A practical way to move beyond defended positions, surface the assumptions holding a conflict in place, and find a better path forward.
Understand
How to read the Cloud
1
In order to achieve A, we must have B.
2
In order to have B, we must have or do D.
3
In order to achieve A, we must have C.
4
In order to have C, we must have or do D′.
5
On one hand, we must have or do D; on the other hand, we must have or do D′. We cannot do both.
What must be true for each arrow to hold?
Each arrow rests on assumptions. The conflict becomes solvable when the assumptions become visible.
Translating the boxes
Requirement
A necessary condition for achieving the objective.
Prerequisite
What we believe must be present or done in order to satisfy the requirement.
Read each connection as a because-statement: “In order to have [head], we must have or do [tail], because...”
Work
Surface at least five assumptions under each arrow before searching for the injection
Why force five assumptions under each arrow?
The first one or two assumptions are usually obvious.
By the fourth or fifth, teams become more specific and testable.
More assumptions create more possible places to challenge the cloud.
Hidden assumptions often reveal the eventual injection.
B → D and C → D′ are often easiest places to begin.
A → B and A → C are often the most fundamental.
Five arrows × five assumptions each = twenty-five chances to “evaporate the conflict.”
A simple work sequence
1Name A
2Name B/C
3Name D/D′
4Write assumptions
5Find injection
1Build the Cloud
Agree on the objective, the two requirements, and the two conflicting prerequisites.
2Surface assumptions
For each arrow—including the conflict arrow between D and D′—write at least five because-statements. Do not solve the conflict yet.
3Look for the injection
Which assumption is false, incomplete, outdated, or unnecessarily absolute? What new option becomes possible if it changes? How can we create a situation where a key assumption is no longer true? This is the injection.
Five-minute leadership conversation
- What is the shared objective here?
- What requirement is each side trying to protect?
- What prerequisite does each side believe is necessary—and what assumptions make that belief feel true?
Deepen
Use the Cloud without oversimplifying the conflict
Common discoveries
“We were arguing about prerequisites, not purpose.”
“Both sides are protecting legitimate requirements.”
“The either/or depends on assumptions we never named.”
“A new option can satisfy both requirements.”
“The conflict is not symmetrical; one side is based on weaker logic.”
“Both sides are working together to understand and solve the conflict.”
Common misuses
Using vague box labelsClarity matters. The cloud becomes useful only when the objective, requirements, and prerequisites are specific enough to test.
Writing only one assumptionThe first assumption is rarely the most revealing. Push to five.
Jumping to compromiseCompromise often weakens both sides instead of breaking the logic holding the conflict in place.
Forcing a clever third wayThe injection still has to work in reality and protect the legitimate requirements.
Catalystic application
The Evaporating Cloud is valuable for leaders because it slows conflict down just enough to reveal the logic underneath. It reframes a binary fight as a system of relationships: objective → requirements → prerequisites → assumptions. Once the logic is visible, the leader can ask better questions, test the assumptions, and create a more intelligent path forward.
Objective → Requirements → Prerequisites → Assumptions → Injection → Test
Related Catalystic lenses
Model for Improvement — Test the injection and compare the result with the prediction.
Perspective Model — Step beyond defended positions to the system and the other party’s reasoning.
Cynefin — If the best path forward is still uncertain, probe safely.
Crucial Conversations — Create enough safety for assumptions to surface honestly.
Sources: Eliyahu M. Goldratt, It’s Not Luck (North River Press, 1994); H. William Dettmer, The Logical Thinking Process: A Systems Approach to Complex Problem Solving (ASQ Quality Press, 2007); Lisa J. Scheinkopf, Thinking for a Change (St. Lucie Press, 1999).
