Whether we like it or not, our careers and lives are a series of deal making opportunities when you think of a deal in the broadest terms: an agreement by two or more parties for their mutual benefit. The phrase that we lose sight of is “for their mutual benefit” when making a deal. As a society, we’ve actually turned the concept on it’s head, to no one’s benefit.
Any of you can open a new tab and look for books on deal making and/or negotiation and come back with innumerable choices to learn how to “win” a deal. The core philosophy in the vast majority of those books, articles, lectures, videos, etc. is that there must be a winner and a loser in every negotiation and deal…and you want to be the winner. You NEED to be the winner. You HAVE to be the winner. The loser is weak. And stupid. And soft. Beyond that, the other side of the negotiation/deal is viewed as the opposition or enemy, instead of a deal-making partner.
That thinking permeates our lives (think about buying a car or a home, negotiating compensation for a job, how we view the criminal justice system, etc.). There must be a winner and a loser – buying a house above or below market; using an app to see what others paid for a car, etc. It clearly shapes our politics, which is a reflection of us as a society. It’s moved so far from the intent of a deal (remember: for their mutual benefit) that now a large minority (if not a majority) of people would rather not make a deal if the other party could claim to be the winner in the negotiation THAN MAKING A DEAL THAT WOULD BENEFIT EVERYONE. Yes, I used caps because the logic is so flawed that I would scream it if would help.
We’ve seen that play out on a smaller scale in our personal lives: people are much more likely to quit a job because they can’t get everything they want from an existing employer…and hope that the promises they are being made by a new one are true. They are saying “instead of making a deal with my existing employer that we both can live with, I’ll go to a new place that will tell me exactly what I want to hear.” In deal terms, that equates to being unwilling to make a deal with anyone who won’t give you everything you want, even if it would benefit both parties. Sound familiar?
(And before you move to the “undervalued or underpaid” logic…most people are moving for marginal raises, but setting their career progress back when leaving a company where they have been for more than 2 years due to the learning curve within a new company and/or industry (research from the HBR). Is this true in every case? Of course not. Greater compensation, greater responsibility, moral/value alignment, etc. are completely reasonable reasons to switch jobs – looking at LinkedIn you can see that Ive done my share! However, mathematically the grass can’t always be greener for the employee – in a fair amount of cases, the employee is less engaged/happy 6 months after making the change. Additionally, most attrition doesn’t benefit the company due to knowledge loss and cost to replace. Employees moving to new companies are often facing a coin toss as to how the move will turn out for them and nearly always a negative for the company.)
This leads to my basic premise: the best deals leave both sides a little unhappy. If the goal is to come to an agreement for the mutual benefit of all, then most likely everyone involved will have to bend from their ideal outcome (otherwise there wouldn’t need to be a deal – the parties would just agree and move forward). Because we as a society have become so self centered and self righteous, we no longer look for mutual benefit. Only our side of the negotiation matter and it is the only right answer. We MUST win. If we don’t get everything we wanted in a negotiation, we walk away instead of making a beneficial deal for all parties because anyone who doesn’t agree with us doesn’t deserve equal consideration. If you are one of the rare people who does try to “meet in the middle” and make deals, you likely have been called weak and ideologically impure whether to your face or not.
In reality, there are a few pockets where this is still done regularly and well (reaching for mutual benefit): corporate mergers, massive sports contracts, supply chain integrations, etc. But all of those have at least one of two things in common – interdependence and money. It’s the same reason you end up buying a car sooner or later even if you don’t get the perfect deal – you need a vehicle and the dealership needs to sell vehicles (both interdependence and money are at play).
My argument is we need to find ways to make more deals in our lives, instead of our “win or lose” paradigm we have been conditioned to believe. We absolutely should make sure deals benefit us, but shouldn’t avoid deals that can create mutual benefit even if they cost a little – we may even aim for them. Both sides achieving mutual benefit will strengthen both sides over time – in life, in business, in politics, in nearly everything. These deals should leave both sides a little unhappy…because feeling a little unhappy also means you are largely happy (and likely so is the other side). That’s really the art of the deal.
View from the Middle 