This is the core challenge we face in negotiation and bringing to life ventures that require the vested efforts of more than one person. So much of our culture and traditional management places a premium on "being right." Being the one who knows the answer gets a promotion, gets the test scores, gets the pat on the shoulder from doting parents. But what happens when "being right" gets in the way of "being real?"
As I was reading the story of how the first Fargfabriken artist collaboration between Russia and Sweden in the early 90's ended in disaster, I couldn't help but think that especially Viktor Misiano was holding on to what he believed to be "right" and that this immobility meant that the Russian art works were not displayed, did not become "real" to the public. The cost of being right can mean being forgotten because your truth lives only in your own mind.
"Being right" is always contextual. You can only be right within a limited set of facts. As the situation evolves and new things come to light, we have to shift our positions, we have to respond to what is "real." But how can we do this if our ego and reputation are vested in the "right" answer?
With the start-up I am currently stewarding this tension has led to some interesting conflicts and debates. As with any venture, the success of this project relies entirely on its ability to be "real" in the hearts of all of the collaborators. Getting them not only to see the direction and intent, but also to live it through their actions.
The challenge is not be be "right," to win a debate, or to relieve some internal tension (generated by the discomfort of doing something different). The challenge is to bring something into the world. To create a new "real" that will reframe and create a new version of what people believe is "right."
The wisdom of the five of swords points out a subtlety in this negotiation though. A strong push to override the opinions of others, to disregard their discomfort will certainly lead to an isolation where being "right" (in a push for tangibility) will again prevent the project from having integrity (due to the sublimated discomfort of the partners). How can we achieve both aims?
The energy of a sword is aimed at cleaving, separating and dividing. When a negotiation suddenly starts to feel like a divisive moment, we must honour this feeling. You can't push others into accepting your truth. Turn your efforts towards discovering the deeper, emotional purpose that unites. Being "real" should not be a lonely battlefield. It is not a clash of sharpened words and arguments. We don't want to admire the beauty of our swords after the battle. We want to enjoy the feast, together.
