top of page

"Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most" 

by Douglas Stone

After reading this book in April of 2020, I wrote,

 

"The quality of our conversations, especially the difficult ones, fundamentally affect the quality of our relationships and our lives. This book gives fresh insights in how to handle difficult conversations."

​

See all my book recommendations.  

​

Here are the selections I made:

​

Asking for a raise. Ending a relationship. Giving a critical performance review. Saying no to someone in need. Confronting disrespectful or hurtful behavior. Disagreeing with the majority in a group. Apologizing. At work, at home, and across the backyard fence, difficult conversations are attempted or avoided every day.

 

The Dilemma: Avoid or Confront, It Seems There Is No Good Path

 

Tact is good, but it’s not the answer to difficult conversations. Tact won’t make conversations with your father more intimate or take away your client’s anger over the increased bill. Nor is there a simple diplomatic way to fire your friend, to let your mother-in-law know that she drives you crazy, or to confront your colleagues’ hurtful prejudices.

 

1. The “What Happened?” Conversation. Most difficult conversations involve disagreement about what has happened or what should happen. Who said what and who did what? Who’s right, who meant what, and who’s to blame? Jack and Michael tussle over these issues, both out loud and internally. Does the chart need to be redone ? Is Michael trying to intimidate Jack? Who should have caught the error?

 

2. The Feelings Conversation. Every difficult conversation also asks and answers questions about feelings. Are my feelings valid? Appropriate? Should I acknowledge or deny them, put them on the table or check them at the door? What do I do about the other person’s feelings? What if they are angry or hurt? Jack’s and Michael’s thoughts are littered with feelings. For example, “This is the thanks I get?!” signals hurt and anger, and “I’m under tremendous pressure” reveals anxiety. These feelings are not addressed directly in the conversation, but they leak in anyway.

 

3. The Identity Conversation. This is the conversation we each have with ourselves about what this situation means to us. We conduct an internal debate over whether this means we are competent or incompetent, a good person or bad, worthy of love or unlovable. What impact might it have on our self-image and self-esteem, our future and our well-being? Our answers to these questions determine in large part whether we feel “balanced” during the conversation, or whether we feel off-center and anxious. In the conversation between Jack and Michael, Jack is struggling wi...

 

The error we make in the realm of intentions is simple but profound : we assume we know the intentions of others when we don’t. Worse still, when we are unsure about someone’s intentions, we too often decide they are bad.

 

The third error we make in the “What Happened?” Conversation has to do with blame. Most difficult conversations focus significant attention on who’s to blame for the mess we’re in.

 

The Identity Conversation: What Does This Say About Me?

 

The Identity Conversation looks inward: it’s all about who we are and how we see ourselves. How does what happened affect my self-esteem, my self-image, my sense of who I am in the world? What impact will it have on my future? What self-doubts do I harbor?

 

Moving Toward a Learning Conversation

 

This book will help you turn difficult conversations into learning conversations by helping you handle each of the Three Conversations more productively and improving your ability to handle all three at once.

 

Stop Arguing About Who’s Right: Explore Each Other’s Stories

 

We Think They Are the Problem

 

They’re selfish.

 

They’re naive.

 

They’re controlling.

 

They’re irrational.

 

They Think We Are the Problem

 

In the normal course of things, we don’t notice the ways in which our story of the world is different from other people’s.

 

Arguing Blocks Us from Exploring Each Other’s Stories

 

Arguing Without Understanding Is Unpersuasive

 

Different Stories: Why We Each See the World Differently

 

We Have Different Information

 

We Notice Different Things.

 

Of course, neither Doug nor Andrew walked away from the parade thinking, “I enjoyed my particular perspective on the parade based on the information I paid attention to.” Each walked away thinking, “I enjoyed the parade.” Each assumes that what he paid attention to was what was significant about the experience. Each assumes he has “the facts.”

 

We Each Know Ourselves Better Than Anyone Else Can.

 

We Have Different Interpretations

 

We Are Influenced by Past Experiences.

 

We Apply Different Implicit Rules.

 

Our Conclusions Reflect Self-Interest

 

Our colleague Roger Fisher captured this phenomenon in a wry reflection on his days as a litigator : “I sometimes failed to persuade the court that I was right, but I never failed to persuade myself!”

