The teacher sat with a straight back on a raised surface. The students sat in a rough semi-circle in front of the teacher. The teacher looked around after a calm silence settled over the class and began.
TEACHER: "This is all about 'Resolution of Issues'. What we are talking about is 'issues of contention'. I will first complete the lecture material and ask that you hold your questions for the discussion afterwards. Of course, I will ask you short, pointed questions along the way to get your short quick responses, clarify terms and my statements. You all can also ask short questions to clarify anything I just said. Raise your hands and wait for me to call you. Let us begin.
An 'issue', in our discussion is
- any matter of concern at hand in which we have to deal with another person or party with whom we do not have complete agreement
AND
- we need to work with them to bring about a resolution of the issue to proceed in life.
I would go so far as to say that, almost all of life is just one issue after another. This class is about learning how to resolve issues – all issues, all manner of issues! This is for anyone, everyone – how to best resolve issues to their logical conclusion. Even letting go of an issue without any further effort at resolving it is one of the methods – it can be an active choice!
Before we get down to the resolutions, let us take a look at the important terms we will use, their definitions and the contexts they are used in.
Firstly, it is useful to divide all individuals - humans we deal with, into exactly two categories on the basis of two criteria.
The first criterion is GOOD / BAD.
The second criterion is SMART / NOT-SMART."
A hand was raised by a student and the teacher called them out, "A question?"
"Is that all there is to characterize all kinds of people in all kinds of situations? Nothing else? Cannot GOOD/BAD, SMART/NOT-SMART vary with people, places and contexts?" asked the student.
TEACHER: "Yes, these two criterion are necessary and sufficient to characterize everyone in any issue. Once the definitions of GOOD, BAD, SMART and NOT-SMART are understood, it will become clearer. Other factors like age, nationality, time, gender etc can be taken into consideration as factors only if they are relevant to the issue. The idea is to be as objective as possible, as individuals who strive to arrive at a resolution that is the fairest or best possible. It is possible to set aside those characteristics, where not relevant, to debate the merits of any issue, but the characteristic of GOOD/BAD, SMART/NOT-SMART is inalienable from an individual. It permeates and colors everything they do, everything they think, seek and are driven by. It should be possible to substitute two persons with the same GOOD/BAD, SMART/NOT-SMART characteristics with all the relevant knowledge and understanding of the issue and arrive at the same fair resolution as the original adversaries, following the recommended procedure. This is as objective as the resolution guide can get.
These two criteria - GOOD/BAD and SMART/NOT-SMART are most relevant in the theory of how to best resolve issues. The very techniques of resolution are dependent on these. That is what we will be studying.
Let us now look at what exactly we mean by GOOD, BAD, SMART and NOT-SMART."
The teacher unveiled a blackboard with the following information displayed on it.
Characteristics: GOOD, BAD, SMART, NOT-SMART
The words 'GOOD', 'BAD','SMART' and 'NOT-SMART' are used here to denote the characteristics as discussed in detail.
Putting together the above four characteristics in a person, on a specific issue, they can be classified as belonging to one of the following possible combinations.
Type 1: GOOD+SMART
Type 2: GOOD+NOT-SMART
Type 3: BAD+SMART
Type 4: BAD+NOT-SMART."
It was all neatly printed to just fit in the large screen. The teacher pointed to each item and discussed it in detail as follows.
NOTE: All the following definitions are within the context of a SINGLE issue or a set of issues that needs resolving – The same person can be GOOD in one issue or in just one aspect of an issue and BAD in another. The same person can be SMART in one issue/aspect and NOT-SMART in another.
TEACHER: "Here are the definitions!
‘GOOD PEOPLE’: People who are good at heart and intention – this definition extends in the range from those who intend NOT to hurt or harm others without reason to people who like to help others, put the welfare of society and others over their selfish or personal desires. GOOD PEOPLE are those who want and try to do the right thing by all in a situation. They do not initiate behavior and actions that hurt others knowingly. If they do so and are made aware of it, they are remorseful, apologize and try to make amends. GOOD PEOPLE have empathy, sympathy for others as appropriate.
‘BAD PEOPLE’: People who like to take advantage of others, who knowingly do not care about others’ rights, those who put their own selfish interests over the welfare of others or society. BAD PEOPLE can initiate behavior and actions that hurt others without remorse. They tend to not willingly apologize or make amends even if made aware of their actions. BAD PEOPLE tend to have little empathy or sympathy for others’ suffering.
‘SMART PEOPLE’: These are people who are rational, logical, able to think, reason out the consequences of their actions or other’s actions. They correct themselves if they are shown to be mistaken. SMART PEOPLE usually have a good reserve of knowledge and often come with some life experience where they learned it from. SMART PEOPLE are clever, they tend to understand human nature and are quick to grasp difficult or underlying concepts, trends and patterns. They are good at manipulating situations and people to their advantage or desired goals. SMART PEOPLE tend to see reality of situations more clearly than on average. SMART PEOPLE usually understand emotion but set it aside or factor it appropriately when analyzing a situation or an issue.
