The Myth of Winning:
3 Steps to Stop the Cycle
of Conflict and Stand
Together as Allies
In the Hollywood version, there’s always a clear victor. Whether it’s a story of corporate conflict, or rivals in love, or a literal war, the hero wins. Similarly in our love of sports, we almost always see and celebrate one winner or one winning team.
But guess what? Real life is messier.
A glance at history is enough to make the fictional Hollywood version preferable. What percentage of our real world conflicts end neatly? Something near zero.
The perpetual cycle between Palestine and Israel is a prime example — it’s a pendulum that each side pushes. Each side tries to win by beating the other… then a few months, years, or generations later, the other side decides they need to even the scale, and push back harder.
It’s easy to see the impossibility of “clear victory,” yet in our conflicts, over and over, we play into the myth of winning. Wired into the core of our brains is this primal system to treat conflict as an epic battle of good versus evil (where “good” is the side we’re on). Yet when we go down that road, no matter who “wins” the fight, we lose.
‘A colorful set of stubborn emotions’
Daniel Shapiro, Founder and Director of the International Negotiation Program at Harvard Law School, points out that the root of all conflict is this adversarial stance: “Whether it’s an issue between heads of state or husbands and wives, almost universally they approach conflict as adversaries: ‘me versus you.’ This triggers a colorful set of stubborn emotions, which makes digging oneself out of that conflict very difficult.”
It goes like this: We disagree. Then we begin to vilify the other. There’s a primal longing to conquer. In our own heads and hearts, we make ourselves righteous, and we make them bad. They become the enemy. We’re at war in a brutal cycle that we see in the headlines each day and, just as much, in our daily lives. We make the boss, a colleague, a customer, spouses and lovers, and even our children into enemies. Why?
It feels better to be right. Literally: The brain gives itself a dopamine reward for being certain. We’re addicted to righteousness — to winning. Unfortunately, in this context of reaction, in this neural war, to “win” means to beat others. To be “right” means to be right OVER others. We make them wrong so we can be right.
No One Really Wins a Fight
A few years ago I heard a highly decorated Marine put it succinctly:
No one wins a fight.
In real war, we lose the flower of a generation, we lose peace, we lose civil society. In our personal conflicts, we lose connection, we lose trust, we lose energy, we lose relationship. Once we move into conflict, everyone involved is tarnished. Everyone involved becomes bloodied and hurt — either literally, or at least emotionally. Then our oppositional positions become increasingly entrenched.
How to Actually Win
Daniel Shapiro shared an essential lesson for emotions in conflict: Don’t make conflict stand between us.
The solution is paradoxical, and it might feel like a kind of surrender — but it’s not. The solution is to stand next to your opponent, and, ultimately, to make that person your ally instead. “Shift the relational stance so it’s no longer ‘me versus you’ but the two of us working side by side facing a shared problem. This creates a substantial emotional shift.”
Instead of defining the problem as the other person — or even as an issue between you, redefine it as something you share. Stand shoulder to shoulder facing the issue together. This is the central principle of an amazing martial art called Aikido: move so you can redirect the energy of the conflict. This takes a shift in feeling, thinking, and doing; as Ridit Raj Dutta wrote in the comments of this article: “If you ever have to Win – Win people’s hearts.”
In Aikido, it’s literally a step, a physical movement. In the “aikido of relationships,” it’s an emotional step. This requires emotional intelligence:
Know Yourself: tune in.
Choose Yourself: deescalate.
Give Yourself: step together.
This is the Six Seconds Model of Emotional Intelligence – an action-framework to activate EQ.
We’re in the Same Life Raft
One simple way to get out of the oppositional stance is to recognize that the other people in the situation are not “separate” from us. It’s easy to vilify “the other,” to treat people as less when we see ourselves as different. We can see this in political propaganda during times of conflict — opposing soldiers depicted as ants, other nations depicted as evil. Diminishing the other fuels the cycle of righteousness.
The opposite is also true. When we recognize shared humanity, we automatically shift to a different response based on collaboration. Empathy is an essential tool here; remember our brains are wired to connect. The classic empathy question is an invitation to see that we’re in this together: “What would I feel if I were in his shoes?” That question is only part of empathy — check the Empathy Archive for much more — but it’s a starting point: Find the common ground.
