Conflict resolution doesn't have to mean compromise

Response A: We threw the bums out! Those tax-and-spend left-wing socialists want to raise taxes, increase the size of government and run up the national debt.

Response B: Those right-wing obstructionists exploit anger by carrying on about taxes and "takeovers," but they offer no new ideas for solving problems.

Response C: Our country is facing enormously complex challenges, challenges that require solutions based not on strategies to make opponents look bad but on honest debate and compromise.

Since the election, I've been hearing variations of all three responses. Of the three, C seems most reasonable and useful.

The problem is that C is insufficient. Many people who subscribe to C in their heads also subscribe to A or to B in their hearts. They agree that a functioning democracy depends on compromise, but their passionate commitment to their beliefs makes compromise difficult.

How do we find common ground in such a win-lose environment?

In an earlier column I explained how Rogerian persuasion can be useful, both in politics and the workplace.

Because this nonoppositional approach is based on empathic listening, the thinking goes, it is more likely to produce compromise and win-win solutions.

In theory.

In practice, discussions don't always proceed in such a reasonable, honest and fair-minded manner.

In response to my column, Thomas wrote to me saying he thinks "Rogerian persuasion should be ... taught to everyone considering a career in management or politics." But he also thinks that consensus, not compromise, should be the goal of conflict resolution:

"In my early career as a manager, I had the opportunity to receive training in conflict resolution. Our CEO felt that conflict must exist in a company [if it is] to be successful; managers must speak out if they disagree. Our CEO did not want a 'Yes, boss' company.

"The theory is that when each person listens carefully to the other person, a mutual acceptance of each position will develop and an outcome will be reached that each person accepts as the best solution."

Thomas admits that "this technique is difficult to achieve and requires the most time," but he also makes this claim:

"In my 25-year career as a manager in a high-tech company, without this conflict resolution training I would never have been as successful."

Win-win solutions. I suspect few people, either in politics or the workplace, would object. Maybe we should forget about compromise, which suggests letting go of values, and concentrate on consensus, which suggests holding on to shared beliefs.