The Basics
Morton Deutsch continues his discussion of what makes people be competitive or cooperative, and describes the results of those choices.
|
Win-win, win-lose, and lose-lose are game theory terms that refer to the possible outcomes of a game or dispute involving two sides, and more importantly, how each side perceives their outcome relative to their standing before the game. For example, a "win" results when the outcome of a negotiation is better than expected, a "loss" when the outcome is worse than expected. Two people may receive the same outcome in measurable terms, say $10, but for one side that may be a loss, while for the other it is a win. In other words, expectations determine one's perception of any given result.
Win-win outcomes occur when each side of a dispute feels they have won. Since both sides benefit from such a scenario, any resolutions to the conflict are likely to be accepted voluntarily. The process of integrative bargaining aims to achieve, through cooperation, win-win outcomes.
Win-lose situations result when only one side perceives the outcome as positive. Thus, win-lose outcomes are less likely to be accepted voluntarily. Distributive bargaining processes, based on a principle of competition between participants, tend to end in win-lose outcomes.
Lose-lose means that all parties end up being worse off. An example of this would be a budget-cutting negotiation in which all parties lose money. In some lose-lose situations, all parties understand that losses are unavoidable and that they will be evenly distributed. In such situations, lose-lose outcomes can be preferable to win-lose outcomes because the distribution is at least considered to be fair.[1]
Jay Rothman , President of the ARIA Group, Inc., describes the use of action evaluation to find non-litigious ways, i.e. win-win, of dealing with racial profiling problems in Cincinnati. In particular, he highlights efforts to engage young people.
|
In other situations, though, lose-lose outcomes occur when win-win outcomes might have been possible. The classic example of this is called the prisoner's dilemma in which two prisoners must decide whether to confess to a crime. Neither prisoner knows what the other will do. The best outcome for prisoner A occurs if he/she confesses, while prisoner B keeps quiet. In this case, the prisoner who confesses and implicates the other is rewarded by being set free, and the other (who stayed quiet) receives the maximum sentence, as s/he didn't cooperate with the police, yet they have enough evidence to convict. (This is a win-lose outcome.) The same goes for prisoner B. But if both prisoners confess (trying to take advantage of their partner), they each serve the maximum sentence (a lose-lose outcome). If neither confesses, they both serve a reduced sentence (a win-win outcome, although the win is not as big as the one they would have received in the win-lose scenario).
This situation occurs fairly often, as win-win outcomes can only be identified through cooperative (or integrative) bargaining, and are likely to be overlooked if negotiations take a competitive distributive) stance.
The key thing to remember is that any negotiation may be reframed (placed in a new context) so that expectations are lowered. In the prisoner's dilemma, for example, if both prisoners are able to perceive the reduced sentence as a win rather than a loss, then the outcome is a win-win situation. Thus, with lowered expectations, it may be possible for negotiators to craft win-win solutions out of a potentially lose-lose situation. However, this requires that the parties sacrifice their original demands for lesser ones.
[1] The above definitions were drawn from: Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess, Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution (Denver: ABC-CLIO, 1997), 306-307, 309-310.
Use the following to cite this article:
Spangler, Brad. "Win-Win, Win-Lose, and Lose-Lose Situations." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/win-lose/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
Glaser, Tanya. "Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes--Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, 1998.
Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10563/.
This page offers a summary of the book, Dealing with an Angry Public, by Lawrence Susskind and Patrick Field. Susskind and Field warn that an angry, suspicious public will undermine American competitiveness in the global marketplace, and will undermine confidence in basic social institutions. The authors develop a mutual-gains approach to dealing
with the public, which views public relations as a kind of multiparty, multi-issue negotiation, and so follows the basic principles for effective negotiations.
Offline (Print) Sources
Susskind, Lawrence and Patrick Field. Dealing With An Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach To Resolving Disputes. New York: Free Press, January 1, 1996.
This practical book by Lawrence Susskind and Patrick Field analyzes scores of both private and public-sector cases, as well as crisis scenarios such as the Alaskan oil spill, the silicone breast implant controversy, and nuclear plant malfunction at Three Mile Island. All of these cases affected large groups of people who were extremely upset with the problems. The authors show how to manage the anger of the public sector and overcome resistance to both public and private initiatives through a mutual gains (integrative) approach, involving face-to-face negotiation. Click here for more info.
Burgess, Heidi and Guy M. Burgess. "Definition of Win-win, Win-lose, All-lose ." In Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution. ABC-Clio, November 1997. Pages: 306-307.
This section of the Encyclopedia of Conflict Resolution offers a discussion of the distinctions between win-win, win-lose, and all lose scenarios.
Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton. "Invent Options for Mutual Gain." In Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd Edition . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., April 1992. Pages: 58-83.
One of the key principles of Getting to Yes is that parties work together to create settlement options that satisfy both parties -- to create win-win options. Chapter Four, "Invent Options for Mutual Gain," outlines how parties may go about developing win-win solutions to their dispute. Click here for more info.
Return to Top
Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
"Consensus Rule Processes." ,
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/consenpr.htm.
This article discusses the pros and cons of the consensus rule process. It explains that by using this process all parties must come to a common agreement. Unless parties have irreconcilable differences the parties generally express greater satisfaction with the outcome, however this process usually takes longer than a simple majority rule vote.
Return to Top
|
