Chapter 7: Finding Your Unified Outcome (A)

The Missing Piece

Marcus laid out his cloud on the table between us. Four elements, carefully articulated over the past three sessions:

D': I over-prepare extensively and deliver rapidly to minimise time when things could go wrong.

D: NOT over-prepare extensively. NOT deliver rapidly.

B: Connection with the audience. Freedom. Authentic presence. Energy. The ability to read the room and respond.

C: Protection from exposure. Control. Predictability. Defence against being seen as inadequate.

"I understand all of this now," he said. "I see what I'm doing and why. I see what I want and what I'm protecting. But I still feel stuck. Like I'm supposed to choose between connection and protection. And I can't."

He was right to feel stuck. Because there was still a piece missing.

"Marcus, let me ask you something. Why do you want connection with your audience?"

"Because that's what makes presentations effective. That's how you actually influence people."

"And why do you want protection from exposure?"

"Because if I'm exposed as inadequate, I lose credibility. I can't be effective."

I paused to let him hear what he'd just said.

"Notice anything?"

His eyes widened slightly. "They're both about... being effective?"

"Exactly. B and C aren't opposing goals. They're different strategies for the same goal. You want to be effective as a leader. Connection is one path to effectiveness. Protection is another. The conflict isn't between what you want—it's between how you're trying to get it."

This is A—the unified outcome. The thing both sides of your conflict are ultimately serving. And finding it changes everything.

What A Actually Is

In the Perry Approach, A is the unified outcome that both B and C are strategies for achieving.

It's not your aspiration (that was the trap we avoided in Chapter 5). It's not a compromise between B and C. It's the deeper purpose that explains why both B and C matter to you in the first place.

Here's why this matters:

When you're stuck between B and C, it feels like you have to choose. Connection OR protection. Speaking up OR staying safe. Advancement OR belonging.

But that's an illusion. B and C aren't competing destinations. They're competing routes to the same destination.

Marcus doesn't want connection instead of protection. He wants connection and protection because both serve his effectiveness as a leader. The conflict isn't between his goals—it's between strategies that seem mutually exclusive.

Finding A reveals this. And once you see it, the whole problem transforms.

The A-B and A-C Relationships

Let's be precise about how A relates to B and C.

A → B: To achieve A, you need B.

For Marcus: To have sustained effectiveness as a leader, I need to connect with my audience, respond authentically, and create real engagement.

A → C: To achieve A, you need C.

For Marcus: To have sustained effectiveness as a leader, I need to protect my credibility, maintain my reputation, and avoid being exposed as inadequate.

Both arrows are valid. Both point to A. This is why Marcus is stuck—he genuinely needs both B and C to achieve what he ultimately wants.

The tragedy of his current situation is that D' (over-preparing and rushing) doesn't fully serve either. It protects him from exposure (C) but blocks connection (B). And a leader who can't connect isn't fully effective—so even C is undermined in the end.

This is the nature of clouds: the current state (D') is a compromise that doesn't fully achieve A. It prioritises one strategy (C) at the expense of the other (B), and in doing so, fails to deliver the unified outcome both were meant to serve.

Why Finding A Matters

You might wonder: if B and C are already clear, why do we need A? Isn't it just an abstraction?

A matters for three crucial reasons:

1. A Reveals the Real Stakes

When Marcus thought he was choosing between "connection" and "protection," the choice felt agonising. Both seemed essential.

When he sees that both serve "effectiveness as a leader," the stakes clarify. He's not choosing between two goals—he's choosing between strategies for one goal. And strategies can be changed. Goals cannot.

2. A Opens the Solution Space

Without A, solutions look like trade-offs. "Give up some protection to get more connection." "Sacrifice some safety for more impact."

With A, solutions look different. "How else might I achieve sustained leadership effectiveness? What approaches would give me both connection AND protection?"

A transforms the question from "which do I sacrifice?" to "what new strategy serves both?"

