A position is what you ask for ("I want 300,000 euros"); an interest is the underlying reason ("I need to fund my next project"). Exploring the interests behind positions unlocks agreements that are impossible to reach while staying on the figures alone, because several solutions may satisfy one and the same interest.
Grounding in the source schoolSchool grounded in experimental research
Indicative profile: it situates the “Structural negotiation” family as the Harvard School school practises it, not this technique taken in isolation. Techniques from the same family and school therefore share the same profile. NEGOCOACH editorial rating out of 10, non-experimental · the higher the “relational risk” value, the more costly the technique is to the relationship.
NEGOCOACH assessment
How to read this rating
Tactical potential 6.3/10 (effectiveness, impact, discretion) and vigilance low (relational and ethical risk): two distinct readings, deliberately never merged into a single score that would reward risk. NEGOCOACH editorial rating calibrated from the “Structural negotiation” family and the “Harvard School” school. Each criterion is rated out of 10; click to understand what it measures.
Effectiveness8/10 · Very high
How far the technique can carry the negotiation in the intended direction when it is well executed.
Psychological impact5/10 · Moderate
Strength of the effect produced on the counterpart's perceptions, emotions and decisions.
Discretion6/10 · High
How hard it is for the other party to notice the technique is being used. A high value = very discreet.
Preparation8/10 · Very high
The information, analysis and rehearsal required upfront to use it effectively.
Relational risk2/10 · Low
Potential cost to the relationship and to trust if the technique is spotted, refused or fails. A high value = riskier.
Ethics9/10 · Very high
Moral acceptability: fairness, transparency and respect for the counterpart's autonomy. A high value = more defensible.
Level of evidence
School grounded in experimental research
The school this technique stems from is grounded in replicated, peer-reviewed experimental work. This indicator qualifies the school, not the experimental validation of this technique taken in isolation.
Indicative NEGOCOACH editorial rating, for teaching purposes. For “Relational risk”, a high value signals a cost to the relationship, not a quality.
Overview of INTERESTS RATHER THAN POSITIONS
Origins & history
This lies at the heart of principled negotiation developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project (Fisher and Ury, Getting to Yes, 1981). The now-famous illustration is that of the two sisters quarrelling over an orange: on digging deeper, one discovers that one wants the pulp for a juice, the other the peel for a cake, the perfect agreement was invisible as long as they dug in on "I want the orange". Fisher and Ury show that most deadlocks stem from confusing position with interest.
Definition and principle
The technique consists in answering each position with a "why?" or a "what for?", so as to trace back to the real interest. Once the interests are identified, one looks for options that satisfy them, often at a lower cost than the stated position.
Concrete examples of application
Application by context
The same technique, across several negotiation settings
A client demands a price cut; on digging deeper, one discovers that their real interest is to spread out their cash flow, a payment schedule resolves the deadlock without touching the price.
Context 2 / 6
Labour negotiation
Employees demand a pay rise; their deeper interest is recognition and security, prospects for advancement and targeted bonuses can partly meet it.
Context 3 / 6
Crisis management
A negotiator seeks what the entrenched party really wants (to be heard, to protect their dignity) rather than focusing on their stated demands.
Context 4 / 6
Political negotiation
Two states digging in over borders trace back to their interests (security, access to water, national pride) in order to devise guarantees that satisfy each of them.
Context 5 / 6
Real-estate negotiation
A seller is stuck on their price; their real interest is to stay in the property for a few months, a temporary-occupancy clause unlocks the sale.
Context 6 / 6
Family negotiation
In a division of an estate, each party lays claim to the house; the real interests (memories, profitability, proximity) make it possible to devise a bespoke arrangement.
Counter-techniques
Spot and neutralise this technique
Negotiation is also played on defence. Here is how to recognise this technique when it is used against you, and turn it around.
Detect
The signals that give it away
Rules and agenda imposed from the outset
A "take it or leave it" frame
A counterpart who "has no mandate"
Neutralise
The counters that defuse it
Negotiate the frame before the substance
Insist on the right decision-maker
Set your own rules of the game
Turn around
Turn it into an advantage
Propose an alternative frame that favours you, rather than enduring theirs.
The trap to avoid
Accepting the other side's ground without ever discussing it.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The technique enlarges the pie instead of dividing it, opens up creative solutions and preserves the relationship. Its limitation: it requires time, trust and a counterpart willing to reveal their interests; against a pure balance of power, it is not enough.
When to use this technique?
Ideal in complex or long-term negotiations where value can be created. To be combined with firmness on the criteria; less suited to a one-off, purely distributive transaction.
Aims of the technique
Distinguish the stated position (what one asks for) from the real interest (the why, the underlying need) in order to widen the negotiating space.
Break out of hard positional bargaining (symmetrical concessions around a figure) which creates tension and destroys value.
Bring out creative, mutually beneficial solutions by combining interests that differ but are compatible.
Defuse conflicts by showing that opposing positions may conceal reconcilable interests.
Strengthen the lasting relationship by dealing with the problem on the merits rather than clashing over people or postures.
Famous cases
Diplomatic · Camp David 1978: the orange shared on the scale of a desert: During the Camp David accords, Egypt and Israel were dug in on irreconcilable positions concerning the Sinai peninsula: each claimed control of it. By digging into the underlying interests, the mediators brought to light that the Egyptian interest was sovereignty (the territory, a national symbol) whereas the Israeli interest was security (the absence of enemy tanks on its border). The solution: return the Sinai to Egypt (sovereignty satisfied) while largely demilitarising it (security satisfied). Two incompatible positions, two reconcilable interests. This example is used by Fisher and Ury themselves to illustrate the principle.
