Comments on: Win-Win Deals

By: Uncle B

Uncle B — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:34:34 +0000

Canadian Military in Afghanistan is a lose lose deal typical of western conservative business methods, another example, the Avro arrow fiasco which marked the giveaway of a technically capable Canada and another, the current Alberta oil giveaway to the U.S. which marks the world’s greatest charity donation to American hedonism in history, and reminds us that even graduate economists of western universities don’t have the business abilities of a Toronto real estate agent. We need win wins in Canada like never before. We have to get rid of the farm boys in power, before they put us back on the farm.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:22:05 +0000

I think it is not so much the concept of win-win (as you point out, any mutually-beneficial business deal HAS to be win-win, by definition), but rather the tailoring of the term to fit a skeevy sales pitch. We see that in all sorts of types of sales, and it leads me to raise a skeptical eyebrow. From the insurance salesman who feigns overarching concern for my family’s welfare, to the grocer who abuses a technicality to utilize the term “organic” while selling foods that are less nutritious than their regular counterparts… it’s all out there. I would rather people just be up-front and let me decide for myself without all the background noise.
Jerry

By: Mr. Cheap

Mr. Cheap — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:58:10 +0000

In your orange example, if they split the orange and each woman uses her half for what she wants (and throws away the rest), they’ve made a win-win deal (they both benefit). Sure, its a more EFFICIENT deal if they each get the part of the whole orange they want, but in both cases both women benefit. Better understanding leads to a better deal, sure but there’s nothing magical about it that makes it a “win win” where the other deal wasn’t.

Equally in the case of the employee/employer, you’re absolutely correct in that the workplace is made up of all sorts of factors that make it a better / worse place to work (which will impact employee attraction & retention). Flex-time is an example of something that would improve the working conditions, and may not cost the employer anything (many companies may disagree with this – otherwise they’d already be offering it). How is this win-win when an employment contract without flex-time isn’t?

It seems like in your examples, you define a win-win as a situation where someone gives something they don’t care about at all (or something that doesn’t cost them anything) to someone who cares about it a great deal. While its great to add “sweetners” to an agreement, and its especially great if there’s little cost to you to add it, this is obviously going to impact the agreement as a whole. A company that offers flextime should be able to offer a lower salary and have the same employee retention (if they can figure out how much the employees’ value flex time). Even if this element of the deal doesn’t cost them anything, its going to impact the zero-sum element of agreement. Alternatively, they may get higher quality employees for the same salary as their non-flexible competitors are offering (which amounts to the same thing).

Thanks for your response!

By: Aaron (marroncito)

Aaron (marroncito) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:53:28 +0000

as far as i understand it, getting a win-win deal is more about understanding rather than getting over on someone else or “pillaging” them. let’s examine the workplace example a little more. it’s true that money for time is a zero sum game. however, neither the employer or the employee comes to this transaction in a vacuum. they have numerous other needs, wants, etc. that can be fulfilled. employees care about other things like work environment, scheduling, and degree of autonomy. employers also care about customer service, loyalty and supervision. these are things that can be negotiated in addition to just the exchange of money for time or labor. if an employer needs X amount of labor every week he can make a situation win-win by letting the employee use flex scheduling to meet the weeks requirements rather than demanding a fixed schedule of clocking in and clocking out. it doesn’t cost the employer any more money to produce the amount of labor he is paying for and yet he is providing an added benefit to the employee by giving them more control over their time.

another one of my favorite examples of getting to win-win through understanding is the story of the 2 women and the orange. two women were to share an orange. one wanted to eat the orange. the other wanted to make meringue from the rind. they argued back and forth and finally cut the orange in half. one woman ate half the orange and threw the rind away. the other woman used half the rind for her pie and threw the fruit away. if both women and understood the needs of the other woman they both could have had all the orange for their purposes. this is win-win.

you’re right that anyone who makes “trust me” as the basis for an agreement is at best dictating how much you win, which is an awful arrangement, and at worst is trying to get over on you.

that’s why the basis for win-win is understanding, not trust. if you understand the other parties needs completely, both parties can align their interests to the optimum – win, win.

win, win also doesn’t mean the best possible result for both parties. sometimes both people want to eat the orange.