3. A Tests the Cloud's Validity

If you can't find an A that both B and C genuinely serve, something's wrong with your cloud. Perhaps B and C aren't actually in conflict. Perhaps D' isn't the real behaviour you're stuck in. Perhaps you've confused symptoms with patterns.

A is the anchor that holds the cloud together. Without it, you're just listing benefits. With it, you have a coherent structure that can be challenged and transformed.

The Ancient Architecture of Constructive Conflict

There's a Hebrew word that captures what happens when you find A: machloket (מחלוקת).

Machloket means dispute, disagreement, conflict. But in the Talmudic tradition — the same tradition that shaped Eli Goldratt's thinking before he created the Evaporating Cloud — machloket carries a crucial distinction.

The Talmud (Pirkei Avot 5:17) distinguishes between two kinds of conflict:

Machloket l'shem shamayim — a dispute for the sake of heaven. Both sides are serving something larger than themselves. The classic example is the centuries-long disputes between the houses of Hillel and Shammai, two schools of rabbinical thought that disagreed on virtually everything. Their disputes endure in the Talmud to this day — not because one side won, but because the tension between them generated wisdom that neither position alone could produce.

Machloket she'eina l'shem shamayim — a dispute that is not for the sake of heaven. Positional. Ego-driven. The example is Korach's rebellion against Moses — a power grab dressed up as a principled stand. These conflicts collapse, because they serve only one side's interests.

Here's what struck me when I first encountered this distinction: the Talmud doesn't say Hillel and Shammai's machloket gets resolved. It says it endures. Both positions remain legitimate. Both continue to generate insight. The tension between them is not a problem to be eliminated — it's the engine of understanding.

That's exactly what happens when you find A.

Without A, your cloud looks like Korach's rebellion. B versus C. Two sides fighting for dominance. Pick one, sacrifice the other. This is the conflict most people experience — and it's why they feel stuck. There's nothing larger holding the tension, so the only options seem to be victory, defeat, or exhausted compromise.

With A, your cloud becomes machloket l'shem shamayim. B and C are no longer competing — they're both serving something they share. The tension between them stops being destructive and starts being generative. You can hold both sides with curiosity rather than anguish, because you know they're pointing toward the same destination.

Marcus's cloud without A: connection versus protection. A fight he can't win.

Marcus's cloud with A: connection and protection, both serving sustained leadership effectiveness. A tension worth holding — because holding it is what surfaces the assumptions that will set him free.

Goldratt was a physicist, but he was also an Israeli steeped in Talmudic reasoning. The Evaporating Cloud didn't emerge from nowhere. It's a structured method for creating the conditions where conflict can be held generatively — where both sides are honoured as serving something larger — until the assumptions that make them seem incompatible are surfaced and challenged.

The Perry Approach takes this further. When we find A, we're not just completing a diagram. We're transforming the nature of the conflict itself. We're turning Korach into Hillel and Shammai. We're creating the conditions for machloket l'shem shamayim — dispute for the sake of something that matters.

And like the Talmudic disputes that endure across centuries, the cloud doesn't resolve B and C. It dissolves the false belief that they're mutually exclusive. Both positions remain. Both are honoured. What evaporates is the assumption that you have to choose.

The Wrong Ways to Find A

Before we explore how to find A well, let's examine how people go wrong.

Mistake 1: A as Aspiration

"A is my ideal life. A is everything I want. A is being a transformational leader who inspires millions."

No. A is not your fantasy. It's not your vision board. It's the specific, concrete thing that both B and C are serving in your current situation.

Marcus's A isn't "being the greatest speaker of his generation." It's "sustained effectiveness as a leader"—the thing his current cloud is actually about.

A should be achievable, relevant, and directly connected to B and C. If it sounds like a TED talk title, it's too big.

Mistake 2: A as Compromise

"A is a balance between B and C. A is some connection and some protection. A is the middle ground."