 

Move from Certainty to Curiosity There’s only one way to come to understand the other person’s story, and that’s by being curious. Instead of asking yourself, “How can they think that?!” ask yourself, “I wonder what information they have that I don’t?” Instead of asking, “How can they be so irrational?” ask, “How might they see the world such that their view makes sense?” Certainty locks us out of their story; curiosity lets us in.

 

Sometimes people have honest disagreements, but even so, the most useful question is not “Who’s right?” but “Now that we really understand each other, what’s a good way to manage this problem?”

 

There’s an old story of two clerics arguing about how to do God’s work. In the spirit of conciliation, one finally says to the other, “You and I see things differently, and that’s okay. We don’t need to agree. You can do God’s work your way, and I’ll do God’s work His way.”

 

Wherever you want to go, understanding – imagining yourself into the other person’s story – has got to be your first step. Before you can figure out how to move forward, you need to understand where you are. 

 

“I was surprised that you made that comment. It seemed uncharacteristic of you. . . .”

 

Focusing on blame is a bad idea because it inhibits our ability to learn what’s really causing the problem and to do anything meaningful to correct it. And because blame is often irrelevant and unfair. The urge to blame is based, quite literally, on a misunderstanding of what has given rise to the issues between you and the other person, and on the fear of being blamed.

 

At heart, blame is about judging and contribution is about understanding.

 

Blame Is About Judging, and Looks Backward

 

Contribution Is About Understanding, and Looks Forward

 

Contribution asks a related but different set of questions. The first question is “How did we each contribute to bringing about the current situation?” Or put another way: “What did we each do or not do to get ourselves into this mess?” The second question is “Having identified the contribution system, how can we change it? What can we do about it as we go forward?”

 

All three elements of blame are present: you caused this, I’m judging you negatively, and implicit in what I am saying is that one way or another you will be punished, especially if it happens again.

 

I appreciate that. I’m feeling bad too. Let’s retrace our steps and think about how this happened. I suspect we may each have contributed to the problem. From your point of view, did I do anything differently this time?

 

When Blame Is the Goal, Understanding Is the Casualty

 

When your real goal is finding the dog, fixing the ceiling, and preventing such incidents in the future, focusing on blame is a waste of time. It neither helps you understand the problem looking back, nor helps you fix it going forward.

 

Blame Can Leave a Bad System Undiscovered

 

Removing one player in a system is sometimes warranted. But the cost of doing so as a substitute for the hard work of examining the larger contribution system is often surprisingly high.

 

What you want the other person to say isn’t “It was my fault,” but rather “I understand that I hurt you and I’m sorry.” The first statement is about judgment, the second about understanding.

 

As “shifters” we tend to see ourselves as innocent victims – when something goes wrong, it’s always because of what someone else did. Others of us have the opposite tendency: we are all too aware of the negative consequences of our own actions. In the face of this, others’ contributions seem insignificant. An “absorber” tends to feel responsible for everything.

 

Peanuts aren’t nuts. Whales aren’t fish. Tomatoes aren’t vegetables. And attributions, judgments, and accusations aren’t feelings.

 

While they may feel similar, there is a vast difference between “You are thoughtless and self-absorbed” and

 

Most of us assume that our feelings are static and nonnegotiable, and that if they are to be shared authentically, they must be shared “as is.” In fact, our feelings are based on our perceptions, and our perceptions (as we have seen in the preceding three chapters) are negotiable.

 

What is the story we are telling ourselves that is giving rise to how we feel? What is our story missing? What might the other person’s story be? Almost

 

Next, we need to explore our assumptions about the other person’s intentions. To what extent are our feelings based on an untested assumption about their intentions? Might the other person have acted unintentionally, or from multiple and conflicting intentions? How does our view of their intentions affect how we feel? And what about our own intentions? What was motivating us? How might our actions have impacted them? Does that change how we feel?

 

Finally, we should consider the contribution system. Are we able to see our own contribution to the problem? Are we able to describe the other person’s contribution without blaming? Are we aware of the ways that each of our contributions forms a reinforcing pattern that magnifies the problem? In what way does this shift how we feel?

 

Too often we confuse being emotional with expressing emotions clearly.

 

You can preface their expression with an admission that you are uncomfortable with these feelings, or that you aren’t sure they make sense, but follow that preface by expressing them. Your purpose here is simply to get them out. You can decide what, if anything, to do about them later.

