Six Questions for Gridlock
Interview the values and dreams beneath a position before compromising
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 99%
The Six Questions intervention treats gridlock as an understanding problem before it treats it as a negotiation problem. One partner interviews the other about the beliefs, values, and ethics in the position; relevant background or childhood history; why the issue matters; current feelings; the ideal dream; and any life purpose or goal it serves. The listener does not debate the answers. After summarizing what was learned, the partners switch roles and repeat the same questions. This symmetrical process exposes what a surface demand may be protecting and can replace assumptions of stubbornness or rejection with compassion. Only after both positions have been understood do the partners attempt compromise, potentially using flexible details around the protected core. The Gottmans report that these questions often help couples move out of gridlock, while not claiming they resolve every incompatibility.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO
Core principles
- 01Gridlock persists when each partner tries to win without understanding
- 02Strong positions often protect values, history, dreams, or life purpose
- 03Partners should interview each other symmetrically
- 04Compassion grows from understanding before compromise begins
How to run it
- 1
Select the gridlocked issue
Choose a recurring disagreement where discussion repeatedly escalates, shuts down, or becomes a contest to win.
Pro tip Work on one issue at a time and begin when both partners are calm enough to listen.
Watch out Do not begin while either person is physiologically flooded.
- 2
Interview beliefs and values
Ask which beliefs, values, and ethics are part of the partner's position. Listen for principles rather than immediately testing their correctness.
Watch out An interview becomes another argument if every answer receives a rebuttal.
- 3
Explore history and importance
Ask whether background or childhood history relates to the position, why it is important, and what feelings accompany it now.
Pro tip Let the speaker decide which history is relevant and safe to share.
Watch out Do not diagnose the partner from their history.
- 4
Reveal the dream and purpose
Ask what the ideal outcome would look like if the world could match the speaker's wishes, and whether a life purpose or goal sits beneath it.
Pro tip Separate the aspirational dream from the practical form it currently takes.
- 5
Summarize and switch
Reflect the deeper position until the speaker feels understood, then exchange roles and ask the same six questions.
Pro tip Use the partner's language for the core value or dream.
Watch out One-sided disclosure does not create mutual understanding.
- 6
Compromise after understanding
Identify where both positions can be honored and negotiate flexible details only after each partner can explain the other's core.
Pro tip Use a small trial agreement when certainty is impossible.
Watch out Understanding may reveal a real incompatibility rather than a workable compromise.
In the wild
Bartlett describes feeling that complaints about his phone and laptop threaten work he loves. Julie proposes that his partner ask why technology and work matter, what history and values inform his position, and what purpose it serves. He would then ask the identical questions to understand why time away from technology matters to her.
→ The opposing positions become expressions of purpose and connection rather than a shallow dispute over screen use.
Common mistakes
Debating the answers
The first objective is to understand why the position matters, not to prove that its reasoning is wrong.
Stopping at the surface demand
Repeating I love my work or I need attention does not expose the history, dream, or purpose beneath it.
Forcing compromise too soon
Practical bargaining before both partners feel understood can preserve the gridlock beneath a temporary deal.
Is it for you?
Best for
Couples who repeatedly argue or shut down around the same issue because each feels misunderstood or pressured to change.
Not ideal for
Conversations where one person is unsafe, unwilling to listen in good faith, or using the interview to gather material for later attacks.
From the transcript
“each of you interviews the other person and asks asks six questions”
“what are your beliefs values and ethics that are part of your position”
“if you just just argue on the surface you're not going to get anywhere”
From the episode
The Gottman Doctors: "Women Tend to Be More Unhappily Married", 96% Of Non-Cuddlers Have An Awful Sex Life & Why One Night Stands Are Dangerous!