Win win
A win-win strategy ( English win for, profit '), also known as double win strategy known has, that all parties and stakeholders to achieve the goal of a benefit. Each negotiating partner also respects his counterpart and tries to take his interests sufficiently into account. Equal partners fight for a balance of interests that is positive for both sides . The effects on third parties must be taken into account.
This strategy is geared towards long-term sustainable success and long-term cooperation rather than short-term profit .
Emergence
One of the fundamental concepts of win-win problem solving was developed in the 1970s and 80s at Harvard University , where the development of improved negotiation methods was scientifically investigated as part of the Harvard Negotiation Project . The method of "proper negotiation" was as Harvard concept known and underlies many approaches to conflict solution such as the mediation is based. It was tried out in ecological and civil rights movements, in political negotiations, in economic and legal problems and disputes.
Conflict resolution without a loser
Win-win can only be achieved if the interests are articulated. The positions brought up in a conflict reflect personal demands and opinions and are often fiercely contested because they are linked to emotions and the participants identify with their positions. In the extreme case, opinion stands against opinion and demand against demand. Behind this are the actual interests, what is to be achieved with the positions. As soon as it is possible to filter out what is behind the demands and statements, instead of dealing with superficial issues, an objective discussion can be held about which solution variant covers the interests of all those involved.
Conflicts are often resolved in two ways: Either one party prevails with its ideas or those involved find a compromise. Both cases represent solutions according to the “winner-loser model”. In the first case there is an obvious loser, in a compromise case everyone loses part of what they perceive to be a legitimate claim. As a result, compromises in further development are not very reliable. They can lead to follow-up conflicts, covert counter-attacks and a break in the motivation of those involved.
There is also the outcome of a conflict in which both opponents fail (loser-loser model), which is not infrequently welcomed, "so that at least the other one doesn't benefit either".
The resumption of the dispute at the next critical opportunity is treated as an "antagonistic exchange" within sociology within the framework of exchange theory . In game theory in economics , this development is known as the “minimax principle” and in psychology as a “lazy compromise” or “object removal” according to Sigmund Freud .
The win-win strategy is not about asserting one's own position or necessarily making compromises, but rather finding a permanent solution that is supported and accepted by all those involved. Here a situation is created in which everyone has the perception that this solution will gain something and not lose something. Sociologically, it is also treated as a “synagonistic exchange”, in anthropology a bridge can be built to the biosociologically predefined dispositions and psychologically, a win-win decision is experienced as a relieving end point, as the satisfaction that results from the solution of the decision problem.
It's not just about those involved, but also about those affected . If those involved come out of the conflict with a win but those affected lose, it is not a win-win situation. If, for example, the board members of a company grant each other high salaries, but this leads to reduced wages or layoffs for employees, this is not a win-win.
method
The core element of win-win negotiations is the discussion about interests and not about positions or even people. At the same time, this means that those involved in the conflict must have a discussion on the “factual level” and should not get caught up in their fears and fears, mutual insults and blame. At the same time, the expectations, trust and fears of those involved are to be appreciated. Instead of fighting each other, those involved in the conflict must “tackle the conflict or the problem to be solved together” and overcome any previous assumptions through confidence-building measures.
In order to apply the win-win strategy, it is therefore necessary to learn a number of communication techniques in order to prevent the typical misunderstandings and falling back on fighting over positions. An essential element here is, for example, avoiding verbal attacks, assigning blame and condemning the other side. A fair discussion can certainly include the evaluation of arguments (see utility analysis ). However, it is absolutely necessary to put yourself in the position of the conflict partners (see empathy ) in order to gain distance from your own position, avoid unnecessary confrontations and keep the discussion focused on a dispute about interests (see active listening ) and to ask specifically and to give me messages .
Representing one's own interests is just as much a part of these techniques as the separation of problem analysis and problem solving and the design of the environment for conflict discussions in the course of the overall situation.
