How to manage conflict by focusing on interests rather than positions

Workplace disagreements often stall because the people involved become stuck in their initial demands. One person insists on a specific deadline, while another insists on a specific budget, and neither is willing to budge. These demands are known as positions. When a conversation stays at the level of positions, it usually results in a stalemate or a compromise where both sides feel they have lost something important.

The most effective way to break this deadlock is to look for the interests behind those positions. An interest is the reason why someone wants something. It is the underlying need, fear, or desire that drives the demand. By shifting the focus from what people say they want to why they want it, you can often find a third option that satisfies both parties.

Distinguishing between demands and motivations

A position is a specific course of action. It is often expressed in absolute terms, such as "I will not work on this project" or "We must hire three more people immediately." These statements are easy to argue against because they are rigid. If you argue against a position, the other person feels they must defend their territory.

An interest is the motivation that makes the position necessary. If an employee says they will not work on a project, their position is refusal. Their interest might be a fear of failing due to a lack of training, or perhaps a need to protect their time for a high-priority task assigned by a different manager.

When you act as a mediator or a manager, your job is to ask questions that peel back the layers of the position. Instead of asking why they cannot do the work, ask what concerns they have about the project requirements or how the current workload affects their ability to deliver quality results. Once the interest is on the table, the conversation changes from a battle of wills to a collaborative problem-solving session.

Using neutral language to de-escalate tension

The language used during a conflict can either widen the gap or bridge it. When people feel attacked, they instinctively move into a defensive posture, which makes them even more attached to their original position. Using accusatory language or making assumptions about intent will almost always escalate the situation.

Instead of using "you" statements, which can feel like an indictment, try to use "I" statements or focus on the situation itself. For example, instead of saying "You are being uncooperative with the new software rollout," it is more effective to say, "I am concerned that the current pace of adoption is creating friction in the team's workflow."

Another useful technique is to summarise what the other person has said before offering a counterpoint. This is not about agreeing with them, but about demonstrating that they have been heard. When someone feels understood, their physiological stress response often lowers, making them more capable of rational thought. You might say, "It sounds like your main concern is the impact this change will have on your team's ability to meet their existing targets. Is that correct?" This confirms the interest without validating a potentially unreasonable position.

Finding common ground through shared interests

Once the interests of all parties are clearly identified, you can begin to look for overlaps. It is rare that two people in a conflict have completely opposing interests. Usually, there is a shared goal that sits beneath the surface, such as the desire to meet a client deadline, the need to maintain a high standard of work, or the goal of reducing team turnover.

When you identify these shared goals, you can frame the solution around them. If one manager wants more staff and another wants to save costs, the underlying interests might be "maintaining productivity" and "fiscal responsibility." The conversation can then move towards how to increase productivity through different means, such as process improvements or better tool allocation, which respects the budget.

This approach avoids the trap of a zero-sum game, where one person's win is another person's loss. In a zero-sum negotiation, the parties split the difference, which often leaves both feeling unsatisfied. By focusing on interests, you move towards an integrative solution where the total value created is higher than what either party originally demanded.

Things to try this week

• When a team member makes a rigid demand, ask "What is the main concern you are trying to address with that request?" to find the interest.
• In your next meeting where tension arises, practise rephrasing a person's point of view to ensure they feel heard before you respond.
• Replace "Why did you do that?" with "What were the circumstances that led to that decision?" to reduce defensiveness.
• Identify one shared goal in a current departmental disagreement and state it clearly to the group to reset the tone of the discussion.