The Win Win Club

There are four possible way to interact with people, and that applies both to corporations and individuals.
1, Win-Lose (I’ll try to win at your expense – so you must lose. Most common)
2, Win-Win    (I want to win in our relationship, and I want you to win also.)
3, Lose-Win   (I accept losing to let you win. Then, I’ll justify being your victim.)
4, Lose-Lose (I’m willing to lose just to make you lose too. Revenge!)

It’s very important for you to have a very clear understanding of each. Then you can determine which of the four you are trying to use within any of your relationships. Only one (win-win) can result in the best relationships; the other three will guarantee relationship poverty at best, with utter failure a definite possibility.

What follows is a description of the four ways of relating. A story follows each to illustrate it, help you remember it, and inspire you to search for win-win solutions whenever possible.

"Relationships are a lot tougher than the tour de France." (Lance Armstrong)

The win-lose approach permeates our whole society. For example, our legal system is win-lose because it’s adversarial to its core. If I'm to win my case in court against you, you must lose. If you win, I must lose - that's the way it works. Whoever heard of both sides winning in a court case.

And frequently the relationship between unions and management, between employers and employees, between bosses and workers is adversarial. Win-lose is usually their default way of thinking – especially when it pertains to money. For one side to win, the other side must lose.

And think of the millions of people in sales – the stereotypical used car salesmen for example – who operate from the win-lose kind of thinking. They see their customers as adversaries. Their thinking is: If I can make you buy that car at my price, I’ll win. You may not know it, but you will lose, because only I know that one is overpriced. Unfortunately, that's how many salespeople think.

Win-lose is reinforced within our school system because grades are nearly always given out according to a normal distribution curve. That means one student can get an ‘A' only because somebody else gets a ‘D.' Everybody can't get an ‘A.' Everybody won't be given a ‘D.' Students are graded not against their own ability or their effort, but in how they compare to other pupils.

And win-lose is what sports is all about. In sports, I can't win unless you lose. There isn't room for both of us on the victory stand. But in sports, chess, and poker, that's okay. That’s where win-lose is legitimate. Yes, of course, win-lose has its place – on all the football fields , basketball courts, baseball diamonds, in all boxing rings and hockey arenas. That's where true competition can happen. It's fun both to watch and participate in good, clean competition where skill plus effort can result in winning a game.

But most of us don't spend our lives in competitions do we? We don't live each day competing with our co-workers, or our spouse, or our children, or our friends do we? Who's winning in each of your relationships? What a crazy question. If both sides aren't winning, both are losing. If we want satisfying relationships with other people, we must stop thinking win-lose.

Catherine's parents were always winners in their relationship with their daughter. From the time she was a little girl, her parents won every dispute. They got their way with Catherine by using their 4 p’s as weapons against her: their position, their power, their possessions, and their personality (which was authoritarian and dictatorial).

Catherine was not allowed to make choices, or decisions for herself. She was told how she must think, feel, and behave, and that was backed up by threats. Catherine grew up compliant, timid, fearful, withdrawn, and with dreadful self-esteem. Her parents were proud of her obedience. “She never causes us any concern,” they told everyone.

When she became a teenager, Catherine tried to rebel a little by changing her hairstyle, but she was squelched so harshly she quickly changed it back to what her parents demanded.

When Catherine was 15, she began to drink alcohol heavily because it dulled her pain.) At 16 she became pregnant, and nine months later, her baby boy was born. The baby failed to thrive, however, and was later diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome. By then, her parents, the constant “winners,” wanted nothing more to do with their “ungrateful” daughter so they disowned her. Of course, they blamed Catherine for all here problems and never admitted any fault of their own.

Win-lose relationships frequently have a sad ending like this since complete control over another person always leads to trouble. That's because you can't love what you control.

The win-win way of thinking says I want to win, and I want you to win also. As author Stephen Covey describes it in his brilliant book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, "win-win is a frame of mind and heart that constantly seeks mutual benefit so that all parties feel good about the decisions, and feel committed to the resulting plan of action. Win-win says let's cooperate, not compete. Win-win believes that for one person to be successful, another does not need to fail. It's not your way, and it's not my way – it's a better way we want."

Win-win engenders trust and respect. If a company wants to be successful, it will ensure that its employees win as often as possible. That doesn't mean the company loses. It will win too because the employees will then work for it, not just with their hands and heads, but with their hearts too. They will give loyalty, not just perfunctory performance.

Think of a car salesman who uses the win-win principle. He wants his customers to win. He wants his customers to get a car that’s right for them at a fair price. To that end he, the salesman, is really an assistant buyer. That's the best definition possible for a good salesman – he's an assistant buyer. It's his job to ensure the principal buyers win. He never sees them as suckers.

