5

Co-create the solution

5.1 The solution doesn’t exist with any one person

If you want the other person to own the solution, they must have a share in it.

Tell them to mow the lawn now and they may just point-blank refuse. But get them involved in finding a solution and they might tell you they have other commitments right now but they are free to do it later on. Great, you have your outcome.

This works at home and it works in business too. For example, in recent years marketing has moved in the direction of co-creation because the greater involvement of the consumer in the development of the brand builds much greater brand loyalty as well as being able to leverage better customer insight.

And in a parallel context, the NHS specifically encourage patient involvement in decisions about their health and care because evidence shows they will then:

• ■report greater satisfaction with the services they receive
• ■experience less regret about the decisions they have been supported to make and are more likely to say that the decisions made were most appropriate for them
• ■make fewer complaints than those who were not involved in decisions.1

So, get the other person involved in coming up with the solution.

Reframe it as a collaborative, problem-solving process

In negotiation, to get a sustainable outcome, we have to change our approach from the old-school arm-wrestle, where the strongest person wins, and reframe it as a collaborative problem-solving process, where the problem is:

• ■you have an outcome in mind; they have an outcome in mind
• ■you have real constraints; they have real constraints
• ■you have resources you can bring to the table; they have resources they can bring to the table.

Put all of these out in the open and then work together to solve that equation so that all parties get their outcomes, given the constraints but given the resources too. In other words, work together to create a solution that meets everyone’s needs and then you can trust that the solution will be implemented.

A political discussion is just the same: it’s still about identifying the real problem to be solved, the desired outcomes, the constraints and the resources and then deciding on the best solution.

Again, you won’t get the best solution until those parts of the equation are accurately identified. Most such conversations make little progress because everyone is arguing at cross-purposes. Much better to find something you can agree on and work back from there.

Politically opposed Friend 1: At least we can agree that we both want to make the world a better place.

Politically opposed Friend 2: Yes. And the best way to do that is to boost the economy.

Politically opposed Friend 1: Sure, as long as we do it in a fair and sustainable manner.

Politically opposed Friend 2: Fair enough. Which means. . . 

Of course, it might shift your position – but wouldn’t that be great? It means you’ve just learned something new.

Going first again

Now, as we have already seen, this relies on you going first in all the kinds of behaviours you want them to do like listening properly and being open to change their mind.

It is the same with sharing information. There is a prevailing myth, in negotiation at least, that you should not share information because they will use it against you. In reality, however, the more information is shared, the better the solution reached.

Of course, you, being a highly intelligent and knowledgeable reader, will know the value of sharing but your counterparty might be more married to the myth. So, again, you need to show them the example. You can’t blame them for being deceptive or holding back information if you are doing the same.

Collaboration is an investment

And if we do work in this collaborative problem-solving manner, not only do we resolve the situation at hand but we also set up a better working relationship for the future.

In 1978, President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Begin of Israel signed the historic Camp David Accords and, in doing so, found a way of working together. A year later they signed a peace treaty that brought an end to 31 years of war. The Sinai was de-militarised, diplomatic relations were established, boycotts lifted and trade resumed. Two deadly enemies became allies: an alliance that has lasted to this day.

Maybe your deadly enemy could become your ally?

Leave their identity alone!

Nothing will close down collaboration quicker than threatening their sense of identity. And yet trying to change their mind can do exactly that.

William Zartman, the great negotiations academic, Professor Emeritus at Johns Hopkins University and Chairman of the International Peace and Security Institute, says we should never try to negotiate a belief system: we should negotiate within the belief system.2

Trying to change their belief system, their world view, their identity or their style will take forever, if not longer; save your energy and work with what they give you.

If you are a Democrat talking to a Republican or vice versa, or you are an anti-vaxxer talking to a vaxxer, you aren’t just changing their opinion; their opinion is based on their life situation, their friends and family around them, their life history, their very sense of self. Good luck with changing that!

And if they feel their sense of self is endangered, they will go into tribal mode, into ‘us vs them’. It has now become personal and it’s very bad news if you’re trying to change their mind.

So their sense of self shouldn’t be threatened.

My sister told me a story of how she got her work colleagues to finish a long Monday morning whinge-fest by joining in and then saying, ‘Wow, we’re being really negative here, aren’t we? Let’s be a bit more positive’.

If she’d told them to stop being negative, as I’m sure she was tempted, it would have put an ‘us vs them’ barrier up and would have got nowhere.

