The Second Principle: Focus on Interests, Not Positions
Following the foundational directive to separate the people from the problem, principled negotiation introduces its most revolutionary and powerful strategic shift: “Focus on Interests, Not Positions.” This principle is the engine of creative problem-solving, moving the negotiation from a confrontational tug-of-war to a collaborative search for a mutually beneficial outcome. To grasp the significance of this shift, one must first understand the crucial distinction between the two concepts. A position is the tangible thing you say you want—a specific price, a set of terms, a particular action. It is the concrete demand you place on the table. An interest, by contrast, is the underlying motivation—the need, desire, concern, or fear that leads you to take that position. Interests are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Your position is what you have decided upon; your interests are what caused you to so decide.
The book illustrates this with the simple yet profound story of two men quarreling in a library. One wants the window open; the other wants it closed. These are their positions. They are in direct, irreconcilable conflict. They could argue indefinitely about how much to open it—a crack, halfway, three-quarters—but any such compromise would leave both dissatisfied. One would still feel a draft, and the other would not get enough fresh air. Their negotiation is deadlocked at the level of positions. The librarian, practicing principled negotiation, intervenes by looking behind their positions to their underlying interests. She asks the first man why he wants the window open; he replies, “To get some fresh air.” She asks the second man why he wants it closed; he replies, “To avoid the draft.” Having identified their interests—fresh air and no draft—she can now invent a solution that was invisible at the positional level. She opens a window wide in an adjoining room, bringing in fresh air without creating a draft. This elegant solution perfectly satisfies the interests of both men, whereas no compromise between their positions ever could have.
This story encapsulates the core argument: for a wise and efficient solution, one must reconcile interests, not compromise between positions. Bargaining over positions is a flawed and often destructive process because it obscures what the parties truly want, locks them into rigid stances, and transforms the negotiation into a costly battle of will. Focusing on interests, conversely, illuminates the real problem and unlocks a vast landscape of potential solutions.
The Inherent Flaws of Positional Bargaining
To appreciate the power of focusing on interests, it is essential to diagnose the pathology of its alternative. Positional bargaining, the standard method of haggling, is fundamentally inefficient and often produces unwise agreements that damage relationships.
First, bargaining over positions obscures the real problem. The two men in the library thought their problem was the state of a single window. That was merely the position they each adopted. Their real problem was the conflict between one’s need for ventilation and the other’s need to avoid a draft. By focusing exclusively on their stated demands, they were unable to even see, let alone solve, their actual problem. Similarly, when a company and a union are locked in a battle over a wage demand of a 5% increase versus a 3% offer, they are arguing over positions. The true issues—the company’s need to remain competitive and control costs, the workers’ need for a wage that keeps pace with inflation and a sense of being valued, and their shared need for the company to be profitable and provide stable employment—are buried beneath the numbers. The numbers are a shorthand, but a poor and misleading one, for the complex web of underlying interests.
Second, positions create ego-entanglement and inhibit creativity. When you declare a position, your ego becomes attached to it. Defending your position becomes a matter of saving face, of appearing strong and consistent. The more you defend it, the more committed you become. This commitment makes it increasingly difficult to move, even when you realize your initial position may have been ill-conceived. It narrows your vision. The negotiation becomes a zero-sum game played along a single axis, where any movement from your position is seen as a loss for you and a gain for the other side. This rigid mindset stifles creativity. You are no longer searching for the best possible solution; you are simply defending your chosen solution. The vast universe of alternatives that might better serve both parties’ interests remains unexplored.
Third, positional bargaining is highly inefficient. The process typically begins with each side taking an extreme opening position and then grudgingly making a series of small concessions. This “negotiating minuet” is time-consuming and fraught with risks. It encourages stonewalling, threats, and deception regarding one’s true bottom line. A great deal of energy is spent on posturing and tactical maneuvering rather than on solving the substantive problem. The longer this goes on, the higher the transaction costs—in terms of time, money, and emotional capital—and the greater the risk that the negotiation will break down completely over what are ultimately arbitrary numbers, rather than a failure to meet underlying needs.
