Solution-Building™: The Rules, Part 9

Written on October 10, 2020. Posted in Solution-Building.

In the last post, I discussed the various aspects of personality that interact in many ways to dictate how our personality manifests itself. Those aspects were ego, id, superego, and alter ego. The fact is, we rarely talk about anything but ego, and unless we are trained in psychology we are ill-equipped to see that what we call “ego” is actually that manifestation of the four-component interaction.

When we say that someone is egotistical, or has low self-esteem, or, for that matter, any other related judgement, we are interpreting an outward behavior that may have little to do with the ego alone. Having said that, though, it is the behavior we see and thus we have to deal with.

“And . . .?,” you say? “So what is your point?” you ask? My point is that when we have the understanding that the behavior we see is the interaction of those four components, with a major contribution made by the id, the part of this picture that brings in personal needs and desires, we can then understand the behavior much better. This understanding is, in fact, a part of the principle of courtesy towards others, which I have discussed in previous posts, no matter who they are or how they are coming across to us. When we then see behavior we say comes from a person’s ego, we can then set our own feelings aside and listen to that person, evaluating what they are offering to the group – and not the manner in which it is being offered.

It is very easy, even tempting, to let our own egos become involved, responding negatively to the behavior we feel confronted with. This “clash of egos” is a dead end. When egos clash across the meeting table, it becomes more likely that the involved individuals will begin to stake out their positions in a fortress-like manner and defend them with all the weapons available. Nothing will get done and if it does it will only be because one of the involved will have the power or influence to force his will on the other. The effect of this will be discussed later when we examine one of the other Guidelines.

How do we avoid this clash of egos, then? One clear way is to simply let the other person have his way. This, however, goes against the principles of Solution-Building, since it does not encourage further participation by others and the examination of different ideas and viewpoints.

The road to positive engagement

Another, preferable, approach is engagement. But in a positive way. One party needs to be willing to engage in conversation to look at the reasons for the clash, as well as a way to turn clash into positive engagement. There is a TED talk by Megan Phelps-Roper that offers four tips when dealing with someone with whom you disagree. These are only somewhat related to Solution-Building and its consultative approach but they do provide some advice for how to begin the dialog. Those four steps are:

Don’t assume bad intent.
- The other person may sincerely believe they are right and are acting out of that belief rather than malice.
- In the context of Solution-Building, they may well believe that their ideas are the best and right approach and they may have a great deal of difficulty accepting that there may be viable, even “better,” alternatives.
Ask questions.
- Asking questions helps us understand the thinking of the other person and helps us map the divide between us.
- The questions need to be relevant and non-judgmental.
- They should get at the reasons for their stance on the topic.
Stay calm.
- When egos clash it is very easy for the conversation to escalate and become contentious and rancorous. One of you, and preferably both, need to avoid taking the conversation into that territory.
- In fact, if one stays calm (and maybe interjects a bit of humor into the conversation) it is much easier for the other person to do the same.
- This, of course, will require patience; a lot of patience sometimes.
Make the argument.
- Don’t expect them to “get it” because you are so clearly correct.
- To get the other person(s) to understand your thinking you need to articulate it clearly and in a style of discourse that allows them to listen.
- Your goal is to help them understand that there may be other solutions; in so doing you make it more likely they can see alternatives.
- In fact, you may also see alternatives as a result of the interchange.

Don’t be fooled by the title. She discusses the four points beginning at about the 9-minute mark, though her route to arrive at them is worth listening to.

Of course, the goal of Solution-Building is not to get someone to agree with your point of view on a subject. It is to get to the best possible solution. However, we are often faced with someone who wants us to accept what he says and will argue strongly.