Match the Approach to the Conflict : Power, Rights or Interests?

Understanding Conflict: Interests, Rights, and Power

Every conflict can be approached in different ways. Some approaches bring people together to find solutions; others hand the decision to someone else; others settle things by force. Knowing which approach fits your situation helps you choose the intervention most likely to actually move it forward.

A widely used way of thinking about this comes from William Ury, Jeanne Brett, and Stephen Goldberg, who observed that people in conflict tend to rely on one of three approaches: interests, rights, or power.

The three approaches

1. Interests: "What do we each need?"

This approach looks beneath people's positions to their underlying needs, concerns, hopes, and fears. The question is not who is right or who is stronger, but what solution could work for everyone.

Example: Two colleagues argue over who gets the meeting room on Mondays. Exploring interests reveals one needs privacy for confidential calls and the other needs a screen for presentations. A solution that meets both needs becomes possible.

Best when: the relationship matters, the issue is about needs or misunderstandings, and people are willing to talk.
Typical interventions: open conversation, listening, collaborative problem-solving, negotiation, facilitation, mediation.

2. Rights: "What do the rules say?"

This approach asks who is right according to an agreed standard: a law, contract, policy, procedure, or accepted norm. Someone, often a neutral third party, decides based on those standards.

Example: An employee believes they were denied overtime pay. The question is what the collective agreement or employment law says.

Best when: there's a clear rule or standard at stake, a precedent is needed, or interest-based talks have failed.
Typical interventions: policy review, formal complaints, grievance procedures, investigation, arbitration, adjudication, courts.

3. Power: "Who can make it happen?"

This approach settles conflict by who has more influence, authority, or ability to impose costs: rank, resources, votes, pressure, threats, or withdrawal.

Example: A manager simply decides the outcome, or a group goes on strike to force a change.

Best when: there's real urgency or safety risk, one party refuses to engage at all, or a decision must be made by someone with authority.
Typical interventions: managerial decisions, directives, disciplinary action, strikes, boycotts, votes, public pressure.

The dispute prevention and resolution continuum

These approaches sit along a continuum, from options where the parties keep control and work together, to options where control shifts to others or to force.

TABLE HERE

As you move left to right, the process becomes more formal, more costly, slower, and harder on relationships. The parties also lose control over the outcome. That's why a general principle is to start as far to the left as the situation allows.

Matching the issue to the intervention

The key is to diagnose what kind of issue you are really facing. Ask:

• Is this about needs, concerns, or misunderstanding? → It's an interests issue. Start with conversation, listening, negotiation, or mediation.
• Is this about whether a rule, policy, contract, or law was followed? → It's a rights issue. A process that applies standards, such as an investigation, grievance, or arbitration, may be needed.
• Is there a safety risk, urgency, or a party who refuses to engage? → It may require power: someone with authority must act.

Many conflicts mix all three. A dispute about a policy breach (rights) may also involve damaged trust (interests). A good intervention often addresses the urgent part first and then returns to the underlying needs.

Why interests usually come first

Interest-based approaches tend to:

• Cost less in time, money, and stress
• Produce solutions that people actually support
• Preserve working relationships
• Reduce the chance the conflict comes back

Rights and power still play an essential role. They protect people, enforce fairness, and resolve deadlock. They work best as a backup when interest-based approaches can't work, and even then, the healthiest systems try to loop back to interests once the immediate problem is handled. For example, a manager who intervenes to stop harassment (power) may later support a facilitated conversation to rebuild the team (interests).

Key takeaway

Before choosing how to respond to a conflict, ask what kind of issue it really is:

• Needs and concerns → work with interests
• Rules and standards → apply rights
• Urgency, safety, or refusal to engage → use power, carefully

The type of issue should guide the intervention. Starting with interests whenever possible usually leads to the most lasting and least costly outcomes.

‍