Of course, the salesman deserves to win also, and he will – by making a fair profit on the sale, a profit he deserves. He is very likely to gain customer loyalty too, and thus also win by getting further business. The best salesmen consistently demonstrate a win-win mind set. They are providing a necessary service – in reality a spiritual service. That’s because win-win is a spiritual principle since it requires real integrity to strive for win-win. (Win-lose is easy – it doesn’t require any integrity.)

Win-win works with parenting. If you parents want your children to be winners, then make sure they don't always lose their battles with you. For if, when the children are of elementary school age, you insist on always winning the minor battles – like what they wear, how they keep their hair, the music they listen to – then when they get to high school and become more independent, you risk losing the war. Yes, it's much smarter to let children have some "wins" in their negotiations with you, so that when it comes to things that are not negotiable – like whether or not they use addictive drugs – then you can legitimately act from strength. Look for a win-win solution with children at every opportunity. That means accepting their input into all the decisions that affect them. That means listening hard to what they have to say, not ignoring it. You don't have to agree or accede – parents have rights too – but it means so much to a child just to know he's heard, even if not really understood.

That applies not only to families, but to relationships at work whether in small businesses or large corporations. When each side in a negotiation realizes that the other actually cares about win-win, the result is high morale.

In many interpersonal conflicts – whether between employer and employee, husband and wife, parent and child, salesman and customer, businessman and client, or teacher and pupil – there is a win-win resolution somewhere. Often it's so well hidden that it takes real character, commitment, and concern from both sides to find it. It often seems so much easier to use those 4 p’s (power, position, possessions and personality) to get a faster win-lose answer. But to find a win-win solution is worth the search. It's worth the search because when you accomplish a win-win solution, the stage is then set for future negotiations with the same party. Why? Because the win-win attitude always engenders a spirit of trust and openness, and when you can commence any negotiation with an attitude of trust and openness, then a win-win solution is likely to be found. This is always true – whether the negotiation is between a parent and teenager concerning sleepovers, or between General Motors and its workers concerning a wage settlement. And even between governments negotiating a trade deal. Yes, mutual trust and openness – that's the way to win-win.

When he was called for military service, Tim was a bright young executive, a rising star in the large corporation where he worked, definitely a cut above the ordinary. The betting was that Tim could become that company’s CEO some day because everything about him matched what the company stood for – competing successfully to win in their market.

Having to become a soldier was a huge step down in his career, Tim thought, for it could teach him nothing worthwhile. At least it would only be a temporary setback. His company wanted Tim back as soon as possible.

So there they were on Tim’s first day, all the new recruits standing at attention in their barracks, positioned at the foot of their new beds. The sergeant entered. "Here are the sheets, blankets, and pillow cases for your beds," he yelled. "When everybody has theirs, I will order you to start making your beds. And I will give you 60 seconds to do a decent job."

On the sergeant's command, Tim and all the others rushed to make their beds. It was easy for Tim since his mother had had him make his own bed at home ever since he was a child. And Tim had continued the practice when he went to college, and later to his own apartment. Tim was an excellent bed maker, and he finished in 45 seconds. Many of the other men finished early too.

They all stood and watched while the "slackers" struggled to finish on time.

At 60 seconds, the sergeant blew a whistle. Everybody stopped, including those who weren't half-way finished, and those whose bedding was still full of wrinkles.

"Everybody strip your beds," the sergeant bellowed. "Everything off. And then start over. You've got 60 seconds again."

"Hey, wait a minute," Tim thought. "Why should I have to do it again? Or the others who finished early the first time? What a waste of time and effort. If this is the army's way, the army is even dumber than I thought."

If Tim thought that was stupid, he was dumbfounded when the sergeant repeated the same scenario again, and again, and again. He continued to command everyone to strip, and then remake their beds over and over and over. After twenty times, Tim was seething with indignation. His respect for the army was lower than low. "If this army was a corporation," Tim thought, "they'd be out of business in a week."

"And the whole exercise is obviously so unfair," Tim reflected. "It doesn't make any sense that I and the others who can do it right have to suffer just because of the few who can't perform? They have probably never made a bed in their whole lives." Tim looked over at the fat, clumsy, sweating recruit at the adjacent bed who hadn't once succeeded in making it within the 60 seconds. "I don't think he's ever going to do it," Tim moaned to himself. "Because of him, the rest of us could be up all night wasting our time. This is so stupid.”

Then, during the next 60 second rush, on their twenty-first try, Tim noticed something different five beds away from his own. A short guy who, like Tim had always finished early, was helping a tall guy who was one of the repeat failures. The two of them were working together on one bed. And when, at 60 seconds, the sergeant blew his whistle to stop, both beds – the short guy's, and the tall guy's – were completely made, and made well. Other soldiers noticed this also.

