Flaws of Win-Win – part II

In the former article: Flaws of Win-Win - part I, I’ve tried to show why the Win-Win model that advocates collaboration is not necessarily an Archimedean point in initiating collaboration.
Hopefully I’ve left you with the question “o.k. so what do you offer instead?”

The model I am suggesting is called I Win – where the parties to a negotiation/conflict ask themselves - what do I want? (In comparison to how I want it to end – which is usually “what does the other person need to do in order that I’ll get what I want”). This model based on the selfishness embedded in people, opens a venue for rational thought, focuses a party to a negotiation/conflict on its original goals rather than on the result, and allows for a wide variety of solutions – not necessarily one type of solution.
You may ask nonetheless: “when talking about I Win you are essentially preaching to selfishness and every man for himself. You are in fact encouraging inter-organizational anarchy”. On the contrary! People who work or live together are interdependent to one another – they affect each other. Not recognizing this interdependency (therefore following the aggressive approach) harms – in most of the cases – myself and therefore does not bring me to my I Win. Therefore my selfish wishes as an individual force me to take into account all the relevant considerations – from my point of view – including the existence of other people around me with whom I’m interdependent with. Note that the point of view remains my own – I take into account the interests of the other party and consider in what way they allow me to achieve my benefit at a given situation.
Some of you will claim that this intentional approach illuminates relations between people in general and between officers in organization in particular, in a utilitarian and too selfish light Ladies and Gentleman collaboration is a selfish act – people will collaborate only when their I win shows them that collaboration is the best way to their I win.
I’ll elaborate on this point using an example: a while ago, a Human Resources manager of a large organization approached me and asked my help in enhancing the cooperation between the officers in the organization. This Human Resources manager showed me with pride the organization’s vision where the term Win – Win also appeared. However, in actuality, projects were stuck, accusations were thrown and motivation was low. A simple inquiry I conducted revealed that the golden rule of collaboration – “worth my while I do, not worth my while I do not do” – does not occur in that organization, that is, the I Win of the officers in this organization led them to lack of cooperation. It wasn’t worth their while to cooperate because – amongst other things – they were not measured according to systemic results but personal results.
All I did was make sure that the golden rule exists – that is, that the officers’ I Win in the organization will lead them to want to cooperate with other officers, as the measurement of the results was done on a regional and not on a personal basis.
Cooperation is one means of achieving results, and that is why Win – Win will always be inferior to a way that legitimizes other ways of operation – the I Win approach. The I winslogan is simply “choose!” whatever the path to your goals is – choose it, overcome your human characteristics and choose your path.
Organizations that wish to enhance the cooperation between their employees must make it “advisable” for officers to cooperate, make it “worthwhile” for them to do so or – in my own words – that their I Win lead them to cooperation.
The golden rule also simply explains the need for police. Not always is it worthwhile for me to do something and therefore it should be that it will not be worthwhile for me to do it. It is clear to all of us that the crime rate would have sky – rocketed if there would be no one on guard… that is the policeman standing on the street corner makes sure – by his presence alone – that people behave according to the golden rule – make it “worthwhile” to them not to do certain things. Where there is no clear management setting boundaries of right and wrong, the golden rule will be breached and the result will be anarchy, again, conversely the I Win approach prevents anarchy.
Those amongst you who are not convinced will say to me the following: “if each side to a negotiation acts in the I Win approach then they both will create a Win – Win solution”. My answer is: not necessarily and usually not. Take for example a side that is significantly stronger than the other party and discovers that his I Win requires using his relative advantage – there will not be and there is no place here for a solution of the Win – Win type. Even when both parties are of equal strength, the I Win technique will leverage human characteristics (reactivness for example) to a smart dialog and will also facilitate a better solution than Win – Win (for example an “Added Value Solution” – a solution where the parties succeed in creating something that was not there before).
I will go further and say that my experience has shown me that attempts at creating Win – Win solutions lead usually to compromise and concessions while the I Win is a model that enables synergetic cooperation creating added values for both parties.