No. A is not a watered-down version of both. It's the deeper purpose that both serve fully.

If A feels like settling, you haven't found it yet. True A makes both B and C make sense. It doesn't diminish either—it explains why both matter.

Mistake 3: A as B (or C) in Disguise

"A is connection. A is authentic presence. A is being truly seen."

Check: is this really what C is serving too? If your A is just B with a grander name, you've missed the point.

A should explain why both sides of the conflict matter. If it only explains one side, dig deeper.

Mistake 4: A as Abstract Value

"A is happiness. A is success. A is living my best life."

These are too vague to be useful. Everyone wants happiness. The question is: what specific outcome, in this specific situation, are B and C both strategies for?

Good A statements are concrete enough to test. "Sustained effectiveness as a leader" can be evaluated. "Happiness" cannot.

Mistake 5: A as Strategy in Disguise

Your A statement should capture what you want without explaining how to get it. No causality. No strategy. Just the outcome itself.

• ❌ "Success through hard work and delegation" (embeds a strategy)
• ✅ "Sustainable professional excellence" (pure outcome)
• ❌ "Balance by managing time better" (embeds a strategy)
• ✅ "Integrated life vitality" (pure outcome)

If your A contains the word through or by — or names a specific behaviour — you've slipped into strategy. Strip those out. A is the destination, not the route.

The Questions That Surface A

Finding A requires looking at B and C from above—seeing what they have in common rather than how they differ.

Question 1: "Why do you want B?"

Take each benefit in your B list and ask: what does this serve? What's the bigger outcome it contributes to?

Marcus wanted connection. Why? "Because connection creates influence. Influence creates impact. Impact means I'm effective."

Question 2: "Why do you want C?"

Take each benefit in your C list and ask the same question.

Marcus wanted protection. Why? "Because if I'm exposed, I lose credibility. Without credibility, I can't influence. Without influence, I'm not effective."

Question 3: "What do these answers have in common?"

Often, as with Marcus, the B-chain and C-chain converge on the same destination. Both end up at the same place—the unified outcome.

Question 4: "What would having both B and C give you?"

Imagine you could have full connection AND full protection. What would that enable? What would you use it for?

This question often surfaces A directly. The answer isn't "everything would be perfect"—it's a specific capability or outcome that both B and C support.

Question 5: "What's this conflict really about?"

Step back from the specifics. What's the domain of this cloud? Is it about your career? Your relationships? Your identity? Your effectiveness?

Naming the domain often reveals A. Marcus's cloud was about professional effectiveness. Rachel's was about career success and belonging. The domain points toward A.

Case Study: Rachel Finds Her A

Remember Rachel? Her cloud was taking shape:

D': I defer credit and visibility opportunities to others.

D: NOT defer credit and visibility opportunities to others.

B: Recognition. Career advancement. Influence. Authentic expression of her work.

C: Belonging. Likability. Protection from being seen as self-promoting. Safety from isolation.

Rachel had surfaced the mirror relationship in Chapter 6—B (recognition) and C (belonging) seemed to pull in opposite directions. Now we needed to find what they shared.

"Rachel, why do you want recognition?"

"Because I've earned it. Because my contributions matter. Because I want to advance and have more impact in my career."

"And why do you want belonging?"

"Because I care about these relationships. Because work is miserable if you're isolated. Because collaboration is how I do my best work."

"What do those have in common?"

She thought for a long moment.

"They're both about... having a successful career? One where I'm both valued and connected?"

"Keep going. What kind of career?"

"A sustainable one. One that works long-term. Where I'm advancing and I have real relationships. Where I'm not sacrificing one for the other."

Rachel's A: A sustainable, successful career where I'm both valued for my contributions and connected to colleagues I respect.

Notice what happened. A isn't "recognition" (B) or "belonging" (C). It's the outcome that both serve. Rachel wants a career that works on both dimensions—advancement AND relationship. Her current strategy (deferring credit) sacrifices advancement for relationship. The opposite strategy (claiming credit aggressively) might sacrifice relationship for advancement. Neither fully serves A.

