You will be able to share your view as a view rather than a verdict and invite the other side genuinely.
Once you have opened well, you reach the part most people dread: saying what you actually think. There are two common ways to get it wrong. Some people go soft and vague, so the other person leaves without realising there was a problem. Others state their conclusion as a verdict, "you clearly don't care about this report", and the conversation turns into a trial.
This lesson sits between those two. You say what you think clearly enough that it lands, while making it obvious that it is your view and you want theirs.
Patterson and his co-authors offer a sequence for this part, which they sum up as STATE: share your facts, tell your story, ask for the other person's view, talk tentatively, and encourage testing. The first two steps set the order.
Start with the facts from your first column in lesson 6.1, Separate the facts from the story you have built. They are the least controversial part of what you have to say, and they give the other person something they can agree with before anything harder arrives.
Then share your story, the conclusion you have drawn, and label it clearly as your interpretation. The label matters. Phrases such as "I'm starting to wonder whether", "the way it looks to me is", or "I've been telling myself that" all tell the other person they are hearing your reading of the facts, which they are free to correct.
Jia Hui's version: "Your section's come in after the 5th for the last three months, on the 7th, the 8th and the 6th. Twice I've stayed until nine to get the report out. I'm starting to wonder whether the report just isn't a priority for you, and I'd rather ask than keep guessing."
Notice which story she chose to share. Her strongest one, from lesson 6.1, was "he doesn't respect my time". She softened it to something closer to what she could actually observe. That is not hiding her view. It is choosing the version that invites an answer.
Patterson and colleagues stress talking tentatively, which some people take as permission to hedge everything until the point disappears. That is a misreading.
Vague sounds like: "I just feel like maybe sometimes things could be a bit smoother with the report, you know?" Ben could agree with that and change nothing.
Tentative sounds like: "I'm starting to wonder whether the report isn't a priority for you." It is clear about the problem and clear about what Jia Hui has been thinking. The only thing it leaves open is whether her interpretation is right.
A useful test: could the other person repeat your point back accurately? If not, you were vague. Could they disagree with your interpretation without feeling accused? If not, you were not tentative enough.
The last two steps of STATE are asking for the other person's view and encouraging them to test yours. This is where many people fall down, because they ask a question they do not want answered. "Does that make sense?" or "Fair?" said quickly, with no pause, is not really a question.
Ask something open, and leave space for the answer. "How do you see it?" "What am I missing?" "Is that how it looks from your side?" Then stop talking.
The silence that follows can feel long. Let it be. The other person is deciding whether you really want to hear their view, and the way you handle those few seconds tells them.
Jia Hui ended with: "How does it look from your side? I might be missing something."
Whatever comes back, use module 4 before you respond. Listen for the feelings and needs, as in lesson 4.3, Listen for feelings and needs under the words. Check your understanding with a question, as in lesson 4.2. Only after you understand their view should you go back to defending yours, if you still need to.
Ben's answer surprised her. Their manager had told him, two months earlier, that the client project came first and that the regional report "has some flexibility". He had taken that to mean a couple of days did not matter. He had no idea Jia Hui was the one absorbing the delay, because the report always went out on time.
Jia Hui's first instinct was to argue: the deadline was not flexible, and he should have checked. Instead she asked: "So from where you sat, a couple of days late was fine, and you didn't know I was covering it?" He nodded. Her story had been wrong. He had never been ignoring her, because he had no idea she was carrying the cost.
That changed the conversation entirely. What had looked like a problem with Ben's attitude turned out to be a mixed message from their manager, plus an arrangement in which nobody could see who was paying for the delay, and both of those could be fixed in an afternoon.
The facts-and-story section should be 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. If a sentence explains your feelings at length, adds a fourth fact that proves the same thing, or slips in a second story, take it out. You can always add detail 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 out the facts and story section of your conversation in no more than five sentences, ending with a genuine question.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).