Musings & Meanderings

As we continue to develop the electronically connected world of the future, it seems to me of benefit to also develop new ways of conceptualizing what cannot be seen and easily described. The technological revolution continues to deliver means and ‘places’ which are, to our previous understanding, ephemeral. This makes common planning and envisioning the most interesting, from my perspective, challenge and opportunity.

Our work and our relationships with one another are the context in which we describe things.

Most of us do not consider or analyze relationships as entire entities beyond the results and consequences of conducting them. When we do analyze them, it is generally in terms of a 2 way exchange, including shared or complementary benefits vs real and potential conflicts, both current and projected into the future.

The timeless stories of cultural and personal significance are also mostly expressed in a 2 dimensional way. The perfect success, partnership, friendship, or love. The classic conflicts: good vs evil, right vs wrong, man vs nature, personal redemption.

We adopt and repeat the truism that there are 2 sides to every story.

Based on several intense decades of business, as well as personal, experiences, I hold the view that seeing 3 sides, rather than 2, is a perspective that invariably offers solutions, ideas, and opportunities that many of us often overlook.

Developing the full panorama of this perspective leads naturally to a multi-dimensional view, and complex overlaps, but for the purpose of describing the idea in simple terms, I’m staying with 3, and calling almost every human relationship a triangle. In this post, I’m discussing only working, business-related, and commercial relationships, which tend to be less varied than personal ones, partly because of the societal expectation we have of one another to conform to common practice.

We transact with one another all the time, and view each transaction as a sharing, trade, or exchange between ourselves and another person. Each of us, though, is conducting 2 relationships, one with the other person, and the second with the medium or value component being shared or exchanged, bought or sold.

The first example, and easiest context, is a sale of goods.

Whatever I create, that which you will buy from me, is something that I have invested in. My investment is likely to be irrelevant to you, since your interest is in determining and agreeing with me on a value that is in line with your plans and desires for the usefulness and enjoyment of the product. Each of us has a different relationship to and view of the objects of our exchange. One of those differences is contextual, in that our approaches and destinations differ. If these approaches and destinations dovetail perfectly, then our transaction is likely to be highly satisfactory to both of us. When the paths of our intentions and goals diverge, however, we are more likely to have a transaction or relationship going sour.

Practical and successful experience in conflict resolution addresses the third side to the story. In a situation of conflict, you have 2 people (or companies, or groups, but invariably led by 2 individuals) with irreconcilable viewpoints. Trying to change either or both of those people is likely to be a frustrating and fruitless exercise. Instead we focus on the domain to which the contention(s) attach, and here we find an arrangement of objects and circumstances and context.

An early partner of mine sometimes conducted conflict resolution processes using common household objects. Wealthy, powerful, stubborn and enraged individuals would have to sit and watch as a sufficient number of objects were collected: a pencil holder, ashtrays, a table lighter, a can of Coke, a coffee mug, and so on. Each object would then be identified as a component relevant to the disputed circumstances, and then they would be arranged to signify context, with each player’s related assets being massed together, and fixed location objects identified by their surroundings. Objects specifically representing things under dispute would be identified and centrally placed. Then the resolution would unfold. An object under joint and disputed ownership would be moved away (sold) to a third party, for example, who would contribute 2 new objects in exchange, other objects would be moved strategically, representing the use of related assets to balance the outcome of the exercise in such a way as to end with each party seeing an improved picture of their own assets and position. Time and again I watched this process, often reminded of boys with playing pieces, transform a situation from one where both parties in the conflict went from being convinced that one of them had to be the loser, to each feeling like the winner because they perceived their own outcome was a substantial improvement on the status quo or the past. One of the components to the resolution might have been selling a 100 million dollar development property, which had previously seemed impossible due to a badly written partnership agreement, but when that property became a can of Coke and other things moved around in relationship to the change, the focus shifted to achieving the mutually beneficial new arrangement of objects that had been easily understood over the coffee table, and the solution would be smoothly implemented.

Resolving complex, messy conflicts is hard, but watching it being simplified through identifying and rearranging the objects, context, and circumstances, served as the genesis for my perspective on transactions and relationships. If seeing 3 sides could lead to sorting out very complicated conflicts that would otherwise have led to years of litigation, among other things, then seeing the 3 sides from the beginning could, and does, form the basis for stronger healthier relationships, as well as reducing the potential for future conflicts.

The better we understand each other’s perspective, the better transactions and relationships we can build. Understanding how our perspectives differ is as important as understanding where they converge, and a substantial portion of this is accessible from the 3rd side.

An architect who designs a building for you, the client, brings personal history, knowledge and skill to the process. He does his best to apply as much as he can glean or discern of the building you’re hoping for and of the ways you imagine it being inhabited and used, but his relationship to the process and the product remains completely different from your relationship to it. A professional such as a lawyer, accountant, or media consultant, providing a non-tangible service and work product, has, similarly, to balance his relationship to his product with his client’s relationship to it. The same holds true for those designing consumer goods and services, whether practical, decorative or entertaining.

Good partnerships are formed on the same basis, with a preponderance of common goals being the best basis on which to build.

Looking at the internet and the web, where relatively little has yet been developed that is community and consumer centered rather than enterprise or academia targeted, I believe that it is this third view, where interests intersect both in synergy and conflict, that is as yet no more than a barely explored new world.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 16th, 2007 at 12:36 am and is filed under Perspective, Life Hacks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.