Once more the sergeant bellowed his command. "Everybody strip your beds and do it again." This time, Tim really rushed, and finished in 25 seconds. Then he ran over to the next bed and helped the fat, clumsy guy. And other speedsters did the same thing with other slow, clumsy guys. When the whistle blew, every bed was perfect.

The sergeant looked around the barracks and nodded his approval. Then he spoke (less gruffly now). "That's how we do things in this army," he said. "We're a team. We take care of one another. If you are ever in battle, remember that."

Would some people really try to operate that way, where they are willing, even wanting, to lose? Unfortunately for them, yes. In the extreme, they are the doormats who let other people wipe their feet on them. They are the rugs who allow others to walk all over them.

They may like to think that they are peacemakers, but they'll go to any extent to keep peace. Wives who continually tolerate abusive husbands are one example. Instead of standing up for their rights, those wives say in effect, "Go ahead, have your way with me. You can do whatever you want to me and I won't resist." That is the attitude that lose-win people have.

They seek their strength from being popular and accepted. They never say "no" when someone asks something of them. They don't have the courage to express their own opinions, and are easily intimidated. Teenagers who smoke, get drunk, do drugs, or beat-up somebody, not because they themselves want to, but to "get in good" with someone older are acting in a lose-win way. They'll go against their principles to "win" the friendship of others within their group. Yes, for teens, peer pressure and lose-win go hand-in-hand too often.

If lose-win people happen to be bosses or employers, they will be permissive and indulgent to the extreme, and allow those for whom they are responsible to feed on them, and do practically anything without a consequence.

The same with parents. Lose-win means they are permissive to the extreme, allowing their children to run all over them. The parents spoil them while pretending that is kind, misrepresenting their parental lack of authority as warm-heartedness.

Besides being ineffective, another problem is that lose-win people bury their emotions. They may appear normal on the outside, but inside they seethe with anger. And feelings that don't get expressed don't just die, they can come forth later in the form of various maladies, like headaches. (97% of all headaches are psychosomatic with no physical causation according to the American Medical Association.)

Yes, when a person is under the constant stress that results from a lose-win attitude, his or her immune system is so weakened it can't readily ward off a multitude of problems like infections that it could normally defeat easily.

Helen is an example of lose-win. She is continually being asked to do things to help – by her parents, by her children, by her church, by her community. It seems everybody wants Helen, and Helen never says “no.” It's not that she wants to do it all, and she is feeling highly stressed because of it, but she just can't seem to say “no” to any request. Why?

Since she was a little girl, Helen has been bombarded by messages that “service” is the highest mark of virtue, that morality consists in living for others. She has been told that personal happiness and self-interest are ignoble. Doing for others is always virtuous, Helen believes. Doing for herself is sinful.

But acceding to the requests of others is not always necessary or even desirable, and sometimes it is downright harmful. The truth is it takes courage to say “no” when you need to say “no.”

When you manage to assert yourself and say “no” when you want to say “no,” and “yes” when you want to say “yes,” you are asserting that you are not the property of others, and that you are not bound to live your life in accordance with their expectations. It takes courage to cherish your own desires, to have independent values, and remain true to them – and to fight for your own goals, whether or not friends or family approve.

Helen needs to realize that her first obligation is not to live up to someone else's expectations. Therein lies her freedom – but only if she is prepared to challenge the teaching of her lifetime, and stop being sacrificial fodder for the goals of others – to stop wanting other people’s approval more than her own.

The reason it takes courage to say what it is you want is because you always run the risk of the other person choosing not to give it to you. Fearing rejection is so common, but we must show sufficient courage to take the risk.

People with a lose-win mentality need a huge dose of self-esteem so that they can come to believe they are worth fighting for. Self-esteem will make them want to protect themselves against win-lose people who seek to take advantage of them. Yes, an inoculation of self- esteem to give them the desire, and then a shot of assertiveness to give them the skill, will do wonders for people who are consistently willing to lose so somebody else will win.

Helda was born in New York City to Polish immigrant parents who were very strict disciplinarians. Helda grew up to be a shy, introverted girl with such a low self-esteem that she had a deep sense of her own worthlessness. Despite this she was bright, got high marks through high school, and after graduating from college became a grade three teacher.

Helda fell in love with Joel Steiner. Joel had been born to wealthy parents, and had had a privileged youth. He too had always been smart in school, and received a scholarship to college where he got a degree in political science. Later he took his law degree at New York University. Then, Joel made a lot of money as a New York lawyer.

At first, when Joel and Helda lived together things seemed fine, but soon Joel began to abuse Helda psychologically. He didn't hit her. It was what he said that hurt. Nothing Helda did seemed to make Joel happy and he always let her know it.

Helda had such low self- esteem that she assumed Joel must be right about her. Despite doing well in school, and despite doing well in her job, she had always felt worthless, and the fact that she was being treated that way – well, it somehow seemed to fit. She never complained to anyone, or ever tried to leave.

