L’ensemble des contenus Business Digest est exclusivement réservé à nos abonnés.
Nous vous remercions de ne pas les partager.
Based on I Respectfully Disagree, How to Have Difficult Conversations in a Divided World, by Justin Jones-Fosu, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2024.
At the water cooler, Marie supports a bizarre conspiracy theory:
Answer 1: You interrupt her at every point to debate each aspect of her theory.
Answer 2: You let her speak and change the subject as soon as possible.
Answer 3: You give her time to express her thoughts fully before responding.
Right !
Answer: 3.
Avoid interrupting her at every point or dissecting her arguments one by one; this approach would only put her on the defensive, which bodes poorly for the rest of the conversation. Instead, let her express her thoughts freely and completely. She’ll appreciate it, creating an atmosphere conducive to dialogue. This way, you can also grasp her overall discourse and gain insight into the roots of her beliefs and motivations.
Avoid interrupting her at every point or dissecting her arguments one by one; this approach would only put her on the defensive, which bodes poorly for the rest of the conversation. Instead, let her express her thoughts freely and completely. She’ll appreciate it, creating an atmosphere conducive to dialogue. This way, you can also grasp her overall discourse and gain insight into the roots of her beliefs and motivations.
Wrong !
Answer: 3.
Avoid interrupting her at every point or dissecting her arguments one by one; this approach would only put her on the defensive, which bodes poorly for the rest of the conversation. Instead, let her express her thoughts freely and completely. She’ll appreciate it, creating an atmosphere conducive to dialogue. This way, you can also grasp her overall discourse and gain insight into the roots of her beliefs and motivations.
Avoid interrupting her at every point or dissecting her arguments one by one; this approach would only put her on the defensive, which bodes poorly for the rest of the conversation. Instead, let her express her thoughts freely and completely. She’ll appreciate it, creating an atmosphere conducive to dialogue. This way, you can also grasp her overall discourse and gain insight into the roots of her beliefs and motivations.
You’re in a position of strength during a negotiation:
Answer 1: Hurray! It’s your chance to impose your will.
Answer 2: Caution! Ensure things remain fair.
Answer 3: Time out! Seek a neutral mediator.
Right !
Answers: 2 and 3
In a discussion, the person in a dominant position (due to rank, expertise, experience, charisma…) is responsible for maintaining fairness in the debate and ensuring respect for opposing views. Never use your advantage to secure an easy win by crushing opposing opinions. Instead, listen attentively and empathetically to all differing viewpoints. If the power imbalance is too great, seek mediation to restore a balance.
In a discussion, the person in a dominant position (due to rank, expertise, experience, charisma…) is responsible for maintaining fairness in the debate and ensuring respect for opposing views. Never use your advantage to secure an easy win by crushing opposing opinions. Instead, listen attentively and empathetically to all differing viewpoints. If the power imbalance is too great, seek mediation to restore a balance.
Wrong !
Answers: 2 and 3
In a discussion, the person in a dominant position (due to rank, expertise, experience, charisma…) is responsible for maintaining fairness in the debate and ensuring respect for opposing views. Never use your advantage to secure an easy win by crushing opposing opinions. Instead, listen attentively and empathetically to all differing viewpoints. If the power imbalance is too great, seek mediation to restore a balance.
In a discussion, the person in a dominant position (due to rank, expertise, experience, charisma…) is responsible for maintaining fairness in the debate and ensuring respect for opposing views. Never use your advantage to secure an easy win by crushing opposing opinions. Instead, listen attentively and empathetically to all differing viewpoints. If the power imbalance is too great, seek mediation to restore a balance.
Before tackling a sensitive topic, you always:
Answer 1: Prepare your arguments by listing them in order of importance.
Answer 2: Make sure you’ve had a good night’s sleep, a snack, and that you feel relaxed.
Answer 3: Recall what is at stake if the debate.
Right !
Answer: 2.
It’s counterproductive to engage in a difficult conversation if you’re not well rested, adequately fed, relaxed, and feeling secure. If these basic conditions of comfort and well-being aren’t met, your emotions are more likely to get the best of you, causing you to fall into the spiral of escalation, judgment, and overreaction, regardless of your prior preparation or genuine desire for conciliation.
It’s counterproductive to engage in a difficult conversation if you’re not well rested, adequately fed, relaxed, and feeling secure. If these basic conditions of comfort and well-being aren’t met, your emotions are more likely to get the best of you, causing you to fall into the spiral of escalation, judgment, and overreaction, regardless of your prior preparation or genuine desire for conciliation.
Wrong !
Answer: 2.
It’s counterproductive to engage in a difficult conversation if you’re not well rested, adequately fed, relaxed, and feeling secure. If these basic conditions of comfort and well-being aren’t met, your emotions are more likely to get the best of you, causing you to fall into the spiral of escalation, judgment, and overreaction, regardless of your prior preparation or genuine desire for conciliation.
It’s counterproductive to engage in a difficult conversation if you’re not well rested, adequately fed, relaxed, and feeling secure. If these basic conditions of comfort and well-being aren’t met, your emotions are more likely to get the best of you, causing you to fall into the spiral of escalation, judgment, and overreaction, regardless of your prior preparation or genuine desire for conciliation.
To express your disagreement, you prefer to:
Answer 1: Pick up the phone to discuss it in real-time.
