Right Versus Wrong Is Rarely the Issue. Learn to Be Patient with Conflicts
I already mentioned many times that in the business world, from a strategic/competitive standpoint, there is rarely black and white, right and wrong. To some extent, the same is true in life, too. There is one aspect that is worth pointing out, which is both significant and insightful. It will prove helpful in many conflict situations, whether business related or personal.
From the time we are children, we are taught right from wrong. Everything revolves around right and wrong. I have no issues with that. That’s the way it should be, but with a caveat. When a situation involves a conflict with another person, often the situation cannot be reduced to an absolute right versus wrong. Each person has their own version of the event or situation, and there are many shades of gray. It may not be a situation where one person is completely right and the other completely wrong. It is in these situations that what we learned as children does not serve us well.
In situations like these, we tend to resort to trying to decipher who is more right and who is more wrong—who is more at fault and therefore more to blame. We use this logic to justify blaming or punishing the person who is more in the wrong and vice versa. Over the years, therefore, we are logically conditioned to use those measurements to justify our actions. Think about many of the arguments you may have had. I’ll bet the majority of the arguments centered around the discussion of who was right and who was wrong; who was to blame; who started it all; who should bear more responsibility; and so on.
Once we have decided that we are in the right and the other person is in the wrong, we demand that they take the necessary corrective action to make it right again. After all, it was their fault, so they now have the responsibility to fix it. This is the way, over the years, we have been conditioned to think. This is the yardstick by which we measure our response and our expectations from the other party in a conflict. The problem is this: Right or wrong isn’t helpful for finding solutions to conflicts. How does one find a solution where both sides feel that they are right and the other party is wrong? Both sides are equally conditioned to require concessions from the other side because the other side is at fault!
Often, a third party is called in to place judgment on which party is more right and which is more wrong. Again, the assignment of right and wrong becomes the guide to the resolution of the conflict. The irony is that in many situations a resolution is not likely to happen as long as the right from wrong is used as a measurement scale. To find a resolution, both sides must reject this notion. Rather, both sides must ask themselves how much they are willing to compromise in order to resolve the conflict. In other words, draw redlines based on the consequences of the conflict at hand, rather than the right or wrong. Stating it more simply, right or wrong should not be an issue.
It should not be an issue not just because it would be easier to resolve conflicts if it weren’t. It should not be an issue because many times there is no right or wrong. It is in the eye of the beholder. An extreme example will vividly demonstrate this point. People could kill others because they could believe they are justified to do so based on being in the right. They would even be willing to die for this belief. The problem is that the other side feels exactly the same; they would be willing to kill and die for a cause, believing they are on the side of right. How can there be right or wrong when both sides are willing to die in the belief that they are right? There is no right or wrong in situations like these. Being right or wrong is almost irrelevant!
I am not suggesting that one side couldn’t indeed be right and the other be completely wrong, from an outside-looking-in perspective, or some absolute measurement of right versus wrong. All I’m saying is that when both sides believe that they are more in the right, who actually is more in the right is almost irrelevant. The conflict can only be resolved amicably if the issue of right and wrong is off the table. I learned this lesson in the most unexpected way, and it stuck with me.
A Personal Approach: How I Discovered the Irrelevancy of Right vs. Wrong
My wife and I were married in Israel, and we were both quite young. I was twenty-one years old at the time. Ten years later, when we were living in the United States, she informed me that she wanted a divorce. Culturally, the idea of divorce didn’t sit well with me. In Israel, where I grew up, a divorce was granted only in extreme cases. It was also considered to be a symbol of failure in life, an act of running away from problems. It was not the case in the United States, where divorce was more commonplace.
I probably would have initially resisted her request, but would have given in quickly. However, this happened just a few months after our daughter, Beth, was born. At that point, I would have never accepted a divorce. Besides the stigma of what a divorce connoted in my mind, I was suddenly also about to lose my only daughter. I wasn’t going to let that happen. I also didn’t believe that my wife had the right to singularly decide to separate my daughter from me. She was the mother, but I was the father. Neither one of us had the right to take her away from the other. I knew that the law here was different. But to me, this was not an issue of what the law allowed. It was an issue of right versus wrong.
