Interests vs Positions

Part of Conflict Resolution

The foundational concept in principled negotiation: distinguishing what people say they want from what they actually need — the key that unlocks solutions invisible to positional bargaining.

Why This Matters

The single most powerful insight in conflict resolution is the distinction between positions and interests. A position is what someone says they want — their stated demand, their opening bid, their publicly declared stance. An interest is why they want it — the underlying need, concern, fear, or value that the position is intended to address.

Most negotiations and mediations fail because they operate at the level of positions. Each party defends their position, attacks the other’s, and tries to force a compromise that splits the difference. This approach is adversarial, produces resentment, and often fails to serve anyone’s actual needs — because the compromise position may not address the underlying interests of either party.

Operating at the level of interests changes the game entirely. When a mediator understands what each party actually needs, they can often find options that serve both sets of interests simultaneously — options that were invisible as long as everyone was focused on the positions. The classic example is the orange: two people claiming the last orange reach a deadlocked compromise (each gets half) when the interest-based solution (one takes the juice, one takes the peel) gives each person everything they need.

This concept was developed systematically in the Harvard Negotiation Project and is the foundation of the widely-used “Getting to Yes” framework. It is applicable to every type of conflict: community disputes, resource allocation, governance decisions, family disagreements.

Identifying Positions and Interests

Positions are recognizable by their directness: “I want the water rights to the upper field.” “I need three more days to complete the task.” “The boundary should be at the stone wall.” Positions are specific, concrete, and usually framed as demands.

Interests are the why behind positions. They are often unstated, because people assume their interests are obvious (they rarely are) or because stating interests feels like vulnerability. Common categories of interest:

• Safety and security: I need to know my family will be fed, my home is secure, my person will not be harmed
• Economic wellbeing: I need resources sufficient for my household’s needs
• Belonging and recognition: I need to feel that my contributions are valued and that I am seen as a full community member
• Autonomy: I need to make my own decisions in my own domain without being overridden
• Fairness: I need to be treated by the same standards as others in comparable situations
• Relationships: I need certain relationships to be repaired or protected
• Values and identity: I need the outcome to be consistent with principles I hold deeply

Interests are deeper, more numerous, and more flexible than positions. A single position usually has multiple interests behind it. Unpacking those interests multiplies the available solutions.

Techniques for Surfacing Interests

Ask “why.” The most direct approach: “You’ve said you want X. Can you help me understand what’s most important to you about having X?” Ask it more than once: interests are layered. The first answer to “why” often reveals another position; the answer to the second “why” gets closer to the core interest.

Ask “what concerns you.” Future-oriented questions reveal fears and risks that drive current positions: “What are you most concerned will happen if this situation isn’t resolved the way you need?” “If you don’t get X, what does that mean for you?”

Ask “what does success look like.” This opens up the imagination: “If this situation were resolved well, what would your life look like in six months?” Envisioning the desired future often reveals interests more clearly than analyzing the present conflict.

Observe what’s unsaid. Sometimes the most important interest is the one the person is not articulating — because it feels vulnerable, because naming it feels like admitting weakness, or because they themselves haven’t consciously identified it. A mediator who listens for what is not said, and gently names it, often opens a conversation that was otherwise stuck: “I notice you haven’t mentioned what this means for your family’s security. Is that part of what’s concerning you?”

Interests May Conflict Too

Identifying interests does not guarantee that they are compatible. Sometimes underlying interests genuinely conflict: two families need the same water source, and there is not enough for both. In these cases, interest-based negotiation still produces better outcomes than positional negotiation — because it ensures that any agreement actually addresses real needs rather than trading symbolic concessions — but it does not make hard choices disappear.

When interests genuinely conflict, the task becomes finding the most fair and durable way to make the hard choice. Criteria-based decision-making — agreeing on fair principles before applying them to the specific case — is the most legitimate approach: “We agree that water allocation should be based on household size and historical use. Let’s apply that standard to our situation.”

Applying Interests vs Positions in Community Governance

The positions/interests distinction is not just a mediation tool — it is a governance tool. Leaders who understand the interests behind the demands their community makes will make better decisions than those who respond only to stated positions.

When a community meeting erupts over a specific proposal, the questions to ask are: What does this proposal threaten? What needs would it fail to meet? What interests are driving the opposition? Addressing those interests — even if the specific proposal does not change — can shift resistance to acceptance.

When negotiating between the community and an outside party — a neighboring community, a trading partner — interest-based framing consistently produces better agreements than positional bargaining because it finds solutions that are genuinely acceptable to both sides rather than forced concessions that breed resentment and non-compliance.

Teach this framework broadly in the community. Community members who understand the positions/interests distinction apply it in their daily interactions — resolving household disputes, coordinating work tasks, navigating the small frictions of community life — and reduce the volume of conflicts that reach formal mediation.