There Are No “Win-Win” Business Deals.

There’s no such thing as a win-win business situation.

The idea is intriguingly magical.  But like pink unicorns, the Prison of Azkaban, and world peace it is more wishful thinking than reality.  It just isn’t possible.

Any situation where opposing sides emerge together as equal winners defies reason.

It is just not possible.

Either the situation isn’t really a competition, or the person we label as the winner isn’t really winning.  Either way a win-win outcome isn’t possible.  It becomes ludicrous the more you try to justify it.

You know first-hand how ridiculous that expectation becomes when you’re the person being convinced that something is a win-win situation.  If both parties come out of the resolution as winners why is it so hard to persuade you that you’re not getting advantage of?

You don’t have to be in business long before you hear this terminology being used by bosses, peers, and potential prospects. Most often this language is used to “let you down softly”.  And it doesn’t even do that well.

Instead of presenting you the hard truths of your situation, those in business use the win-win pitch to mask a bad outcome with language that makes you feel like what will happen is good for you.

It’s not good for you.

Most win-win situations leave you feeling frustrated and confused.  You’re trying to figure out how you come out a winner.  You see how the other guy wins.  But your winning seems more like “less losing”.  Right?

It’s all-around business “wimp speak”.  Remember that the next time you’re tempted to pitch a bad deal as a win-win situation.

Everybody can’t win at the same time. Everybody can’t win all the time.  That we all know.  That’s the truth.

What makes a bad situation even worse, is when you pretend to help the people that are actually being hurt the most.

Instead of being a wimp, just be fair. And honest.

That’s better than pretending that the people losing in a situation are actually winning.

That’s what grown-ups do.

They deliver hard news.  They care about others.  They encourage and support and lead.

They don’t whine.  They aren’t wimps.

 

0 Replies to “There Are No “Win-Win” Business Deals.”

  1. Dan,
    I must disagree.

    When I have a good meal at a restaurant – who “won?”
    When I see a good movie – who “won?”
    When my accountant does my books and calculates my taxes – who ” won?”

    The world is loaded with win-win transactions; it’s those transactions I’m looking for, not the ones where I have to worry about who’s trying to con me.

    I am perplexed at your point here – I don’t get what you’re trying to say?

    Charlie

    1. Charlie,
      I don’t think a good meal or meal or a smart doing their job demands a “winner”.  Are you competing for something?  Are they?

      Honestly  — “win-win” language is usually NOT a win for both parties. It’s just flat out dishonest terminology.  It’s “less losing” for both people.  And there is nothing wrong with that scenario.  But it’s not winning. And it’s silly to call otherwise.

      And that’s the point that I am trying to clarify.  We adopt this sophisticated “business speak” and talk as if “everyone wins”.  That’s just not possible.  

      I write exhaustively about love and kindness and caring so I am in no way advocating “being a jerk”.  But love doesn’t need to be delusional.  

      Dan

      p.s. By the way, “win-win” joins a long list of other confusing business words like “synergistically”….  

  2. Dan,
    I must disagree.

    When I have a good meal at a restaurant – who “won?”
    When I see a good movie – who “won?”
    When my accountant does my books and calculates my taxes – who ” won?”

    The world is loaded with win-win transactions; it’s those transactions I’m looking for, not the ones where I have to worry about who’s trying to con me.

    I am perplexed at your point here – I don’t get what you’re trying to say?

    Charlie

    1. Charlie,
      I don’t think a good meal or meal or a smart doing their job demands a “winner”.  Are you competing for something?  Are they?

      Honestly  — “win-win” language is usually NOT a win for both parties. It’s just flat out dishonest terminology.  It’s “less losing” for both people.  And there is nothing wrong with that scenario.  But it’s not winning. And it’s silly to call otherwise.

      And that’s the point that I am trying to clarify.  We adopt this sophisticated “business speak” and talk as if “everyone wins”.  That’s just not possible.  

      I write exhaustively about love and kindness and caring so I am in no way advocating “being a jerk”.  But love doesn’t need to be delusional.  

      Dan

      p.s. By the way, “win-win” joins a long list of other confusing business words like “synergistically”….  

  3. Dan,
    I must disagree.

    When I have a good meal at a restaurant – who “won?”
    When I see a good movie – who “won?”
    When my accountant does my books and calculates my taxes – who ” won?”

    The world is loaded with win-win transactions; it’s those transactions I’m looking for, not the ones where I have to worry about who’s trying to con me.

    I am perplexed at your point here – I don’t get what you’re trying to say?

    Charlie

    1. Charlie,
      I don’t think a good meal or meal or a smart doing their job demands a “winner”.  Are you competing for something?  Are they?

      Honestly  — “win-win” language is usually NOT a win for both parties. It’s just flat out dishonest terminology.  It’s “less losing” for both people.  And there is nothing wrong with that scenario.  But it’s not winning. And it’s silly to call otherwise.

      And that’s the point that I am trying to clarify.  We adopt this sophisticated “business speak” and talk as if “everyone wins”.  That’s just not possible.  

      I write exhaustively about love and kindness and caring so I am in no way advocating “being a jerk”.  But love doesn’t need to be delusional.  

      Dan

      p.s. By the way, “win-win” joins a long list of other confusing business words like “synergistically”….  

  4. Dan,
    I must disagree.

    When I have a good meal at a restaurant – who “won?”
    When I see a good movie – who “won?”
    When my accountant does my books and calculates my taxes – who ” won?”

    The world is loaded with win-win transactions; it’s those transactions I’m looking for, not the ones where I have to worry about who’s trying to con me.

    I am perplexed at your point here – I don’t get what you’re trying to say?

    Charlie

    1. Charlie,
      I don’t think a good meal or meal or a smart doing their job demands a “winner”.  Are you competing for something?  Are they?

      Honestly  — “win-win” language is usually NOT a win for both parties. It’s just flat out dishonest terminology.  It’s “less losing” for both people.  And there is nothing wrong with that scenario.  But it’s not winning. And it’s silly to call otherwise.

      And that’s the point that I am trying to clarify.  We adopt this sophisticated “business speak” and talk as if “everyone wins”.  That’s just not possible.  

      I write exhaustively about love and kindness and caring so I am in no way advocating “being a jerk”.  But love doesn’t need to be delusional.  

      Dan

      p.s. By the way, “win-win” joins a long list of other confusing business words like “synergistically”….  

  5. Dan,
    I must disagree.

    When I have a good meal at a restaurant – who “won?”
    When I see a good movie – who “won?”
    When my accountant does my books and calculates my taxes – who ” won?”

    The world is loaded with win-win transactions; it’s those transactions I’m looking for, not the ones where I have to worry about who’s trying to con me.

    I am perplexed at your point here – I don’t get what you’re trying to say?

    Charlie

    1. Charlie,
      I don’t think a good meal or meal or a smart doing their job demands a “winner”.  Are you competing for something?  Are they?

      Honestly  — “win-win” language is usually NOT a win for both parties. It’s just flat out dishonest terminology.  It’s “less losing” for both people.  And there is nothing wrong with that scenario.  But it’s not winning. And it’s silly to call otherwise.

      And that’s the point that I am trying to clarify.  We adopt this sophisticated “business speak” and talk as if “everyone wins”.  That’s just not possible.  

      I write exhaustively about love and kindness and caring so I am in no way advocating “being a jerk”.  But love doesn’t need to be delusional.  

      Dan

      p.s. By the way, “win-win” joins a long list of other confusing business words like “synergistically”….  

  6. Dan,
    I must disagree.

    When I have a good meal at a restaurant – who “won?”
    When I see a good movie – who “won?”
    When my accountant does my books and calculates my taxes – who ” won?”

    The world is loaded with win-win transactions; it’s those transactions I’m looking for, not the ones where I have to worry about who’s trying to con me.

    I am perplexed at your point here – I don’t get what you’re trying to say?

    Charlie

    1. Charlie,
      I don’t think a good meal or meal or a smart doing their job demands a “winner”.  Are you competing for something?  Are they?

      Honestly  — “win-win” language is usually NOT a win for both parties. It’s just flat out dishonest terminology.  It’s “less losing” for both people.  And there is nothing wrong with that scenario.  But it’s not winning. And it’s silly to call otherwise.

      And that’s the point that I am trying to clarify.  We adopt this sophisticated “business speak” and talk as if “everyone wins”.  That’s just not possible.  

      I write exhaustively about love and kindness and caring so I am in no way advocating “being a jerk”.  But love doesn’t need to be delusional.  

      Dan

      p.s. By the way, “win-win” joins a long list of other confusing business words like “synergistically”….  

  7. It still seems like “double talk” to me. 
    In no other sport in the world do we pretend like the outcome is “win-win”.  There is a clear winner and a rank of “places”.  Pretending like “everybody wins”, just feeds into the passive agressive culture of business vaguery we teach our clients to artfully clarify.  

    My argument is not that we have to win all the time.  Or that losing is classy.  But pretending like you have “two tying winners” seems counter-productive.  Why not just say “No one won.  I gave up some things.  They gave up some things.  It made sense…”?

    1. Dear All, intriguing conversation going on here. I would wish to add some collaborative views.

      Firstly the discussion is about definitions. What do we really mean when we use the words win-win? Or any other cliches, for that matter. There may be and clearly are competing explanations to win-win, starting from a demand that both (or all) parties shall gain massively as compared to a no-deal situation, and ending to a result that appears to be barely acceptable to either or all of the parties. And yes, do we really need the silly phrase in the first place?

      Secondly it is about mindset and how we view business relations. Is it our goal to extract as much of the potential value to ourselves or should we voluntarily not squeeze the other party dry? Which is better according to our values and vision, when are we content? What if the whole thing became public? Would we look good? Would we care? On the other hand, what can we expect the other party to do? Is it more efficient to trust the other party slightly more and negotiate slightly less than drafting an encyclopedia on smallest deals? Would further trust help reach mutual benefit? What happens over time, when trust increases? I am most inclined to state that in the long run a company is better off leaving its network a good aftertaste of itself. Can you think of companies that give you the impression of evil? Or companies that other companies genuinely like to do business with, presuming that they will not tricked if they let their guard down just a bit? Would you like a grocery store that tries to sell you rotten fruit? Why would you do that to business contact?

      Thirdly and lastly from my angle, the question is about academics. Game theory, portfolio theory and many others – to the extent I am aware of – presume that each party only agrees to a deal when it finds the presumed outcome of the deal greater than the input it gives. For example, you have a meal in a restaurant because you value the experience more than the money and time you lose. This is not the case in monopolies, hardship, and similar. If you simply cannot choose otherwise, there is no free will. Few of those that really contribute to taxman would pay the taxes if they had a choice. In a way, this is where the discussion spins back to its beginning: single-minded presumption of win-win leads to ruthless behaviour. And we are back to number two: if it clearly is not good for the other party, can it be good for you in the long run? Do you want to make a deal or have a relationship?

      Many questions, few answers.

      1. You are correct that in the competitive sense, “win, win” is an oxymoron. A party must win and so another must lose. In a business sense however, agreements as more trade, than game. Each party has different needs that fill different voids and assigns them different values. Each party believes it wins something it values, hence the phrase.

  8. It still seems like “double talk” to me. 
    In no other sport in the world do we pretend like the outcome is “win-win”.  There is a clear winner and a rank of “places”.  Pretending like “everybody wins”, just feeds into the passive agressive culture of business vaguery we teach our clients to artfully clarify.  

    My argument is not that we have to win all the time.  Or that losing is classy.  But pretending like you have “two tying winners” seems counter-productive.  Why not just say “No one won.  I gave up some things.  They gave up some things.  It made sense…”?

    1. Dear All, intriguing conversation going on here. I would wish to add some collaborative views.

      Firstly the discussion is about definitions. What do we really mean when we use the words win-win? Or any other cliches, for that matter. There may be and clearly are competing explanations to win-win, starting from a demand that both (or all) parties shall gain massively as compared to a no-deal situation, and ending to a result that appears to be barely acceptable to either or all of the parties. And yes, do we really need the silly phrase in the first place?

      Secondly it is about mindset and how we view business relations. Is it our goal to extract as much of the potential value to ourselves or should we voluntarily not squeeze the other party dry? Which is better according to our values and vision, when are we content? What if the whole thing became public? Would we look good? Would we care? On the other hand, what can we expect the other party to do? Is it more efficient to trust the other party slightly more and negotiate slightly less than drafting an encyclopedia on smallest deals? Would further trust help reach mutual benefit? What happens over time, when trust increases? I am most inclined to state that in the long run a company is better off leaving its network a good aftertaste of itself. Can you think of companies that give you the impression of evil? Or companies that other companies genuinely like to do business with, presuming that they will not tricked if they let their guard down just a bit? Would you like a grocery store that tries to sell you rotten fruit? Why would you do that to business contact?

      Thirdly and lastly from my angle, the question is about academics. Game theory, portfolio theory and many others – to the extent I am aware of – presume that each party only agrees to a deal when it finds the presumed outcome of the deal greater than the input it gives. For example, you have a meal in a restaurant because you value the experience more than the money and time you lose. This is not the case in monopolies, hardship, and similar. If you simply cannot choose otherwise, there is no free will. Few of those that really contribute to taxman would pay the taxes if they had a choice. In a way, this is where the discussion spins back to its beginning: single-minded presumption of win-win leads to ruthless behaviour. And we are back to number two: if it clearly is not good for the other party, can it be good for you in the long run? Do you want to make a deal or have a relationship?

      Many questions, few answers.

      1. You are correct that in the competitive sense, “win, win” is an oxymoron. A party must win and so another must lose. In a business sense however, agreements as more trade, than game. Each party has different needs that fill different voids and assigns them different values. Each party believes it wins something it values, hence the phrase.

  9. It still seems like “double talk” to me. 
    In no other sport in the world do we pretend like the outcome is “win-win”.  There is a clear winner and a rank of “places”.  Pretending like “everybody wins”, just feeds into the passive agressive culture of business vaguery we teach our clients to artfully clarify.  

    My argument is not that we have to win all the time.  Or that losing is classy.  But pretending like you have “two tying winners” seems counter-productive.  Why not just say “No one won.  I gave up some things.  They gave up some things.  It made sense…”?

    1. Dear All, intriguing conversation going on here. I would wish to add some collaborative views.

      Firstly the discussion is about definitions. What do we really mean when we use the words win-win? Or any other cliches, for that matter. There may be and clearly are competing explanations to win-win, starting from a demand that both (or all) parties shall gain massively as compared to a no-deal situation, and ending to a result that appears to be barely acceptable to either or all of the parties. And yes, do we really need the silly phrase in the first place?

      Secondly it is about mindset and how we view business relations. Is it our goal to extract as much of the potential value to ourselves or should we voluntarily not squeeze the other party dry? Which is better according to our values and vision, when are we content? What if the whole thing became public? Would we look good? Would we care? On the other hand, what can we expect the other party to do? Is it more efficient to trust the other party slightly more and negotiate slightly less than drafting an encyclopedia on smallest deals? Would further trust help reach mutual benefit? What happens over time, when trust increases? I am most inclined to state that in the long run a company is better off leaving its network a good aftertaste of itself. Can you think of companies that give you the impression of evil? Or companies that other companies genuinely like to do business with, presuming that they will not tricked if they let their guard down just a bit? Would you like a grocery store that tries to sell you rotten fruit? Why would you do that to business contact?

      Thirdly and lastly from my angle, the question is about academics. Game theory, portfolio theory and many others – to the extent I am aware of – presume that each party only agrees to a deal when it finds the presumed outcome of the deal greater than the input it gives. For example, you have a meal in a restaurant because you value the experience more than the money and time you lose. This is not the case in monopolies, hardship, and similar. If you simply cannot choose otherwise, there is no free will. Few of those that really contribute to taxman would pay the taxes if they had a choice. In a way, this is where the discussion spins back to its beginning: single-minded presumption of win-win leads to ruthless behaviour. And we are back to number two: if it clearly is not good for the other party, can it be good for you in the long run? Do you want to make a deal or have a relationship?

      Many questions, few answers.

      1. You are correct that in the competitive sense, “win, win” is an oxymoron. A party must win and so another must lose. In a business sense however, agreements as more trade, than game. Each party has different needs that fill different voids and assigns them different values. Each party believes it wins something it values, hence the phrase.

  10. It still seems like “double talk” to me. 
    In no other sport in the world do we pretend like the outcome is “win-win”.  There is a clear winner and a rank of “places”.  Pretending like “everybody wins”, just feeds into the passive agressive culture of business vaguery we teach our clients to artfully clarify.  

    My argument is not that we have to win all the time.  Or that losing is classy.  But pretending like you have “two tying winners” seems counter-productive.  Why not just say “No one won.  I gave up some things.  They gave up some things.  It made sense…”?

