Disputes often appear simple because each side states a clear demand. A tenant may say, “I will not pay more rent.” A landlord may insist, “The rent must increase.” An employee may demand reinstatement, while an employer may maintain that the dismissal was justified. These statements are known as positions. They describe what a person says they want, but not always why they want it.
In alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a mediator or negotiator tries to look beneath positions to identify the parties’ interests and needs. This shift can reveal options that are invisible when the dispute is treated as a contest between two fixed demands. The framework is useful in mediation, negotiation, community dispute resolution, workplace disagreements, commercial conflicts and family matters.
What Are Positions, Interests and Needs?
The three terms describe different layers of a dispute. They are connected, but they should not be treated as interchangeable.
Positions: what a party says it wants
A position is an expressed demand, proposal or preferred outcome. It is often stated in direct language:
- “The contractor must complete the work within two weeks.”
- “The goods must be returned.”
- “I want sole custody of the child.”
- “The employee must be dismissed.”
- “The boundary must remain exactly where it is.”
Positions are important because they give a dispute visible shape. However, they can become rigid. If each party treats its position as the only acceptable answer, negotiation may turn into a struggle over who gives way first.
A position may also be incomplete. Someone who says, “I need the full amount today” may actually be trying to pay school fees, protect cash flow or meet an urgent supplier obligation. The demand is real, but it may not explain the whole problem.
Interests: why a party wants that outcome
Interests are the concerns, objectives and motivations behind a position. They answer the question: “Why does this matter to you?”
For example, a small business owner who demands immediate payment may be concerned about staff wages, stock purchases or maintaining a relationship with a lender. A tenant who objects to a rent increase may be concerned about affordability, stability and avoiding the disruption of moving. An employer who resists a flexible working arrangement may be concerned about customer coverage rather than opposed to flexibility itself.
Interests may be financial, practical, emotional, relational, reputational or procedural. A party may want compensation, but also an apology. It may want a decision, but also a chance to be heard. It may seek a legal remedy while simultaneously trying to preserve a business relationship.
Needs: the essential conditions beneath interests
Needs are the more fundamental conditions that people require to feel secure, respected or able to function. They can include safety, dignity, predictability, livelihood, recognition, autonomy, belonging and fair treatment.
Needs are usually broader and deeper than a specific settlement proposal. For example, a worker’s demand for reinstatement may reflect a need for income, professional dignity and security. A community’s opposition to a development project may reflect concerns about safety, access to water or protection of a shared environment. A customer’s demand for a refund may reflect a need for fairness and confidence that the supplier will take responsibility.
Needs should not be used to dismiss legal rights or replace evidence. They help explain the human and practical dimensions of a dispute, but any settlement must still be lawful, informed and acceptable to the parties.
Why the Distinction Matters in ADR
ADR processes are designed to help parties address disputes without relying solely on a formal court judgment. Negotiation allows the parties to communicate directly or through representatives. Mediation involves a neutral facilitator who helps them explore issues and reach a voluntary agreement. Other ADR processes may involve expert determination, conciliation or arbitration, depending on the circumstances and the applicable rules.
In many ADR settings, the distinction between positions, interests and needs supports four important tasks.
It broadens the range of possible solutions
Two positions may appear incompatible. If one side demands full payment immediately and the other can pay only later, the dispute may look unsolvable. Once their interests are explored, options may include instalments, partial payment followed by a fixed date, delivery of additional goods, security for the balance or a revised service arrangement.
The parties have not ignored the debt. They have examined different ways of addressing the underlying financial concerns.
It separates the person from the problem
Rigid positions can make parties feel personally attacked. A manager may hear a request for remote work as a challenge to authority. An employee may hear refusal as disrespect. By identifying the practical concern—such as client coverage, supervision or commuting costs—the discussion can focus on designing a workable arrangement rather than judging character.
It reveals shared interests
Parties may disagree about the remedy while sharing important objectives. A supplier and a retailer may both want continuity of business. Neighbours may both want safety and peaceful use of their properties. Parents may disagree about arrangements but both want the child to be cared for and protected.
Shared interests do not eliminate disagreement, but they can provide a foundation for problem-solving.
It improves the quality of communication
Asking about interests encourages explanation rather than accusation. “You are refusing to pay” may lead to defensiveness. “What is making payment difficult at this stage?” invites useful information. A mediator does not have to accept every explanation as true; the purpose is to understand the issues that need to be tested and addressed.
How to Identify Positions, Interests and Needs
A practical analysis can be completed before a negotiation or during a mediation session. It should be carried out separately for each party, because the same event may have different meanings for different people.
- Record the stated position. Write down what the party says should happen. Keep the wording as close as possible to the party’s own statement.
- Ask why the position matters. Useful questions include: “What problem would this solve?” “What concern is behind this request?” and “What would happen if this did not occur?”
- Identify the interests. Group the answers into practical categories such as money, time, risk, quality, privacy, control, reputation, relationship or certainty.
- Explore the underlying needs. Ask what the party requires to feel secure, treated fairly or able to move forward. Use care: people may not be ready to describe personal concerns openly.
- Check assumptions. Do not assume that a demand has only one motive. Ask the party to confirm whether the interpretation is accurate.
