Creative Solutions
Part of Conflict Resolution
Techniques for generating options beyond the obvious in conflict resolution — moving past positional bargaining to find agreements that serve everyone’s actual interests.
Why This Matters
Most conflicts that reach mediation appear intractable because the parties have framed them as zero-sum: “I win or you win.” This framing blocks resolution because it is mathematically correct — if the pie is fixed, every slice I give you is a slice I lose. But in the great majority of real disputes, the pie is not fixed. The apparent scarcity is an artifact of the way the problem has been defined, not a physical reality.
Creative solutions emerge when you shift from positions (“I want X”) to interests (“I need X because I need Y”). Interests are almost always more numerous, more flexible, and more accommodating than positions. Two people who have taken opposite positions on a single question often have overlapping interests that can be served in ways neither originally considered.
A community that can consistently find creative solutions to conflicts does more than resolve individual disputes. It builds a reputation for fairness and ingenuity that increases trust in the governance system. People are more willing to bring disputes to formal resolution when they believe the process can generate outcomes that meet their needs — rather than just splitting the difference or imposing a solution on the loser.
Moving From Positions to Interests
The most important step in generating creative solutions is the shift from “what do you want?” to “why do you want it?” Consider a classic example: two people want the last orange. A positional solution cuts the orange in half; both get half of what they wanted. An interest-based inquiry reveals that one person wants the juice to drink and the other wants the peel to bake with. The creative solution gives each person exactly what they need from the same orange.
Practical interest-mapping technique:
- Ask each party to state their position (what they are asking for).
- Ask: “What would having that give you?” or “What are you most worried about if you don’t get it?” These questions surface the underlying need.
- List the interests separately from the positions.
- Compare the interest lists — look for compatible interests, overlapping interests, and interests that could be served in multiple ways.
Often the interests are not in direct conflict even when the positions are. The conflict is in the solution proposed, not in the need underlying the proposal.
Expanding the Range of Options
Standard negotiation produces a range of options between the two parties’ stated positions. Creative negotiation tries to expand the range of options before evaluating any of them. This separation of generation from evaluation is crucial — evaluating prematurely narrows the range and causes promising ideas to be discarded before they have been considered.
Brainstorming: Invite both parties to generate possible solutions without any commitment or evaluation. The rule is that no idea is rejected during generation — every idea is written down. Quantity matters more than quality at this stage. Wild or impractical ideas can unlock more practical ones by breaking the pattern of conventional thinking.
Inversion: Ask what would make the situation worse. Often the opposite of the worsening factors reveals solutions. “What if we did the exact opposite of our current approach?”
Dividing differently: If the dispute is about a resource, consider different ways of dividing it. Rather than spatial division (you get this half, I get that half), consider temporal division (you use it in the mornings, I use it in the afternoons), functional division (you control this function, I control that one), or sequential access (we alternate weeks).
Adding variables: Most disputes focus on one variable — the disputed item or decision. Expanding to include other variables often reveals trades. If two parties are deadlocked over a land boundary, the deadlock may be broken by adding a water access agreement or a shared maintenance obligation to the mix.
Outside resources: Sometimes a conflict is unresolvable with the resources currently available, but becomes resolvable if additional resources are brought in. A third party offers labor, materials, or expertise that changes the calculus. The mediator’s role includes asking: “What resources outside this room might change what’s possible here?”
Evaluating Options
Once a range of options has been generated, the parties evaluate them together. Useful evaluation questions:
- Does this option address the core interest of each party?
- Is it feasible with the resources available?
- Is it fair, and would it be recognized as fair by a neutral observer?
- Does it create ongoing obligations that can realistically be met?
- Does it close the dispute, or does it create new disputes?
- Is it durable — will it still make sense as conditions change?
The parties should evaluate each option using these questions rather than simply expressing preference. “I like Option C” is less useful than “Option C addresses my interest in water access but doesn’t address my interest in not having to maintain a shared path.” The second statement makes the remaining work clear.
When Creativity Is Blocked
Sometimes parties are so locked into their positions that they cannot engage with creative options. Signs of this: parties dismiss all proposed options immediately without engaging with them, parties return repeatedly to their original position regardless of what alternatives are offered, parties begin attributing bad faith to the other party.
When creativity is blocked, slow down. Return to the interest-mapping stage. Ask each party to describe what a successful outcome would look like one year from now — not in terms of the current dispute, but in terms of their lives. “If this is resolved well, what does your situation look like?” This future-orientation often unlocks thinking that the present conflict has blocked.
An impasse break — a short adjournment where each party meets separately with the mediator — can also reset a blocked conversation. Use the break to explore each party’s interests without the pressure of the other party’s presence, and return to joint session with new information.