Win-Lose or Win-Win...What Works for You?

Whether a negotiation concerns a contract, a family quarrel, or a peace settlement among nations, people routinely engage in positional bargaining (win-lose). 



According to Fisher and Ury (2011), any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: 


1) It should produce a *wise agreement if agreement is possible. 


2) It should be efficient. 


3) And it should improve -- or at least not damage -- the relationship between the parties.

*A wise agreement can be defined as one that meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account.

Arguing over positions produces unwise outcomes. When negotiators bargain over positions, they tend to lock themselves into those positions. The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it. The more you try to convince the other side of the impossibility of changing your position, the more difficult it becomes to do so. Your ego becomes identified with your position. You now have a new interest in “saving face”— in reconciling future action with past positions— making it less and less likely that any agreement will wisely reconcile the parties’ original interests.

Instead, practice principled bargaining where you focus on common interests, discover options for mutual gain, attack problems NOT people, and find merit is the other person’s reason for his position. Only then, can we collaborate to resolve problems rather than divide and conquer which will ruin relationships with friends and family. Remember what might be MOST important to you may not be MOST important to the other person, so start where there is value on both sides.

For example, I may find human rights more important than religious ideology yet I and the other party agree that a healthy economy is critical. Together, we should focus on principled negotiations (win-win) that lead to solutions to the problem of the economy and make concessions in other areas, i.e., agree to disagree on the issue of human rights.

The more attention that is paid to dug-in positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties and agreement becomes less likely. Any agreement reached may reflect a simple and mechanical splitting of the difference between final positions -- rather than a solution carefully crafted to meet the legitimate interests of the parties. The result is frequently an agreement less satisfactory to each side than it could have been, or no agreement at all, when a good agreement was possible.

Do you find yourself damaging relationships over this election? Do you find yourself engaged in positional bargaining (win-lose) more often than principled bargaining (win-win)?

Do you recognize fact-based information from propaganda?

Do you forward fact-based information to friends and family or propaganda or both? If so, what is your goal in doing this and which is more effective in accomplishing your goal -- the facts or the fiction?

Thoughts?