Does WIN-LOSE ever become a realistic approach in negotiation?

There may of course be situations where a win-win outcome is not appropriate. In May 1993 a gunman took six small girls and their teacher as hostages, in a French classroom. His ransom demands included millions of francs and a getaway vehicle. It would have been inappropriate to have let the gunman win even part of his outcome as to do so might have encouraged others to plan similar crimes.

However, the approach taken by the French police was a win-win approach. They brought some of the money and the vehicle he had demanded. They met his requests for food, a video camera etc. They stopped using this approach however when they were unable to negotiate with his final demand - to take a young child with him. The offer of one child's father to be a substitute was rejected. At this point their approach changed and they stopped even seeming to negotiate with the gunman's demands. At some point the gunman fell asleep (drugged perhaps) and the police, who had smuggled in a hidden camera with some food, were able to storm the building. The gunman was shot dead.

In this case, the gunman had to be seen to lose. If he had continued to negotiate, and had agreed to release the children in exchange for an adult, the situation might have continued longer and ended differently, but the outcome must have been the same -governments cannot allow terrorism to be rewarded. So their reaction when hijackers take over aircraft, or Saddam Hussein uses a plane load of people as 'Human Shields', has to be a tough one.

There may be issues in your life and work which are so important that you have to win and be seen to win. Situations where you may need to exercise your right to refuse to negotiate. Let us hope they are slightly less traumatic and life threatening than the examples I have given here.