Interests and positions

25 Basics of mediation (11)

The Relationship between positions and interests is of fundamental importance for mediation. This is based on the idea that interests can be reconciled, whereas positions can only harden in conflicts.

However, the terms themselves require continuous definition work; it cannot be assumed that there is a definitive understanding. As far as can be seen, a standard definition has not yet been established.

I would like to introduce you to these two central concepts and ask to what extent you deal with these terms in mediations. After all, it is a widespread idea that conflicts in mediation should be dealt with along the lines of the given interests and that this promises the greatest success. But first I would like to introduce you to a few suggestions from the mediation literature.

Interests are "hidden" behind the positions

In the literature on mediation, the prevailing The idea that the "true" interests of those involved are "hidden" behind the positions taken would. As the positions have become entrenched and rigid, they lead to conflict. Positions link a unilaterally defined problem situation with a unilaterally favourable solution, according to Bastine, a known mediator. The underlying interests, on the other hand, could lead to consensus and must be worked out in mediation.

In the context of this idea, interests are generally Generally formulated wishes, less concrete than positions calling for action. Interests are therefore of a general nature and abstract descriptions, while positions are concrete and clearly action-orientated.

AnalogyThe relationship described is comparable to the (abstract-generally formulated) law, which formulates the legislative will, and the concrete-individual administrative act, which contains the clearest possible requirements.

According to one definition Fritjof Haftsan eminent German professor of criminal law, the positions taken by the parties to the conflict merely express a "A pipe dream for a hoped-for future" from. Positions then describe how the parties envisage their future. However, as there can only be one future, one of the opposing ideas can never be realised, which is why a dispute arises. The cause of the conflict can therefore be discovered in the positions.

Unfortunately, not much more can be deduced from this statement than that the parties would probably have fewer disputes if their positions were not so pronounced. Haft overlooks the fact that interests are also merely pipe dreams and wishful thinking. They are also focussed on the future and cannot do much more than express wishes and hopes. And if it is true that the positions are the cause of the conflict, but are based on hidden interests, then - according to the law of cause and effect - these underlying interests are the actual, true causes of the conflict. In that case, however, one could immediately single out the lives of those involved as the underlying cause of the interests and make them "responsible" for the conflict.

When positions and interests (collapse)

There are also "cases" in which interests are enforced precisely through positioning or are virtually congruent with each other. Particularly in court, it can be a powerful interest to defend and enforce one's position. After all, asserting one's own right, which is always also a legal position and a position of entitlement, is also an important factor.rightinterest. Here it is It is not uncommon for interests not to be hidden behind the positions, but for the two to coincide, if not be identical. In this case, conflict mediators will have difficulties and have to assume, that there must be something behind it. It is not only a reality, but also an acceptable interest for people to develop the desire to "give someone else a piece of their mind". Such a concern, interest and need can be linked to Bastine as  "secondary concerns" However, it remains an external assessment that does not take into account the - however "primary personal concerns" grant the subjective preference.

Aim of mediation: Contractual agreements firmlay

If you would like to find out more about mediation, take a look at these articles:

• Mediation and conflict management levels
• How mediation clauses can help.

Contradictory is the idea that the positions that bad guys and the interests behind them are the good guysthe goal of a mediation process: A large part of mediative work consists of getting the parties "down from their positions and away from them so that they no longer insist on them", but instead flexibility arises by realising interests together. However, mediation is not considered successful if the parties involved are free from their positions. No, mediation is only considered to be really successful when a contract is drawn up at the end that is legally effective and secure and therefore firmly establishes positions. Such a A legally binding agreement at the end of mediation is the hallmark of mediation success. The stability of the (new and legally secured) positions determines the quality of the mediation. The Initially demonised cause of conflict becomes a success factor in successful mediation. But, lest there be any misunderstanding, none of this speaks against a court-proof agreement, but is merely intended to encourage reflection on the concept and effectiveness of mediation.

The simple causality model of underlying interests and preconceived and entrenched positions categorises mediative work as a "treasure hunt" or a kind of "jigsaw puzzle" in which the aim is to find the right interests for the right solution. And it is not uncommon for the powerful third party to determine what is right and beneficial and what is not. As a result, interests that appear to be detrimental to the mediation process may be recognised as "secondary interests" and the "personally primary interests" of the conflict mediator be determined.

