The Dark Side of Win-Win
The allure of win-win solutions is obvious—decisions that satisfy everyone are better. Until recently, I never questioned the benefits of win-win thinking. I knew it wasn’t always achievable, but I didn’t doubt its desirability. Anand Giridharadas's brilliant book, Winner Takes All, has recently led me to reconsider.
The win-win concept traditionally refers to an agreement between independent parties that each believes is in its own best interests. Giridharadas demonstrates what happens when the concept of win-win gets attached to social change efforts guided by the rich and powerful. Win-win thinking limits the acceptable range of solutions to those that don’t impinge on the power and resources of elites, undermining the ability of those solutions to deliver on the needed change.
Giridharadas’s shows that win-win solutions are problematic in the context of one party imposing them on others. Of course, this is exactly what happens when leaders make decisions. These decisions range from staff restructurings and strategic planning to deciding who gets to work on which projects and even how to reallocate employee benefits.
The problem isn’t decision-making by leaders; the problem is that conceiving of these decisions as win-win can undermine decision-making processes and lead to lower quality decisions. Worse, when leaders express our decisions as win-win, we put our credibility at risk by appearing either cynical or oblivious to the power we are exercising.
Decision-making process. When decisions present as difficult, leaders take care with process both to ensure decision-quality and, defensively, to mitigate objections. Win-win approaches invite complacency because they seem straightforward. As a result, leaders may be susceptible to some or all of these:
Not inviting impacted stakeholders to weigh in. Absent a sense that the interests of others are at risk, leader have less incentive to complicate the process.
Delegitimizing dissent. The anticipation of mutual benefit makes it harder to discuss where interests diverge. Defending particular interests in the context of win-win can seem selfish and inappropriate.
Failing to consider potential negative consequences, particularly when risks are borne by those not participating in the decision-making process. Rosy win-win assumptions get in the way of preparing for obstacles.
Limiting options to those that seem palatable to all stakeholders.
Leadership credibility is always at risk when significant decisions are made. The extraordinary assurance of a win-win decision—that no one need absorb a loss—substantially increases that risk. When the decision-making process has some of the weaknesses described above, the risk of failure is exacerbated even further. The impact on credibility may be particularly strong when the decision is seen not just to have failed, but to have been unrealistic in the first place.
Irrespective of the quality of the decision, credibility is also at issue whenever the language of win-win is applied to decisions imposed on stakeholders. Framing such an imposition as win-win is an effort to sell it. The power to make the decision and the effort at persuasion create a dissonance—why convince when you’ve already decided? A leader’s attempt to straddle this divide risks appearing either manipulative or clueless.
Decisions are best when they prioritize meeting clear objectives over satisfying stakeholders. Win-win turns this on its head. Meaningful objectives often require hard choices about how to best utilize scarce resources. Win-win tends to finesse these choices, encouraging moderation rather than decisiveness.
The desire for win-win solutions reflects an admirable desire to minimize the negative impacts of decisions. But decisions that make everyone happy are rarely optimal when measured against mission and goals. Leading and managing successfully require hard choices that will not just disappoint, but cause harm. We strengthen our leadership more by owning this than when we claim to be delivering win-wins.