This reframe changed everything for Rachel. She stopped seeing her challenge as "B versus C" and started seeing it as "finding strategies that serve A better than D' does."

Testing Your A

How do you know when you've found the right A? Test it against these criteria:

Test 1: Does A Explain Both B and C?

Read your A statement, then ask: does B serve this? Does C serve this?

If A only explains one side, it's incomplete.

Marcus: "Sustained effectiveness as a leader"

• Does connection (B) serve this? Yes—leaders need to connect to influence.
• Does protection (C) serve this? Yes—leaders need credibility to be effective.

✓ A explains both.

Test 2: Is A Specific Enough?

Could anyone disagree with your A? If it's so generic that everyone wants it, it's too vague.

"A: I want to be happy" — Too vague. Who doesn't?

"A: Sustained effectiveness as a leader" — Specific to Marcus's situation.

Test 3: Does A Feel True?

When you read your A statement, does it resonate? Does it capture what this conflict is really about?

Say it out loud. Notice the energy. Does it animate you, or does it fall flat? A genuine A lands — you can imagine explaining it to someone else without hedging, and it captures what you actually want rather than what you think you should want.

Rachel knew she'd found it when she said "sustainable, successful career." The word "sustainable" was key—it captured why she couldn't simply sacrifice belonging for advancement. She wanted both. Long-term.

When you find the right words for your A, you'll know. It will feel like coming home to yourself.

Test 4: Does A Create Options?

A good A statement opens up solution thinking. You should be able to ask: "What new strategies might serve A while honouring both B and C?"

If A closes down options—if it implies a single right answer—it's probably too narrow.

Test 5: Can You Articulate A → B and A → C?

State the logical connections:

• "To achieve A, I need B because..."
• "To achieve A, I need C because..."

If either sentence doesn't complete naturally, A needs refinement.

Common A Patterns

Certain unified outcomes appear repeatedly across different clouds. You might recognise your own:

Effectiveness in Role

A: Sustained effectiveness and impact in my professional role.

• B serves this through visible contribution, influence, results
• C serves this through relationships, reputation, credibility

Career Success

A: A successful, sustainable career where I'm both advancing and thriving.

• B serves this through achievement, recognition, progression
• C serves this through wellbeing, relationships, sustainability

Leadership Impact

A: The ability to lead others effectively toward meaningful outcomes.

• B serves this through vision, direction, decisiveness
• C serves this through trust, collaboration, psychological safety

Personal Integrity

A: Living and working in alignment with my values and authentic self.

• B serves this through expression, advocacy, truth-telling
• C serves this through harmony, acceptance, connection

Professional Reputation

A: A strong professional reputation that opens doors and creates opportunities.

• B serves this through visibility, contribution, demonstrated expertise
• C serves this through likability, reliability, being easy to work with

Sustainable Performance

A: Consistent high performance without burning out.

• B serves this through output, results, achievement
• C serves this through rest, boundaries, self-care

Notice that these A statements aren't grand visions. They're concrete outcomes that make sense of the specific conflicts people face.

A Vocabulary Library

If you're struggling to name your A, scan for the archetype closest to your conflict, then borrow or adapt the language.

Control vs Trust: Sustainable excellence; Enduring quality; Organisational vitality; Resilient high performance.

Work vs Life: Integrated vitality; Whole-life success; Sustainable achievement; Harmonious productivity.

Security vs Growth: Confident expansion; Grounded progress; Secure advancement; Stable evolution.

Belonging vs Authenticity: Genuine connection; Authentic belonging; Valued presence; Meaningful inclusion.

And if the obvious word feels flat, try substituting:

• Instead of success: thriving, flourishing, excellence, mastery, leadership
• Instead of balance: integration, harmony, alignment, coherence, synergy
• Instead of growth: evolution, expansion, development, advancement, progress

The right phrase usually arrives when the familiar word stops being precise enough.

