Is Win-Win dead?
Mehran Mossadegh
Is Win-Win in a negotiated outcome still relevant in
today’s complex negotiations? Or, is there an
alternative approach, which can assist negotiating
parties achieve a Wise agreement in a shorter period
of time? Following a Wise process that focuses on
solving problems is far more effective and generates
a better outcome for all parties. A Wise solution is an
optimised outcome in negotiations, achieving a
negotiated outcome that is favourable, rather than
one that is merely acceptable. It influences the other
party’s mind and engage in collaborative discussion.
Win is defined as being successful or victorious in a
contest or conflict, to acquire or secure as a result of
a contest, conflict, bet, or other endeavour, to defeat
everyone else by being the best or by finishing first in
a competition, to achieve victory in a war, battle, or
argument, and so on.
A win-win negotiation, is one in which all parties and
stakeholders to the negotiation can benefit from it,
in one way or the another. Such gained benefits are
not necessarily at a cost or loss to the other party.
© 2015 - Mossadegh Enterprises Pty Ltd
This article relates to complex multi stakeholder
negotiations; especially where there is a
possibility of ongoing relationship between the
parties.
A typical example of complex multi stakeholder
commercial negotiation may involve a consortium
or joint venture on one side of the table delivering
complex technology solutions to a client on the
other side. The client itself could involve a number
of government ministries, end-user and
consultants to the project each with direct
involvement in the negotiation process. Such a
negotiation may also include several third party
stakeholders who are indirectly involved in the
negotiation process i.e. sub-contractors, financial
institutions and regulatory bodies.
An example of complex international conflict
resolution negotiation is the nuclear negotiation
between Iran and the 5+1. The negotiation
involves seven parties directly – China, France,
Germany, Iran, Russia, United Kingdom, and
United States – and a number of other in-direct
negotiation stakeholders.
+61 3 9088 0220
[email protected]
www.negotiationwise.com
Level 40, 140 William Street
Melbourne, VIC
Australia 3000
A Wise solution is an optimised outcome in negotiations, achieving a negotiated
outcome that is favourable, rather than one that is merely acceptable.
Typically a win-win negotiation approach requires the ‘co-operation’ of negotiating parties to achieve a
mutually beneficial agreement, through a non-zero-sum approach that is to expand the pie, creating value
before claiming value. A win-win outcome is one that satisfies all parties to the negotiation, it is mutually
beneficial.
The desire to achieve a win-win solution results in ‘victory’ for all parties. However, the victory may come at
such cost to one or more parties that make it worthless for a party. In other words, the gains are
overweighted by the cost which negates the feeling of joy experienced at the conclusion of the negotiation.
While the win-win approach may have its place in less complex negotiations, is the strategy still relevant in
today’s complex negotiations in the interrelated, interdependent, and globalised world? Where negotiation
has multiple stakeholders, either directly or indirectly involved in the negotiation process, is it still possible to
find an outcome that all parties can have some sort of a win ? How is such a win defined and how would the
win be measured?
In complex negotiations with multiple stakeholders
(see side note – first page), comes conflicting and
opposing Drivers – needs, desires, interests, fears, and
concerns – which makes it extremely difficult to come
to an agreement in which all parties can feel victorious.
On occasion with some wins, there will be losses or
compromise somewhere in the process. The process of
compromise can become difficult especially where
there are hidden or indirect stakeholders not directly
involved in the negotiation process.
In this concept, win is difficult to be measured, and to
be sold to the shareholders and constituents. One
party may achieve a HUGE win, while the another may
have a small win.
Although there may be such a large outcome differential between the parties, the outcome is still labelled a
win-win. However, is such an agreement sustainable given the large difference? Would the party with the
small win, follow through on the agreement and commit to its deliverables and obligations?