Because Helda had done well both in school and at her job, she had a good self-concept, a decent self-image. She was bright and capable and she knew it, but down deep she never felt worthy, never felt good enough. That's the difference between self-concept and self-esteem. You can have a positive self-concept, a good self-image, because you recognize your abilities, and still have negative self-esteem where you never feel worthy, good enough to merit being treated with respect and dignity, whole enough to deserve real happiness.

Helda suffered psychological humiliation for two years, and then it turned to physical abuse. One day Joel punched her in the eye – hard enough that it affected her eyesight. When she showed up at work with a black eye, she told her friends that she had been mugged. The next time she arrived at work with a black eye, she said she had walked into a door.

After that, as the beatings continued, she took to wearing sunglasses summer and winter. To ease her pain Helda took cocaine and soon both she and Joel were addicted to the drug. When Joel got high, he punched out Helda, but she never told anyone. Not even the time he hit her hard enough to rupture her spleen. Helda crawled out of the apartment, took a cab to the hospital, had her spleen removed, and then returned to Joel.

As this was going on, there was a young unwed girl who became pregnant and, instead of having an abortion, decided to put her baby up for adoption. Helda and Joel took the baby who was named Lisa.

Over the next five years Joel continued to abuse Helda. When he became angry, or got high on drugs, he would choke and kick her, but she never complained to anyone who might help. She didn't have enough self-esteem to fight back. It's really hard to resist and say “No” when you have such low self-esteem, because what other people think of you is more important than what you think of yourself.

When little Lisa was five years old, Joel started to abuse her too. Lisa wore long sleeve shirts to school to hide the bruises. Then one day after a particularly bad beating, Lisa stopped breathing. Finally, finally, Helda did something positive. She phoned the police.

When help arrived they detected a pulse in Lisa and rushed her to the hospital, but three days later, at the age of six, Lisa died of her injuries. Helda's low self-esteem had cost her her own happiness; now it cost little Lisa her life. Joel was convicted of manslaughter and went to prison.

How many more Heldas are out there suffering in silence because they lack sufficient self-esteem to stick up for themselves? Heldas who need a backbone, not a wishbone?

Take a moment to rate your place on the continuum below. In the middle, you know how to be suitably assertive, and you successfully stick up for your rights. As you move to the left of centre, you more and more resemble passive Helda as described above, and at the extreme left you are everybody’s doormat.

To the right of centre you are no longer legitimately assertive, you have become aggressive, and at the extreme right you fly in the face of others, loudly and obnoxiously demanding your own way.

Passive Assertive Aggressive

Scoring – The middle is perfect balance. To the right or left is a problem.

0 = no problem; 1 or 2 = small problem; 4 or 5 = moderate problem
7 or 8 = it's serious; 10 = very severe problem; 3, 6, 9 = between categories

Normally, lose-win is bad, but there can be exceptions. Here is one time when lose-win was not only commendable, but heroic – where seven people were willing to lose their lives for the sake of others. You probably don’t know about because it was not reported by any media at the time.

It happened years ago during the cold war when the Soviet Union was perceived as the enemy of our western democracies, and many North Americans saw it only as “that evil empire.” This true story is about seven of our “enemies.”

They were crew members on a Russian atomic submarine traveling under the frigid waters near Greenland, not far off Canada's coast. At 4:15 of the morning of July 4, 1961, an alarm sounded on that sub. A pipe in the cooling system had burst, and that sent the temperature inside one of the sub’s two nuclear reactors soaring to 800 degrees Celsius. Then, 200 meters under the sea, that reactor caught fire.

The danger was not just to the submarine and its 100 man crew. It was, in a way, to our whole world. With the nuclear reactor on fire, the uranium in the reactor's core might melt, and if that happened there would be a chain reaction and the sub would blow up like a small nuclear bomb. And that would release radioactivity into the ocean currents where it could travel underwater, undeterred, all around our planet. No clean-up would have been possible.

Working frantically, refraining from panic, the crew managed to put the fire out, and to make contact with a nearby Soviet diesel sub which sped to the rescue. After both subs surfaced, most of the crew from the atomic sub was transferred to the safety of the diesel sub. The danger of a nuclear explosion was not over, however. The reactor had to be neutralized. It was decided that new cooling pipes must be built and installed immediately. With what? They would dismantle the sub's weapons and use the parts for pipes. But the pipes had to be installed in the bowels of the atomic submarine where the reactor was spewing its poisonous radioactivity.

Lt. Boris Korchilov, 24 years old, volunteered to lead a repair crew to the reactor. "Do you understand what this means?" the captain asked him.

"Of course," he replied. He knew he was going to his death, but the job had to be done.

