Written by Sue Dyer, Founder, IPI
When a crane operator spots a potential safety issue or an engineer questions a design detail, we stop everything until we get answers. Yet when it comes to the human side of construction, those heated discussions about schedule delays, cost overruns, or design changes, we often charge ahead without the same careful preparation.
Jeff Wetzler, in his recent Harvard Business Review article "The Right Way to Prepare for a High-Stakes Conversation," argues that business leaders too often enter critical conversations "armed with rehearsed arguments and rebuttals" while missing breakthrough insights that could transform conflicts into collaborative solutions. For construction leaders operating in the partnering environment, this insight couldn't be more relevant.
The Hidden Cost of Certainty in Construction
Picture this: Your electrical subcontractor is three months behind schedule, and you're convinced they're just making excuses. You've prepared your talking points about liquidated damages and calling their bond company. Or consider when the owner rejects your change order for unforeseen site conditions, you're certain they're being unreasonable and you're ready to defend every line item.
Sound familiar? This is what Wetzler calls operating in the "Zones of Certainty," where confirmation bias kicks in. We seek information that confirms what we already believe while filtering out anything that might challenge our assumptions. This mindset kills the collaborative spirit that makes projects successful. On construction projects, our interests are interdependent, and this makes this approach a lose/lose every time.
The Construction Curiosity Check
Wetzler's solution is surprisingly simple: a five-minute "Curiosity Check" before any high-stakes conversation. Here's how it works for construction scenarios:
Step 1: Check in on Your Mindset - Ask yourself honestly: "If I encounter pushback in this conversation, will I jump to 'they're just covering their mistakes' or am I genuinely open to learning something new?" Most of us, when we're honest, start in what Wetzler calls "Confident Dismissal" or "Skeptical Tolerance."
Step 2: Set a Curiosity Intention - Commit to moving one or two steps toward genuine openness. If you're starting from "They're clearly trying to hide something," aim for "Maybe there's something I don't know about their situation."
Step 3: Spark Your Own Curiosity - Before entering that difficult conversation, consider these targeted questions:
- What site conditions or technical challenges might they be facing that I'm unaware of?
- What legitimate concerns about safety, quality, or schedule might be driving their position?
- How might my previous decisions or communications be impacting their ability to perform?
- What expertise or insights might they have about this issue that I haven't considered?
- What collaborative solutions might emerge if we focus on the project's success rather than assigning blame?
Real-World Results
Consider Sarah, a project manager preparing to terminate a "underperforming" mechanical contractor. Using the Curiosity Check, she shifted from "They're clearly not managing their crew properly" to asking, "What might they be struggling with that I don't see?"
The conversation revealed that the mechanical contractor had been dealing with critical equipment failures from a key supplier, information that hadn't made it up the chain. Instead of termination, they developed a joint action plan with alternative suppliers and adjusted sequencing. The project finished on time, and the partnership grew stronger.
The Competitive Advantage of Curiosity
In an industry where relationships often span decades and reputations matter enormously, curiosity isn't just nice to have, it's a competitive advantage. As Wetzler notes, "In a world where information is abundant but insight remains scarce, curiosity may be the ultimate competitive advantage."
The next time you're heading into a difficult conversation about a delay, dispute, or design issue, take five minutes for your own mental preflight check. The question isn't whether you'll face disagreement, it's whether you'll be mentally prepared to transform that disagreement into collaborative problem-solving that strengthens your project and partnerships.
Based on concepts from Jeff Wetzler's "The Right Way to Prepare for a High-Stakes Conversation," Harvard Business Review, July 2, 2025.