Difficult Conversations Understanding Why They Happen and How to Approach Them - Part 1
By Sophie Makonnen
Ever walked away from a conversation thinking, 'That did not go well'?
Difficult conversations are inevitable in leadership and professional life; international development settings are no exception. With diverse perspectives, high-stakes projects, and complex power dynamics at play, tensions can arise. Whether you are advocating for your contributions to be recognized, addressing biases in decision-making, managing conflicts within teams, or giving and receiving feedback, these discussions can be challenging and emotionally charged.
Many professionals instinctively avoid difficult conversations, fearing conflict, damaging relationships, or facing discomfort. Others may engage in them confrontationally, focusing on proving their point rather than trying to understand. Neither approach leads to productive outcomes. Instead, the key to handling difficult conversations effectively is shifting to a learning mindset that prioritizes curiosity, mutual understanding, and problem-solving over defensiveness or avoidance.
Many difficult conversations are characterized by more profound layers of differing perspectives. These misunderstandings often result from conflicting perceptions, assumptions, and interpretations, which can quickly turn a conversation into a debate over who is right and who is wrong. Each person believes they have the complete picture; hence, they tend not to listen to the other's perspective.
To navigate these conversations successfully, it's essential to recognize the hidden layers at play. Difficult conversations aren't just about what's being said—they're about how each person experiences the situation.
This blog draws on insights from Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen. Their framework helps us understand the three layers in every difficult conversation, making it easier to manage high-stakes discussions with clarity and confidence.
The Three Layers of Every Difficult Conversation
At first glance, a difficult conversation might seem just about the facts—who did what, when, and why. But underneath, three distinct conversations are happening at once:
The "What Happened?" Conversation – At the core of many difficult conversations is a disagreement over what happened—who said what, who did what, and what it all means. The challenge? Both sides see the situation differently and assume their perspective is reality. Instead of debating who's right, it helps to ask: "What might the other person know that I don't?"
People often assume they are working with the same facts, but they operate from different perspectives. They interpret events through their experiences, cultural backgrounds, and professional priorities. Because they have access to different pieces of information, what seems clear and obvious to one person may feel incomplete—or even incorrect—to another. This misalignment creates frustration and can cause conflict.
The Feelings Conversation –
Beneath every difficult conversation, emotions like frustration, disappointment, or fear influence how we react and engage. Even if they aren't openly expressed, they shape our responses. Ignoring emotions doesn't make them disappear.
When tensions arise, it's easy to assume we understand the other person's intentions, especially if we feel hurt or dismissed. We often judge intent based on how an action impacts us rather than what was actually meant. For example, if a colleague doesn't respond to an email about a shared project, we might assume they are ignoring us or don't value our input. In reality, they may be overwhelmed with other deadlines or waiting for more information before replying. We create space for clarification instead of conflict by separating impact from intent.
Emotions aren't just secondary reactions—they're often central to the issue at hand. Addressing them openly and constructively improves communication and reduces lingering resentment, making it easier to find solutions.
The Identity Conversation – The deepest layer is about what the discussion means for our self-image. Does this conversation challenge how I see myself—competent, fair, respected? When identity feels threatened, we become more focused on defending ourselves than solving the issue. The key is to separate feedback or disagreement from our self-worth.
Let's explore a workplace conflict to see how these layers play out in real-time.
Difficult Conversation Scenario: Water and Sanitation Project Evaluation
Rose is the project manager overseeing a water and sanitation initiative in the field. Tara, the M&E lead in headquarters, is responsible for designing the final evaluation. The survey Tara's team created focuses exclusively on quantitative health indicators. Rose believes that qualitative insights from the community are equally as important and that the actual methodology will not capture essential aspects.
Their conversation unfolds:
Tara: We've finalized the survey and sample. The team will begin collecting data on community health improvements next week.
Rose: I saw the survey, and I have serious concerns. It focuses only on quantitative health data without capturing community experiences. You didn't consult the field team. We know firsthand that a numbers-only approach won't show the full impact.
Tara: We need robust data to support the project's outcomes. Interviews alone aren't enough—we need statistically valid health metrics to measure project success.
Rose: I understand data is essential, but if we exclude qualitative insights from the community, we risk presenting an incomplete picture. The project has changed hygiene practices, but the results won't be meaningful if we don't capture the "why" behind the numbers.
Tara: The survey methodology is based on global best practices. If we start making exceptions, we compromise credibility. The data must be comparable across projects.
Rose: Best practices should still be adaptable. If the evaluation team had consulted us earlier, we could have proposed an approach that balances numbers and lived experiences.
Tara: The survey is set, and we can't make major changes at this stage.
Rose: Then I can't endorse an evaluation that doesn't include input from the communities we worked with.
💡 Breaking Down the Layers:
What Happened? Tara believes the methodology is sound; Rose believes key perspectives were excluded.
Feelings? Rose feels undervalued; Tara feels pressured to maintain her approach.
Identity? Rose sees herself as an expert in fieldwork—being left out threatens that. Tara sees herself as an evaluation professional, but changing the methodology might make her seem unqualified.
No wonder the conversation is tense!
So, How Could This Have Gone Differently?