Shifting to the Same Side: I to We
In Six Seconds’ training for managers to use EQ to give more effective feedback, we teach “I to We” — a process for moving the conversation from blame to collaboration. The essential point is that “emotional Aikido” move of coming to stand side-by-side. This process works to create alignment and can be applied in almost any relationship when we feel the oppositional stance beginning.
There are three steps in I to We:
- Make an “I statement” to identify your feelings.
- Acknowledge this is a shared experience.
- Discuss how to improve the situation together.
A little more detail:
Step 1 – “I Statement”
State your feeling honestly but compassionately using: “I feel ____” then the situation. For example:
I feel dissatisfied with the way this is going.
I feel uncomfortable with the way we’re delivering to our customers.
I feel sad about our relationship.
Using the “I statement” to honestly express your feeling is honest – the other person can’t deny you are feeling this way – and offers a little vulnerability rather than blame.
Step 2 – Check In
Invite the other person to join you by acknowledging their feelings and asking for collaboration. For example:
How are you feeling about this?
You’ve also told me that you’re not thrilled with this.
Listening to their feelings creates a mutuality — it also helps you bring your empathy forward.
Step 3 – Invite to Join
Ask how to improve the situation together, for example:
How can we improve this?
What can we do to make this better?
Working on it together makes it a collaboration where you are not on opposite sides, but standing shoulder-to-shoulder facing a shared challenge.
Don’t Step Into the Ring
In the timeless classic of coming to power, Le Morte d’Arthur, the young King Arthur is talking to Merlin about conflict. Arthur asks, who is the aggressor, the one who strike the first blow? Merlin says: in conflict, opponents circle one another posturing and preparing to fight: Then one steps into the circle of combat, and in declaring his intention to draw, he is the attacker.
Conflict is everywhere, and we have a thousand chances each day to add violence. Violence in our hearts and heads, if not in our deeds. We get sucked into the Myth of Winning, and make others bad so we can justify our stance. Yet over and over, it fails. Over and over, the winning is hollow, and we’re left with bitter ashes rather than the sweet taste of victory. Maybe it’s time to stop stepping into the circle?
You may also like…
- How Emotional Intelligence Coaches Use Emotions in Goal Setting - October 2, 2024
- 3 Winning Strategies for Successful Change Leadership: Coaching with Emotional Intelligence - September 4, 2024
- 3 Emotional Intelligence Tips for the Essence of Coaching - July 31, 2024
This is a great piece of article on the EQ front. Thank you Josh for sharing your work. I deduce the following from your article:
“If you ever have to Win – Win people’s hearts.”
It works right from home to businesses to leaders and heads of states.
Finding common ground may not be easy at times. It may be easy between two individuals. But when it involves ‘countries’, many aspects come into play. ‘AI’ finds increasing utility in the war preparedness of countries in today’s times, compelling EI to take the back seat. Offering concessions may seem to be considered as being weak and threatened. This is more profound when the narrative in the home country is to ‘win’. Leaders have to win elections and they can win them fairly easily by presenting their people a win in a war/skirmish etc.. Hence people’s quest for win has to be addressed. The ‘requirement to win’ has to go. With it the measurement of success has to undergo a paradigm shift. And this needs to be re-inculcated among the new generation right from preparatory classes across the globe. Cheers!
Thank you, Josh. So true. I have seen good meeting leaders and facilitators gain great credibility and desirable outcomes using this approach. It is also used in Great Books discussion groups where shared inquiry is the strategy.
Very nicely said Josh, I have been teaching Negotiation for 20 years and have been incorporating development of EQ in my classes since I took 6seconds training years ago. With your permission I will use this to get my students to better understand the need to collaborate to achieve greater mutual benefit (and have peace about the outcome).
Cheers, Frank Jeffries
Hi Frank, I would be honored if you share this with your students! Good to see you here.
🙂
If we believe that “no one wins in a fight,” then how can we explain the winners of World Wars?
May be we can explain that we needed to fight to eliminate the people who believed they needed to fight to be a winner. Then we cooperated with the rest of the people and we all won. Is this one case where fighting is justified?
OR because they were crazy and cooperation wouldn’t work.
OR…?
Well… after each there was a LOT of struggle and effort to repair the hurt, and to some degree, the world is STILL suffering from the after-effects. Sometimes people, or nations, will not solve problems. Then, maybe once in every few hundred years there’s no choice (e.g., stopping Hitler) — but still, there’s a big price.
