# Interests over positions

> Interests over positions is the practice of solving the interest beneath a stated demand rather than bargaining over the demand itself, while recording the walk-away state (the real best alternative) so a threat is weighed as evidence rather than felt as pressure.

Category: Deals and decisions
Also searched as: principled negotiation, BATNA, walk-away
Source: Mediator Solutions — https://mediatorsolutions.io/learn/#interests-over-positions
License: free to read, learn, cite, and apply, with attribution to Mediator Solutions.

## What it is

A stated position is a demand; the interest beneath it is the thing to solve. Recording the interest under the position opens structures that satisfy both sides without conceding the number. Writing down the walk-away state — the counterparty’s real alternative, with the one fact that would change the comparison — turns a walk-away threat into a weighable fact instead of a pressure tactic.

## Why it matters

A position is a demand with the reasoning hidden; fighting it directly means fighting over the wrong thing. The real negotiation is over the interest underneath, which is often satisfiable in a way the stated position was not. The walk-away state is the other half: without it written down, every threat feels decisive, and the pressure in the room substitutes for judgment. With it recorded — the real alternative plus the fact that would change the comparison — a threat becomes a weighable input instead of a trigger.

## When to use it

- Any negotiation where the other side has stated a demand without its reasoning.
- A conflict is stuck because both sides are fighting over stated positions.
- You feel a threat is decisive and have not written down your real alternative.

## Principles

- Do not bargain over positions if interests can be solved.
- Use interests, options, objective criteria, the walk-away state, the relationship state, and the decision path.
- The walk-away state is written down, so a threat is weighed rather than felt.
- A persuasive structure is not a delegated commitment.

## Practice

1. For each stated position, record the interest beneath it.
2. Generate options that satisfy the interest without conceding the headline number.
3. Write down the counterparty’s real alternative and the fact that would change it.
4. Weigh the deal against the walk-away state, not against the pressure in the room.

## Where it fails

- **Position warfare** — Each side defends its stated demand, so the negotiation is fought over the wrong thing and the satisfiable interest underneath is never found.
- **Unwritten walk-away** — The real alternative is never recorded, so a threat lands as decisive instead of being weighed.
- **Interest blindness** — The reasoning behind a position is never surfaced, so a trade that would satisfy both sides is missed.

## In practice

A supplier demands a 20% price increase; the buyer refuses and the talks stall. Positions: raise versus hold. Interests: the supplier needs margin certainty against input-cost swings; the buyer needs predictable total cost. The deal that satisfies both — a shorter term with an index-linked clause — is invisible while the fight is over the number. With the buyer’s walk-away written (the alternative supplier and the switching cost), the supplier’s pressure becomes a weighable input, not a trigger.

## Verification

The negotiation record carries the interest beneath each position, the options considered, and the written walk-away state with its deciding fact.

---

Previous: https://mediatorsolutions.io/learn/#deal-governance
Next: https://mediatorsolutions.io/learn/#objection-taxonomy