‘NOT-SMART PEOPLE’: These are people who are not rational or logical. They are not able to reason and figure out the logical consequences of their actions or other’s actions. They do not correct themselves when shown to be mistaken. They often have little knowledge and are not adept at grasping difficult (or even easy) concepts, trends and patterns. They are usually poor in arranging situations or dealing with people to their advantage or desired goals. These people have difficulty setting aside their own emotions and feelings while analyzing a situation or an issue."
The teacher paused and looked around. There was a quiet period during which the students let the information discussed so far, sink in.
The teacher then resumed the talk,"Next we will continue with the suggested steps to resolving the issue. NOTE: The suggested steps are in a very specific sequential order. We will later discuss why the specfic sequence is vitally important.
STEPS TO RESOLUTION OF AN ISSUE OF CONTENTION
STEP 0:
Try and understand the issue from all sides and the viewpoints of stakeholders. Clearly understand the viewpoint and stand of the other party as best as you can. Identify parts of the issue on which you are willing to compromise or yield. Research, get facts, reflect and analyse your own motivations, your stand and the consequences of the resolution that you seek. Reflect upon your stand from a self-assessment of - which type of person are you, among the four listed above?
Once you are clear and satisfied about yourself and about the resolution you seek, proceed to STEP 1.
STEP 1 (Reason):
Approach the other party calmly and respectfully. Ask them to state the resolution they seek, their views and reasoning. Listen, think again and be prepared to yield/change your position if their logic and rationale is convincing and does the right by all. If that is not the case, again go over their argument and identify the flaws. Calmly and respectfully, lay out the logical, rational argument you would like achieve the resolution you seek.
If the other party is Type 1 (GOOD-SMART), they will see your point of view, think about it and respond positively to arrive at a resolution where the best argument and reasoing wins and does the right by all. This is a win-win situation where neither side is worried if their original point of view did not prevail. They are both happy to lose to the better reasoning and sense. Either side or both sides may thank the other for pulling them up to a better solution.
However, if the other party is NOT of Type 1 the issue will not be resolved as above. Then proceed to STEP 2 (Yield).
STEP 2 (Yield):
Let the other side know that in a spirit of goodwill, you are willing to compromise or yield something even though you have already presented a logical reason for not having to do so. This gesture is to signal that you value the other party and their feelings and are willing to sacrifice a bit of what you see as your right, just to make them happy. If the other party is of Type 2 (GOOD-NOT-SMART), even though they do not accept or get your reasoning, they will surely sense that you value them and respond positively to that and try to reciprocate that gesture of goodwill. They will try to show they are willing to come part of the way to bridge the gap. A few exchanges in this spirit will lead to the resolution of the issue. Both sides can walk away with sense of having achieved something that is agreed upon and acceptable to both. This can be a bit of win-lose, lose-win for both sides or even for just one side. The feelings are still positive towards each other.
However, if the other party is not of Type 2 either and they want to still have it all their way, show no goodwill and interpret your gestures as a weakness and come at you more aggressively. The issue is still not resolved. In this situation, proceed to STEP 3 (Undermine).
IMPORTANT NOTE: This signals a realization that one is dealing with 'BAD' rather than 'GOOD. This is also the dividing line between 'NICE' and 'NOT NICE' approaches. Make a mental note that one is dealing with a Type 3 or Type 4 party.
STEP 3 (Undermine):
Gather all the information and knowledge you can about how you can legitimately undermine the adversary's strengths, interests and position. Prepare to do the needful and make arrangements. Strengthen your own position and interests. If feasible, approach the adversary calmly and give them an opportunity once more to go back up to STEP 2 (Yield) or STEP 1 (Reason) type resolution. Signal firmly that you are able and willing to undermine their position significantly. Observe their response.
If your adversary is of Type 3 (BAD-SMART), they will likely read the situation correctly and look for a face-saving way out, back to a STEP 2 (Yield) kind of compromise resolution or even STEP 1 (Reason) (if they are weak enough). If they are on the borderline of SMARTness, they may not agree at the first warning. In which case go ahead and actually weaken the adversary by undermining their strength and render them weak. If possible or feasible give them another opportunity to reach an agreed-upon solution, maybe with less compromising on your part.
Ultimately, Type 3 people will reach a state of willingness to resolve the issue and move on. However, there is likely to be bitterness on both sides despite any resolution achieved.
If after the efforts of STEP 3 (Undermine), still no resolution is reached, proceed to STEP 4 (Fight).
