Differences!

Often when working with and through people, there are disagreements.

How does one ensure movement in situations characterized by disagreement and/or conflict?

Who should change/accommodate and to what extent?

• Should each party just stick to their guns and expect the other party to move?
• Should one party agree completely to what the other party says?
• Should both parties compromise – make some concessions for the sake of movement?
• Should both parties sit and figure out a new solution – one that is acceptable to both?
• Should the parties just let the disagreement brew – “the no movement option”?

Wait a minute! Am I asking the wrong first question?

The first question probably is “When is it that disagreements become intractable or really difficult to reconcile?”.

The answer to this question would probably give us cues on strategies to move ahead in different situations.

I have found that:

• disagreements in means (how, when, and where) can be easily reconciled.
• disagreements in intent (why, and what) are much more difficult to reconcile.

When the disagreement is on intent, initial discussions have to be on “What is important to you (the other party) and why? What do you feel about what I am proposing and why?”.

Once an agreement on intent has been reached, means can be figured out. In situations of “agreement on intent” you can even live for sometime with disagreement on means.

The next time you strongly disagree with someone or vice-versa, take a moment to think whether the disagreement is about intent or means.

-

Sourav