I agree, Josh. Although if most of the people were EQ practitioners, they wouldn’t have given power away to Hitler. So there is hope:-)
Hi Josh, This is a little long for a comment but I can’t find another way as I don’t have a personal website. So here goes:
Thanks for sharing lots of detailed information and clarification on how the brain works in the process of conflict and negotiation, along with the suggestions you offer on dealing with these situations at many levels of society. I believe these endeavours could improve human interactions, as they experience more empathy for each other.
However, maybe I’m a pessimist, but, as applied to Hamas and Israel in Daniel Shapiro’s piece, I cannot envision a terrorist organization engaging in such a process. I repeat – a terrorist organization, and all that that implies.
There is no equivalency between these two countries in this conflict. One fights towards extinction, the other for existence. One openly states in its Constitution its goal to annihilate the other, and whose repeated actions support it, while the other fights for survival. One offers up its own people as a shield to protect its perpetrators. It also exploits them as a propaganda tool, while the so-called aggressor, Israel, drops warning leaflets in attempts to save the lives of the these victimized people, yet bears the blame as media spreads photo viruses of the resulting death and destruction to inflame the world. If Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel today, there would be peace immediately, as in Egypt and Jordan.
As you say, Josh, “There’s a primal longing to conquer… ,” and with intellect and empathy, we can change our thoughts, feelings and actions to create a world where all can live together in reasonable discourse. There is no doubt that emotions drive these situations, as Daniel Shapiro says in http://6seconds.org/2013/05/01/emotional-intelligence-conflict-negotation/. EQ is sorely needed in all areas of life and across the world to realize peace. But to change fanatics, extremists and terrorists, who cannot ‘see’, ‘hear’, or empathize, are in another realm. The brain traffic is gridlocked in a blind hatred nurtured from childhood, immersed and reinforced by the community in which they live. That is a major challenge. If someone is actively in the process of blowing you up, there isn’t an opportunity to ask them to consider using the frontal lobe of the brain, which, by the way, is probably under-developed.
In another TEDx Talk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXcU8x_xK18, Simon Baron-Cohen, a Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the University of Cambridge tells us that empathy has two distinct components – cognitive and affective. Cognitive empathy refers to the ability to imagine someone else’s thoughts and feelings, while affective empathy is the ability to respond to them appropriately. In his book, The Science of Evil:On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty, he enlightens us further as he describes six different levels of empathy from a ‘ high level’ to the extreme of ‘empathy erosion’, as occurred in the sadistic cruelty perpetrated by the Nazis during WW11. We can still see such extremes in real time, as in the barbaric beheadings in parts of the Middle East, one reported very recently. With empathy erosion they show no conscience or remorse. People are simply turned into objects. If anything, it gives them pleasure.
Your efforts through EQ and the goal of one billion followers by 2039, looms even more important in such a climate. Like you, Baron-Cohen emphasizes empathy as “vital for a healthy democracy” and “a most valuable resource for conflict resolution” around the world. I agree.
I apologize if I sound so negative but that is the reality I see. EQ offers hope for a greater number of people who do have empathy, will outnumber those who ‘seek to conquer’ civilization at this point in its development.
Thanks for sharing your work with us.
Hello Libby,
On the contrary, I did not feel or think that your message are negative at all! You have the right point in life that when Any one side is not ready and willing at all for any reason, even when the other side willing to choose peace make concessions for peace, it may not be understood, or appreciated with such approach. We have to see case by case, situation by situation how and if that can work at all with that being said.
We can set our intention and promotion always toward choosing peace, collaboration, mutual understanding, this does not still mean it can result a more peaceful resolution. Nothing is black and white with one method to work. At times, stronger force to combat another force is practically and sadly unavoidable though it is not really in the winning sense from large sense.
How a dominant force can give any room or way to a small less dominate force to allow a seemingly weaker group or being in force and power to show them peace, when the dominant party is completely unwilling? There are many other scenarios.
But also, in the world , there are many places and cases that such mindfulness approaches have worked and proved it working and we should strive to make peace, choose peace! Yes, I would do anything to try this approach first.
But if both parties have some level of leverage, make concessions to show willingness and intention in actions requires high level of thinking , taking some level of risks and loss are truly admirable. But again, if the willing party are left to no place to go, give , then such peace making is not really possible in reality.
We can keep our ideals, and it is good to keep. But that does not necessarily mean it is workable at all times. In my life, I was so ingrained in a culture that deescalate all things possible is the motto. ( being Chinese) I have to learn in a much painful way often that when I try my approach this way, I have been walked over further as they other party may interpret that you are weak and they can walk over you until I have to stand up to show up for myself to fight for myself. Do I understand the value of peace? Do I strive for peace? Yes to all, but it is sadly and unfortunately not often possible even in daily life, it all depends where you are, whom you are working with.
