Positions vs Interests: The Hidden Architecture of Negotiation
- 37 minutes ago
- 4 min read
The Harvard Negotiation Principle
As explained by Dr. Vera Hampel
At the first WISF lunch event of 2026, negotiation expert Vera Hampel outlined the core insight of the Harvard Negotiation Concept: separate positions from interests.
In negotiations there are two parties trying to reach an agreement, each has positions and interests. Positions are what people say they want: a salary number, fewer tasks, a title, a budget. Interests are the reasons behind those demands: recognition, security, influence, autonomy, fairness, impact. Positions are concrete, easily noticeable and often rigid. Interests are often invisible, and they need time and effort to be uncovered and clarified. But in a negotiation, they are powerful.
When negotiations remain at the level of positions, they frequently lead to deadlock or to what Hampel calls a “foul compromise”: an agreement that splits the difference but fails to really address what actually matters to the parties.
Real progress begins when we ask a different question. Instead of asking, "How do I win?" we ask, "What truly matters to both sides?".
That question alters the dynamic. It transforms a contest of will into a diagnostic process. Once interests are on the table, the space for solutions expands. What looked like a zero-sum conflict often turns out to be a clash of assumptions. Value can be created (rather than merely divided) because the real problem becomes clearer.
The Strategic Value of Emotion
Traditionally, emotions are seen as disturbances in negotiation, something to control or suppress. Over time, however, Hampel has come to view them differently, namely as valuable signals. We don’t become angry, anxious or frustrated about what is irrelevant to us. Emotion signals that something we value feels threatened or at stake.
Ignored or misunderstood emotions do not disappear, they often grow louder and can narrow our perspective, pushing us back into rigid positional arguments. So instead of suppressing emotions, negotiators can use them as 'data' to identify what is truly at stake, for their negotiation partners, but also for themselves.
Instead of reacting impulsively, negotiators can ask:
"What does this emotion reveal about my underlying interest?"
Hampel refers to the ability to pause, interpret and respond deliberately rather than impulsively as "grounded agency". It is not softness. It is discipline.
Grounded Agency Under Pressure
Hampel calls the ability to pause and respond deliberately "grounded agency". It is not softness. It is discipline. And its importance becomes most visible under pressure, particularly when a negotiation subtly shifts from substantive discussions to psychological leverage.
This is where manipulation operates. In negotiation, manipulation rarely relies on superior reasoning, but it works by strategically evoking emotion to unsettle us. By triggering fear, urgency, guilt or anger, it nudges us away from our own interests and toward immediate emotional relief. In that moment, we stop asking whether a proposal truly serves us and start reacting to the discomfort we feel.
Countering manipulation, therefore, is not primarily about producing the sharper argument. It is about interrupting that internal link.
Noticing: I am becoming anxious. I am getting angry. Then asking:
"What interest of mine is being triggered right now?"
When we then regulate our emotional response and reconnect with our interests, the pressure loses much of its force. We regain alignment, and alignment is strength.
Grounded Agency as Lived Empowerment
For Hampel, this practice of grounded agency builds the basis of lived empowerment. We cannot choose what we feel, but we can choose what we do with those feelings. Taking responsibility for our actions creates strength.
By identifying our emotions and the values behind them, we gain clarity about what we want and need. This allows us to articulate our interests clearly and stand by them, while also recognizing that the other side has legitimate interests of their own.
Negotiation then becomes relational rather than adversarial:
"This is what matters to me. I am open to understanding what matters to you."
In one of her own negotiation examples, instead of negotiating for 'less work' (a position), Vera Hampel negotiated to 'protect her interest in having space' for high-value tasks. This reframing is a vital tool for women managing high-pressure roles. The solution was not reducing responsibility but simplifying tasks, so they required less time. By shifting from position to interest, she found a sustainable solution.
From Conflict to Creation: The Power of Interest-Based Negotiation
Ultimately, successful negotiation requires clarity about what matters to us and openness to understanding what matters to others. When both sides move beyond positions and focus on interests, space emerges for creative, durable agreements. Negotiation is no longer about winning. It is about protecting what truly matters, for everyone at the table.
