Keep in mind that negotiations are aimed at finding an amicable solution to one problem, not an excuse to undermine others, so it is useful to deliberately separate the contentious issues from the people concerned. For example, it is quite possible to look deeply at people, to love them, to respect their value, feelings, values and beliefs, and yet to disagree with the particular point they are making. A valuable approach is to continue to express a positive appreciation for an individual, even if he or she does not agree with what he or she says. This means that differences of opinion do not damage the interpersonal relationship, not blame others for the problem and not pose the problem to people. This may involve actively supporting other people while at the time of the problem. In a negotiation where you don`t expect to take care of the person again and you don`t need your continued goodwill, it may be appropriate to look for a “bigger piece of cake” for yourself. This “win-win” approach, often referred to as “distribution negotiations,” is generally used to negotiate the price of goods or services (. B for example, a house or a car). By not allowing “disagreements on issues” to become “human disagreements,” it is possible to maintain a good relationship, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.
What pitfalls can cause your company or team to miss out on the rich rewards promised by a win-win settlement? Share your favorite win-win trading story with us in the comments. A win-win negotiation is a careful investigation of both your own position and that of your opponent, in order to find an acceptable result for both parties that will offer you as much of what you want as of your opponent. If you`re both happy to leave with what you`ve earned from the deal, then this is a win-win situation! As this example shows, what might initially look like a win-win negotiation could prove to be a win-win. Finding the path to a win-win negotiation often means making mutual profits by cutting off their different preferences to create value. But when the concept of win-win trading became a slogan, confusion grew as to what it meant exactly, as Susskind notes in Good for You, Great for Me. Should colleagues in the win-win negotiation distribute resources equitably? If a party has more to offer, shouldn`t it receive most of the total cake? How could a powerful party justify a 50-50 split of its voters? Was the competition so bad? Too often, disagreements are treated as a personal affront. The rejection of what a person says or does is considered a rejection of the person. This is why many attempts to resolve disputes turn into personal struggles or power struggles with angry, hurt or angry people. Have you ever heard anyone say that they “wrapped up the yard?” Despite our best intentions, we sometimes negotiate too much value to reach an agreement.
Even if we enter into our discussions with great motivation and a joyful spirit of cooperation, we must be careful. It is advisable to carefully dip our toes into the water to ensure that we are not engulfed by a smiling and hungry shark. Consider how a poorly implemented win-win trading style can`t achieve business technical goals and leaves gold on the table. Many people mistakenly think that compromise is a positive approach to reaching a win-win agreement. That is simply not true. If you look at the definition of “compromise,” it means: “A settlement of a dispute in which two or more parties agree to accept a little less than they originally wanted.” If one or both sides agree to reduce their ambitions, it is not a win-win result, is it? (Note: Over-ambitions in aspiration due to lack of experience or research are the subject of another article.) In the 1980s, the way in which negotiations were thought