 

You can establish an evaluation-free zone by respecting the following guidelines: share pure feelings (without judgments, attributions, or blame); save problem-solving until later; and don’t monopolize.

 

After observing O Sensei, the founder of Aikido, sparring with an accomplished fighter, a young student said to the master, “You never lose your balance. What is your secret?” “You are wrong,” O Sensei replied. “I am constantly losing my balance. My skill lies in my ability to regain it.”

 

Learning Their Story Exploring the other person’s perspective takes us into each of the Three Conversations. What information do they see that we missed or don’t have access to? What past experiences influence them? What is their reasoning for why they did what they did? What were their intentions? How did our actions impact them? What do they think we are contributing to the problem? What are they feeling? What does this situation mean to them? How does it affect their identity? What’s at stake?

 

Expressing Your Views and Feelings Your goal should be to express your views and feelings to your own satisfaction. You hope that the other person will understand what you are saying, and perhaps be moved by it, but you can’t count on that. What you can do is say, as well as you can, what is important for you to say about your views, intentions, contributions, feelings, and identity issues. You can share your story.

 

Problem-Solving Together Given what you and the other person have each learned, what would improve the situation going forward? Can you brainstorm creative ways to satisfy both of your needs? Where your needs conflict, can you use equitable sta...

 

These are the purposes that emerge from a learning stance, from working through the Three Conversations and shifting your internal orientation from certainty to curiosity, from debate to exploration, from simplicity to complexity, from “either/or” to “and.”

 

You can begin from the Third Story by saying, “My sense is that you and I see this situation differently. I’d like to share how I’m seeing it, and learn more about how you’re seeing it.”

 

Most conversations can be initiated from the Third Story to include both perspectives and invite joint exploration.

 

I’ve described the problem in a way we can each accept. Now I want to propose mutual understanding and problem-solving as purposes, check to see if this makes sense to you, and invite you to join me in a conversation.

 

Think of the goal rather as “offering and discussing a possible description and purpose” for your conversation. In other words, the task of describing the problem and of setting purposes is itself a joint task.

 

“Can you help me understand . . . ?” you offer the role of advisor. “Let’s work on how we might . . . .” invites a partnership. “I wonder whether it’s possible to . . . .” throws out a challenge, one which offers the other person the potential role of hero.

 

Sometimes the most genuine thing you can do is share your internal struggle to cast them in a more positive role. You can say something like, “The story I’m telling in my head about what is going on is that you are being inconsiderate. At some level I know that’s unfair to you, and I need you to help me put things in better perspective. I need you to help me understand where you are coming from on this.”

 

“I’d like to explore whether a raise for me might make sense. From the information I have, I think I deserve one. [Here’s my reasoning.] I wonder how you see it?”

 

“I definitely get the sense that you don’t like discussing your schedule, at least not the way I bring it up. The problem for me is that I feel worried and I would like to share why in a way that’s helpful. I don’t seem to know how to do that, and I was wondering if you had any advice.”

 

What to Talk About Explore where each story comes from “My reactions here probably have a lot to do with my experiences in a previous job. . . .” Share the impact on you “I don’t know whether you intended this, but I felt extremely uncomfortable when . . . .” Take responsibility for your contribution “There are a number of things I’ve done that have made this situation harder. . . .” Describe feelings “I’m anxious about bringing this up, but at the same time, it’s important to me that we talk about it. . . .” Reflect on the identity issues “I think the reason this subject hooks me is that I don’t like thinking of myself as someone who . . . .”

 

If the block to their listening is that they don’t feel heard, then the way to remove that block is by helping them feel heard – by bending over backwards to listen to what they have to say, and perhaps most important, by demonstrating that you understand what they are saying and how they are feeling.

 

She asks questions. She paraphrases what her mother says to make sure she understands it, and to make sure her mother understands that Greta understands. Greta is also listening for the feelings that might be behind what her mother is saying, and acknowledges them when she hears them.

 

Listening is only powerful and effective if it is authentic. Authenticity means that you are listening because you are curious and because you care, not just because you are supposed to. The issue, then, is this: Are you curious? Do you care?

 

“This is important to me, I want to find a time to talk about it, and right now I’m not able to.”

 

In addition to the stance of curiosity, there are three primary skills that good listeners employ: inquiry, paraphrasing, and acknowledgment.

