Three Needs Beneath Conflict
Look past the disputed issue to the need each person is fighting for
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 99%
Drawing on Howard Markman's work, Perel says many arguments are not fundamentally about the issue being debated. A more useful question is what each person is fighting for. She offers three recurring categories: power and control, including whose priorities determine the decision; trust, care, and closeness, including whether someone will show up and can be relied upon; and respect and recognition, including whether a person feels valued and significant. The process pauses the content battle, tests each category, and translates accusation into the underlying relational request. The output is a need that can be answered or negotiated more directly. Perel says the same concerns appear at work, though the model should not erase the concrete issue or excuse unacceptable behaviour.
Origin
When Bartlett asks how to prevent social atrophy, Perel proposes teaching conflict. She then summarizes three things people often fight for, crediting the underlying work to Howard Markman.
Core principles
- 01The stated issue may not be the real subject of an argument
- 02Conflict often carries a bid for power, trust, or recognition
- 03Naming the underlying need creates a more useful conversation
- 04The model applies in personal and workplace relationships
How to run it
- 1
Pause the content battle
Temporarily stop repeating positions about the immediate issue and agree to examine what gives it emotional weight.
Pro tip Use the model after immediate escalation has reduced.
Watch out Do not skip an urgent practical or safety problem.
- 2
Ask what you are fighting for
Each person completes the sentence: beneath this issue, I am fighting for something I need from this relationship.
Pro tip Answer for yourself rather than diagnosing the other person.
- 3
Check power and control
Ask whether the dispute concerns who decides, whose priorities matter, or who has influence over the outcome.
Pro tip Separate a need for voice from a demand to dominate.
Watch out Mutual negotiation is not appropriate where coercive control is present.
- 4
Check trust and closeness
Ask whether the conflict is testing reliability, care, support, loyalty, or emotional availability.
Pro tip Translate the complaint into a concrete act that would demonstrate reliability.
- 5
Check respect and recognition
Ask whether someone feels unseen, devalued, dismissed, or taken for granted.
Pro tip Recognition should identify a real contribution or concern rather than offer generic praise.
- 6
Respond to both levels
Resolve the concrete issue where possible and agree on a behaviour that addresses the underlying relational need.
Pro tip Revisit whether the same need reappears under different surface arguments.
Watch out Insight without changed behaviour may leave the pattern intact.
In the wild
Two partners repeatedly argue about an unfinished household task. Using the model, one realizes the deeper concern is trust: repeated non-completion feels like evidence that they cannot rely on the other. They still decide who will do the task, but also agree on how commitments will be confirmed and renegotiated.
→ The practical issue and the reliability need are addressed separately instead of recycling the same accusation.
A disagreement about a project update appears to concern wording, but the contributor says the real issue is recognition: their work is repeatedly presented without attribution. The manager corrects the update and establishes a consistent credit practice.
→ The team answers the concrete error and the underlying need to feel valued.
Common mistakes
Arguing the surface forever
Repeatedly debating the visible issue can miss the relational meaning that keeps reactivating it.
Diagnosing the other person
The model works better when each person names their own need rather than assigning a motive to the other.
Using insight to avoid action
Naming trust or respect does not remove the need to change a concrete behaviour or decision.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for repeated conflicts in couples or teams where the practical disagreement carries a larger emotional meaning.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for excusing harmful conduct, bypassing concrete facts, or reducing every disagreement to exactly one category.
From the transcript
“it's not the issue you're fighting about”
“what is it that you're fighting for?”
“They fight for respect and recognition”
From the episode
The Sex Expert (Esther Perel): The Relationship Crisis No One Talks About That's Killing Your Sex Life!