I’ve seen a role-play scenario that goes something like this: there is one orange and two people. Voices rise as each expresses his or her opinion; “I need the orange,” “No, I need that orange.” A pause in the debate allows observers to suggest possible solutions. What about cutting the orange in half? The participants agree that half an orange just isn’t enough, “I can’t do anything with half an orange, if that is all I get I might as well not get any at all…” We could buy another. Again the participants argue that their needs are urgent and there isn’t time for a grocery store run. The argument goes on; neither agreement nor compromise seems feasible until someone asks a simple question. “Why do you need that orange?” One confides that they are getting a sore throat and a healthy dose of orange juice is the only thing that keeps a cold at bay. The other explains that they offered to bring the cake to a friend’s birthday party in the evening and the recipe calls for the zest from one orange.
When we argue we naturally debate using our positions. Positions are the outcome we have subconsciously decided would best suit us. These positions are often made up of hidden agendas and incomplete information and can narrow the opportunity for creative solutions. In our hypothetical situation each participant’s position is that they need the orange. These positions are framed from our interests: concerns, goals, or hopes. One member of the role-play has the interest of staying healthy, the other the interest of baking a cake for a friend. Behind these interests, like another layer of an onion, are basic human needs. Every human has needs; physical, emotional, and relational. While positions in an argument seem mutually exclusive, interests only sometimes conflict, and in human needs people often find similarities. These needs drive much of our behavior, influence the decisions we make, and, if met for everyone can increase the chance of finding a creative successful agreement.
The language we use often determines whether the discussion includes needs and interests, or merely positions. Nonviolent communication suggests listening for others’ observations and feelings in order to become more aware of what they are saying and to gain a sense of the interests and needs behind their stated position. Reflecting what has been heard then allows for clarification if necessary and a greater understanding between those communicating. As seen in our story, asking the questions “Why” or “Why not” often give a glimpse of interests as well. Ask these questions in order to initiate conversation about the needs or concerns which back the position rather than to elicit defense of decisions. Taking time to reflect on and identify our own needs, emotions, and interests increases our self-awareness and our ability to express ourselves. Likewise, slowing down communication and asking questions in order to more fully understand others’ feelings, needs, and interests de-escalates conflict and broadens the opportunity for creative solutions.
Sources used:
Armster, ME, & Stutzman Amstutz, L. (Ed.). (2008). Conflict Transformation and Restorative Justice manual. Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee Office on Justice and Peacebuilding.
Fisher, R. , & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes. New York: Penguin Books.
Rosenberg, M. B. (2003). Nonviolent communication: a language of life. Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer Press.
