PDF Summary:Powerful Phrases for Dealing With Difficult People, by Renée Evenson

Is there someone in your life who always pushes your buttons? Someone who makes the simplest interaction feel like pulling teeth? In Powerful Phrases for Dealing with Difficult People, business training consultant Renée Evenson argues that you can reform your relationships with difficult people with the right conversational skills. By mastering the art of effective communication, you can avoid frustrating conflicts, create a more cooperative working environment, and accomplish more in your personal and professional lives.

In this guide, you’ll learn how to use Evenson’s five-stage conflict resolution process to persuade difficult people to stop acting out. You’ll understand how to keep people from getting defensive and instead motivate them to help find mutually beneficial solutions. In our commentary, we’ll supplement Evenson’s advice with tips from other books on conflict resolution, like Difficult Conversations and Nonviolent Communication. Additionally, we’ll offer counterpoints to Evenson’s advice from books like The Charisma Myth and You Can Negotiate Anything.

(continued)...

Why People Make Others Defensive

In The Anatomy of Peace, the Arbinger Institute agrees that mutual empathy is the cornerstone of conflict resolution, and they elaborate as to why so many people ignore this fact and adopt a combative mindset instead. After people do something that goes against someone else’s best interests, they often justify it by adopting beliefs about themselves and others that prove their hurtful actions were necessary. These beliefs then encourage them to attack, accuse, and blame others—which triggers similar defensive actions in return.

For example, imagine a parent skips their child’s championship soccer game to finish a project at work. To justify this, they adopt the belief that their child should be mature enough to play without their validation. When their child asks why they weren’t watching the game, the parent says in a condescending tone, “You seriously need me to cheer for you at every game?” This causes their child to angrily accuse them of being negligent and unloving.

We’re going to discuss a few ways to build empathetic connections and avoid triggering defensiveness: Focus on expressing your feelings, ask about the other person’s point of view, state your desire for compromise, and use constructive nonverbal signals.

Begin by Stating Your Feelings

Evenson recommends beginning every conflict resolution with “I” messages: statements starting with “I” that express how the situation at hand impacted your feelings. For instance, “I felt offended when you minimized the importance of my team’s project at today’s meeting” and “I’m scared that customers will get upset if you use that kind of language in front of them” would be “I” messages. “I” messages allow you to bring up the problem without making it seem like you’re attacking, accusing, or blaming the other person.

In contrast, when most people start a confrontation, they instinctively resort to "you" messages: statements starting with “you” that frame the problem as the other person’s fault. For example, “You were being incredibly disrespectful in today’s meeting” and “You need to control yourself in front of the customers” would be “you” messages. “You” messages tend to make the other person defensive, escalating the conflict.

Don’t Hide Accusations in Your “I” Messages

Psychologist Thomas Gordon coined the term “I” messages in his 1970 book Parent Effectiveness Training. Other psychologists have since adopted this concept, sometimes referring to them as “I” statements or “I” phrases.

Gordon’s official blog warns that “I” messages are ineffective when they contain hidden “you” messages. For example, if you say “I feel upset when you don’t think before making dumb decisions like this,” you’re essentially just saying, “You’re impulsive and make dumb decisions.” This statement conveys blame and shame, which will make the other person defensive.

To avoid this, Gordon’s blog recommends making sure your “I” messages contain three key components:

• An objective, non-accusatory description of the other person’s actions

• A description of how you feel

• A description of the consequences the other person’s actions have on your life

For example, you might say, “I feel frustrated and overwhelmed (description of feelings) when you leave your dirty dishes in the sink (objective description of action) because it adds more work to my busy schedule (description of consequences).”

Ask About and Express the Other Person’s Point of View

After you express your feelings with an “I” message, ask objective, non-judgmental questions to encourage the other person to share their thoughts and feelings about the conflict. Evenson contends that when you seek to understand the other person's perspective, you establish a tone of mutual respect and collaboration that will make it much easier to discover solutions.

While the other person explains how they see the situation, practice active listening: Use affirmative sounds like "ahh," or "mhmm" to show that you understand what they’re saying. If you get confused at any point, use sounds like "hmm?" or "oh?" to let the other person know they need to clarify something.

(Shortform note: In How to Know a Person, David Brooks contends that the most effective form of active listening involves more than small sounds like “ahh” or “hmm?” He cites Oprah Winfrey as a master conversationalist because of her deeply involved listening habits. While listening, she intensely mirrors the speaker’s emotions with a wide range of facial expressions and nonverbal vocalizations, including gasps of surprise, somber looks of sympathy, and extended, almost musical hums of encouragement. Reactions like these demonstrate that the listener is deeply absorbed in the conversation, making the speaker feel heard and encouraging them to speak more.)

