MAGAZINE
FALL 2020
Imagine observing these two individuals at the kitchen table where one asks the other , “ Which vehicle should we buy ?” The spouse might respond with , “ a Ford Focus ,” or “ a Mercedes C200 .” Other responses could be “ a Volvo XC70 ” or even “ a used Fiat .” While all of these responses are reasonable and helpful for conversation , they each represent a position . Each speaks to underlying interests , though hidden .
Now imagine another approach , one where the point of departure for the spouse and partner is , “ What concerns or fears do we have with the purchase of a vehicle ?” One spouse might respond with “ financial responsibility ( cost )” or “ long term reliability ( maintenance ),” whereas the other might respond with “ safety reliability ” or “ resale .” Why is there a difference in the responses ? A small change in language is designed to solicit interests rather than positions . Once a team , or in this case the couple , has appreciated the underlying interests , they should then transition to developing options for consideration .
A key advantage of approaching problems in terms of interests is that it allows members to develop a broader array of options that can satisfy the collective group interests . When the opposite is true , the problem-solving team artificially narrows the range of possible options available for commander or team to select . Discourse can more easily become strained and oppositional when positions , rather than interest , dominate problem solving ; and this is due to the members not understanding the interest behind every position . The authors of Getting to Yes assert that the more frequently stakeholders communicate through positions the further they isolate themselves from achieving a tenable solution . Though a relatively simplified example , the above scenario demonstrates the importance of understanding interests over positions .
Collaborative problem solving faces a multitude of barriers in joint , multinational settings . While some of these challenges are inherent and even beneficial , others genuinely hinder mission effectiveness . When an organization uniformly implements and adheres to published doctrine , the doctrine serves as the guiding roadmap for process , and a template that can be adapted for each specific scenario . Seeking first to understand is a skill that can improve communication across the problem-solving process . When various members of a multinational group reach different conclusions , thereby driving different actions , individuals can attempt to identify “ top of the ladder ” statements , as well as their own formative interpretations of available information . When interpretations and perceptions are better understood , there is a greater likelihood of reaching a productive outcome . An awareness of a positional versus an interest-based approach informs how leaders and individuals can seek to facilitate discussion . The intent of this article is to provide further resources and points of discussion for leaders to learn , experience , and later reflect in their cycle of professional growth . It is the authors ’ hope that the lens of this perspective can add to the reader ’ s own while he or she serves to meet the diverse needs of a joint multinational headquarters . LC
63