Boris was to die a horrible death. During the hours it took him and his repair crew to neutralize the reactor, the radioactivity caused his face to blow up like a balloon and his skin turned shiny. Six of his helpers were to die also, but not before they had installed the cooling pipes to prevent any chance of an explosion. Then the atomic sub was towed home by the diesel sub.

The rest of the crew spent six months in a hospital in Leningrad but all recovered. And subsequently, all of the nuclear reactor systems on the other Soviet atomic submarines were changed so the same accident could never recur.

For 30 years this story was kept a secret. It only came to light under Soviet president Gorbachev's openness policy.

We all owe quite a debt of gratitude to those seven men, our former enemy, wouldn't you agree. They, like our own soldiers who lose their lives fighting terrorists, show that the principle of lose-win can, on occasion, be noble. They lose, so the rest of us can win.

Lastly, there is the lose-lose way where both sides lose? Do you think anybody would be crazy enough to actually want a lose-lose interaction? Well, it's thankfully rare but, yes, it does happen. Sometimes attempts at win-win are sabotaged by one side that isn't committed to the win-win principle.

The company's management was negotiating a new contract with the company's union. Let's call the two chief negotiators Smith and Jones. The two had been at it hot and heavy now for many months, and deep resentment had built up between them. Both were competitive and adversarial by nature, and now animosity permeated their relationship. There was zero mutual respect. Instead, they had come to dislike one another intensely. When it seemed certain they were at an impasse, a professional mediator was called in to assist them.

Now, this particular mediator was highly skilled and experienced. He began by asking Smith to list all the things he wanted to achieve in the new contract. And he asked Jones to do the same thing. Then the mediator took the two lists and went to work.

After several days, the mediator announced to both men that he had found a solution, and a new contract was now possible. When he explained the solution to them, Smith stated, "I don’t know how you came up with this, but you’ve done it. You’ve satisfied everything that I put on my list. All my demands have been met so I will sign a contract.”

"Mr. Jones," said the mediator, "please tell me which of the things you put on your list have I not met to your satisfaction?"

"Well," said Jones, "none of them. You've actually addressed all of them okay."

"Then why won't you agree to sign the contract?" quizzed the mediator, genuinely puzzled.

"Because I just don't want him getting everything he wants," replied Jones pointing to Smith.

And so this negotiation turned from a potential win-win to a lose-lose. Of course, the whole company suffered because of it. As did the union and everyone who used the company’s services.

So, now you know the four ways of relating. Each way had a story to illustrate it. But to really understand relationships, we need to see how things can change and go from good to bad or, conversely from bad to good. Here are some stories to illustrate the possible changes.

After many months of negotiating, the price had been set for Bill to buy Charlie’s company upon Charlie’s retirement. And both men were now completely content with that price. Each believed the situation was entirely fair for him: Charlie could afford to retire in style, and Bill would get to own a company he deeply desired. (Note: Both men are pleased with everything so the situation is currently a win-win.)

The purpose of their next meeting – scheduled for later that very day – was to sign all the papers to finalize the purchase. That’s when Bill got a phone call from Charlie’s secretary. She said that Charlie had had serious heart pains earlier in the week, and was now recovering in hospital from an emergency bypass. While the surgery had been successful, Charlie “wouldn’t be himself” for awhile so he couldn’t attend to-day’s meeting. “Not to worry,” the secretary said because Charlie had signed the papers with his lawyer at the hospital before his surgery. The lawyer would be bringing the papers to to-day’s meeting where Bill could sign also to make their agreement legal.

While he listened on the phone an inspiration, an impulse, hit Bill. “I’ve been thinking I am paying too much for Charlie’s company,” Bill said. “I want a million knocked off the price before I will sign. I’m not coming to the meeting to-day unless that lawyer calls me first and says the price has been adjusted downward by exactly one million.” And he hung up the phone.

For a long time Bill had prided himself at his ability to bluff at poker. He was bluffing for higher stakes now. “It’s worth a shot,” Bill thought to himself. “Charlie won’t be in any shape to search for a new buyer for awhile. And I’ll bet he’s a lot more desperate to retire right now than he was last week. I’ll wait a few days and if I don’t hear anything, I can arrange to sign after that.”

Mid afternoon Bill got a call from Charlie’s lawyer. He was at the hospital and Charlie had just signed the necessary papers with the new price. Could the lawyer please bring them right over to Bill’s office for his signature?

“Wow,” laughed Bill to himself. “I’m even better than I thought. Who else could make a million within a few hours? What a winner I am.”

Bruce, the new CEO of his company, had a major problem. His predecessor, shortly before being fired, had ordered an elaborate, expensive replacement of the company’s outdated software programs. The problem Bruce faced was that he was convinced that particular software was wrong for his company. It was a poor fit for the company’s needs, Bruce concluded. But there was a contract worth millions over the next year.

