Conflict as an Onion (Part 2): Moving from Positions to Interests
In Part 1 of this series, we peeled back the outer layers of conflict and saw that what people argue about on the surface, and that positions are often just the beginning. We also explored how emotions, though not always expressed directly, add weight and urgency to those positions. Now, in Part 2, we move closer to the heart of the onion by focusing on interests, the deeper motivations that explain why people take the stands they do.
We’ve discussed that when individuals hold firmly to their positions, “I want the house,” “I need that deadline,” or “I won’t agree unless they apologize” the conflict can feel like a brick wall. These statements are clear and uncompromising, and they often clash directly with the other person’s stance. If both parties remain at this surface level, the disagreement risks turning into a win/lose battle where one side must give up ground for the other to move forward.
Yet, 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. 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. Even a dispute over that are purely transactional often hides more tender concerns, like the — or —.
A family example illustrates this well. Imagine two siblings in conflict over their late parent’s home. One insists on selling immediately, while the other refuses to let go of the property. At the level of positions, it looks like deadlock. But when they begin to discuss their interests, the picture changes. The sibling pressing for a sale may be struggling with financial strain and feel burdened by upkeep. The sibling holding on may associate the house with cherished memories and a sense of continuity. By uncovering these deeper motivations, new options emerge: perhaps renting the home, buying out one sibling’s share, or agreeing on a timeline that balances financial needs with emotional readiness.
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?”
When those interests are voiced and acknowledged, people often become more flexible, even creative, in exploring solutions. Conflict scholar John Burton argued that many protracted disputes remain unresolved precisely because people’s deeper human needs (safety, belonging, respect, autonomy) are ignored. By peeling back to interests, and even further to needs, we address the heart of the matter rather than circling endlessly around the surface.
The onion metaphor helps us remember this essential truth: what appears at the outer layer of conflict is rarely the whole story. Beneath every position lies a deeper set of interests, and at the very core are human needs that demand recognition. When we focus on these inner layers, conflict shifts from a battlefield to a problem-solving conversation. The question changes from “Whose demand wins?” to “How can we meet what truly matters to both of us?”
In the next part of this series, we will explore what happens once interests are on the table: how to generate creative options for mutual gain. This is where the process of peeling the onion turns into the exciting work of building durable, practical solutions.
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.