Third Step of the Cooplexity Model: Interest Management
The second step of the Cooplexity model focused on building interpersonal relationships that foster trust. With uncertainty resolved in step one and a good personal relationship in place, it is time to recognise that each person is different and has concrete circumstances that make us interested in different things. With this third step, we make the leap from the individual sphere to the team level. It is no longer just about "you and me," but about "us." The model now focuses on managing legitimately different interests.
Article Content
It Is Legitimate to Have Different Interests
Have you ever wondered why your group of friends shares values, lifestyle, interests, and hobbies? We tend to gather with like-minded people we feel comfortable with. But of course, we choose our friends; we do not choose our coworkers. Is there really more diversity in the workplace? Not entirely. Companies have a concrete culture and tend to expel those who do not share it. The boss, our colleagues—we are all vulnerable to feelings of affinity, to perceptions that align with our perspective, and logically, to the opposite case as well. Companies tend to homogenise their employees, both in the recruitment process and in retention. And that is very negative.
Collaborators with different interests are often viewed as attacking the spirit of the community by displaying selfish attitudes. However, divergent interests are not a problem; they are a natural characteristic of human systems. And different profiles are key to capturing different nuances of reality, seeing different perspectives of the same problem, providing complementary solutions, and contemplating aspects that would otherwise remain impoverished. Diversity and inclusion in teams are not just an ethical matter; they are a competitive advantage in complex environments.
The objective is not to homogenise, but to articulate the necessary balance so that the system functions.
How to Generate Cohesion Without Eliminating Diversity?
“We do not need to want the same things. We need to believe in the same things.”
In complex and collaborative systems, conflicts of interest are not a dysfunction: they are a structural reality. Each person, each team, each area has its priorities, concerns, motivations, and logics of action. Pretending that everyone shares the same interests is not only naive but also counterproductive. The important thing is not to eliminate that disparity but to articulate it around a common project.
In corporate language, we would talk about stakeholder management. But the Cooplexity model goes further: it is not just about identifying interests but articulating them around a common project without eliminating diversity. The question is not how to align interests in projects, but how to make them coexist without destroying collaboration.
In my experience, that common project has always served as a catalyst to unite interests. This step of the model revolves around building a shared sense of purpose. It is not about convincing the other to renounce their individual interests, but about showing that these can coexist within a larger system. Cohesion does not arise from uniformity. It derives from commitment to a common project. And that project cannot be imposed—it must be built through dialogue. It demands negotiation, integration, partial concessions, reasonable agreements, and trust that collective benefits will compensate for individual sacrifices.
"The opposite of cohesion is not conflict. It is imposition or disinterest."
Conflict is not the enemy. The enemy is the inability to resolve it without breaking the system. Recognising that each actor has legitimate interests is the starting point for building solid agreements. When that legitimacy is ignored or invalidated, frustration, resentment, or silent passivity appear.
Let us not forget here the importance of emotions—seen in the second step alongside Antonio Damasio—of recognition, empathy, and attention. The dialogue process must advance simultaneously in two dimensions: the logical and the emotional. In fact, it advances in leaps with reason, indicating vision and emotion, consolidating progress.
Metaphorically, it would be like a spiral that grows as the process changes and evolves. In complex contexts, equilibria are not static. They are constantly negotiated, readjusted, and rebalanced. That is why this step requires advanced conversational skills.
Negotiation Capacity
“Good negotiation is not reaching agreements; in an organisation, it is preventing the system from deteriorating.”
Negotiation capacity is not a transactional skill; it is an advanced relational competence. In negotiating interests, it is not about making permanent concessions but about finding temporary yet functional meeting points in which each party feels recognised and useful. Negotiations are revisable, contextual, and depend on the evolution of agreements, so it will be essential to have:
- Capacity to negotiate without polarising.
Negotiating without polarising is the ability to integrate divergent interests around a common project. Far from "us" versus "them," it does not force artificial uniformity nor sacrifice individual autonomy. It recognises that group cohesion is born from shared commitment, in which each voice retains its legitimacy and contributes from its uniqueness. - Capacity to reconcile without annihilating oneself.
