He wanted to get married.
She didn’t believe in marriage.
So they abruptly broke up.
As I watched the drama unfold on the screen, I sighed. Their argument wasn’t necessarily unsolvable—and it likely wasn’t even about marriage. It was about things they cared deeply about that neither of them had named in that conversation.
They just didn’t look under the hood.
Marriage was his way of trying to meet a need. Remaining unmarried was hers. They were arguing about the words in front of them without being curious about the needs underneath.
They never asked each other:
What experiences or beliefs shaped their views of marriage?
What did marrying represent to him? Tradition? Belonging?
What did remaining unmarried represent to her? Autonomy? Her sense of self?
Was there another way to meet their needs, one that didn’t hinge on marriage, or the absence of it?
Instead, they stayed at the surface: “I want marriage” vs “I don’t.”
We do this constantly at work.
“We need to standardize this process” vs “We need flexibility, as every situation is different.”
Both individuals may be trying to support the team: one through consistency and fairness and the other through responsiveness and trust in people’s judgment.
“We should all be in the office three days a week” vs “We should be fully remote.”
One team member may be prioritizing connection and collaboration while the other may be prioritizing flexibility and the ability to do focused work.
In each case, we’re debating what’s at the surface instead of asking what’s underneath it, which is usually a need trying to be met.
When we take the time to understand those needs, we create space for outcomes that honor more than one perspective.
We just have to remember to look under the hood.