When mapping competition between nations or markets, economists often use the words conflict and game interchangeably. For thousands of years human beings have created every imaginable variety of game. As a species we are drawn to the energy and creativity hidden in games and, thus, conflict. We intuitively know the positive potential of opposing forces meeting and engaging. It is no surprise that the Super Bowl draws the highest worldwide television viewing audience each year.

The object of every game is to win. One way to play is to say that if I win you must lose. We enjoy turning some conflicts, like sports, into win-lose games with a single victor by predetermining the "winner" as whoever earns the most points or completes the course in the least time.

In athletic contests this is often fun, but in the rest of our lives, the win-lose approach to conflict has its shortcomings. At an extreme, it enables us to state that others are wrong or evil and must not only be defeated but also destroyed. On a societal scale we have often played conflict as a win-lose game, wiping out civilizations, religions, and ecosystems in an effort to triumph at all costs. We are now realizing that this method hurts us more than it solves problems. When you are crushed, I always ultimately lose. When I destroy an ecosystem, I have fewer places to live. Without my competitor, I am no longer driven to innovate and create, and I cannot benefit from her unique perspectives and potential support. Over time win-lose play seems to always become a lose-lose game.

Thankfully, another approach to winning exists. In 1981 William Ury and Roger Fisher introduced the concept of the "win-win solution" in their influential book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. They argued that every problem holds a solution in which everyone can win. In other words, we can always reach a solution that leaves everyone satisfied and content. Win-win solutions incorporate all parties' needs and perspectives; they support and strengthen relationships. This is not compromise but the practice of collaboration.

Spiritual traditions have also long advocated the win-win approach. Buddhist and Hindu teachings say that we should always seek a reality in which disagreements dissolve and opposing parties are unified. This vision of harmony resides in the Christian verse "That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me, and I am in you. . . . May they be brought to complete unity (John 17:21). Taoism's yin/yang symbol depicts the collaborative viewpoint that marries the perceived opposites of black and white. To paraphrase the Koran, Islam teaches that to kill one person is to kill all humankind; to help one person is to help all humankind.

Win-win solutions make good business sense. In the early 1990s, through hundreds of interviews with top academics, management consultants, and CEOs, James Collins and Jerry Porros derived a list of the twenty-five most visionary U.S. corporations. The average founding date for these companies was 1902. In their book Built to Last, Collins and Porros show that a main characteristic of these successful organizations is that they do not succumb to the view that only one principle or party may win, which they call "the tyranny of the ‘or.'" Instead, the authors explain that these companies embrace the "genius of the ‘and.'" They understand the power in finding a solution in which multiple perspectives can win, even those of their competitors. These companies do not compromise their values or choose between ones that appear to be opposite. These market leaders find ways to be productive and to be good to their workers, to be profitable and to be kind to the environment. They know how to evolve their products to provide the best that both they and their competitors offer. As a result, according to Collins and Porros, these twenty-five organizations and their employees continue to thrive decade after decade.

Win-win solutions are readily available. The only catch is that to find them we must be willing to play the game to the end. In myths, spiritual teachings, and scientific quantum theory, conflict is depicted as a process with four key stages:

• the appearance of conflict,
• the absence of hope,
• the occurrence of creativity, and
• the emergence of stability.

Every conflict is like an iceberg; what we initially see or understand is only a portion of what is happening. Our initial positions provide clues about the conflict; however, they are only part of the story. Often multiple conflicts are embedded within one another. Through the four-staged process we uncover underlying needs and concerns to find a solution that can leave everyone feeling satisfied. The results are often surprising and always invigorating…

Conflict becomes a win-lose game if we do not realize that all four stages of the process must be completed. Instead of playing through, we might attempt to run away or destroy the other parties before reaching stability. By becoming fixed on our initial positions, we can stop the process as we push the opponents away and refuse to engage. Yet, the battle endures until together we return to stability. Some conflicts can thus continue for months or lifetimes. What might appear as multiple skirmishes is often one prolonged conflict. We see this in the Middle East and in seven hundred years of violence within the former Yugoslavia.

Many people misunderstand the win-win concept since it has been co-opted by those who wish to manipulate others into believing that their initial positions are the best solutions. Too often I have heard a slick salesman say, "Oh, this is a real win-win," and have thought, "Maybe for you, but not for me." Win-win solutions can never be envisioned alone at the outset. In my experience a true win-win solution is developed when we search for an answer that gathers and incorporates everyone's needs and beliefs.

This philosophy can be applied not only interpersonally, but also at a community and on international levels. English Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledges the necessity for this mind-set when he states, "The idea that if one side wins something in Northern Ireland, the other loses, that's gone. The essence of what we have agreed is a choice: we are all winners or all losers. It is mutually assured benefit or mutually assured destruction."

By deciding that there can only be one possible outcome to a problem, we prolong conflict and sever relationships as we battle it out to see who gets to survive. This reaction makes sense when we are in immediate physical danger and our initial position is to stay alive. Yet most conflicts in our daily lives are not life or death and call for a collaborative approach.

I want to note that this philosophy teaches that true win-win solutions include loss. Paradoxical as it might sound, the path to stability requires that we let go of how we think things should be to move to an understanding of how things can be…In the case of domestic unrest, for everyone to win, the marriage might need to dissolve. At a minimum, we must each relinquish the belief that our proposed answer is the only way to resolve the dispute. We must be willing to explore other options.

The Way of Conflict will teach you how to find creative, mutually beneficial solutions. This method yields positive results even if your opponent assumes a winner-takes-all approach. You may pass through unknown territory as you move beyond old beliefs. You will be rewarded, however, with a new perspective, stronger relationships, and an exciting solution.