Think win-win. That is the fourth of Steven Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. In our competitive society and competitive industry, it is probably easier said than done. However, the value in thinking win-win—and finding win-win solutions—cannot be overstated. In this commentary we’ll continue our exploration of Covey’s Seven Habits and how they relate to highly effective pig producers.
Covey’s first three habits, “be proactive,” “begin with the end in mind,” “and put first things first,” are habits of personal effectiveness. “Think win-win” is a habit of interpersonal effectiveness, since it affects our interactions and relationships with others.
When two parties need to come to an agreement, one of six outcomes is possible: win-win, win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose, think win, and win-win or no deal. Win-win is the outcome from the pursuit of mutual benefits. The outcome represents a third alternative—not only my interests, or only your interests, but our mutual interests. It stems from an “abundance mentality”—an outlook that perceives enough for everyone such that for me to win, somebody else doesn’t have to lose.
Win-lose and lose-win outcomes are different but closely related. Win-lose is the product of an exercise in power—i.e., I get what I want and don’t care if your feelings get hurt. Lose-win is the opposite, and often occurs because people are eager to please or appease and lack the courage to express their point of view. Intimidating people frequently surround themselves with people who are easily intimidated. According to Covey, despite perceptions of harmony, feelings of resentment build in the losing side. He notes, “Unexpressed feelings don’t die. They are buried alive and come forth later in uglier ways.”
Lose-lose outcomes occur when both parties approach challenges with a “win-lose” mentality. Stubbornness and egos interfere and leave the parties at a stalemate, wanting to get revenge or wanting to get even. Sometimes, a compromise can be worked out, but a compromise is not quite win-win, since the outcome is less than desirable for either party.
Another potential outcome is “think win.” In this case, you aren’t seeking the other party to lose; it’s just that you just really want to win.
According to Covey, the last scenario, “win-win or no deal,” is best. In this case, if no third alternative can be found, the parties agree to agreeably disagree. Often, however, “no deal” isn’t an option. But it represents a commitment to pursuing that third alternative.
There are times and instances when competition is good and appropriate. When competition is pursued within a system of checks and balances, it can yield quality results. Consider the legal field or an athletic competition. But when people are expected to work together, as in a production system, competition can undermine teamwork.
Similarly, when leaders speak of cooperation but reward competition, they create a self-defeating system. As Covey notes, this would be akin to announcing, “Firings will continue until morale improves.”
Thinking win-win can also be used to generate positive outcomes from otherwise negative situations. Consider the production system with a long-term problem employee. Inclination may be to release that person, only to have to pay their unemployment. With an abundance mentality, however, the system—and the employee—can find more agreeable terms on which to part. A bit of severance may be all that is needed to make the employee feel good about moving on, and the system benefits from the employee’s release.
Win-win agreements are achievable when all parties are willing to seek the third alternative, a process that begins when the parties seek first to understand the others’ needs. Win-win outcomes require mutual respect and trust. More importantly, however, as outcomes, they have the enthusiasm, support and commitment of all parties involved.
Editor’s Note: Dr. Stephanie Rutten-Ramos is an independent consultant. To visit with her, send her an e-mail at: rutt0011@umn.edu
This commentary is for informational purposes only. The opinions and comments expressed herein represent the opinions of the author--they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Farms.com. This commentary is not intended to provide individual advice to anyone. Farms.com will not be liable for any errors or omissions in the information, or for any damages or losses in any way related to this commentary.