Avoid the Fool's Choice

I was reminded last week in a workshop on commercial “hot buttons” of how hard it can be to say “no” when we value the relationship. 

You know those times when we need to plant our feet with a “no” but worry it might risk the relationship? After all, no one likes hearing “no,” right? For most, “no” means rejection or failure. 

This can paint us into a corner, making us feel trapped in a binary choice such as: do we preserve the relationship OR uphold the contract? 

This either/or choice has been labelled (somewhat brutally!) as the Fool’s Choice. Instead of settling for X or Y, a better approach is to explore the third way: achieving both X and Y.

▶ Why does this matter? 

When emotions run high and options seem limited, it’s easy to get stuck in a two-dimensional tug-of-war of either/or. We can feel compelled to choose between “their way” or “our way”; and compromising can leave a bad taste for all. However, by actively seeking a different path - the third way - we can break free from the same old mediocre game. 

▶ The Fool’s Choice 

The book “Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High”, introduces a concept called the Fool’s Choice, which happens when we mistakenly believe that we are limited to just two choices in a challenging conversation, such as:

1. Telling the truth (Candour); or

2. Maintaining a relationship (Kindness).

Can you feel the tension between these two options? Suppose a stakeholder is driving the team down an unhelpful path. Do you speak up and risk the relationship, or shut up and suffer the long-term consequences?

Many choose silence. 

Instead, third way thinking champions the “AND” over the “OR”. It prompts us to ask, “How can I be 100% upfront AND be 100% respectful at the same time.”

Now, that’s a question that points our brain in a helpful direction.

▶ A better question 

The beauty of third way thinking lies in asking better questions. As Charles Kettering once said, “A problem well stated is a problem half solved”.

So, whenever we feel the strain of the two-dimensional tug-of-war, we can ask, “What is the third way?”

Why settle for two options when the third could redefine the game?