    1. Dear All, intriguing conversation going on here. I would wish to add some collaborative views.

      Firstly the discussion is about definitions. What do we really mean when we use the words win-win? Or any other cliches, for that matter. There may be and clearly are competing explanations to win-win, starting from a demand that both (or all) parties shall gain massively as compared to a no-deal situation, and ending to a result that appears to be barely acceptable to either or all of the parties. And yes, do we really need the silly phrase in the first place?

      Secondly it is about mindset and how we view business relations. Is it our goal to extract as much of the potential value to ourselves or should we voluntarily not squeeze the other party dry? Which is better according to our values and vision, when are we content? What if the whole thing became public? Would we look good? Would we care? On the other hand, what can we expect the other party to do? Is it more efficient to trust the other party slightly more and negotiate slightly less than drafting an encyclopedia on smallest deals? Would further trust help reach mutual benefit? What happens over time, when trust increases? I am most inclined to state that in the long run a company is better off leaving its network a good aftertaste of itself. Can you think of companies that give you the impression of evil? Or companies that other companies genuinely like to do business with, presuming that they will not tricked if they let their guard down just a bit? Would you like a grocery store that tries to sell you rotten fruit? Why would you do that to business contact?

      Thirdly and lastly from my angle, the question is about academics. Game theory, portfolio theory and many others – to the extent I am aware of – presume that each party only agrees to a deal when it finds the presumed outcome of the deal greater than the input it gives. For example, you have a meal in a restaurant because you value the experience more than the money and time you lose. This is not the case in monopolies, hardship, and similar. If you simply cannot choose otherwise, there is no free will. Few of those that really contribute to taxman would pay the taxes if they had a choice. In a way, this is where the discussion spins back to its beginning: single-minded presumption of win-win leads to ruthless behaviour. And we are back to number two: if it clearly is not good for the other party, can it be good for you in the long run? Do you want to make a deal or have a relationship?

      Many questions, few answers.

      1. You are correct that in the competitive sense, “win, win” is an oxymoron. A party must win and so another must lose. In a business sense however, agreements as more trade, than game. Each party has different needs that fill different voids and assigns them different values. Each party believes it wins something it values, hence the phrase.

  11. It still seems like “double talk” to me. 
    In no other sport in the world do we pretend like the outcome is “win-win”.  There is a clear winner and a rank of “places”.  Pretending like “everybody wins”, just feeds into the passive agressive culture of business vaguery we teach our clients to artfully clarify.  

    My argument is not that we have to win all the time.  Or that losing is classy.  But pretending like you have “two tying winners” seems counter-productive.  Why not just say “No one won.  I gave up some things.  They gave up some things.  It made sense…”?

    1. Dear All, intriguing conversation going on here. I would wish to add some collaborative views.

      Firstly the discussion is about definitions. What do we really mean when we use the words win-win? Or any other cliches, for that matter. There may be and clearly are competing explanations to win-win, starting from a demand that both (or all) parties shall gain massively as compared to a no-deal situation, and ending to a result that appears to be barely acceptable to either or all of the parties. And yes, do we really need the silly phrase in the first place?

      Secondly it is about mindset and how we view business relations. Is it our goal to extract as much of the potential value to ourselves or should we voluntarily not squeeze the other party dry? Which is better according to our values and vision, when are we content? What if the whole thing became public? Would we look good? Would we care? On the other hand, what can we expect the other party to do? Is it more efficient to trust the other party slightly more and negotiate slightly less than drafting an encyclopedia on smallest deals? Would further trust help reach mutual benefit? What happens over time, when trust increases? I am most inclined to state that in the long run a company is better off leaving its network a good aftertaste of itself. Can you think of companies that give you the impression of evil? Or companies that other companies genuinely like to do business with, presuming that they will not tricked if they let their guard down just a bit? Would you like a grocery store that tries to sell you rotten fruit? Why would you do that to business contact?

      Thirdly and lastly from my angle, the question is about academics. Game theory, portfolio theory and many others – to the extent I am aware of – presume that each party only agrees to a deal when it finds the presumed outcome of the deal greater than the input it gives. For example, you have a meal in a restaurant because you value the experience more than the money and time you lose. This is not the case in monopolies, hardship, and similar. If you simply cannot choose otherwise, there is no free will. Few of those that really contribute to taxman would pay the taxes if they had a choice. In a way, this is where the discussion spins back to its beginning: single-minded presumption of win-win leads to ruthless behaviour. And we are back to number two: if it clearly is not good for the other party, can it be good for you in the long run? Do you want to make a deal or have a relationship?

      Many questions, few answers.

      1. You are correct that in the competitive sense, “win, win” is an oxymoron. A party must win and so another must lose. In a business sense however, agreements as more trade, than game. Each party has different needs that fill different voids and assigns them different values. Each party believes it wins something it values, hence the phrase.

  12. It still seems like “double talk” to me. 
    In no other sport in the world do we pretend like the outcome is “win-win”.  There is a clear winner and a rank of “places”.  Pretending like “everybody wins”, just feeds into the passive agressive culture of business vaguery we teach our clients to artfully clarify.  

    My argument is not that we have to win all the time.  Or that losing is classy.  But pretending like you have “two tying winners” seems counter-productive.  Why not just say “No one won.  I gave up some things.  They gave up some things.  It made sense…”?

    1. Dear All, intriguing conversation going on here. I would wish to add some collaborative views.

      Firstly the discussion is about definitions. What do we really mean when we use the words win-win? Or any other cliches, for that matter. There may be and clearly are competing explanations to win-win, starting from a demand that both (or all) parties shall gain massively as compared to a no-deal situation, and ending to a result that appears to be barely acceptable to either or all of the parties. And yes, do we really need the silly phrase in the first place?

      Secondly it is about mindset and how we view business relations. Is it our goal to extract as much of the potential value to ourselves or should we voluntarily not squeeze the other party dry? Which is better according to our values and vision, when are we content? What if the whole thing became public? Would we look good? Would we care? On the other hand, what can we expect the other party to do? Is it more efficient to trust the other party slightly more and negotiate slightly less than drafting an encyclopedia on smallest deals? Would further trust help reach mutual benefit? What happens over time, when trust increases? I am most inclined to state that in the long run a company is better off leaving its network a good aftertaste of itself. Can you think of companies that give you the impression of evil? Or companies that other companies genuinely like to do business with, presuming that they will not tricked if they let their guard down just a bit? Would you like a grocery store that tries to sell you rotten fruit? Why would you do that to business contact?

      Thirdly and lastly from my angle, the question is about academics. Game theory, portfolio theory and many others – to the extent I am aware of – presume that each party only agrees to a deal when it finds the presumed outcome of the deal greater than the input it gives. For example, you have a meal in a restaurant because you value the experience more than the money and time you lose. This is not the case in monopolies, hardship, and similar. If you simply cannot choose otherwise, there is no free will. Few of those that really contribute to taxman would pay the taxes if they had a choice. In a way, this is where the discussion spins back to its beginning: single-minded presumption of win-win leads to ruthless behaviour. And we are back to number two: if it clearly is not good for the other party, can it be good for you in the long run? Do you want to make a deal or have a relationship?

      Many questions, few answers.

      1. You are correct that in the competitive sense, “win, win” is an oxymoron. A party must win and so another must lose. In a business sense however, agreements as more trade, than game. Each party has different needs that fill different voids and assigns them different values. Each party believes it wins something it values, hence the phrase.

  13. This is one where I both agree and disagree.   Whenever there’s a conflict, the obvious outcome is that one side or the other is going to win.   For some situations, this can’t be avoided and like you say pretending that you’ve reached a win-win situation is pointless (and is only a very superficial win-win anyway). 
    But sometimes, the obvious, quick solution isn’t best.  It’s important to keep looking at the options until you’ve reached a solution that all parties are happy with.  It may not be what either party originally wanted, but at least they feel comfortable with the outcome.  That for me is what’s meant by win-win.

    And yes, you’re right, it is an irritating phrase.

    1. Great analysis, Tim.  
      Reaching favorable outcomes should be the goal for all of us.  Right?  I just struggle with the silliness of the jargon we adopt.  

      Business doesn’t need to be about winning or losing.  It can be about making the world a better place.  So why muddy the waters with more passion aggression.

      (BTW, it could be that I am making too big of a deal out of a silly issue.  From time to time I do tend to get wound up…  But I think that to anyone observing our crazy “business speak” we have to look pretty silly.)

      Dan

      p.s. What do you think?

  14. This is one where I both agree and disagree.   Whenever there’s a conflict, the obvious outcome is that one side or the other is going to win.   For some situations, this can’t be avoided and like you say pretending that you’ve reached a win-win situation is pointless (and is only a very superficial win-win anyway). 
    But sometimes, the obvious, quick solution isn’t best.  It’s important to keep looking at the options until you’ve reached a solution that all parties are happy with.  It may not be what either party originally wanted, but at least they feel comfortable with the outcome.  That for me is what’s meant by win-win.

    And yes, you’re right, it is an irritating phrase.

    1. Great analysis, Tim.  
      Reaching favorable outcomes should be the goal for all of us.  Right?  I just struggle with the silliness of the jargon we adopt.  

      Business doesn’t need to be about winning or losing.  It can be about making the world a better place.  So why muddy the waters with more passion aggression.

      (BTW, it could be that I am making too big of a deal out of a silly issue.  From time to time I do tend to get wound up…  But I think that to anyone observing our crazy “business speak” we have to look pretty silly.)

      Dan

      p.s. What do you think?

  15. This is one where I both agree and disagree.   Whenever there’s a conflict, the obvious outcome is that one side or the other is going to win.   For some situations, this can’t be avoided and like you say pretending that you’ve reached a win-win situation is pointless (and is only a very superficial win-win anyway). 
    But sometimes, the obvious, quick solution isn’t best.  It’s important to keep looking at the options until you’ve reached a solution that all parties are happy with.  It may not be what either party originally wanted, but at least they feel comfortable with the outcome.  That for me is what’s meant by win-win.

    And yes, you’re right, it is an irritating phrase.

    1. Great analysis, Tim.  
      Reaching favorable outcomes should be the goal for all of us.  Right?  I just struggle with the silliness of the jargon we adopt.  

      Business doesn’t need to be about winning or losing.  It can be about making the world a better place.  So why muddy the waters with more passion aggression.

      (BTW, it could be that I am making too big of a deal out of a silly issue.  From time to time I do tend to get wound up…  But I think that to anyone observing our crazy “business speak” we have to look pretty silly.)

      Dan

      p.s. What do you think?

  16. This is one where I both agree and disagree.   Whenever there’s a conflict, the obvious outcome is that one side or the other is going to win.   For some situations, this can’t be avoided and like you say pretending that you’ve reached a win-win situation is pointless (and is only a very superficial win-win anyway). 
    But sometimes, the obvious, quick solution isn’t best.  It’s important to keep looking at the options until you’ve reached a solution that all parties are happy with.  It may not be what either party originally wanted, but at least they feel comfortable with the outcome.  That for me is what’s meant by win-win.

    And yes, you’re right, it is an irritating phrase.

    1. Great analysis, Tim.  
      Reaching favorable outcomes should be the goal for all of us.  Right?  I just struggle with the silliness of the jargon we adopt.  

      Business doesn’t need to be about winning or losing.  It can be about making the world a better place.  So why muddy the waters with more passion aggression.

      (BTW, it could be that I am making too big of a deal out of a silly issue.  From time to time I do tend to get wound up…  But I think that to anyone observing our crazy “business speak” we have to look pretty silly.)

      Dan

      p.s. What do you think?

  17. This is one where I both agree and disagree.   Whenever there’s a conflict, the obvious outcome is that one side or the other is going to win.   For some situations, this can’t be avoided and like you say pretending that you’ve reached a win-win situation is pointless (and is only a very superficial win-win anyway). 
    But sometimes, the obvious, quick solution isn’t best.  It’s important to keep looking at the options until you’ve reached a solution that all parties are happy with.  It may not be what either party originally wanted, but at least they feel comfortable with the outcome.  That for me is what’s meant by win-win.

    And yes, you’re right, it is an irritating phrase.

    1. Great analysis, Tim.  
      Reaching favorable outcomes should be the goal for all of us.  Right?  I just struggle with the silliness of the jargon we adopt.  

      Business doesn’t need to be about winning or losing.  It can be about making the world a better place.  So why muddy the waters with more passion aggression.

      (BTW, it could be that I am making too big of a deal out of a silly issue.  From time to time I do tend to get wound up…  But I think that to anyone observing our crazy “business speak” we have to look pretty silly.)

      Dan

      p.s. What do you think?

  18. This is one where I both agree and disagree.   Whenever there’s a conflict, the obvious outcome is that one side or the other is going to win.   For some situations, this can’t be avoided and like you say pretending that you’ve reached a win-win situation is pointless (and is only a very superficial win-win anyway). 
    But sometimes, the obvious, quick solution isn’t best.  It’s important to keep looking at the options until you’ve reached a solution that all parties are happy with.  It may not be what either party originally wanted, but at least they feel comfortable with the outcome.  That for me is what’s meant by win-win.

    And yes, you’re right, it is an irritating phrase.

    1. Great analysis, Tim.  
      Reaching favorable outcomes should be the goal for all of us.  Right?  I just struggle with the silliness of the jargon we adopt.  

      Business doesn’t need to be about winning or losing.  It can be about making the world a better place.  So why muddy the waters with more passion aggression.

      (BTW, it could be that I am making too big of a deal out of a silly issue.  From time to time I do tend to get wound up…  But I think that to anyone observing our crazy “business speak” we have to look pretty silly.)

      Dan

      p.s. What do you think?

  19. I, too, am guilty of using this phrase. I didn’t realize it irritated some people. We probably like to say “win win” because it sounds better than not losing as badly as you would if you hadn’t compromised. And if the other party hadn’t compromised. Sound about right?

  20. I, too, am guilty of using this phrase. I didn’t realize it irritated some people. We probably like to say “win win” because it sounds better than not losing as badly as you would if you hadn’t compromised. And if the other party hadn’t compromised. Sound about right?

  21. I, too, am guilty of using this phrase. I didn’t realize it irritated some people. We probably like to say “win win” because it sounds better than not losing as badly as you would if you hadn’t compromised. And if the other party hadn’t compromised. Sound about right?

  22. I, too, am guilty of using this phrase. I didn’t realize it irritated some people. We probably like to say “win win” because it sounds better than not losing as badly as you would if you hadn’t compromised. And if the other party hadn’t compromised. Sound about right?

  23. I, too, am guilty of using this phrase. I didn’t realize it irritated some people. We probably like to say “win win” because it sounds better than not losing as badly as you would if you hadn’t compromised. And if the other party hadn’t compromised. Sound about right?

  24. I, too, am guilty of using this phrase. I didn’t realize it irritated some people. We probably like to say “win win” because it sounds better than not losing as badly as you would if you hadn’t compromised. And if the other party hadn’t compromised. Sound about right?

  25. A win-win situation is not only possible, but desirable in collaborative relationships between vendor and customer firms. Your description of where it does not seem to make sense concerns a potential bad news or conflict situation.
    The reason a win-win situation is desirable is that it actually takes the focus off competition, and places it on cooperation to get ahead. If two companies openly share information with one another about strategies, plans, and even issues, they will both be able to better achieve desired outcomes. Both are better off. That is the essence of win-win.

    When business persons use the phrase, this is certainly how they mean it. Consider the following quote by a commercial buyer in interviews colleagues of mine have done:

    “We want a win-win relationship. We don’t want to succeed at their expense. We want both to succeed.”

    And another:

    “One of the things I have learned is that if you really want to have a good, strong, viable relationship, you gotta go beyond the transactional type of relationship. You gotta look at how we create win-win.”

    1. Lance,
      I certainly won’t disagree that better outcomes are key.  Shared responsibility.  Shared goals.  All important.  

      But the “win-win” label is a wrong one.  Like calling a cow a cat.  Just because you call it that doesn’t make it so.  At some point it is silly.

      Dan

  26. A win-win situation is not only possible, but desirable in collaborative relationships between vendor and customer firms. Your description of where it does not seem to make sense concerns a potential bad news or conflict situation.
    The reason a win-win situation is desirable is that it actually takes the focus off competition, and places it on cooperation to get ahead. If two companies openly share information with one another about strategies, plans, and even issues, they will both be able to better achieve desired outcomes. Both are better off. That is the essence of win-win.

    When business persons use the phrase, this is certainly how they mean it. Consider the following quote by a commercial buyer in interviews colleagues of mine have done:

    “We want a win-win relationship. We don’t want to succeed at their expense. We want both to succeed.”

