Three different outcomes of negotiations

Most people are familiar with the three different outcomes that can result from negotiations. These can be expressed in simple terms as:

Win-Win
Win-Lose
Lose-Lose

Win-win
This suggests that both sides get what they want. In reality it probably means that both sides feel satisfied with the outcome of the meeting. They may not have everything they initially asked for, but both have something. No one feels robbed or swindled.

Win-lose
This is the classic first past the post scenario - if there is a winner, then by definition there has to be a loser. In negotiations this is often the approach that people take.

I’m going for what I want and ****** the loser!'

or

'Our case is fair and their case is unfair so right is on our side and we are not giving up till they give us what we want.'

Win-Lose is the classic starting position for many industrial and international disputes.

Lose-lose
If both parties are determined not to let the other one win, they can both end up not achieving their objective. It can often happen when both parties go in with a Win-Lose approach and narrow desired outcomes, both determined not to give way. Lose-Lose can also be an attitude taken by both parties in a dispute.

‘If we can't get what we want we are going to make jolly sure that they don't get what they want either.'

'She is obviously not going to give me what I want, so I am going to make it as painful and expensive as possible for her.'

These labels, Win-Win, Win-Lose and Lose-Lose, are applicable both to the approach taken to the negotiation and to the outcome of the negotiation. The link that negotiators may fail to make is that the outcome is usually affected by the approach. If you start with a Win-Win approach, the outcome is far more likely to be Win-Win. If you start with a Win-Lose or Lose-Lose approach, the outcome will almost certainly reflect that.