Ann Oliveri has a nice post about the resurgence of whooping cranes that also touches on one of the most important points I make when I do presentations or training in conflict resolution. She describes a “win-win” solution in Nebraska where a power plant gets built and the wetlands (that the cranes needed) were protected at the same time. The last line of her post reads:

How else can we provide the means for resolving the really important issues in our society rather than simply representing narrow interests?

It’s a good question, but I push back on the “simply representing narrow interests” part. In a conflict, each party has their own interests, their needs to be met. They also have “positions”—specific answers to specific problems. We choose positions that meet our interests. Often we hold on tight to those positions—those specific answers—and do battle with opponents who have chosen different answers that aren’t compatible with ours.

The win-win part happens when we loosen the grip on our positions and consider other options. But we never let go of our interests. A win-win solution is one that neither party considered originally that meets BOTH parties interests. So the notion of “simply representing narrow interests” doesn’t capture it for me. True, you don’t want to have so tight a focus on your interests that you don’t even care about the other party’s interests. But remember that each party SHOULD represent their narrow interests. They should just also be willing to get those interests met while simultaneously meeting the needs of other parties.

In fact, I always tell people in my training: it is in your interest to meet the interests of the other party. People often don’t like to hear this in a conflict. “The other party is being obstinate, why should I bend over backwards to give them what they want?!” Because if you do, they’ll be much more likely to help you get what you want.