Reconciling without annihilating oneself is the ability to sustain disagreement without fracturing the "we want to do this together," acknowledging that divergent interests are normal and not a problem to eliminate. The winner is not the right one, but the one who does not break the perception of equity by prioritising fairness in the distribution of contributions and benefits around a common project. As with "Tit for Tat" (the reciprocity strategy we saw in the previous step), the perception of justice is fundamental to preventing the negotiation process from derailing. - Integration capacity.
Integration capacity is the ability to find complementary solutions ("your priority fits here with mine"), facilitate "positive negotiations" by inviting exploration of voluntary exchanges ("what do you give up and what do you gain?"), and close with reciprocal commitments.
Negotiation and Crisis
I view negotiation as a generative mechanism, not a distributive one. It is about creating value, not distributing it. In the distribution of value, there is always someone who loses and someone who gains. That produces imbalances that accumulate tension and force later revisions.
Companies indeed negotiate in multiple scenarios. Many of them involve exchanges with no greater commitment than a punctual one. The Cooplexity model refers to another type of negotiation: collaborative negotiation, a long-term process that requires building shared realities with intertwined interests.
To illustrate this, I will borrow from Chris Voss a paradigmatic example of an FBI negotiation with a suicidal hostage-taker. It was an armed man, emotionally collapsed, who was holding hostages in a dwelling with a high suicide risk.
The police could have intervened by force; nevertheless, they decided not to. On these occasions, police forces around the world typically apply the methodology of the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit, which fundamentally involves reducing pressure, avoiding quick decisions, applying active listening and empathy, and building a relationship of trust. Does that sound familiar? Exactly—we are applying the principles of the second step of the model. We must identify real interests, not positions. In the example, the hostage-taker demanded recognition, not money.
The negotiator never disputed the hostage-taker's logic ("that does not make sense"), did not try to convince him with rational arguments, and did not accelerate the process. He created a safe psychological space (without asking, judging, or correcting). He always recognised emotions without appropriating or sharing them ("it seems like no one has really listened to you").
During the process, the negotiator introduced small steps, nothing radical, easily assumable and reversible. And very importantly, he closed with dignity so that the person felt he was making the right decision, not surrendering.
What learnings can we extrapolate to the business world? All of them!
- The objective is not to be right; it is to understand the reasons.
- Without empathy, there is no influence.
- Trust is built step by step, with honesty and firmness.
- Emotions matter; irrational decisions must be avoided.
- Pressure is perceived as aggression.
- In organisations, commitment appears when people choose, not when they obey.
- Induced or imposed solutions are rejected. Solutions are accepted when we participate in their construction.
Why Crisis Negotiators Do Not Seek Solutions… and Leaders Should Not Either (Yet)
If we seek parallels with organisations, there are several points worth highlighting.
From a macro perspective:
- It is a long-term negotiation, with a continued mutual relationship, whose objective is win-win, creating value, not transferring it.
- There are multiple interests: some individual, some crossed, and some common.
- Information and negotiation capacity are distributed, and communication is open.
From this context of collaborative negotiation and from the perspective of dynamics, there are two very relevant characteristics:
Relationship
"Emotional connection facilitates approximation between positions."
A good relationship leads to good results, and good results improve the relationship. Emotions are everything. Emotionally confronted negotiators will interpret all proposals and movements from the other party as tactical steps to gain advantage and, therefore, as aggression they must defend themselves against.
Progression
"Negotiation, like fine wine, cannot be accelerated."
Negotiation evolves over time. It must be allowed to emerge; one cannot pressure to obtain an immediate solution. The agreement arises from an emergent, co-generated solution.
Safety
"Leadership begins when you stop trying to impose the solution and focus on protecting the space where it can emerge."
Collaboration occurs in safe contexts. One cannot have a collaborative attitude if risk is perceived. The more pressure applied to resolve, the less capacity the other has to make a decision. Both parties must perceive that they can open up without harm so they can take a constructive step.
