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
19 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?
Hey Jeff! Thanks for asking. In conversations where I know there is little to no flexibility, and/or I feel that people are refusing to be open and are simply not listening, but rather waiting to speak. These types bring out a transactional tone and keep me highly guarded, and less optimistic.
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?
Hi Shela. Yes, shifting from a goal of persuasion to a posture of mutual understanding has absolutely transformed some of my most difficult conversations. One experience I am reminded of was a tense meeting where I kept trying to logically reframe the discussion, but no one was shifting. It was not until I stopped trying to “win” and instead focused on deep listening that the atmosphere shifted. Choosing understanding over persuasion allowed me to see not just positions, but the fears behind them. I will say the posture did not change every mind, but it changed the climate. And it changed me. Humility and curiosity are more potent than any air tight argument in my book. .
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?
Hey Glyn, that’s such a good question. One daily habit that has helped me resist defensiveness is pausing before I respond. I literally take a breath, sometimes silently counting to three, creating space before overreacting or becoming uncomfortable.
I have also begun journaling and praying against the triggers. It’s actually a short journal, but I like to stay mentally and emotionally aware.
I have also tried to integrate the discipline of intentionally understanding at least one or two perspectives of the other person’s view, especially when I feel tension rising. It reminds me that understanding doesn’t mean agreement and that most people aren’t trying to attack, they’re trying to be heard. These small practices, repeated daily, create and demonstrate for me a healthy baseline of humility and calm I can return to when the pressure gets too high.
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?
Hey Ryan. Too long to list! Just kidding. Empathetic listening to start. In hindsight, they needed a blend of relational, conversational, and procedural skills. Above all, neutrality with compassion, listening to be changed, not to win, while protecting the process so everyone is heard.
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?
Hey Kari, those tactics you employ are pretty helpful. Unfortunately, in my case the person on my end is extremely prideful and loves to hear themself talk, while having a sole interest in getting their point across with horrible listening skills. Regrettably, we have come to a collective resolve that we shall only enter converstaions with them when absolutely neccesary.
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?
Hey Graham, I listen and give alot of room to the other person to offload and ask a question or two for clarity. I do this to lean in and possibly learn more. Understanding the fact that my listening is not always an endorsement on my end has made conversations more tolerable, and it helps me stay in balance with my thoughts and beliefs.
Hi Daren, I like how you brought reframing into your post. Have you ever had to end a conversation that wasn’t going anywhere productive? If so, how did you present the pause or end of the conversation?
Hey Diane. I recently told someone, let’s just agree to disagree and move on. It was rather matter of fact but my way of saying I am done talking about it. The irony is that the person reached out to me yesterday, apologizing and stating they were wrong. On that day, they could see no wrong, so I ended it instead of being locked in for another 30 minutes of emotional havoc.
Daren,
You acknowledge that you tried to reframe the conversation to no avail. Do you think other techniques might have worked instead? If you were to be put back into the same situation would you have tried something different?
Hey Adam, I just told Kari in my earlier post that this individual is so impossible to deal with, but still is a high-level leader, so we have all opted to only engage when we have to. I really have gone from winning to understanding in many scenarios but when you truly can’t understand decisions have to be made. Its kind of like we have given CPR and now we have to call it. Nothing more we can do here.
Hi, Mr. Jamie, thank you for your post. You mentioned how important is to approach conversation rather relational than transactional. You are right since this is how connection is established. But even in having impossible conversation, there is still a goal that we would want to achieve. How do we go about achieving our goal for the conversation? Thank you again, Mr. Jaime.
Noel, I’m fine with you calling me Daren. I appreciate your kindness/ respect, but Daren is good (laughing). To your question, we should ask questions that aren’t offensive in tone. Sometimes we should make our goal not winning but understanding, as the author states. Recognizing that our goals may not be met in every conversation can be a game changer.
Hi Daren, I love the idea of prioritizing understanding over winning. What practical steps do you take before entering a high-stakes or tense conversation to prepare yourself for this mindset?