Inter 2

DOES SOMEBODY ALWAYS HAVE TO LOSE?

 Definitions and criticism

Negotiation is a part of normal everyday life. In fact, many people would say that life,
itself, is just one continuous negotiation.
Many may believe that they are not experienced negotiators or that they are unable
to negotiate well. Perhaps they are unable to realize that there are many types of
negotiations. Not all negotiations have complex written agreements. In fact, most
negotiations are verbal agreements that may or may not involve the exchange of monetary
consideration.
There are many examples of daily negotiations that people may not consider as
negotiations, for example, when a couple is deciding who of the two has the best route to
take the children to school or when office colleagues decide who will make the next pot of
coffee or when a baby starts to cry because it dropped its favorite toy from the crib and
wants someone to return the toy. By the way, a crying baby is certainly a better negotiator
than many CEO's.
In the current literature1, it is believed that a negotiation agreement always has two
sides: objectives and relationships. Let us check the definition of these words according to
the Oxford Dictionary,
Objective: A thing aimed or sought; a goal.
Relationship: The way in which two or more people or things are connected, or the
state of being connected.
In summary, according to current literature, the perception of a negotiation will be
determined by the gains (or losses) of each party and also by the way in which the parties
reached this outcome.
Although classical literature only takes into account whether the parties have
achieved their objectives or not, there is no impediment to adding other factors to better
assess the outcome of a negotiation, so up to this point, the current literature approach is
valid. However, the current literature fails when it presents its possible outcomes, which
does not cover all possible outcomes, namely
• win-win – both parties achieve their objectives and there are gains in the
relationship;
• win-lose – both parties achieve their objectives and there are no gains in the
relationship;

1 In the present text the expression 'current literature' refers exclusively to the book Time Management and
Negotiation, ISBN: 978-85-8187-046-5.
 • lose-win – one party achieves the objective and there are gains in the relationship;
• lose-lose – neither party achieves their objective and there are no gains in the
relationship;
• compromise – each party gives up something and gets something. The
relationship does not change.
There is no term in the current literature for a negotiation in which each party gives
up something, gets something and the relationship changes, as an example, when
divorced parents are deciding who will stay with the child for the next holidays and come to
an agreement after much discussion and indisposition that further deteriorates their
relationship. Furthermore, there are no terms in the current literature for negotiations in
which there are gains in the relationship although no party achieves their objectives or
even for negotiations in which only one party achieves the objective and there are no gains
in the relationship.
 A story based on real facts

Two years ago my mother underwent a surgical procedure. For her not to have to
climb stairs, she stayed at my grandmother's house. My mother kept in touch by cell
phone with the doctor who had operated on her and about three weeks after the surgery,
she complained to him that her left leg was swollen. Moreover, she was having trouble
breathing, the doctor promptly told her that she should look for a hospital urgently because
she could have developed DVT (deep venous thrombosis) and PTE (pulmonary
thromboembolism).
The doctor who had operated on her could not be more correct about that. My
mother had to be admitted to the general hospital for 18 days until she recovered to the
point that she did not need all the assistance available at the general hospital and so she
was able to be transferred to another hospital. In the first days at the general hospital she
was not supposed to walk around the infirmary even to go to the bathroom. She was
supposed to use a wheelchair, and someone had to guide the wheelchair to the bathroom.
At the second hospital, we were informed about the forms of treatment that my
mother could follow. There were two drugs that for copyright reasons let us call them the
medication A and the medication B. The medication A, which was the medication the
hospital was giving her, was as effective as the medication B, but it was much cheaper
than the medication B. However, the medication A required much more attention than the
medication B. For instance, the medication A made her blood thinner at a rate that could
not vary from ideal parameters, so it would be necessary to perform clinical tests weekly or
biweekly to control these parameters. Last but not least, because the blood would be
thinner, any non-superficial cut in my mother's skin would be a big problem since the blood
would not clot, and any fall could cause an internal bleeding.
The treatment had been prescribed for six months and after that it should be
reassessed whether it would be necessary to prolong the treatment for a certain period of
time or indefinitely. My mother has a friend who needed to use this treatment indefinitely.
Because of this she wanted to use the medication A because it was cheaper, but in my
opinion it was not worth the risk, so I took the situation to my brother. My brother and I
have never been best friends or anything like that, we do not have similar tastes and we
often have had our disagreements. At the time, he was getting on my nerves for his
carelessness with “house cleaning” while my mother remained hospitalized. But obviously,
our mother's well-being was our main goal. However, I did not want to have to pay the full
cost of the medication B even though I was able to pay for it myself.
 Possible scenarios

Situation 1
• My brother is able to help with the costs of the medication B;
• He does not help with the costs of the medication B because he believes that this
medicine is not necessary;
• I do not accept to pay for the costs of the medication B;
• My mother is treated with the medication A without going through any emergency
due to the use of this medication.
In this scenario my brother and I would have a win-lose outcome because in my
opinion even though we achieved our goals he would have been negligent about her
health when he opted for the cheapest medicine.
Situation 2
• My brother is unable to help with the costs of the medication B;
• I fully pay for the cost of the medication B;
• My mother fully recovers with the use of the medication B.
In this scenario my brother and I could have a (win) lose-win outcome if he became
more willing to carry out domestic activities because from my point of view he would be
doing everything in his power.
Situation 3
• My brother is able to help with the costs of the medication B;
• He does not help with the costs of the medication B because he believes that this
medicine is not necessary;
• I do not accept to pay for the costs of the medication B;
• My mother has to use the medication A;
• My mother dies of a problem due to the use of the medication A.
In this scenario my brother and I would have a lose-lose outcome because I would
certainly associate her death with the fact that in the past he had thought that the
medication B was superfluous.
 Does somebody always have to lose?

My brother readily agreed with me that the best treatment option was using the
medication B. We shared the costs equally, each month one of us was responsible for
buying the box of the medication B. My mother performed the treatment without
complications and it was not necessary to extend the treatment through medication.
My brother and I had a win-win outcome, because in our family we can always count
on each other, because as everyone knows blood is thicker than water. Although my
brother and I were never as hand and glove, nowadays I must agree with those who say
that absence makes the heart grow fonder.
My experience is, itself, a proof that not necessarily someone always has to lose.
However, it is very easy to get an understanding between the parties when it comes to the
health of the mother of both parties, since the absolute majority of people have as their
motto, first things first, and in my view there should not be anything more primordial for an
individual than his mother's health.
As for negotiations that do not involve the health of anyone's mother, the answer to
the question that gives name to this chapter remains negative. As an example, when two
or more children share their snacks with one another in preschool they are getting a win-
win situation, because after that they have a more diverse menu of options than they had
before and without a doubt, to share snackers is one of the easiest ways to make friends
in preschool.
An advice that I give to anyone who wants to improve their negotiation skills and
even for life in general, you should learn to tolerate conflicts in the search for the
agreement. There are no two people in the world who agree on absolutely everything,
conflicts are routine situations in a negotiation. Negotiators who can agree to disagree in a
polite and respectful manner will be able to search for ways to achieve a mutually
satisfactory outcome. If you learn to manage conflicts, I am sure that in a few days you are
going to become a better negotiator than you used to be in the past.
 References

1. Time Management and Negotiation, Wise Up and Skopos Editora. ISBN: 978-85-
8187-046-5.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
3. https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpf/docs/contract_pricing_finance_guide/vol5_ch1.pdf
4. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/win-lose
5. https://www.engvid.com/english-resource/50-common-proverbs-sayings/