Win-win negotiations first rose to prominence during the 1980s, thanks in part to books like Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton’s bestseller Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Having said that, there was also a shifting mindset at the time as negotiators saw win-win negotiations as preferable to the then-dominant win-lose approach. A win-win negotiation is a negotiation outcome resulting in a mutually acceptable and beneficial deal for all involved parties.
Understanding a win-win negotiation
The outcome of a win-win negotiation can best be described as an integrative negotiated agreement.
This means the parties involved in a negotiation have reached an agreement after considering each other’s interests to the fullest extent.
In other words, the agreement cannot be improved upon by further discussion or by any other means.
Each party walking away from a win-win negotiation does so with the feeling they have won or achieved their goals.
Importantly, win-win negotiations do not require resources to be split down the middle.
Nor do these negotiations suggest one party make a concession just because the other party did.
Instead, both parties in a win-win negotiation work to get the best deal possible while ensuring their counterparts are satisfied with the outcome.
In the book Good for You, Great for Me: Finding the Trading Zone and Winning at Win-Win Negotiation, author Lawrence Susskind suggested businesses think creatively about how they can get more of what they want by helping the other side do the same.
Win-win negotiation trade-offs
Successful negotiation outcomes rely on reaching a mutually beneficial situation by trading off different preferences to create value.
To explain this concept in more detail, we have listed a few ways the skilled negotiator can create this value:
Different future beliefs
When both parties believe in a different version of the future, they can negotiate a contingent contract stipulating what either party will do if its future vision does not materialize.
In theory, each side should be happy to bet on their respective prediction if they truly believe it will occur.
Different attitudes toward time
Time horizons can also be used as a point of difference for trade-offs.
Suppose two investors are interested in purchasing a business together, with one looking for a quick return while the other happy to be more patient.
A win-win negotiation in this scenario may involve the less patient party securing a bigger share of the initial return in exchange for the more patient party earning a larger share over the long term.
Different interests and priorities
Perhaps the most common trade-off used in win-win negotiation.
For example, one party in a negotiation for a joint-venture deal may consider 60% of total earnings to be a win.
The other party in the negotiation may define a successful joint venture as one that allows it to build a solid relationship with the other organization.
WATNA, BATNA, and ZOPA to close any deal
Before walking into a deal, it’s possible to get there prepared for a few simple scenarios, with three main techniques to skyrocket the chance of closing the deal.
In negotiation, WATNA stands for “worst alternative to a negotiated agreement,” representing one of several alternative options if a resolution cannot be reached. This is a useful technique to help understand what might be a negotiation outcome, that even if negative is still better than a WATNA, making the deal still feasible.
This represents possible alternatives in case a resolution cannot be reached.
Once you have the WATNA figured out, you can work out your BATNA.
In negotiation theory, BATNA stands for “Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement,” and it’s one of the key tenets of negotiation theory. Indeed, it describes the best course of action a party can take if negotiations fail to reach an agreement. This simple strategy can help improve the negotiation as each party is (in theory) willing to take the best course of action, as otherwise, an agreement won’t be reached.
Once you have the WATNA and BATNA worked out, you have defined the boundaries of the negotiation.
Thus, you clearly understand where the negotiation can move and within which scenario the negotiation can be closed.
The ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) describes an area in which two negotiation parties may find common ground. Indeed, ZOPA is critical to explore the deals where the parties get a mutually beneficial outcome to prevent the risk of a win-lose, or lose-win scenario. And therefore get to the point of a win-win negotiation outcome.
With these three very simple techniques, you can enter any negotiation with a prepared mind.
Key takeaways
A win-win negotiation is a negotiation outcome resulting in a mutually acceptable and beneficial deal for all involved parties. The approach became popular in the 1980s as negotiators saw the benefit in abandoning the then-dominant win-lose negotiation strategy.
Fundamental to a successful win-win negotiation is the ability for one party to creatively determine how it can get more of what it wants while also allowing the other party to believe it has done the same.
A win-win negotiation relies on creating value by the trade-off of different and non-competing preferences. Value can usually be found in the differences between future predictions, time horizons, interests, and priorities.
The Fishbone Diagram is a diagram-based technique used in brainstorming to identify potential causes for a problem, thus it is a visual representation of cause and effect. The problem or effect serves as the head of the fish. Possible causes of the problem are listed on the individual “bones” of the fish. This encourages problem-solving teams to consider a wide range of alternatives.
In negotiation theory, BATNA stands for “Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement,” and it’s one of the key tenets of negotiation theory. Indeed, it describes the best course of action a party can take if negotiations fail to reach an agreement. This simple strategy can help improve the negotiation as each party is (in theory) willing to take the best course of action, as otherwise, an agreement won’t be reached.
In negotiation, WATNA stands for “worst alternative to a negotiated agreement,” representing one of several alternative options if a resolution cannot be reached. This is a useful technique to help understand what might be a negotiation outcome, that even if negative is still better than a WATNA, making the deal still feasible.
The ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) describes an area in which two negotiation parties may find common ground. Indeed, ZOPA is critical to exploring the deals where the parties get a mutually beneficial outcome to prevent the risk of a win-lose, or lose-win scenario. And therefore get to the point of a win-win negotiation outcome.
In a logrolling negotiation, one party offers a concession on one issue to gain ground on another issue. In logrolling, there is no desire by either party to advertise the extent of their power, rights, or entitlements. This makes it a particularly effective strategy in complex negotiations where partial or complete impasses exist.
The Theory of Constraints was developed in 1984 by businessmanagement guru Eliyahu Goldratt in his book The Goal. The Theory of Constraints argues that every system has at least one constraint that hinders high-level performance or profit generation. Fundamentally, the theory advocates identifying constraints and then eliminating them or at the very least, reducing their impact.
Gennaro is the creator of FourWeekMBA, which reached about four million business people, comprising C-level executives, investors, analysts, product managers, and aspiring digital entrepreneurs in 2022 alone | He is also Director of Sales for a high-tech scaleup in the AI Industry | In 2012, Gennaro earned an International MBA with emphasis on Corporate Finance and Business Strategy.
