Before answering, the sponsor states the rival position so fairly that its holders accept the summary, then responds, which earns a hearing and leaves the room weighing the real difference.
An example
Paper pick lists still ran the four warehouses of a family-owned foodservice distributor when its new chief operating officer proposed handheld scanners. The warehouse managers opposed it, and two earlier attempts had collapsed amid complaints. At the operations meeting, before presenting anything, he said he wanted to be sure he understood their case, and laid it out: paper lists never went down, pickers with limited English managed them easily, accuracy was already above 99 percent, and the last two systems had been chosen without asking the floor. He asked whether he had it right. The longest-serving manager added one point, battery life on night shifts, and said yes. The chief operating officer then answered each point with numbers and with his plans for batteries, training, and a pilot in one warehouse. The managers argued about which warehouse.
Why it works
People who feel misunderstood keep repeating their position and stop listening to the reply. Stating the opposing case so fairly that its holders accept it shows the sponsor has heard them, which earns the proposal a real hearing and makes it look better, because it now comes from someone visibly fair. It also narrows the argument to the points of real disagreement. It depends on a sincere effort to understand, on a sponsor willing to say where the other side is right, and on a reply that takes on the strongest points. A summary that is even slightly weakened is spotted at once, and the method turns on its user.
The thinking behind it
Anatol Rapoport In Fights, Games, and Debates (1960), Rapoport proposed that in a debate each side first restate the opponent's position to the opponent's satisfaction, and acknowledge the region of validity in which it holds, before offering criticism, so that the opponent becomes willing to listen in turn. The chief operating officer's opening followed the technique step by step. The account of the idea comes from secondary sources, and the four-step rules often quoted are a later writer's condensation.
When it fits
Steelmanning fits contested proposals where the opposition has a coherent case and has felt ignored: veteran staff, expert functions, a unit that lost the last argument. Start from real knowledge of their reasoning, which usually means conversations before the meeting, and a proposal that can stand up to the strongest version of their objections.
How to use it well
Learn the opposing case before you present, by asking its holders to explain it and listening without rebuttal. Then open with it.
- State their position in its strongest form and in their terms.
- Ask whether you have it right, and take corrections until they say yes.
- Say where you agree and what you learned from them.
- Only then give your proposal, answering their strongest points first.
Do it in front of the people who will decide. The opposition is more likely to engage with your reply once they know you understood them, and the deciders can see the real difference between the two positions.
What it costs and where it backfires
Stating the other side's case well makes it more persuasive, and some listeners may be won over by it. Saying where they are right commits you to account for it in the plan. The method takes preparation, and time in the meeting. It ends where the summary stops being fair: a version tilted toward weakness, however slightly, is a straw man presented as generosity, and someone in the room will call it out.
When it is used on you
Correct anything a rival got wrong in stating your position before arguing against it, then agree that they have it. Put your energy into their answers to your strongest points. If their summary was slanted, say exactly where, before they move on.