Finally, this contest of will endangers the ongoing relationship. When negotiators see themselves as adversaries trying to force the other to back down, anger and resentment are the natural byproducts. The side that feels it has been coerced into an agreement will harbor ill will, which can poison future interactions and undermine the implementation of the current agreement. The relationship itself becomes a casualty of the process.
The Power of Reconciling Interests
Focusing on interests fundamentally changes the game. It reframes the negotiation from an adversarial confrontation to a side-by-side problem-solving exercise. This approach works for two primary reasons.
First, for every interest, there usually exist several possible positions that could satisfy it. By moving beyond the most obvious, default position, you open up the possibility of finding alternative solutions that were previously hidden. The classic and most powerful example provided in the book is the 1978 Camp David peace negotiation between Israel and Egypt over the Sinai Peninsula. After the 1967 war, Israel had occupied the Sinai. The stated positions of the two countries were in direct conflict. Egypt’s position was the return of every inch of the Sinai to Egyptian sovereignty. Israel’s position was that it must retain control over at least part of the Sinai for its security. For years, negotiators were stuck, drawing maps with different lines dividing the territory. No such compromise between positions was acceptable.
The breakthrough came when the negotiators looked behind these positions to the underlying interests. Israel’s primary interest was not the land itself, but security. They did not want to see Egyptian tanks massed on their border, poised for an attack. Egypt’s primary interest was sovereignty. The Sinai had been part of Egypt for millennia, and after centuries of foreign domination, ceding territory to another conqueror was a national humiliation they could not accept.
Once the interests were understood, a creative option emerged that reconciled them. The solution was to return the Sinai to complete Egyptian sovereignty while simultaneously making it a demilitarized zone. The Egyptian flag could fly everywhere, satisfying their interest in sovereignty. But Egyptian tanks could not enter, satisfying Israel’s interest in security. This wise and durable agreement was impossible to find as long as the parties remained locked in their positions. It became possible only when they focused on their underlying interests.
Second, behind opposed positions lie many more interests than conflicting ones. We tend to make a critical error of assumption: because the other side’s position is opposed to ours, their interests must be as well. In reality, a close examination reveals a multitude of shared and compatible interests, alongside the few that are conflicting. The book uses the example of a tenant negotiating a lease with a landlord. Their positions on the price of rent are opposed. But their underlying interests are rich with common ground. Both want stability (a long-term tenant and a permanent address). Both want the apartment to be well-maintained. Both want a good working relationship. They also have interests that are not conflicting, but simply different. The landlord might want a security deposit immediately to ensure the tenant is serious, while the tenant, certain they want the apartment, might be indifferent as to whether they pay it today or next week. The tenant might have a severe allergy to fresh paint, while the landlord has a strong interest in not paying to repaint. These differences can be dovetailed: the tenant pays the deposit today in exchange for the landlord not painting. The shared interests in stability and a good relationship can lead to a long-term lease with clear terms for maintenance. Suddenly, the single conflicting interest—the price of rent—is seen in its proper context: as one part of a much larger, mostly cooperative relationship. The existence of these shared and differing interests provides the raw material for building a wise agreement through creative trade-offs.
How to Identify Interests
The theory is compelling, but its practical application depends on the ability to skillfully identify the interests at play—both yours and theirs. Interests are often unexpressed, intangible, and even inconsistent. Uncovering them requires diligence, empathy, and a set of diagnostic techniques.
- Ask “Why?” This is the most basic and powerful tool. Put yourself in their shoes. For every position they take, ask yourself, “Why have they taken that position? What interest of theirs does it serve?” More directly, you can ask them. When they state a position, you can ask, “Help me understand your thinking on that. What are the concerns or objectives that lead you to that proposal?” It is critical to frame this not as a challenge to their position, but as a genuine desire to understand the needs that you must now consider as part of the problem to be solved.
