3 Two Brothers: Their Story of Resolution
I saw little hope in coming to a fair settlement.… Each of the others I had gotten advice from led me to believe the only solution was a court battle.… I found the resolution model representative of the concerns of a partner.… We each walked away with a feeling of winning.
Bill Thomas, President, Integrated Promotions
Sometimes new ways of doing things are not readily understood. They do not fit with the way our perceptual systems have been conditioned. We cannot see what we are not already expecting.
A classic illustration is the story Joel Barker tells about the watchmaking industry. Before quartz, the Swiss held about 95% of the market. In the early 1960s the Swiss R & D people presented their innovation, the quartz movement, to the barons of the Swiss watchmaking industry. The barons didn’t get it. The innovation did not include a mainspring, moving parts, or jewels. It could not possibly be a timepiece. The Japanese saw it, and the rest is history.
You may have a similar response to the message of this book. I want to give you a look at the big picture first.
Here is a story that demonstrates the principles and model in action, brings the new paradigm alive, and—I hope—motivates you to embrace it.
The Story of Two Brothers
Two brothers were running a family enterprise that their grandfather had started. The business was profitable, was well located, and had a fine reputation. Their city was growing and the economy was expanding. Life was good. The brothers each married and began to raise families.
Tom, the younger brother, wanted to expand the business. He hired a consultant and then asked his brother Bill to be his collaborator in growing the family enterprise. Trusting and open-minded, Bill listened carefully to his brother’s ideas and to those of the consultant. There was a family legacy of integrity to uphold, and Bill was concerned about his brother’s motives. After considerable reflection and some hesitancy, he agreed to support the new direction.
The consultant recommended hiring new people. One was an ambitious young man. Bill was not comfortable with him, but he did not take a stand out of respect for Tom’s dreams. Bill was concerned about changing the character of their business. He was afraid Tom was following a darker part of himself. Bill thought his brother was acting like a boy seeing what he could get away with, not like a man providing value in the family tradition.
The ambitious young man convinced Tom that Bill wasn’t aggressive enough and was impeding the company’s growth. Bill’s wife noticed that Bill wasn’t sleeping and that there was trouble between the brothers where there had previously been great respect. Rather than providing more to their customers, or increasing the company’s capacity so they could serve more people, the company began to exploit customers by giving less service and charging more. This was not the family ethic that had made Bill so proud. Tom was being dishonest with customers, making promises and delivering little. When the brothers argued, Bill pointed out that people actually needed to be protected from their company’s behavior. Bill remembered his grandfather’s warning: Know where to take a stand to preserve your reputation for integrity.
Bill saw his brother as being poisoned by greed and ambition. He asked Tom to reconsider his strategy in order to avoid the inevitable result—that they would lose their respected reputation and their business. Tom glibly dismissed him as naive and parochial. Bill decided to leave the company. His heavy heart left him no choice. He was unwilling to compromise his standards, and he could no longer live with his brother’s actions. Tom could not hear what Bill was saying about integrity, standards, and family tradition.
Conflict
It was necessary to reach a financial settlement about their partnership. The family business had to be divided, and one of the brothers’ friends suggested they call me. I was not surprised that by the time they called Tom and Bill were militant. On the basis of preliminary advice and their personal understanding of how these situations play out, they were moving into the traditional system of “confliction.” It was impossible for them to move forward. Each was locked in the posture of blaming the other, insisting he was right, his brother wrong. Proving “I am right” became the most important part of the conflict.
The brothers were steeling for a battle. They stopped talking to each other. Each consulted his own gladiator. There was no sign of being able to stand in the other’s shoes, and no ability to be open and real about the situation. Their positions were polarized, and their feelings of great loss were not being recognized. They were beginning to defer to their professionals.
Meanwhile, business was at a virtual standstill. All energy was devoted to winning the battle. The struggle was about how much the business was worth and who would pay whom, when, and on what terms. No one was thinking about reaching a fair resolution, taking care of customers, or the future of the business. The pie they and their family had so painstakingly baked was crumbling.
Both brothers were living in the traditional way of thinking: They were framing their situation as a great problem with many issues, not as a business event that required creativity to accommodate everyone’s concerns.
