We are always told to look for the win-win. How can you help both sides of an argument feel like they are getting what they want? The flaw in this is when one side just doesn’t want anything that the other side would consider acceptable. When one side is fixated on a specific outcome, it’s not about working to ‘a’ solution, it’s about working towards ‘their’ solution… the one pre-set and pre-loaded as the only perceivable resolution.
I recently had to deal with a conflict that seemed like it was at a complete impasse. I heard both sides of the argument and was able to negotiate a solution that was acceptable to everyone. It worked because I suggested a much longer timeline. On one side, the person would get what they wanted, but on a slower timeline. On the other side, more work had to be done but in a much more realistic timeline. Easy enough to do, and both sides agreed. In all honesty, I didn’t think it would go as well as it did, and it wouldn’t have if both sides weren’t willing to compromise.
But sometimes one side will be a complete ‘stick in the mud’. Negotiations are halted before they even start because one side refuses to make any concessions. The term “stick to your guns” comes to mind. The thing is, that often ends up feeling like a lose-lose situation.
I’m not saying that people always need to meet in the middle. In fact the middle is seldom the best place to land. But holding a hard line to make a point, or expecting concessions with no compromise seldom leaves anyone feeling that they’ve won.