    And another:

    “One of the things I have learned is that if you really want to have a good, strong, viable relationship, you gotta go beyond the transactional type of relationship. You gotta look at how we create win-win.”

    1. Lance,
      I certainly won’t disagree that better outcomes are key.  Shared responsibility.  Shared goals.  All important.  

      But the “win-win” label is a wrong one.  Like calling a cow a cat.  Just because you call it that doesn’t make it so.  At some point it is silly.

      Dan

  27. A win-win situation is not only possible, but desirable in collaborative relationships between vendor and customer firms. Your description of where it does not seem to make sense concerns a potential bad news or conflict situation.
    The reason a win-win situation is desirable is that it actually takes the focus off competition, and places it on cooperation to get ahead. If two companies openly share information with one another about strategies, plans, and even issues, they will both be able to better achieve desired outcomes. Both are better off. That is the essence of win-win.

    When business persons use the phrase, this is certainly how they mean it. Consider the following quote by a commercial buyer in interviews colleagues of mine have done:

    “We want a win-win relationship. We don’t want to succeed at their expense. We want both to succeed.”

    And another:

    “One of the things I have learned is that if you really want to have a good, strong, viable relationship, you gotta go beyond the transactional type of relationship. You gotta look at how we create win-win.”

    1. Lance,
      I certainly won’t disagree that better outcomes are key.  Shared responsibility.  Shared goals.  All important.  

      But the “win-win” label is a wrong one.  Like calling a cow a cat.  Just because you call it that doesn’t make it so.  At some point it is silly.

      Dan

  28. A win-win situation is not only possible, but desirable in collaborative relationships between vendor and customer firms. Your description of where it does not seem to make sense concerns a potential bad news or conflict situation.
    The reason a win-win situation is desirable is that it actually takes the focus off competition, and places it on cooperation to get ahead. If two companies openly share information with one another about strategies, plans, and even issues, they will both be able to better achieve desired outcomes. Both are better off. That is the essence of win-win.

    When business persons use the phrase, this is certainly how they mean it. Consider the following quote by a commercial buyer in interviews colleagues of mine have done:

    “We want a win-win relationship. We don’t want to succeed at their expense. We want both to succeed.”

    And another:

    “One of the things I have learned is that if you really want to have a good, strong, viable relationship, you gotta go beyond the transactional type of relationship. You gotta look at how we create win-win.”

    1. Lance,
      I certainly won’t disagree that better outcomes are key.  Shared responsibility.  Shared goals.  All important.  

      But the “win-win” label is a wrong one.  Like calling a cow a cat.  Just because you call it that doesn’t make it so.  At some point it is silly.

      Dan

  29. A win-win situation is not only possible, but desirable in collaborative relationships between vendor and customer firms. Your description of where it does not seem to make sense concerns a potential bad news or conflict situation.
    The reason a win-win situation is desirable is that it actually takes the focus off competition, and places it on cooperation to get ahead. If two companies openly share information with one another about strategies, plans, and even issues, they will both be able to better achieve desired outcomes. Both are better off. That is the essence of win-win.

    When business persons use the phrase, this is certainly how they mean it. Consider the following quote by a commercial buyer in interviews colleagues of mine have done:

    “We want a win-win relationship. We don’t want to succeed at their expense. We want both to succeed.”

    And another:

    “One of the things I have learned is that if you really want to have a good, strong, viable relationship, you gotta go beyond the transactional type of relationship. You gotta look at how we create win-win.”

    1. Lance,
      I certainly won’t disagree that better outcomes are key.  Shared responsibility.  Shared goals.  All important.  

      But the “win-win” label is a wrong one.  Like calling a cow a cat.  Just because you call it that doesn’t make it so.  At some point it is silly.

      Dan

  30. A win-win situation is not only possible, but desirable in collaborative relationships between vendor and customer firms. Your description of where it does not seem to make sense concerns a potential bad news or conflict situation.
    The reason a win-win situation is desirable is that it actually takes the focus off competition, and places it on cooperation to get ahead. If two companies openly share information with one another about strategies, plans, and even issues, they will both be able to better achieve desired outcomes. Both are better off. That is the essence of win-win.

    When business persons use the phrase, this is certainly how they mean it. Consider the following quote by a commercial buyer in interviews colleagues of mine have done:

    “We want a win-win relationship. We don’t want to succeed at their expense. We want both to succeed.”

    And another:

    “One of the things I have learned is that if you really want to have a good, strong, viable relationship, you gotta go beyond the transactional type of relationship. You gotta look at how we create win-win.”

    1. Lance,
      I certainly won’t disagree that better outcomes are key.  Shared responsibility.  Shared goals.  All important.  

      But the “win-win” label is a wrong one.  Like calling a cow a cat.  Just because you call it that doesn’t make it so.  At some point it is silly.

      Dan

  31. It seems that everything you are describing is win-lose, lose-lose, lose-win.  So in those situations, it would be correct that you could not have a win-win outcome … having any of those approaches/attitudes won’t result in a “win” for all parties.  
    However, if you approach a situation with the attitude that all parties can walk away knowing they got the deal that worked for each of them, you are more likely to be able to make that happen.  While it won’t happen every time (when at least one party has the all-my-idea-or-nothing approach), when people are willing to put the time and energy into coming up with a solution that is better than any of them had when they walked in the door, that’s a win for everyone in my book.  For me, it’s not about the language or phrase … it’s the attitude.

      1. Similar to the semantice of “Outrageous Vision”, sounds like you are Superman and can see through buildings LOL

  32. It seems that everything you are describing is win-lose, lose-lose, lose-win.  So in those situations, it would be correct that you could not have a win-win outcome … having any of those approaches/attitudes won’t result in a “win” for all parties.  
    However, if you approach a situation with the attitude that all parties can walk away knowing they got the deal that worked for each of them, you are more likely to be able to make that happen.  While it won’t happen every time (when at least one party has the all-my-idea-or-nothing approach), when people are willing to put the time and energy into coming up with a solution that is better than any of them had when they walked in the door, that’s a win for everyone in my book.  For me, it’s not about the language or phrase … it’s the attitude.

      1. Similar to the semantice of “Outrageous Vision”, sounds like you are Superman and can see through buildings LOL

  33. It seems that everything you are describing is win-lose, lose-lose, lose-win.  So in those situations, it would be correct that you could not have a win-win outcome … having any of those approaches/attitudes won’t result in a “win” for all parties.  
    However, if you approach a situation with the attitude that all parties can walk away knowing they got the deal that worked for each of them, you are more likely to be able to make that happen.  While it won’t happen every time (when at least one party has the all-my-idea-or-nothing approach), when people are willing to put the time and energy into coming up with a solution that is better than any of them had when they walked in the door, that’s a win for everyone in my book.  For me, it’s not about the language or phrase … it’s the attitude.

      1. Similar to the semantice of “Outrageous Vision”, sounds like you are Superman and can see through buildings LOL

  34. It seems that everything you are describing is win-lose, lose-lose, lose-win.  So in those situations, it would be correct that you could not have a win-win outcome … having any of those approaches/attitudes won’t result in a “win” for all parties.  
    However, if you approach a situation with the attitude that all parties can walk away knowing they got the deal that worked for each of them, you are more likely to be able to make that happen.  While it won’t happen every time (when at least one party has the all-my-idea-or-nothing approach), when people are willing to put the time and energy into coming up with a solution that is better than any of them had when they walked in the door, that’s a win for everyone in my book.  For me, it’s not about the language or phrase … it’s the attitude.

      1. Similar to the semantice of “Outrageous Vision”, sounds like you are Superman and can see through buildings LOL

  35. It seems that everything you are describing is win-lose, lose-lose, lose-win.  So in those situations, it would be correct that you could not have a win-win outcome … having any of those approaches/attitudes won’t result in a “win” for all parties.  
    However, if you approach a situation with the attitude that all parties can walk away knowing they got the deal that worked for each of them, you are more likely to be able to make that happen.  While it won’t happen every time (when at least one party has the all-my-idea-or-nothing approach), when people are willing to put the time and energy into coming up with a solution that is better than any of them had when they walked in the door, that’s a win for everyone in my book.  For me, it’s not about the language or phrase … it’s the attitude.

      1. Similar to the semantice of “Outrageous Vision”, sounds like you are Superman and can see through buildings LOL

  36. It seems that everything you are describing is win-lose, lose-lose, lose-win.  So in those situations, it would be correct that you could not have a win-win outcome … having any of those approaches/attitudes won’t result in a “win” for all parties.  
    However, if you approach a situation with the attitude that all parties can walk away knowing they got the deal that worked for each of them, you are more likely to be able to make that happen.  While it won’t happen every time (when at least one party has the all-my-idea-or-nothing approach), when people are willing to put the time and energy into coming up with a solution that is better than any of them had when they walked in the door, that’s a win for everyone in my book.  For me, it’s not about the language or phrase … it’s the attitude.

      1. Similar to the semantice of “Outrageous Vision”, sounds like you are Superman and can see through buildings LOL

  37. Dan, I completely agree that the overused business-speak terms like “win-win” sound utterly ridiculous.  Something like “gain-gain” or “benefit-benefit” makes more common sense, but certainly doesn’t have the same ring to it.  I think business-speak over decades became it’s own jargon, and as idiotic as it may sound if you think into it, it allows us to convey important concepts in a more concise manner – that most business people would understand.  Not to defend it, but I think it does have value in the business world, annoying as it may be :).
    Keep up the great work!

    Dimitry K. (San Francisco)

  38. Dan, I completely agree that the overused business-speak terms like “win-win” sound utterly ridiculous.  Something like “gain-gain” or “benefit-benefit” makes more common sense, but certainly doesn’t have the same ring to it.  I think business-speak over decades became it’s own jargon, and as idiotic as it may sound if you think into it, it allows us to convey important concepts in a more concise manner – that most business people would understand.  Not to defend it, but I think it does have value in the business world, annoying as it may be :).
    Keep up the great work!

    Dimitry K. (San Francisco)

  39. Dan, I completely agree that the overused business-speak terms like “win-win” sound utterly ridiculous.  Something like “gain-gain” or “benefit-benefit” makes more common sense, but certainly doesn’t have the same ring to it.  I think business-speak over decades became it’s own jargon, and as idiotic as it may sound if you think into it, it allows us to convey important concepts in a more concise manner – that most business people would understand.  Not to defend it, but I think it does have value in the business world, annoying as it may be :).
    Keep up the great work!

    Dimitry K. (San Francisco)

  40. Dan, I completely agree that the overused business-speak terms like “win-win” sound utterly ridiculous.  Something like “gain-gain” or “benefit-benefit” makes more common sense, but certainly doesn’t have the same ring to it.  I think business-speak over decades became it’s own jargon, and as idiotic as it may sound if you think into it, it allows us to convey important concepts in a more concise manner – that most business people would understand.  Not to defend it, but I think it does have value in the business world, annoying as it may be :).
    Keep up the great work!

    Dimitry K. (San Francisco)

  41. Dan, I completely agree that the overused business-speak terms like “win-win” sound utterly ridiculous.  Something like “gain-gain” or “benefit-benefit” makes more common sense, but certainly doesn’t have the same ring to it.  I think business-speak over decades became it’s own jargon, and as idiotic as it may sound if you think into it, it allows us to convey important concepts in a more concise manner – that most business people would understand.  Not to defend it, but I think it does have value in the business world, annoying as it may be :).
    Keep up the great work!

    Dimitry K. (San Francisco)

  42. Dan, I completely agree that the overused business-speak terms like “win-win” sound utterly ridiculous.  Something like “gain-gain” or “benefit-benefit” makes more common sense, but certainly doesn’t have the same ring to it.  I think business-speak over decades became it’s own jargon, and as idiotic as it may sound if you think into it, it allows us to convey important concepts in a more concise manner – that most business people would understand.  Not to defend it, but I think it does have value in the business world, annoying as it may be :).
    Keep up the great work!

    Dimitry K. (San Francisco)

  43. Still, can be true if you give something that is more valuable to the other side and in exchange you ask for something that worth more for you and less for him. Finding these pairs is really hard and this is what adds value. I agree, there is a smart business approach where you are right, But it is up to us to distinguish and act. What is more important that when one finds such a solution than feels like created something and made a difference.. And this is the point when competition starts

  44. Still, can be true if you give something that is more valuable to the other side and in exchange you ask for something that worth more for you and less for him. Finding these pairs is really hard and this is what adds value. I agree, there is a smart business approach where you are right, But it is up to us to distinguish and act. What is more important that when one finds such a solution than feels like created something and made a difference.. And this is the point when competition starts

  45. Still, can be true if you give something that is more valuable to the other side and in exchange you ask for something that worth more for you and less for him. Finding these pairs is really hard and this is what adds value. I agree, there is a smart business approach where you are right, But it is up to us to distinguish and act. What is more important that when one finds such a solution than feels like created something and made a difference.. And this is the point when competition starts

  46. Still, can be true if you give something that is more valuable to the other side and in exchange you ask for something that worth more for you and less for him. Finding these pairs is really hard and this is what adds value. I agree, there is a smart business approach where you are right, But it is up to us to distinguish and act. What is more important that when one finds such a solution than feels like created something and made a difference.. And this is the point when competition starts

  47. Still, can be true if you give something that is more valuable to the other side and in exchange you ask for something that worth more for you and less for him. Finding these pairs is really hard and this is what adds value. I agree, there is a smart business approach where you are right, But it is up to us to distinguish and act. What is more important that when one finds such a solution than feels like created something and made a difference.. And this is the point when competition starts

  48. Still, can be true if you give something that is more valuable to the other side and in exchange you ask for something that worth more for you and less for him. Finding these pairs is really hard and this is what adds value. I agree, there is a smart business approach where you are right, But it is up to us to distinguish and act. What is more important that when one finds such a solution than feels like created something and made a difference.. And this is the point when competition starts

  49. The core of your position revolves around speaking the truth — i.e.,  >you’re the person being convinced that something is a win-win situation. 
    Or
    >Most often this language is used to “let you down softly”.  And it doesn’t even do that well.
    All hail the truth and the universal ability to know it in your gut.Clearly, Dan,, you kow it when you see it and know it when you don’t.

    If you do business with or are employed by liars, it doesn’t matter what terms they use; if their mouths are open, they’re lying. 

    So your protest seems grounded in sorry experiences. But don’t shoot the language, shoot the messenger. And seek employment and vendors and negotiating partners who value honest business dealing as much as you do.

    I have seen win-win work; I have made win-win-win work, too.

    1. I am protesting the idea that any two parties can win equally in the same contest.  
      Can you think of an example where that is possible?  

      It really does defy logic.  We don’t make that same assumption in sports or other competitions.  The semantics (and business attitude) behind “win-win” is off-base and intellectually dishonest.  

      Since I am my own boss I hope that I am not “employee by liars”.  🙂  I am making the observation that you can’t call a cat a cow and then explain it away as “you know what I mean”.

      No.  We don’t.  Good, safe business deals are possible.  But they aren’t “win-win”.  Pick another label  That one doesn’t fit.

      Dan

      1. May be I’m wrong but the message I am getting is that your win and my win have to be identical and relate to the exact same issue.
        For the “deal” to deliver a win-win in my mind may mean that you get the top three things you seek and I get the top three things I seek.

        In negotiations I am involved in we ask what is the ultimate outcome sought?
        Invariably the focus is about growing the pie rather than dividing the pie … so the next question is … how can we work together in this negotiation to enable each to grow their respective pie? You would be surprised what eventuates

  50. The core of your position revolves around speaking the truth — i.e.,  >you’re the person being convinced that something is a win-win situation. 
    Or
    >Most often this language is used to “let you down softly”.  And it doesn’t even do that well.
    All hail the truth and the universal ability to know it in your gut.Clearly, Dan,, you kow it when you see it and know it when you don’t.

    If you do business with or are employed by liars, it doesn’t matter what terms they use; if their mouths are open, they’re lying. 

    So your protest seems grounded in sorry experiences. But don’t shoot the language, shoot the messenger. And seek employment and vendors and negotiating partners who value honest business dealing as much as you do.

    I have seen win-win work; I have made win-win-win work, too.

    1. I am protesting the idea that any two parties can win equally in the same contest.  
      Can you think of an example where that is possible?  

      It really does defy logic.  We don’t make that same assumption in sports or other competitions.  The semantics (and business attitude) behind “win-win” is off-base and intellectually dishonest.  

      Since I am my own boss I hope that I am not “employee by liars”.  🙂  I am making the observation that you can’t call a cat a cow and then explain it away as “you know what I mean”.

      No.  We don’t.  Good, safe business deals are possible.  But they aren’t “win-win”.  Pick another label  That one doesn’t fit.

