Last time, I said a few words about the concept of “satisficing”. Herbert Simon, a Nobel Prize winner for Economics, coined the term decades ago. It’s
a combination of satisfy and suffice. It’s tempting to embrace maximizing – if I look long and hard enough, I will find the best possible option. But there is a cost.
How does the concept of satisficing apply to conflict? Different ways.
First, we can get frustrated if events, people, or relationships are not rolling out as we wish they were, in our ideal world.
We can consider, right off the bat, if that maximizing perspective is serving us well.
Second, we can decide that we really want to address a specific problem. If we are set on satisficing, we can consider with some care what we can live with.
Third, when we are actually addressing the problem, with one or more other people, we can look at the possibilities. If we are maximizing, we might refuse to agree to a less-than ideal option. Yet, if we are satisficing, we can look at the bigger picture.
What is the cost -- to me – of standing my ground, refusing to bend.
Do you have comments or suggestions about a topic or guest? An idea or question about conflict management or conflict resolution? Let me know at jb@dovetailresolutions.com! And you can learn more about me and my work as a mediator and a Certified CINERGY® Conflict Coach at www.dovetailresolutions.com and https://www.linkedin.com/in/janebeddall/.
Enjoy the show for free on your favorite podcast app or on the podcast website: https://craftingsolutionstoconflict.com/
