For every problem there is a zone of possible solutions

Commentary. By Leonard J. Marcus, PhD, and Barry C. Dorn, MD, AMNews contributors. May 7, 2001.

COMMENTARY

Observations on the state of medical practice and medical life

SEE ARCHIVES

When people are enmeshed in conflict, it is only natural that they see the problems from their own point of view, just as they see the array of potential solutions in light of their own desires and preferences.

If you were to arrange the scope of acceptable solutions for each side, you would find that there is a zone of options acceptable to your side, a zone of options acceptable to the other side, and hopefully, some overlap between the two that constitutes your zone of agreement or settlement. The wider the zones of acceptable options early in the process, the greater is your likelihood of eventually finding mutually acceptable solutions in the end.

How does a "zone of agreement" differ from a "point of agreement?" And how do the two reinforce one another?

Picture a zone in your mind: it is not endless; it has bounds and boundaries. It is also not specific. It is an area, an expanse: ill defined and perhaps not fully apparent.

In due course, when parties to a negotiation reach the latter stages of their deliberations -- what we call the "aligned interests" phase of the process -- then it is time to focus on specific points of agreement. These are the explicit, decisive, and conclusive outcomes of the negotiation process. These are the details of a contract, a consensus upon which people have deliberated and which they are prepared to adopt.

It is premature at the outset of a negotiation -- during the "enlarged interests" stage of the process -- to get too specific too soon. Why? [...]