      Dan

      1. May be I’m wrong but the message I am getting is that your win and my win have to be identical and relate to the exact same issue.
        For the “deal” to deliver a win-win in my mind may mean that you get the top three things you seek and I get the top three things I seek.

        In negotiations I am involved in we ask what is the ultimate outcome sought?
        Invariably the focus is about growing the pie rather than dividing the pie … so the next question is … how can we work together in this negotiation to enable each to grow their respective pie? You would be surprised what eventuates

  51. The core of your position revolves around speaking the truth — i.e.,  >you’re the person being convinced that something is a win-win situation. 
    Or
    >Most often this language is used to “let you down softly”.  And it doesn’t even do that well.
    All hail the truth and the universal ability to know it in your gut.Clearly, Dan,, you kow it when you see it and know it when you don’t.

    If you do business with or are employed by liars, it doesn’t matter what terms they use; if their mouths are open, they’re lying. 

    So your protest seems grounded in sorry experiences. But don’t shoot the language, shoot the messenger. And seek employment and vendors and negotiating partners who value honest business dealing as much as you do.

    I have seen win-win work; I have made win-win-win work, too.

    1. I am protesting the idea that any two parties can win equally in the same contest.  
      Can you think of an example where that is possible?  

      It really does defy logic.  We don’t make that same assumption in sports or other competitions.  The semantics (and business attitude) behind “win-win” is off-base and intellectually dishonest.  

      Since I am my own boss I hope that I am not “employee by liars”.  🙂  I am making the observation that you can’t call a cat a cow and then explain it away as “you know what I mean”.

      No.  We don’t.  Good, safe business deals are possible.  But they aren’t “win-win”.  Pick another label  That one doesn’t fit.

      Dan

      1. May be I’m wrong but the message I am getting is that your win and my win have to be identical and relate to the exact same issue.
        For the “deal” to deliver a win-win in my mind may mean that you get the top three things you seek and I get the top three things I seek.

        In negotiations I am involved in we ask what is the ultimate outcome sought?
        Invariably the focus is about growing the pie rather than dividing the pie … so the next question is … how can we work together in this negotiation to enable each to grow their respective pie? You would be surprised what eventuates

  52. The core of your position revolves around speaking the truth — i.e.,  >you’re the person being convinced that something is a win-win situation. 
    Or
    >Most often this language is used to “let you down softly”.  And it doesn’t even do that well.
    All hail the truth and the universal ability to know it in your gut.Clearly, Dan,, you kow it when you see it and know it when you don’t.

    If you do business with or are employed by liars, it doesn’t matter what terms they use; if their mouths are open, they’re lying. 

    So your protest seems grounded in sorry experiences. But don’t shoot the language, shoot the messenger. And seek employment and vendors and negotiating partners who value honest business dealing as much as you do.

    I have seen win-win work; I have made win-win-win work, too.

    1. I am protesting the idea that any two parties can win equally in the same contest.  
      Can you think of an example where that is possible?  

      It really does defy logic.  We don’t make that same assumption in sports or other competitions.  The semantics (and business attitude) behind “win-win” is off-base and intellectually dishonest.  

      Since I am my own boss I hope that I am not “employee by liars”.  🙂  I am making the observation that you can’t call a cat a cow and then explain it away as “you know what I mean”.

      No.  We don’t.  Good, safe business deals are possible.  But they aren’t “win-win”.  Pick another label  That one doesn’t fit.

      Dan

      1. May be I’m wrong but the message I am getting is that your win and my win have to be identical and relate to the exact same issue.
        For the “deal” to deliver a win-win in my mind may mean that you get the top three things you seek and I get the top three things I seek.

        In negotiations I am involved in we ask what is the ultimate outcome sought?
        Invariably the focus is about growing the pie rather than dividing the pie … so the next question is … how can we work together in this negotiation to enable each to grow their respective pie? You would be surprised what eventuates

  53. The core of your position revolves around speaking the truth — i.e.,  >you’re the person being convinced that something is a win-win situation. 
    Or
    >Most often this language is used to “let you down softly”.  And it doesn’t even do that well.
    All hail the truth and the universal ability to know it in your gut.Clearly, Dan,, you kow it when you see it and know it when you don’t.

    If you do business with or are employed by liars, it doesn’t matter what terms they use; if their mouths are open, they’re lying. 

    So your protest seems grounded in sorry experiences. But don’t shoot the language, shoot the messenger. And seek employment and vendors and negotiating partners who value honest business dealing as much as you do.

    I have seen win-win work; I have made win-win-win work, too.

    1. I am protesting the idea that any two parties can win equally in the same contest.  
      Can you think of an example where that is possible?  

      It really does defy logic.  We don’t make that same assumption in sports or other competitions.  The semantics (and business attitude) behind “win-win” is off-base and intellectually dishonest.  

      Since I am my own boss I hope that I am not “employee by liars”.  🙂  I am making the observation that you can’t call a cat a cow and then explain it away as “you know what I mean”.

      No.  We don’t.  Good, safe business deals are possible.  But they aren’t “win-win”.  Pick another label  That one doesn’t fit.

      Dan

      1. May be I’m wrong but the message I am getting is that your win and my win have to be identical and relate to the exact same issue.
        For the “deal” to deliver a win-win in my mind may mean that you get the top three things you seek and I get the top three things I seek.

        In negotiations I am involved in we ask what is the ultimate outcome sought?
        Invariably the focus is about growing the pie rather than dividing the pie … so the next question is … how can we work together in this negotiation to enable each to grow their respective pie? You would be surprised what eventuates

  54. The core of your position revolves around speaking the truth — i.e.,  >you’re the person being convinced that something is a win-win situation. 
    Or
    >Most often this language is used to “let you down softly”.  And it doesn’t even do that well.
    All hail the truth and the universal ability to know it in your gut.Clearly, Dan,, you kow it when you see it and know it when you don’t.

    If you do business with or are employed by liars, it doesn’t matter what terms they use; if their mouths are open, they’re lying. 

    So your protest seems grounded in sorry experiences. But don’t shoot the language, shoot the messenger. And seek employment and vendors and negotiating partners who value honest business dealing as much as you do.

    I have seen win-win work; I have made win-win-win work, too.

    1. I am protesting the idea that any two parties can win equally in the same contest.  
      Can you think of an example where that is possible?  

      It really does defy logic.  We don’t make that same assumption in sports or other competitions.  The semantics (and business attitude) behind “win-win” is off-base and intellectually dishonest.  

      Since I am my own boss I hope that I am not “employee by liars”.  🙂  I am making the observation that you can’t call a cat a cow and then explain it away as “you know what I mean”.

      No.  We don’t.  Good, safe business deals are possible.  But they aren’t “win-win”.  Pick another label  That one doesn’t fit.

      Dan

      1. May be I’m wrong but the message I am getting is that your win and my win have to be identical and relate to the exact same issue.
        For the “deal” to deliver a win-win in my mind may mean that you get the top three things you seek and I get the top three things I seek.

        In negotiations I am involved in we ask what is the ultimate outcome sought?
        Invariably the focus is about growing the pie rather than dividing the pie … so the next question is … how can we work together in this negotiation to enable each to grow their respective pie? You would be surprised what eventuates

  55. Dan, I’m not agree. Certainly, when you make a win-win business deal, one party wins more than the other because it is almost impossible to win-win at the same level. But it is a mistake to think that a party won less like a “loser.”Therefore, the key question for the party won less is: Would you rather not make a deal? If you do not win but you do not do the deal? You have to compare their situation with the agreement without the agreement independently if the other party make a little more than you. I think it’s a mistake to treatment only when it expects to earn more than the other …… you can lose a good opportunity for growth

    1. Roberto,
      You make a great point.  I don’t argue in my post that doing right by a customer is a “bad thing”.  I propose that the wording “win-win” is dishonest — emotionally and intellectually.  

      Dan

      p.s.  Negotiation is all about compromise.  So why do we use the word “win”.  Why not say “compromise-compromise”?  

  56. Dan, I’m not agree. Certainly, when you make a win-win business deal, one party wins more than the other because it is almost impossible to win-win at the same level. But it is a mistake to think that a party won less like a “loser.”Therefore, the key question for the party won less is: Would you rather not make a deal? If you do not win but you do not do the deal? You have to compare their situation with the agreement without the agreement independently if the other party make a little more than you. I think it’s a mistake to treatment only when it expects to earn more than the other …… you can lose a good opportunity for growth

    1. Roberto,
      You make a great point.  I don’t argue in my post that doing right by a customer is a “bad thing”.  I propose that the wording “win-win” is dishonest — emotionally and intellectually.  

      Dan

      p.s.  Negotiation is all about compromise.  So why do we use the word “win”.  Why not say “compromise-compromise”?  

  57. Dan, I’m not agree. Certainly, when you make a win-win business deal, one party wins more than the other because it is almost impossible to win-win at the same level. But it is a mistake to think that a party won less like a “loser.”Therefore, the key question for the party won less is: Would you rather not make a deal? If you do not win but you do not do the deal? You have to compare their situation with the agreement without the agreement independently if the other party make a little more than you. I think it’s a mistake to treatment only when it expects to earn more than the other …… you can lose a good opportunity for growth

    1. Roberto,
      You make a great point.  I don’t argue in my post that doing right by a customer is a “bad thing”.  I propose that the wording “win-win” is dishonest — emotionally and intellectually.  

      Dan

      p.s.  Negotiation is all about compromise.  So why do we use the word “win”.  Why not say “compromise-compromise”?  

  58. Dan, I’m not agree. Certainly, when you make a win-win business deal, one party wins more than the other because it is almost impossible to win-win at the same level. But it is a mistake to think that a party won less like a “loser.”Therefore, the key question for the party won less is: Would you rather not make a deal? If you do not win but you do not do the deal? You have to compare their situation with the agreement without the agreement independently if the other party make a little more than you. I think it’s a mistake to treatment only when it expects to earn more than the other …… you can lose a good opportunity for growth

    1. Roberto,
      You make a great point.  I don’t argue in my post that doing right by a customer is a “bad thing”.  I propose that the wording “win-win” is dishonest — emotionally and intellectually.  

      Dan

      p.s.  Negotiation is all about compromise.  So why do we use the word “win”.  Why not say “compromise-compromise”?  

  59. Dan, I’m not agree. Certainly, when you make a win-win business deal, one party wins more than the other because it is almost impossible to win-win at the same level. But it is a mistake to think that a party won less like a “loser.”Therefore, the key question for the party won less is: Would you rather not make a deal? If you do not win but you do not do the deal? You have to compare their situation with the agreement without the agreement independently if the other party make a little more than you. I think it’s a mistake to treatment only when it expects to earn more than the other …… you can lose a good opportunity for growth

    1. Roberto,
      You make a great point.  I don’t argue in my post that doing right by a customer is a “bad thing”.  I propose that the wording “win-win” is dishonest — emotionally and intellectually.  

      Dan

      p.s.  Negotiation is all about compromise.  So why do we use the word “win”.  Why not say “compromise-compromise”?  

  60. Dan, I’m not agree. Certainly, when you make a win-win business deal, one party wins more than the other because it is almost impossible to win-win at the same level. But it is a mistake to think that a party won less like a “loser.”Therefore, the key question for the party won less is: Would you rather not make a deal? If you do not win but you do not do the deal? You have to compare their situation with the agreement without the agreement independently if the other party make a little more than you. I think it’s a mistake to treatment only when it expects to earn more than the other …… you can lose a good opportunity for growth

    1. Roberto,
      You make a great point.  I don’t argue in my post that doing right by a customer is a “bad thing”.  I propose that the wording “win-win” is dishonest — emotionally and intellectually.  

      Dan

      p.s.  Negotiation is all about compromise.  So why do we use the word “win”.  Why not say “compromise-compromise”?  

  61. Dan, the problem with your assertion is the assumed competition. You are correct that in a competition, one side must win and the other must lose. Not every business situation is a competition. Many are simply negotiations: both parties want benefits that are larger than costs. If both parties get that, then it is win-win. 
    For example, when competing for the same supermarket shelf space, both Coke and Pepsi can’t win. When lobbying together against government regulation of the soft drink industry, both Coke and Pepsi can win. Your assertion lacks context. Take this discussion. We can look at this discussion as a competition in which one of us proves himself correct and all others wrong. We can also view this discussion as an exploration of an idea that ends with all of us having a clearer idea of what we mean when we say business transaction. In the first case, only one person wins. In the latter, we all win.

    1. I agree with you.  I don’t assume that business is a competition.  In fact, I propose that most of business is NOT a competitive.  Rather it is collaborative.
      So why use the “win-win” label when it isn’t a competition.  “Winning” is for a competition.  

      The wording is intellectually lazy and down right confusing.  My argument is with the label not the essence of collaboration or cooperation.

      Dan

  62. Dan, the problem with your assertion is the assumed competition. You are correct that in a competition, one side must win and the other must lose. Not every business situation is a competition. Many are simply negotiations: both parties want benefits that are larger than costs. If both parties get that, then it is win-win. 
    For example, when competing for the same supermarket shelf space, both Coke and Pepsi can’t win. When lobbying together against government regulation of the soft drink industry, both Coke and Pepsi can win. Your assertion lacks context. Take this discussion. We can look at this discussion as a competition in which one of us proves himself correct and all others wrong. We can also view this discussion as an exploration of an idea that ends with all of us having a clearer idea of what we mean when we say business transaction. In the first case, only one person wins. In the latter, we all win.

    1. I agree with you.  I don’t assume that business is a competition.  In fact, I propose that most of business is NOT a competitive.  Rather it is collaborative.
      So why use the “win-win” label when it isn’t a competition.  “Winning” is for a competition.  

      The wording is intellectually lazy and down right confusing.  My argument is with the label not the essence of collaboration or cooperation.

      Dan

  63. Dan, the problem with your assertion is the assumed competition. You are correct that in a competition, one side must win and the other must lose. Not every business situation is a competition. Many are simply negotiations: both parties want benefits that are larger than costs. If both parties get that, then it is win-win. 
    For example, when competing for the same supermarket shelf space, both Coke and Pepsi can’t win. When lobbying together against government regulation of the soft drink industry, both Coke and Pepsi can win. Your assertion lacks context. Take this discussion. We can look at this discussion as a competition in which one of us proves himself correct and all others wrong. We can also view this discussion as an exploration of an idea that ends with all of us having a clearer idea of what we mean when we say business transaction. In the first case, only one person wins. In the latter, we all win.

    1. I agree with you.  I don’t assume that business is a competition.  In fact, I propose that most of business is NOT a competitive.  Rather it is collaborative.
      So why use the “win-win” label when it isn’t a competition.  “Winning” is for a competition.  

      The wording is intellectually lazy and down right confusing.  My argument is with the label not the essence of collaboration or cooperation.

      Dan

  64. Dan, the problem with your assertion is the assumed competition. You are correct that in a competition, one side must win and the other must lose. Not every business situation is a competition. Many are simply negotiations: both parties want benefits that are larger than costs. If both parties get that, then it is win-win. 
    For example, when competing for the same supermarket shelf space, both Coke and Pepsi can’t win. When lobbying together against government regulation of the soft drink industry, both Coke and Pepsi can win. Your assertion lacks context. Take this discussion. We can look at this discussion as a competition in which one of us proves himself correct and all others wrong. We can also view this discussion as an exploration of an idea that ends with all of us having a clearer idea of what we mean when we say business transaction. In the first case, only one person wins. In the latter, we all win.

    1. I agree with you.  I don’t assume that business is a competition.  In fact, I propose that most of business is NOT a competitive.  Rather it is collaborative.
      So why use the “win-win” label when it isn’t a competition.  “Winning” is for a competition.  

      The wording is intellectually lazy and down right confusing.  My argument is with the label not the essence of collaboration or cooperation.

      Dan

  65. Dan, the problem with your assertion is the assumed competition. You are correct that in a competition, one side must win and the other must lose. Not every business situation is a competition. Many are simply negotiations: both parties want benefits that are larger than costs. If both parties get that, then it is win-win. 
    For example, when competing for the same supermarket shelf space, both Coke and Pepsi can’t win. When lobbying together against government regulation of the soft drink industry, both Coke and Pepsi can win. Your assertion lacks context. Take this discussion. We can look at this discussion as a competition in which one of us proves himself correct and all others wrong. We can also view this discussion as an exploration of an idea that ends with all of us having a clearer idea of what we mean when we say business transaction. In the first case, only one person wins. In the latter, we all win.

    1. I agree with you.  I don’t assume that business is a competition.  In fact, I propose that most of business is NOT a competitive.  Rather it is collaborative.
      So why use the “win-win” label when it isn’t a competition.  “Winning” is for a competition.  

