Working out an agreement is, in a sense, like a game: in order to play, you need foundations.

Foundations?

1. A willingness to take responsibility for knowing and clearly communicating what you want - and a disinclination to take over the other's responsibility for doing the same.

2. A willingness to distinguish between what you can accept, and not, what's essential, and not - so you can promote the essential, say no to the unacceptable, and let go of the unessential.

3. An inner security that stems from the foregoing - and which allows you to listen undefensively, make proposals creatively, and be flexible.

To the extent these foundations are in place, the process of agreement is fairly simple. A conversation between R and J, for example, might go like this:

R: I want x. I like x.
J: I hear you.
R: Are you willing to do x?
J: No. x doesn't work for me. I'm willing to do y, though. I like y.
R: Ah. But y doesn't work for me. How about x plus z?
J: Mm. x plus z doesn't work for me. I could do y plus z.
R: Hm. y plus z doesn't work for me.
J (after a few similar exchanges): I guess we can't work this out, then.
R: I agree.

This short dialogue illustrates, in a highly simplified way, the basic process of working out an agreement.

It also illustrates an important underlying principle: to work out agreements, you must be willing to accept potential failure.

If you are so attached to working out something, you are willing to accept anything, you lose your center. Any "agreement" arrived at from such a place will then be painful, and is likely to fall apart.

Of course, the above story could have ended with J or R deciding about a proposal: "Works for me."

But whether they work out an agreement or no, both J and R are winners in this particular "game."

It's the great thing about agreements, isn't it?