Interests vs. Positions

The idea that you must never back down from a demand is a common negotiation myth. A position is what you say you want ("I need Friday off"), while an interest is the real reason why you want it ("I need to attend my son's school play"). Focusing on underlying interests opens up more solutions; perhaps you could leave at noon instead of taking the whole day, satisfying both your interest and your manager's need for coverage.

Ask this: In your next disagreement, what is the why behind their request?

Distinguishing between interests and positions is a core negotiation skill. Positions are what we demand; interests are the underlying needs, desires, and fears that motivate them.

Focusing on rigid positions often leads to a zero-sum battle. Shifting the conversation from "what" to "why" transforms the dynamic into a collaborative search for solutions that can make the pie bigger for everyone.

For example, two departments fight over the same $50,000 software budget (their position). Their interests—one needs analytics, the other needs project management—reveal they can buy cheaper, modular software that serves both.

At home, a couple might argue about buying an SUV versus a sedan (their positions). Their underlying interests of safety and fuel economy could be met by a hybrid crossover, satisfying both parties.

To uncover interests, use open-ended questions like, "Can you help me understand why that's important to you?" or "What problem would that solve for you?" This signals collaboration instead of confrontation and helps you find common ground.

To apply this: For each position, list several underlying interests. Brainstorm creative options that satisfy those interests, and look for ways to make trades.

The distinction between interests and positions is a central tenet of principled negotiation, a framework that prioritizes collaborative problem-solving over adversarial haggling to create more durable, mutually beneficial agreements.

• Focus on interests, not positions, to invent options for mutual gain and create wise, efficient agreements. [1] (1981)
• Negotiation involves a tension between "creating value" by exploring interests and "claiming value" by dividing the resulting pie. [2] (1986)
• A major barrier to resolving conflict is the tendency to frame it as a zero-sum battle over positions, which can be overcome by exploring the interests of all parties. [3] (2000)

Focusing on interests can be challenging when there is a significant power imbalance or when one party refuses to negotiate in good faith. In highly competitive or single-issue negotiations (like haggling over a price with a street vendor), a more positional approach may be unavoidable. The model also assumes a degree of rationality and willingness to share information that may not always be present.