How to handle difficult conversations
This article was originally written for a day-long in-house training at Klaverblad. Each group consisted of a maximum of eight participants. Participants began the day by reading the article. We then discussed the different frameworks, focusing on what they already knew, what was new and worth considering, and what they were sceptical about. After a theoretical session of approximately one and a half hours, we moved on to exercises, including fishbowls, dilemmas, and real-life practice with a training actress who simulated the types of behaviour and dynamics the participants found most challenging
Introduction
Why you are reading this now
Before we dive in, a quick note on why you're reading this now. I wrote this text because spending hours explaining theory isn't the best use of our training time, and reading is simply faster. Also, in the modest wisdom of experience, I’ve learned that sending a text like this ahead of time often leads to two things: some people reading it carefully, others not getting around to it at all, and me having to explain it anyway. So instead, you’re reading it now while you settle in.
We’ll talk through what’s in here right away, and then move on to what is worth our short time together: practice, experience, and feedback.
The text is in English because the frameworks we use come from English-language books, and I’ve found the terminology clearer and more precise when kept close to the source. We’ll speak Dutch during the training, of course, and if anything in here feels unclear, just ask.
You’re welcome to keep this text afterward. That way, you won’t have to wait for me to send around some vague slides without context after the training. Consider this your ready-made takeaway.
Today’s focus
For the purpose of today’s training, we’ll focus on a common scenario: the claim has been (partially) denied, and a tense conversation is about to take place. Perhaps the process took longer than expected. The outcome feels impersonal or unjust. The client may have just experienced something painful, and you, as their point of contact, are both the messenger and the face of the institution.
These moments are rarely just about the policy or the rules. They are about expectations, emotions, and the meaning people attach to what has happened.
This short text offers a few key ideas and tools to help you prepare for such conversations. The three main frameworks I’ve chosen here are ones that have proven particularly helpful in practice, both for myself and for many professionals I’ve worked with. These are:
The "three conversations" model;
The mindset shifts (truth vs. perception, intention vs. impact, blame vs. contribution);
and The SBI-plus structure for organizing your response.
These are the frameworks we’ll focus on most today.
In addition, I’ve included five more complementary strategies that can help you handle difficult conversations more effectively:
The positions vs. interests lens from negotiation theory;
The "third story" technique to help you open conversations more constructively;
How to acknowledge emotions without agreeing;
Managing your own emotions during the interaction;
and The importance of listening before explaining.
That said, these frameworks are just a few of many ways to understand and navigate difficult conversations. My goal is not to turn you into a theory expert, but to equip you with practical, adaptable tools you can try and make your own. If you already use other methods that work well for you, please feel free to share them with your colleagues during the training.
We won’t dive equally deep into every section today. The main focus is on the three core frameworks mentioned above. The others are here to keep in the back of your head, with the soft assumption that given your experience, you’ve encountered or used some of them before.
How we’ll use this today
Rather than memorizing these frameworks by heart, the goal of today’s training is to practice. And then practice again. In the morning session, we will review and discuss this document together, reflecting on your experiences and insights. This will help connect the frameworks to the real challenges you face.
Before the afternoon session, your assignment while reading this document is to think of a specific difficult conversation you have personally experienced, one that you found challenging and would like to improve. Be prepared to briefly describe this situation to the actor.
In the afternoon, you will brief the actor on your chosen conversation. Together, you will reconstruct and role-play that situation, focusing on how to improve the outcome.
We will use the fishbowl method for this exercise. A small group will role-play in the centre while others observe quietly. Observers will watch for effective techniques, challenges, and moments of progress. After each role-play, the whole group will reflect, share feedback, and discuss insights. Then others will take their turn.
You will be invited to reflect on what works for you, for your clients, and in collaboration with your peers. There will be time to try new approaches, adjust your techniques, and learn from observing others. Feedback will come from me, the actor, and just as importantly, from each other.
Three conversations in one
A difficult conversation is rarely just about facts. Every such moment contains three layers:
1. The "What Happened" conversation
Who is right, who is wrong?
Who is to blame?
What are the facts?
Example: A client says, "Your colleague promised this would be covered." You believe no such promise was made. Rather than debating who’s right, explore what each side understood and expected at that time.
Helpful phrases to explore facts constructively:
“Could you walk me through your understanding of what was agreed?”
“From my perspective, what I recall is... Can we clarify any misunderstandings?”
“It sounds like we saw this differently. Let’s go back and compare our notes.”
2. The Feelings conversation
What unspoken emotions are in the room?
What’s being triggered on either side?
Example: The client is not just angry, they may feel dismissed or powerless. On your side, you may feel frustrated or under attack. Acknowledging emotion (without solving it) can often defuse the moment.
Helpful phrases to acknowledge emotions:
“I can hear that this has been very frustrating for you.”
“I understand why this situation might feel unfair.”
“It makes sense to me that this would be upsetting; could you tell me more about your concerns?”
3. The Identity conversation
What does this say about me?
Am I being seen as incompetent, uncaring, or powerless?
Example: If a client accuses you of not doing your job, it can threaten your sense of professionalism. On their end, being denied a claim might make them feel like they failed to protect their family. Recognizing these identity stakes helps you respond with empathy rather than defensiveness.
