Getting Past the Impasse

So you’re butting heads with someone, or you’re participating in a session where people are butting heads.  What options are available for getting beyond the disagreement – other than just resorting to a show of power? Here are some options to consider:

Discuss the issue and persuade the other side. This is probably the most common way to deal with disagreement. We make our best case for our particular position and hope that our rationale will convince the other side to see things our way.

Agree on standards to which a solution must adhere, then look for solutions that best meet the standards. For example, we might agree ahead of time that a solution must cost no more than X dollars, be completed in Y number of weeks, and allow us to accomplish certain outcomes. We can then evaluate each proposal as it’s generated to determine how well it meets the predefined standards.

                                                                                                              

Agree on common interests, and work toward a solution that best meets those interests.  In a classic example, two people argue over which one of them should have the last orange in a bowl. As long as they remain stuck on their positions – “I need the orange!”, “No, I need the orange!” – they’ll never be able to reach agreement. It’s only when the parties explore why each needs the orange – “I want to make juice! , “I want to make marmalade!” – that they can see that their positions may be incompatible but not their respective interests. In fact, in this case, both of their interests can be satisfied with only one orange – by giving one the inside of the orange (for the juice) and the other the peel (for the marmalade).

                                                                               

Clarify the positions to see if new understanding minimizes or eliminates the disagreement. Sometimes in the course of discussion, the parties raise so many different proposals, contingencies, assumptions, etc., that the trail of information being shared becomes muddied beyond recognition. In those situations, the parties can find themselves reacting to positions that in fact mischaracterize what others are saying. It can help to just stop and have each party restate what they’re saying – and what they think they’re hearing. They may well find that they were in “violent agreement” all along.

Clarify the definitions of terms being used to see if new understanding minimizes or eliminates the disagreement. I recall once observing two parties who were in disagreement over how an analysis task should be conducted in a meeting. One party kept saying that they needed to just “keep it simple,” which seemed to set the other party off, as if she were being accused of overcomplicating the task. It was only when the first party was asked “What does ‘simple’ look like?” that the parties started to focus more on the needs and the defined scope of the project and less on their differing interpretations of the term “simple.” As they discussed, they found that they really weren’t so far apart after all.

Have a neutral third party decide. Even when the parties look beyond their positions and explore their interests, they may still find themselves at an impasse. In that case, the best course may be to have the tie broken by a decision-maker whom both parties respect.  Usually, this more drastic approach is indicated if the stakes – and the need for urgency – are particularly high.

Take a vote. Sometimes, groups get wrapped up in contending over a relatively minor issue that could be easily settled by just taking a vote – for example, “Where should we go for lunch - Mexican or Italian?” Even then, though, there are several options available for conducting a vote that go beyond just signifying either “This” or “That.” For example, if there are many choices on the table, each group member can be given (say) five votes, with the option to allocate his votes among the different options however he likes – all five votes on one option, or three votes on one option and two on another, etc.

Another voting option, called the Gradient of Agreement, allows members to indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 how strongly they support a proposal – a 5 means “I fully support it,” 4 means “I like it with some minor reservations,” 3 means “I’m ok with it,” 2 means “I don’t like it but I won’t stand in the group’s way,” and 1 means “I veto it.” Even if nobody vetoes a proposal, the group can still take a reading of how strongly the members support the proposal. If the votes tend toward the 3s and 2s, then even though it “passed,” the group might still decide to continue working toward a solution that might be even better.