The Attitude of Resolution
I focused on helping Bill and Tom see how continuing the battle would cost them time, money, emotional upset, a huge chunk of opportunity cost, and scars they would carry for the rest of their lives. Neither of them would be devoting time to the future; there would be no time free from the emotional baggage of the past. I sensed from separate conversations with each of them that preservation of brotherhood was a concern neither of them wanted to address or acknowledge. After I spoke to them, they understood that they would both be better off with a new agreement that was reached quickly. Neither could afford the financial, emotional, or spiritual cost of escalating acrimony. The message I sent them was their wake-up call:
If you go to court and continue to do battle, you will end up with a new agreement. The terms will be dictated by a judge who knows very little about your situation. The decision is likely to be far less workable for each of you than one that could be designed by both of you. Please consider what I am saying very carefully. Remember the wisdom of Solomon when he quickly resolved a custody dispute by suggesting that the child be cut in two. If we work together we can design the resolution that creates value for both of you. Otherwise, by the time the war ends the business will have little value, and you will lose each other.
After I discussed their expected resistance with each of them, the brothers were willing to meet together with me. They had become so upset they had nothing to lose. Getting people together is more than half the battle. Coming to the table holds the unspoken declaration “I want to resolve this matter.”
When we met, tempers were hot. I thought it best to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. They agreed to continue one session until everything was addressed.
Telling the Story
The first part of the day gave each brother the opportunity to tell his story. I reminded them that it might be important to preserve their brotherhood and that the cost of not reaching an agreement together would be enormous. Each listened carefully as the other spoke without interruption. For both, it was like having their day in court. They spoke what was in their hearts. This enflamed their anger, but it also provided catharsis. It gave me a sense of where the situation was at that moment and where it might be headed. I listened to what was being said, and I also listened to what was not being said.
After the brothers had told their stories, I asked them a structured set of questions—a completion process that guided them across tender and volatile ground. Each spoke of being so frustrated and irritated by the other brother that it was impossible to be around him. Many harsh, almost unmentionable things were said. I facilitated the dialogue into areas of vulnerability that we all have about someone as familiar as a brother. Disappointment, shame, sorrow, and the loss of the family tradition were among these. The process was difficult, but it was also a great release. The open hostility started to diminish. They realized their camaraderie had been displaced by greed. Tears were shed, and some understanding began to surface.
When they saw what they had lost—unrealized expectations of separate visions for the future—they could grieve. This allowed them to let go and start to form a new vision for their separate futures without one another, what I call an agreement in principle.
New Agreement
As the long day wore on, the brothers put their new vision of the future into an agreement. It contained what they wanted and what they would need from each other in their new business relationship. Most important, and crucial to their respective prosperity, they were both heading off on their own, using their resources to build a new future. They were no longer stuck in the past, fighting and wasting energy about what had already crumbled.
We did not just get the matter settled. We resolved the emotional issues and structured what their future relationship would be. Bill would move to another part of the state and start his own business. It was their intention to help each other have a successful business reflecting their particular values. Reaching a buy-out figure was not difficult once the emotions were addressed. They agreed not to compete with each other. Their measure of satisfaction was success in business and continuing brotherhood. Their fear was dishonoring their new agreement.
Resolution
A new form of partnership was born. These “enemies” realized their brotherhood. They became colleagues, creditors, fellow travelers who had wisdom and experience to share. Most of all, they remained brothers. The details of the business agreement were not as important as having them quickly move into the future with minimal disruption and expense. They felt good to be resolved, back in action, and productive. The heartbreak could start healing.
I assumed the responsibility of keeping everyone accountable for satisfactory resolution. It’s a matter of having the patience and determination to stay on track until the resolution appears. No matter how bleak the situation looks, you must keep swimming upstream, both guiding and allowing everyone to educate each other about what the optimal outcome might be. You must hold fast that resolution will happen. This can look like position and power, but it is really about faith.
Summary
• This chapter contains an example of the Cycle of Resolution in action.
• The story demonstrates the value of seeing the bigger picture and recognizing what is being wasted in a situation.
• It provides some insight into the texture of resolution, as well as an example of what’s possible and the value of a new perspective you can adopt.
• You can use the same process for yourself.
• The Cycle has wide application—both as to the situation, and as to who uses it.
Reflections
• Think of a long-term relationship in which a situation of conflict was resolved by either your winning or your taking advantage of another.
• How did you feel after the thrill of victory wore thin?
• Did the situation come back to have consequences or repercussions you did not see when you won?
• Would resolution have been more enduring? Why? Why not?