Bye Bye, Win-Win

Back in January ’03, I wrote an editorial entitled “You Don’t Have to Win.” I played the iconoclast in mediation circles, by suggesting that the “win/win” concept is falling on deaf ears, that – may the heavens fall down around my ears – it is okay to “lose,” and, if it makes you feel better, to consider the loss as a win. With more candor than I cared to admit, I conceded that I nonetheless will continue to expound on the win/win philosophy with the hope that the disputants will buy into it.


I thought I had had the last word on the subject, when up pops the devil, no personal aspersion intended. In a Tampa Tribune article, dated March 14, 2004, Bob Weinstein, in his Tech Watch column entitled “Win-win negotiations are for wimps,” summarizes at length Jim Camp’s book, Start With No. Sound familiar to mediators? I have not yet had the pleasure of reading Mr. Camp’s recently published book, but I’ll bet you he read William Ury’s Getting Past No before he wrote his rebuttal! Titles can tell you a lot, can’t they?


A good editorialist will read a book being critiqued before he or she sets pen to paper (or fingers to computer). I confess in advance that my “reading” of Camp’s book consists entirely, at this time, of Weinstein’s comprehensive abridgment. If a reading of Camp’s book changes my observations, I’ll let you know in a future editorial.


“So what’s wrong with win-win negotiations?” Weinstein asks, rhetorically, “Aren’t they the foundation of a healthy and democratic business environment? No, sir, snaps Camp. That’s a wishy-washy cop-out for not taking chances, expressing great ideas or pushing for what you want.”


Weinstein goes on to quote Camp directly: “Win-win is so lame, systems have been designed to take advantage of weak win-win negotiators. The haves negotiate well and the have-nots don’t. Win-win has created a society of easy compromisers who have lost the negotiation edge.” Wow!


In fairness, Camp’s book appears to be focused on intercompany and intracompany negotiations, rather than on mediations, which are not mentioned in the article. The lessons, however, such as they are and such as we may or may not agree with them, are transferable, or at least worth considering..


Camp’s “10 tips for negotiating the best deal,” as summarized by Weinstein, pose some interesting thoughts. We may recognize the value in some of them.


  1. Invite your opponent to say no and assure that you’re comfortable with it. Your adversary will respect you, and, if naïve, will feel safer. [I’m neutral on this one.]
  2. Identify in advance problems preventing a successful deal, and ask your opponent how they might be solved. [I think good mediating attorneys do this, especially with effective follow-up by the mediator.]
  3. Also, know your adversary. [That’s a given, if you want any edge.]
  4. Control your emotions. Have no expectations, fears or judgments. [The former, sure; the latter, not so sure.]
  5. Practice the “Columbo effect.” Let your adversary feel “more OK” than you, even perhaps a bit superior. [That’ll suck ’em in! Then, lower the boom!]
  6. Talk little and take voluminous notes. [This guy has not dealt with attorneys!]
  7. Answer questions with questions. Compliment your opponent on their good ideas and excellent questions. [Stroke em, then poke em!]
  8. Focus on controlling your behavior; never think about or plan for the outcome of the deal. [Now I think I gotta read the book!]
  9. Never enter into a negotiation without a valid mission and purpose. [Tough to do, if you don’t think about the outcome.]
  10. Do not try to be friends. [Whew! Takes all the fun out of negotiations.]
  11. Deal only with the power-holders, the decision-makers. [The rules of mediation require this, however much they are honored in the breach.]


So, there you have it. You pays your money and you takes your choice. It all comes down to the same goal: a negotiated settlement. Whether you win/win or lose, a settlement trumps a trial every time. A sage once said it’s all in the wrist. But all wrists are different, and, to overwork another cliché, there are different strokes for different folks. The best approach is one that is comfortable for you and not too uncomfortable for your opponent. After all, you both have a mutual objective, i.e., to avoid the expense, stress, delay and uncertainty of a trial.

                        author

Managing Editor

Mediate.com In business since 1996, Mediate.com is the world’s leading mediation and dispute resolution website with over 7 million annual site visitors.  Mediate.com serves as a bridge between professionals offering dispute resolution services and individuals and businesses needing those services. Mediate.com was awarded the 2010 American Bar Association Institutional Problem Solver of… MORE >

Featured Mediators

ad
View all

Read these next

Category

Best Practice Guide on the Use of Mediation in Cross-Border Disputes

View a PDF of the entire article below.The importance of training mediators on cross-border disputes Training mediators in cross-border disputes is still a relatively new field. Experience so far has...

By Jamie Walker, Zeno Daniel Sustac
Category

In Family Law, How is Mediation Different from a Settlement Meeting

"I arrange Settlement Meetings for clients. My success rate of settling the case at or shortly after the Settlement Meeting is pretty good. Therefore, I don't need to worry about...

By Norman Pickell
Category

When Your Boss Won’t Change

Conflicts of Interest Blog by Vivian ScottWho doesn’t have a list of things they’d like their manager to do differently? Everything from the way he slurps that first cup of...

By Vivian Scott

Find a Mediator

X
X
X