© 2015 - Mossadegh Enterprises Pty Ltd
+61 3 9088 0220
[email protected]
www.negotiationwise.com
Level 40, 140 William Street
Melbourne, VIC
Australia 3000
In win-win concept, win is difficult to be measured, and to be sold to the
shareholders and constituents. One party may achieve a HUGE win, while the
another may have a small win.
A win-win negotiation strategy, despite a desire for co-operative approach, can suffer from an adversarial
and competitive attitude by one or more negotiating parties. The thinking goes: what can I get, what can I
give and so on. This competitive nature of human behaviour is even more apparent with some negotiators
defining negotiation as a game! It is a naïve notion to imagine during a hostage negotiation for example, that
the authorities would consider a win-win resolution. Similarly, neither should complex negotiation be
conducted in an environment where adversarial attitudes are entertained or present.
The concern with a win-win way of thinking is, that it can set up an environment of competition; instead of
developing an atmosphere for information sharing and reinforcing the value of cooperation.
The result of a win-win approach can be considered from the Prisoner’s Dilemma, where the parties may
settle for less than what they can achieve otherwise than if they were co-operating with each other. In the
Prisoner’s Dilemma the ‘naïve’ party is vulnerable to exploitation by the stronger party, provoking a strategy
that ‘all defect’ by the stronger party. Therefore in order to avoid all defect, negotiating parties may lead to a
‘Tit-for-Tat’ tactic.
Equally, the Negotiator’s Dilemma, the tension between creating and claiming value in a win-win approach,
could result in Tit-for-Tat negotiation. As a result both parties defect, that is, an adversarial approach instead
of a co-operative approach. The outcome of such a negotiation would be less favourable than the case
where all parties were co-operating.
A current example of Tit-for-Tat tactic is the current push by U.S. Congress to introduce a bill to trigger more
sanctions against Iran should nuclear negotiation fails – i.e. defect. This has in return provoked the Iranian
Parliament (Majles) to introduce a bill obliging the Iran government to produce 60% Uranium Enrichment in
case U.S. Congress introduce new sanctions against Iran, that is a tactic of Tit-for-Tat.
But there is an alternative approach to manage complex negotiations that results in a well thought out,
planned, thorough and structured negotiation process with a Wise outcome.
Typically, failures in complex negotiations result from a shortfall in the required prerequisite process, which
is, the lack of thorough understanding of the problem and requirement of all stakeholders to the negotiation.
Different stakeholders come to the negotiation table with different expectation and Drivers, some parties
fall short to understand the other parties’ real problem and requests.
If each stakeholder problem and requirement is not thoroughly understood, in other words, if the problem is
not correctly identified, a favourable solution cannot be found and a Wise outcome cannot be achieved. As in
the Prisoner’s Dilemma, any agreement could be the second or third preferred outcome, whereas if all
parties were co-operating that may not be the case.
Parties negotiate to address and solve their problems, believing that their joint problem and issues can be
solved by mutual discussion and collaboration. If a better solution to their problem was possible without the
need to discuss and collaborate, there was no need for the negotiation in the first place.
© 2015 - Mossadegh Enterprises Pty Ltd
+61 3 9088 0220
[email protected]
www.negotiationwise.com
Level 40, 140 William Street
Melbourne, VIC
Australia 3000
The concern with a win-win way of thinking is, that it can set up an
environment of competition; instead of developing an atmosphere for information
sharing and reinforcing the value of cooperation.
Negotiation is a conversation between two or more parties for a PURPOSE and with CHOICE.
The purpose is solving the problem. The parties exercise their choice to solve the problem with engaging
collaboratively with the other side in order to achieve an agreeable solution to the problem.
The purpose of negotiation is not victory, especially if the problem is in an un-winnable state.
The architecture of a Wise problem solving approach, relies heavily on successful collaboration of stakeholders
to find solutions to address the problems. Problems are a result of the underlying Drivers (needs, desires,
interests, fears, concerns).