 

The heading says it all: inquire to learn. And only to learn. You can tell whether a question will help the conversation or hurt it by thinking about why you asked it. The only good answer is “To learn.”

 

This illustrates an important rule about inquiry: If you don’t have a question, don’t ask a question. Never dress up an assertion as a question. Doing so creates confusion and resentment, because such questions are inevitably heard as sarcastic and sometimes mean-spirited.

 

Saying “I’d like you to pay more attention to me” is more likely to produce a conversation (and a satisfying outcome) than “Is it impossible for you to focus on me just once?”

 

“Tell me more” and “Help me understand better . . .

 

“What leads you to say that?” “Can you give me an example?” “What would that look like?” “How would that work?” “How would we test that hypothesis?”

 

Can you say a little more about how you see things? • What information might you have that I don’t? • How do you see it differently? • What impact have my actions had on you? • Can you say a little more about why you think this is my fault? • Were you reacting to something I did? • How are you feeling about all of this? • Say more about why this is important to you. • What would it mean to you if that happened? If

 

It’s better to make your question an invitation rather than a demand, and to make that clear. The difference is that an invitation can be declined without penalty. This offers a greater sense of safety and, especially if the other person declines to respond and your reaction makes that okay, it builds trust between you.

 

First, paraphrasing gives you a chance to check your understanding. Difficult conversations are made harder when an important misunderstanding exists, and such misunderstandings are more common than we imagine. Paraphrasing gives the other person the chance to say, “No, that’s not quite what I meant. What I really meant was . .

 

Second, paraphrasing lets the other person know they’ve been heard. Usually the reason someone repeats himself or herself in a conversation is because they have no indication that you’ve actually taken in what they’ve said. If you notice that the other person is saying the same thing over and over again, take it as a signal that you need to paraphrase more.

 

It is a fundamental rule: feelings crave acknowledgment.

 

Order Matters: Acknowledge Before Problem-Solving

 

As you embark upon a difficult conversation, ask yourself, “Have I said what is at the heart of the matter for me? Have I shared what is at stake?” If not, ask yourself why, and see if you can find the courage to try.

 

Say What You Mean: Don’t Make Them Guess

 

Sometimes, you’ll find yourself wishing you didn’t have to be explicit. You wish the other person already knew that there was a problem and would do something about it. This is a common and understandable fantasy – our ideal mate or perfect colleague should be able to read our mind and meet our needs without our having to ask. Unfortunately, such people don’t exist. Over time, we may come to know better how we each think and feel, but we will never be perfect. Being disappointed that someone isn’t reading our mind is one of our contributions to the problem.

 

As we saw in Chapter 2, often we merely trade our conclusions back and forth, and never get into the process of exploring where these views come from. You have information about yourself that the other person has no access to. That kind of information can be important; consider sharing it. And you have life experiences that are influencing what you think and why, as well as how you feel. When you tell these stories, it puts some meat onto the bones of your views.

 

Don’t Exaggerate with “Always” and “Never”: Give Them Room to Change

 

And recognize that different people take in information at different speeds and in different ways. For example, some people are visually oriented. For them, you may want to use visual metaphors and refer to pictures or, in a business setting, charts. Some people prefer to get their arms around the whole problem first, and can’t listen to anything else you say until they do. Others like all the details up front. Pay attention to these differences.

 

Ask Them to Paraphrase Back Paraphrasing the other person helps you check your understanding and helps them know you’ve heard. You can ask them to do the same thing for you: “Let me check to see if I’m being clear. Would you mind just playing back what you’ve heard me say so far?”

 

A common tendency is to ask for agreement, perhaps because it’s reassuring: “Does that make sense?” “Wouldn’t you agree?” But asking the other person how they see it differently is more helpful. If you ask for agreement, people may be reluctant to share their doubts and reservations. They aren’t sure whether you really want to hear them.

 

The secret of powerful expression is recognizing that you are the ultimate authority on you. You are an expert on what you think, how you feel, and why you’ve come to this place. If you think it or feel it, you are entitled to say it, and no one can legitimately contradict you. You only get in trouble if you try to assert what you are not the final authority on — who is right, who intended what, what happened. Speak fully the range of your experience and you will be clear. Speak for yourself and you can speak with power.

 

Skills for Leading the Conversation

 

It’s Always the Right Time to Listen

 

Persistence in a difficult conversation means remaining as stubbornly interested in hearing the other person’s views as you are in asserting your own.