      The wording is intellectually lazy and down right confusing.  My argument is with the label not the essence of collaboration or cooperation.

      Dan

  66. Dan, the problem with your assertion is the assumed competition. You are correct that in a competition, one side must win and the other must lose. Not every business situation is a competition. Many are simply negotiations: both parties want benefits that are larger than costs. If both parties get that, then it is win-win. 
    For example, when competing for the same supermarket shelf space, both Coke and Pepsi can’t win. When lobbying together against government regulation of the soft drink industry, both Coke and Pepsi can win. Your assertion lacks context. Take this discussion. We can look at this discussion as a competition in which one of us proves himself correct and all others wrong. We can also view this discussion as an exploration of an idea that ends with all of us having a clearer idea of what we mean when we say business transaction. In the first case, only one person wins. In the latter, we all win.

    1. I agree with you.  I don’t assume that business is a competition.  In fact, I propose that most of business is NOT a competitive.  Rather it is collaborative.
      So why use the “win-win” label when it isn’t a competition.  “Winning” is for a competition.  

      The wording is intellectually lazy and down right confusing.  My argument is with the label not the essence of collaboration or cooperation.

      Dan

  67. Dan,
    At onset, thanks for sharing the thought. I see the trail of thoughts and comments it has generated. I’d like to share my understanding.

    First, let’s deal with the semantics. ‘To win’- how do we describe it? Is it getting all that you want? Or is it getting all that you need? In business terms I guess it would be simpler to define- it is when you achieve your business goal.

    Second, let’s look at conflicts. Parties involved in conflict have two or more demands that are in direct conflict , in other words you can have either one (win-lose or picking a side) or to settle at having a little bit of both (lose-lose, compromise). But what’s most critical is that these conflicting demands arise from some legitimate need of either parties.

    The most common ways of dealing with conflicts are firstly, not to deal with it; secondly, pick a side and lastly to compromise. None of them fits the term ‘win-win’. It means either ‘win-win’ doesn’t exist or it’s not very common. I’d like to stay with the latter for the simple reason it doesn’t block my thinking process.

    There must be a cause for it, it cannot happen on its own that we choose one of these ways to deal with conflicts. I have a hypothesis; in most conflict situations the legitimate needs are rarely uncovered. In case where it is, the assumptions that lead to either party believing that what it demands will meet its legitimate need are rarely articulated.

    Win-Win definitely doesn’t exist because what we demand may not necessarily exist either. In other words, we set up ourselves against something which is based on assumptions we have made without really questioning them or even discussing them with the other party.

    Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural. When two parties meet their legitimate needs they both win. As Einstein said- the nature is in complete harmony with itself.

    Will be glad to share more…I hope I have not been tangential

    cheers
    prashant

    1. Prashant,
      I disagree with your definition of “winning”.  In a competition you don’t get to set the rules or the conditions.  They are already set for you.  The competition is alive and you participate.  

      I contend that most of business is NOT a competition so the label “win-win” is incorrect.  

      You make a a wise observation though that: “Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural.”

      The essence of cooperation and mutual goal achievement is alive and well.  I struggle with the naming of it.  

      Dan

  68. Dan,
    At onset, thanks for sharing the thought. I see the trail of thoughts and comments it has generated. I’d like to share my understanding.

    First, let’s deal with the semantics. ‘To win’- how do we describe it? Is it getting all that you want? Or is it getting all that you need? In business terms I guess it would be simpler to define- it is when you achieve your business goal.

    Second, let’s look at conflicts. Parties involved in conflict have two or more demands that are in direct conflict , in other words you can have either one (win-lose or picking a side) or to settle at having a little bit of both (lose-lose, compromise). But what’s most critical is that these conflicting demands arise from some legitimate need of either parties.

    The most common ways of dealing with conflicts are firstly, not to deal with it; secondly, pick a side and lastly to compromise. None of them fits the term ‘win-win’. It means either ‘win-win’ doesn’t exist or it’s not very common. I’d like to stay with the latter for the simple reason it doesn’t block my thinking process.

    There must be a cause for it, it cannot happen on its own that we choose one of these ways to deal with conflicts. I have a hypothesis; in most conflict situations the legitimate needs are rarely uncovered. In case where it is, the assumptions that lead to either party believing that what it demands will meet its legitimate need are rarely articulated.

    Win-Win definitely doesn’t exist because what we demand may not necessarily exist either. In other words, we set up ourselves against something which is based on assumptions we have made without really questioning them or even discussing them with the other party.

    Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural. When two parties meet their legitimate needs they both win. As Einstein said- the nature is in complete harmony with itself.

    Will be glad to share more…I hope I have not been tangential

    cheers
    prashant

    1. Prashant,
      I disagree with your definition of “winning”.  In a competition you don’t get to set the rules or the conditions.  They are already set for you.  The competition is alive and you participate.  

      I contend that most of business is NOT a competition so the label “win-win” is incorrect.  

      You make a a wise observation though that: “Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural.”

      The essence of cooperation and mutual goal achievement is alive and well.  I struggle with the naming of it.  

      Dan

  69. Dan,
    At onset, thanks for sharing the thought. I see the trail of thoughts and comments it has generated. I’d like to share my understanding.

    First, let’s deal with the semantics. ‘To win’- how do we describe it? Is it getting all that you want? Or is it getting all that you need? In business terms I guess it would be simpler to define- it is when you achieve your business goal.

    Second, let’s look at conflicts. Parties involved in conflict have two or more demands that are in direct conflict , in other words you can have either one (win-lose or picking a side) or to settle at having a little bit of both (lose-lose, compromise). But what’s most critical is that these conflicting demands arise from some legitimate need of either parties.

    The most common ways of dealing with conflicts are firstly, not to deal with it; secondly, pick a side and lastly to compromise. None of them fits the term ‘win-win’. It means either ‘win-win’ doesn’t exist or it’s not very common. I’d like to stay with the latter for the simple reason it doesn’t block my thinking process.

    There must be a cause for it, it cannot happen on its own that we choose one of these ways to deal with conflicts. I have a hypothesis; in most conflict situations the legitimate needs are rarely uncovered. In case where it is, the assumptions that lead to either party believing that what it demands will meet its legitimate need are rarely articulated.

    Win-Win definitely doesn’t exist because what we demand may not necessarily exist either. In other words, we set up ourselves against something which is based on assumptions we have made without really questioning them or even discussing them with the other party.

    Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural. When two parties meet their legitimate needs they both win. As Einstein said- the nature is in complete harmony with itself.

    Will be glad to share more…I hope I have not been tangential

    cheers
    prashant

    1. Prashant,
      I disagree with your definition of “winning”.  In a competition you don’t get to set the rules or the conditions.  They are already set for you.  The competition is alive and you participate.  

      I contend that most of business is NOT a competition so the label “win-win” is incorrect.  

      You make a a wise observation though that: “Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural.”

      The essence of cooperation and mutual goal achievement is alive and well.  I struggle with the naming of it.  

      Dan

  70. Dan,
    At onset, thanks for sharing the thought. I see the trail of thoughts and comments it has generated. I’d like to share my understanding.

    First, let’s deal with the semantics. ‘To win’- how do we describe it? Is it getting all that you want? Or is it getting all that you need? In business terms I guess it would be simpler to define- it is when you achieve your business goal.

    Second, let’s look at conflicts. Parties involved in conflict have two or more demands that are in direct conflict , in other words you can have either one (win-lose or picking a side) or to settle at having a little bit of both (lose-lose, compromise). But what’s most critical is that these conflicting demands arise from some legitimate need of either parties.

    The most common ways of dealing with conflicts are firstly, not to deal with it; secondly, pick a side and lastly to compromise. None of them fits the term ‘win-win’. It means either ‘win-win’ doesn’t exist or it’s not very common. I’d like to stay with the latter for the simple reason it doesn’t block my thinking process.

    There must be a cause for it, it cannot happen on its own that we choose one of these ways to deal with conflicts. I have a hypothesis; in most conflict situations the legitimate needs are rarely uncovered. In case where it is, the assumptions that lead to either party believing that what it demands will meet its legitimate need are rarely articulated.

    Win-Win definitely doesn’t exist because what we demand may not necessarily exist either. In other words, we set up ourselves against something which is based on assumptions we have made without really questioning them or even discussing them with the other party.

    Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural. When two parties meet their legitimate needs they both win. As Einstein said- the nature is in complete harmony with itself.

    Will be glad to share more…I hope I have not been tangential

    cheers
    prashant

    1. Prashant,
      I disagree with your definition of “winning”.  In a competition you don’t get to set the rules or the conditions.  They are already set for you.  The competition is alive and you participate.  

      I contend that most of business is NOT a competition so the label “win-win” is incorrect.  

      You make a a wise observation though that: “Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural.”

      The essence of cooperation and mutual goal achievement is alive and well.  I struggle with the naming of it.  

      Dan

  71. Dan,
    At onset, thanks for sharing the thought. I see the trail of thoughts and comments it has generated. I’d like to share my understanding.

    First, let’s deal with the semantics. ‘To win’- how do we describe it? Is it getting all that you want? Or is it getting all that you need? In business terms I guess it would be simpler to define- it is when you achieve your business goal.

    Second, let’s look at conflicts. Parties involved in conflict have two or more demands that are in direct conflict , in other words you can have either one (win-lose or picking a side) or to settle at having a little bit of both (lose-lose, compromise). But what’s most critical is that these conflicting demands arise from some legitimate need of either parties.

    The most common ways of dealing with conflicts are firstly, not to deal with it; secondly, pick a side and lastly to compromise. None of them fits the term ‘win-win’. It means either ‘win-win’ doesn’t exist or it’s not very common. I’d like to stay with the latter for the simple reason it doesn’t block my thinking process.

    There must be a cause for it, it cannot happen on its own that we choose one of these ways to deal with conflicts. I have a hypothesis; in most conflict situations the legitimate needs are rarely uncovered. In case where it is, the assumptions that lead to either party believing that what it demands will meet its legitimate need are rarely articulated.

    Win-Win definitely doesn’t exist because what we demand may not necessarily exist either. In other words, we set up ourselves against something which is based on assumptions we have made without really questioning them or even discussing them with the other party.

    Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural. When two parties meet their legitimate needs they both win. As Einstein said- the nature is in complete harmony with itself.

    Will be glad to share more…I hope I have not been tangential

    cheers
    prashant

    1. Prashant,
      I disagree with your definition of “winning”.  In a competition you don’t get to set the rules or the conditions.  They are already set for you.  The competition is alive and you participate.  

      I contend that most of business is NOT a competition so the label “win-win” is incorrect.  

      You make a a wise observation though that: “Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural.”

      The essence of cooperation and mutual goal achievement is alive and well.  I struggle with the naming of it.  

      Dan

  72. Dan,
    At onset, thanks for sharing the thought. I see the trail of thoughts and comments it has generated. I’d like to share my understanding.

    First, let’s deal with the semantics. ‘To win’- how do we describe it? Is it getting all that you want? Or is it getting all that you need? In business terms I guess it would be simpler to define- it is when you achieve your business goal.

    Second, let’s look at conflicts. Parties involved in conflict have two or more demands that are in direct conflict , in other words you can have either one (win-lose or picking a side) or to settle at having a little bit of both (lose-lose, compromise). But what’s most critical is that these conflicting demands arise from some legitimate need of either parties.

    The most common ways of dealing with conflicts are firstly, not to deal with it; secondly, pick a side and lastly to compromise. None of them fits the term ‘win-win’. It means either ‘win-win’ doesn’t exist or it’s not very common. I’d like to stay with the latter for the simple reason it doesn’t block my thinking process.

    There must be a cause for it, it cannot happen on its own that we choose one of these ways to deal with conflicts. I have a hypothesis; in most conflict situations the legitimate needs are rarely uncovered. In case where it is, the assumptions that lead to either party believing that what it demands will meet its legitimate need are rarely articulated.

    Win-Win definitely doesn’t exist because what we demand may not necessarily exist either. In other words, we set up ourselves against something which is based on assumptions we have made without really questioning them or even discussing them with the other party.

    Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural. When two parties meet their legitimate needs they both win. As Einstein said- the nature is in complete harmony with itself.

    Will be glad to share more…I hope I have not been tangential

    cheers
    prashant

    1. Prashant,
      I disagree with your definition of “winning”.  In a competition you don’t get to set the rules or the conditions.  They are already set for you.  The competition is alive and you participate.  

      I contend that most of business is NOT a competition so the label “win-win” is incorrect.  

      You make a a wise observation though that: “Win-Win definitely exists, its all around us. It is nature/natural.”

      The essence of cooperation and mutual goal achievement is alive and well.  I struggle with the naming of it.  

      Dan

  73. I’ve given this more thought, and I think that Dan may be right, but on a level deeper than he is presenting. The basic assumption of the free market is scarcity of resources that creates competition for those resources. Underlying even friendly business negotiations is a competition for scarce resources. Friendly business situations may simple have an abundance of resources in that particular situation, but given a change in circumstances resulting in more scarcity, what was once friendly and win-win becomes very unfriendly win-lose. For example, think of the recent downturn in the economy. No doubt, we have all seen business partners that were relaxed in their dealings becoming more aggressive and dollar driven. Possibly, we in the U.S. have the luxury of working in situations of abundance of resources and give us possible win-win situations, but underlying the free market system is competition and competition ends with a winner and a loser.

  74. I’ve given this more thought, and I think that Dan may be right, but on a level deeper than he is presenting. The basic assumption of the free market is scarcity of resources that creates competition for those resources. Underlying even friendly business negotiations is a competition for scarce resources. Friendly business situations may simple have an abundance of resources in that particular situation, but given a change in circumstances resulting in more scarcity, what was once friendly and win-win becomes very unfriendly win-lose. For example, think of the recent downturn in the economy. No doubt, we have all seen business partners that were relaxed in their dealings becoming more aggressive and dollar driven. Possibly, we in the U.S. have the luxury of working in situations of abundance of resources and give us possible win-win situations, but underlying the free market system is competition and competition ends with a winner and a loser.

  75. I’ve given this more thought, and I think that Dan may be right, but on a level deeper than he is presenting. The basic assumption of the free market is scarcity of resources that creates competition for those resources. Underlying even friendly business negotiations is a competition for scarce resources. Friendly business situations may simple have an abundance of resources in that particular situation, but given a change in circumstances resulting in more scarcity, what was once friendly and win-win becomes very unfriendly win-lose. For example, think of the recent downturn in the economy. No doubt, we have all seen business partners that were relaxed in their dealings becoming more aggressive and dollar driven. Possibly, we in the U.S. have the luxury of working in situations of abundance of resources and give us possible win-win situations, but underlying the free market system is competition and competition ends with a winner and a loser.

  76. I’ve given this more thought, and I think that Dan may be right, but on a level deeper than he is presenting. The basic assumption of the free market is scarcity of resources that creates competition for those resources. Underlying even friendly business negotiations is a competition for scarce resources. Friendly business situations may simple have an abundance of resources in that particular situation, but given a change in circumstances resulting in more scarcity, what was once friendly and win-win becomes very unfriendly win-lose. For example, think of the recent downturn in the economy. No doubt, we have all seen business partners that were relaxed in their dealings becoming more aggressive and dollar driven. Possibly, we in the U.S. have the luxury of working in situations of abundance of resources and give us possible win-win situations, but underlying the free market system is competition and competition ends with a winner and a loser.

  77. I’ve given this more thought, and I think that Dan may be right, but on a level deeper than he is presenting. The basic assumption of the free market is scarcity of resources that creates competition for those resources. Underlying even friendly business negotiations is a competition for scarce resources. Friendly business situations may simple have an abundance of resources in that particular situation, but given a change in circumstances resulting in more scarcity, what was once friendly and win-win becomes very unfriendly win-lose. For example, think of the recent downturn in the economy. No doubt, we have all seen business partners that were relaxed in their dealings becoming more aggressive and dollar driven. Possibly, we in the U.S. have the luxury of working in situations of abundance of resources and give us possible win-win situations, but underlying the free market system is competition and competition ends with a winner and a loser.

  78. I’ve given this more thought, and I think that Dan may be right, but on a level deeper than he is presenting. The basic assumption of the free market is scarcity of resources that creates competition for those resources. Underlying even friendly business negotiations is a competition for scarce resources. Friendly business situations may simple have an abundance of resources in that particular situation, but given a change in circumstances resulting in more scarcity, what was once friendly and win-win becomes very unfriendly win-lose. For example, think of the recent downturn in the economy. No doubt, we have all seen business partners that were relaxed in their dealings becoming more aggressive and dollar driven. Possibly, we in the U.S. have the luxury of working in situations of abundance of resources and give us possible win-win situations, but underlying the free market system is competition and competition ends with a winner and a loser.