In addition, the timing and the whole concept made no sense to me from anybody’s perspective: not from mine; not from hers; and definitely not from Beth’s (who had no say in the matter). It was unquestionably an overall lose-lose-lose situation for all three people involved. It just made no logical sense to me.
I tried to talk my wife out of proceeding with a divorce, but she wouldn’t budge. The more I tried, the more determined she appeared to become. I used all the logic I could muster, but to no avail. She didn’t have any logical reasons for her actions, only an emotional stubbornness. I always had a hard time dealing with poor logic or lack of logic to begin with—imagine how I felt when it came to a topic as important as divorce. With time, the situation worsened and the interactions between us became more difficult. It took quite a toll on me.
A friend at Booz Allen suggested that my wife and I should visit a marriage counselor. I didn’t think that anybody who was on the outside could help me. My friend said that she knew this person, a psychologist, very well. She assured me that I would like him. Besides, she asked me, what had I to lose? I agreed. I thought to myself that maybe, just maybe, he would be able to talk some sense into my wife. Initially, my wife refused to go, insisting that there was no way anybody, or anything, would change her mind about the divorce. However, she eventually agreed.
We went to see the psychologist. He asked to talk to us individually. He first spoke with my wife for about twenty minutes. He then asked me into his office and asked for my thoughts and perspective about the situation. I spent almost ten minutes explaining my perspective. He didn’t ask a single question or make a comment while I talked. At the end, he looked at me in a strange way, somewhat puzzled, somewhat confused. He seemed to be at a loss for words. He finally said, “I don’t know exactly what to say. I have never heard such compelling logic and arguments, ever! Your logic is impeccable. I cannot find a single thing wrong with it. It is so clear that I don’t even have a single question.” I was encouraged; finally, someone with some brains!
He then continued, drawing a circle with his hand, and said, “You have a circle here, and inside that circle you placed perfectly interwoven logic; not a single flaw, not even a minor one. However, there is only one problem. The whole circle, as perfect as it may be, doesn’t apply here. It doesn’t belong here.” I had no idea what he was talking about, and told him so. He said, “Your logic is irrelevant here. Being right is irrelevant here. Your wife is seeking a divorce for completely different reasons, completely unrelated to your logic. So, all the logic in the world will not change her mind. The real question is whether you, your wife, and your daughter are better off working it out and staying married, or not. Being right or wrong doesn’t apply here.”
I kind of understood what he was saying, but not fully. He continued, “I heard you and I heard your wife. I normally spend more time with couples before I render advice. But in this case, it is easy for me to decide. My observation is that both of you will be better off divorced. You are two completely different people. Marriage would not be a happy one for either of you. It would be the least fair to your daughter. She should not be exposed to unhappy parents. In my opinion, everybody would be better off with a divorce.” I was shocked, but understood what he said. I accepted the unthinkable. I realized that it was inevitable. This was the first time I became aware of the irrelevancy of right versus wrong. It was a wise lesson that I learned the hard way.
Even more surprisingly, after I indicated that I understood, he said something completely unexpected. He wanted to see me again. He said, “You are a fascinating person; I want to discuss another matter with you, which I believe will help you a lot with your job and career. Please come back for one more visit; trust me.” I agreed. I learned another very important lesson on the following visit. I will come back to it later in the book.
Meanwhile, as related to this section, my advice to you is simple: Whenever in a conflict situation, the concept of right versus wrong is mostly irrelevant. Resolution of the conflict should be based on how much the parties are willing to compromise based on the consequences of the conflict continuing or stopping. You cannot make other people think the same. But in many cases, as soon as you start thinking like this, you may be able to influence a resolution of conflicts strictly based on what you are willing to compromise.
I also believe that in many conflict situations, finding a solution is more relevant than assigning blame. This is particularly true in business, where assigning blame without a resolution of a conflict is a reason, albeit perhaps justified, for not having reached an agreement. But reaching an agreement is an accomplishment, and accomplishments are more rewarded than reasons.