Great relationships and partnerships are full of debate, humor, collaboration, and disagreement. Making decisions together requires working through complex issues and different points of view.
Breaking the gridlock of disagreement when both parties feel strongly about an issue is critical for sustaining a robust partnership. Doing this, however, is not always easy and has the potential of creating a fracture that can undermine the goodwill essential for long-term success.
To circumvent future conflicts before they happen, great partnerships and relationships operate from a set of rules or norms that will allow the parties to work through and resolve sticky issues. Three of the more important of these rules are the willingness to defer to the expertise of the other party, the commitment to defer to passion, and the obligation to defer a decision or choice if either party can’t live with it.
It is essential that these rules are agreed upon at the initiation of the partnership or long before an issue becomes a point of debate. Once it’s clear on any issue that neither party is willing to give ground, these rules must be applied.
The first rule is to defer to the judgment of the party with deepest expertise on the issue. Who has the most expertise, background, and experience? The willingness for one party to defer to this expertise, even when they believe strongly in their view, breaks the logjam. In many cases, expertise is distributed equally between the parties, which brings us to the next rule.
The second rule is to defer to the passion and strong sentiment of one of the parties. When one partner feels very strongly about an issue and the other partner believes their view is important but not critical enough to negate the others’ enthusiasm, deferring to this passion is a good call. Of course, the more common situation is where both parties feel passionately about the issue and their view.
To resolve differences when expertise and passion is not unequal, good partnerships rely on the third rule that both parties must be able to “live with” the ultimate decision. If either party finds the outcome so reprehensible, uncomfortable, or distasteful, the parties then simply postpone or shelve the decision altogether to preserve the relationship and to offset future bitterness.
It should be rare that one partner can’t abide by a decision or choice. That’s why it is essential that either party can pull the parachute on a decision that one partner believes is reckless or highly objectionable. Once again, agreeing to this rule at the onset of the partnership and not in the throes of disagreement is the best call.
Even in a great partnership, conflict can crop up and bite if rules of engagement aren’t agreed to before disagreements over issues and decisions escalate negative feelings. There are many rules of engagement worth exploring, but these three stand out. Good relationships deal with the potential potholes in the road long before they start driving.
