Stated positions vs. shared interests
Stated positions vs. shared interests
Put some time-tested parenting maneuvers into your advocacy work
In the game of life, there are moments when the central planning NPC and zoning abolitionist Chad want the same thing.
I wasn’t trained as a negotiator, but I’ve been in many infrastructure project meetings that required diplomacy. Sometimes a public meeting makes me feel like the stakes are Jack-Ryan-high, and I’m sure the same is true for you.
“I hear the words you’re saying, but what do you really want?”
Stated positions and shared interests are two important diplomacy concepts. Both can influence the outcome of a negotiation or diplomatic engagement, but they’re distinct and have different implications for how negotiations are conducted. I’ve had to force myself to learn this, because my default setting is ready-fire-aim. Speak first, clean up the mess later.
A stated position is a specific demand or opinion. It’s the position a person is advocating for and expecting to defend in the negotiation. It’s the benchmark for the other person to evaluate the feasibility of an idea or pitch. Stated positions are typically rigid and inflexible, because we humans know that we’re always right and the other guy is about to find out.
Stated positions in the world of urbanism look like this:
“Cars should be outlawed downtown.”
“Downtown needs more car parking.”
“Roundabouts are the safest at-grade intersection.”
“Roundabouts are dangerous because cars never stop.”
“We need regulations to guarantee affordable housing.”
“Regulations make it impossible to build affordable housing.”
Shared interests are the underlying interests or goals that both parties have in common. Helping two opposing people find shared interests out of stated positions feels like parenting. One kid hates soccer, the other loves soccer. But they both like playing outside, so you find the outdoor activity that engages them both.
Adults don’t approach a negotiation with “here’s what I really want” because they assume the encounter has to be confrontational. It’s true for corridor studies, rezoning proposals, planned unit developments, or citywide master plans. Shared interests build trust and cooperation and are a near guarantee for finding mutually beneficial solutions.
Stated positions tend to be visible and tangible, expressed in concrete terms. Shared interests tend to be hidden and intangible, easily implied but hard to quantify. It’s just easier to blurt out a blunt demand than it is to uncover the deeper motivations.
I was the project manager for Richmond, VA’s first bike boulevard several years ago. As a consultant, I had the outward-facing role without the ultimate decision-making authority.
Team Ride-My-Bike saw me as an advocate using propaganda to persuade residents to support the project. Team Park-My-Car saw me as the idiot trying to turn a southern city into the granola northwest. An emotional seesaw, to say the least.
City Hall ended up giving several major concessions to the original concepts, but I learned several important lessons through the project. One was turning stated positions into shared interests at every possible opportunity. Some people are forever sticking to a narrative, but I did see some minds change when they stopped being adversarial and started thinking like neighbors.
Most residents had shared interests for the street, with or without the bike boulevard project: calm, quiet, peaceful, accessible, well-lit, clean, and safe.
Of course it helps to build a relationship with the other party when you’re in a heated project. And your anti-bike hardliner may be more willing to make concessions if they feel a sense of mutual understanding and respect. Getting to shared interests is so much stronger than bonding over “I hate 4-way stops, too!”