“Slow is smooth, smooth is fast”
In organisations, leaders must be aware of the three premises, even though in many situations they may know or intuit the solution or be under pressure to deliver rapid results.
Perhaps one of the most challenging cases of cultural transformation I have faced was in a factory undergoing organisational transformation, where workers interpreted it as aggression. They feared for their jobs and the maintenance of their rights.
Management had an honest intention to resolve the situation positively for workers and yet viably for the organisation, which was facing strong internal and market tensions at that time. However, for various reasons, their proposals looked more like imposition than sincere approximation.
After several months of back-and-forth, the unions closed ranks and blocked any initiative, forcing the multinational to change the factory director.
The new director, with a much more conciliatory profile, resumed the situation with two actions: the reestablishment of conversations and an initial gesture of generosity in the concession of particular demands that were heavily emotionally charged.
Personally, my strategy with the old director had focused on his self-awareness: understanding why he was perceived as aggressive, even though his personality, though dominant, was sincere, well-intentioned, and honest. The objective was to influence interactions so that they were correctly interpreted. The change of direction occurred before results could be observed.
The case illustrates something essential: sometimes it is not enough to be right or to have good intentions. If the relationship is broken, the system enters defensive mode, and any proposal—however reasonable—is interpreted as a threat. The new director did not provide better solutions, but rather an emotional restart.
Conclusion
Progress without breaking the relationship
Interest management is not about getting everyone to want the same thing. And resolving conflicts in teams does not involve eliminating them but integrating them. It consists of something much more delicate and, at the same time, more powerful: making it possible for legitimately different interests to coexist without destroying the common project.
Every negotiation—in a company, in a team, or in a crisis—follows a psychological and relational progression. When distrust predominates, people compete, protect themselves, or attack. When pressure is high, the relationship closes, and the system enters survival mode. In that context, there are no sustainable agreements, only impositions, blockades, or strategic silences.
The tipping point is not the agreement but empathy. Not as a soft emotion but as a structural condition: the moment when the other ceases to be a threat and becomes a legitimate interlocutor. From there, the relationship can begin to shift from conflict to commitment, step by step, without artificial leaps.
Cooperation does not appear because someone is right, nor because the solution is technically brilliant. It appears when people feel they retain their dignity, their decision-making capacity, and their margin of control. That is why crisis negotiators do not impose solutions: they protect the space where a decision can emerge without violence. And that is why leaders in complex contexts should do the same.
Leadership in this third step does not consist of resolving the dilemma but of sustaining the relationship while the system learns to integrate interests. First, through small agreements; then, through explicit cooperation; and only when there is sufficient trust, through responsible co-creation. It is not a quick path, but it is the only one that does not deteriorate the system.
Managing interests is accepting that conflict is not the enemy. The enemy is breaking the relationship while trying to resolve it. When we understand this, the focus ceases to be on "winning the negotiation" and shifts to maintaining the common project alive.
Because, in the end, leadership does not consist of deciding for others but of creating the conditions for others to decide without destroying what unites them.
Next Step in the Model
In step 1, we manage uncertainty: "I can sustain myself."
In step 2, we manage relationships: "I see you."
In step 3, we manage interests: "We can continue here together."
Step 4 will take us to a higher level: managing by values. It will no longer be enough to agree on contributions and benefits; we will need a shared code that guides decisions when no one is watching. We will move from "we reach agreements" to "we act with consistency."
Beyond interests, it will be about trusting the purpose, the ultimate goal of the relationship, the essential objective of the organisation. It will have been necessary to gain self-awareness in the first step, to understand one another in the second, and to collaborate in the third. The fourth step is the first one that brings authentic value to the organisation, transcending the self to begin being us.
References
Voss, C., & Raz, T. (2016). Never split the difference: Negotiating as if your life depended on it. Harper Business.
Random House
Zamora, R. (2020). Cooperation in complexity: Cooplexity, a model for collaboration in complexity in times of uncertainty and change. Ricardo Zamora.
ResearchGate
