For those of us in the field, “interests” and “positions” are staple categories. A legacy of Getting to Yes, I presume. They’re NOT easy concepts to for newcomers to work with.  Sources of confusion:

1)  “Interests” have a narrower meaning in legal and political discourse: “Self-interest” or “conflict of interest” involves a direct financial or power advantage for you or those close to you, the stake you have in an outcome.

2)  In contrast, mediators use “interests” as a catch-all for underlying motivations. Ury’s definition is “the intangible motivations that lead people to take positions – needs, desires, concerns, fears, and aspirations.”  Some authors extend this to see emotions — “I feel disrespected” — as an “interest.” It seems to me that such a broad definition becomes functionally unhelpful to mediators trying to sift through the barrage of information and feelings dumped on the table.

3) And what do we do with tangible motivations — “I need a reliable car” or “our cash flow depends on your timely payment” — are these now considered “positions”? Learners are often especially confused by statements such as: “We workers need to be paid for overtime.” This “position” also expresses an main “interest”. Is getting paid a desire or aspiration, or is it a demand?  True, there’s a slight difference in wording between a request and a stated need, but we don’t want the main point to get bogged down in fine semantic distinctions.

4)  Interests come in nested layers (this is explained in the current Handbook already). If you start with a position and use the “WHY do you want that” method of getting at interests, you can go through a long chain of WHYs, as each statement has further rationales underlying it. Each identified “interest” becomes in turn a position in relation to a yet deeper reason. Furthermore, a  party will have multiple interests, even conflicting ones, some deeply emotional, some immediate and practical. How does the mediator pick through the debris to find the interest that can motivate resolution?

5)  I often explain “position” as a “premature solution”. However, demands are just one kind of position. As set of rules, criteria, or values can also be a position: “Anyone who volunteered their time should be invited.” “No child is allowed to perform without written parental approval.” “As supervisor, I make the rules, and Joe needs to follow them.” “As a matter of principle, we will not make under-the-table payments.”

6) And what happens after there has been some negotiation, and a party now presents a new proposal that incorporates some of the ideas and concerns of others? Is that a new “position”? Or is it now simply a “proposal.”?

I think what we really mean by “position” is

a *public *initial and *inflexible statement about the present or future that is likely to constrain dialogue or overly narrow the set of possibilities parties can look at.

++++++

If we use the colloquial “NEEDS” and “DEMANDS” would that be more helpful for mediators in identifying helpful understanding of motivations versus rigid demands?

Some possible problems: “needs” sounds gooey – “needy” in fact. “Needs and wants” is more accurate but a mouthful.  “MOTIVATORS” may be more helpful but jargon-y  (unfortunately the simpler word “motives” has negative overtones).

Demands, as noted above, are only one kind of position. “Proposals” sounds more formal yet less judgmental than “demands.”

Looking for pathways out of this theoretical swamp….to put mediators on firmer ground.