There’s a
well-known story in the field of conflict resolution that tells of two sisters
fighting over an orange. They argue back and forth, forth and back, about who
better deserves to have it. The older one says she deserves it because
she’s older, the younger one because she’s younger, and both are adamantly
stuck in their positions. With no resolution in sight, they finally decide to
compromise and so split the orange in half. Each walks away with half an
orange, proud of having found what she considers to have been the most
efficient way to resolve the dispute.
But was
it the best way?
With their
respective halves of orange in hand, one of the sisters proceeds to peel hers,
throw the peel away and eat the fruit; the other throws away her fruit and uses
the peel for a cake she’s baking.
Had the
sisters attempted to explore each other’s underlying needs and interests, the
sister who’d wanted the fruit would have ended up with a whole orange to enjoy rather
than a half, and the sister who’d planned to bake a cake would have had an
entire orange peel at her disposal. Certainly, every conflict is different (as
are the individuals, circumstances and cultures involved) and no one type of
resolution strategy fits all; however, research does show that parties in
dispute who exercise a collaborative strategy (also called “interest-based” or
“integrative”) are more likely to succeed in creating mutually acceptable
solutions. So, while the sisters did manage to resolve their dispute, a
collaborative approach would have been more mutually beneficial than their compromise.
There are
four basic ways people can deal with conflict at different times – competition,
avoidance, accommodation and collaborative problem-solving. These strategies
depend on the level of concern people in dispute have for their own outcome vis-à-vis
the other party’s outcome. (It’s called the Dual Concern Model.) If, for
example, in a given conflict you have low concern for both your outcome and that
of the other, it’s likely you’ll avoid the conflict or do nothing; on the other
hand, if you have high concern for your outcome and little for the other’s,
you’re likely to be competitive. Some conflict resolution theorists include
compromise as a fifth strategy; however, others see compromise not as a
strategy but rather as “a kind of ‘lazy’ problem solving, involving a
half-hearted attempt to find a solution serving both parties’ interests.”[i]
I’m inclined to agree with the latter.
It seems
that virtually every time we read or hear of the ostensibly never-ending
political posturing and conflicts in Congress, it’s “compromise” that’s said to
be sought and, less frequently, achieved. And each time I read or hear that, I
think of those two sisters. Now, maybe it’s semantics; perhaps what’s being
referred to in Congress as “compromise” does include elements of collaborative
negotiation; however, based on the pervasiveness of contentious posturing in
that bicameral chamber (not to mention the vested interest factor), I’m
skeptical as to how much earnest collaboration might be taking place.
Words have
power, and so does how we frame them. What I’m proposing is a sort of Congressional
paradigm shift, a reframing of the
quest for the political brass ring: Strive to negotiate a “collaborative
resolution” rather than seek “compromise.” I’m reminded of that line from the
movie, Field of Dreams, “If you build
it, he will come.” However far-fetched the concept might seem with
respect to Capitol Hill, perhaps by lawmakers’ reframing their conflict
resolution model more collaboration could
actually come.
A bona
fide effort to move past positions and obtain real understanding of each
other’s underlying interests and needs has the potential for being far more
fruitful than simply splitting the orange in two.
