Negotiations have a huge role to play in the workplace and you can potentially end up with one of several outcomes, ranging from win-win to lose-lose.
Why should win-win be my preferred goal?
While conflict is invariably present in negotiations, these days there’s a much greater emphasis on seeking to achieve a win-win outcome wherever possible. In other words, whatever the issue over which you are negotiating, you should look to achieve a mutually beneficial or acceptable outcome.
The Harvard Project on Negotiation is based upon a win-win approach which adopts ‘principled negotiation’ or ‘mutual gains bargaining’. Here, negotiation is seen as essentially a problem-solving process. This is the approach that we are advocating here.
From win-win to lose-lose
You should always aim for a skilful win-win outcome wherever possible. We cannot stress this point too often.
Win-win is the most desirable outcome of, and approach to, negotiations. In his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People Stephen Covey identifies win-win as one of six paradigms of human interaction. These paradigms, which are inherent in games theory, are:
- Win-win (interdependence)
- Win-win or no deal
- Win (independence)
- Lose-win (dependence)
The following table explains each of these paradigms in more detail as they relate to negotiation.
Six paradigms of human interaction
Features and consequences
|1. Win-win (interdependence)||A win-win paradigm is beneficial to all parties, based upon a shared belief that there’s a better way of doing things and a shared desire to find it. This winning outcome is a result of the mutual competent use of negotiation skills and a predisposition to behave interdependently. This is interdependence at its best and it’s a view that’s based upon three key assumptions:
|2. Win-win or no deal||A win-win or no deal paradigm is evident in attempted negotiations where none of the parties can find a mutually beneficial solution, so they agree to disagree amicably. This often happens at the early stages of negotiating a business relationship.|
|3. Win (independence)||A win paradigm is a context in which one party wins without regard to the cost to, or the feelings of, other parties. It’s still very common in the business world, and the likely consequences are similar to those of a win-lose paradigm or outcome (see no 4).
This is independence in its most obvious form. The danger here is that the other – ‘defeated’ – party will seek revenge at a later stage.
|4. Win-lose||A win-lose paradigm is evident when one party uses its power, resources or authority in an attempt to win at the expense of the other parties. The party that’s operating within this paradigm is often described as ‘playing hardball’.
This approach is clearly not compatible with mutuality or interdependence and is likely to preclude any further negotiations between the parties concerned. However, the reactions of the losing party may not be as extreme as in a win outcome.
|5. Lose-win (dependence)||A lose-win paradigm is characterised by appeasement, placation, abandonment or submission. It’s the opposite pole of win-lose, and it’s not uncommon for managers (and others) to operate within these two extreme paradigms at different times. Lose-win is dependence at its most obvious.|
|6. Lose-lose||A lose-lose paradigm may be created if the parties involved are each playing a win-lose game. The outcome is the result of incompetent negotiation and a common attitude of dependence.|
Why ‘win-win’ is not a soft option
Trust, self-interest and negotiating expertise constitute the glue that holds negotiations together. Once these bonds are loosened, it is difficult to get round the table again.
Post courtesy of People Alchemy
Catalyst run ILM accredited leadership and management courses which teach you to effectively resolve conflict resulting in a happier, more productive workplace. For more information and to see the courses we offer, visit our website: http://www.cbduk.biz/Catalyst_Business_Academy.asp