Here’s a math problem for you: Addition.
What’s the answer? Uh…
You can’t solve “addition.” You need more information first.
Solution space
Mathematicians use the word “solution space” to describe the set of possible solutions to a problem. People who do a lot of systematic problem-solving – negotiators, mediators, engineers, project managers – use it a bit more broadly as “the part of the process where you start thinking about solutions.”
If you are dealing with an experienced problem-solver, you may hear them say, “Let’s not jump into solution space yet.”
Jumping into solution space is counterproductive. You want to amble into solution space. By which I mean, spend the time and effort to fully understand the problem before evaluating solutions.
To fully understand the problem, you will need to talk to your negotiating partner, with the goal of learning what their view is and what knowledge they have that you lack. The problem includes not only the initial situation, but also each person’s goals and needs that the solution must address.
Contentious negotiations often get this backwards. They start with solutions, before discussing the problem. Meanwhile, each person has their own interpretation of the problem, and their own goals and needs, that nobody else knows about.
Have you ever felt like it’s obvious why your solution is best, and others are rejecting it for no real reason? And that you have no idea how to proceed when all you hear is “no”? It’s because you’re jumping into solution space. You can proceed by sharing more of what you have in mind, and learning more about what the other person is thinking and assuming.
Here’s an example: Person A and Person B are planning a group lunch.
B: Let’s go to Le Gros Choux.
A: No, I can’t eat there.
B: Why do you have to be so difficult?
It doesn’t get better from there.
In this example, A and B think the problem they are trying to solve is “choosing a restaurant for the group.” They both jump into solution space, offering solutions without explaining their rationale.
When the problem seems both simple and wide-open – like “where should we eat” – and you can’t agree, you probably don’t fully understand the problem.
Here’s how this conversation could go differently.
If you are Person A, start off by explaining what the problem is. Optionally, you could also propose your solution. Persist in making sure Person B understands the problem.
A: I won’t be able to eat at that restaurant because the only thing on the menu I can eat is the soup.
B: Why do you always have to be so difficult?
A: I don’t mean to be difficult, but because of my dietary restrictions it’s hard for me to find somewhere to eat. And I’ve already checked the menu so I know this restaurant won’t work for me. Could we go to McDonald’s instead?
From here, A and B may continue to disagree, but at least B understands the problem. In B’s mind, the problem has shifted from “find a place to eat” to “find a place to eat that meets A’s dietary restrictions.” (Also in B’s mind, the negotiation has shifted from “A is arguing again” to “A has a concern that we need to address.”)
If you are Person B, ask questions to understand what the problem is.
A: I can’t eat at that restaurant.
B: What’s the problem with the restaurant?
A: There’s nothing on the menu I can eat.
B: Oh, I didn’t know that. Why isn’t there anything you can eat?
A: None of it fits with my diet.
B: OK, did you have a different restaurant in mind that would work?
A: Yes. McDonald’s is the only place I can eat.
Now, Person B does not have to agree to McDonald’s. This is a solution proposed by Person A, who is still trying to jump into solution space. But Person B can keep this conversation on track by continuing to ask questions.
B: Can you help me understand why McDonald’s is the only place? What makes their menu safe for you?
When a simple request ends up in conflict, there is a good chance you’ve jumped into solution space – but you and your negotiating partner are trying to solve different problems. You might come up with an outcome that works for both of you, but it’s a lot harder, and may not be the best option.
Suppose Person B doesn’t feel like continuing to talk about this. They agree to McDonald’s, but then grumble to all their mutual friends about how A always gets their way.
Or suppose Person A agrees to go to the restaurant after all, but is upset that their health needs are disregarded.
Both of these conversations would be quick and result in mutual agreement, but neither is ideal. And both outcomes damage the relationship, because A and B perceive themselves as arguing, instead of trying to solve a problem together.
On the other hand, when A and B spend time discussing the problem before evaluating solutions, they can understand the other person’s needs and point of view. They are also building trust and laying the foundation for better outcomes later. For the next group lunch, they won’t need a repeat of this conversation and can move on to arguing about how to split the bill.