A framework for when people can't agree

Twenty years of watching people who disagree still have to build something together taught the same lesson from every angle: negotiations rarely stall because people disagree. They stall because nobody ever says out loud what's actually flexible and what isn't.

That turned into a framework this week. Four tiers, declared separately by every person in a decision, before anyone sees anyone else's answer:

Ideal: what someone would want with zero constraints. Good: a strong outcome, not perfect, genuinely satisfying. Acceptable: the real floor, the last stop before walking away. Non-Negotiable: the handful of things that aren't floors at all. Walls.

Most people only ever state one position, their opening ask, and everyone else has to guess the rest. Once every tier is on the table, finding agreement stops being an act of exhaustion. It becomes close to mechanical: find where the Acceptable zones overlap, check nothing crosses a Non-Negotiable, see how much of that overlap reaches into someone's Good state.

The sharpest test in the framework is the fourth tier. Most things people call non-negotiable aren't. The question that separates a real wall from a preference wearing a costume: would this get walked away from, every time, no matter what else was offered? Most claimed walls don't survive being asked that directly.

Curious whether anyone else here has run into a version of this, especially anyone building AI tools that touch multi-party decisions, contracts, or hiring.

I'm eating my own dog food, as they say.

6 comments

A framework for when people can't agree