And in the historic Oslo Accords, one way that the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were able to build a connection was by joining together in joking about their Norwegian hosts. Clearly you need to be careful with this and it’s important to point out that the Norwegians themselves encouraged it, but it enabled them to reduce the differences in their identity and increase the commonalities.

‘I don’t like that man; I must get to know him better’

As this quote from Abraham Lincoln expresses, our resistance to collaboration or plain dislike often comes from not knowing the other person. Get to know them and ‘actually, they’re not so bad after all’.

This is never more evident than in silo-based organisations. Any comment of ‘Oh, the x team are useless’ (where x = IT, sales, finance, legal, support, HR, compliance, back office, front office, Head Office, Paris office or any team that isn’t the team of the person making the comment) is symptomatic of such an organisation.

Nearly always these issues disappear instantly if the teams have a chance to actually meet and talk to each other. Whether that involves a social event or flying the Indian team over to meet the Head Office or simply putting photos and bios on the intranet, it will all help towards breaking down the barriers and improving the collaboration.

Build the alliance on-site

If you want to persuade, nothing beats you and the other person having direct experience together of the situation you want changing. This way you build the alliance in the face of the real-world challenge.

In the book, Influencer: The New Science of Leading Change,3 the authors describe how Mike Wildfong, a manager at an engineering firm, wanted his team to implement work safety measures more stringently.

So he took them on a volunteer day to help out an ex-colleague who had been injured on the job and was now surviving on disability cheques.

They spent the day fixing things around the home for him and it was a successful initiative all-round: helpful for the ex-colleague, a bonding day for the team but, perhaps most importantly, attitudes to workplace safety transformed from then on.

5.2 Planning the process

There is no magic wand when it comes to changing someone’s mind, but if you want to maximise your chances of success, you would do well to plan the process and, best, plan it together.

In complex peace negotiations this is essential. Before the talks start, there will be talks about the talks and in especially sensitive situations there are even secret talks about the talks about the talks. This leaves as little to chance as possible. One commentator on the Colombian peace negotiations said, ‘We can see the light at the end of the tunnel. The problem is we don’t have a tunnel’. It’s the talks about the talks about the talks that can build that tunnel.

It could be you need a pre-meeting meeting with the person whose mind you want to change, to discuss how things might progress. Alternatively, it could be you just do this with your own team to make sure everyone is on board. A friend of mine who worked for a large engineering firm told me of a meeting he attended with a prospective business partner in which a very junior team member confided, ‘We’re so glad you’re talking to us – no one else is interested and we’re quite desperate’. Admirably honest, perhaps, but probably didn’t help their cause. This is the kind of trouble that can be avoided with a pre-meeting meeting.

You may also want to pre-seed ideas so they don’t come as a surprise. People rarely change their opinion on first exposure to an idea but, if given the chance to ponder it beforehand, they are more likely to agree; more likely, even, to claim it as their own – a result you should cheer.

I once coached two people who were jointly applying for a chief executive role, as a job-share, at a well-known public organisation. They had some great ideas about how to bring this traditional organisation into the 21st century but when I asked how the chairman, the key decision-maker, would view these ideas, they frowned. Apparently, he had an extremely conservative outlook on such things. So the majority of the coaching was spent determining how they could get these ideas to him before any interview so he would already be well persuaded of their value. They were able to identify several people they knew: people who would be willing to champion their ideas, who had upcoming meetings with the chairman and seeding the ideas through them became the basis of their strategy.

Have a meta-conversation

And as with the solution, so with the process: you will get better results if you involve the other person in defining the process. This is known as a meta-conversation: where the conversation is about the conversation itself – how it will proceed, what will be covered, what you will do if there is disagreement or if it gets heated and so on.

If you agree this collaborative process with the other person upfront, everyone is much more likely to stick to it and you can refer to it as you go through it to make sure everyone stays on track.

Gary Noesner said he would always agree with the hostage-taker how the situation would end in as much detail as he could. ‘The cars will be parked here. I’ll give you the signal then you will release the first two hostages. . . ’ always checking in, ‘Is this ok with you? Is there anything you want to change?’

If he did this, talking them through the process beforehand, he would find there was actually rarely anything they wanted to change and, when it came to it, they would follow the process as agreed and it would end smoothly.

The meta-comment, breaking the fourth wall of the conversation, is a useful device during the process, too, if things ever do go off track.

Smooth them through the process

There is something hypnotic about talking people through a process. Airline pilots use this effect: ‘We’re going to be flying at 32,000 feet, we will arrive in Miami in 3 hours’ time, shortly after 5 pm and the temperature will be a very pleasant 26 degrees Celsius’.

