How Understanding Positions and Interests Can Transform Your Professional Negotiations
Welcome to the third in a series of practical tools for navigating everyday work challenges. Concepts and frameworks – or mental models - are really useful for providing the building blocks for us to reason through a conundrum or concern. They enable us to go beyond our immediate responses to recognise patterns, develop new perspectives and challenge our own assumptions and actions.
You didn’t get that promotion. A colleague has taken credit for your work. Your department head has rejected your request for research leave. In each of these moments, it's tempting to dig in, to fight for what you've asked for, or to walk away defeated.
But what if there's an alternative?
Two concepts from negotiation and mediation scholarship - positions and interests -offer a powerful lens for navigating professional challenges, particularly for women working in the complex, often hierarchical environments of universities. Understanding the difference between the two can shift you from an adversarial standoff toward creative problem-solving, and, importantly, help you advocate for yourself without burning bridges you may need later.
What Are Positions and Interests?
The distinction between position and interests comes from the foundational work of Roger Fisher and William Ury in Getting to Yes, and it has become central to interest-based negotiation and mediation practices worldwide.
A position is what you say you want. It is the specific demand, solution, or outcome you've stated. It's the visible tip of the iceberg.
An interest, by contrast, is why you want it. It is the underlying needs, concerns, values, or fears driving your position. Interests live below the surface, often unexamined even by the person holding them.
Here's a classic example: two people argue over whether to keep a window open or closed. One insists it must stay open; the other insists it must stay shut. Their positions are incompatible. But when you ask why, one reveals she wants fresh air (her interest), while the other is trying to avoid a draft on his neck (his interest). The solution? Open a window in the next room. Both interests are satisfied, though neither original position "wins."
Key here is that positions are often rigid and mutually exclusive whereas interests often overlap in many ways. The important issue is exploring where that might be the case.
Why this matters for you
As I have noted previously in a blog on how to negotiate without being seen as pushy, research consistently shows that women face particular challenges in negotiations. Studies have found that women who advocate directly for themselves can face social penalties such as being perceived as less likeable or "too aggressive" while women who don't advocate risk being overlooked. These barriers are compounded through intersectional factors such as race, career stage and contract type.
They are also compounded by position-based bargaining or any attempts to resolve differences based on a specific position. When you stake out a firm demand, you may be perceived as inflexible or confrontational. When you back down, you may feel you've compromised too much.
Interest-based approaches offer an alternative approach. By shifting the conversation away from competing demands to shared problem-solving you can advocate powerfully for what matters to you. In doing so, you are reducing the interpersonal friction that can disadvantage women in traditional positional bargaining.
Applying the Framework: Three Scenarios
Scenario 1: The Rejected Research Leave
You've requested research leave to complete a book manuscript. Your Head of Department says no because they say there's no budget to cover your teaching.
Your position: "I need research leave next semester."
Your interests: Time to write without interruption. Career progression. Recognition that your research matters. Perhaps flexibility in when or how you get protected time.
Their likely interests: Maintaining teaching coverage. Managing budget constraints. Avoiding setting precedents. Perhaps genuine concern about departmental workload.
Once you understand the interests at play, options multiply. Could you take leave in a different semester when coverage is easier? Could you buy out one course rather than a full semester? Could a teaching-focused colleague take on extra teaching in exchange for you covering their administrative duties later? Could external funding offset costs?
By moving past the yes/no of your original request, you open space for solutions that address what you actually need - protected writing time -while acknowledging your Head's legitimate constraints.
Scenario 2: Authorship Disputes
A senior colleague has listed themselves as first author on a paper where you did most of the substantive work. You're furious and you want your name first.
Your position: "I should be first author."
Your interests: Recognition for your intellectual contribution. Career advancement (first-authored publications matter for promotion). Fairness. Being seen as a serious scholar in your field.
Their possible interests: Visibility in the field. Mentorship credit. Habit or disciplinary norms. Perhaps, maybe, they genuinely believe their contribution warranted the position.
This is a harder conversation, but starting from interests helps. You might say: "I want to make sure my contribution is visible in a way that supports my career progression. Can we talk about how authorship order was determined and whether there's a way to reflect our different contributions more clearly?"
This framing focuses on your legitimate needs without opening with an accusation. It also invites them to articulate their reasoning which may reveal assumptions you can challenge, or interests you can address in other ways (an acknowledgment, a reciprocal arrangement on a future paper, clarity about roles going forward).
Scenario 3: Workload Inequity
You're consistently asked to do more pastoral care, committee work, and "office housework" than male colleagues at your level, ie a pattern well-documented in the literature on how women take on the majority of unpromotable tasks.
Your position might be: "I want to do fewer committees next year."
Your interests: Sustainable workload. Time for research. Fairness. Professional respect. Perhaps a sense of being valued for your expertise, not just your willingness to say yes.
The institution's interests: Getting necessary service work done. Maintaining smooth operations. Possibly - possibly - genuine unawareness of the disparity.
Rather than approaching your line manager with a complaint, you could try a proposal: "I've been tracking how much “collegial” work I have to do and I've noticed some patterns I'd like to discuss. I'm committed to contributing to the department, and I want to make sure my workload allows me to meet my research goals too. Can we look at how the necessary “collegial” work is distributed across the team?"
This reframes the conversation from "you're treating me unfairly" to "let's solve a shared problem." It also creates space to raise systemic issues without making it personal.
Five Ways You Can Surface Interests
Ask yourself "why?" at least three times. Your first answer is often still a position in disguise. Keep digging.
Prepare any discussion by listing your interests and theirs. Walking into a negotiation having genuinely considered what the other party needs builds empathy and strategy simultaneously.
Listen for interests in their language. When someone explains their position, pay attention to the reasons they give. Those reasons are windows into their interests.
Reframe demands as needs. Instead of "I want X," try "I need to address Y concern." This signals openness to alternative solutions.
Name the meta-goal. Sometimes it helps to say explicitly: "I'd like to find a solution that works for both of us. Can we start by understanding what we each really need here?"
Sadly this is not a magic bullet but …
Let’s be honest. Understanding the difference between positions and interests won't eliminate structural inequities. It won't stop a dismissive colleague or fix a broken promotion system. But it gives you a tool that helps you advocate for yourself strategically, build coalitions with people whose interests align with yours, and navigate institutional complexity with greater clarity.
The next time you find yourself in a standoff, pause. Ask what you really need. Ask what they might need. And look for the window in the next room.
with the warmest wishes,
Christina
Professor Christina Hughes
Found and CEO, Women-Space Leadership
PS: If you want to learn more about “positions” and “interests” check out Andrew Scott’s short introduction here on YouTube.