Navigating Conflict

Making a group decision can be incredibly difficult if the members of the group don't happen to agree. Unfortunately, there are typically many layers to agree or disagree about, which makes consensus rare. My go-to example is the process of negotiating "what's for dinner" with your partner. It's unlikely you both happen to have exactly the same preferences. That means the ability to agree hinges on everyone's willingness to compromise.

Mathematically speaking, the solution is simple. Create a "utility function" which combines preferences and optimize that. We each rate every option, sum each of our scores for each option, and pick the highest one. However, in addition to being entirely impractical, maximizing utility has well known flaws like the sadness utility monster or situations like a zero-sum game.

Practically then, there still can be conflict. In some cases, there is no solution - I would veto anything you choose, and vice versa. To meet my promise in the title of this post, how can we navigate conflict? 

First, a couple things to recognize: Agreement depends on the actual data of our preferences. Up front we could happen to have the same favorite choice. Or at least maybe we have a match between our top 3. This is usually where we start negotiating: we take turns suggesting favorites and see if there's a winner.

If that doesn't happen, the next question I have is "what feasible options do we have?" Feasible options are choices everyone finds acceptable, though they certainly might not be ideal. This is a crucial step since a feasible solution is what proves the problem is not impossible. Realistically we could start here since there being a feasible solution is a great first step. However, if you have an amicable group or the stakes are low, the first suggestion may be good enough for everyone.

There are two possibilities after we have tried to find a feasible solution. We generally expect to find an acceptable solution, and then the goal is to see if we can beat it. We might examine characteristics of the solution (pizza) and identify improvements we would like to make (but healthier). This has been the theme of several of my earlier posts.

On the other hand, in some cases you cannot find a feasible solution. That is your clue that at least one person needs to compromise more than they have been. This is sort of a lighter version of the sadness utility monster – If I refuse enough of your suggestions, we get to the point of wondering “what exactly would you accept?”

Recognizing when we have gotten to that point is helpful since people often don’t realize they are facing an impossible problem. It also can help with the transition to discussing goals instead of specific alternatives. If no one is willing to budge, at some point you have to shift to outside-the-box thinking like “maybe we shouldn’t eat together at all.”

p.s. I would like to introduce “Zohar’s problem corner” or something to that effect. If you’d like to stop reading about how to choose what to eat for dinner, send me something you would enjoy reading about more. I will take some of those examples and turn them into a post.