  79. I believe that Business will not be long lasting, The best Business deals are always where all stakeholders are in win win situation that is the most important part of strategy making.

  80. I believe that Business will not be long lasting, The best Business deals are always where all stakeholders are in win win situation that is the most important part of strategy making.

  81. I believe that Business will not be long lasting, The best Business deals are always where all stakeholders are in win win situation that is the most important part of strategy making.

  82. I believe that Business will not be long lasting, The best Business deals are always where all stakeholders are in win win situation that is the most important part of strategy making.

  83. I believe that Business will not be long lasting, The best Business deals are always where all stakeholders are in win win situation that is the most important part of strategy making.

  84. I believe that Business will not be long lasting, The best Business deals are always where all stakeholders are in win win situation that is the most important part of strategy making.

  85. I too must disagree, while I see some wisdom within your comments I sense a lot of confusion as well.  Who wins when you enjoy something satisfying? The person or entity that satisfied you won from a customer service point of view. You won from a personal point of view, that is surely and clearly a win win situation.  Sometimes making a hard choice is just that, making a hard choice and the only way you can do that and not have to give up any ground is by being able to change your  perspective to a point where you can see some way that you now benifit from a situation which you had previously thought left you nothing but a loss.  In the case of the simply satisfied customer, either with a good meal, good service or even enjoyable entertainment situation is that you can always make someone elses loss your gain.Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not just talking about putting a different spin on something, but actually taking a hard close look at the facts and seeing them from a perspective you never have before.  In the cases mentioned previously either one party retains yet another good customer or they have succeeded in just stealing one from the competition accross the street that was too busy to bother to yesterday. 
    Everything we react to in life is based on our perceptions and perceptions are one of the few things that can be changed relatively easily without upsetting a lot of peripheral issues or actually changing any facts as such.  There are always many different types of win we can discover, as individuals and as corporate entities. 
    The closed mind is what should be feared, that is the killer that will always cause you to lose in the end. The winners and shakers and doers in life are those who can best adjust their perspective of things on the fly, without having to readjust any fundamental belief’s or strategies in many cases if approached properly.  There is more than one way to win and more than way one way for something to be right, sometimes it just a takes a very big person to be able to do that when it involves accepting some fact we would rather not deal with.

    1. Christopher,
      I agree with your comments but I think you might be misunderstanding my position.  It is impossible for you sides to win equally.  And that is not always necessary.  But it is self-limiting to pretend like deals are “win win” when then they are really just “acceptable”.

      Everything doesn’t need to be a win.  Not all of business is win or lose.  To demand that it be so feels clumsy.  

      Dan

  86. I too must disagree, while I see some wisdom within your comments I sense a lot of confusion as well.  Who wins when you enjoy something satisfying? The person or entity that satisfied you won from a customer service point of view. You won from a personal point of view, that is surely and clearly a win win situation.  Sometimes making a hard choice is just that, making a hard choice and the only way you can do that and not have to give up any ground is by being able to change your  perspective to a point where you can see some way that you now benifit from a situation which you had previously thought left you nothing but a loss.  In the case of the simply satisfied customer, either with a good meal, good service or even enjoyable entertainment situation is that you can always make someone elses loss your gain.Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not just talking about putting a different spin on something, but actually taking a hard close look at the facts and seeing them from a perspective you never have before.  In the cases mentioned previously either one party retains yet another good customer or they have succeeded in just stealing one from the competition accross the street that was too busy to bother to yesterday. 
    Everything we react to in life is based on our perceptions and perceptions are one of the few things that can be changed relatively easily without upsetting a lot of peripheral issues or actually changing any facts as such.  There are always many different types of win we can discover, as individuals and as corporate entities. 
    The closed mind is what should be feared, that is the killer that will always cause you to lose in the end. The winners and shakers and doers in life are those who can best adjust their perspective of things on the fly, without having to readjust any fundamental belief’s or strategies in many cases if approached properly.  There is more than one way to win and more than way one way for something to be right, sometimes it just a takes a very big person to be able to do that when it involves accepting some fact we would rather not deal with.

    1. Christopher,
      I agree with your comments but I think you might be misunderstanding my position.  It is impossible for you sides to win equally.  And that is not always necessary.  But it is self-limiting to pretend like deals are “win win” when then they are really just “acceptable”.

      Everything doesn’t need to be a win.  Not all of business is win or lose.  To demand that it be so feels clumsy.  

      Dan

  87. I too must disagree, while I see some wisdom within your comments I sense a lot of confusion as well.  Who wins when you enjoy something satisfying? The person or entity that satisfied you won from a customer service point of view. You won from a personal point of view, that is surely and clearly a win win situation.  Sometimes making a hard choice is just that, making a hard choice and the only way you can do that and not have to give up any ground is by being able to change your  perspective to a point where you can see some way that you now benifit from a situation which you had previously thought left you nothing but a loss.  In the case of the simply satisfied customer, either with a good meal, good service or even enjoyable entertainment situation is that you can always make someone elses loss your gain.Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not just talking about putting a different spin on something, but actually taking a hard close look at the facts and seeing them from a perspective you never have before.  In the cases mentioned previously either one party retains yet another good customer or they have succeeded in just stealing one from the competition accross the street that was too busy to bother to yesterday. 
    Everything we react to in life is based on our perceptions and perceptions are one of the few things that can be changed relatively easily without upsetting a lot of peripheral issues or actually changing any facts as such.  There are always many different types of win we can discover, as individuals and as corporate entities. 
    The closed mind is what should be feared, that is the killer that will always cause you to lose in the end. The winners and shakers and doers in life are those who can best adjust their perspective of things on the fly, without having to readjust any fundamental belief’s or strategies in many cases if approached properly.  There is more than one way to win and more than way one way for something to be right, sometimes it just a takes a very big person to be able to do that when it involves accepting some fact we would rather not deal with.

    1. Christopher,
      I agree with your comments but I think you might be misunderstanding my position.  It is impossible for you sides to win equally.  And that is not always necessary.  But it is self-limiting to pretend like deals are “win win” when then they are really just “acceptable”.

      Everything doesn’t need to be a win.  Not all of business is win or lose.  To demand that it be so feels clumsy.  

      Dan

  88. I too must disagree, while I see some wisdom within your comments I sense a lot of confusion as well.  Who wins when you enjoy something satisfying? The person or entity that satisfied you won from a customer service point of view. You won from a personal point of view, that is surely and clearly a win win situation.  Sometimes making a hard choice is just that, making a hard choice and the only way you can do that and not have to give up any ground is by being able to change your  perspective to a point where you can see some way that you now benifit from a situation which you had previously thought left you nothing but a loss.  In the case of the simply satisfied customer, either with a good meal, good service or even enjoyable entertainment situation is that you can always make someone elses loss your gain.Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not just talking about putting a different spin on something, but actually taking a hard close look at the facts and seeing them from a perspective you never have before.  In the cases mentioned previously either one party retains yet another good customer or they have succeeded in just stealing one from the competition accross the street that was too busy to bother to yesterday. 
    Everything we react to in life is based on our perceptions and perceptions are one of the few things that can be changed relatively easily without upsetting a lot of peripheral issues or actually changing any facts as such.  There are always many different types of win we can discover, as individuals and as corporate entities. 
    The closed mind is what should be feared, that is the killer that will always cause you to lose in the end. The winners and shakers and doers in life are those who can best adjust their perspective of things on the fly, without having to readjust any fundamental belief’s or strategies in many cases if approached properly.  There is more than one way to win and more than way one way for something to be right, sometimes it just a takes a very big person to be able to do that when it involves accepting some fact we would rather not deal with.

    1. Christopher,
      I agree with your comments but I think you might be misunderstanding my position.  It is impossible for you sides to win equally.  And that is not always necessary.  But it is self-limiting to pretend like deals are “win win” when then they are really just “acceptable”.

      Everything doesn’t need to be a win.  Not all of business is win or lose.  To demand that it be so feels clumsy.  

      Dan

  89. I too must disagree, while I see some wisdom within your comments I sense a lot of confusion as well.  Who wins when you enjoy something satisfying? The person or entity that satisfied you won from a customer service point of view. You won from a personal point of view, that is surely and clearly a win win situation.  Sometimes making a hard choice is just that, making a hard choice and the only way you can do that and not have to give up any ground is by being able to change your  perspective to a point where you can see some way that you now benifit from a situation which you had previously thought left you nothing but a loss.  In the case of the simply satisfied customer, either with a good meal, good service or even enjoyable entertainment situation is that you can always make someone elses loss your gain.Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not just talking about putting a different spin on something, but actually taking a hard close look at the facts and seeing them from a perspective you never have before.  In the cases mentioned previously either one party retains yet another good customer or they have succeeded in just stealing one from the competition accross the street that was too busy to bother to yesterday. 
    Everything we react to in life is based on our perceptions and perceptions are one of the few things that can be changed relatively easily without upsetting a lot of peripheral issues or actually changing any facts as such.  There are always many different types of win we can discover, as individuals and as corporate entities. 
    The closed mind is what should be feared, that is the killer that will always cause you to lose in the end. The winners and shakers and doers in life are those who can best adjust their perspective of things on the fly, without having to readjust any fundamental belief’s or strategies in many cases if approached properly.  There is more than one way to win and more than way one way for something to be right, sometimes it just a takes a very big person to be able to do that when it involves accepting some fact we would rather not deal with.

    1. Christopher,
      I agree with your comments but I think you might be misunderstanding my position.  It is impossible for you sides to win equally.  And that is not always necessary.  But it is self-limiting to pretend like deals are “win win” when then they are really just “acceptable”.

      Everything doesn’t need to be a win.  Not all of business is win or lose.  To demand that it be so feels clumsy.  

      Dan

  90. I too must disagree, while I see some wisdom within your comments I sense a lot of confusion as well.  Who wins when you enjoy something satisfying? The person or entity that satisfied you won from a customer service point of view. You won from a personal point of view, that is surely and clearly a win win situation.  Sometimes making a hard choice is just that, making a hard choice and the only way you can do that and not have to give up any ground is by being able to change your  perspective to a point where you can see some way that you now benifit from a situation which you had previously thought left you nothing but a loss.  In the case of the simply satisfied customer, either with a good meal, good service or even enjoyable entertainment situation is that you can always make someone elses loss your gain.Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not just talking about putting a different spin on something, but actually taking a hard close look at the facts and seeing them from a perspective you never have before.  In the cases mentioned previously either one party retains yet another good customer or they have succeeded in just stealing one from the competition accross the street that was too busy to bother to yesterday. 
    Everything we react to in life is based on our perceptions and perceptions are one of the few things that can be changed relatively easily without upsetting a lot of peripheral issues or actually changing any facts as such.  There are always many different types of win we can discover, as individuals and as corporate entities. 
    The closed mind is what should be feared, that is the killer that will always cause you to lose in the end. The winners and shakers and doers in life are those who can best adjust their perspective of things on the fly, without having to readjust any fundamental belief’s or strategies in many cases if approached properly.  There is more than one way to win and more than way one way for something to be right, sometimes it just a takes a very big person to be able to do that when it involves accepting some fact we would rather not deal with.

    1. Christopher,
      I agree with your comments but I think you might be misunderstanding my position.  It is impossible for you sides to win equally.  And that is not always necessary.  But it is self-limiting to pretend like deals are “win win” when then they are really just “acceptable”.

      Everything doesn’t need to be a win.  Not all of business is win or lose.  To demand that it be so feels clumsy.  

      Dan

  91. If you increase your wealth it means that you have become richer, you can explore more opportunities, maybe you have become happier and maybe you have increased the total wealth of the world. Let’s discuss the last issue. If you increase your wealth does that mean that the total wealth in the world shall increase? To tell you the truth: probably not to that extend. Why is that? Isn’t this the foundation of the capitalism?The problem is that some of the businesses and assets that we have created are involved in zero-sum games. It basically means that in order somebody to win somebody else has to lose. Losing means that the loser have to pay the bill and shall receive nothing. Zero-sum games are all gambling games, financial instruments like options, forwards, futures, insurances, harvesting scared resources and damaging nature (in these businesses the next generations will pay the price). Zero sum games do not have zero total value but negative total value because there are casinos, brokers, consultants or the price that has to be paid in the future really exceeds the benefits that you are receiving now.
    So are you involved in zero-sum games without knowing?
    Zero-sum games are all competition games. Competition has good effects: keep us focused, promote better players but may lack of creating a value rather than just reorganizing the thing we already have. The opposite of compete is cooperate. In cooperative games 1+1 is never 2. In most cases it is 2 due to synergy between players and resources.
    The moral my friends is that only in cooperative environment we may add value. The catch is that while people cooperate they have incentives to cheat (Let them do all the hard work and then we can ALL SHARE the benefits). Now you figure it out how to balance that.
    END OF STORY
    P.S.
    Some zero-sum games are used by some of their participants to hedge (eliminate, insure against) a risk. Hedging a risk is theoretically good thing to do but hard to do in practice. Here are some questions that may help you understand if it is good to hedge certain risk:
    To what extend have you hedge the risk?Are you involved in taking other hidden risk by entering in this transaction?Does the probability of realization of the risk worth the price you pay?

  92. If you increase your wealth it means that you have become richer, you can explore more opportunities, maybe you have become happier and maybe you have increased the total wealth of the world. Let’s discuss the last issue. If you increase your wealth does that mean that the total wealth in the world shall increase? To tell you the truth: probably not to that extend. Why is that? Isn’t this the foundation of the capitalism?The problem is that some of the businesses and assets that we have created are involved in zero-sum games. It basically means that in order somebody to win somebody else has to lose. Losing means that the loser have to pay the bill and shall receive nothing. Zero-sum games are all gambling games, financial instruments like options, forwards, futures, insurances, harvesting scared resources and damaging nature (in these businesses the next generations will pay the price). Zero sum games do not have zero total value but negative total value because there are casinos, brokers, consultants or the price that has to be paid in the future really exceeds the benefits that you are receiving now.
    So are you involved in zero-sum games without knowing?
    Zero-sum games are all competition games. Competition has good effects: keep us focused, promote better players but may lack of creating a value rather than just reorganizing the thing we already have. The opposite of compete is cooperate. In cooperative games 1+1 is never 2. In most cases it is 2 due to synergy between players and resources.
    The moral my friends is that only in cooperative environment we may add value. The catch is that while people cooperate they have incentives to cheat (Let them do all the hard work and then we can ALL SHARE the benefits). Now you figure it out how to balance that.
    END OF STORY
    P.S.
    Some zero-sum games are used by some of their participants to hedge (eliminate, insure against) a risk. Hedging a risk is theoretically good thing to do but hard to do in practice. Here are some questions that may help you understand if it is good to hedge certain risk:
    To what extend have you hedge the risk?Are you involved in taking other hidden risk by entering in this transaction?Does the probability of realization of the risk worth the price you pay?

  93. If you increase your wealth it means that you have become richer, you can explore more opportunities, maybe you have become happier and maybe you have increased the total wealth of the world. Let’s discuss the last issue. If you increase your wealth does that mean that the total wealth in the world shall increase? To tell you the truth: probably not to that extend. Why is that? Isn’t this the foundation of the capitalism?The problem is that some of the businesses and assets that we have created are involved in zero-sum games. It basically means that in order somebody to win somebody else has to lose. Losing means that the loser have to pay the bill and shall receive nothing. Zero-sum games are all gambling games, financial instruments like options, forwards, futures, insurances, harvesting scared resources and damaging nature (in these businesses the next generations will pay the price). Zero sum games do not have zero total value but negative total value because there are casinos, brokers, consultants or the price that has to be paid in the future really exceeds the benefits that you are receiving now.
    So are you involved in zero-sum games without knowing?
    Zero-sum games are all competition games. Competition has good effects: keep us focused, promote better players but may lack of creating a value rather than just reorganizing the thing we already have. The opposite of compete is cooperate. In cooperative games 1+1 is never 2. In most cases it is 2 due to synergy between players and resources.
    The moral my friends is that only in cooperative environment we may add value. The catch is that while people cooperate they have incentives to cheat (Let them do all the hard work and then we can ALL SHARE the benefits). Now you figure it out how to balance that.
    END OF STORY
    P.S.
    Some zero-sum games are used by some of their participants to hedge (eliminate, insure against) a risk. Hedging a risk is theoretically good thing to do but hard to do in practice. Here are some questions that may help you understand if it is good to hedge certain risk:
    To what extend have you hedge the risk?Are you involved in taking other hidden risk by entering in this transaction?Does the probability of realization of the risk worth the price you pay?