This is my real life input and still I hold big place in my heart to seek peace and pray world peace and down to my daily life, which also requires me to be willing to stand up to fight. However, there are also many places and times I have learned that when I change my thinking, gain more understanding, change perspective, I can choose to let go, and choose to give up fight to resolve the conflict also. Life is not as simple and straight line as we would like to think it is.
But I do like to promote such teaching, as more people see the win and lose this way, there are more chance for peaceful approaches to deescalate conflict.
fight/fight > loose/loose………..instead of = win/win
I would like to share here a post I wrote seeing today’s rising political conflicts.Hope this helps as clear information leads to right results, thank you.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140716213946-74133576-a-theological-view
If you believe your life is not more than 100 years you’ll be in winning position. The internet era does not allow for ways and means that were acquired in olden times to lure public attention or personal gains which are just a waste of your precious time today. Value yourself in today’s internet informative age and grow to your full potential. We live in age of truthfulness.
Joshua,on painful conflict between Israel and Palestine today I see it that God meant that two race of people inhibit that land together as two races. One with first Holy Book other with Last Holy Book.
Look at Indonesia its a scattered island do they fight for a boundary? as just because you have one we should also have one? Different seas different tastes different qualities who wants just one kind?
A very good piece of knowledge and wisdom. Appreciated. keep it up!
Its a great article Josh…thanks for sharing. I always wait for your posts
Very efficient representation of resolving a conflicts. I remember, in1990 Paul Witz’s EI program introduced the same idea: to stand side by side and find mutual goal, Seemed unbelievable. Today, having discoveries in neurobiology and neuroplasticity we have tools to understand the process better.
Thank you, Josh. So important and not just in a global sense. It starts “locally” with every interaction. Always so much to learn every day… and bring compassion and curiosity to ourselves and others.
As I read the article, I was intrigued. I have been trying to expand my EQ knowledge breadth. Presently, I have been reading NLP material on EQ. I find it striking at the similarities between the various different schools of thought. This is a great article. It gives me a different perspective on relationship management by standing together to find a solution rather opposing the other.
Great advice and wisdom! Thanks for another valuable contribution to the world of EI!
When we can identify the conflict as “ours” and share it, the perspective shifts. Thank you for this article.
There is an old story that in each person are two wolves – a benevolent one and a violent one. It begs the question — which one will win? And the answer is — the one that you feed the most.
This piece is very timely as I have found myself in the position of “stepping in the circle”. It is especially difficult when you know once you enter into this zone there is no turning back or undoing. There are times when there is a need to call upon a negotiation team or third party to step in to help find the positive. The very act of seeking a negotiation can be seen as stepping in the circle not because you seek to be right but because you realize all other avenues have failed. Not everyone can be won over by love although it would be lovely if in fact that were the truth. I fully believe in the power of EQ “Working on it together makes it a collaboration where you are not on opposite sides, but standing shoulder-to-shoulder facing a shared challenge.” Maybe the act of seeking out a negotiation team is in fact not stepping in the circle but rather a way of stepping outside the lines of the circle. Maybe instead of circle we are talking about the triangle which I am working very hard to not engage in. Because when we step on to the triangle we find ourselves shifting from that of accuser, defender to that of prosecutor. I was recently ask what do you want me to do about this my reply “fix it”. His reply I need to speak to the other person, is it okay. Of course he has to speak to the other person. How can we ever stand side by side if no one is speaking. What are your feelings regarding seeking out a third party to help bring resolution?
Absolutely agree – if we can’t talk, it’s incredibly difficult to find that “shoulder to shoulder” position. And, a challenge: Is it possible to change your stance and move out of opposition EVEN IF the other person keeps trying to play win-lose? I think it might be.
In terms of “fix it,” maybe the first step is: “let’s understand one another”?
Getting a third party to help can be wonderful. Need someone who doesn’t have her/his own agenda in this matter, someone who can help you see the common ground and shared purpose, and keeps reminding you that it’s there!