STEP 4 (Fight):
You are dealing with a Type 4 (BAD-NOT-SMART). You have no choice but to either surrender or fight. It is WAR!!
IMPORTANT NOTE: Keep in mind that your adversary may have been following all the steps listed above in dealing with you. At every stage, reflect and if you see yourself in the wrong, don't hesitate to acknowledge your mistake and back up to previous steps!"
The teacher paused for a break. The students had taken notes and some hands were raised. One of them was called out.
"What is special about these steps? Why in that particular order?" was the question.
TEACHER: "Let us look at each STEP in detail and see what it indicates from the point of view of one who follows it and how it comes across to a thinking rational person who observes it, which could well be the other party!
STEP 1 (Reason) : Whether you know something about the person you are dealing with or it is a total, unknown stranger, you are, as a default, starting from a position where you respect the other as an equal with GOOD intention and SMART intellect. You expect them to be happy to let reasoning, logic and goodwill prevail. You are ready to respectfully and calmly listen to them as well as convey your thinking. Doing the right by all is your goal and you give full scope and opportunity for the other to present their case to achieve the same. This is the highest and most positive atmosphere one can have. You are willing to set aside irrelevant feelings and emotions to achieve a superior outcome and conveying an expectation of the same from the other party.
STEP 2 (Yield) : It is obvious that STEP 1 (Reason) did not succeed due to a mismatch of outlook and approach between the two sides. After reflecting upon oneself, once you are sure that you are on the right track, you realize that you need to try another approach. Perhaps the other side is GOOD at heart but not SMART enough to be convinced by logic or reasoning. That is the best possibility of all possibilities that remain. If reason did not appeal perhaps a generous gesture will help. Your willing offer of yielding, compromise and giving away something that you have already made a case for as your right, should, preferably, evoke a warm response from the heart of the other, if they are GOOD. It will signal that you care about that person, their feelings a bit more than what you believe is rightfully yours. This also signals the last chance to arrive at resolution in a positive spirit.
STEP 3 (Undermine) : This signals to the other party that you view them as BAD or NOT-GOOD. This is the beginning of the transition from 'nice' to 'NOT nice' approach. It signals and usually begets mutual hostility. It indicates that you are willing to get tough. You should expect the same from the other side. Ultimately it becomes a game or contest of who can intimidate, deter, weaken the position of the other without unrestrained hostilities breaking out. There are still norms of legitimacy adhered to, sometimes stretching the limits of their definition. STEP 3 (Undermine) requires a lot of preparation and can be very stressful. The resolution of the issue in STEP 3 (Undermine) is almost always WIN SOME - LOSE SOME for both sides. It is when both sides mutually agree to limit their losses and salvage as much as they can. It often reflects their relative strengths and willingness to compromise.
STEP 4 (Fight) : This signals the last option - either surrender unconditionally to the adversary or fight. This is when all reasoning, willingness to compromise and restraint in expressing hostilities are gone. The whole effort and situation becomes one of a contest of strengths and the ability to withstand attacks. The stronger, more resilient one wins and dictates the terms of the resolution after the fight is over (or when you surrender)!
Important Notes And Observations:
All STEPS (1-4) are equally important. It is the ability to implement any of them that determines our fate and life. Those who are the best in all of them will achieve the best quality in life. In the history of human civilization and in the animal kingdom - success in STEP 4 (Fight) is the most effective if all other steps fail, but victory there is still not permanent."
The Teacher then continued, "Now, we will consider the scenarios where these STEPS are followed, but NOT in the recommended sequence.
Starting with STEP 2 (Yield) instead of starting with STEP 1 (Reason) will be seen as patronizing and it is indeed so. It is starting with the assumption that the other person is NOT amenable to reason and logic which may not be the case. For due process and to give reason the first chance to prevail, it is important to give STEP 1 (Reason) a chance before we try any other STEPS (2-4).
Starting with STEP 3 (Undermine) shows bad faith on our part and unwillingness to give consideration to the potential good nature and goodwill of the other side.
Beginning with STEP 4 (Fight) indicates even worse - the sheer arrogance and stupidity in ourselves and a desire for violence or destruction as the preferred option.
So, we can see that starting with STEP 1 (Reason) is the best and wisest way.
Now, what if after STEP 1 (Reason) things do not work out? Why not try STEP 3 (Undermine) after STEP 1 (Reason)?
This would indicate that you are willing to resolve things by reason and logic as you see it but that you are not willing to compromise, yield or show a willingness to try and win over the heart, if not the mind, of the other. STEP 3 (Undermine), like STEP 4 (Fight) leads to hardening of attitudes potentially avoidable hostilities, losses and a weakening of both sides. The outcome will be less desirable than what is possible with goodwill still intact and a little compromise within STEP 2 (Yield). This approach would certainly indicate something about yourself - that perhaps you are not inclined to GOOD yourself.
