Coaching practices for The Adjacent Possible During Conflict
Describe almost anything you are working through and IX Coach finds the practices whose real-world fit is closest. For The Adjacent Possible During Conflict, these are the strongest matches in the current practice library.
Does this sound like the set of challenges you might be facing?
- We solve the immediate thing but the same ugly dynamic underneath stays exactly the same, so the next disagreement plays out identically
- I keep planning by staring at the huge faraway goal and feeling stuck, when what I actually need is to look at what I already have right now and ask what that makes possible this week.
- Something’s genuinely wrong here and there’s no time to coax everyone to a comfortable yes
- Somewhere in this I stopped seeing a problem we both have and started seeing the other person AS the problem
- There’s a real call that has to be made right now with no time to build consensus, and I keep softening it and hedging to keep everyone happy
Practices that may help
- The Adjacent Possible, Made Practical
The adjacent possible, a concept from complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman and popularized by Steven Johnson in Where Good Ideas Come From, describes the set of next steps that are accessible from where you currently stand — not all future possibilities, only those one move away. In practice, it reframes innovation and personal development as disciplined boundary-expansion rather than heroic leaps: each new position opens a new adjacent possible that was not reachable before. - Transform the relationship, not just the issue
Use each conflict as an opportunity to raise the quality of the relationship itself.
The Third Alternative, Made Practical - Map your current edge: what is one step away from where you are?
List everything that is genuinely accessible from your current skills, relationships, and resources — your adjacent possible is defined by what you already have.
The Adjacent Possible, Made Practical - Competing (assertive, uncooperative)
Pursue your own position firmly when speed, principle, or stakes outweigh the relationship cost.
The Five Conflict-Resolution Styles - Separate the person from the problem
Treat the conflict as a problem you face together, not a contest you fight each other.
The Third Alternative, Made Practical - Use Competing when speed or safety matters more than buy-in
Competing — high assertive, low cooperative — is appropriate when the decision is urgent, high-stakes, and not open for debate.
The Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) - Fight the problem, not each other
Reorient conflict so both partners face the problem together rather than facing each other.
Secure-Functioning Relationships - Turn toward during conflict, not just during calm
Bids happen in the middle of arguments — recognizing them mid-fight changes everything.
Turning Toward: The Daily Practice That Builds Relationship Resilience - Compromising (moderate on both)
Split the difference when a fast, fair, good-enough solution beats holding out for the perfect one.
The Five Conflict-Resolution Styles - Identify your default conflict mode
Before you can choose a mode, you have to know which one you use automatically.
The Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI)
Related concerns
- Conflict As Opportunity
Pursue your own position firmly when speed, principle, or stakes outweigh the relationship cost.
Competing (assertive, uncooperative)
- The One Thing During Conflict
Pursue your own position firmly when speed, principle, or stakes outweigh the relationship cost.
- The Third Alternative During Conflict
The Third Alternative is Stephen Covey’s framework for resolving conflicts not by splitting the difference but by co-creating a solution neither side imagined alone — one that fully meets the deeper needs of both parties. It requires genuine curiosity about the other side’s interests rather than a defense of positions, and rests on integrative negotiation research that consistently finds this approach outperforms positional bargaining.
- Active Constructive Responding During Conflict
Shelly Gable’s research found that how partners respond to each other’s good news — not just how they handle bad news — predicts relationship quality. There are four response styles crossed on two axes (active vs passive, constructive vs destructive); only active-constructive responding, which is enthusiastic and engaged, reliably strengthens the bond. This "capitalization" work has a solid research base in relationship science.
- Committed Action During Conflict
Stay present in conflict by meeting your own distress with compassion, so you don't flee or attack.
Use fierce self-compassion to stay in hard conversations
- Essentialism During Conflict
In any conflict, identify the values or goals you and the other person genuinely share before cataloguing differences.
Map shared values before mapping the disagreement
Describe your situation in your own words to search the complete practice library.