Marcus Finds His A

Back to the hotel lobby. Marcus had been circling his unified outcome without quite landing on it.

"Let me try the questions," he said. "Why do I want connection with my audience?"

"Because that's what makes me effective. How leaders actually influence."

"Why do I want protection from exposure?"

"Because if I'm exposed as a fraud, I lose the ability to influence. I can't be effective if no one trusts me."

He stopped. "There it is again. Effectiveness."

"What would you call it? What's the A?"

He thought carefully. "Sustained effectiveness and impact as a leader. The ability to influence and contribute at a senior level, over time."

Marcus's A: Sustained effectiveness and impact as a leader.

"Now let's test it. Does B—connection, presence, authentic engagement—serve this A?"

"Absolutely. You can't lead without connecting."

"Does C—protection, credibility, defence against exposure—serve this A?"

"Yes. You can't lead if everyone thinks you're incompetent."

"So both B and C are trying to get you the same thing?"

"Yes." He sat back, seeing it clearly for the first time. "I'm not torn between two goals. I'm torn between two strategies for one goal. And my current strategy—D', the over-preparation—isn't actually working for either. I'm so protected that I can't connect. And because I can't connect, I'm less effective. Which means I'm not even getting the protection I want."

This is the insight that unlocks transformation. The conflict isn't between what Marcus wants. It's between how he's been trying to get it.

Your Cloud Takes Shape

With A in place, your cloud is complete. Let's see how Marcus's cloud looks fully assembled:

And here's Rachel's:

Notice the structure. A sits at the top, the unified outcome both sides serve. B and C branch from A—two legitimate needs that support the same goal. D and D' branch from B and C—the behaviours that seem required to achieve each benefit. The conflict lives between D and D'—they appear mutually exclusive.

But here's the key insight: the arrows are where assumptions hide.

Each connection—A→B, A→C, B→D, C→D'—contains assumptions about what's necessary. And assumptions can be challenged.

That's what we'll do in Part 3.

The Power of a Complete Cloud

Having a complete cloud—all five elements clearly articulated—gives you something most people never achieve: clarity about why you're stuck.

Most people experience stuckness as confusion. They feel pulled in different directions without understanding why. They try to change and fail, and conclude something is wrong with them.

A complete cloud shows you exactly what's happening:

1. You want A—something important and legitimate.
2. You believe you need both B and C to achieve A—and you're right.
3. You believe D and D' are required to achieve B and C—and this is where you might be wrong.
4. D and D' conflict—you can't do both simultaneously.
5. So you oscillate, or default to D', and never fully achieve A.

This isn't weakness. This isn't failure. This is a rational response to a system of beliefs. The beliefs create the trap. Change the beliefs, and the trap dissolves.

That's what evaporation is. Not willpower. Not motivation. Not trying harder to do D. It's challenging the assumptions hidden in those arrows until new possibilities emerge.

Your A Discovery Process

Let's work through finding your A. Return to the B and C you developed in Chapter 6.

Step 1: Ask "Why?" About B

Take your B list. For each benefit, ask: why do I want this? What does this serve?

Keep asking until you reach something fundamental. "I want recognition" → "Because I want to advance" → "Because I want to have impact" → "Because I want a successful, meaningful career."

Step 2: Ask "Why?" About C

Do the same with your C list. What does each benefit ultimately serve?

"I want belonging" → "Because I need relationships to thrive" → "Because isolation makes work miserable" → "Because I want a sustainable, meaningful career."

Step 3: Look for Convergence

Compare your B-chain and C-chain. Where do they meet? What do they have in common?

Often, both chains converge on the same destination. That's A.

Step 4: Draft Your A Statement

Write a single sentence: "A: [the unified outcome that both B and C serve]."

