This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How is it possible to turn an argument into a mutually beneficial outcome?
when two involved parties are arguing, it seems to be over a disagreement where both sides of the argument want an outcome that conflicts with the opposition.
however, often both sides of the argument want the same outcome (ie. peace) and it is not a matter of getting there, it is a matter of how to get there.
how can ordinary people step in to offer advice, where needed, to create a mutually beneficial outcome for both sides of an argument?
does anyone have examples of a resolution where two sides of an argument were dealt with according to the desired goal for everyone involved? please share your experience.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Maaher Sayeed 10+
If the objective is to resolve the issue on hand objectively they themselves will engage in a manner that drives their argument towards a solution.
But if they are emotionally driven and they put aside the need to reason and work towards a solution, no intervention or assistance will help resolve the concern on hand unless the third party has a superior influence that forces both parties to adhere to.
Having said that, the only help one can provide, considering that they have earned the right to participate in an argument, is perhaps by providing neutral unbiased points to help both parties refocus towards “reason” and a solution. Often in the heat of an argument reason and objectiveness dies in the hands of temper and emotion and a neutral person to provide a balance will be benefitial. Again it works only if their objective and intentions are truly to find a solution.
griffin tucker 10+
-. find out if both parties are willing to work to a solution - otherwise it may be best to just walk away from the problem and deal with someone else to come to a solution. a third party - of whom can provide a balanced point of view, or as close to neutral as possible, may be required.
-. emotionally-driven arguments are best to walk away from and come back to once 'cooled off' - usually a knowledgeable 3rd party would need to be present to split up the people involved until such a time of 'cooling off'
-. to begin with, to avoid heating the situation, begin analyzing the problem at hand with either common points of view, or as close as one can be to neutral points of view.
-. providing neutral unbiased points of information - 'putting the facts on the table' - is necessary - even if thought to be known by both parties.
thank-you kindly for your advice, Maaher Sayeed.
Ben Jarvis 50+
both possiblities were simultaneously both good and bad, and even though a once-a-week inconvenience for him is not as bad as more work for everybody else all the time, it was deemed worse because it was his store after all and there continued to be no solution despite his claiming that he desired one.
i'd therefore suggest adding an insistence to compromise, and to addressing the deepest root cause of the argument rather than any effects.