The process of resolving conflict is easy: Find out what people need and, if you can and/or are willing to, give them what they need; if you can't and/or won't, it's probably non negotiable (also called "take it or leave it").

But while conflict resolution is easy, it may not be simple. Sometimes, conflict resolution can be very complex, involving many people and multiple issues. But in all situations, the process of conflict resolution is easy and is as I've described it in the paragraph above.

As I write this, there is an intense debate in the United States over whether to include a "public option" in health care reform. While not arguing for or against the merits of a "public option," the debate provides an excellent illustration of why the process of conflict resolution is easy (surprised by this example given the current debate? Read on).

In order to understand why this is so, you have to understand the difference between wants and needs. People will argue over wants but they will negotiate over needs.

People will argue over wants because wants are limited resources. Because these resources are limited, people think they have to argue to get their share. Typical wants are money, time and/or people. They are limited because there's only so much of the resource to go around. We are all limited by the amount of money we have (no matter how much), by the amount of time we have (24 hours in a day) and the number of people (6 billion as of this writing, but no one has access to all of them).

On the other hand, people will negotiate over needs because it is perceived that there are multiple ways to satisfy needs.

There's an easy way to distinguish the want from the need. Simply ask the question, "Why is that important to you?"

Now apply this to the debate over the "public option."

The question, "Why is a public option important to you?" may yield the answer, "To ensure that there is competition for healthcare." "Competition for healthcare" is the need in this example. The "public option" is the want.

You could also view this from the other side in the debate. Asking the question, "Why is not including a public option in health care important to you?" might produce the answer, "To ensure that the government doesn't intrude on healthcare decisions." "Not having the government intrude in healthcare decisions" is the need in this example.

We're seeing the intense debate (and, on occasion, anger) over this issue because some people will only settle for getting what they want ("public option" or "no public option") resulting in arguments and ultimately, perhaps, stalemate.

If, on the other hand, people are willing to accept getting their need met ("competition in healthcare" "no government intrusion"), then an agreement to the conflict is more likely because there are multiple ways to satisfy these needs.

This is not to suggest that people will always be willing to negotiate. In some conflicts, people want what they want and they will not be swayed. As I noted in the first paragraph, these non negotiable situations are called "take it or leave it." If you find yourself here, you'll have to look elsewhere to get your needs met.

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? LJBARKAN@THEPIVOTALFACTOR.COM

Permission to reproduce is granted as long as the following citation is included:

Reprinted by permission of the author, Larry Barkan: http://www.conflictresolutiontraining.net