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.
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.
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
"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