Mediation has a circular effect

Mediation is not a discovery process in the material sense. Nothing is found that would be there anyway. Rather, it is a Development process, in which what is (found out) in the end is created. It is not about finding the right interests that are hidden somewhere (perhaps still in the subconscious). Rather, it is about becoming truly creative, creating, creating and revitalising new, unspoken, unspoken and therefore as yet non-existent aspects of the shared relationship. That is the creative power of mediationis creative work.

Practitioners have long since realised that everything can be a position and an interest at the same time. Every desire, whether for money, an action or an omission. The usual notion of causality does not help.

Proposal

What is it then? What is the decisive difference between positions and interests?

The Term "position" comes from the Latin (positio) and means "position" or "location", "one-position" or "standing point", but also (single) "post". "Interest" is also Latin and means that "something is important to someone" or "someone cares", that "someone cares" and "is attentive".

Causalities are not decisive for mediation activities, but rather the references to the environment of the interested party. 

Expressions of interest can have an environmental reference, can refer to other people, for example, but do not have to. Positions, for their part, not only always have an environmental reference, but this is always also claiming, aggressive in the original, not in the morally charged sense of the word, "reaching outwards, into the environment". The person positioning himself reaches for the environment, claims it, ultimately without giving it a choice or decision. A position is never conceivable without a claiming reference to the environment. It is not just an opinion, even if mediants often claim this ("It's just my opinion that he's a fake, nobody can take that away from me."). It also establishes a noticeable relationship to the environment. The position is impossible to understand or even realise without this reference to the environment.

An interest, even an expressed one, does not (necessarily) have this environmental claim. The interested person reveals himself exclusively to his environment, but does not have to establish an „aggressive“, claiming relationship to it. Different the positioned person who claims the environment and in this sense „desired“.

Positioners not only make themselves recognisable to their environment, but also dare to demand something from it. It is not uncommon for this person to meet with rejection precisely because of this, which in turn results in greater demands (i.e. positioning) and so on and so forth… Everyone knows this from debates and discussions.

Positions are certainly not less. They are fixed points of one's own world in the environment and are therefore always "before" the interests. They are the Connection points of interests to the environment. Consequently, the person positioning himself cannot avoid showing himself as a person interested in his environment.

If the interested person wants to claim his environment, he must take a position. Representative of every conflict position, this describes Environmental stress § 194 BGB. There, the civil law claim, which "Classics of conflict positioning"as the (legal) right to be able to demand an action or omission "from another". The desire expressed in this, which has not yet sought an aggressive "way out", is what mediators call "interest". There are potentially an infinite number of ways to fulfil this interest aggressively. Conflict resolution then means that the pending and to be selected aggressions (=environmental stresses) best harmonised with each other be carried out.

Positions are starting points, not end points

In this sense, positions are always starting points or conditions to be actualised in any relationship, be it in a cooperative or competitive phase.

Personal openness towards one's environment, coupled with a shared agility, enables the relationship network to resolve newly arising contradictions and problems by mutual agreement. Openness and flexibility are measured by what is communicated. What is communicated is made public, is "out there" and no longer "behind", is thematised and given over to joint movement. Watzke therefore also refers to mediation as a dance and round dance, which the participants may or may not indulge in. For him, mediative work, mediation in concrete terms, is like "free jazz", which also aims to dissolve well-rehearsed patterns in order to ultimately return to harmony. At least for a while.

However, what is "kept inside", held back, whether consciously or unconsciously, remains hidden and does not enrich the mutual relationship. In this sense, mediation is also a clarification and realisation of one's own interests and motivations. Mediation is therefore a strategic moment cannot be denied.

This also highlights another essential goal of mediated communication: It is not just a matter of talking to each other, of exchanging opinions. Rather, it is about a clearly definable goal that can be realised thanks to the other party: the "journey" leads through the conflict with the "opponent" back to oneself, to one's own (inner) motivation and thus to one's own centre. And the conflict opponent helps with this and is indispensable.

Now these are very fundamental thoughts that are not always present in the day-to-day business of mediation. Conflict management and mediation often seem like tedious ploughing of uncultivated fields in winter. But even in this case, it is clearly recognisable, which interests guide mediators and with which positions they claim mediants:

"Formulate your interests and take a coordinated approach. In the long term, this is the path to mutual success!"

How do you deal with the concepts of interest and position in your mediations or training seminars? What differentiations do you make in this regard?

I look forward to your suggestions and comments.