- Distinguish interests from non-negotiable limits. Some limits may arise from law, safety, professional duties, authority, deadlines or the rights of others. These limits must be considered separately from preferences.
- Generate options before evaluating them. Once the concerns are clear, consider several possible ways to address them. Only then should the parties test feasibility, cost and fairness.
For example, imagine a Kenyan wholesaler and retailer disputing an unpaid invoice. The wholesaler’s position is that the retailer must pay the entire amount immediately. The retailer’s position is that payment should be postponed. The wholesaler’s interests may include protecting cash flow and avoiding a pattern of late payment. The retailer’s interests may include keeping the shop open and preserving access to stock. Their deeper needs may involve financial security, predictability and a continuing commercial relationship. A written instalment plan, a smaller immediate payment and agreed credit controls may address more of these concerns than a simple demand for immediate payment.
Questions That Help Reveal Interests
Questions should be open, neutral and relevant to the dispute. A mediator or negotiator should avoid turning the conversation into an interrogation. It is often helpful to explain why the question is being asked.
- What is most important to you about the outcome?
- What concern would remain even if your preferred demand were accepted?
- What impact has the dispute had on your work, finances or relationships?
- What would a workable arrangement need to include?
- Which parts of your proposal are essential, and which are preferences?
- What risks are you trying to avoid?
- What information would help you assess another proposal?
- What would make an agreement reliable in practice?
Questions should not pressure a party to disclose confidential information unnecessarily. In mediation, confidentiality arrangements and the process rules should be explained clearly. A party may also need independent legal advice before accepting an agreement, particularly where important rights, property, employment, family responsibilities or significant sums of money are involved.
Interests Are Not the Same as Demands
It is tempting to describe one party’s interests as reasonable and the other party’s as selfish. That approach can damage trust. Both sides may have legitimate concerns, even when their conduct, evidence or proposed remedy is disputed.
Interests also differ from legal claims. A person may have a strong personal interest in receiving an apology, but the legal process may not provide that remedy in the same form. Another person may have a legal entitlement that conflicts with the other party’s preferred outcome. ADR does not mean that parties must abandon legal principles. Instead, it creates space to consider lawful and practical solutions that a court order might not fully address.
For instance, a business dispute may involve a claim for damages, but the parties may also discuss future supply terms, quality checks, revised delivery procedures or a reference to a neutral expert. These additional terms can address operational interests while the parties resolve the monetary issue.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Taking the first demand as the whole story
A first position may be a negotiating opening, an emotional reaction or a summary of one concern. Treat it seriously, but do not assume it explains every interest.
Pressuring parties to reveal personal information
Exploring needs requires sensitivity. A party can explain the practical effect of a dispute without disclosing private medical, financial or family details that are not necessary for resolution.
Inventing interests for the other side
It is easy to say, “They only want money,” or “They are trying to punish me.” Such assumptions can harden the dispute. Ask questions and confirm what has actually been said.
Confusing compromise with resolution
Splitting the difference may produce an agreement, but it does not automatically address the problem. A smaller payment may still be unaffordable; a shared schedule may still be unsafe; and an apology without changed conduct may not restore trust. A durable agreement should respond to the important interests and set out how it will work.
Ignoring power and vulnerability
Parties do not always have equal resources, information or confidence. A vulnerable person may agree simply to end an intimidating process. Mediators and advisers should support informed participation, allow each party a fair opportunity to speak and consider whether additional safeguards or independent advice are needed.
Applying This in Practice
Before entering a negotiation, prepare a three-column worksheet labelled Position, Interest and Need. For each issue, write your own analysis and then identify what you still need to ask the other party.
Consider a workplace dispute in which an employee wants a transfer and the supervisor refuses. The position is “transfer me” versus “stay in the current department”. Possible interests might include avoiding a difficult reporting relationship, reducing travel, retaining a skilled worker or maintaining team capacity. Possible needs might include respectful treatment, personal safety, stability and recognition. Options could include a transfer after a defined period, a different reporting line, adjusted duties, structured communication or an internal review. The appropriate option depends on the facts, organisational policies and any legal obligations.
When assessing a proposed agreement, ask:
- Does it address the main interests on both sides?
- Are the responsibilities, dates and standards clear?
- What happens if someone fails to perform?
- Is the arrangement lawful and capable of practical implementation?
- Have the parties had enough information and opportunity to obtain advice?
- Does the agreement protect confidentiality, safety and any affected third parties?
The framework can also be used outside a formal ADR process. Entrepreneurs can use it when resolving supplier or partnership disagreements. Professionals can use it in performance discussions. Community leaders can use it when helping neighbours identify shared concerns. The method is not a shortcut around evidence, responsibility or legal rights; it is a way to make discussions more precise and constructive.
Key Takeaways
- Positions state what a party demands, while interests explain why the demand matters.
- Needs are deeper conditions such as security, dignity, predictability or fair treatment.
- Exploring interests can reveal shared objectives and create more options than arguing over fixed demands.
- Use open questions, check assumptions and distinguish essential limits from negotiable preferences.
- ADR can address practical and relational concerns, but agreements must remain lawful, informed and workable.
- Do not ignore power imbalances, confidentiality, safety or the value of independent legal advice.
No comments yet.