Interests are the desires, concerns, and fears that underlie people's positions. In many cases, interests link up to tangible items that people say they want, such as land, money, or jobs. Negotiations that focus primarily on interests are called interest-based negotiations. Parties attempt to trade off issues of lesser concern for those of greater concern in an effort to devise a mutually-beneficial resolution. For example, if a couple is arguing about household chores, they could argue forever about who is right and wrong or lazy or irresponsible. But if they discuss their interests, say that one wants to come home to a neat house, while the other wants more free time, they might be able to devise a solution that satisfies them both.

Focusing on interests can help parties to uncover hidden problems and allow them to identify which issues are of most concern to them. In Getting Disputes Resolved, William Ury, Jeanne Brett, and Stephen Goldberg maintain that focusing on interests can resolve the problems underlying a dispute more effectively than focusing on rights or power. [1] This is because reconciling interests tends to generate a higher level of mutual satisfaction, better relationships, and lower transaction costs than resorting to rights or power contests.

Many theorists contrast interests with positions. In their best-selling book, Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury assert that almost all disputes have negotiable interests. [2] But when people define their dispute in terms of positions, they often appear to be highly intractable, since one side wants something that the other completely opposes. Therefore, rather than describing a dispute in terms of parties' positions about what they want, it is often helpful to redefine the situation in terms of the reasons that underlie these positions. By focusing on underlying interests rather than overt positions, apparently resolution-resistant conflicts often become solvable. This is because, in many cases, interests are compatible even when positions are not. Focusing on interests enables the parties to identify win-win solutions to problems that might not have been evident when the issues were described in terms of positions.

For example, a minority group might take the position that it wants complete independence from its current home country, while the reason that it wants independence may not actually be independence for its own sake, but rather a desire for increased political control and improved social and economic status. If those "interests" can be provided without granting independence, then a mutually agreeable solution might be found.

However, parties are not always able to resolve their dispute by reconciling interests. In cases where conflicts are distributive in nature, the available resources have to be divided among two or more people or groups. The more one gets, the less the others get, and there may be no way to "enlarge the pie." In such cases, attending to interests will not allow parties to generate win-win solutions.

Other theorists discuss the relationship between interests, human needs, and values. Some suggest that human needs can be thought of as very powerful interests. But while these theorists blend together the concepts of interests and needs, human needs theorists maintain that there is an important distinction between the two. Although both interests and needs can be thought of as underlying desires, human needs theorists argue that needs are more fundamental than interests. In addition, while interests are tangible things that can be traded or compromised, needs such as identity, security, and recognition are not for trading.

If the issues in contention are non-negotiable, any attempts to reconcile interests are likely to fail and may even make the conflict more entrenched and difficult to resolve. Thus, human needs theorists argue, disputes rooted in human needs or fundamental value differences should not be handled in the same way as disputes rooted in parties' conflicting interests. [3]

Likewise, it is important to distinguish between interests and fundamental values. There are instances in which conflict results from a clash between differing world-views. If individuals or groups have radically different ideas about the best way to live, they are likely to stress the importance of very different things and to have vastly different or incompatible goals. Like needs, values tend to be quite stable and non-negotiable. If the basic substantive issues of the conflict are deeply embedded in the participants' moral views, these issues are likely to be intractable. Any attempts to resolve such conflicts solely by addressing interests are likely to prove ineffective. Thus, human needs theorists argue, interest-based bargaining is excellent for interest-based disputes, but it should not be applied to disputes involving human needs or deep-rooted value differences.

[1] William Ury, Jeanne Brett, and Stephen Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988), 13.

[2] Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2^nd edition. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1992).

[3] For further discussion on human needs, see John Burton, Conflict: Resolution and Provention, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990).