Reframing and Reflecting
One of the worst feelings a peaceful person can experience is knowing they are heading into an arena of hostility. A recent meeting concerning the prospective status of a project was held. Layoffs, losses, and an uncertain future were some of the preexisting factors that precipitated this meeting, and those taking part in the conversation were already at level 10. To make matters worse, the person who was assigned to facilitate this meeting is probably the least suited to lead a discussion. As expected, this two-hour meeting went off the rails. As I awaited to hear the status and substance of the project when asked for my input, I would always attempt to steer the conversation back to the meeting’s original intent, but to no avail. An impossible conversation.
In hindsight, my failed approach was an effort to reframe. Reframing is the art of shifting the conversation from an unproductive frame to a productive one. [1] This is a practical tool offered by Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay in their book How to Have Impossible Conversations. Boghossian and Lindsay broach a conflict that every person undoubtedly faces as this generation becomes increasingly entrenched in culture wars, polarization, hyperpartisanship, and remarkably low levels of centrism.
At the core of this great divide are one’s beliefs. As this book is equally timely and profound, recalling my failed meeting brought to mind how staunch people were in their beliefs, with no one daring to move from their position or perspective. Boghossian and James Lindsay offered this practical insight. Beliefs can change, and there are good ways and bad ways to change them. Conversation is a good way. Force is a bad way. [2]
The conversation insights offered by Boghossian and Lindsay range from beginner to expert to master. While I am no expert in this area, what resonated with me and gave me pause for thought is their stance on facts. One reason you should not introduce facts or evidence is to avoid giving your conversation partner a reason to defend her positions.[3] As journalism students, we were instructed to stick to the facts and remain neutral, with the understanding that the facts would speak for themselves. However, it took me a long time to realize that facts are subjective, and the more they are presented, the greater the conflict in conversation can become.
Boghossian and Lindsay emphasize this point. Introducing facts with the intention of changing someone’s mind except under the extraordinarily rare circumstances when there’s no moral, social or identity concern gives your conversation partner a reason to be more entrenched in her beliefs. [4] How to Have Impossible Conversations encourages the practice of deep listening and curiosity, opening doors by asking questions rather than asserting and assuming. This is a direct correlation to Schein and Shien’s Humble Leadership, which promotes humility by awareness and acknowledging that someone may know something we don’t, enabling trust and openness. Humble Leadership should include humble conversations. Another of the conversational approaches that resonated with me was moving from “Winning to Understanding”. [5]
How often do we approach conversations with the sole intent of winning a debate? Choosing understanding over winning adds value to both the person and the dialogue while not diminishing our beliefs. Treating an individual as a partner in civil dialogue does not mean accepting their conclusions or buying into their reasoning. [6] Mutual learning is quite attainable when this approach is adopted. I must admit that, personally, it took a long time for me to arrive in this space, but since my arrival, the feeling has been very liberating and stress free for my journey.
In practice, this means having dialogue with someone who holds a different political or theological view; my goal cannot be to persuade them either wholly or immediately. Disciplining myself to listen deeply, even when discomfort arises, is the pain for the gain. But making this transition creates a transformative conversation through mutual learning. The book’s strategies for lowering defensiveness were spot on for me. In far too many instances, when we feel attacked, our default counterattack responses often attempt to match the force, raising our voices, over-explaining, or outright dismissing the next person. These defensive reactions create the very impossible conversations the book speaks to.
One of the recommended adjustments also suggested in this writing was the discontinuance of using the word ‘but,‘ replacing it with the word ‘and.’ Strategically, the author suggests, this reinforces acknowledgment and demonstrates listening and learning stances. [7] In my context, this principle is vital. When colleagues, congregants, or community members sense their perspectives are dismissed or overshadowed by defensiveness, trust erodes. But when leaders are mindful of using certain words while speaking the truth in love, they create an environment where difficult truths can be shared without fear.
Incorporating the readings from the last two weeks into my own life, I am now asking myself a critical question for reflection. How often have I contributed to making a conversation impossible by approaching it from a transactional rather than a relational perspective? More importantly, how do I avoid being the individual who makes the conversation impossible?
[1] Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (New York: Da Capo Press, 2019), 85.
[2] Boghossian and Wilder, 5.
[3] Boghossian and Wilder, 101.
[4] Boghossian and Wilder, 102.
[5] Boghossian and Wilder, 102.
[6] Boghossian and Wilder, 13.
[7] Boghossian and Wilder, 121.
About the Author
Daren Jaime
6 responses to “Reframing and Reflecting”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Daren,
You pose a good question at the end, and one that is appropriate for us all to reflect upon. I know my attitude towards conversations has shifted dramatically over the past 10 years. I still have work to do; old habits die hard. Are there certain situations you find yourself in where it might be easier to fall back into a transactional versus relational modus operandi?
Hi Daren,
Have you experienced situations where shifting from a goal of persuasion to a posture of mutual understanding transform conversations across political or theological divides?
Hey Daren, love how you’ve described how reframing, humility, and choosing understanding over winning can transform tense conversations. Thanks for the personal storytelling. In your experience, what daily habits or disciplines help you resist slipping back into defensiveness when the pressure rises?
Thanks Daren! Great post. You mention in your review of the meeting that went poorly that the person leading was not equipped to lead it. What skills would they have needed to lead the meeting well?
Hi Daren, the things you drew out from the book– reframing, avoiding use of facts, understanding over winning, and changing “but” with “and”– were also some of the main points I resonated with. I’ve been using “and” in my vocabulary now for a few years and love the difference it makes in my own life and relationships.
If you could go back to that impossible conversation. How would you apply (or not) these tactics and what results might have occurred?
Daren, appreciate your post on this and connecting it to Humble Leadership. I had some similar thoughts about building relationships through these conversations.
How do you go about listening in a conversation, without making it seem as if you’re in full agreement with someone?