One may thus analyze what happens if after failure in STEP 1 (Reason), one goes to STEP 4 (Fight)!
This would bypass all opportunities to arrive at an agreed upon mutually acceptable outcome with some goodwill. It denies yourself and the adversary an opportunity to test or scope out the strengths of each other and decide to minimize the damage. It takes both straight to loss and hostility, attempting to settle the issue with a do or die approach, all out war just after an attempt at reasoning did not work out. Miscalculating the strength or misunderstanding the potential GOOD in the other person can bring ruin all around. This approach of jumping to STEP 4 (Fight) after STEP 1 (Reason) indicates something BAD and UNWISE about yourself too, to others.
So, now we can see why after STEP 1 (Reason), it is best to go to STEP 2 (Yield). What now?
You may ask - why not after STEP 1 (Reason) and STEP 2 (Yield), if they are unsuccessful, we go straight to STEP 4 (Fight)?
STEP 3 (Undermine) gives one a chance to backtrack minimizing losses and without getting too far along into hostilities and into war. War usually results in maximum losses on both sides. STEP 4 (Fight) removes the possibility of a STEP 3 (Undermine) resolution - a face-saving, less damaging path, that can even be made out as if it was a STEP 2 (Yield) outcome and an effort to bring back some goodwill. Jumping to STEP 4 (Fight) out of the recommended sequence indicates something about oneself - a tendency to be war-mongering, a predilection for violence, destruction and damage that is potentially avoidable.
So, now we see why the sequential order of STEP 1 (Reason), STEP 2 (Yield) and STEP 3 (Undermine) is so important. Once these do not succeed, we have no other option left but STEP 4 (Fight), in its logical place!
It should be unsurprising that STEP 4 (Fight) usually brings an outcome in due course - over a short or long period of time that is a measure of the relative strengths of the two sides. STEP 4 (Fight) brings out a winner and loser. The winner usually gets to dictate terms without consideration of what is fair, just or equitable under reason or logic.
STEP 4 (Fight) trumps every other step if one is capable of winning in it. Hence, STEP 4 (Fight) can appear very tempting to those who believe in their own strength and the weakness of their adversary. Miscalculation in this can mean you could end up where you believed your adversary would be. STEP 4 (Fight) usually leaves great damage, scorched earth and lasting bitterness."
A hand was raised and the Teacher called out for the question.
"Why STEP 4 (Fight) at all? Why recommend it, even?" the student seemed troubled that someone would even suggest such as a method of conflict resolution.
The Teacher smiled and continued,"Good question. I was expecting someone to ask this!
STEP 4 (Fight) against the appropriate adversary is often the only way to finally achieving resolution of the issue with justice and doing the right by all. The good thing about moving to STEP 4 (Fight) in the right order, after the sequence of STEP 1 (Reason), STEP 2 (Yield), and STEP 3 (Undermine), is that one can then go to it with a clear conscience. One can proceed without regret for not having tried all possible ways to avoid certain war, violence, destruction. STEP 4 (Fight) is sometimes inevitable for the right to win over wrong, for good to win over bad and for justice to prevail. Human history so far bears this out. Periods without STEP 4 (Fight) being used are not always periods of good peace, justice and fairness. They are often the stage of STEP 3 (Undermine) with issues festering until something explodes."
Another hand shot up among the students and the Teacher asked for the question.
"Surely STEP 4 (Fight) does not mean that GOOD and SMART will prevail on the issue, does it? They could lose the war!"
The teacher seemed happy with the question, "Another logical and good one!
Yes, It is also possible that GOOD may lose to BAD in STEP 4 (Fight). It would imply that it GOOD was weaker than BAD. Such happens sometimes. Often this indicates an error of judgement on someone's part about their own strength, their own beliefs on what is GOOD or BAD or what one could call luck! The smarter and stronger one is, they are likely to prevail in STEP 4 (Fight). Hence, the logical implication is - if you are GOOD, you need to be SMARTER and stronger than your BAD adversary to prevail in STEP 4 (Fight). If your adversary is also GOOD, you would have resolved the issue in STEP 1 (Reason) or STEP 2 (Yield). If you and your adversary are both SMART you should reach a resolution by STEP 3 (Undermine).
It seems that sometimes it is not even the outcome of STEP 4 (Fight), but the fact that all the steps were done in the right sequence, is itself the best achievement of humankind. Victory in STEP 4 (Fight) can be a pyrrhic one for the one who prevails, but the contribution to human condition is still worthy.
I urge you all to think about these steps, their sequences and implications repeatedly, visualize how you could apply these to an issue at hand and practice it."
Copyright (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2021
All rights reserved