Business · The deadlocked budget that concealed two distinct needs: A representative scenario. Two directors are quarrelling over a single budget allocation, each demanding 'the whole lot'. Head-on opposing positions. On questioning the why, it emerges that one needs immediate cash for an urgent recruitment, the other a multi-year commitment to launch a long project. The solution combines a cash advance this year and a guaranteed funding commitment over three years: both interests are served without the division of the single allocation ever having been the real issue.
Common mistakes
Staying stuck on positions (the figure, the demand) without ever asking the question 'why is this important to you?' which reveals the interest.
Confusing position with interest: treating the first demand stated as if it were the real need, when it is only one possible expression of it.
Assuming that opposing positions imply opposing interests: very often the interests are different (and therefore combinable), not contradictory.
Naïvely revealing all of one's own interests without reciprocity, which exposes one to exploitation by a purely competitive party.
Neglecting intangible interests (recognition, security, fairness, face to save) by seeking only material, quantifiable interests.
Limitations and ethics
This lies at the heart of principled negotiation and is the most constructive technique in the repertoire: it deceives no one, it widens the field of solutions and makes possible agreements that bargaining over positions renders impossible. It would be dishonest to invent some hidden flaw for it. Two real limitations nevertheless deserve to be stated, precisely because its virtue causes them to be forgotten. The first is asymmetry: revealing your interests to someone who does not reveal theirs is to hand over a map of your needs to someone who will keep theirs. Principled negotiation presupposes a reciprocity that is never guaranteed, and Fisher and Ury themselves recall that one must know how to protect oneself from a party who does not play along. The second is more troubling: the "why?" question that serves to create value also serves to locate the other party's vital need, that is, the exact spot on which to press. The tool is the same, only the intention differs. Seeking the interest in order to widen the agreement is principled negotiation; seeking it in order to know where to press is intelligence-gathering.
Scientific foundations
Roger Fisher, William Ury & Bruce Patton (2011) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In Penguin Books (revised ed.)
Mary Parker Follett (1940) Constructive Conflict (in Dynamic Administration) Harper & Brothers
Quick exercise
Test yourself before answering
Answer in your head, then reveal the solution. Memory is built through active recall.
1Quels signaux doivent vous alerter ?
Rules and agenda imposed from the outset
A "take it or leave it" frame
A counterpart who "has no mandate"
2Quelles parades appliquer ?
Negotiate the frame before the substance
Insist on the right decision-maker
Set your own rules of the game
Frequently asked questions
The questions we get most
What is the "The Interests-over-Positions Technique" technique?
A position is what you ask for ("I want 300,000 euros"); an interest is the underlying reason ("I need to fund my next project"). Exploring the interests behind positions unlocks agreements that are impossible to reach while staying on the figures alone, because several solutions may satisfy one and the same interest.
Is the "The Interests-over-Positions Technique" technique ethical?
Yes. Used in good faith it stays within a fair negotiation: it structures the exchange without deceiving the other party. Being transparent about your intentions strengthens the long-term relationship.
How do you defend against "The Interests-over-Positions Technique"?
Accepting the other side's ground without ever discussing it. The right reflex: negotiate the frame before the substance.
What is the "The Interests-over-Positions Technique" technique based on?
NEGOCOACH does not assess the experimental validation of this technique in isolation. What we document is the grounding of its source school (Harvard School): school grounded in experimental research. Full detail is in the "At a glance" section of this page.
Practise with AI
Three ready-to-use prompts
Copy, paste into your assistant, replace the [brackets]. Works with ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, Perplexity.
Prepare
Build your plan before the meeting
You are an expert negotiation coach. Help me prepare to use the "The Interests-over-Positions Technique" technique in the following situation: [describe your situation]. Give me: the conditions for success, a 3-step script, my counterpart's likely objections and how to answer them.
Play the role of my counterpart in a negotiation. I am going to test the "The Interests-over-Positions Technique" technique. React realistically and with resistance, do not give in too quickly, then at the end analyse my performance and suggest 3 concrete improvements.
Here is how my negotiation went: [paste the exchanges]. Analyse whether the "The Interests-over-Positions Technique" technique was used well, what worked, the mistakes made, and spell out precisely what I could have done better.
Founding works of the 🎓 Harvard School school this technique belongs to.
Getting to Yes, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In
Book
R. Fisher & W. Ury · 1981
The manifesto of principled negotiation: move beyond positional bargaining to negotiate on interests, separate the people from the problem, invent options for mutual gain and rely on objective criteria. The best-selling negotiation book in the world.
Getting Past No
Book
W. Ury · 1991
The practical sequel to Getting to Yes: negotiating with a difficult, hostile or bad-faith counterpart. Ury lays out "breakthrough negotiation" in five steps, including the famous "go to the balcony" to master your emotions.
Negotiation Genius (Harvard Business School)
Book
D. Malhotra & M. Bazerman · 2007
A modern synthesis of Harvard research: creating then claiming value, defusing biases, handling lies and negotiating from a weak position. Very rich in real cases and tools.
R. Fisher & W. Ury, "Getting to Yes", Harvard Negotiation Project, 1981.
The author
Author
On video
See the technique in action
Videos to picture The Interests-over-Positions Technique and anchor it through examples.
A position is what you ask for ("I want 300,000 euros"); an interest is the underlying reason ("I need to fund my next project"). Exploring the interests behind positions unlocks agreements that are impossible to reach while staying on the figures alone, because several solutions may satisfy one and the same interest.
The right reflex
Propose an alternative frame that favours you, rather than enduring theirs.
Never do this
Accepting the other side's ground without ever discussing it.
6.3/10 tactical potential Low vigilance School grounded in experimental research
Master this technique in real situations?
Our programmes turn theory into a concrete advantage.
