メニュー
Use when confronting a specific counterpart about a breach, violation, or adversarial behavior — situations where trust is already broken and the goal is accountability or resolution, not relationship-building. Not for giving developmental feedback (use feedback-coach) or building trust with new people (use rapport-builder).
Use when you need to act on a known political landscape — building coalitions, persuading specific people, or maneuvering to get a decision approved. Assumes you already know who the stakeholders are (if not, use stakeholder-discovery first to map them).
Use when building trust with people who don't yet know or trust you — new teams, new roles, hostile audiences, or strained relationships where the goal is connection before any ask. Applies Tactical Empathy through mirroring, labeling, and belonging cues. Not for confrontation (use difficult-conversations) or giving feedback (use feedback-coach).
Use as the mandatory evidence gate before signing off on any strategy, PRD, or business case—audits every key claim against documented sources and assigns calibrated probabilities.
Use when justifying investment, resource allocation, or strategic decisions with financial and logical reasoning to ensure positive ROI and alignment with long-term goals.
Use when defining target users, customers, or audience segments to ensure they are grounded in real customer jobs rather than arbitrary demographics.
Use when performing a structured teardown of a specific competitor's activity system, moat, or vulnerability profile—requires at least one named rival to analyze.
| name | difficult-conversations |
| description | Use when confronting a specific counterpart about a breach, violation, or adversarial behavior — situations where trust is already broken and the goal is accountability or resolution, not relationship-building. Not for giving developmental feedback (use feedback-coach) or building trust with new people (use rapport-builder). |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | Claude Code and compatible agent products |
| metadata | {"type":"domain","family":"dealmaker","rigor":"standard","keywords":"difficult conversations, conflict resolution, safety restoration, BATNA, negotiation traps, high-conflict, bargaining, crucial conversations","requires":"rapport-builder, feedback-coach","enhances":"negotiation-tactician, strategy-clarity, decision-frameworks","sources_pdf":"Crucial Conversations (Grenny), Thanks for the Feedback (Stone), Bargaining With the Devil (Mnookin)","sources_web":"Harvard PON difficult conversations series"} |
Difficult conversations are defined by high stakes, opposing opinions, and strong emotions. This skill provides a dual-track approach: a strategic framework for deciding whether to engage at all, and a tactical framework for restoring safety and reaching a resolution when you do.
Avoid the "Fundamental Attribution Error"—attributing bad behavior to a person's character while ignoring the context. Analyze the conflict through interests rather than positions.
When people move toward "Silence" (withdrawing) or "Violence" (attacking), it is because they don't feel safe. You must step out of the content and restore Mutual Respect and Mutual Purpose before continuing.
Others don't "make you mad." You make yourself mad based on the "story" you tell yourself about their intent. Re-humanize the counterpart by asking: "Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person act this way?"
Difficult conversations often trip Identity Triggers, making you feel off-balance. Move from an "All-or-Nothing" identity (I am either good or bad) to a "Growth Identity" (I have things to learn).
In difficult conversations, trust but verify. Ensure any agreement includes explicit Implementation and Enforcement mechanisms, especially with unreliable counterparts.
Before speaking, perform a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis:
Define what you really want for yourself, for the counterpart, and for the relationship. Refuse the Fool's Choice (the belief that you must choose between candor and kindness) (Source: Grenny).
Watch for the "S" and "V" signals:
Deliver your most controversial views using the sequence:
If they blow up or clam up, use AMPP:
Use this to fix misunderstandings:
