Life is full of difficult conversations, yet we all avoid having them. Is there anything we can do to make them less difficult?
Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most
grew out of 15 years of work at the Harvard Negotiation Project, which also produced the 4 million-selling negotiation title
Getting to YES
. As part of the project, authors Stone, Patton, and Heen had a goal to find out how one-on-one communication could be made vastly more effective. They worked with students and professionals on their toughest conversations and encounters to produce new techniques for understanding conflict and interaction.

Although their backgrounds are in negotiation, mediation, and law, the authors of
Difficult Conversations
based their work on findings in organizational behavior, cognitive therapies, social psychology, and communication theory, particularly as they relate to communication dynamics within families. Psychologists Aaron Beck, David Burns, and Carl Rogers are mentioned among their many influences. The result is a remarkable guide that lets us in on the powerful techniques that have been employed in world troublespots to bring opposing sides together and forge new futures.

Defining their subject as “anything you find it difficult to talk about” and try to avoid, Stone, Patton, and Heen note that for most people there are no simple or easy ways to:

Fire someone.

Break up a relationship.

Confront your mother-in-law.

Raise the issue of prejudice.

Ask for a raise.

They liken a difficult message to throwing a hand grenade, which “Coated with sugar, thrown hard or soft is still going to do damage.” Throwing it “tactfully” is no answer. Neither is it enough to “be diplomatic.” We can't hope that our niceness will ensure that all goes smoothly. So what is the answer? Instead of throwing hand grenades, or “delivering messages” to
people, Stone, Patton, and Heen promise to transform our difficult conversations by replacing them with what they call
learning conversations
. While this new way of communicating involves work to master it, it can dramatically reduce the stress of our interactions with other people. Learning conversations increase the confidence of all parties involved because the air of blame disappears, to be replaced by listening. This naturally raises trust and confidence all round. Conflict can be transmuted into understanding.

Difficult Conversations
is based on the idea that “each difficult conversation is really three conversations.” Above and beyond the actual words that are spoken, these other conversations are mostly internal and involve our perception of the encounter and what it means to us.

This is when we go through our perceptions of the outcome—who said what, who is to blame, who is right. The problem is, we never question our version of who is right or wrong, and neither do we question that difficult conversations are about “getting the facts right” as opposed to what they
mean
. They are essentially conflicts of perceptions, interpretations, and values.

However, when we shift our attitude from delivering a message to finding out how the other person sees things differently, immediately the conversation becomes less heavy and emotionally barbed. Instead of offering our interpretation of the situation as “the truth,” we offer it as our perception.

How do I feel about what was said? Were the other person's feelings valid? Are my feelings valid? What should I do if the other person is angry or hurt?

Many strong feelings enter into a difficult conversation, but these are often not expressed. When two people are talking, there is a parallel conversation going on in each of their minds concerning their feelings about the interaction.

Given that feelings cloud judgment and make things uncomfortable, shouldn't we try to steer clear of feelings altogether? Should we just try to stick to “the facts”? While this is a nice idea, Stone, Patton, and Heen note that leaving feelings out of difficult conversations is like having an opera without music: We may get the plot, but we totally miss the point. They point out that “difficult conversations do not just
involve
feelings, they are at their very core
about
feelings.”

Does what we have just said to the other person, or what they have just said to us, shake our sense of who we are? Has the conversation made us suddenly
feel we are at heart a bad person, or incompetent, or a traitor? The identity conversation is about self-image or self-esteem.

If we are having a meeting with our boss to request a raise, we get nervous. This is because whether or not we get the raise will involve our boss's—and our own—consideration of our value. It's not just about the money, it's about
us
. Similarly, if we are the boss and have to fire someone, what does this act say about us as a person: that we are a heartless bastard? Firing someone is only partly about them. Just being aware of the “identity conversation” we have with ourselves can have a great effect on our difficult conversations. If we know it's also about our self-image, we are less likely to suddenly lose our balance on an emotional level.

When we understand that difficult conversations are actually three conversations going on at once, and when we are aware of the mistakes we can make in each type, Stone, Patton, and Heen believe that we will shift the focus of our conversations. They become less about right or wrong and more about learning what is at issue. Most difficult conversations involve a strong element of pointing the finger, but all this does is create more conflict, denial, and incorrect judgments. Blame can only ever cloud the matter, preventing us from finding out what went wrong.

The alternative to blame is joint contribution. Instead of trying to find out where the finger should be pointed, we work to ascertain
what contributed
to the problem. This is a subtle shift from the persons to the issues involved. Our stance turns from proving a point or “putting someone in their place” to curiosity and joint problem solving.

To get from blame to contribution first involves listening. How does the other person see the situation, and what happened to form that perception?

One of the authors' rules is: People never change without first feeling understood. Telling someone to do something makes it less likely that they will, while understanding may just break down their wall of resistance. For instance, Trevor is annoyed that Karen is not handing in her paperwork on time. But for her part, Karen will only consider this important if Trevor stops to understand why she might be doing that. When they do actually sit down to talk about it, Trevor finds out that Karen is not doing it because she is lazy or spiteful, but because she has to put her demanding clients first. She in turn hears from Trevor how nonsubmission of the paperwork causes him all sorts of problems. When they are both understood, they are in a position to work something out—but not before. As Stone, Patton, and Heen put it: “To get anywhere in a disagreement, we need to understand the other person's story well enough to see how their conclusions make sense within it.”