 

Difficult conversations require a certain amount of compromise and mutual accommodation to the other’s needs. If you find problem-solving difficult and anxiety producing, it may be because you are focused on persuading them. Those caught in this trap struggle like a fish on a hook, desperately trying to satisfy the seemingly insatiable demands of the other and reach some reasonable agreement on how to move forward. And no wonder. This frame gives the other side total control – until and unless they are satisfied, you must continue to struggle.

 

Describing the pattern this way illuminates its flaw: there are two people involved, and there will be no agreement unless both concur. You need to persuade them no more and no less than they need to persuade you. Thus, you always have the option to turn the tables, to invite them to persuade you and insist that they do. As long as you are open to persuasion, and prepared, if absolutely necessary, to live with no agreement, you can do this as firmly as you would like: “I understand that you are determined to have your article reviewed this week, and I’m still not persuaded that I should spend my vacation doing it.”

 

For many people, realizing that they don’t have to agree brings a sense of great liberatio...

 

“I wonder if we can work to find a creative way to meet both interests here. What do you think? Are you willing to try?”

 

Generally the best way to manage conflict in a way that safeguards a relationship is to look for standards or fair principles to guide a resolution, rather than trying to haggle with or intimidate the other person.

 

Not all standards are equally persuasive, of course. Some will seem more directly on point, more widely accepted, or more immediately relevant in terms of time, place, or circumstance.

 

The Principle of Mutual Caretaking. One dynamic to remember at this stage of a difficult conversation is the tendency we all have to believe that our way of doing things is the “right” way. This can lead us to ascribe the problem to something wrong with “the way they are,” and to suggest a “solution” that boils down to doing it our way: “If you would just change, there wouldn’t be a problem.”

 

Difficult Conversations Checklist Step 1: Prepare by Walking Through the Three Conversations 1. Sort out What Happened. • Where does your story come from (information, past experiences, rules)? Theirs? • What impact has this situation had on you? What might their intentions have been? • What have you each contributed to the problem? 2. Understand Emotions. • Explore your emotional footprint, and the bundle of emotions you experience. 3. Ground Your Identity. • What’s at stake for you about you? What do you need to accept to be better grounded?

 

Step 2: Check Your Purposes and Decide Whether to Raise the Issue • Purposes: What do you hope to accomplish by having this conversation? Shift your stance to support learning, sharing, and problem-solving. • Deciding: Is this the best way to address the issue and achieve your purposes? Is the issue really embedded in your Identity Conversation? Can you affect the problem by changing your contributions? If you don’t raise it, what can you do to help yourself let go?

 

Step 3: Start from the Third Story 1. Describe the problem as the difference between your stories. Include both viewpoints as a legitimate part of the discussion. 2. Share your purposes. 3. Invite them to join you as a partner in sorting out the situation together. Step 4: Explore Their Story and Yours • Listen to understand their perspective on what happened. Ask questions. Acknowledge the feelings behind the arguments and accusations. Paraphrase to see if you’ve got it. Try to unravel how the two of you got to this place. • Share your own viewpoint, your past experiences, intentions, feelings. • Reframe, reframe, reframe to keep on track. From truth to perceptions, blame to contribution, accusations to feelings, and so on.

 

Step 5: Problem-Solving • Invent options that meet each side’s most important concerns and interests. • Look to standards for what should happen. Keep in mind the standard of mutual caretaking; relationships that always go one way rarely last. • Talk about how to keep communication open as you go forward.

 

Consider this assertion: The more passionate we are about the issues that matter most to us, the more likely we are to have a cartoonish view of those who see things differently. That statement may infuriate you. You may find yourself chafing against such a ridiculous generalization. But flip it around: When others think your view is self-interested or shallow, base, and maybe even evil, do you think they see you clearly? Is what they’ve heard and read an accurate portrayal of what you see and feel? No. They’ve turned you into a cartoon they can dismiss without having to confront the fact that you care as much as they do, that you are a person of principle and conviction, that you’re working hard to do what’s right in the face of the very same human limitations and frailties we all confront. And they are too.3

 

If they haven’t earned your trust, you have no obligation to offer it. If they “dare” you, remember the “And Stance”: “Don’t you trust me?” “Actually, I don’t know you well enough to be sure, and if you are telling the truth I assume you have no problem offering verification or a guaranty.” Rather than simply reacting in kind, focus on your objective and how to move toward it.