  94. If you increase your wealth it means that you have become richer, you can explore more opportunities, maybe you have become happier and maybe you have increased the total wealth of the world. Let’s discuss the last issue. If you increase your wealth does that mean that the total wealth in the world shall increase? To tell you the truth: probably not to that extend. Why is that? Isn’t this the foundation of the capitalism?The problem is that some of the businesses and assets that we have created are involved in zero-sum games. It basically means that in order somebody to win somebody else has to lose. Losing means that the loser have to pay the bill and shall receive nothing. Zero-sum games are all gambling games, financial instruments like options, forwards, futures, insurances, harvesting scared resources and damaging nature (in these businesses the next generations will pay the price). Zero sum games do not have zero total value but negative total value because there are casinos, brokers, consultants or the price that has to be paid in the future really exceeds the benefits that you are receiving now.
    So are you involved in zero-sum games without knowing?
    Zero-sum games are all competition games. Competition has good effects: keep us focused, promote better players but may lack of creating a value rather than just reorganizing the thing we already have. The opposite of compete is cooperate. In cooperative games 1+1 is never 2. In most cases it is 2 due to synergy between players and resources.
    The moral my friends is that only in cooperative environment we may add value. The catch is that while people cooperate they have incentives to cheat (Let them do all the hard work and then we can ALL SHARE the benefits). Now you figure it out how to balance that.
    END OF STORY
    P.S.
    Some zero-sum games are used by some of their participants to hedge (eliminate, insure against) a risk. Hedging a risk is theoretically good thing to do but hard to do in practice. Here are some questions that may help you understand if it is good to hedge certain risk:
    To what extend have you hedge the risk?Are you involved in taking other hidden risk by entering in this transaction?Does the probability of realization of the risk worth the price you pay?

  95. If you increase your wealth it means that you have become richer, you can explore more opportunities, maybe you have become happier and maybe you have increased the total wealth of the world. Let’s discuss the last issue. If you increase your wealth does that mean that the total wealth in the world shall increase? To tell you the truth: probably not to that extend. Why is that? Isn’t this the foundation of the capitalism?The problem is that some of the businesses and assets that we have created are involved in zero-sum games. It basically means that in order somebody to win somebody else has to lose. Losing means that the loser have to pay the bill and shall receive nothing. Zero-sum games are all gambling games, financial instruments like options, forwards, futures, insurances, harvesting scared resources and damaging nature (in these businesses the next generations will pay the price). Zero sum games do not have zero total value but negative total value because there are casinos, brokers, consultants or the price that has to be paid in the future really exceeds the benefits that you are receiving now.
    So are you involved in zero-sum games without knowing?
    Zero-sum games are all competition games. Competition has good effects: keep us focused, promote better players but may lack of creating a value rather than just reorganizing the thing we already have. The opposite of compete is cooperate. In cooperative games 1+1 is never 2. In most cases it is 2 due to synergy between players and resources.
    The moral my friends is that only in cooperative environment we may add value. The catch is that while people cooperate they have incentives to cheat (Let them do all the hard work and then we can ALL SHARE the benefits). Now you figure it out how to balance that.
    END OF STORY
    P.S.
    Some zero-sum games are used by some of their participants to hedge (eliminate, insure against) a risk. Hedging a risk is theoretically good thing to do but hard to do in practice. Here are some questions that may help you understand if it is good to hedge certain risk:
    To what extend have you hedge the risk?Are you involved in taking other hidden risk by entering in this transaction?Does the probability of realization of the risk worth the price you pay?

  96. If you increase your wealth it means that you have become richer, you can explore more opportunities, maybe you have become happier and maybe you have increased the total wealth of the world. Let’s discuss the last issue. If you increase your wealth does that mean that the total wealth in the world shall increase? To tell you the truth: probably not to that extend. Why is that? Isn’t this the foundation of the capitalism?The problem is that some of the businesses and assets that we have created are involved in zero-sum games. It basically means that in order somebody to win somebody else has to lose. Losing means that the loser have to pay the bill and shall receive nothing. Zero-sum games are all gambling games, financial instruments like options, forwards, futures, insurances, harvesting scared resources and damaging nature (in these businesses the next generations will pay the price). Zero sum games do not have zero total value but negative total value because there are casinos, brokers, consultants or the price that has to be paid in the future really exceeds the benefits that you are receiving now.
    So are you involved in zero-sum games without knowing?
    Zero-sum games are all competition games. Competition has good effects: keep us focused, promote better players but may lack of creating a value rather than just reorganizing the thing we already have. The opposite of compete is cooperate. In cooperative games 1+1 is never 2. In most cases it is 2 due to synergy between players and resources.
    The moral my friends is that only in cooperative environment we may add value. The catch is that while people cooperate they have incentives to cheat (Let them do all the hard work and then we can ALL SHARE the benefits). Now you figure it out how to balance that.
    END OF STORY
    P.S.
    Some zero-sum games are used by some of their participants to hedge (eliminate, insure against) a risk. Hedging a risk is theoretically good thing to do but hard to do in practice. Here are some questions that may help you understand if it is good to hedge certain risk:
    To what extend have you hedge the risk?Are you involved in taking other hidden risk by entering in this transaction?Does the probability of realization of the risk worth the price you pay?

  97. Dan, thanks for your thought provoking comment. If you say win/win can’t exist in business how do you explain the idiom “i’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”? If you do something for me that I cannot do for myself, I will do something for you that you cannot do for yourself. Wouldn’t the two parties walk away successful? We get to a point of relativity here and the difficult task is quantifying what winning means.

  98. Dan, thanks for your thought provoking comment. If you say win/win can’t exist in business how do you explain the idiom “i’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”? If you do something for me that I cannot do for myself, I will do something for you that you cannot do for yourself. Wouldn’t the two parties walk away successful? We get to a point of relativity here and the difficult task is quantifying what winning means.

  99. Dan, thanks for your thought provoking comment. If you say win/win can’t exist in business how do you explain the idiom “i’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”? If you do something for me that I cannot do for myself, I will do something for you that you cannot do for yourself. Wouldn’t the two parties walk away successful? We get to a point of relativity here and the difficult task is quantifying what winning means.

  100. Dan, thanks for your thought provoking comment. If you say win/win can’t exist in business how do you explain the idiom “i’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”? If you do something for me that I cannot do for myself, I will do something for you that you cannot do for yourself. Wouldn’t the two parties walk away successful? We get to a point of relativity here and the difficult task is quantifying what winning means.

  101. Dan, thanks for your thought provoking comment. If you say win/win can’t exist in business how do you explain the idiom “i’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”? If you do something for me that I cannot do for myself, I will do something for you that you cannot do for yourself. Wouldn’t the two parties walk away successful? We get to a point of relativity here and the difficult task is quantifying what winning means.

  102. Dan, thanks for your thought provoking comment. If you say win/win can’t exist in business how do you explain the idiom “i’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”? If you do something for me that I cannot do for myself, I will do something for you that you cannot do for yourself. Wouldn’t the two parties walk away successful? We get to a point of relativity here and the difficult task is quantifying what winning means.

  103. Dan, I believe that in this day in age we live in a world of competitive nature and sometimes feel that not getting cheated is the ultimate goal. As long as you personally feel that you can out ahead you “win” the chess match. Where in life do consumers not give up something to get what they want? The same goes for the producers…I believe without getting into a competitive feeling of cutthroat nature, often people feel much better about the deals that they make. I look at it in terms of an intense negotiation, though often we aren’t in that high intensity atmosphere we must settle differences through compromise. You jut have to be willing to do it.

    1. You are right that competition is important. Compromise too. But so too is understanding the game and being clear about what the competition is all about.

      Dan

      p.s. That’s why I dislike the false premise of “win win” so much…

  104. Dan, I believe that in this day in age we live in a world of competitive nature and sometimes feel that not getting cheated is the ultimate goal. As long as you personally feel that you can out ahead you “win” the chess match. Where in life do consumers not give up something to get what they want? The same goes for the producers…I believe without getting into a competitive feeling of cutthroat nature, often people feel much better about the deals that they make. I look at it in terms of an intense negotiation, though often we aren’t in that high intensity atmosphere we must settle differences through compromise. You jut have to be willing to do it.

    1. You are right that competition is important. Compromise too. But so too is understanding the game and being clear about what the competition is all about.

      Dan

      p.s. That’s why I dislike the false premise of “win win” so much…

  105. Dan, I believe that in this day in age we live in a world of competitive nature and sometimes feel that not getting cheated is the ultimate goal. As long as you personally feel that you can out ahead you “win” the chess match. Where in life do consumers not give up something to get what they want? The same goes for the producers…I believe without getting into a competitive feeling of cutthroat nature, often people feel much better about the deals that they make. I look at it in terms of an intense negotiation, though often we aren’t in that high intensity atmosphere we must settle differences through compromise. You jut have to be willing to do it.

    1. You are right that competition is important. Compromise too. But so too is understanding the game and being clear about what the competition is all about.

      Dan

      p.s. That’s why I dislike the false premise of “win win” so much…

  106. Dan, I believe that in this day in age we live in a world of competitive nature and sometimes feel that not getting cheated is the ultimate goal. As long as you personally feel that you can out ahead you “win” the chess match. Where in life do consumers not give up something to get what they want? The same goes for the producers…I believe without getting into a competitive feeling of cutthroat nature, often people feel much better about the deals that they make. I look at it in terms of an intense negotiation, though often we aren’t in that high intensity atmosphere we must settle differences through compromise. You jut have to be willing to do it.

    1. You are right that competition is important. Compromise too. But so too is understanding the game and being clear about what the competition is all about.

      Dan

      p.s. That’s why I dislike the false premise of “win win” so much…

  107. Dan, I believe that in this day in age we live in a world of competitive nature and sometimes feel that not getting cheated is the ultimate goal. As long as you personally feel that you can out ahead you “win” the chess match. Where in life do consumers not give up something to get what they want? The same goes for the producers…I believe without getting into a competitive feeling of cutthroat nature, often people feel much better about the deals that they make. I look at it in terms of an intense negotiation, though often we aren’t in that high intensity atmosphere we must settle differences through compromise. You jut have to be willing to do it.

    1. You are right that competition is important. Compromise too. But so too is understanding the game and being clear about what the competition is all about.

      Dan

      p.s. That’s why I dislike the false premise of “win win” so much…

  108. Dan, I believe that in this day in age we live in a world of competitive nature and sometimes feel that not getting cheated is the ultimate goal. As long as you personally feel that you can out ahead you “win” the chess match. Where in life do consumers not give up something to get what they want? The same goes for the producers…I believe without getting into a competitive feeling of cutthroat nature, often people feel much better about the deals that they make. I look at it in terms of an intense negotiation, though often we aren’t in that high intensity atmosphere we must settle differences through compromise. You jut have to be willing to do it.

    1. You are right that competition is important. Compromise too. But so too is understanding the game and being clear about what the competition is all about.

      Dan

      p.s. That’s why I dislike the false premise of “win win” so much…

  109. The notion that “win-win” situations do not exist is ignorant. Win-win is the basis for every business transaction on the planet and it arises from differing needs – for example: One party’s needs might lead them to prefer selling a physical asset because they have greater need for cash – if it’s an urgent need they might not care about getting the highest dollar value. Another party might be in need of that physical asset and be happy to part with cash to acquire it. Each party’s needs are met – thus by definition: win-win. Every day, billions (if not trillions) of transactions take place and the vast majority of them must be win-win (or individuals wouldn’t have transacted). Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. Not withstanding the points about being honest/dis-honest and taking a direct caring approach, the this article is rubbish.

    1. Owen,

      I appreciate your analysis. I don’t disagree. But I think the terminology is intellectually dishonest. Two opposing forces in the same competition can’t equally win. If both can’t win equally then it’s not a win. It’s just “good enough”…

      Dan

      1. Dan, I follow your quarrel with Owen. I would like to hear if you have any objective on another Owen’s point “Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. “

  110. The notion that “win-win” situations do not exist is ignorant. Win-win is the basis for every business transaction on the planet and it arises from differing needs – for example: One party’s needs might lead them to prefer selling a physical asset because they have greater need for cash – if it’s an urgent need they might not care about getting the highest dollar value. Another party might be in need of that physical asset and be happy to part with cash to acquire it. Each party’s needs are met – thus by definition: win-win. Every day, billions (if not trillions) of transactions take place and the vast majority of them must be win-win (or individuals wouldn’t have transacted). Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. Not withstanding the points about being honest/dis-honest and taking a direct caring approach, the this article is rubbish.

    1. Owen,

      I appreciate your analysis. I don’t disagree. But I think the terminology is intellectually dishonest. Two opposing forces in the same competition can’t equally win. If both can’t win equally then it’s not a win. It’s just “good enough”…

      Dan

      1. Dan, I follow your quarrel with Owen. I would like to hear if you have any objective on another Owen’s point “Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. “

  111. The notion that “win-win” situations do not exist is ignorant. Win-win is the basis for every business transaction on the planet and it arises from differing needs – for example: One party’s needs might lead them to prefer selling a physical asset because they have greater need for cash – if it’s an urgent need they might not care about getting the highest dollar value. Another party might be in need of that physical asset and be happy to part with cash to acquire it. Each party’s needs are met – thus by definition: win-win. Every day, billions (if not trillions) of transactions take place and the vast majority of them must be win-win (or individuals wouldn’t have transacted). Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. Not withstanding the points about being honest/dis-honest and taking a direct caring approach, the this article is rubbish.

    1. Owen,

      I appreciate your analysis. I don’t disagree. But I think the terminology is intellectually dishonest. Two opposing forces in the same competition can’t equally win. If both can’t win equally then it’s not a win. It’s just “good enough”…

      Dan

      1. Dan, I follow your quarrel with Owen. I would like to hear if you have any objective on another Owen’s point “Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. “

  112. The notion that “win-win” situations do not exist is ignorant. Win-win is the basis for every business transaction on the planet and it arises from differing needs – for example: One party’s needs might lead them to prefer selling a physical asset because they have greater need for cash – if it’s an urgent need they might not care about getting the highest dollar value. Another party might be in need of that physical asset and be happy to part with cash to acquire it. Each party’s needs are met – thus by definition: win-win. Every day, billions (if not trillions) of transactions take place and the vast majority of them must be win-win (or individuals wouldn’t have transacted). Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. Not withstanding the points about being honest/dis-honest and taking a direct caring approach, the this article is rubbish.

    1. Owen,

      I appreciate your analysis. I don’t disagree. But I think the terminology is intellectually dishonest. Two opposing forces in the same competition can’t equally win. If both can’t win equally then it’s not a win. It’s just “good enough”…

      Dan

      1. Dan, I follow your quarrel with Owen. I would like to hear if you have any objective on another Owen’s point “Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. “

  113. The notion that “win-win” situations do not exist is ignorant. Win-win is the basis for every business transaction on the planet and it arises from differing needs – for example: One party’s needs might lead them to prefer selling a physical asset because they have greater need for cash – if it’s an urgent need they might not care about getting the highest dollar value. Another party might be in need of that physical asset and be happy to part with cash to acquire it. Each party’s needs are met – thus by definition: win-win. Every day, billions (if not trillions) of transactions take place and the vast majority of them must be win-win (or individuals wouldn’t have transacted). Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. Not withstanding the points about being honest/dis-honest and taking a direct caring approach, the this article is rubbish.

    1. Owen,

      I appreciate your analysis. I don’t disagree. But I think the terminology is intellectually dishonest. Two opposing forces in the same competition can’t equally win. If both can’t win equally then it’s not a win. It’s just “good enough”…

      Dan

      1. Dan, I follow your quarrel with Owen. I would like to hear if you have any objective on another Owen’s point “Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. “

  114. The notion that “win-win” situations do not exist is ignorant. Win-win is the basis for every business transaction on the planet and it arises from differing needs – for example: One party’s needs might lead them to prefer selling a physical asset because they have greater need for cash – if it’s an urgent need they might not care about getting the highest dollar value. Another party might be in need of that physical asset and be happy to part with cash to acquire it. Each party’s needs are met – thus by definition: win-win. Every day, billions (if not trillions) of transactions take place and the vast majority of them must be win-win (or individuals wouldn’t have transacted). Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. Not withstanding the points about being honest/dis-honest and taking a direct caring approach, the this article is rubbish.

    1. Owen,

      I appreciate your analysis. I don’t disagree. But I think the terminology is intellectually dishonest. Two opposing forces in the same competition can’t equally win. If both can’t win equally then it’s not a win. It’s just “good enough”…

      Dan

      1. Dan, I follow your quarrel with Owen. I would like to hear if you have any objective on another Owen’s point “Win-Win IS possible when two parties have a complimentary set of needs. “

  115. Study the fundamentals underlying game theory and you will come to realize a “win win” outcome is possible. Will both sides enjoy an “equal” win is debatable, then again beauty (the win) is in the eye of the beholder!!

