Here's how you can assert yourself diplomatically in a partnership setting.

I've learned that understanding your values, goals, and boundaries is crucial for assertive communication. Self-awareness helps you articulate your stance clearly, making it easier to communicate confidently and establish respect and credibility within the partnership.

Knowing your values should also rest alongside your partners' values. Knowing what you share is essential, for that should be the gateway, the beginning of any conversation that may lead to conflict or disagreement. Start with where you both share before getting to what you don't. Starting with agreement has the advantage of creating an empathic bond between you two and also keeping both of you open to dialogue, particularly about what you don't agree with because you start from a place of commonality. Starting with a disagreement immediately shuts down any openness to dialogue, instead readying you for battle, not compromise.

Can't emphasize this enough - listening to understand instead of to respond is one of the easiest ways to assert yourself diplomatically. You can still say "no" or decide to part ways in a mutually respectful dialogue if you actively listen. Pretend you're your childhood self - brimming with curiosity and asking all the questions. That attitude will take you very far in partnerships

Active Listening is a powerful set of CONSCIOUS behaviors to actively include and actively exclude from important moments with anyone whose engagement you wish to keep high in a conversation. I try to think of it as a list of DOs and DONTs: DO: - concentrate on listening (make this a conscious, thoughtful act) - use affirming non-verbal cues (head nods, smiles, etc.) - face the speaker, look in their eyes (as possible) - summarize or repeat key ideas or statements to confirm understanding DON’T: - Be judgmental - multitask - appear distracted or disengaged - interrupt - begin planning before they are finished speaking - solution and listen to respond

An extension of the shift from “you” to “I” is the idea that you do not know what they are thinking or feeling, but you do know what you are thinking and feeling. Thus the guiding principle here is “support your comments with more data and less generalizations or assertions that may feel correct, but which are unprovable. For example, avoid saying “you always make comments like this”; this is a straw man with no data for back up, and leaves no room for discussion. A better frame in this case would be “recently, you have had the tendency to make some unprovoked accusations in our 1:1s. You did it in the last two that I can recall…” (specific date and time without superlatives or judgements) with “and this really makes me feel defensive”

With this in mind, also be watchful for switch-tracking. This is when a partner will be addressed with constructive or even negative feedback, but rather than absorb the feedback, they Focus on a stray word or the tone or the volume of the reproach and turn the conversation into a repudiation of your attack. They might be scolded for missing a deadline but will instead respond by “why are you yelling? There’s never a reason to raise your voice. I thought we talked about this.” This sudden and sometimes subtle form of gaslighting finds its ways into conversations at many levels and should be not be entertained immediately. “Ok, I see that you aren’t in a place to hear me today. Let’s pick this up again when you’ve had a chance to think…”

Often in negotiation, when there is some conflict, it is easy to see solution as a pie, from which solutions offer you some , all or none of that pie and the remainder to the other. Yet Ralph Kilmann offers collaboration as an alternative to compromise or competition. While bringing solutions BEFORE the dialogue is useful for reasons mentioned, you must be willing to RETHINK your and their needs when in dialogue to determine if there are solutions not yet considered because now considering your needs together as confluent forces rather than competing ones would demanding a larger pie as a result, rather than simply sharing the one originally considered. So collaboration is offered as a dialectical approach to better outcomes.

Remember the shared vision. Viewpoints can differ in terms of how best to reach shared goals — that’s actually healthy, as it leaves room for the best ideas to surface. When there are conflicts, ask your partner to confirm their understanding of the goals you have collectively in-mind. If there’s alignment, ask how they think their approach speaks to those goals (without assuming your ideas are best.). But, also, state how you think your approach accomplishes the same or better outcome. Make your case. It doesn’t have to be an either/or scenario. There may well be room to experiment with the ideas of both partners involved. In partnerships, it’s OK to lose the argument, as long as there’s a commitment to mutually beneficial outcomes.