The opposite of disagreement is not agreement. It is the consensus. If we only look for a possible intersection (probably out of more than one), we will not certainly find the ideal one.
As part of my development journey as a manager, once I participated in a training where we learnt about negotiation and conflict handling. One of the tasks was to play situations in pairs where the participants drew the aspects they needed to take into consideration and fight for.
My task was to get all the oranges, because my company produced orange juice for which we needed the fruit pulp. Not surprisingly the other participant also needed all of it for their purpose. It was an artificial debate, yet we were so creative in finding arguments and making up offers to each other. We got so intense and enthusiastic, we really wanted to get that orange. After a few minutes, time was up and we did not have a resolution. Then we analysed the situation and we tried to figure out what could have been done better. The trainer asked us to reveal exactly what we had needed. It turned out that I had been going for the pulp and the other had been going for the peel of the fruit.
We were so obsessed with our goal that we were not open to other aspects and we did not try to understand what everyone’s interest was. We asked no questions from each other, we shared no information about our purpose, because we felt that we could be giving away some sensitive information the other could exploit against us. At the end, it turned out that we could have worked together for a mutually beneficial solution.
During conflicts, you can often see that one complains that the other cannot make a compromise. It's usually meant that the other person is not cooperative, supportive, they have no empathy or they are not interested in finding a solution. But it's the misinterpretation of compromise.
Let's have a look at the conflict resolution model. In a conflict, anyone wins if the solution serves their needs, and anyone loses if the solution is against their needs. Your needs can be met fully or partially. The goal is to meet as many of your needs as possible, preferably all of them, because that’s how you can maximise your benefit. The other party aims for the same.
In many cases, people have emotional reactions to a conflict. This happens when someone flies away, or the parties start fighting, or someone starts the debate, but later gives it up. Either both of you lose since the problem is not solved at all, or you don't achieve the best solution since one's aspects are not taken into consideration. You definitely want to avoid the emotional way of handling conflicts.
Moving further in the decision tree, you get to the rational section, but you might not have the best solution either.
You might start to discuss the issue, but if everyone evades responsibility, again, the problem is not solved at all, you get a lose-lose situation. When responsibilities are clear and the discussion makes sense, all relevant aspects are covered and everyone is driven to find a common way out, that's the first phase that deals with the problem meaningfully.
And that's where we get to compromise. In this situation, one or all of the parties bate to some extent: they de-prioritise some of their needs, they give in in terms of others. You're being cooperative, but you don't get the best result.
Consensus is the best you can get at the end. It means that all needs, interests are handled the same way and all parties are working on a mutually beneficial solution. No aspect is less important than the other, all stakeholders get what they aim at.
Many people avoid conflicts, because we all want to be connected to others and we do not want to be isolated, we look for safety and acceptance.
Also they feel they can fail in so many cases. People feel stressed, because the stakes are high and they have limited resources to satisfy their needs.
You can see that many kinds of conflict resolution end up with a certain loss. A loss that can easily be yours.
There are three main approaches when it comes to conflicts.
Assertivity is the key for maximising the benefits of all. Yet, it suggests that we know ourselves, we are fully aware of our needs and we can actively listen to understand the other party. It is pretty much about being an adult in hard situations.
Transactional Analysis (TA) is a psychoanalytic theory and method of therapy developed by Eric Berne during the 1950s. Transactions refer to the communication exchanges between people.
There are three ego states:
As a professional in your company life, you want to and need to be in the adult ego state and you might make some efforts to get the other party to their adult ego state as well. That’s how you can reveal all the mutually beneficial information, situations and solutions.
When your boss is demanding and is giving you direct orders no matter what, they are behaving as controlling parents, so you might try to get them to the here and now, and offer them something rational they might need. Like, I understand your point of view, and to make the most out of it, we might consider doing this or that to boost our performance. Apply to their rational self.
When your employees are defiant or they expect you to solve their problems, they are behaving as free children. To involve them in the resolution, you need to get them to their adult ego state. You can acknowledge their emotions and then ask them to create ideas that can be realised within their power. It helps them start thinking instead of reacting from their feelings.
On one hand, try to understand the other party as much as you can, try to explore their interests. Ask questions about their context and ask about their why to try to reveal what they might be striving for. There can be several reasons behind what others do or want. Knowing the current action can hide the real journey and the real goal.
On the other hand, cautiously share your context and your goal, but don't be trailing your coat. If the other party is receptive to your aspects and is sharing theirs, you might be on the right track.
In game theory, you can be competitive or cooperative. When you get in touch with someone, first always be cooperative to test if you can work together or not. Then copy the approach of the other party, so when they are cooperative, stay cooperative to maximise your common benefit. But when they are competitive and you stay cooperative, you will be utilised, exploited or even tricked. It does not mean you also have to trick the other party. Simply saying no to further cooperation is also a competitive act.
During our training, we could have openly shared the reason why we wanted the orange. In this way, we could have realised that we are not against each other, but we can cooperate to mutually maximise the benefit.
Be open for fruitful discussions. If the ideal solution is possible, do not settle for less.