Instead of digging into their positions, Rose and Tara could have structured their conversation using the three-layer framework.
- What Happened, Feelings, and Identity—to create a more productive dialogue. Here's how the conversation might have unfolded differently:
Step 1: Address the 'What Happened?' Conversation
Tara: The survey is set, and we can't make major changes at this stage. What is your objective? I'm not sure I fully understand your thought process.
This opens the door for Rose to explain her reasoning, allowing her to provide more context rather than just pushing for a change.
Rose: I know we're both aiming for the best possible outcome, which is great. I understand the importance of maintaining a rigorous methodology. At the same time, my experience in the field has shown me how hygiene practices have evolved in ways that aren't captured in the numbers alone. How do you see qualitative insights fitting into the evaluation? Could their experiences add another dimension to the data we're collecting?
By posing the question this way, Rose signals curiosity rather than confrontation. This gives Tara room to engage rather than feel pressured. Instead of immediately pushing back, Tara could reflect on Rose's perspective.
Tara: I understand that local insights are valuable, but my concern is ensuring consistency across all project evaluations. We have to follow standardized methods, or else program comparisons won't hold up.
This response signals that Tara is still holding her position but is engaging in discussion.
Step 2: Acknowledge the Feelings Conversation
At this point, the conversation remains constructive and open-ended, allowing Tara to consider Rose's point rather than feel forced into agreement. Even if she still holds to her position:
Tara: I see your point, but I still believe the methodology we designed is the most rigorous and consistent way to evaluate impact. If we start adding different elements, we risk losing comparability across projects.
Rose: I completely understand your concern about consistency. That's why I'm not suggesting replacing the methodology at all. My concern is that we might miss valuable insights that could strengthen the evaluation if we don't capture the full picture. I want to make sure both our priorities are reflected.
Here, Rose acknowledges Tara's desire to maintain methodological rigor while reframing the discussion as a shared goal rather than a disagreement.
Step 3: Navigate the Identity Conversation and Reframe the Goal
Rose: I really respect your expertise in evaluation, and I know how important it is to ensure credibility. I'm not suggesting replacing the methodology in any fashion. On the other hand, I would want to complete it by incorporating the lived experiences of those impacted. This could also showcase the contributions of everyone involved in the project, from technical teams to frontline staff. Would there be a way to integrate these perspectives to complement the existing data?
Tara: I see your point. If we can include qualitative insights in a way that doesn't compromise the data structure, I think we could explore a small component of qualitative analysis in the reporting phase.
This approach validates Tara's expertise, keeps the conversation collaborative, and opens the door for a middle-ground solution rather than creating further resistance. By structuring their discussion through the three-layer framework, Rose and Tara have moved from conflict to collaboration more effectively.
Nonviolent Communication
The What Happened, Feelings, and Identity framework is one way to understand difficult conversations, but it's not the only one. Marshall Rosenberg developed Nonviolent Communication (NVC), another approach.
NVC focuses on four key steps:
✔ Observation: Describing the situation objectively without blame.
✔ Feelings: Expressing emotions clearly and without accusation.
✔ Needs: Identifying the deeper needs behind those emotions.
✔ Requests: Making a clear, actionable request rather than a demand
It is about moving away from blame and towards constructive dialogue.
Active listening
One of the most powerful tools in difficult conversations is active listening—not just hearing words but truly understanding the other person's perspective. Too often, we listen to respond rather than to understand, which can escalate tensions instead of diffusing them.
Active listening means pausing before reacting, asking clarifying questions, and reflecting back what you've heard to ensure mutual understanding. When both people engage in active listening, the conversation can shift from debate to dialogue.
For example, instead of reacting defensively, Tara could say:
➡ I hear that you're concerned the current methodology doesn't fully capture the community's experience. Can you tell me more about what's missing?
Or
➡ It sounds like you want to ensure that qualitative insights are included without disrupting the collecting of quantitative data. Is that right?
Likewise, Rose could actively listen by saying:
➡ I understand that methodological credibility is essential. Would you be open to exploring ways to integrate qualitative insights without compromising the structure?
Or
➡ I hear that standardization is critical for comparability. What flexibility do we have in the reporting phase to incorporate additional perspectives?
These responses show mutual understanding, validate concerns, and open the door for collaboration. When both sides feel heard, it reduces defensiveness and makes it easier to reach a solution—even in the most challenging conversations.
Avoid the blame game
A common trap in difficult conversations is focusing on who is at fault rather than on what contributed to the situation. Blame-based discussions often become defensive battles, making it difficult to find solutions. Shifting the focus from blame to shared responsibility encourages learning, collaboration, and constructive problem-solving. Instead of asking, Who caused this?, a more productive question might be, What factors led to this situation, and how can we address them moving forward?
The key takeaway? There's no single "right" approach—what matters is developing the ability to handle difficult conversations with clarity, emotional intelligence, and a problem-solving mindset.
Next week, we’ll take this a step further. We’ll look at simple, practical ways to prepare for challenging conversations and handle them with confidence. From managing defensiveness to balancing listening and speaking up, we’ll explore how to keep discussions productive—even when it seems impossible.