Map interests for both sides before generating solutions
Write down both parties’ known and inferred interests before proposing anything — the map reveals trades that no single position could.
Key takeaways
- What it is: Write down both parties’ known and inferred interests before proposing anything — the map reveals trades that no single position could.
- Why it works: Visualizing interests across both sides simultaneously counters the fixed-pie assumption: when you can see that your counterpart cares intensely about X and you care primarily about Y, a trade that gives each the priority issue becomes obvious. Without the map, both sides default to positional splitting because no one can see the structure of what actually matters.
- Evidence: Backed by randomized trials / meta-analyses.
- Avoid: Only mapping your own interests before the negotiation and treating the counterpart’s interests as something to discover reactively — entering without a hypothesis about what they need leaves you with no framework for creative solution generation.
Why it works
Visualizing interests across both sides simultaneously counters the fixed-pie assumption: when you can see that your counterpart cares intensely about X and you care primarily about Y, a trade that gives each the priority issue becomes obvious. Without the map, both sides default to positional splitting because no one can see the structure of what actually matters.
How to do it
- 1Before negotiating, list your own interests by priority: what do you need most? What would you accept trading away?
- 2List your best estimate of the counterpart’s interests — what you know, infer, and need to discover.
- 3Note where priorities differ: these are the trade-able issues. Where they align, look for joint gain.
- 4Use the map to generate at least three solution options before evaluating any.
What the evidence says
RCT / meta-analysisResearch on perspective-taking and fixed-pie bias shows that accurate understanding of counterpart interests significantly reduces zero-sum assumptions and increases integrative outcomes.
Honest caveat: Interest maps based on inference are only as good as the inference. Confirming interest estimates through direct conversation is more reliable than assuming you have correctly inferred what matters most.
- — Thompson & Hastie (1990), "Social perception in negotiation", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Common mistake
Only mapping your own interests before the negotiation and treating the counterpart’s interests as something to discover reactively — entering without a hypothesis about what they need leaves you with no framework for creative solution generation.
IX Coach helps you build a two-sided picture of any difficult situation — not just your perspective but a reasoned model of what the other side needs — before recommending any action.
Practice this with IX Coach →