As we speak, conflict is all around us. How would you describe the current environment?

Every day, we are confronted by the headache and heartache of contentious disputes. More than at any other time I can recall, destructive conflicts are polarizing our communities, poisoning our relationships and paralyzing our ability to address our most critical issues.

Ironically, after many decades of working on intractable political conflicts around the world, I find an intractable conflict tearing apart my own country [the United States]. Unthinkable as the prospect may seem, more than two in five Americans fear that the country may be sliding into a civil war. I have never seen such levels of fear, anger and contempt for the other side. Nor have I seen such depths of resignation and despair — so many people throwing their hands into the air and concluding that they are powerless to change the situation for the better.

The phenomenon of polarization is not limited to the United States; it is a global trend, separating families, communities and societies around the world.

My question is, How many opportunities are we losing, for lack of a better way of dealing with our differences? In my work, I come up against the common assumption that all conflict is bad — and I used to hold that assumption myself. But as an anthropologist and mediator, I’ve come to appreciate that conflict is natural. It is part of life itself. Simply by virtue of being human, we are going to have different perspectives and interests. But we have a choice: We can either choose between destructive conflict, which destroys relationships, resources and lives, or constructive conflict, whereby we actually listen to each other, collaborate and negotiate. That is the choice we face. What if we applied our full human potential to dealing with conflict — our natural capacities for curiosity, creativity and collaboration?

Despite the current state of affairs, you believe the world actually needs more conflict, not less. Please say why. I know it sounds strange, but if you think about it, constructive conflict lies at the heart of our democracies, in the form of elections, for example, or in the form of votes in our parliaments and congress. It also lies at the heart of the modern economy in the form of business competition. We need conflict in some sense to challenge us to grow, to make change, to address injustices and to evolve. In our personal lives, we learn and grow through the challenge of conflict. Many psychologists argue that healthy marriages benefit from conflict. It makes us come alive.

You believe that if anthropologists living 1,000 years from now were to look back at us today, they would call this "the era of the human family reunion." Please explain.

An anthropologist in the future studying us today would note that, thanks to the communications revolution, all 15,000 language groups on Earth are now in touch with each other for the first time in human history. Never before have billions of people had to truly coexist as we do today. So, in that sense, it’s like a great family reunion of humanity.

But like many family reunions, it’s not all peace and light. There’s a lot of conflict. There’s a lot of resentment and inequity and injustice. How do we get along with each other and deal with the clashes of values? The greatest challenge we face today is to coexist and deal with our differences constructively rather than destructively.

You believe the traditional goal of conflict resolution — reaching an agreement — must change. Please explain.

When Roger Fisher, Bruce Patton and I worked on Getting to Yes more than 40 years ago, “yes” meant a mutually satisfying agreement. Today, I believe the meaning must be expanded. The "new yes" means more than reaching an agreement. It means transforming our relationships. Agreements are finite and often transactional; they come and go. Transformation is relational and can continue long into the future.

Even if we disagree — and we are going to — can we do so in a way that allows us to make progress together? Instead of trying to resolve conflict and reach agreement, can we aim for something more realistic and more sustainable than resolution? What if we were to focus on transforming conflict from destructive fighting into creative negotiation? The "new yes" means leaning in and embracing conflicts for all they have to offer us. If we can embrace and transform our conflicts, we can learn to live and work together. That’s the goal of the "new yes."

You have developed a framework for getting to the "new yes," with three steps. The first is "going to the balcony." Please explain what that means.

The biggest obstacle we face when we’re dealing with conflict isn’t what we think it is. We usually think it’s the "other" sitting across from us at the table — a difficult individual, organization or nation. But I’ve found the biggest obstacle to getting what I want in any situation is even closer than that: It’s me. It’s us. It’s on our side of the table.

The problem lies with our natural human tendency to react — to act and speak without thinking, in ways that are contrary to what we want to achieve. As the old saying goes, "When you are angry, you will make the best speech you will ever regret." Either we attack or avoid, which doesn’t solve the problem, or we accommodate and give in.

