Here’s a math problem for you: Addition.
What’s the answer? Uh…
You can’t solve “addition.” You need more information first.
Mathematicians use the word “solution space” to describe the set of possible solutions to a problem. People who do a lot of systematic problem-solving – negotiators, mediators, engineers, project managers – use it a bit more broadly as “the part of the process where you start thinking about solutions.”
If you are dealing with an experienced problem-solver, you may hear them say, “Let’s not jump into solution space yet.”
Jumping into solution space is counterproductive. You want to amble into solution space. By which I mean, spend the time and effort to fully understand the problem before evaluating solutions. To fully understand the problem, you will need to talk to your negotiating partner, with the goal of learning what their view is and what knowledge they have that you lack. The problem includes not only the initial situation, but also each person’s goals and needs that the solution must address.
Contentious negotiations often get this backwards. They start with solutions, before discussing the problem. Meanwhile, each person has their own interpretation of the problem, and their own goals and needs, that nobody else knows about.
Have you ever felt like it’s obvious why your solution is best, and others are rejecting it for no real reason? And that you have no idea how to proceed when all you hear is “no”? It’s because you’re jumping into solution space. You can proceed by sharing more of what you have in mind, and learning more about what the other person is thinking and assuming.
Example: Person A and Person B plan a group lunch
(The blog has an extended version of this example with dialogue.)
“Let’s have lunch at Le Gros Choux,” says B. A replies, “No, I’ve told you I can’t eat there.”
B is annoyed. Why does A always have to be so difficult? Planning group meals is a logistical nightmare in general, but A makes it impossible. Why does A even want to come if they’re going to complain every time?
And A is upset. Why does the group always have to choose a place that is incompatible with A’s dietary restrictions? A has mentioned before that they have a special diet, so the group obviously knows.
At this point, they have several options:
Give up, causing conflict in their social group instead of the bonding meal they had planned.
Give in, causing the person who gave in to feel resentful that the solution does not meet their needs.
Talk some more. Person A could be patient and constructive, explaining that their dietary restrictions prevent them from eating at that restaurant, but they have other ideas to propose. Person B could be curious — why can’t A eat there, and where could A eat? Person B could also communicate their difficulties in choosing a place that suits the entire group.
A and B start out by framing the problem as “where should we eat?” After communicating and learning about each other’s needs and goals, they redefine the problem as “where should we eat that can accommodate the group’s preferences and A’s dietary restrictions?”
The third option requires time and persistence. But it leads to an outcome where both A and B are not only satisfied with the restaurant, they are more satisfied with their ongoing relationship. A understands that B isn’t deliberately leaving them out. B understands that A isn’t just a complainer, and that B needs to accommodate A’s medical needs. In the future, they will not need to repeat this conversation.
When a simple request ends up in conflict, there is a good chance you’ve jumped into solution space – but you and your negotiating partner are trying to solve different problems. Investing the time and effort to share your own needs and rationale, and learn about the other person’s, will lead to more stable and satisfying outcomes.