Collaboration Problems

3. Factors That Make Conflict Intractable

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

June 30, 2026

The most common overlay problem preventing successful collaboration is one we have discussed before: zero-sum or win-lose framing. When disputants see a conflict this way, they assume that they cannot get what they need unless they take it from “the enemy.” A victory for one side must mean defeat for the other. This is sometimes true, especially when the conflict concerns an indivisible resource or a basic right that cannot be compromised away. But many conflicts are not as fixed as they first appear. As these articles on interest-based bargaining and integrative negotiation both emphasize, parties often have different underlying interests, different priorities, and different fears. When those differences are explored carefully, it is often possible to craft solutions that are better for both sides than continued escalation.

Zero-sum framing also discourages people from trying collaboration in the first place. If any concession is treated as surrender, and any effort to understand the other side is seen as weakness, then the safest political move is often to refuse to talk. Sometimes parties enter a collaborative process only to undermine it. They may withhold information, use the process to delay action, perform cooperation for outsiders while mobilizing their supporters against it, or insist on terms that make failure almost inevitable. In those cases, collaboration becomes another battlefield, rather than a problem-solving process. This is why competitive and cooperative frames matter so much: they shape whether people define the conflict as a common problem to be solved or as a contest that must be won.

A second major problem is the fear of censure. In highly polarized conflicts, people often believe that they cannot collaborate with opponents without being condemned by their own side. They may be called naïve, cowardly, corrupt, or traitorous. This danger is especially acute for leaders, advocates, journalists, scholars, and public officials whose reputations depend on the trust of a constituency. Even when they privately see the need for cooperation, they may avoid it, or avoid advocating it, because the political cost is too high.

Another reason why people avoid collaboration is that they don't trust the other side to uphold agreements. If they won't do what they promise to do, then engaging in negotiations is seen as a waste of time. Sometimes this is true. But there are ways to structure agreements so that they are "self-enforcing." Each side takes an initial promised action, but then doesn't do the next promised action until the other side delivers on the first. So there is incentive to comply with the agreements — it is how you get what you wanted too.

Missed collaborative opportunities have serious consequences for democracy. Democratic societies depend on the ability of people who disagree to solve shared problems without destroying each other. When collaboration is treated as illegitimate, public problems fester. Legislatures become less able to govern, agencies lose public trust, courts are asked to settle questions that should have been worked through politically, and citizens come to see democracy itself as ineffective. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ Our Common Purpose report makes a similar point in arguing that democratic renewal requires stronger institutions, a healthier civic culture, and more robust civil society. The National Academies’ work on civic engagement and social cohesion likewise emphasizes that social bonds and civic networks help communities pursue both individual and societal goals.

The remedy is not naïve calls for everyone to “just work together.” Collaboration must be wise, equitable, and appropriately cautious. It requires attention to power imbalances, bad-faith behavior, and issues on which compromise would violate core rights. But it also requires resisting the habit of assuming that every conflict is a battle to the end. Good collaborative processes clarify interests, protect participants from unfair pressure, create incentives for honesty, and make it easier for people to explain cooperation to their own side. At its best, collaborative problem solving and consensus building do not ask people to abandon their principles. They help people pursue those principles in ways that preserve relationships, strengthen democratic legitimacy, and increase society’s capacity to deal with problems that no faction can solve alone.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.