 

So we’d recommend something different. Colin can resolve in his mind that enough is enough – nothing wrong with feeling resolute. But rather than trying to control Matt (by actually saying enough is enough), he should focus on what he, Colin, sees, thinks, wants, and will do. Key points might include: • Here’s what I see. • Here’s the impact on me. • You may disagree with my perceptions or feel that your behavior is justified. • It doesn’t matter which one of us is right about that. Our current way of interacting doesn’t work for me. • I am asking you to change this behavior. • If it continues, here’s what I’m going to do.

 

In the face of such challenges, it is important to remember that there is no way to guarantee a particular outcome. You can’t force another person to change, or to do what you want. Moreover, if you define success by what you can get others to do, you cede to them control of the outcome and set yourself up for aggravation. Your goal should be to do the best you can to fuel a productive interchange and to make sure as best you can that your own actions aren’t part of the problem and somehow contributing to the other’s reactions.

 

Consider the Big Reframe. This approach is intended to knock the conversation off its center. That’s usually not a good idea, but if things are stuck or going drastically wrong, sometimes bringing some big energy from a different direction can help. Here’s an example of what Addy might say: “Well, my mother sure can be a pain in the butt! Goodness knows, she’s not perfect! Maybe everyone in our family is a pain in the butt. But one thing I know is that my mother loves you, and you love her, and I know that means a lot to both of you.”

 

Address the implications of the alternate view. Another thing Peter might say is, “Let’s put aside for a minute the question of whether this complaint is true and instead ask what if it were true? What would it mean? What would be the implications for you?”

 

So you might say to your boss, “I know there are lots of factors you have to take into consideration, and at the end of the day, I’m onboard with whatever you decide. I just want to make sure that as you think about it, you are aware that. . . .”

 

Instead of saying, “Part of the reason I wasn’t able to get this in on time was that you waited until Friday afternoon to ask me to work on it,” say, “I’m totally committed to ensuring that this doesn’t happen again. We’ve identified three things that I need to do differently: [x, y, and z]. Something else that would be really helpful to me is if I had more lead time on the more complicated projects. If I can get the assignments on Wednesday instead of Friday, that would enable me to balance new projects with my current projects and other hard-to-move commitments. I don’t know to what extent that’s possible on your end. What are your thoughts on that?”

 

Listen! Paradoxically, there is also considerable persuasion power in inquiry and listening. As we say in Chapter 9, listening is not just about taking in information. Listening well has an impact on the other person – it quiets their internal voice. When they feel heard and acknowledged, it is easier for them to hear you. And it also lets you know what they care about, which lays the foundation for creative problem solving.

 

Say what’s in it for the boss. Explain how having a conversation is in your boss’s interest: “I want to make this initiative a great success. To do that I need a little more help in making sure I understand the logic well enough to execute effectively.” O...

 

“I’m sure we’d all like to move on quickly. At the same time, I imagine it is even more important to all of us that this work. I would very much like this initiative to succeed but don’t yet feel confident in my ability to pull it off. Specifically, it would help to spell out how we might answer a couple of the objections I can imagine coming our way. For example. . . .”

 

People do sometimes worry that we are about to put someone’s “face” at risk, but then visibly relax as they realize that we have put a joint problem on the table (from the third story, of course) with no hint of the blame frame.

 

And what you experience as an attack might in their mind be meant as a defense against your attack. What, you say, you never attacked them? Ah, there’s the rub.

 

If you’re not going to answer right away, send a quick note explaining why and when you expect to get back to them. “Let me check with Dan, and I’ll get back to you in a few days. If you haven’t heard from me by Tuesday, please send a reminder. Thanks!”

 

Listening, understanding, and showing empathy with feelings are the things that help dissipate them, making it easier for the person having those feelings to calm down and open up to other perspectives.

 

In fact, our assumption is that many of these conversations can be quick. The earlier you raise an issue, catch a misunderstanding, or ask a question to clarify intentions, the sooner you clear it up and move on. The longer you let things fester, the bigger the problem becomes. So investing seven minutes now to sort through why you and your client seem to have different expectations about the scope of a project will save you seven hours (or seven months) of confusion, frustration, and cost overruns down the road.

​

bottom of page