The Gap Between What We Say...

... and What We Do
 
Company A claims to be better than Company B, pointing to B’s water pollution from its processing. Company B counters that it is the more responsible organization, highlighting A’s harmful air emissions. Both publicly declare themselves stewards of the community and vital job creators.
 
At the same time, Company A is actively working to put Company B out of business—launching negative ad campaigns and filing lawsuits on behalf of the city. Company B, initially reluctant to engage, now feels compelled to defend itself and has retaliated in kind.
 
What follows is predictable: escalation.
 
Employees at both companies begin to fear for their job security. Communities that once welcomed these organizations start to push back. Regulatory agencies impose heavy fines and issue warnings that could ultimately shut operations down altogether.
​
While fictional, this scenario reflects a familiar pattern. When individuals, organizations, or nations adopt a zero-sum, win-at-all-costs mindset, harm rarely stays contained. It spreads—affecting employees, communities, and often the most vulnerable. Polluted water and toxic air don’t recognize corporate boundaries.
 
Aggressive tactics also come at a cost: they shut down the very conversations that could lead to better outcomes. Without negotiation, there is no space to surface underlying interests, involve experts, or engage the broader community in meaningful solutions. Decisions are made in isolation, often without full awareness of their long-term consequences.
 
There is also a clear contradiction at play. Both companies claim a mission centered on community stewardship, yet their actions undermine that very commitment. Declaring moral superiority while engaging in harmful, adversarial behavior reveals a gap between stated values and actual practice.
 
Regardless of the reasoning behind Company A’s initial actions, the impact remains the same. Efforts to eliminate the other come with significant collateral damage—damage that directly conflicts with the mission both organizations claim to uphold.
A different path is possible.
 
Through negotiation, both companies could move beyond positions and begin to understand underlying needs and interests. Fears can be constructively addressed. They could identify shared concerns, explore innovative solutions, and uncover opportunities that adversarial strategies will never reveal. William Ury offers Building them a Golden Bridge. This approach works to build trust and create incentives to keep walking towards you as you negotiate.
 
When the goal shifts from winning to solving, the outcome shifts as well—not just for those at the table, but for everyone affected by the decisions they make.