When Two Sides Aren't Enough

We often place people in roles where their decisions affect many who have little or no voice in the process. Yet those same individuals are expected to live with the outcomes. Think of parents developing a parenting plan during separation — a plan that shapes a child’s daily life, but the child has no say. Or a CEO appointed by a Board, making decisions that impact employees who had no input on who leads them. Or voters in a democratic society whose voices are diminished when the candidate they supported does not win.
 
These are examples of what William Ury refers to as The Third Side — the wider community of people who are directly or indirectly affected by a conflict or decision. Ury suggests that when conflict arises, the most constructive outcomes happen not through force or win/lose negotiation, but by engaging the broader community to seek a “triple win”: a resolution that benefits Side 1, Side 2, and the community as a whole. Side 1 and Side 2 sit at the table, but they are surrounded by the Third Side — the family, the friends, the neighbors, the co-workers, the stakeholders, the constituents, the people who must live with the outcome.
 
When we think only in positions — who is “right,” who “wins,” who is “on our side” — we leave out those who are equally affected by the result. Even those who support the “winning” side benefit from a solution that is durable, supported, and peaceful. True resolution requires buy-in from the whole system, not just the two visible sides. Engaging the Third Side helps create a culture of constructive conflict. It opens space for solutions that are not available when only two voices are heard.
 
The Third Side can also be the shared purpose: the mission, the vision, the common good, the picture of success. It shifts the focus from how to implement a solution to what we are working toward and why it matters.
 
When we invite the Third Side in, we move from adversaries to collaborators — and from conflict to possibility.