Identify interests and boundaries
See this course’s project requirements
A conflict-repair portfolio with a fact record, listening script, interests map, voluntary agreement, repair and escalation plan, and follow-up review.
Keep your working files in your own notebook or software. Save a private description, checklist, and work link in My Proof.
What to include
- A fact-and-impact record with interpretations separated and a neutral opening question.
- A listening script with two paraphrases, two process questions, and a corrected understanding.
- An interests-and-boundaries map with two provisional arrangements and unresolved agreement details.
- A voluntary team agreement with deadline, ownership, confirmation, access fallback, and a review point.
- A repair statement and escalation map distinguishing ordinary disagreement, authority limits, and unsafe conduct.
- A conflict-repair portfolio with two-cycle evidence, a revised handoff process, and a specific reflection.
Review and revise
Use these criteria to check your work and choose what to improve.
- Fact discipline: separates observations, reported explanations, interpretations, and work impact without assigning unsupported motives.
- Listening and boundaries: uses correctable paraphrases, identifies practical interests, and preserves privacy, availability, safety, and the option to seek support.
- Agreement quality: chooses a time that fits both research and review constraints, specifies each role’s actions, and includes confirmation, fallback, consent, and a review point.
- Repair and follow-up: acknowledges impact without demanding forgiveness, routes threats or authority issues appropriately, and evaluates the two sample cycles against observable terms.
Want more background?
The idea in everyday life
A position is one preferred solution, while an interest explains why it matters. Exploring interests can reveal alternatives, but it never requires giving up safety, privacy, or a reasonable limit. The lesson uses a scheduling disagreement between peers. A learner can decline direct negotiation when the context involves coercion, retaliation, or a substantial power imbalance.
Interests explain what matters; boundaries define what is acceptable.
One step at a time.
Use the sample or information you have permission to use. Keep your work as you go. You can pause between steps.
- 1
Write each person’s preferred solution and the need it aims to meet in separate columns. Use the supplied research and review constraints so the distinction rests on concrete information rather than assumptions about personality.
- 2
List shared interests and conflicting constraints. Calculate the latest possible handoff that still leaves one hour before five, then compare it with research ending at two.
- 3
Add boundaries concerning availability, privacy, and respectful conduct. Phrase each as a clear limit and an alternative process, such as using an approved folder instead of exchanging personal passwords.
- 4
Generate two possible arrangements that meet the interests without violating boundaries. Keep them provisional and identify which details need agreement; a possible compromise is not accepted until the people involved actually consent.
See how it works.
Fictional practice: Mo’s position is “send every draft by noon.” Ren’s position is “use a later deadline.” Mo needs one hour to review before leaving at five; Ren needs time to finish agreed research ending at two. They identify a shared interest in a usable draft with review time. A 3 p.m. handoff could meet both needs if access works. Mo’s boundary is no work messages after six, and Ren’s boundary is no sharing personal account credentials. Those limits are not bargaining chips. The team explores a shared-folder fallback without requiring either person to surrender privacy or unavailable time.
Did you cover these?
- Positions and interests are separate
- The review-time constraint is calculated
- Options preserve stated boundaries
What to finish
An interests-and-boundaries map with two provisional arrangements and unresolved agreement details.
Watch for this
Treating someone’s privacy, safety, or unavailable time as something they must trade away.
How can I tell I understand it?
You can demonstrate all three checks using your lesson deliverable and explain the reason for each decision.
Quick knowledge check
Answer all 3 questions. Get at least 2 right and the lesson completes automatically.
You’ll get an explanation for each answer. Signed in? Your results save to your account.
Pass the check. We’ll save the progress.
Answer all 3 questions above and get at least 2 right. You can review the explanations and try again.
Go to the knowledge checkTools, templates, and lesson sources
Tools and templates
Tools open in a new tab so you can keep your place here.
Sources and further reading
Explore the references behind this lesson.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-09-10
Read interests, listening, options, agreed criteria, and mediator sections. We use these only for ordinary voluntary teamwork disagreements; threats and coercion are explicitly excluded from negotiation practice.
Access: Public reading verified without an account; optional further reading, no paid course or certificate required.
Reuse: Reference only; original Life Starter explanations and practice. Public access is not permission to copy materials or logos.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-09-10
Read the public article’s interpretation traps and distinctions among negotiation and mediation. Optional article is accessible without enrollment; advertised paid programs are not required or endorsed.
Access: Public reading verified without an account; optional further reading, no paid course or certificate required.
Reuse: Reference only; original Life Starter explanations and practice. Public access is not permission to copy materials or logos.
Report a problem with this lesson
Tell us what went wrong. Please leave out personal information and private project contents.