Conflict as an Onion: Layers of Positions, Interests, and Needs

When people come into conflict, it’s easy to believe the disagreement is about one simple thing: money, chores, scheduling, or who said what in a tense moment. However, experienced mediators know that conflict is rarely straightforward. Like an onion, conflict has layers, and peeling back those layers can reveal the true core of the problem.

Positions 

The outermost layer is what we often call positions, or the “what” that people demand. A position might sound like: “I want the house.” “I need this deadline.” “I won’t speak to them until they apologize.” These are surface-level statements, and they often create deadlock because they clash directly with the other person’s position.

Interests 

Beneath every position lies a set of interests: the values, fears, and motivations that drive what people say they want. Fisher and Ury, in their groundbreaking book Getting to Yes, remind us that effective problem solving requires moving away from rigid demands and instead uncovering the “why” behind them. Someone insisting on keeping the house may actually be expressing an interest in stability for themselves and/or their children. A demand for a deadline may really reflect an interest in not being blindsided by last-minute requests. A worker, for instance, who insists on a promotion may not be driven by status alone but by the need for financial security or recognition of their contributions. 

Needs 

At the core are needs, basic human drivers such as safety, belonging, respect, and autonomy. Some conflict resolution practitioners would argue that the interests themselves express the needs of the individual. While that is technically true, needs peel the onion even further to the more vulnerable center of conflict. Conflict scholar John Burton argued that many protracted disputes remain unresolved precisely because people’s deeper human needs (safety, belonging, respect, autonomy) are ignored. 

Even disputes that appear purely transactional at face value often hide more tender concerns, like fairness, control, or appreciation of some kind - which uncovers the need for autonomy and safety (financial or otherwise). When these needs are acknowledged, even if they cannot be fully “solved,” conflicts shift dramatically. 

For mediators, the skill lies in helping people shift from the outer skin of positions into the more tender layers beneath. This is done not by pressuring them to abandon what they want, but by asking careful, open-ended questions like:

• “What makes that important to you?”

• “What would this allow you to do?”

The question changes from “Whose demand wins?” to “How can we meet what truly matters to both of us?”

Conflict feels stuck when we argue at the outer layers. Working strictly on the surface level for too long can even lead to an impasse. When we dig deeper, using active listening and information gathering, we can begin to address the key issues and build mutual understanding. Once we facilitate an environment where people can empathize and acknowledge the other's perspective, it becomes much easier for clients to generate options, expand the pie, and come to a resolution. The onion metaphor reminds us: the heart of the matter is rarely at the surface. 

Stay tuned for our next blog, where we’ll go in-depth on how to best communicate your positions, interests, and needs.

Sources:

• Burton, J. (1990). Conflict: Human Needs Theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.