c7

Shifting from positions to interests

When we are confronted by another person’s position in a conflict, we can think of it as a “means to an end.” Curiosity can help us overcome the impulse to attack and defend and can encourage us to seek to understand the “end.” What is the other person attempting to achieve when they adopt their position? Similarly, when we find ourselves adopting a position in a conflict, we might take a breath and ask ourselves what we’re hoping to achieve by that position. By asserting our interests rather than our position, we create less resistance and encourage flexibility.

A simple way to shift from positions to interests is to add the word “because” at the end of a positional statement. This word induces curiosity and leads us to ask questions about the reasons that drive a position. For example, the position “I want the corner office” when followed by “because” may lead to the interest “I need enough room to meet with clients.”

Naming the topic

We can begin to shift the focus of conflict away from positions by identifying the topic of the conflict. Ask yourself, “In neutral and objective terms, what do we need to discuss and resolve?”

Consider the difference between the positional “I want to go to Hawaii” and the more neutral “I’d like to talk about our upcoming vacation.” The position shuts down dialogue; the topic invites it.

Dialogue allows for more than one perspective and creates room for everyone’s story.

Notice that these lists avoid the use of loaded words that might trigger defensiveness (“improved quality of work” or “your messy bedroom”). Anything involving a number is more likely to be a demand than the introduction of a topic for discussion. “I’d like to talk to you about curfew” will get you further than “I’d like to talk to you about being in by midnight.”

Identifying the problem in terms of a topic to be discussed or an issue to be resolved is a good first step in setting a collaborative tone and avoiding positional confrontation. Neutral topics set the stage to explore interests and needs.

The key to collaboration — interests and needs

At the heart of collaborative conflict resolution lie interests and needs.These needs motivate us —and trigger defensiveness when we feel them threatened. They lead us to adopt positions as a way to meet our needs.

Sometimes we take a position consciously; but most of the times we react emotionally and impulsively. When we do the latter, we may take a position that ultimately does not serve our needs. For instance, a manager might eliminate flextime in an effort to increase productivity yet find that the resulting decline in morale decreases productivity instead. A valid need; an unproductive means to achieve it. Similarly, an employee who wasn’t given an opportunity to speak at a staff meeting might boycott future meetings in protest. The position “I won’t go” is unlikely to meet that person’s need to provide meaningful input.

In their book Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and Bill Ury relate a story of two sisters fighting over an orange. When a stalemate developed, they agreed to cut the orange in half — a fair solution, to be sure. One took her half, peeled it, and ate the fruit. The other also peeled her half, but used the peel to make marmalade and threw the fruit away. Each had assumed she knew why the other wanted the orange. Neither explained to the other why she wanted it. In the end, the compromise solution got each of them half of what was available, all because they focused on what they wanted (positions), not why they wanted it (interests and needs).

A positional approach results in either/or thinking and blinds people to other possibilities. Our energy goes into being right or proving the other person wrong. When we frame our conflict in terms of interests and needs, however, we create new opportunities for resolution. This focus fosters creativity and may lead to workable solutions that neither person had previously considered.

BEYOND RIGHT AND WRONG

Positions tether us to the drama triangle. At its simplest, a position says, “I’m right, you’re wrong.” This moral certainty and righteousness also translate as “I’m the hero, you’re the villain.”

When we redefine a problem in terms of interests and needs rather than positions, we look beyond right and wrong. We focus on the problem and no longer need to attack the person. While positions result in either/or thinking, interests and needs breed flexibility and cooperation. They allow us to relinquish the roles of hero, victim, and villain and become partners in solving the problem.

Summary

Conflict often is marked by people dug in on their positions. A position can be defined as a person’s desired solution in conflict and does not necessarily consider other people or their needs. A positional attitude reflects a belief that our perspective is “the truth.”

We can shift the focus of conflict away from positions by identifying the issue we need to resolve and the topics we need to discuss.

Positions are a means to an end and are motivated by interests and needs. When we frame conflict in terms of each person’s interests and needs, we foster better understanding, allow common ground to emerge, and create previously unseen possibilities for resolution.

--

—-oooO—-

—-(—)—-

—–\–(–

——\_)-

———–Oooo—

———–(—-)—

————)–/—-

————(_/-

—-oooO—-

—-(—)—-

—–\–(–

——\_)-