The secret is to do the opposite, which is where the metaphor of going to the balcony comes in. It means pausing and taking a step back from the situation. I counsel people to imagine themselves standing on a balcony overlooking a stage on which the conflict in question is taking place. The balcony is a place of calm, control and perspective. It’s a place where you can see the bigger picture. Doing this work within ourselves is the key precondition for getting to yes for all involved.

The second element in your framework is bridge-building. How does that fit into the framework?

In today’s world, many people are busy burning bridges, so building bridges between people inside and outside of our organizations is incredibly important work. But it can only happen once we have taken the time to go to the balcony and see the big picture.

In destructive conflict, we dig into our positions and build walls. Again, we need to do the opposite. Imagine I’m standing here and you’re way over there. There’s a big chasm between your position and mine. It’s filled with all the reasons why it’s hard to reach agreement, including doubt, anxiety and fear of looking weak. If I want us to meet, I need to build a bridge — a golden bridge — an inviting way to cross the chasm of conflict. I need to make it easier for us to walk toward each other.

We need to start to see conflict as three-sided: There’s the work to be done on the first side, which is the balcony work; there’s the work on the second side, which is the bridging work; and there’s the work on the third side, which entails involving the community surrounding the issue. I call this last piece "making room for the third side." We need to put all three together if we’re going to have a chance to tackle today’s conflicts.

Tell us more about the “third side.”

With conflict, generally speaking, we reduce everything to two sides: Us versus them. It’s union versus management. It’s sales versus manufacturing. It’s Arabs versus Israelis. And yet in truth, there are never just two sides in any conflict. There is always a third side, which is the surrounding community — the neighbours, the citizens, the co-workers. Everyone else around the situation.

The third side is a way of looking at a conflict not just from one side or the other, but also from the larger perspective of the surrounding community. Any of us can take the third side any time at home, at work, in the community and in the world. You can have natural sympathies for one side or the other and still choose to take the third side — whether it is your family, and organization, your community or the world.

It’s really hard, particularly today, to go to the balcony — and it’s getting harder, so we need help. And where’s that help going to come from? It can come from the people around us and even from within ourselves. We can play the role of the third side ourselves if we take the side of the whole.

What does it mean to be a "possibilist?"

I’ve been working on some of the world’s biggest conflicts for many decades, and people often ask me, “Are you an optimist or a pessimist?” These days, my answer is, “actually, I’m a possibilist.” I’ve seen all the negative possibilities of conflict up close. I’ve witnessed what happens when people, organizations and nations go at each other. But I’ve also seen lots of positive possibilities come to life. I’ve seen what human beings can accomplish, and that gives me hope.

During the 1980s, I spent a decade working on averting an accidental nuclear war, with frequent trips to Washington and Moscow. I witnessed the remarkable transformation of the U.S.Soviet relationship as the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War came to an end, against all odds and expectations.

When I first visited South Africa in the late 1980s, experienced political observers believed that it would take decades and perhaps only a bloody civil war to end the racist system of apartheid. Instead, in a few short years, the conflict was transformed and Nelson Mandela, who had been imprisoned for 27 years, was elected to the presidency.

More recently, I had the opportunity to serve as an advisor to the president of Colombia as he sought to do what most people in his country imagined was impossible: to end a civil war that had persisted for almost half a century. Hundreds of thousands of people had died. It took six years of hard negotiation, but in the end a historic peace was forged and, to everyone’s surprise, the main guerrilla force laid down its weapons.

On a smaller scale I’ve watched families heal their feuds. I’ve witnessed bitter business rivals become friends again. I’ve seen leaders from all sides of the political spectrum in my own country learn to work together. I have seen human beings from all walks of life rise to the challenge of turning destructive confrontation into productive negotiation. If it has happened before, I believe it can happen again. In fact, I think our only viable choice going forward is to be possibilists.

To be clear, possible doesn’t mean easy. There are no quick fixes. Dealing with conflict is some of the hardest work we humans can do. It takes patience and a lot of persistence. To be a possibilist means to look negative possibilities squarely in the eye and use them as motivation to search persistently for positive possibilities. Whether they become a reality depends on us. Always remember, what has been made by us can be changed by us.