Bruce arranged a meeting with Tom, the owner of the firm chosen to supply the software. Bruce explained his concerns, and then asked Tom what it would cost for his company to get out of their deal.

Tom started to sweat. His was a new company and it really needed that deal with Bruce’s company. Tom didn’t just want the deal, he really needed it to ensure his company would survive its first year. This contract was that big. And Tom knew he had the legal right to enforce it. Bruce knew that too.

But Tom wanted to do the right thing. He didn’t want to force his software down anyone’s throat. “I won’t hold you to that contract,” Tom finally said. He let Bruce off the hook completely. (Note: It seems a lose-win for Tom right now.)

Two months passed. By now Bruce had had time to adjust to his leadership role, and had reappraised the entire software needs of his company. He now knew precisely what was needed, and it was much bigger and better than any previous order. Bruce gave a green light to his purchasing manager – with one stipulation. “Make the buy from that same company we used before – the one that allowed us to renege on our last order from them. The owner’s name is Tom. Give him my best regards.”

Her name was Mrs. Thompson and as she stood in front of her 5^th grade class on the very first day of school, she told the children a lie. Like most teachers she looked at the students and said that she loved them all the same. But that was impossible because there in the front row was a boy named Teddy Stoddart.

Mrs. Thompson had watched Teddy the year before and noticed that he didn’t play well with the other children, that his clothes were messy, and that he constantly needed a bath. Teddy could be unpleasant. It got to the point where Mrs. Thompson would actually take delight in marking his papers with a broad red pen making bold X’s, and then putting a big F at the top of his papers. (Note: Here we have a win-lose as the teacher “defeats” Teddy with her red X’s.)

At the school where Mrs. Thompson taught, she was required to review each child’s past records, and she put Teddy’s off until last. However, when she reviewed his file she was in for a surprise. Teddy’s first grade teacher had written, “Teddy is a bright child with a ready laugh. He does his work neatly, has good manners, and is a joy to be around.”

The second grade teacher wrote, “Teddy is an excellent student, well liked by his classmates, but he is troubled because his mother has a terminal illness, and life at home must be a struggle.”

His third grade teacher wrote, “His mother’s death has been hard on him. He tries to do his best, but his father doesn’t show much interest. His home life will soon affect him if some steps aren’t taken.”

Teddy’s fourth grade teacher wrote, “Teddy is withdrawn and doesn’t show much interest in school. He doesn’t have many friends and sometimes sleeps in class.”

By now Mrs. Thompson realized the problem and she felt ashamed of herself. She felt even worse when her students brought her Christmas presents wrapped with beautiful ribbons and bright paper – except for Teddy. His present was clumsily wrapped in the heavy brown paper he got from a grocery bag. Mrs. Thompson took pains to open it in the middle of the other presents. Some of the children started to laugh when she found a rhinestone bracelet with some of the stones missing, and a bottle that was ¼ full of perfume. But she stifled the children’s laughter when she exclaimed how pretty the bracelet was, putting it on, and dabbing some of the perfume on her wrist. Teddy Stoddart stayed after school that day – just long enough to say to Mrs. Thompson, “You smell just like my mom used to.”

After the children left, she cried for at least an hour. On that very day she quit teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic and, instead, she began to teach children. Mrs. Thompson paid particular attention to Teddy. As she worked with him, his mind seemed to come alive. The more she encouraged him, the faster he responded. By the end of the year, Teddy had become one of the smartest children in the class and, despite her lie, became her “teacher’s pet.”

A year later she found a note under her door from Teddy telling her she was the best teacher he ever had in his whole life.

Six years went by before she got another note from Teddy. He then wrote that he had finished high school 3^rd in his class, and that she was still the best teacher he ever had in his whole life.

Four years after that, she got another letter saying that while things had been tough at times, he’d stayed in school and gone on to graduate from college with the highest of honours. He assured Mrs. Thompson that she was the best and favourite teacher he’d ever had in his whole life.

Then four more years passed, and yet another letter came. This time he explained that after he got his bachelor’s degree, he decided to go a little further. The letter explained that she was still the best and favourite teacher he’d ever had, but now his name was a little longer. The letter was signed Thomas F. Stoddard M. D.

The story doesn’t stop there. There was yet another letter that Spring. Teddy said he’d met a girl, his father had died, and he wondered if Mrs. Thompson might agree to sit at his wedding in the place usually reserved for the mother of the groom.

Of course Mrs. Thompson did, and guess what – she wore that bracelet, the one with several rhinestones missing, and she made sure she was wearing the perfume that Teddy remembered his mother wearing on their last Christmas together.

They hugged each other, and Dr. Stoddart whispered in Mrs. Thompson’s ear. “Thank you so much for making me feel important, and showing me that I could make a difference.”

