The “And Stance” – Holding More Than One Truth at a Time

I was recently reminded of the “and stance” from Difficult Conversations. When feeling challenged, many conversations can go wrong in a predictable way as we slip into either/or thinking – this is fair/right/true or it isn’t.

Under stress and pressure, humans naturally tend to move towards more binary, black-and-white thinking. We look for certainty, clarity and resolution. This can help us feel safer in the short term, but it often narrows our thinking, increases defensiveness and makes it harder to stay emotionally regulated in complex conversations.

At the same time, the polite “yes, but…” simply cancels out what came before.

In their highly accessible framework, the authors Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen ask us to hold two (or more) truths at the same time, even when they seem to pull in different directions.

At its simplest, the shift is linguistic, for example: “I value our relationship and I don’t agree with how that situation was handled.”

This offers a more useful alternative, not as a compromise, but as a more accurate reflection of reality.

• People are rarely entirely right or wrong.

• Situations are more complex than they first appear.

• Progress comes from understanding, not winning.

In my experience as a facilitator and coach, most tension in organisations isn’t about facts. It’s about interpretation, intent and impact.

The “and stance” helps in several ways:

1. It reduces defensiveness – people are more likely to stay in the conversation when they feel seen and heard, even if they are also being challenged.

   
   

2. It supports emotional regulation – holding an “and” mindset can help reduce the urgency to react, defend or force certainty too quickly. It creates a little more space to think, stay curious and respond more consciously under pressure.

   
   

3. It increases accuracy – two things can be true at once. Ignoring one side doesn’t make it go away, it just drives it under the surface.

   
   

4. It helps keeps the relationship intact – you’re not forcing a choice between honesty and connection; you’re working to maintain both.

And... holding multiple truths isn’t easy. As humans, we frequently experience a natural pull towards clarity and certainty – to decide who’s right, to make a decision and to relieve the tension.

The “and stance” asks you to stay with the discomfort of uncertainty a little longer.

This may feel slow, even inefficient, but often prevents bigger issues later such as misunderstandings, resentment and repeated conflict.

What might a simple approach to a potentially tricky conversation look like?

• First, name their reality – what makes sense from their perspective.

• Second, name your reality – the impact, concern or difference you see.

• Third, connect them with “and” – without resolving the tension too quickly.

For example: “I can see you were trying to move things forward quickly and the lack of consultation has created some confusion and frustration in the team.”

Sometimes the most constructive conversations are not the ones where tension disappears quickly. They're the ones where people feel able to stay present, thoughtful and connected long enough for something more truthful and useful to emerge.