10 roles that can transform any conflict The provider Conflict usually arises in the first place from frustrated needs, like love and respect. Frustration leads people to bully others, use violence and grab someone else’s things. The most basic human needs include food (and other necessities for living), safety, identity and freedom. If we as Third-Siders can help people address one or more of these four needs we can avert destructive conflict. The teacher Sometimes people fight simply because they know no other way to react when a need is frustrated, and a serious difference arises. By helping people learn new values, perspectives and skills, we as Teachers can show them a better way to deal with differences. The bridge builder Anyone can help build bridging relationships across natural divides. A relationship operates like savings in the bank; whenever an issue arises, the parties can dip into their account of goodwill to help deal with it. Often not a discrete activity, bridge-building takes place all around us, sometimes without us even perceiving it—at family meals, on school projects, in business transactions and at neighbourhood meetings. The mediator At the core of conflict are often conflicting interests. As mediators, we can help reconcile the parties’ interests. The mediator does not seek to determine who is right and who is wrong, but rather tries to get to the core of the dispute and help the parties resolve it. We may not think of it as mediation, but that is what we are doing whenever we listen attentively to people in dispute and urge them to think hard about the costs of not reaching agreement. The arbiter Sometimes mediation isn’t enough to resolve a dispute or isn’t appropriate because basic rights are being violated. Whereas a Mediator can only suggest a solution, an arbiter can decide what is right. The arbiter is a familiar role, embodied in the judge in the courtroom or the arbitrator in a work setting. More informally, the arbiter is the teacher deciding a dispute among two quarreling students, the parent ruling on a matter involving two children, or the manager determining an issue among two employees. In this sense, we are all potential arbiters. The equalizer Every conflict takes place within the larger context of power. Imbalance of power often leads to abuse and injustice. The strong refuse to negotiate with the weak or to submit their dispute to mediation or arbitration — why should they, they think, when they can win? This is where the equalizer has a contribution to make. Each of us holds a packet of power, a measure of influence over the parties around us. Individually, our influence may be small, but collectively, it can be considerable. We are capable of empowering the weak and the unrepresented so that they can negotiate a fair and mutually satisfactory resolution. The healer At the core of many conflicts lie emotions — anger, fear, humiliation, hatred, insecurity and grief. The wounds may run deep. Even if a conflict appears resolved after a process of mediation, adjudication or voting, the wounds may remain and, with them, the danger that the conflict could recur. A conflict cannot be considered fully resolved until the injured relationships have begun to heal. The role of the healer is to assist in this process. The witness Destructive conflict doesn’t just break out—it escalates through different stages, from tension to overt conflict to violence. By watching carefully, the witness can detect warning signals, which, if acted on, can prevent escalation of conflict and even save lives. A witness can also speak up to persuade the parties to cease fighting and sound the alarm to call the attention of other third-siders who can intervene as mediators, peacekeepers or other witnesses. The referee Some fighting can be salutary. Fighting can serve the function of clearing the air and bringing suppressed problems into sharp focus. If and when people do fight, it is important to reduce the harm. That is the role of the referee, who sets limits on fighting. Parents know this role well: “Pillows are okay, but fists are not.” “No blows above the neck or below the belt.” As referees, we can change the way people fight, replacing destructive weapons and methods with substantially less destructive ones. The Peacekeeper When the rules are broken and the limits on fighting are exceeded, the community needs to employ the minimally forceful measures necessary to stop harmful conflict in its tracks. The role of peacekeeping need not be limited to specialists like the police and UN Peacekeepers; it is a community function that anyone may be called upon to play. When two children fight, adults can step in the middle and, if necessary, physically pull the two apart. The best peacekeepers never fight, because they don’t need to. They accomplish their ends by intervening early and using persuasion.

This article originally appeared in the Spring 2024 issue of the Rotman Management magazine. Subscribe to the Rotman Management magazine now for the latest thinking on leadership and innovation.