  116. Study the fundamentals underlying game theory and you will come to realize a “win win” outcome is possible. Will both sides enjoy an “equal” win is debatable, then again beauty (the win) is in the eye of the beholder!!

  117. Study the fundamentals underlying game theory and you will come to realize a “win win” outcome is possible. Will both sides enjoy an “equal” win is debatable, then again beauty (the win) is in the eye of the beholder!!

  118. Study the fundamentals underlying game theory and you will come to realize a “win win” outcome is possible. Will both sides enjoy an “equal” win is debatable, then again beauty (the win) is in the eye of the beholder!!

  119. Study the fundamentals underlying game theory and you will come to realize a “win win” outcome is possible. Will both sides enjoy an “equal” win is debatable, then again beauty (the win) is in the eye of the beholder!!

  120. Study the fundamentals underlying game theory and you will come to realize a “win win” outcome is possible. Will both sides enjoy an “equal” win is debatable, then again beauty (the win) is in the eye of the beholder!!

  121. The wolves in a pack are in a win-win situation if they hunt successfully. But this is not a win-win situation between the wolves and their pray.Same for business: out of all the entities involved, you can focus only on those with a net gain and ignore the rest (usually customers, employees, shareholders, or even competitors, etc), and you find win-win situations.

  122. The wolves in a pack are in a win-win situation if they hunt successfully. But this is not a win-win situation between the wolves and their pray.Same for business: out of all the entities involved, you can focus only on those with a net gain and ignore the rest (usually customers, employees, shareholders, or even competitors, etc), and you find win-win situations.

  123. The wolves in a pack are in a win-win situation if they hunt successfully. But this is not a win-win situation between the wolves and their pray.Same for business: out of all the entities involved, you can focus only on those with a net gain and ignore the rest (usually customers, employees, shareholders, or even competitors, etc), and you find win-win situations.

  124. The wolves in a pack are in a win-win situation if they hunt successfully. But this is not a win-win situation between the wolves and their pray.Same for business: out of all the entities involved, you can focus only on those with a net gain and ignore the rest (usually customers, employees, shareholders, or even competitors, etc), and you find win-win situations.

  125. The wolves in a pack are in a win-win situation if they hunt successfully. But this is not a win-win situation between the wolves and their pray.Same for business: out of all the entities involved, you can focus only on those with a net gain and ignore the rest (usually customers, employees, shareholders, or even competitors, etc), and you find win-win situations.

  126. The wolves in a pack are in a win-win situation if they hunt successfully. But this is not a win-win situation between the wolves and their pray.Same for business: out of all the entities involved, you can focus only on those with a net gain and ignore the rest (usually customers, employees, shareholders, or even competitors, etc), and you find win-win situations.

  127. I believe that the ‘WIN-WIN’ phase is true when you apply the rule of economics that ‘Trade makes things better for everyone’. With trade each party gains something and must give up something in return. It just depends on how good of a negotiator each side is and who has the greatest leverage. It is true that one side will usually extract a a greater benefit than the other but it is similar to coming in 1st or 2nd in a race. Both contests win something. If you choose not to trade or race then you cannot be expected to win.

  128. I believe that the ‘WIN-WIN’ phase is true when you apply the rule of economics that ‘Trade makes things better for everyone’. With trade each party gains something and must give up something in return. It just depends on how good of a negotiator each side is and who has the greatest leverage. It is true that one side will usually extract a a greater benefit than the other but it is similar to coming in 1st or 2nd in a race. Both contests win something. If you choose not to trade or race then you cannot be expected to win.

  129. I believe that the ‘WIN-WIN’ phase is true when you apply the rule of economics that ‘Trade makes things better for everyone’. With trade each party gains something and must give up something in return. It just depends on how good of a negotiator each side is and who has the greatest leverage. It is true that one side will usually extract a a greater benefit than the other but it is similar to coming in 1st or 2nd in a race. Both contests win something. If you choose not to trade or race then you cannot be expected to win.

  130. I believe that the ‘WIN-WIN’ phase is true when you apply the rule of economics that ‘Trade makes things better for everyone’. With trade each party gains something and must give up something in return. It just depends on how good of a negotiator each side is and who has the greatest leverage. It is true that one side will usually extract a a greater benefit than the other but it is similar to coming in 1st or 2nd in a race. Both contests win something. If you choose not to trade or race then you cannot be expected to win.

  131. I believe that the ‘WIN-WIN’ phase is true when you apply the rule of economics that ‘Trade makes things better for everyone’. With trade each party gains something and must give up something in return. It just depends on how good of a negotiator each side is and who has the greatest leverage. It is true that one side will usually extract a a greater benefit than the other but it is similar to coming in 1st or 2nd in a race. Both contests win something. If you choose not to trade or race then you cannot be expected to win.

  132. I believe that the ‘WIN-WIN’ phase is true when you apply the rule of economics that ‘Trade makes things better for everyone’. With trade each party gains something and must give up something in return. It just depends on how good of a negotiator each side is and who has the greatest leverage. It is true that one side will usually extract a a greater benefit than the other but it is similar to coming in 1st or 2nd in a race. Both contests win something. If you choose not to trade or race then you cannot be expected to win.

  133. There is such a thing as a Win/Win outcome from a negotiation as well as a Win/Lose outcome. Ultimately it comes back to your intention, in terms of how you operate.
    Parties that go into a negotiation with the intention to Win at the others expense ultimately lose the relationship, trust and the long term exchange of value. Value could take the form of fair exchange of money for services or products. Win/Lose is useful in say a legal battle where parties don’t intend to continue working together.

    In staff negotiations I think it is commercial suicide as Win/Lose against contractors, salespeople and staff ultimately demoralises the workforce and lowers productivity.

    A Win/Win outcome is possible, however not through a short term risk adverse perspective. Parties need to look for true outcomes of fair value. This kind of thinking leads to long term relationships built on trust and mutual upside. I’m not saying its easy and can be slightly utopian, however parties willing to put themselves at risk, take a long term view and work from an abundant context ultimately win the long game.

    In my view (like it or not) Win/Lose is a scarcity based position and leads to the continual repetition of Win/Lose over and over. This is because ultimately no one wants to keep doing business with you.

    There is no right or wrong associated to the preferred style of business. Either has its place, the thing is you need to be able to play both appropriately to win the war and not confuse having to win each battle with achieving your outcome.

  134. There is such a thing as a Win/Win outcome from a negotiation as well as a Win/Lose outcome. Ultimately it comes back to your intention, in terms of how you operate.
    Parties that go into a negotiation with the intention to Win at the others expense ultimately lose the relationship, trust and the long term exchange of value. Value could take the form of fair exchange of money for services or products. Win/Lose is useful in say a legal battle where parties don’t intend to continue working together.

    In staff negotiations I think it is commercial suicide as Win/Lose against contractors, salespeople and staff ultimately demoralises the workforce and lowers productivity.

    A Win/Win outcome is possible, however not through a short term risk adverse perspective. Parties need to look for true outcomes of fair value. This kind of thinking leads to long term relationships built on trust and mutual upside. I’m not saying its easy and can be slightly utopian, however parties willing to put themselves at risk, take a long term view and work from an abundant context ultimately win the long game.

    In my view (like it or not) Win/Lose is a scarcity based position and leads to the continual repetition of Win/Lose over and over. This is because ultimately no one wants to keep doing business with you.

    There is no right or wrong associated to the preferred style of business. Either has its place, the thing is you need to be able to play both appropriately to win the war and not confuse having to win each battle with achieving your outcome.

  135. There is such a thing as a Win/Win outcome from a negotiation as well as a Win/Lose outcome. Ultimately it comes back to your intention, in terms of how you operate.
    Parties that go into a negotiation with the intention to Win at the others expense ultimately lose the relationship, trust and the long term exchange of value. Value could take the form of fair exchange of money for services or products. Win/Lose is useful in say a legal battle where parties don’t intend to continue working together.

    In staff negotiations I think it is commercial suicide as Win/Lose against contractors, salespeople and staff ultimately demoralises the workforce and lowers productivity.

    A Win/Win outcome is possible, however not through a short term risk adverse perspective. Parties need to look for true outcomes of fair value. This kind of thinking leads to long term relationships built on trust and mutual upside. I’m not saying its easy and can be slightly utopian, however parties willing to put themselves at risk, take a long term view and work from an abundant context ultimately win the long game.

    In my view (like it or not) Win/Lose is a scarcity based position and leads to the continual repetition of Win/Lose over and over. This is because ultimately no one wants to keep doing business with you.

    There is no right or wrong associated to the preferred style of business. Either has its place, the thing is you need to be able to play both appropriately to win the war and not confuse having to win each battle with achieving your outcome.

  136. There is such a thing as a Win/Win outcome from a negotiation as well as a Win/Lose outcome. Ultimately it comes back to your intention, in terms of how you operate.
    Parties that go into a negotiation with the intention to Win at the others expense ultimately lose the relationship, trust and the long term exchange of value. Value could take the form of fair exchange of money for services or products. Win/Lose is useful in say a legal battle where parties don’t intend to continue working together.

    In staff negotiations I think it is commercial suicide as Win/Lose against contractors, salespeople and staff ultimately demoralises the workforce and lowers productivity.

    A Win/Win outcome is possible, however not through a short term risk adverse perspective. Parties need to look for true outcomes of fair value. This kind of thinking leads to long term relationships built on trust and mutual upside. I’m not saying its easy and can be slightly utopian, however parties willing to put themselves at risk, take a long term view and work from an abundant context ultimately win the long game.

    In my view (like it or not) Win/Lose is a scarcity based position and leads to the continual repetition of Win/Lose over and over. This is because ultimately no one wants to keep doing business with you.

    There is no right or wrong associated to the preferred style of business. Either has its place, the thing is you need to be able to play both appropriately to win the war and not confuse having to win each battle with achieving your outcome.

  137. There is such a thing as a Win/Win outcome from a negotiation as well as a Win/Lose outcome. Ultimately it comes back to your intention, in terms of how you operate.
    Parties that go into a negotiation with the intention to Win at the others expense ultimately lose the relationship, trust and the long term exchange of value. Value could take the form of fair exchange of money for services or products. Win/Lose is useful in say a legal battle where parties don’t intend to continue working together.

    In staff negotiations I think it is commercial suicide as Win/Lose against contractors, salespeople and staff ultimately demoralises the workforce and lowers productivity.

    A Win/Win outcome is possible, however not through a short term risk adverse perspective. Parties need to look for true outcomes of fair value. This kind of thinking leads to long term relationships built on trust and mutual upside. I’m not saying its easy and can be slightly utopian, however parties willing to put themselves at risk, take a long term view and work from an abundant context ultimately win the long game.

    In my view (like it or not) Win/Lose is a scarcity based position and leads to the continual repetition of Win/Lose over and over. This is because ultimately no one wants to keep doing business with you.

    There is no right or wrong associated to the preferred style of business. Either has its place, the thing is you need to be able to play both appropriately to win the war and not confuse having to win each battle with achieving your outcome.

  138. There is such a thing as a Win/Win outcome from a negotiation as well as a Win/Lose outcome. Ultimately it comes back to your intention, in terms of how you operate.
    Parties that go into a negotiation with the intention to Win at the others expense ultimately lose the relationship, trust and the long term exchange of value. Value could take the form of fair exchange of money for services or products. Win/Lose is useful in say a legal battle where parties don’t intend to continue working together.

    In staff negotiations I think it is commercial suicide as Win/Lose against contractors, salespeople and staff ultimately demoralises the workforce and lowers productivity.

    A Win/Win outcome is possible, however not through a short term risk adverse perspective. Parties need to look for true outcomes of fair value. This kind of thinking leads to long term relationships built on trust and mutual upside. I’m not saying its easy and can be slightly utopian, however parties willing to put themselves at risk, take a long term view and work from an abundant context ultimately win the long game.

    In my view (like it or not) Win/Lose is a scarcity based position and leads to the continual repetition of Win/Lose over and over. This is because ultimately no one wants to keep doing business with you.

    There is no right or wrong associated to the preferred style of business. Either has its place, the thing is you need to be able to play both appropriately to win the war and not confuse having to win each battle with achieving your outcome.

  139. I am a strong believer that it is possible and in the interest of the two parties involved to create a win-win situation.Creating a win-win situation implies the open sharing and discussion of strategy, mission and vision, and business and tactical plans. Only then can both parties understand what the drivers, objectives, key must dos and key must haves and also the challenges and problems faced by the other one, are. In addition to their own.
    By having this understanding, both can work commonly on creating a situation (e.g a Think tank, …) that generates efficiencies, excellence, innovation, etc. ultimately growth and sustainable business for both.

    1. Sophie,

      I agree that two people can emerge from a deal being happy and feeling good about the situation. That’s not a “win-win” deal though. It’s collaboration or cooperation.

      And there is nothing wrong with those types of deals. But they aren’t about “winning”…

      Dan

  140. I am a strong believer that it is possible and in the interest of the two parties involved to create a win-win situation.Creating a win-win situation implies the open sharing and discussion of strategy, mission and vision, and business and tactical plans. Only then can both parties understand what the drivers, objectives, key must dos and key must haves and also the challenges and problems faced by the other one, are. In addition to their own.
    By having this understanding, both can work commonly on creating a situation (e.g a Think tank, …) that generates efficiencies, excellence, innovation, etc. ultimately growth and sustainable business for both.

    1. Sophie,

      I agree that two people can emerge from a deal being happy and feeling good about the situation. That’s not a “win-win” deal though. It’s collaboration or cooperation.

      And there is nothing wrong with those types of deals. But they aren’t about “winning”…

      Dan

  141. I am a strong believer that it is possible and in the interest of the two parties involved to create a win-win situation.Creating a win-win situation implies the open sharing and discussion of strategy, mission and vision, and business and tactical plans. Only then can both parties understand what the drivers, objectives, key must dos and key must haves and also the challenges and problems faced by the other one, are. In addition to their own.
    By having this understanding, both can work commonly on creating a situation (e.g a Think tank, …) that generates efficiencies, excellence, innovation, etc. ultimately growth and sustainable business for both.

    1. Sophie,

      I agree that two people can emerge from a deal being happy and feeling good about the situation. That’s not a “win-win” deal though. It’s collaboration or cooperation.

      And there is nothing wrong with those types of deals. But they aren’t about “winning”…

      Dan

  142. I am a strong believer that it is possible and in the interest of the two parties involved to create a win-win situation.Creating a win-win situation implies the open sharing and discussion of strategy, mission and vision, and business and tactical plans. Only then can both parties understand what the drivers, objectives, key must dos and key must haves and also the challenges and problems faced by the other one, are. In addition to their own.
    By having this understanding, both can work commonly on creating a situation (e.g a Think tank, …) that generates efficiencies, excellence, innovation, etc. ultimately growth and sustainable business for both.

    1. Sophie,

      I agree that two people can emerge from a deal being happy and feeling good about the situation. That’s not a “win-win” deal though. It’s collaboration or cooperation.

      And there is nothing wrong with those types of deals. But they aren’t about “winning”…

      Dan

  143. I am a strong believer that it is possible and in the interest of the two parties involved to create a win-win situation.Creating a win-win situation implies the open sharing and discussion of strategy, mission and vision, and business and tactical plans. Only then can both parties understand what the drivers, objectives, key must dos and key must haves and also the challenges and problems faced by the other one, are. In addition to their own.
    By having this understanding, both can work commonly on creating a situation (e.g a Think tank, …) that generates efficiencies, excellence, innovation, etc. ultimately growth and sustainable business for both.

    1. Sophie,

      I agree that two people can emerge from a deal being happy and feeling good about the situation. That’s not a “win-win” deal though. It’s collaboration or cooperation.

      And there is nothing wrong with those types of deals. But they aren’t about “winning”…

      Dan

  144. I am a strong believer that it is possible and in the interest of the two parties involved to create a win-win situation.Creating a win-win situation implies the open sharing and discussion of strategy, mission and vision, and business and tactical plans. Only then can both parties understand what the drivers, objectives, key must dos and key must haves and also the challenges and problems faced by the other one, are. In addition to their own.
    By having this understanding, both can work commonly on creating a situation (e.g a Think tank, …) that generates efficiencies, excellence, innovation, etc. ultimately growth and sustainable business for both.

    1. Sophie,

      I agree that two people can emerge from a deal being happy and feeling good about the situation. That’s not a “win-win” deal though. It’s collaboration or cooperation.

      And there is nothing wrong with those types of deals. But they aren’t about “winning”…

      Dan

  145. In some situations both parties might get some, but not all, of the things they want, but not having the conflict is more advantageous than fighting over who gets everything.