Why do this? Are they expecting someone to say, ‘I’d rather fly at 31,000 feet’? Passengers have no need to know this information, but many do have a need to feel they are in safe hands. A calm pilot with a late-night radio voice talking smoothly through what is going to happen next, telling them the future no less, helps relax any nerves.

Salespeople use this to their advantage, too, before closing a deal. ‘So, the next steps would be for us to come around and measure up; we can give you a more accurate quote then. You’d make your final choice on the colour scheme then we would order the stock. It will take about two weeks to arrive. Our contractors would be on site for about a week to fit it. I would suggest letting it dry off and settle in for a couple of days, then after that it is yours to drive away. How does that sound to you?’

Personally, I have no idea what this salesperson is selling but I can answer their question: ‘Yes, it sounds good to me!’. Their confidence in how the future is going to unfold exudes authority and experience and I feel comfortable with it and I’d buy three.

How to persuade someone to jump from a very high crane

Many years ago, this process was so persuasive it made me do my first ever bungee jump. I am not ashamed to admit I was petrified. I was in a cage attached to a crane and, as the cage rose, the jumpmaster talked me through what was going to happen. ‘Ok, so when we reach the top, I’m going to open this gate, you’re going to put your right hand here, you’ll put your left hand here, then you’re going to shout “1-2-3 bungee!” and you’ll jump.’

In my head, I thought ‘Oh no I won’t, I’m actually going to ask you to take me straight down again’. But a strange thing happened.

He timed his speech perfectly so it finished exactly as we reached the top and he continued his instructions without pause. ‘Ok, I’ve opened the gate so now put your right hand here’, which I did, ‘and put your left hand here’, which I did, ‘now shout “1-2-3 bungee!” and jump’, which I did! I also shouted other words straight after, words I won’t repeat here, but I completely surprised myself by the fact I followed his suggestion.

It was the quickest way down, anyway.

Lead them through the process

So, as with the jumpmaster, awareness and control of the process doesn’t stop with the planning: it’s important all the way through.

Start by vocalising the intention of the meeting (‘We’re here to agree on/to talk about/to find a solution to. . . ’). If that is clear and agreed, and repeated whenever the conversation gets tricky, the chances are you will get your outcome.

Then manage the conversation through each stage: ‘Ok, I think we’re agreed on x, shall we move on to y?’, always checking it’s ok with the other party. This keeps everyone in the collaborative frame of mind plus their involvement will mean they will be less likely to dispute it later on as they have an equal ownership of the solution.

Typically, the person who informally chairs the process in this way will be the most influential person in the meeting and so is more likely to get their outcome.

Boost your influence bank account

And doing all of this builds the credit you have in your psychological influence bank account. According to this model, you earn credit every time you:

• ■say something that makes sense
• ■show your understanding of the other person’s concerns
• ■help them achieve their goals
• ■suggest something that leads to a successful outcome.

On the other hand, you lose credit every time you:

• ■suggest something that doesn’t make sense
• ■focus only on your own concerns
• ■block or impede the other person
• ■suggest something that does not succeed.

As with any account, you want as much credit in there as you can get so, quite simply, make sure you do lots of things on that first list and don’t do anything on the second.

Involve people in the details

5.3 Be creative

So it’s a problem-solving process, but sometimes solving the problem isn’t that easy.

This means you need to be creative and come up with as many ideas as possible, because who knows which one is going to be the right one.

Creativity was invented in 1942 by Alex Osborn, the advertising guru. Well, if not creativity, he did invent the word ‘brainstorming’, using it first in his book How To Think Up4 and developing its principles further in the more popular Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving.5

This is one time where a meta-conversation about these principles is especially important: ‘Let’s fire all the staff’ is fine in a brainstorm but may get a different response if no one else is in the same space.

Identify as many variables as you can

One thing that will help the creativity a lot is to identify as many variables as possible. Let’s see what exactly we mean by this.

You ask for a promotion and your boss’s response is a great big ‘no’ because you haven’t made it easy for them to say ‘yes’. But the situation isn’t binary, promotion or no promotion, be creative and identify more variables. Instead of just the job title:

• ■there is the salary, the bonus or other parts of the package that could be brought into the conversation
• ■it could be attending the board meetings
• ■it could be working on better projects
• ■it could be other forms of recognition for the extra work you’ve been doing
• ■it could be working 4 days a week
• ■it could be working 6 days a week.

