Abstract

The paper makes use of two frameworks to develop a discussion on the merits of delaying agreement in partnership contexts. The first framework — the Arenas of Power — is helpful in understanding the different contexts in which negotiation and discussion take place. Four Arenas are identified, depending on the potential for agreement between parties who may hold very different worldview perspectives, and the power distribution between the various parties involved. Each leads to different ways of working, and to different goals in terms of what can constructively be agreed and what could prove false or artificial. The second framework develops the idea of alethic pluralism through the use of Wilber’s four quadrants. The two frameworks are then related to four processes taken by ‘alternative’ systems of knowledge which illustrate examples of how things play out in and between the Arenas: annihilation, systematic exclusion/segregation, assimilation, and integration/accommodation. Several approaches are then outlined which can be used in these Arenas. They include Drama Theory (a development of Games Theory which has proved particularly useful in settings where there are dilemmas facing the parties which cannot be resolved through rational analysis), Principled Negotiation and Whole Systems Interventions. A number of practical examples are given which develop and enrich the argument, including cases where delaying agreement has proved beneficial, and cases where premature agreement has proved problematic.