Approaching Client Conflicts With Empathy

On #WorkingWithClients | I employ something called a 3 to 1 ratio when working with clients. When a client asks me a question, I have to ask three clarifying questions before I give one response. This does three things: 1.) It slows my processor down. My initial inclination is to solve the client's problem. And boy, does my mind race with all types of plausible solutions. Utilizing the 3 to 1 method helps me self-regulate my excited emotional state while not triggering that of the clients. 2.) Over the years, I've learned that hearing the client and listening to the client are separate activities. When I hear my clients, my biases and interpretations of what they say usually get in the way of my judgment. When I listen to the client, I navigate an empathetic process to deliver a compassionate solution. 3.) Lastly, compassion can only happen when I genuinely understand and feel the spirit of my client's needs. I can only do this effectively by asking follow-up questions that allow us to get closer to the truth about my client's situation. Remember, story truth and factual truth can be the same to the client because they are speaking to the emotion of their experience. I aim to work from story truth to factual truth and back to story truth again. Where does this come from? When I worked at LaGrange College (circa 2008/2009), our college President, Dan McAlexander, gave a presentation on engaging dissonance. He used the metaphor of peeling the onion to identify friction points in the workplace—we could only understand and solve a problem by understanding it two to three levels beneath the surface. Given my role working with families and students, it made sense to treat them in the same manner. I haven't looked back since and have encouraged thousands of young financial professionals to do the same. Cheers! Dr. Thomas

Navigating difficult conversations…we know the terrain well in supply chain and sustainability —complex stakeholder relationships, competing priorities, and tough tradeoffs that demand honest dialogue. The first quarter of 2025 has been challenging for some clients and colleagues. Behind every successful initiative lies countless challenging conversations.I wanted to share this list that captures what I've learned (often the hard way) about handling challenging discussions: 1. Lead with empathy - acknowledge feelings before diving into issues 2. Stay calm - pause and breathe when tensions rise. Cooler heads prevail. 3. Prepare but remain flexible - rigid scripts rarely survive contact with reality 4. Ask genuine questions - "help me understand your perspective" 5. Give authentic appreciation - recognize effort before suggesting changes 6. Own your emotions - acknowledge feelings without manipulation 7. Respect others' viewpoints - validation doesn't require agreement. You can disagree and still find a happy path. 8. Be specific - vague criticisms like "you always" rarely help 9. Collaborate on solutions - problem-dumping without brainstorming fixes nothing 10. Set clear boundaries - know what you can and cannot commit to 11. Listen actively - not just waiting for your turn to speak. Read this again… 12. Apologize sincerely when needed - take responsibility, not half-measures. Accountability helps build trust. 13. End with concrete next steps - clarity prevents misunderstandings. Playing back throughout tough conversations with key points and actions shows active listening and understanding. 14. Reflect afterward - what worked? what could improve? In my experience leading global teams, the conversations I've handled poorly weren't failures of strategy—they were failures of approach and understanding context. For example, a recent negotiation with a supplier facing severe capacity constraints could have deteriorated into finger-pointing. Instead, by focusing on understanding their challenges first (point #4) and collaborating on creative solutions (point #9), we found a path forward and workable compromise. Staying calm helped too ;) What's your experience? Which of these principles has been most valuable in your leadership journey? Or is there a 15th point you'd add to this list? ___________ 👍🏽 Like this? ♻️ Repost to help someone ✅ Follow me Sheri R. Hinish 🔔 Click my name → Hit the bell → See my posts. #SupplyChain #leadership #sustainability

I would like to describe a simple method I’ve used to resolve the extreme polarization that can occur in high-intensity conflicts, where people have deeply stereotyped misperceptions of the other that remain frozen in time—and thus inaccessible. This simple method can also raise the empathy of both parties…to spend some time in the shoes of the other… as long as each party has some measure of emotional intelligence and mental health outside that polarized situation. I ask each party to make three lists: (1) This is how I perceive the other party (their needs, motives, biases, goals, concerns, prejudices, blindsides, etc.,, or whatever seems to be relevant to the conflict situation). (2) This is how I perceive myself (my needs, motives, biases, etc.). (3) This is how I think the other party sees me (my best guess of their view of my needs, motives, and so forth). Ideally, these three lists are written on easel pad paper, so they can later be posted on the wall of the room, very visible and readable for all to see. Naturally, it’s important to remind each party to be especially candid and to be as specific as possible in compiling their three lists, not evasive or general. They should also write very legibly. When the three lists are complete, they’re posted on one wall in the room. Each party then takes turns presenting its list to the other. Then there is a brief period of “clarifying questions” (no debate) to make sure that what is written on the lists is understood by all. This part needs to be facilitated, so the “clarifying” questions are asked to understand what is written on paper (regardless if one agrees or disagrees with what had been put into words), but certainly not to attack its meaning or validity. The “fun” begins (yes, laughter finally seeps into the conflict situation) and the “learning” begins (a few “aha” moments are usually experienced) when each party is then asked to compare (1) how each sees itself versus how the other sees it and (2) how each party sees the other versus how the other party sees itself.

Had an interesting conversation last week with a founder who was ready to walk away from a client a few months ago. The issue? A massive misunderstanding on project scope that spiraled into a heated argument. Instead of calling it quits, he did something simple but worked- He called the client and started with, “I think we’re misaligned. Help me understand where things went off track.” No defensiveness. No excuses. Just a question. It defused the tension immediately. They laid out all the frustrations, and he just listened. Next question - “What does success look like from here?” That one shifted the conversation from blame to solution. They ended up not only saving the relationship but also closing a bigger deal with them the following month. It made me realize this: Most client conflicts aren’t about the actual problem. They’re about feeling unheard and misunderstood.. Similar to personal relationships outside of work. I’ve seen this happen and workout by doing the following- Acknowledge the frustration. Even if you disagree. Ask what success looks like. It shifts the focus from the past to the future. Make a commitment—and follow through. Even if it’s just a small step, action rebuilds trust. Conflicts are going to happen. But if you lean into them with curiosity instead of combativeness, you’ll not only solve the issue but also strengthen the relationship. What do you do when you're lost in the woods ? Start with one step.

Here’s a simple tool that’s changed my life and the lives of many of my clients: It’s called Non Violent Communication (NVC) NVC is a way of resolving conflict with mutually satisfying solutions. It’s great for business leaders since hard conversations are par for the course. But it’s also great for personal relationships as well. Here’s the simple 3-step strategy to NVC: 1 - The Fact Begin with an indisputable observation. For example: “When you said you didn’t want to go on a trip with me…” You want to describe the situation in a purely objective way that no one can argue with. 2 - Your Feelings Next, share how you felt. “When ___ happened, I felt ___.” This invites your conversation partner into a dialogue about how the situation impacted you. It demonstrates that you’re opening up, being vulnerable, and not arguing for the sake of ‘winning’. 3 - The Request: Conclude with a request that would resolve your unmet need. “My request is that you are on time for our meetings going forward.” Framing this as a request and not a demand makes the conversation a cooperative one. That’s it! It’s an incredibly simple foundation that takes a lot of time and effort to master, especially in the heat of an argument. Give it a shot — practice makes perfect.