A million possibilities, limited only by your imagination. And, in the spirit of the chapter, two imaginations working together is better than one.

Your client says they can’t afford your quote so either you work at an unprofitable rate or you don’t get the work at all. But, again, the situation isn’t binary.

• ■You could reduce the scope to fit their budget.
• ■You could push back some of the work to your client, or subcontract it out or pass it down to someone more junior.
• ■You could give them the Dacia version of the service rather than the Rolls Royce.
• ■You could use cheaper material.
• ■They could pay upfront to help with your cashflow concern.
• ■They could wait until your quieter period.
• ■They could sign up for a greater amount of work.
• ■They could bring referrals.
• ■You could be price dependent on the outcome.

A million possibilities, limited only by your imagination(s).

You’re trying to lose weight and your partner suggests you both go out for dinner. You, of course, don’t want to as you think of all the calories you’ll put on. So long as it’s a binary choice of ‘Go to restaurant’ or ‘Not go to restaurant’, one of you will be disappointed. But there are other variables that might help.

• ■You could choose a restaurant with a healthy option on the menu.
• ■You could agree to the restaurant tonight and tomorrow your partner cooks a low-cal meal in return.
• ■Or you’re happy to let your partner go for dinner with a friend instead.
• ■Or you go for a run together to burn off some calories first.
• ■Or your partner agrees in return to join you on a portion control diet for a while, knowing this will help you with your commitment.
• ■Or they agree to let you know when they’ll be around to eat for the rest of the week because that will help you plan your food a lot better.

A million possibilities, limited only by your imagination(s).

In the dying days of the Soviet Union, as glasnost and perestroika opened up a failing economy to many western businesses that wanted to trade there, creativity was often the name of the game. Pepsi wanted a part of the market and agreed to sell $3 billion worth of soft drinks but there was a shortage of foreign currency to pay for it.

There was no shortage of ageing military equipment, though, so Pepsi accepted 17 Soviet submarines, a cruiser, a frigate and a destroyer as part payment instead.6

Maybe your client can offer you a submarine as part payment? I’m just saying maybe.

Go visual

It’s generally a good process to think with ink.

The problems we have to solve are often quite complex with many components, with all kinds of cross-connections and dependencies, and it can be too much to hold in our brain for the period of time required to solve them. So, getting the problem out on paper will make this task a whole lot easier.

This is even more true when the problem lies across two or more brains. If you need to communicate a complex idea to the other person, going visual will help a lot.

You don’t need to be Picasso: simple shapes and lines and stick-people will work (mind you, that reminds me of Picasso). You can represent ideas, people, relationships, entities. You can use them to explain, to explore, to put a structure to the situation, to create new ideas. You can point to them, you can link things, you can move things around.

‘Un bon croquis vaut mieux qu’un long discours’, said Napoleon – a good sketch is better than a long speech. And when it comes to changing minds, it’s probably true.

Leverage the differences

Typically, we will value these variables differently and this is often where the solution lies.

According to Harvard professors David Lax and James Sebenius, by collaborating you find that the differences that might otherwise lead to conflict can be the very things that provide value. In their book The Manager as Negotiator,7 they advise leveraging those differences and how you do this is, again, limited only by the imagination(s).

It is in these different prioritisations or valuations of the variables that we can find the 1 + 1 = 3 solution upon which nearly all progress is made.

How do you pronounce ‘Nene’?

5.4 Focus on Why Five Times

We saw in Chapter 4 that you need to be strong on the outcome and soft on the approach but that doesn’t mean you should never budge an inch from your position. This is perhaps the most common myth in negotiation and the problem with it is that if both sides are ‘good’ negotiators (i.e., tough), nobody budges so nobody gets a deal: a deal that could benefit both parties is lost because neither side is willing to shift.

Even if the sides do begrudgingly move to meet somewhere in the middle, you might end up with a result where neither side is happy: one side thinks they sold it for a steal and the other side believes they paid way too much. Many people think splitting the difference is win–win but we can see here it’s actually lose–lose.

Quite apart from this, if you’re a tough negotiator, your reputation may go before you and people will either not want to work with you or – if they really have to – will factor it in accordingly. That 20 per cent discount you got – maybe, unbeknown to you, they had first hiked the price by 30 per cent.

So we (borrowing the Royal ‘we’ briefly) do not recommend this approach.

And, at the same time, we don’t recommend rolling over either. Instead, be firm but flexible.

Firm, and this is the key point, on your Why Five Times goals, but flexible on how you achieve them.

