Position 立場・主張
What someone says they want. “Open the window.”
Lesson 4 · Communication · Conflict
From positions to needs 「立場」から「本当のニーズ」へ
In the conflict zone, people argue about what they asked for. Find why they asked for it, and an option often appears where nobody simply loses. 衝突の場では、人は「求めたもの」を巡って争う。「なぜ求めたのか」を見つければ、誰も負けない選択肢が見えることが多い。
Don't split the difference between two demands. Solve for the needs underneath them. 二つの要求の間を取るのではなく、その下にあるニーズを満たす。
Position and interest 立場と利害
Interest 利害・本当のニーズ
Why they want it. “I need fresh air.”
In 1925 Mary Parker Follett told managers to find “the real demand as against the demand put forward.” Her own example: in the Harvard Library, someone wanted a window open; she wanted it shut. They opened a window in the empty room next door. She didn't want a closed room—she didn't want the north wind on her. He didn't need that window—he wanted more air. Both got what they actually needed.
Getting to Yes calls this “focus on interests, not positions.” The tool is one question, asked with curiosity rather than challenge:
“What would that give you?” 「それが実現すると、何が得られますか？」
Sources: Follett, “Constructive Conflict” (1925); Harvard Program on Negotiation, “Principled Negotiation”.
Three ways a conflict can end 衝突の三つの結末
Domination 支配
One side wins. Easiest in the moment, Follett warned, but rarely lasts.
Compromise 妥協
Each side gives up part of what it wanted. The window half open: nobody is satisfied.
Integration 統合
A new option meets both sides' interests. The window next door.
Follett's first rule 第一のルール
“Put your cards on the table … bring the whole thing into the open.” Hidden conflict (Lesson 3) can't be integrated.
Not every conflict yields an integrative option. When none appears, a decision made openly by an agreed rule is better than a compromise nobody believes in.
Closing the loop: “Can you live with it?” 収束の確認：「これで行けますか？」
Kaner's Gradients of Agreement scale replaces yes/no with eight points, from “whole-hearted endorsement” through “support with reservations—I can live with it” to “veto.” Asking “Can anyone not live with this?” is a convergence move: it checks that nobody sits at the serious-disagreement end before you close. If someone does, you return to 衝突—and that is the check working.
「これで行けない人はいますか？」は収束のための確認。反対が出れば衝突に戻るが、それは確認が機能した証拠。
Source: Kaner et al., “Striving for Unanimity” (Gradients of Agreement).
Practice 1 · Write it yourself
Dig under two positions 二つの立場の下を掘る
Line managers: “We need to see our team members' full HR profiles,
including evaluations.”
HR: “Evaluations must stay HR-only.”
A model answer—one of several good ones
- Managers: assign the right people to work and plan who can grow into which role.
- HR: protect sensitive data, keep employees' trust, and stay within privacy rules.
- Option: a skills-and-availability view managers can see; evaluations stay HR-only; employees can choose to share their development goals with their manager.
Check yours: did each interest answer why, not restate the demand? Does your option give each side its interest without either side giving up that interest? If it just trims both demands (“last year's evaluations only”), that's compromise.
Test your guesses in real life: you only find true interests by asking. Guessed interests are hypotheses.
Practice 2 · Mixed review
Classify each moment 分類する
The director: “Salary fields stay HR-only. End of discussion.”
Domination. Possibly the right call, but one
side's interest was never examined.
HR worried that employees would flood them with questions after launch. Communications wanted a big announcement. They launch with a short announcement linking to an FAQ HR writes, and a two-week question form.
Integration. Communications gets visibility; HR
gets the question load channelled. Neither interest was trimmed.
Managers may see evaluations, but only from the last twelve months.
Compromise. Both demands were cut; neither
interest was explored. Managers still lack what they need, and HR
still carries the risk.
“Let's go around once: whole-hearted, can live with it, or can't live with it?”
Convergence. Same as the item you missed in
Lesson 3: classify by purpose. It invites objections in order to
close safely.
“Before we pick: what is each of you worried would go wrong?”
Conflict. Its purpose is to understand the
interests behind positions that have already collided—the core
move of the groan zone.
Review from Lesson 2: you found a great integrative option but shared it with department heads the day after the pilot started.
Timeliness. A good option that arrives after the
decision can't change it.
Apply it this week 今週の実践
- When someone states a firm demand, ask once: “What would that give you?” Write down the answer.
- In one standoff, before anyone proposes a middle point, ask each side what it is worried would go wrong.
- Close one decision with “Can anyone not live with this?” and notice what surfaces.
Primary reading: Mary Parker Follett, “Constructive Conflict” (annotated excerpt, free). Read the three methods and the library window. Then, if you want the modern toolkit: Fisher, Ury & Patton, Getting to Yes, chapter 3 (日本語版『ハーバード流交渉術』).
Next
Seven barriers 伝わらない七つの壁 (needs your training material), or cultural styles: 空気を読む and low/high context
Seven barriers 伝わらない七つの壁 (needs your training material), or cultural styles: 空気を読む and low/high context
Questions are part of learning. Ask your teacher (Claude) about anything unclear, and bring a real standoff—I'll help you map positions to interests.