If both parties in a negotiation end up better off than before the deal, that’s a win-win, right?
Wrong.
A common misconception about win-win leads some negotiators to aim low, focus on their break points, and rush to compromise without fully advocating for their interests. The other party gets a favorable deal (the “win”), while the negotiator walks away a “wimp”, settling for a merely “good enough” outcome. If one side’s gain comes at the other side’s expense, it’s a “wimp-win”, even if both end up better off than before.
But true win-win isn’t just about improving the status quo for both sides (without that, there shouldn’t be a deal) — it’s about maximizing value for both sides.
The real focus isn’t ‘before’ vs. ’after’, but comparing two alternative outcomes. If one deal option benefits both parties more than an alternative option, you’ve achieved a true win-win.
How is this done? By uncovering value differentials in your respective priorities, motivations, and constraints.
- Can one side offer something inexpensive to them but valuable to the other?
- Can timing or risks be adjusted for mutual benefit?
Turning wimp-win into true win-win negotiations requires curiosity, creativity, and a collaborative mindset.
Ready to transform your negotiation approach? Message me directly — let’s create value instead of wimping out on your next negotiation.