“The most durable resolutions I have seen come from treating both sides' needs as data, not bargaining chips. I map what each person actually requires, then look for the overlap nobody is defending, because that is usually where the agreement hides.”

“Listen to what's driving each side before you talk about solutions. Most conflicts that look like positions fighting are really two different sets of needs trying to get met, and if you can find the underlying interests instead of arguing over who's right, you can actually solve the problem.”

“I don't see conflict and legitimate needs as opposites. I see them as the raw material: two people want incompatible things, and the deal is finding what each side values enough to trade.”

“I spent years watching people treat conflict as a zero-sum fight, first as Chief Legal Counsel at the Ontario Pay Equity Commission and later running negotiation teams with ENS. The turning point came when I started using the Diamond Conversation™ Model: name the real need underneath each position, then build options that satisfy both.”

“I learned this the hard way: you don't resolve a conflict by getting one side what they want. You resolve it when both sides feel genuinely heard, even if they disagree on what comes next.”

“The key move is to stop negotiating the needs and start negotiating the solution. I ask each person to tell me what they need, not what they want the other person to do about it, then we look at what's actually workable for both of them to live with going forward.”

“I was trained at Harvard in mediation. One bitter construction meeting I facilitated came to blows—owner's rep and contractor's son actually threw punches over a $150,000 payment dispute. Both sides had real stakes and legitimate demands, but they arrived already certain, with no curiosity about what the other person actually needed.”

“Both sides have legitimate needs, so the first move is to get each person to really articulate what that is instead of just pushing their position. I listen for what's underneath the demand—what they actually need, not what they think they have to ask for. Then I help them see the other person's need is real too, even if they hate it. That shift from you're wrong to we both need something changes everything.”

“Stop looking for the win-win outcome both sides are supposed to want. What I've seen work is when you admit that each side has a real constraint—budget, capability, timeline, risk tolerance—and you find where those constraints don't clash head-on. The best resolution isn't splitting the difference; it's finding what they actually need that doesn't cost you what you're protecting.”