Gain-gaining

A agreement Gain-Gaining (in English) is an agreement by which each Partenaire is worried also interest of its partner, with an aim of maximizing its own interest. It is not a question to seek the best compromise of division of the profits but to increase the profits of each Partenaire.

This practice does not rest on the philanthropy of the partners but on precise conditions revealed in particular by the Game theory.

Birth of this expression

August 1st

Fields in which it is used

Political: expression often employed.
Economy and management of company: used in the social negotiations, conflicts and reports/ratios, the relations employer-employee.
Sustainable development: management of the relations between the companies and its recipients, the situation of sustainable development (DD) corresponds perfectly that of gain-gaining.

What that brings concretely

August 1st

Examples of situations Gain-Gaining

Wikipedia : each contributor invests part of his time, in counterpart it profits from an important encyclopedia.
Exchange of advertizing banners.

Conditions of success of a Gain-Gaining agreement

The conditions revealed by the game theory are:

To inform the Partner S on the common rules.
To undertake a dialog and negotiation before engaging the Partnership.
To show the history of our preceding actions, in order to prove our bona fide and our constant practice of Gain-Gaining.
not kasher of information on the past; if they are penalizing to explain them and relativize them by adequate statistics.
To create the reasons so that a new partner has self-confidence a priori: reputation, values posted and respected, posted and respected ethics.
To express (in writing) the values of each partner of the agreement and to identify the common values.
If it is necessary, to engage on the fact that the 1st agreement will have continuations, or to make available of the partner the elements which will decide if there will be or not a continuation.
To make the parts interdependent of the consequences of the agreement, in the event of success as in the event of failure.
To characterize: promises, divisions of information considered, engagements reciprocal, engagements of prior cooperations to the later decisions.
Accepter the risk, even the certainty, that the partner gains more than oneself, if it is a condition of obtaining the profit.

Credibility of the partner

Most of gain-gaining rests on the credibility of the engagement of the other:

Thus to show with the other which advantage one draws to respect the agreement.
In the same way to show as one has interest with personally as the other gains too; our interest can be a tangible reason, or be, at least, to prevent that the partner " venge" if it did not obtain the announced profit.

Temporary imbalance

The common optimum is not inevitably that of which each partner thinks. This optimum can support temporarily or even definitively one of the partners. In this case so that the gain-gaining agreement functions it is necessary to specify how balance between the partners is obtained, for example:

To refer to a more general agreement or a later agreement.
To play gain-loser then loser-gaining in an alternative way.
To register this agreement in a series of not balanced agreements exchanged within a population; in this case balance is reached in a statistical way for each partner.
To share in an equitable way profits obtained by each one.
To appeal deliberately randomly to determine that of the partners who will gain more than the other (configuration of the play of the Millepede where each player gains much more than in a traditional agreement but where it is necessary to draw with the fate that from both which will gain more).

Complexity of balance

In the same order of idea, the identification of the common optimum can according to the case:

To be obvious.
To be the result of a scientific computation implementing concepts like the Balance of Nash, the statistics, the Expectation. In this case the signatories of the agreement as well as the personnel concerned will not want inevitably to trust a complex mathematical result. The author of calculations must show a great pedagogy.

Interest of the partner

All cannot be written in an agreement also the knowledge of the interest of the partner is paramount (stakes, interests, disadvantages, risks, choices preferential and regrets; a regret in game theory is the interest offered by a more advantageous solution “apparently” which one gives up). This knowledge makes it possible to include in the agreement the commitment to privilege the best solution for its partner when several equivalent solutions (for oneself) arise. It also makes it possible to avoid the choices involuntarily prejudicial with the partner or to pour in the opposite risk of the Loser-loser.

Valorization of the profits

A gain-gaining agreement is more reliable if all the participants have the same perception of the interests and risks of each one. (If they are subjective, a means of agreeing is: each partner carries out his own estimate then the results are discussed and a common value is stopped.)

Unexpected distorsions

Once the agreement signed and implemented, the partners often act with the instinct, by reflex, or do not have time to think of the consequences of their decisions. To avoid the unexpected distorsions with the agreement, of the useful provisions can be taken:

To count the possible errors most frequent and most serious and to envisage the reactions which the people concerned must have.
To specify these elements in the agreement.
to if possible replace these human reactions by provisions " automatiques".
To effectively communicate in the organizations partners in order to avoid the losses of confidence momentary of one of the people charged to apply the agreement or even a refusal to apply provisions considered to be inequitable (principle of limited rationality).

