Standing disagreement
Διαφωνία που μένει
A difference both of you can see will not close, said out loud as exactly that, so the question moves from who wins it to what you do while it stands. The negotiation work above separates the people from the problem, and naming the disagreement is what keeps it out of every ordinary decision.
How to spot it
Ask whether the last three arguments were the same one wearing different clothes. If they were, it is standing and nobody has said so.
The research behind the term
The term is not our invention. It comes from published research, and what follows is what that research found — our own synthesis of the published abstract, not a translation of the original.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In — πηγή
What it found
- A generally applicable method of negotiation is proposed, aimed at mutually satisfying agreements rather than victory for one side.
- First principle: separate the people from the problem.
- Second principle: focus on interests, not positions.
- Third principle: work together to find creative and fair options.
How it found it
A method book that emerged from the Harvard Negotiation Project; it sets out a step-by-step framework of principles rather than primary empirical research.
What it means for conflict management
A disagreement de-escalates once it stops being a clash of positions: behind two irreconcilable positions there are almost always interests that can be reconciled.
Practised in
The term does not stay a definition. It appears inside missions where the pattern happens in real time and you have to recognise it as it happens to you.
The Same Argument, Again
One Week, Four Arguments
Sources
Every claim on this page maps to published research. The citations link to the original source.
- Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In — Source on penguinrandomhouse.com