How many conflicts, arguments, stances have you been in where you took 100% of the blame?  Or decided the other party was 100% of the blame? 

Because each situation = 100% and if there are two parties then it’s either 50/50 or someone takes 100% for the fault, blame and responsibility.

I’ve been reading a great book The Big Leap by Guy Hendricks about getting past your “upper limits” to success and he briefly talks about this misconception. 

There is a section that he discusses that if each party, each entity were to look at themselves as 100% of the solution rather than 50% of the situation or problem, then wouldn’t 100%+100% = 200%?  And if so, wouldn’t that mean that each one of us has 100% of the responsibility to create a resolution and determine the outcome?

Each one of us does have a certain amount of responsibility in a situation and are accountable for our own actions and choices.  Hendricks thoughts are layering on to this in that, rather than assigning a % of the blame, why not take responsibility on how to resolve and move it forward.  And if all parties involved are putting efforts in a solution, does it matter who's at fault? 

Of course our 100% of the 200% is still 50% of the situation.  But it gets clearer when we think we only need to offer 50% then we think oh, we need to make a good college try, an effort, “our part”.  But when we see 100% is needed from us to come to a resolution and be responsible, this is different, this tells me, I need to give all of me and and give all my effort for something to work.

That’s if I truly want a solution. If I don’t, then 100% effort is not necessary, 100% responsibility is overkill, 50% will do or whatever % I deem necessary to say “I tried”.

Maybe I'm just an accounting nerd and got excited about numbers, or maybe there something to the whole 200% theory and the shift in perspective on conflicts.  

I would love to hear from you in the comment section…

How willing are you to be 100% of the solution rather than 50% of the problem?