From certainty to curiosity in difficult conversations

I grew up in Lecco, a small town on Lake Como, and I was raised mostly by my grandparents in the 1980s. My Grandpa used to have a nap each Sunday afternoon, and when nap time was coming, he would warn me, "Be silent! Remember, women who talk too much are stupid" - so for a long time I lived believing that a) as a woman, I should remain silent unless what I had to say was exceptionally smart, b) I should prove to others that I am smart at all times, and c) if in doubt, I should avoid any sort of confrontation, just in case.

Fast forward a few years later, it turned out that managing difficult conversations, often conflictual, was part of my daily job, so I had to do a little bit of work to overcome those beliefs gathered during my otherwise happy childhood. Among other things, studying psychology and cognitive science at UCL presented me with the opportunity to look into naïve realism and how this might affect managing difficult conversations, so it seemed like a perfect situation to add to my ongoing reflection on my conflict management skills.

I did not know that naïve realism is a mental process that leads us to believe that our perception of reality is objective and fundamentally true for everybody else. This vision of the world leads us to assume that if another person is observing the same phenomenon we are observing, this person's perception naturally aligns with ours. If this doesn't happen, we conclude that it is probably because of the other person's poor reasoning and personal biases that distort their reality. Research suggests that we are born like this: apparently, this self centred view of the world is linked to the activity of the medial prefrontal cortex in our brain, which naturally prompts us to self-reflect even when our brain is free from stimuli.

So in short, two different people might have completely competing views of the same reality; this sometimes remains true even after these two people are presented with facts or evidence that prove that the observed phenomenon is not as they are describing it.

Consider a scenario familiar to many: preparing for a discussion about a project that has deviated from its course. The natural tendency is to approach such conversations armed with evidence, data, timelines, documentation, and carefully constructed arguments. This approach, while seemingly logical, doesn't take into account how naïve realism leads us to evaluate the same thing as a completely different reality. With this in mind, it is easy to understand how sometimes misalignment or apparent conflict often masks perception gaps, and what appears as resistance to feedback might actually signal misaligned understanding of priorities or context.

This perspective influences how we might approach challenging conversations. Instead of focusing on constructing arguments, we might invest in understanding the cognitive frameworks shaping different viewpoints. When someone appears to lack understanding, for instance, they might be operating under a completely different set of perceived constraints or priorities.

Awareness of the role of cognitive biases in these interactions provides some insight into why such conversations can be challenging. Our natural tendency towards confirmation bias means we often seek information that supports our existing views while overlooking contradictory evidence. When we approach difficult conversations with an awareness of these cognitive patterns, we can design more effective dialogue strategies. Instead of preparing to present our case, we might prepare to explore divergent perspectives. What emerges from this approach is a more nuanced understanding of managing difficult conversations. We often assume a shared reality between people, however, cognitive science suggests that such alignment should not be taken for granted, it must be deliberately constructed through careful dialogue and mutual exploration.

This understanding has practical applications in how we structure one-to-one conversations, where positive coaching is an important tool to foster mutual understanding. Rather than following a linear path from problem identification to solution, we might adopt a more exploratory approach. This could involve explicitly acknowledging the possibility of different perspectives early in the conversation and creating space for an open dialogue. The role of empathy in these interactions deserves particular attention. True empathy isn't about emotional resonance alone; it's about recognising and working with the reality that each person's perspective is shaped by their unique cognitive framework and experiences.

Perhaps it's a good idea to keep this in mind, especially in a moment where many organisations are going through challenging macroeconomic circumstances. For many of these organisations, this means navigating complex changes or transitions that can result in increased uncertainty, when the tendency to operate from divergent realities often intensifies. Leaders who understand this dynamic are better equipped to guide their teams through such periods.

This reflection on naïve realism doesn't make difficult conversations easy, but it can serve as a reminder: by acknowledging the role of cognitive biases and different perceptual frameworks, we can create more effective dialogue that leads to genuine understanding and ultimately better conflict resolution.

Pronin, E. (2008). How we see ourselves and how we see others. Science, 320(5880), 1177–1180. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154199

Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1995). Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 255–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60407-4

Parts of this manuscript were drafted with the assistance of AI language models (specifically, Claude 3.7, ChatGPT 4.0, Google Gemini 2.0). The author used AI as a tool to enhance clarity and organisation of ideas, generate initial drafts of certain sections, and assist with language refinement. All AI-generated content was reviewed, edited, and verified by the author. The author takes full responsibility for the content, arguments, analyses, and conclusions presented. This disclosure is made in the interest of transparency regarding emerging research practices.