Furthermore, Evenson asserts that throughout your conversation, you should express the other person’s point of view. For example, you might say “I see how it would be frustrating to have me micromanaging your work like that,” or “You’ve probably felt pretty powerless since I took that project off your plate.” Ideally, this will prove to the other person that you want to find a solution that benefits them, and they’ll be more likely to cooperate. Verbally empathizing in this way can also inspire them to see the situation from your point of view.

Persuade People by Using Empathetic Questions

In How to Make Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie also recommends building empathy by asking questions and articulating the other person’s point of view in a disagreement. However, unlike Evenson, he contends that during this stage, you can also persuade them to change their mind.

First, restate the other person’s point of view in a sympathetic way and assert that they’re justified in feeling the way they do. They’ll appreciate this concern and be more likely to listen to what you have to say. Next, ask obvious questions that force them to agree with you, to get them in an agreeable state of mind. Then, ask a series of questions that lead them through the logic of your perspective. Subtly highlight key pieces of information and reasoning that support your view, without explicitly stating your opinion, so they feel like they're getting there on their own. By the end of the discussion, the other person will have talked themselves into your conclusion.

For example, imagine your friend is considering quitting their job, but you believe that because they lack substantial savings, quitting without a backup plan might not be the best decision. Thus, you want to convince them not to quit. You start the conversation by saying, “I completely understand why you're feeling so stressed and overwhelmed at work. I’d want to quit if I was in your position, too.” They agree, so you ask, “You want to minimize the amount of stress in your life right now, correct?" They say “yes” again, putting them in an agreeable mindset.

Then, you start asking questions that subtly support your point of view: “Considering the current job market, do you think it might be challenging—and stressful—to find a new position that pays enough for you to cover your expenses?" They agree, so you ask, “Ideally, what would be the best way to transition from this job to a better one?" This question makes them realize that they should hunt for a new job before quitting outright.

Commit to Finding a Compromise

Evenson recommends directly stating throughout the conflict resolution process that you want to find a mutually acceptable compromise. This way, you repeatedly remind the other person that your goal is to negotiate in good faith rather than “win” the conflict by proving they’re in the wrong.

Anytime you need to defuse defensive reactions or refocus the dialogue on problem-solving, reaffirm your commitment to compromise. For example, you might say something like “Let’s talk this out and see if we can understand where each other is coming from,” or “I’m trying to find a solution that works for both of us.”

(Shortform note: In You Can Negotiate Anything, Herb Cohen argues the opposite: You should explicitly clarify that you’re not looking to compromise. If two people agree to look for a “compromise,” they enter the conversation expecting that they’ll have to sacrifice something they want. Consequently, they stop looking for creative solutions and may resort to win-lose negotiation tactics (like hiding how much they want something) to try and minimize their sacrifice. Instead, to focus your conversation, you may want to repeatedly clarify that you’re looking for a win-win solution, not a compromise.)

Use Calm, Confident, and Empathetic Nonverbal Signals

Evenson explains that although the words you use are important, your body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice communicate your true feelings more directly. For this reason, send nonverbal signals that show the other person you’re calm, empathetic, and confident. Seeming calm and empathetic will keep the other person from getting defensive, and showing confidence will make them more likely to respect your desires and see your suggested solutions as valuable.

Evenson recommends using these nonverbal signals to have the most productive conflict resolution:

• Sit or stand upright to appear confident—but at the same time, stay loose and relaxed to appear calm.
• Maintain a kind, caring facial expression, even if you don’t feel kind or caring.
• Keep eye contact that’s strong, but not so strong that it makes the other person uncomfortable.
• Speak quietly and slowly rather than forcefully.

At first, you may feel like you’re awkwardly forcing yourself to perform these nonverbal signals, but over time, they’ll become instinctive and authentic.

It’s Not Enough to Pretend to Feel Calm, Confident, and Empathetic

In The Charisma Myth, Olivia Fox Cabane contends that if you want to project certain emotions in conversation, it’s not enough to focus on sending the right nonverbal signals. People are incredibly good at perceiving your true emotions, especially those that you communicate through body language. There are too many parts of your body moving and reacting all the time for you to convincingly control them all perfectly—and if your demeanor contradicts the way you claim to feel, others will detect it.

Instead, Cabane insists that the most effective way to project the feelings you want others to perceive is to actually feel them. If these emotions are real to you, they’ll be real to others because they’ll naturally manifest in your nonverbal cues. Cabane recommends strategies like reframing negative thoughts and practicing mindfulness to evoke these desired emotions.

That said, Cabane also recommends practicing nonverbal habits in conjunction with these internal strategies. Cabane would likely agree with Evenson’s specific tips, as they comprise what Cabane says are two of the basic components of charisma: authority and warmth. Upright posture and slow, quiet speech help project authority, which makes others think you have the power to help them. A caring facial expression and eye contact help project warmth, which makes others think you’d want to help them.

Stage #3: Clarify the Issue at Hand

According to Evenson, once you clearly understand both sides of the conflict, it’s time to clarify the issue at the heart of the conflict. It’s impossible to brainstorm solutions until you agree on what you’re trying to resolve. To do this, restate the issue from your point of view and ask the other person to do the same. If you’re not on the same page, return to Stage #2 and ask questions to better understand their perspective.

For example, imagine you’re a manager who’s recently equipped your team with a new project management software. However, one of your workers repeatedly fails to update the status of their tasks on this software. You tell them that you assume the issue is that they don’t have the time to learn the software. However, the worker explains that they think the real issue is that the spreadsheet-based system the team used before was more effective than this new software. Thus, you realize there’s a gap in your understanding and return to Stage #2, asking why the worker believes the old system was better.

Beware of Different Interpretations of the Same Events

Clarifying the issue at hand is important because it’s easy for two people to arrive at wildly different understandings of a situation, even if they both witnessed it firsthand. In Difficult Conversations, Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen explain that this is because people tend to pay attention to and retain only an incomplete part of what happens to them. Then, they interpret that information in a unique way based on their past experiences.

For instance, in the example above, you (the manager) and the worker might have both witnessed a co-worker struggle to use the new project management software. You notice that the co-worker is learning the program through trial and error and interpret that to mean that they believe the program is valuable enough to spend time learning (drawing from your past experiences of learning new technologies that made your life much easier). In contrast, the worker who dislikes the software notices that their co-worker seems annoyed while learning the program, interpreting this to mean that they, too, think the program has an unintuitive design (drawing from their past experiences with unnecessary, unintuitive tech upgrades).

If They Refuse to Budge, Apologize

Evenson notes that if the other person clings to their point of view and stubbornly refuses to consider any other way of seeing the issue, it may help for you to offer a heartfelt apology. By apologizing, you show deference to the other person and appeal to their sense of empathy, transforming the tone of a conversation. An apology can disarm hostility and defensiveness, lessen ego on both sides, and move a stuck dialogue forward.

Evenson clarifies that apologizing doesn’t necessarily mean admitting that you’re at fault. Instead, it just means that you’re willing to take responsibility for finding a solution and repairing the damaged relationship, if necessary.

You can apologize for any number of things, as long as it’s genuine and relevant to the conflict. For instance, you might say something like “I’d like to apologize for not realizing sooner that you felt so left out,” or “Sorry for bringing up this awkward issue, but I think we need to sort it out.”

Don’t Apologize Too Much

Although apologizing can help disarm defensiveness and move a dialogue forward, don’t apologize too much. Studies show that excessive apologies make you appear less self-assured and less competent. Additionally, even if apologizing isn’t the same as admitting that a problem was your fault (as Evenson states), research shows that it still makes others more likely to believe that you’re at fault.

Although Evenson recommends apologizing for anything relevant to the conflict, some experts contend that there are certain things you just shouldn’t apologize for. For instance, never apologize for asking follow-up questions when people are unclear or for sharing opinions that other people disagree with—these are integral parts of productive, collaborative work.

Stage #4: Suggest a Potential Fix

Evenson explains that after you’ve agreed on the precise issue you need to resolve, it’s time to suggest a potential fix and encourage the other person to do the same. The goal of this stage is to arrive at a solution collaboratively: Suggest the best possible solution you can think of, then actively listen to the other person's input. When they propose a solution, evaluate it objectively and with an open mind.

At this stage, it’s especially important to emphasize your desire for compromise to the other person. If they ever try to blame you or argue about who’s right or wrong, remind them that you just want to find a solution you can both agree on. Hopefully, this will keep the discussion on track. According to Evenson, any solution you propose that clearly takes the other person’s needs into account will make them less likely to get defensive or uncooperative.

Look for Creative Win-Win Solutions

Some people might resist any discussion or compromise because they stubbornly believe they should get their way. If this is the case, remind them that when you listen to one another, it's often possible to find creative solutions that benefit both sides more than if either one had entirely gotten their way—as Roger Fisher and William Ury argue in Getting to Yes.

For example, say a couple is arguing about where to go on vacation: One partner wants to relax at a quiet bed-and-breakfast, while the other—a thrill-seeker—wants to gamble in Las Vegas. After discussing potential solutions, they realize that Hawaiʻi has opportunities that make them both even more excited: They can relax on the beach and get their adrenaline pumping with activities like paragliding.

To find solutions that exceed the expectations of both sides, generate many options before settling on one. The more options you consider, the more likely it is you’ll find a creative solution that neither one of you had previously thought of.

If the Discussion Gets Too Intense, Take a Break

According to Evenson, if your discussion becomes heated and unproductive, consider halting the meeting temporarily to give both of you time to cool off. After you’ve both had time to think through the situation alone, it may be easier to negotiate solutions the next time you discuss it.