Joshua that is so perfect. The next step is “let’s understand one another.” Sometimes we do have to say NO that is not acceptable. Sometimes it is just the very act of saying no that brings about great change. Gandhi chose to say no but chose finding a peaceful way to find resolution. Martin Luther & Gandhi both took a stance but their stance signified a change in stance (as opposed to violence) and moved out of the position of opposition by seeking a peaceful solution i.e., the bus boycott. These were great individuals who stood together with others to find solutions. I so “get” what you are saying about “standing together.”
Josh, I love your articles and initiatives, so I hate to be the voice of condescension on this one. Are most individuals clever enough to mix conceptual and perceptual intelligence while attempting to avert conflict? Wouldn’t a better solution lead with discharge empathy? I find it easier to introduce a new concept (improving a mutual situation) after connecting emotionally by discharging the other person’s negative emotional state.
I agree that if we can lead with empathy, we can de-escalate. Maybe empathy is the antidote to the escalation. AND, speaking for myself, often I don’t empathize because I’ve already gone into fight-mode… and if I don’t notice that I’m escalated, I don’t empathize, and I stay in my old pattern of making others wrong so I can be right.
Josh, I salute your open candor and vulnerability. It is the mark of true strength, especially among men. My research and expertise is thin sliced in the area of forming lasting love relationships. Admittedly, the “myth of winning” applied to business relationships is not in my wheelhouse. I have found that most men wrestle with supplying the daily discharge brand of empathy for their love partners. Instead they either escalate or mirror the emotional state and stop there, leaving all concerned wallowing in the negative and foregoing opportunities to emotionally connect.
I teach lovers how to discharge negative emotion and stay connected through the empathy process in their love relationships. It is amazing how the quality of life improves for participants once it becomes habit. I wonder if this model could work for difficult “must win” business partnerships?
Well said, Josh. Been having similar thoughts myself. It’s that paradox: when it’s most difficult to be Emotionally Intelligent is when we most need to . . . to face our fears (as per Susan Jeffers) and see our common humanity. To remember that we are all thinking, feeling human beings . . . who just need to be loved.
Gah Keith, what a conundrum! I find it so easy to be emotionally intelligent on some days… it’s exactly as you say. I guess that’s one reason to keep practicing, to expand our capabilities so the “muscles” are there even when it’s a slog.
This article has had such a huge impact on the way many of my clients engage with others. Such a well put together piece that gets you to pause and shift perspective. Thank you so much Josh.
Great article. If it is not win / win, then it can only be lose / lose. It is as simple as that.
A marvelous piece of writing: Thanks Josh for adding insights for developing EQ. But the big question is why apparently so simple and evident is hard for most to understand and especially to Act: We are hard-wired and addicted to ‘The Myth of Winning’. KCG competencies are really crucial.
Thank you dear Tauqir. Maybe like other addictions, one key is to acknowledge the addiction to the Myth of Winning?
“Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, Conquer him with love.”——Mahatma Gandhi. Remembered what Gandhiji said once. It seems like opponents from the same party? This can be ruins and this can also be wins. And both will happen with the same party? What to choose depends upon both the opponents of the same party. Thank you for sharing. 🙂
Beautiful Arati – thank you for this reminder.
If the world followed this simple principle, what a place to live it would be. In business, between countries and in relationships. People are becoming more radicalised(meaning they willingly allow themselves to be manipulated) and polarized by the day. If each of us affects our immediate surroundings positively, that has a major impact! Keep going folks!
Good piece. Reminds me of the quotation… “A war doesn’t decide who’s right. It only decides who’s left”
Josh – very timely this came to my inbox. I have a friend who is in the process of “having to win” and losing so badly. Watching objectively, it’s a perfect (and sad) example of what you write here. I must say though, while sometimes it’s good to “shift to the same side” (especially as a parent!) there are other times – times when you know, when you see the Truth about a situation or person, when the very best way to NOT step into the ring is to step out quickly. Thank you for the article. Hope you and yours are happy and well.
Thank you Sally – yes. It’s actually tragic: as we get more and more into “winning over others” we end up losing more and more of what we truly want. I think it’s because when we’re in “fight mode” we follow patterns that protect our egos — and these defensive patterns are very short term. This is why it’s essential to Pursue a Noble Goal: It shifts us when we see there is a MORE important goal than being right in this moment.
Josh, I enjoyed reading your piece and resonate with you. I am reminded of a dialogue from the Matrix movie that one can never win the war as the war is always with oneself. I would like to add, the only way to win the war is by embracing the demon within
This is a beautiful article Josh, makes you think if ‘winning’ is really worth the effort and the lengths you can go to just so we feel better