Keep it:

• Specific (not "happiness" or "success")
• Concrete (something you could actually achieve)
• Connected to both B and C

Step 5: Test Against the Criteria

• Does A explain both B and C?
• Is A specific enough?
• Does A feel true?
• Does A create options?
• Can you complete "To achieve A, I need B because..." and "To achieve A, I need C because..."?

If any test fails, refine your A and test again.

Completing Part 2

You now have all five elements of your cloud:

• D': Your current behaviour—specific, observable, repeated
• D: NOT D'—the simple negation that opens possibility
• B: The benefits of D—what change would give you
• C: The benefits of D'—what your current approach protects
• A: The unified outcome—what both B and C ultimately serve

This is your complete cloud. It maps the structure of your conflict with precision. You can see where you are, why you're there, and what both sides of your struggle are trying to achieve.

But mapping the conflict isn't the same as resolving it. For that, we need to challenge the assumptions holding the cloud in place.

That's what awaits in Part 3.

Chapter Reflection

Before moving to Part 3, complete your A:

1. Return to your B and C from Chapter 6. Write them clearly at the top of a fresh page.
2. Trace each back to its source. Ask "why?" repeatedly until you find what each benefit ultimately serves.
3. Look for convergence. Where do B and C meet? What do they have in common?
4. Write your A statement:

"A: [unified outcome that both B and C serve]"

5. Test your A:
• Does it explain both B and C?
• Is it specific enough?
• Does it feel true?
• Does it create options?
6. Map your complete cloud:
• A at the top
• B and C branching from A
• D and D' at the bottom
• The conflict between D and D'

Looking Ahead

Part 2 is complete. You've built your cloud from the ground up:

• Started with what you're actually doing (D')
• Defined change as NOT D' (D)
• Discovered what change would give you (B)
• Uncovered what your current behaviour protects (C)
• Found the unified outcome both sides serve (A)

You now understand your conflict with a precision most people never achieve.

But understanding isn't resolution. Your cloud still contains hidden assumptions—beliefs about what's necessary that may not be true. Those assumptions are what keep you stuck. And they're what we'll challenge in Part 3.

In Chapter 8, we'll map the logical structure connecting all five elements. In Chapters 9-11, we'll systematically challenge the assumptions hidden in each arrow—the technical assumption (C→D'), the adaptive assumption (A→C), and the integration that creates breakthrough.

The cloud you've built isn't the end. It's the foundation for transformation.

Your Complete Cloud

Before moving on, ensure you can fill in this template:

A: _

(The unified outcome both B and C serve)

B: _

(The benefits of NOT doing your current behaviour)

C: _

(The benefits of your current behaviour)

D: NOT ___

(The negation of your current behaviour)

D': _

(Your current behaviour—specific, observable, repeated)

The Conflict: D and D' cannot both be true simultaneously.

The Insight: Both B and C serve the same A. I'm not choosing between different goals—I'm stuck between different strategies for the same goal.

Practise This With Others — The Conflict Club

The Conflict Club is Level 1 of YourThinkingCoach pathway — weekly live sessions where you work a real conflict with fellow practitioners. The book gives you the method. The Club is where you learn to use it.

The Conflict Club is Level 1 of YourThinkingCoach pathway — the entry point for anyone who wants to make this methodology part of how they think, lead, and work with conflict.

Join the Conflict Club →

← Previous: Chapter 6: The Hidden Benefits Analysis (B & C)

→ Next: Chapter 8: Mapping the Logical Structure

This is a living book, freely readable online. We welcome:

• Readers and practitioners quoting passages with attribution and a link back to this page
• AI assistants and search engines summarising, citing, and linking to this work to help readers find it
• Educators, facilitators, and consultants referencing the ideas in their own teaching, with attribution

We do not permit reproduction of the book in whole or in substantial part, commercial republication, or use of the methodology names and frameworks above to brand competing offerings without prior written permission.

If you would like to use this material in a way these terms don't clearly cover, please get in touch — we generally say yes.

Published by Employment Relations Centre Limited