You discuss it again. Everyone can explain their position, but by the end things are just as strained. What are you actually reacting to in a conversation like that?
What someone says, and what you make of it
Take a simple example. A colleague asks whether something will be finished today. You hear that as him saying you work too slowly. You start explaining how much is already on your plate. He says he was only asking a question. Soon you are discussing his tone and your reaction. The schedule is still unclear.
There may have been criticism behind his question. He may also have needed information for his own work. Until that is made explicit, you are each working with a different picture of the same conversation.
I had to learn how much I could assume before I had really listened. I could be quick, certain of my judgement and ready to respond. Then I missed information that might have changed my view.
Wanting to be right can get in the way of listening
If you use the other person’s answer to prepare your next counterargument, there is little room left to hear anything new. That can happen on both sides. Each person tries to explain why their reaction was justified.
You can then discuss the same subject many times without getting anywhere. You know each other’s positions better and better, but still know little about what lay behind the question or reaction.
That is why I find it useful to distinguish between what someone actually said and what you thought they meant. It also means being willing to examine your own interpretation. You do not have to assume you are wrong to be curious about the other person.
Sometimes a decision simply has not been made
Some conversations keep coming back because nobody has decided what takes priority or who has authority to decide. You can listen carefully and still leave with the same problem. An unrealistic schedule does not become realistic because everyone speaks more politely.
That is why, when people work together under pressure, I look at the specific situation. What has been agreed? What is still unclear? And what happens between people when that uncertainty comes up again? This keeps the conversation from becoming solely about someone’s character.
Think back to a meeting that went nowhere. Can you still separate what was actually said from what you concluded yourself? That distinction alone can reveal where the conversation took a different turn.
In my work with teams, we explore this through situations they experience themselves. The organisations page explains the ways we can work on it.
From reading to your own situation