So don’t give them that discount just because they’re more stubborn than you and don’t give it to them because they are banging the table and you don’t want to upset them. Clients are very clever and even if the product was free, they would still ask, ‘Can’t you do better than that?’. It is their job to try, it’s just part of their script and it’s your script to say ‘no’.

Stay focused on Why Five Times

On the other hand, do give them the discount if, in the variables, you get something of equal or greater value in return and this enables you to reach your Why Five Times goal.

Google, Facebook and other tech companies give lots of their products away for free; that is a big discount. But now they own your data and that means they own your future and they are well on their way to their Why Five Times objective of global domination. It was a master-stroke, if slightly evil. (We recommend master-strokes but not evil ones, not even slightly evil ones.)

In 2020 in the Ukrainian city of Lutsk, an armed gunman carrying grenades boarded a local bus, taking the 13 passengers hostage. Police cordoned off the area and a siege developed in which shots were fired and the hostage taker, 44-year-old Maksym Kryvosh, clearly unstable, threw explosives out the window.

How was the stand-off resolved? Kryvosh promised that he would release the hostages and give himself up if the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, posted a video on Facebook recommending people watch the Joaquin Phoenix 2005 film Earthlings, a film about human cruelty to animals.

The president willingly did this and Kryvosh kept his word. Within the hour, the crisis was over and the Facebook post was removed, replaced by a note thanking the police and anyone else involved in ending it.

Zelensky gave in to the demands and was criticised by some in his country; a more conservative President might have deemed it unbecoming, but it was quite simply a pragmatic way of getting his outcome – the crisis was resolved and lives were saved.

(At the time of writing, Russia has just launched its invasion of the Ukraine and President Zelensky is making a remarkable stand against their forces. Let’s hope the pragmatism and creativity he showed in Lutsk, along with the efforts of other parties, will help bring about a peaceful solution as quickly as possible. Sadly, it is looking very bleak at the moment.)

Closer to home, as we saw in Chapter 1, maybe the Why Five Times goal isn’t about changing their mind at all. Is it really so imperative to change your parents’ minds on how to vote? Maybe it’s more important to show that you love them. Do you really have to change your friend’s views on the Occupy movement? Maybe it’s better to keep them as a friend.

Stay focused on Why Five Times, what’s really important.

5.5 Conflict resolution

What if things have got heated and it’s become an argument, even a fight?

Well, you can try to win the fight if you like, but that’s another book. We’re here to get you your Why Five Times goal and winning the fight is a distraction. In this book we recommend you stay focused on your Why Five Times goal and do whatever you need to do to get it.

This will probably mean managing your response – perhaps dropping the outrage and the desire to fetch your machine gun – which isn’t always easy.

And it will also mean dropping the blame. There’s no point in trying to fix the past; there is only any value in solving the current problem so you can get to where you want to be. And this will only happen if you move away from ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’.

Forgive?

In some situations, we may need to forgive too. Maybe a real event has happened that cannot be undone but we have to move on from it if we want to progress.

We have deep wiring for revenge but this just leads to an endlessly destructive cycle of tit-for-tat behaviours leaving everyone worse off. To put an end to this we need to forgive, but this is not easy.

In Negotiating the Nonnegotiable,8 Daniel Shapiro studied exactly these situations and made several recommendations.

Shapiro also says that, if it’s easier, perhaps you don’t need to forgive but just decide not to get revenge. This might lead to progress and then a time, later, when you are more ready to let it go.

But if you want them to de-escalate, guess what, you have to go first. If you’ve read this far in the book, you knew that sentence was coming.

Respect their sacred

Shapiro’s work also looks at when the argument arose because we disrespected something they hold sacred – maybe we laugh at their reference to the Bible or we tell them they worry too much about their child’s health.

To navigate these situations, he recommends taking the time to understand the other person’s sacred topics: asking questions about them, proactively and demonstrably respecting them and talking within that belief system. And even if you don’t agree with them, you should always acknowledge the reverence they hold for them.

If these are openly acknowledged and respected, there is often room for manoeuvre in them. For example, they may originally insist the other party has no access to the children at all, but after discussion and acknowledgement of any underlying fears they may now allow access in such a way that those underlying fears are addressed.

You can also find overlaps in the sacred (e.g., our two religions have the same god; we both believe honouring the traditions of our ancestors important; we both want the absolute best for our kids) or build a common sacred that both parties can honour: now it is ‘us’ instead of ‘me vs you’ and we will be able to make better progress.

