| Course | MLDR 6175 Managing, Mediating, and Resolving Conflict |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Positions and interests analysis |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MLDR 6175 Week 3
Demands in One Column, Needs in the Other: A Positions and Interests Analysis of a Theater's Gala and Tech Week Dispute, With a Look at How Rank and Rules Have Handled It So Far
Student Name
Walden University
MLDR 6175: Managing, Mediating, and Resolving Conflict
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Demands in One Column, Needs in the Other: A Positions and Interests Analysis of a Theater's Gala and Tech Week Dispute, With a Look at How Rank and Rules Have Handled It So Far
Why Positions and Interests Are Kept Apart
Fisher et al. (2011) separate the demand a side puts on the table from the worries and needs that led it there. In the Lantern Hall dispute, the positions are incompatible: the main stage cannot both host the gala on October 15 and stay closed for technical rehearsals that night. The interests may not be. This paper lists positions first, as each party stated them, then derives the interests beneath each from what the parties have said or done. Options are held back until the final section, because an option offered early tends to fix attention on the positions again.
Positions and Interests
Table 1
Positions and the Interests Beneath Them
| Party | Position as stated | Interests beneath it | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development | Gala on the main stage on October 15, the date promised to the lead sponsor | Keeping the credit union's $85,000 support for another season | Development director's July 21 email | |
| Development | Two open rehearsals for major donors during the technical week | Donors' sense of being inside the work, which supports major gifts | Development's season plan | |
| Development | No change that embarrasses the board chair, who invited the sponsor's president | The board chair's standing with the sponsor and with the board | Development director's remarks to the managing director | |
| Production | The technical week, October 12 to 18, closed to outside events | Crew hours kept within the overtime budget | Production manager's July 23 email | |
| Production | No strike and reset of scenery mid-week | A safe build schedule, with no extra scenery moves at the riskiest point | Production manager's safety notes | |
| Production | A say in future bookings of the main stage | Control over a schedule production is accountable for | Production manager's staff meeting remark | |
Composite theater. Positions are quoted or closely paraphrased from the sources listed.
Shared Interests
Three interests appear on both sides once the positions are set aside. Both departments need the musical to open well, since a strong opening drives ticket sales and makes donors more generous. Both need the sponsor to renew, because production's budget depends on it as much as development's does. And both need a calendar they can rely on next season; neither wants to repeat this summer. Galinsky et al. (2008) found that negotiators who took the other side's perspective were better at discovering hidden agreements, and the shared interests here only become visible when each department's needs are read from the other's side.
How the Conflict Has Been Handled So Far
Ury et al. (1988) describe three ways disputes are resolved: by reconciling interests, by determining who is right under some standard, or by determining who is more powerful. Lantern Hall has relied on the last two. Twice in the past three seasons, the managing director settled booking disputes by ruling for one department, which is resolution by power: the outcome turned on whose case the managing director found more persuasive or whose department mattered more that season. The current dispute has been argued in terms of rights. Development says it booked first, and production says that past practice protects the technical week. Neither rule exists in writing, so each claim of right is really a claim about whose practice should become the rule. Ury et al. (1988) argue that systems relying mainly on power and rights produce higher costs in time, relationships and recurrence than systems that begin with interests, and the staff meeting on August 4 is a visible example of those costs.
What the Interests Make Possible
The interests suggest that the date itself matters less than both positions imply. The sponsor's interest is in a prominent main stage event with its name on the proscenium, not in October 15 specifically; the date was chosen in March for availability, not for any reason connected to the sponsor. Production's interest is in an uninterrupted technical week and a safe schedule, not in keeping development off the stage generally. The board chair's interest is in not having to tell the sponsor's president that the date has moved without a good reason.
Options
Only now are options considered, each tested against both columns. One is to move the gala to the final dress rehearsal on October 21, when the set is complete and the musical's cast could perform a short preview for donors, giving the sponsor a better event than the original. Another is to hold the gala on October 15 in the studio and lobby, with a backstage tour, keeping the date but not the main stage. A third is to keep the gala on the main stage but on October 11, the evening before technical rehearsals begin. Each option meets some interests on both sides. The next weeks will test them against each head's priorities and alternatives. Whatever is chosen, the process interest both departments share, a calendar with a clear owner, will need its own answer.