Mrs. Thompson, with tears in her eyes, whispered back, “Teddy you have it all wrong. You were the one who taught me that I could make a difference. Before you, I didn’t know how to teach. And then I met you.”

A man we'll call Fred was scanning the newspaper looking for a used car for sale when he saw this ad: Nearly new Cadillac, fully equipped and in excellent condition. Only twenty dollars. Phone 416-322-1502.

Fred decided they had probably misprinted twenty thousand dollars, and continued to read his paper. But even as he looked at the other ads his curiosity about the Cadillac played on his mind and he found himself reading the advertisement again. It hadn't changed: Nearly new Cadillac, fully equipped and in excellent condition. Only twenty dollars.

Well, it may say that, thought Fred, but it can't mean that. But what harm can it do for me to phone and find out what the real price is.

So Fred dialed and a woman answered. "Yes," she said, she had a late model Cadillac for sale. "No," it had not been in an accident, it was in perfect condition. "Yes," the price was only twenty dollars, she said. "No,” the car hadn't been stolen – it was a legitimate sale.

The woman on the phone sounded so sincere that Fred's curiosity was intensified. He didn't really want to drive ten miles to look at the car just to find out what the catch was – it would be such a waste of his time – but knowing his curiosity couldn't be satisfied otherwise he soon found himself making the trip.

The whole way Fred was trying to decide whether to laugh or get angry when he finally found out what was really wrong with the car. But when Fred arrived at the woman's house, he was flabbergasted. There in her driveway was the Cadillac just as it had been described: Nearly new, fully equipped, and in excellent condition. And the confirmed the price was still twenty dollars as she handed him the keys, and told Fred he could test drive it.

Fred checked under the hood. He kicked the tires. He drove it around five blocks, then on the highway. Perfect. He stopped to examine the ownership, checked the serial number, and phoned the Ministry of Transportation to ensure it wasn't stolen.

By this time Fred was beside himself. He couldn't fathom what he had overlooked. It just wasn't possible somebody would sell a very valuable car for only twenty dollars. Well, thought Fred, there's only one way I'm going to find out as he arrived back at the woman's house.

Feeling somewhat foolish, Fred took twenty dollars from his wallet and handed it to the woman.

"Wait a minute," pleaded Fred. "Please, please tell me why you are willing to sell such a valuable car for only twenty dollars. I just have to know."

"It's simple," said the woman. "My husband, the skunk, ran off with his secretary so I'm divorcing him. The judge ordered me to sell this car and give him half. I can hardly wait to see his face when I hand him ten bucks."

Do you think that the relationship between this wife and husband is really a lose-lose? Or do you think it could be a win-lose because the wife won what she wanted, namely revenge? Because she was able to hurt her husband financially, she derived a sense of satisfaction. She "got him good," and that put a smile on her face. She cost him a lot of money, and the fact that she lost an equal amount wasn't as important as her revenge, so it was really a win-lose, right?

Wrong. The story may sound somewhat amusing, but It was an example of a lose-lose, at least as far as this writer is concerned. That’s because character counts and, since the wife's motive is pure revenge, she is, by her action, hurting herself not only financially, but harming her character also. Yes, this was strictly a lose-lose. If the wife really thinks she "won" by costing her husband half the true price of the car, she is sadly deluded.

What’s This: A Win-Lose or A Win-Win ?

You donate $200 to a charity. Would that be a a lose-win for you, or a win-win?

Either of those could be right – depending. If you choose win-win, you are saying you are winning because your donation is good for you as well as the charity. It allows you to feel benevolent, generous, helpful, and loving – all positive emotions – so yes, you're absolutely right, your donation is a win-win.

But it could be a lose-win too for It's obvious you are losing your $200. However, if that loss is more than compensated by the good you feel – those positive emotions (or even just knowing that you are fulfilling your sense of duty to share with others), then, yes, it becomes a win-win. But what if you don't really give that money willingly, freely? What if you give it begrudgingly, resentfully? Or what if you give it just so you can appear benevolent to someone else, but you're really faking your own generosity?

If you are not being genuine or authentic when you donate the $200, it becomes a lose-win

A question: So what determines the difference between a win-win, and a lose-win in this situation?

Answer: Your real intention.

You now know a lot about the four ways of relating to others, and why win-win is the best. Maybe you knew all this before, maybe your understanding is clearer now. Either way, it’s time for you to rate yourself.

On the continuum below, rate your style of relating to others, the real you that you bring to personal relationships.

The middle means you choose win-win solutions in your life whenever you possibly can.

Many people (especially men who, in general, value competition more than women) will be to the right of centre on the win-lose side – it's only a matter to what degree. That's because many men have learned to jump at win-lose naturally, automatically, even when a win-win is a possibility.

More women than men will be to the left of centre, on the lose-win side, subjugating their own good, to one degree or another, to the benefit of someone else. (That's because women in general are less competitive, more nurturing than men.)