- Ask “Why not?” Think about their choice. Another potent technique is to analyze the choice the other side currently perceives. First, identify the decision they believe you are asking them to make. Then, analyze the consequences of that decision from their point of view. What interests of theirs stand in the way of them saying “yes”? Construct a mental “balance sheet” of the pros and cons for them if they were to agree. The book’s analysis of the Iranian students holding American hostages is a stark example. For a student leader, the perceived consequences of releasing the hostages (appearing weak, losing to the “Great Satan,” betraying the revolution) likely far outweighed the benefits (potential U.S. goodwill, which was highly distrusted anyway). By understanding this perceived choice, U.S. negotiators could see that simple demands for release were futile. The task was to change the consequences—to create a new choice where the benefits of releasing the hostages, structured in a face-saving way, would finally outweigh the costs.
- Realize that each side has multiple interests. It is a common error to assume a monolithic set of interests for the other side. A corporation is not a single entity; it is composed of different departments and individuals with varying and sometimes conflicting interests (e.g., the sales department wants to offer flexible terms, while the finance department wants rigid payment schedules). Similarly, the person you are negotiating with has a constituency—a boss, a client, a spouse, a committee—whose interests they must also take into account. To understand your counterpart’s interests, you must understand the web of influences and pressures they are operating under.
- Recognize that the most powerful interests are basic human needs. Beneath the surface of stated economic or political interests lie the bedrock concerns that motivate all people. The book identifies key needs such as security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over one’s life. These needs are often overlooked but are immensely powerful. A negotiation that seems to be about money may in fact be about recognition—a desire to be treated fairly and with respect. In the case of Mexico refusing to sell natural gas to the U.S. after a perceived “bullying” tactic, Mexico’s interest in recognition and national pride (a basic human need on a collective level) overrode its immediate economic interest. An agreement that threatens a party’s basic human needs is unlikely to be accepted or, if accepted, to be durable. Conversely, a proposal that explicitly acknowledges and addresses these needs has a far greater chance of success.
How to Talk About Interests
Once you have identified the interests, you must bring them into the conversation constructively.
Make your interests come alive. It is your job to make the other side understand the importance and legitimacy of your interests. Be specific. Concrete details have impact. Don’t just say your company values its reputation; explain how a particular clause could be misinterpreted by the press and damage your relationship with customers. Establish the legitimacy of your interests by appealing to widely held values. “How would you feel if you were in our shoes?”
Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem. Before you can expect them to care about your interests, you must demonstrate that you care about theirs. State their interests back to them. “As I understand it, your primary concerns are X and Y. Is that accurate?” This act of listening and acknowledgment is a prerequisite for being heard. Frame the task as a joint effort to solve the overall problem, which includes meeting the legitimate interests of both sides.
Put the problem before your answer. If you want someone to listen to your reasoning, give your interests and reasoning first, and your conclusions or proposals last. If you start with a proposal, they will likely stop listening and begin preparing their counter-argument. But if you begin by laying out the interests and concerns your proposal is designed to address, they will listen more attentively, if only to see where you are going. When you finally present your proposal, it will arrive not as an arbitrary demand, but as a reasoned attempt to solve the problem you have both been discussing.
Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. This mantra connects the second principle back to the first. Vigorously advocating for your interests is not only permissible, it is essential. You must be firm in communicating your needs and concerns. However, this firmness on substance should be coupled with support for the human beings on the other side. You can be absolutely unyielding in your commitment to meeting your interest in, for example, your children’s safety, while being completely respectful and courteous to the construction foreman you are negotiating with. This combination creates a constructive tension. By attacking the problem (speeding trucks) while supporting the person, you invite them to join you in a side-by-side search for a solution, rather than forcing them to defend themselves from a personal attack.
In summary, focusing on interests instead of positions is the single most important principle for moving a negotiation from a destructive adversarial process to a constructive, creative one. It requires the discipline to look behind the explicit demands to the underlying human motivations. It demands the creativity to invent solutions that satisfy those motivations and the empathy to understand that behind the other side’s seemingly unreasonable position lie interests that are just as real and legitimate to them as yours are to you. By mastering this principle, a negotiator can transform intractable disputes into solvable problems and unlock value that positional bargainers invariably leave on the table.