Allow face

Given ego is so important, allowing face can be really important so give them a route out of it that keeps their status intact. Help them find a face-saving justification for their change of mind, so they can still feel good about themselves and can justify it to anyone else they may need to.

In fact, you may even give them a victory if it’s not that important or let them appear to win.

Sir Christopher Wren built the famous Guildhall at Windsor (the venue, several centuries later, for the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles), which has a grand meeting room built above an outdoors corn market. The story is said that the council who commissioned the building were afraid it would fall down and crush the market below so they asked him to put in some more pillars for support.

He refused, perfectly confident in his ability to construct a building that would stay up for centuries. The council, however, insisted and, since they were paying for it, he reluctantly gave in and built four extra pillars.

The story continues that it was not till many years later that workmen putting up scaffolding to decorate the ceiling saw that none of the four pillars actually touched the ceiling! Wren had let his sponsors think they got their way, but in actual fact, he had kept to his original engineering, knowing that posterity would side with him.

Now the story may or may not be true but the lesson is clear: sometimes it is worthwhile letting the other party get their way, even if it is really only for show; sometimes help them look good in front of their people if, in the end, it means you get your outcome.

And and

In the conflict, there is almost certainly truth on both sides. Both of you contributed to the argument, both of your ideas have value in them, both of you have a valid perspective, both of you have been upset by the other.

The route to resolution is to find the truths on each side and you do this by exploring, asking questions to understand and listening attentively to the answers, as discussed at length in Chapter 3.

Then any solution must incorporate both truths, demonstrably so, and a great way to do this is to use the word ‘and’. ‘And’ enables two distinct, perhaps apparently contradictory, ideas to be held at the same time without any one of them weakening the other.

In improvisation, actors are not allowed to use the word ‘no’ because it is too destructive, instead they say ‘Yes and. . .’. Let’s say you want to build a scene that involves a dog and the other actor says ‘Oh look, there’s a cat’, you can’t say ‘No, it’s a dog’ because the scene will degenerate into an argument. Instead, say ‘Oh yes, and look, there’s a dog too’. Now you have an interesting scene developing.

‘No’ means conflict; ‘Yes and. . . ’ generates solutions.

In their book, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most,9 Harvard authors Stone, Patton and Heen talk about ‘The Third Story’ – that story that is not yours, not theirs, but what a neutral mediator may tell after hearing both sides. Telling this third story can be what allows both of you to move on from the conflict and find agreement.

The word ‘and’ will be central to this story.

To borrow their great example, let’s say you are delivering the news you are breaking up with your partner: ‘I’m breaking up with you because it’s the right thing for me [give reasons here], and I understand how hurt you are and that you think we should try again, and I’m not changing my mind and I understand how you think I should have been more clear about my confusion earlier, and I don’t think that makes me a bad person, and I know I have done things that have hurt you, and I know you’ve done things that have hurt me, and I know I might regret this decision, and I’m still making it and. . . and. . . and. . . ’.

Of course, you wouldn’t deliver such news in this lecture kind of way, but the example illustrates nicely how situations can be complex, with many perspectives, each legitimate, perhaps contradictory and the word ‘and’ allows each their validity.

It is our ability to operate in complex, contradictory spaces that enables us to resolve or, better, avoid conflict.

Don’t break up with us!

In summary

The best solution is always co-created because now both parties fully own it and will both work to make it a success.

• ■Treat it as a collaborative problem-solving process

  This will lead to the best results because the solution doesn’t lie with any one of you, by working together you will find the optimal outcome. Plus, you will build a collaborative way of working together which will pay off many times in the future.

• ■Plan the process collaboratively too

  If you agree together the process ahead of time, things will go much more smoothly. And then, lead them through that process, checking in with them at each stage that they are still in agreement.

• ■Problem-solving is a highly creative activity

  Often it is difficult to identify the solution so in these instances you need to be creative. Identify as many variables as you can that can be brought into the negotiation and be inventive in coming up with possible answers.

• ■Stay focused on the vision

  Stand-offs usually occur because people are too fixated on the detail. But the detail, though important, is always secondary to the Why Five Times goal so if you focus on that (for both sides) you will find an answer that suits everyone.

• ■Don’t fuel the fight

  Changing their mind will never happen if it’s become a fight. You have to de-escalate and that usually means you taking the lead in this respect. So do what you need to de-escalate and only then can you have a proper conversation.

In this way, we find a solution that we know will be supported by everyone. But the content of the solution is one thing, how you present it is another. And that’s what we will look at in Chapter 6.