Helpful phrases to acknowledge identity concerns:
“It matters to me that you feel taken care of; let’s see how we can resolve this together.”
“I value being thorough and reliable. If it feels otherwise to you, let’s talk about how I can address that.”
“I know this issue touches on important things for both of us. I want you to feel respected and understood.”
Three shifts in mindset
In the heat of the moment, it's easy to fall into either-or thinking: one version of the truth, one person to blame, one intention behind a comment. The book Difficult Conversations introduces three helpful distinctions to change that perspective:
Truth vs. Perception
People rarely disagree about facts. They disagree because they see the same situation differently. Instead of arguing over who is right, explore how each side’s story makes sense from their point of view.
Example: A client insists, “You never called me back.” You believe you did, and left a voicemail. Instead of arguing the timeline, acknowledge their experience: “It sounds like you were left waiting, and that’s understandably frustrating.”
Intention vs. Impact
We tend to judge others by their impact on us, but judge ourselves by our intentions. Remind yourself: just because the client reacts strongly doesn't mean you meant harm, and just because you meant well doesn’t mean the impact wasn’t upsetting.
Example: A client is upset by what you said during a previous call. You might say, “It wasn’t my intention to sound dismissive, but I hear that it came across that way.”
Blame vs. Contribution
Blame looks backward and shuts the conversation down. Contribution looks forward and opens up options. Ask yourself: “How did we each contribute to where things stand?” This invites responsibility without assigning guilt.
Example: A client says, “This whole thing has been handled badly from the start.” Instead of defending everything that was done, you might respond, “Let’s look at how this unfolded. There might be things we could have done differently, and I’m also curious what information may have been missing early on.”
These shifts help you stay out of defensiveness and focus on understanding and problem solving.
Structure helps: the SBI-plus model
When you feel stuck, use this structure to organize your message:
Situation: Describe the context.
Behavior: Focus on what was said or done.
Impact: Explain the consequence or effect.
Plus: Propose a step forward.
Example: "When we reviewed your claim yesterday (S), we saw that the damage reported falls under an exclusion clause (B). I realize this outcome is frustrating (I), and I’d like to walk you through how this decision came about, and what the next steps could be (Plus). Of course, I also want to hear how this has come across on your side, and give you space to share your view or concerns about it."
Other useful approaches you probably already know
From positions to interests
Classic negotiation theory (Getting to Yes, Beyond Winning) teaches us to focus not on positions, but on interests. A position is the client saying: "I want my money." An interest is what’s behind that: feeling heard, treated fairly, having clarity.
Even when a claim cannot be granted, there is almost always an interest you can still meet: listening without interruption, explaining without jargon, showing that their frustration makes sense. Clients are more likely to accept an outcome they don’t like if they feel the process was respectful.
Example: If someone says, "I pay my premiums every month, and this is how I’m treated?", they may be pushing for payment, but the underlying interest might be about fairness or respect. You might respond by affirming their sense of frustration and explaining how the decision was made, rather than repeating policy terms.
Start with the third story
Rather than beginning with your version or their version of events, start with a neutral frame.
"I’d like to better understand how you see this, and then I’ll share how we’ve looked at it on our side."
This small shift creates room for dialogue. You are not accusing or defending. You are inviting the other person into a shared process.
Example: If a client says, "You people always say one thing and do another," starting with the third story might sound like: "Let’s go over what you understood and what we communicated, and see where things might have diverged."
Acknowledge emotions without agreeing
You can acknowledge frustration, sadness, or anger without agreeing to the demand. In fact, trying to ignore emotion usually makes it worse.
"It sounds like this has been very upsetting."
"I can hear that this has been dragging on for too long."
"It makes sense that this feels unfair from your side."
Acknowledgment is not the same as apology. It is about recognizing what the other person is experiencing.
Often, what the other person needs first is not information or a solution. They need space to be upset. Letting a client speak freely for a minute or two, without interrupting or rushing to clarify, can take much of the heat out of the situation. People tend to calm down once they feel that their frustration has landed somewhere, that someone actually heard them.
If you jump in too soon with explanations or rules, the client may feel dismissed, which only fuels the escalation. Instead, listen actively, give small verbal signals that you’re following, and wait until the storm passes. When they pause or take a breath, that’s your moment to speak.
Example: Imagine someone is venting loudly about how no one takes them seriously. Instead of correcting them immediately, you let them finish, say, "It sounds like this has been exhausting for you," and wait. The client often shifts tone once they feel heard.
This takes patience. But it saves energy in the long run.
Managing yourself
Some conversations are simply hard. You may feel frustration, helplessness, or even guilt. A few things help:
Pause before responding. Give yourself a breath.
Name limits clearly. Don’t overpromise.
Ask questions. Curiosity often calms tension.
You don’t have to fix everything. Just keep the conversation steady and respectful.
A closing reflection
Every difficult conversation comes with pressure. You are often the bearer of bad news, speaking to someone who is upset, confused, or in shock. It’s not easy. But even when there’s little room to change the outcome, there’s almost always room to shape the experience.
Clients remember how they were treated more than what exactly was said. Even a difficult ‘no’ can land well if you give their story space.
Sources: Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen, Difficult Conversations; Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes; Robert Mnookin et al., Beyond Winning; and the SBI model from the Center for Creative Leadership.