(Shortform note: If you take a break, you might be tempted to use that time to come up with counterpoints to all the other person’s arguments, recall examples of their past behavior that support your points, and come back intending to dominate the other person with your inarguable logic. This is a common mistake and will only make your emotions harder to control.)

Stage #5: Make a Final Decision

Evenson states that after both sides have proposed potential fixes, the last thing to do is definitively decide how to resolve the issue. Ideally, someone will propose a solution that both parties gladly accept, ending the conflict.

Let’s discuss two important steps of ending a conflict: Confirming a decision and affirming the relationship. Additionally, we’ll discuss what to do if it’s impossible to agree on a solution.

Confirm Your Decision

Evenson suggests that once you’ve identified a solution that makes both of you happy, repeat it to ensure the other person fully understands and accepts it. For instance, say something like, “Great. I’ll stop emailing you asking for updates if you meet with me every Monday to review your team’s progress.” This added clarity helps prevent misunderstandings and future conflicts.

(Shortform note: A common piece of advice in business management is that if you want your employees to remember and act on important information, you should repeat it as much as you can, in different forms. This approach may be helpful after conflict resolution, too: Instead of just recapping the final decision once, find different ways to repeat and reinforce it to make it more likely that the other person will remember to comply. For instance, write a follow-up email summarizing the decision, and repeat the message with your actions by publicly holding up your end of the deal.)

Affirm the Relationship

Finally, Evenson recommends ending your conversation by expressing how happy you are that you were able to come to an agreement and how much you appreciate your relationship with the other person. For instance, you might say, “I’m happy we could work this out! I’m excited to see what we’ll be able to accomplish together next.”

This kind of conclusion leaves a lasting positive impression on the other person and makes them feel a stronger bond with you.

(Shortform note: In The 5 Love Languages, Gary Chapman recommends expressing words of affirmation about your romantic partner to other people as well as directly to them. This way, others might let them know how much your relationship with them means to you, confirming that your words are genuine. Arguably, this advice applies equally well outside of romantic relationships: Imagine you tell your co-workers that your difficult office neighbor was kind enough to compromise with you. If that office neighbor hears someone mention that you thought they were kind, it’ll strengthen their bond with you.)

Sometimes, You Have to Give Up

Evenson notes that in situations where the two of you are unable to communicate effectively or find a mutually acceptable agreement, you may have to give up on achieving a win-win outcome. In this case, it’s important to still affirm the relationship. This helps you maintain a collaborative relationship even if you can’t see eye to eye on this particular issue. Say something like, “It’s too bad we couldn’t settle this disagreement, but I’m sure we’ll still be able to do great work together.”

(Shortform note: It might be hard to genuinely affirm your relationship with someone if you deeply dislike them. To encourage yourself to like them more, try to intentionally counteract your mental bias of confirming what you already think about them. When you frequently think about someone’s annoying habits and unlikable qualities, you’ll naturally notice those traits more often, leading you to dislike that person more. Instead, focus on their skills and qualities you can appreciate—everybody has some.)

If you don’t have the authority to resolve the issue without the other person’s help, you may need to simply accept things as they are and get used to it. Alternatively, in the workplace, you could present your case to someone in a position of authority and get them to intervene. Evenson asserts that this should be a last resort—leaving the person you disagree with out of the conversation might damage your relationship with them.

(Shortform note: If you decide to talk to your boss about your co-worker’s behavior, make sure to use the same mature strategies that you would if you were discussing it with your co-worker: Explain what specific behavior you want to change, how it makes you feel, and the consequences it has on your work—all without accusing or blaming them. If your boss refuses to intervene, you may be able to make peace with the situation by trying to learn something from it, so it doesn’t feel like a total loss.)

On the other hand, it’s possible that you have the authority to resolve the issue in a way you believe is best, but that the other person doesn’t like. In this case, Evenson recommends respectfully explaining the reasoning behind your final decision to the other person. This way, even if they disagree, they’ll have more respect for your decision-making process. This will leave them more likely to make peace with your decision and maintain a strong relationship with you.

For example, imagine you’re the founder of a startup. After a deep discussion, you decide to move forward with a certain marketing strategy, even though your COO believes it’s suboptimal. You explain that although they raise valid concerns, preliminary research shows that the marketing strategy would be successful, so you’re going to try it out for a couple of months. This reasoned explanation motivates the COO to respect your leadership and continue doing their best work for the company, even if they still think your marketing strategy is a mistake.

(Shortform note: In Trillion Dollar Coach, Eric Schmidt, Jonathan Rosenberg, and Alan Eagle contend that the most convincing way to justify your decision is to connect it to your organization’s core guiding principles. If you can explain how your decision furthers the organization’s reason for existing, the other person will hopefully understand why you feel you have to disagree with them.)