Answer 2: Send an email: in writing, you can carefully weigh your words.
Answer 3: Wait until you can talk face-to-face (or via video call).
Right !
Answer: 1.
Written communication is often favored because it feels intellectually satisfying and gives a sense of control over your words. However, the absence of nonverbal cues can also escalate tension. To effectively convey your feelings and accurately gauge your counterpart’s, it’s better to talk. Contrary to popular belief, you don’t necessarily need to see your counterpart or set up a video call—a simple phone call will do. Visual signals don’t significantly alter impressions once a vocal connection is established.
Written communication is often favored because it feels intellectually satisfying and gives a sense of control over your words. However, the absence of nonverbal cues can also escalate tension. To effectively convey your feelings and accurately gauge your counterpart’s, it’s better to talk. Contrary to popular belief, you don’t necessarily need to see your counterpart or set up a video call—a simple phone call will do. Visual signals don’t significantly alter impressions once a vocal connection is established.
Wrong !
Answer: 1.
Written communication is often favored because it feels intellectually satisfying and gives a sense of control over your words. However, the absence of nonverbal cues can also escalate tension. To effectively convey your feelings and accurately gauge your counterpart’s, it’s better to talk. Contrary to popular belief, you don’t necessarily need to see your counterpart or set up a video call—a simple phone call will do. Visual signals don’t significantly alter impressions once a vocal connection is established.
Written communication is often favored because it feels intellectually satisfying and gives a sense of control over your words. However, the absence of nonverbal cues can also escalate tension. To effectively convey your feelings and accurately gauge your counterpart’s, it’s better to talk. Contrary to popular belief, you don’t necessarily need to see your counterpart or set up a video call—a simple phone call will do. Visual signals don’t significantly alter impressions once a vocal connection is established.
Is it easier to handle disagreements with someone close?
Answer 1: True: you find common ground more quickly.
Answer 2: False: you make false assumptions about them.
Answer 3: False: your emotions disrupt your reactions more.
Right !
Answer: 2.
The number one danger with people you are close to is that the illusion of asymmetrical knowledge (thinking you know others better than they know you) is at its peak with them. You believe you can read their thoughts like an open book, predict their arguments before they make them, and anticipate their actions before they occur. But this isn’t the case: your friends and family can still surprise you. Nevertheless, you react to them based on biased assumptions and jump to conclusions even more easily than with strangers.
The number one danger with people you are close to is that the illusion of asymmetrical knowledge (thinking you know others better than they know you) is at its peak with them. You believe you can read their thoughts like an open book, predict their arguments before they make them, and anticipate their actions before they occur. But this isn’t the case: your friends and family can still surprise you. Nevertheless, you react to them based on biased assumptions and jump to conclusions even more easily than with strangers.
Wrong !
Answer: 2.
The number one danger with people you are close to is that the illusion of asymmetrical knowledge (thinking you know others better than they know you) is at its peak with them. You believe you can read their thoughts like an open book, predict their arguments before they make them, and anticipate their actions before they occur. But this isn’t the case: your friends and family can still surprise you. Nevertheless, you react to them based on biased assumptions and jump to conclusions even more easily than with strangers.
The number one danger with people you are close to is that the illusion of asymmetrical knowledge (thinking you know others better than they know you) is at its peak with them. You believe you can read their thoughts like an open book, predict their arguments before they make them, and anticipate their actions before they occur. But this isn’t the case: your friends and family can still surprise you. Nevertheless, you react to them based on biased assumptions and jump to conclusions even more easily than with strangers.
During a confrontation, is it wise to transparently share all your thoughts?
Answer 1: Yes, it’s an excellent way to build trust.
Answer 2: No, you risk revealing too many vulnerabilities.
Answer 3: It depends on your mindset.
Right !
Answer: 3.
It depends on whether you share your thoughts to find a constructive solution to the debate or simply to “vent” whatever comes to mind in the heat of the moment, without filters. Don’t confuse an honest, authentic conversation with an emotional outburst that burdens your counterpart and adds nothing to the discussion, potentially driving them away. Always ask for permission to share your feelings in detail, and accept if your interlocutor says “no” or sets limits.
It depends on whether you share your thoughts to find a constructive solution to the debate or simply to “vent” whatever comes to mind in the heat of the moment, without filters. Don’t confuse an honest, authentic conversation with an emotional outburst that burdens your counterpart and adds nothing to the discussion, potentially driving them away. Always ask for permission to share your feelings in detail, and accept if your interlocutor says “no” or sets limits.
Wrong !
Answer: 3.
It depends on whether you share your thoughts to find a constructive solution to the debate or simply to “vent” whatever comes to mind in the heat of the moment, without filters. Don’t confuse an honest, authentic conversation with an emotional outburst that burdens your counterpart and adds nothing to the discussion, potentially driving them away. Always ask for permission to share your feelings in detail, and accept if your interlocutor says “no” or sets limits.
It depends on whether you share your thoughts to find a constructive solution to the debate or simply to “vent” whatever comes to mind in the heat of the moment, without filters. Don’t confuse an honest, authentic conversation with an emotional outburst that burdens your counterpart and adds nothing to the discussion, potentially driving them away. Always ask for permission to share your feelings in detail, and accept if your interlocutor says “no” or sets limits.
Your results
/ 6
On the same subject
SIGN IN
