Separating the Problem From the Person
Separating the Problem From the Person
Start here
- Attack the problem: not the people in the room.
- Read the need under the demand: what someone wants, and why.
The working loop
Name the issue, use I-messages, listen back, list needs, brainstorm widely, judge the options by fair standards, agree, then follow up.
When a fix fails
The solution failed, not the person. Return and find another.
When two people are stuck, the quickest way to make things worse is to argue about each other. The work goes better when both sides sit on the same side of the table and treat the conflict as a shared problem to crack. That move, from blaming a person to naming a problem, is where most resolution begins.
Face the Problem, Not Each Other
A conflict feels personal, so people spend their energy defending themselves and accusing the other side. A more useful habit is to separate the people from the problem and point both sets of energy at the issue itself.
Three moves help. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes and picture the situation from there. Keep your own fears apart from their intentions, since what you dread and what they mean to do are rarely the same thing. And do not hand them the blame for a problem that is partly yours.
Sharing the process helps too. When both sides help shape how the talk runs, each has a stake in the outcome and is less likely to fight the result.
Treating the issue as a shared puzzle rather than a fight between two people.
Both sides aim their energy at the problem, picture it from the other’s view, and keep personal blame out of it. The relationship survives while the actual issue gets worked on.
Speak for Yourself, Then Listen Back
State your own side in the first person. Sentences that begin with “I feel,” “I think,” or “I need” describe your concern without putting the other person on the defensive. The matching skill is reflective listening: you say back what you heard so the other side knows they were understood, and you catch misreadings early. The full method is covered in Speaking With I Statements.
Listening is not agreeing. You can repeat someone’s point accurately and still hold your own view; the point is to prove you heard them before you reply.
Dig for Needs, Not Positions
A position is what someone demands. An interest is the need behind it. Two people can hold opposite positions and still share an interest, so the demand is a poor place to negotiate. Ask why they want what they ask for, and why not the alternatives, until the real need shows.
A position is the demand; an interest is the need behind it.
“I want the window shut” is a position. “I do not want a draft on my desk” is the interest. Trading on interests opens options that trading on fixed demands closes off.
When you list the interests on both sides, options appear that a straight clash of demands would have hidden.
Brainstorm, Then Decide
Once the needs are clear, generate solutions before you judge any of them. Aim for a long list, write down every idea including the odd ones, and hold all criticism until later. Judging an idea as it is spoken shuts down the next one.
After the list is full, weigh the options together and pick one both sides can accept. Where you can, judge the options against an objective standard, such as cost, a written rule, safety, or equal turns, rather than by who pushes hardest, so the result reads as fair to both sides. Make sure both are genuinely committed, not just tired of talking. Be wary of a sudden promise to simply stop causing the problem, because that skips the cause and the issue tends to return.
It treats the symptom and skips the cause.
The underlying problem is still there, so the same conflict usually comes back later. A durable fix names the cause, puts something concrete in place, and then checks whether it holds.
When a Fix Does Not Hold
Agreeing on a solution is not the end. Carry out the agreed method, then wait to see whether the conflict is really gone or just hiding. Follow-up is part of the process, not an optional extra.
If the fix does not work, it is the solution that failed, not the person. Bring both sides back, look at the problem again with fresh eyes, and try another option from the list.
Treating a failed fix as a failed person ends the process. Treating it as a failed solution keeps it open, which is the whole point.
How was this article?