You will be able to offer your view as one possible reading of events and then ask for the other person's view and mean it.
Get out the first column you wrote in lesson 6.1, "Separate the facts from the story you have built", and pick the two or three facts that matter most. You need them for the part of the conversation that comes once you have opened well: saying what you think. This is the part most people dread, and it tends to go wrong in one of two ways.
The first is going soft and vague, so the other person never realises there was a problem. The second is stating your conclusion as a verdict, such as "you clearly don't care about this report". A verdict is a conclusion stated as fact about the other person, and it turns the conversation into a trial. The aim sits between the two. You say what you think clearly enough that it lands, and you make it obvious that it is your view and that you want theirs.
Patterson and his co-authors offer a sequence for this called STATE: Share your facts, Tell your story, Ask for the other person's view, Talk tentatively, Encourage testing. The first two steps set the order. Facts come first because they are the least controversial part of what you have to say, and they give the other person something to agree with before anything harder arrives.
Your story comes second. It is the conclusion you have drawn from the facts, and you label it clearly as your interpretation. The label tells the other person they are hearing your reading of the facts, which they are free to correct. Phrases that do this include "I'm starting to wonder whether", "the way it looks to me is" and "I've been telling myself that".
You may choose which story to share. If your strongest story goes further than what you can see, you can soften it to one closer to what you can actually observe. You are still stating your view, and you are picking the version of it that invites an answer.
Jia Hui is responsible for getting out a regional report. Her colleague Ben's section came in after the 5th for the last three months: on the 7th, the 8th and the 6th. Twice she stayed until nine to get the report out. (These details are invented for the example.) Her strongest story, from lesson 6.1, was "he doesn't respect my time".
She softened that to something closer to what she could observe. She gave Ben the three dates and the two late nights, then said she was starting to wonder whether the report just isn't a priority for him, and that she would rather ask than keep guessing. She closed by asking how it looks from his side, adding that she might be missing something.
Ben explained that two months earlier, their manager had told him the client project came first and the regional report "has some flexibility". He took that to mean a couple of days late did not matter. He had no idea Jia Hui was absorbing the delay, because the report always went out on time.
Her first instinct was to argue that the deadline was not flexible and he should have checked. Instead she checked her understanding with a question: from where he sat, a couple of days late was fine, and he did not know she was covering it. He nodded. She realised her story had been wrong. He had never been ignoring her; he did not know she was carrying the cost. What looked like an attitude problem was a mixed message from a manager plus an arrangement in which nobody could see who was paying for the delay, and both could be fixed in an afternoon.
Patterson and colleagues stress talking tentatively. Some people misread this as permission to hedge everything until the point disappears. Being vague means the other person could agree with you and change nothing. Being tentative means you are clear about the problem and clear about what you have been thinking, and the only thing you leave open is whether your interpretation is right.
Two tests tell you which side you landed on. First, the other person should be able to repeat your point back accurately; if they could not, you were vague. Second, they should be able to disagree with your interpretation without feeling accused; if they could not, you were not tentative enough. Jia Hui's version passes both, because Ben could have repeated the dates and her worry, and he could tell her she was wrong about his priorities without being called disrespectful.
The last two STATE steps are asking for their view and encouraging them to test yours. Many people fail here by asking a question they do not want answered. Quick closers like "Does that make sense?" or "Fair?", said with no pause, are not real questions. Ask something open, such as "How do you see it?", "What am I missing?" or "Is that how it looks from your side?", and then stop talking.
The silence afterwards can feel long, even when it lasts only a few seconds. Let it be. The other person is deciding whether you really want their view, and how you handle those few seconds tells them.
Whatever comes back, use the skills from module 4 before you respond. Listen for feelings and needs, as in lesson 4.3, "Listen for feelings and needs under the words", and check your understanding with a question, as in lesson 4.2. Only after you understand their view should you return to defending yours, if you still need to.
Keep the facts-and-story section short, because the more you say, the more the other person has to defend against. Five sentences is plenty: two or three facts, one story clearly labelled, and one genuine question. Write it out first, then cut. Remove:
any sentence that explains your feelings at length a fourth fact that proves the same thing as the others a second story slipped in alongside the first
You can add detail later when they ask.
In the activity below you write that section for your own conversation. Hold it to five sentences at most, and make the last one a question you really want answered.
Write the facts and story part of your conversation in five sentences or fewer. End with a question you actually want answered.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).