Problems can be categorised as short, medium, and long term. For all the stakeholders, each short, medium,
and long term problem needs to be clearly identified early in the negotiation process. It is the distinction
between short, medium, and long term Drivers that leads the parties in the negotiation to creative solutions to
solve the complex equations in a complex negotiation.
Let’s consider an example of a project implementation of a turnkey system with a 10-year service agreement
option.
Negotiating over the project delivery can be the short term consideration. Whilst providing a 10 year
maintenance service agreement is a medium to long term consideration. The underlying Drivers of the various
stakeholders will differ for the short term compared with long term.
For example, the relationship consideration will have varying Drivers and potentially involve different
stakeholders during project delivery (short term) and service delivery (medium to long term). During project
delivery, project team members will be involved and the focus is on delivery of the agreed requirement
specification. Whereas, discussion on the service delivery stage of the agreement may involve different teams
and the objective for each team could be defined by maintaining a workable relationship to insure system
performance is maintained within the service agreement framework and time frame.
Another long term Driver for negotiating
parties could be the issue of potential
future projects. A co-operative approach
during the service delivery period of an
existing contract is required if parties wish
to work together on other projects.
In the above example, simplifying complex
negotiations through win-win strategy
cannot deliver an optimum result over long
run.
© 2015 - Mossadegh Enterprises Pty Ltd
+61 3 9088 0220
[email protected]
www.negotiationwise.com
Level 40, 140 William Street
Melbourne, VIC
Australia 3000
To achieve maximum success, the idea of a Wise process is to avoid setting up a
potentially competitive environment that can result from a win-win strategy.
Miscalculation in developing the right strategy can and does occur when seeking a win-win outcome. With each
party focusing on its victory speech, how can parties come to a mutual agreement if their aim is to be
victorious? It is quite possible for parties to deviate from identifying the real underlying problems, both theirs
and the others, leading to incorrect strategy. Whilst any agreement achieved can be hailed as a victory for a
party, it may not necessarily be a Wise solution as it does not address the problems. Such an agreement could
suffer during implementation through lack of commitment to it by one or more parties. Breaking down the
complex negotiation into short, medium, and long term Drivers and identifying the stakeholders’ problems
during these discussions can help negotiators to engage in a collaborative conversation to explore Wise
solutions.
To achieve maximum success, the idea of a Wise process is to avoid setting up a potentially competitive
environment that can result from a win-win strategy. The negotiator’s dilemma in a win-win approach would be
to achieve the second or third best available outcome especially if some of the negotiation parties apply the
“Tit-for-Tat” tactic.
In my experience, during negotiation preparation, many negotiators spend too much time discussing their share
of the win and what it’s going to look like and not enough time understanding the other side’s Drivers. This
approach invariably translates into an adversarial approach with the other side at the Negotiating Table. The
focus becomes how would the win look like, and how can it be sold to their own team, constituents, and
shareholders even if such win is of no real value for the party seeking it.
In conclusion, the Wise systematic problem solving approach to overcome barriers and achieve Drivers is more
effective in complex negotiations. Defining each problem into short, medium and long terms, allows you to
think about and understand the other parties Drivers. Devising novel solutions to each problem for presentation
during the negotiation is the path to a Wise solution.
Only through a planned, structured and well thought out answer to each party’s problems will a Wise outcome
be achieved.
To register your interest to receive our regular
negotiation articles and updates please
subscribe to our Newsletter
http://www.negotiationwise.com/index-3.html
NegotiationWise training programs, a
Structured Collaborative Approach to a Wise
Outcome focuses on “how to prepare to
negotiate” and "how to negotiate” for
a Wise Outcome using many interactive
practical sessions to practice the theory learnt.
To see NegotiationWise training programs
schedule visit
http://www.negotiationwise.com/register.html
© 2015 - Mossadegh Enterprises Pty Ltd
+61 3 9088 0220
[email protected]
www.negotiationwise.com
Level 40, 140 William Street
Melbourne, VIC
Australia 3000