1. Patrick F. Bassett, NAIS President [email_address] Difficult, Courageous, and Fierce Conversations

5. Title 1. Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen How’s the project coming? Fine, thanks. You’re holding me up. You’re a jerk. I hate you. Levels: Stated vs. Implied. Business at hand vs. Threats to my image.

11. Title Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen You’re going out of the office in flip flops? What if the university president saw her crossing campus? Unprofessional. Are you serious? Going to a campus meeting. Why would anyone care about my footwear, so long as I do the job well? How dare my boss impose unnecessary dress code rules! The Boomer Boss /Millennial Staffer Version (“Generation Vexed,” Case Currents , Oct. 2009)

12. Title Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen . Can it wait? I’m busy Puzzle: Mishandled conversations create the very outcomes we dread. She doesn’t get what my work demands.. Fine. You think you’re only busy one? You don’t love me. The Spouse/Partner Version

13. A Puzzle A Puzzle: Why do we create the very outcomes we seek to avoid? Action Science: Source – Klingenstein Center Class, April 2008, Professor Victoria Marsick

15. The Ladder of Inference High Low I take actions based on my beliefs I adopt beliefs about the world I add meanings (cultural and personal) I observe data and experiences He’s no different than the others—despite his “nice guy” posturing! I’d better sign up now! He’s really saying he has already lost his patience He’s not telling the whole story I haven’t lost my confidence in you, yet. . . I draw conclusions I select data from what I observe Action Science: Source – Klingenstein Center Class, April 2008, Professor Victoria Marsick By climbing the ladder of inference, we misunderstand and act contrary to what we seek and need, exacerbating situations. (Head could have meant, “I trust you to decide for yourselves.”) Running up the ladder of inference (compounding error) vs. inquiring down the ladder, unpacking assumptions)

16. Nancy’s Case (Modified by NAIS) Nancy (an English teacher) is a member of the comment-reading team at Starfield Academy. At the end of each term, the Dean of Academics (Sarah) convenes the team and together the members read every student report and, when necessary, edit the reports for tone, style, grammar, and typographical errors. Nancy writes lengthy, individualized comments for each student, but she notices that Jose (a Spanish teacher) writes a single two-sentence comment and pastes the right (and sometimes the wrong) name where it is supposed to be. Nancy believes this is unacceptable, that Jose is failing to meet the expectations of faculty members at SA, and that her own hard work is less valuable when others do the task so poorly but with no repercussions. It seems worth noting that Jose is an alum and the younger brother of beloved faculty member. Nancy would like Sarah to serve in her role as Action Science: Source – Klingenstein Center Class, April 2008, Professor Victoria Marsick

17. Nancy’s Case (Modified by NAIS, cont.) Dean of Academics, Jose’s supervisor, to tell Jose his work is unacceptable. Nancy’s goal is to express her frustration with the inconsistent application of standards for report writing (or with the lack of standards), and to remind Sarah that it is her job to articulate and uphold those standards. Her secondary goal is to not get fired for rocking the boat and for taking on an issue some might see, wrongfully in her mind, as having racial or ethnic overtones. Action Science: Source – Klingenstein Center Class, April 2008, Professor Victoria Marsick

19. Action Science: Source – Klingenstein Center Class, April 2008, Professor Victoria Marsick Nancy’s Ladder of Inference Her… Goals? Assumptions? Actions? Outcomes? Double Loop?

21. Action Science Model Single Loop Learning Double Loop Learning Action Science: Source – Klingenstein Center Class, April 2008, Professor Victoria Marsick See NAIS Case Study #11 : Digging Deeper or NAIS Case Study #31 The Package Deal A Person’s Assumptions, Values, Beliefs Intentions Actions Outcomes Match Mismatch

36. The End!

37. http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php To use video in teaching/presentation situations, one must purchase on DVD @ Viscog Productions, Inc. )