References
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x
Ury, W. L., Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1988). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut the costs of conflict. Jossey-Bass.
What the MLDR 6175 Week 3 instructions ask for
Week 3 asks you to analyze a conflict by separating positions from interests. List each party's positions first, quoting their stated demands where you can. Then derive the interests beneath each position by asking what it protects, and cite something the party said or did to support each one. Identify interests both sides share. Examine how the conflict has been handled so far, distinguishing approaches based on interests, rights and power. Hold back any options until both columns are complete, and then test each option against the interests of both parties rather than their positions. Keep paraphrases neutral, so neither side's demand sounds softer or harsher than it was.
Inside the MLDR 6175 Week 3 example
The paper opens by explaining the distinction between positions and interests, citing Fisher and colleagues. A table lists three positions for each department with the interest beneath each and its source. A section names three shared interests: a strong opening, the sponsor's renewal and a reliable calendar, citing Galinsky and colleagues. A section applies Ury, Brett and Goldberg to show two earlier rulings as power and the current argument as rights. A section explains what the interests make possible, noting that the sponsor's interest is in the stage, not the date. Three options appear only at the end. Every interest in the table cites the email, plan or remark it was drawn from.
Reading the MLDR 6175 Week 3 rubric
Positions and interests analyses earn credit for keeping the two levels distinct and evidenced. Quoting positions instead of paraphrasing them shows care. Deriving each interest from something the party said or did is weighted heavily because it keeps the analysis grounded. Identifying shared interests shows the analysis is looking for room to agree. Applying the interests, rights and power framework to past handling shows understanding of how disputes become entrenched. Holding options back until both columns are complete demonstrates discipline. Papers that mix positions and interests, attribute interests without evidence or propose solutions in the first paragraph usually receive lower marks. A short list of shared interests, placed apart from the table, is often the most useful single item for the later negotiation.
Common MLDR 6175 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Write each party's demands in their own words before you interpret anything. For each demand, ask what it protects or achieves for them, and find a sentence, email or action that shows it. Put those answers in a second column. When both columns are full, read across the two parties' interests and mark any that overlap. Only then brainstorm options, and check each against both sets of interests. Writers commonly paraphrase one side's demand sympathetically and the other's bluntly, which skews the analysis from the start. Another trap is assuming an interest because it seems likely. If you lack evidence for a party's interests, our writers can suggest how to infer them from the record.
Get a MLDR 6175 Week 3 example written to your instructions
For Week 3 the desk needs the prompt, the rubric and the dispute, whether assigned or drawn from your work, and the positions and interests paper returns inside 24 to 48 hours, free on a first request. A negotiation framework other than interests, rights and power can take over that section if the course names one.
More MLDR 6175 papers and MS in Leadership samples
- MLDR 6175 Week 1: Conflict Types Discussion Post
- MLDR 6175 Week 2: Conflict Case Description
- MLDR 6175 Week 4: Conflict Style Diagnosis
- MLDR 6175 Week 5: Negotiation Prep Plan
- MLDR 6175 Week 6: Transformative Mediation Plan
- MLDR 6175 Week 7: Difficult Conversation Script
- MLDR 6175 Week 8: Peer Response on the Theater Case
- MLDR 6175 Week 9: Working Agreement Draft
- MLDR 6175 Week 10: Mediator Reflection
- MLDR 6175 Week 11: Final Conflict Analysis
- MLDR 6905 Week 3: Question-Led Literature Section
- MLDR 6010 Week 3: Lead Technician Selection Case
MLDR 6175 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MLDR 6175 Week 3 sample paper?
The full positions and interests paper can be read below at no cost.
What are the positions in the MLDR 6175 Week 3 case?
Development wants the gala on the promised date; production wants the technical week closed to outside events.
What interests lie beneath them?
The sponsor's renewal and the board chair's standing for development; crew hours and a safe build for production.
What interests do both sides share?
A strong opening, the sponsor's renewal and a calendar they can rely on next season.
How has the dispute been handled so far?
Mostly by the managing director's rulings and by arguments about who has the right to the stage.