Preventing your WW3

 

From a lawyer

There is something I wish I'd understood much earlier in my legal career.

I used to prepare for what I thought should happen.

The reasonable outcome.

The logical response.

The thing any rational person would obviously do.

And then I'd watch someone do the exact opposite.

Reject an excellent settlement.

Spend $20,000 fighting over something worth $5,000.

Make an accusation that could easily be disproven.

Create another problem when everyone was finally close to resolution.

I'd think:

Why would anyone do that?

Eventually I realized I was asking the wrong question.

Stop Predicting What Makes Sense

Start predicting what makes sense to them.

That's completely different.

If you're dealing with a high-conflict personality, don't ask:

"What would a reasonable person do next?"

Ask:

"What does this person have an incentive to do next?"

That question has saved me more times than I can count.

Because people don't necessarily make decisions based on what is objectively best.

They make decisions based on what they value.

Control.

Money.

Status.

Privacy.

Winning.

Avoiding embarrassment.

Punishing someone.

Protecting a narrative.

Keeping access to you.

Those incentives can be completely different from yours.

Here's Something You Can Do Today

I call this the Incentive Test.

Take the person on the other side of your conflict and answer four questions:

1. What do they SAY they want?

Write it down.

2. What does their BEHAVIOR suggest they want?

This is usually much more interesting.

3. What are they trying hardest to avoid?

Expense?

Exposure?

A deposition?

Losing control?

A particular person seeing certain information?

Uncertainty?

4. What would make resolution more attractive than continued conflict?

Now you're thinking strategically.

You're no longer predicting behavior based on what you would do.

You're looking at the world from their side of the chessboard.