Triangular Thinking for Conflict Resolution
Replace two-sided arguments with three-party creative design
Edward de Bono's Triangular Thinking framework fundamentally reframes conflict resolution by arguing that our traditional Western dialectic—thesis vs. antithesis leading to synthesis—almost never works as advertised. In practice, argument makes both sides more rigid, consumes creative energy in attack and defense rather than solution design, and produces victories of strength rather than excellence. De Bono's key insight is that the two parties in any dispute are structurally in the worst position to resolve it—like lifeguards who cannot swim. The framework introduces a mandatory third-party role: not a judge or mediator, but a creative designer who can see the situation from outside both entrenched positions. This third party uses 'design thinking' rather than argument, approaching the conflict as a creative challenge rather than a battle to be won. De Bono identifies three roads to conflict resolution: fight/litigate, negotiate/bargain, or design a way out. Only the third road produces genuinely new solutions, and it requires triangular thinking. The framework draws on de Bono's understanding of the brain as a self-organizing patterning system to explain why argument literally cannot generate creative solutions—negative mood states make constructive thinking physiologically impossible.
- The two parties in a dispute are logically in the worst position to resolve it
- Argument makes both sides more rigid and wastes creative energy on attack and defense
- The winner of an argument has the strongest position, not necessarily the best idea
- There are three roads to conflict resolution: fight, negotiate, or design—only design creates new solutions
- Negative emotional states can make constructive thinking physiologically impossible
- Attacking an idea only makes it more real; the best way to displace an idea is to ignore it and design a better one
- Recognize the Structural Failure of ArgumentBefore attempting resolution, both parties must acknowledge that continued argument is structurally incapable of producing a good outcome. Observe the telltale signs: both positions have become more rigid over time, creative energy is being spent on attack and defense rather than solution design, and each side is more focused on proving the other wrong than finding something better. This recognition is the prerequisite for shifting to design mode. The six dysfunctions of argument are: rigidity, no attempt at alternative ideas, time and energy locked in standoff, creativity directed at defeating opponents, ideas that triumph are stronger not better, and negativity breeding further negativity.Pro tipFrame the shift not as 'your approach is failing' but as 'argument has served its purpose in clarifying positions—now we need a different tool for the next stage.'WarningDo not skip this step. Without genuine recognition that argument has failed, parties will attempt to argue their way through the design process, defeating its purpose entirely.
- Introduce the Third-Party Designer RoleBring in a third party whose role is neither judge nor negotiator but creative designer. This person must be able to see the situation from outside both entrenched positions. The third-party designer does not evaluate who is right but instead treats the conflict as a creative design challenge: given these constraints and these needs, what can we build? The third party picks out the good points in each side's position that the combatants themselves cannot acknowledge without appearing to concede. This role requires creative thinking skills, not subject matter expertise in the dispute itself.Pro tipThe ideal third-party designer is someone respected by both sides but with no stake in either position. Their creative ability matters more than their domain expertise.WarningThe third party must not slip into judge or arbitrator mode. The moment they start evaluating who is right, the design process collapses back into argument.
- Map the Situation Using PMI and Design ToolsReplace argument with collaborative map-making. Use de Bono's PMI tool: both parties independently identify Plus points (benefits), Minus points (drawbacks), and Interesting points (noteworthy observations that are neither good nor bad) about the situation. This is not about winning but about creating a comprehensive map. The discipline must be adhered to: one direction at a time. Both parties make a thorough job of each scan. At the end, there is a shared map of the terrain. Only after the map is complete do the parties react to it based on their needs, values, and objectives. The map makes thoughts visible—once something is on the map, it cannot be unthought.Pro tipHave both parties complete their PMI scans independently before sharing. This prevents one party's framing from anchoring the other's exploration.WarningThe PMI scanning phase must be strictly separated from the evaluation phase. If people start arguing about items during the mapping stage, the entire process breaks down.
- Design New Outcomes Using Creative ExplorationWith the map complete, shift into creative design mode. Following the Japanese exploration idiom, declare the existing situation 'wonderful and perfect and cannot be improved—now let us explore.' Both parties explore new possibilities without attacking existing ideas. If a better design emerges, parties can switch to it. If no better design emerges, they simply return to the original position, which has been grazing quietly in the meadow unmolested. This is fundamentally different from the Western approach of destroying the old before building the new, which risks leaving everyone in chaos with no fallback. Use lateral thinking techniques to break out of the patterns that created the conflict.Pro tipThe phrase 'Yes, and...' rather than 'Yes, but...' is the linguistic key to staying in design mode rather than reverting to argument mode.WarningDesign thinking requires genuine willingness to consider outcomes that neither party originally envisioned. If either party enters with a fixed outcome in mind, the process becomes disguised negotiation.
- Evaluate and Commit to the Designed SolutionOnce a new design emerges from the exploration, subject it to rigorous evaluation. This is the one stage where critical analysis is appropriate—but it should be joint evaluation rather than adversarial attack. Both parties assess whether the designed solution meets their core needs, is practically implementable, and offers genuine benefits. Because the solution was jointly designed, neither party has to admit defeat or concede their original position. The old positions are simply rendered irrelevant by a superior design, just as an old road becomes unnecessary when a better route is built.Pro tipDocument the designed solution immediately and have both parties articulate specifically how it meets their core needs. This prevents post-agreement reinterpretation.
A businessman had been negotiating with a major oil company for months through the traditional apparatus of letters, lawyers, and positional bargaining. After learning the PMI map-making process, he proposed it at their next meeting. Both parties agreed to try it. Instead of each side thinking 'against' the other, they made a shared map of Plus, Minus, and Interesting points. Both parties contributed honestly because the map was subjective—each point was valid from its own perspective.
De Bono asked thirty 10-year-old boys if they would each like five dollars per week for coming to school. All thirty enthusiastically agreed, listing reasons like buying sweets and comics. He then taught them the PMI scanning tool and asked them to apply it. After just four minutes of structured exploration, the boys identified Minus points (bigger boys might take the money, less money for teachers) and Interesting points (would parents still give pocket money?).
De Bono developed this framework from decades of studying how the brain works as a self-organizing information system. His key realization was that the argument tradition inherited from Socrates through medieval Church thinkers was designed for a specific purpose—repelling heretics—and is structurally unsuited for creative conflict resolution. He contrasted this with the Japanese exploration idiom where both parties explore without attacking existing ideas. The framework crystallized when he observed that a businessman who had been negotiating with an oil company for months resolved the dispute in twenty minutes once both parties switched from argument to collaborative map-making using his PMI tool. Similar results occurred when a mother reversed a two-year decision about moving states in thirty minutes, and when a supermarket chain resolved annual wage negotiations faster than ever before.