The ideal, of course, is to be centered, with a rating as close to 0 as possible.

This self-test demands that you think about yourself and your relationships. That may be hard, for if you reach conclusions that you don’t like, that’s painful. It’s much easier just to avoid thinking. But know this: Of all the thoughts you have in life, none are more important than the thoughts you have about yourself.

In deciding where to place yourself on the continuum, realize it’s possible to be on one side of centre within one relationship, and on the other side in a different relationship. Just choose your overall, predominate way of relating to others.

Lose-Win Win-Win Win-Lose

0 = no problem; 1 or 2 = small problem; 4 or 5 = moderate problem
7 or 8 = it's serious; 10 = very severe problem; 3, 6, 9 = between categories

Suppose you gave yourself a rating of 4 (either to the left or right of centre) to indicate a moderate problem with your interpersonal relationships. Here are two questions to ask yourself:

Question 1 - What would it take for me to move closer to the ideal centre? How would I need to change to achieve a better rating?

Question 2 to ask yourself: O.K. so I'm a 4. But why didn't I rate myself an 8 (with a serious problem). With a 4, I've only got a moderate problem, so I must be doing something good, or I'd have a more serious problem. What is it I’m doing right?

That's an important question because if you can identify those things you are doing right now, you can focus on repeating those strengths more frequently in the future.

So ask yourself those two questions. Nobody will know your answers except you

However, if you are willing to accept a huge challenge, consider asking the other party in your relationship to rate the quality of your relationship with them. (It will be hard to ask, because you’ll fear what they may tell you. That’s normal.) Here are two examples:

Man to boss: I’ve read my performance review. On a scale of 1 to 10, I think it rates me at a 7. Do you agree? (i.e., the value of his relationship with the company is a 7)

Boss: Yes, that’s about right.

Man: So, boss, what would it take on my part to make it a 9 or 10?

Mother to teenager: I’ve been thinking about our relationship lately and I’m not entirely sure where it stands. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being low, and 10 high, where would you rate our relationship?

Teen: I think it’s a 5.

Mom: Okay, but tell me this. What is it you think we’re doing right that makes it a 5 instead of a 1 or 2? I’d like to do more of that – whatever it is.

We’ve been talking about interpersonal relationships – getting along with other people, getting along so that we don't hurt them, and they don't hurt us. Getting along so that after we have finished with an interaction, a negotiation, whatever it is, we both are better for it. And that means win-win.

Every major religion in the world espouses win-win as a major core principle. In Christianity, it’s been called the Golden Rule and expressed as: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A religious scholar, Paul McKenna, researched other major religions and found they express the same idea in different words:

Islam: Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourselves.

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what cause pain if done to you.

Sikhism: I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary.

Confucianism: One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct…loving kindness. Do not to do others what you do not want done to yourself.

Yes, every religion supports win-win. Indeed, win-win is just a phrase for all the expressions above.

But win-win is not always easy of course. And when, after trying hard, it is apparent that no win-win solution is possible, the best thing to do is to suspend the negotiating, and agree that there is no good solution just then. Agree on no deal right now. Wait until something changes, something to make it worthwhile to try again for a win-win.

What emotion fuels the desire to seek win-win relationships, instead of the far more common, win-lose? What motivates a person to want win-win? What’s the driving force?

“Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.” (Mozart)

“One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: That word is love.” (Sophocles - 400 B.C.)

“The supreme happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved; loved for ourselves, or rather in spite of ourselves.” (Victor Hugo)

“There is a single magic, a single power, a single salvation, a single happiness, and that is called loving.” (Herman Hesse)

“We are all born for love. It is the principle of existence, and its only end.” (Benjamin Disraeli)

So long as we love, we serve. (Robert Louis Stevenson)

We need to have faith in our own huge capacity to love. (Sharon Salzberg)

Love, baby, love – that’s the secret. If lots more of us loved each other, we’d solve lots more problems. (Louis Armstrong)

“Love all, trust some. Do wrong to none.” (William Shakespeare)

“Love is the essence of the universe. It is the glue that holds everything together. God is love is a tautology because the sentence has exactly the same meaning when read forward or backward.” (Marianne Williamson)

“Love the whole world as a mother loves her only child. Hatred is never overcome by hatred. Hatred is overcome by love.” (Buddah)

Note: The Win-Win Club is a free membership club for those who want win-win relationships, either at home, or work, or both. The Club accepts sponsorship support from individuals and corporations that espouse and practice the principle of win-win. Details for membership are at: www.TheWin-WinClub.com.

Passive Assertive Aggressive

In deciding where to place yourself on the continuum, realize it’s possible to be on one side of centre within one relationship, and on the other side in a different relationship. Just choose your overall, predominate way of relating to others.

Lose-Win Win-Win Win-Lose