The authors of the so-called Harvard concept developed additional techniques for hardship cases, borderline cases and failed negotiations in an addendum to illustrate the method. This method, which is based on win-win, strictly separates person and topic ("soft on people and tough on the matter"). It is also still possible to involve a third party, a mediator , to defuse the conflict. Sometimes it becomes clearer in this way that the special characteristics of each person rarely make it necessary to really work against each other in order to achieve “his” goal or to be happy. Those who are brave enough to do what they do best will find more cooperation partners than those who just want the resources of their neighbors.
example
If you get annoyed with a colleague because he is careless and neglecting things, you can react in a classic way and attack him because of that. As a “win-win strategist”, on the other hand, you try to find out “why” is he careless? Does he have private stress? Is his health not doing well? Does he have worries that distract him? You can ask questions, listen, address your own concerns and find ways to improve the situation together. If you try from this side, there will be no attack, your colleague has the opportunity to explain yourself and you can possibly find a solution that helps all those affected.
Win-win game in game theory
Although the term win-win does not originally come from game theory , Christian Rieck formulated the principle as an elementary game in 1992, which reflects the essential elements of the win-win situation: No original conflict of interests, but the possibility of failure of a cooperation.
Rieck's win-win game as a two-person game in normal form can be exemplified as follows (the game is to be read in such a way that the two players have strategy a or b at their disposal; the payouts they receive from the game depend on the combination of their two strategies, for example if both choose their strategy a, then both get 2; this is the value that is given in the matrix fields. The first value is the payout to player 1, the second to player 2) :
| Player 1 \ Player 2 | a | b |
|---|---|---|
| a | (2.2) | (0.0) |
| b | (0.0) | (1.1) |
Only the solution in which both players play a and thus each receive the payout 2 is Pareto efficient . However, the classic game theory solution to this game is not clear. The Pareto efficient solution is a Nash equilibrium , but the inefficient payout of (1,1) is too. Only the equilibrium selection theory of John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten provides the efficient equilibrium in which both players play strategy a via the principle of payout dominance as a clear solution to this game.
Limits of the win-win strategy
If power is very disproportionately distributed between the negotiating partners, the stronger side will have little interest in a negotiated solution. Finding a win-win solution is more time-consuming for them than forcing their decision on the weaker side.
In classic shortage scenarios, under time pressure, in sales or when exerting political influence, the concept is often deliberately not used by the dominant parties in order to preserve a territory , free time , influence on resources or one's own workplace .
Sometimes companies or families move in an atmosphere of cultured, covert hostility with great joy in the "winner-loser principle". Communication is characterized by increasing one's own influence at the expense of the personal deficits of a competitor (see also social Darwinism and inductive argumentation ).
Especially in performance-oriented social classes, at some high schools and universities and when looking for a job or defending it, the competitor or colleague should not win too. Promotions that are awarded according to performance stimulate participants in a team meeting to dismantle the person of a counterpart. The image of the shrewd seller who wishes his customers “the best” but employs his lawyers to formulate the terms and conditions in such a way that the customer can get out of the contract as difficult as possible supports this thesis.
Conflicts can escalate, even if one is aware of these dangers and acts accordingly carefully. No social situation can be controlled in such a way that the unforeseen does not happen or influences that cause all efforts to fail.
Others
- "Win-Win" is the Liechtenstein word of the year 2014.
See also
literature
- Roger Fisher , William Ury: Getting to Yes. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 2nd edition. Houghton Mifflin & Co., Boston MA et al. a. 1991, ISBN 0-395-63124-6 .
- William Ury: Getting Past No. Negotiating Your Way From Confrontation To Cooperation. Revised edition. Bantam Books, New York NY 1993, ISBN 0-553-37131-2 .
German
- Roger Fisher , William Ury, Bruce Patton: The Harvard Concept. Negotiate properly - negotiate successfully. 19th edition. Campus, Frankfurt am Main u. a. 2000, ISBN 3-593-34804-7 .
- Christian Rieck : Game Theory. Introduction for economists and social scientists. Gabler, Wiesbaden 1993, ISBN 3-409-16801-X (7th, revised and expanded edition. Rieck, Eschborn 2007, ISBN 978-3-924043-91-9 ).