Penalties or reprisals

To consolidate a gain-gaining agreement it is possible, lasting the phase of negotiation, to specify the penalties (“reprisals” in game theory) applicable when the agreement is not respected:

the penalties can be " automatiques" , provided that they do not generate automatic against-penalties themselves.
the penalties must be proportioned with the wrong caused, especially if they are automatic, in order to avoid the Effet snowball.
These penalties and their mode of release (automatic or not) must be known so that the effect of dissuasion can play.
Of the means of escaping the penalties can be envisaged if they remain dissuasive (complicated, long, dubious).

System in which the agreement fits

Gain-gaining does not touch only the signatories but also the system (social or different) in which it is registered. Annoying consequences would result in penalizing indirectly the signatories of the agreement (principle Systémique). Thus before ratifying a durable agreement between partners:

To count the groups (social…) external with the agreement and to specify for each one of them the 6 elements: stakes, interests, disadvantages, risks, preferences and regrets. To reconsider the agreement if an imbalance appears.
See what the repetition of this agreement would give in the long run between the same signatories, and as overall as generalization between any partner of the same type would give in the long run. One can realize that for the interest of the community property, and thus of the signatories themselves, the agreement must be modified.
Possibly, to associate with the agreement certain identified external partners.

Examples of situations or generalization highlights an optimum agreement different from that planned

When a player of foot is wounded while taking part in a match of the national team, to compensate its club for origin is a short-term good thing, but, overall, is not optimized for the clubs themselves; indeed that involves multiple administrative approaches, procedures, figurings of the damage, disputes, calls… Thus, it would be for everyone to better consider the wound as if it had occurred in the club of origin, and to carry the efforts on the good practices allowing to prevent the risks, as well in the national team as in the local teams.
Before ratifying a judgment or a jurisprudence to see what the repetition and the generalization of this decision would give in the long run. One can realize that for the interest of the community property, and thus also of the parts concerned at the moment present, the judgment must be different.
an illicit agreement between Concurrent S can be replaced by broader agreement gain-gaining including the customers.

Conclusion

The most difficult aspect of a step gain-gaining is to persuade each one that to maximize its personal profit it is necessary to save its partners and to provide them transparent information. Convinced signatories are not enough: they must then study carefully the communications and sales leaflets ready to involve their personnel in the step.

Sources

Thomas Gordon - on the relations without loser and the win-win management
Work “the game theory, test of interpretation” of Christian Schmidt, editions PUF, April 2001, ISBN 2130503373. The plays studied in this work are:

Dilemma of the prisoner (summarized profits: 2; 2, 4; 1, 1; 4, 3; 3).
wet Hen (see in Dilemma of the prisoner) or Chicken range (profits: 1; 1, 4; 2, 2; 4, 3; 3).
Battle of the sexes (profits: 3; 2, 1; 1, 1; 1, 2; 3).
Hunting for the stags of Rousseau (see in Better answer) (profits: 3; 3, 1; 2, 2; 1, 2; 2, or 4; 4, 1; 3, 3; 1, 2; 2).
Baccara of the bagne or chifoumi Pierre-sheet-scissors (profits: 1/3, 1/3, 1/3).
Warship preventing a commercial boat from accosting an island (profits: 2; 1, 1; 2, 1; 2, 2; 1).
Two countries threatening to destroy (profits: 0; 0, 1; 0, 0; 1, 1; 1), with in option an automatic defense (profits: 0; 0, 2; 1, 1; 2, 1; 1).
Thousand legs (profits: 10; 2, 4; 20, 40; 8, 16; 80, 160; 32, 64; 320, 640; 128).

Conditions of success of an agreement Gain-Gaining

Utilities of the attitude Gain-gaining

Adopter a relation Gain-Gaining makes it possible, in theory, to break a durable vicious circle of way.

the Lump of a woman is an alternative of gain-gaining in which the maximization of the profits is less thorough.
the opposite situation of gain-gaining is Loser-loser where the search for its own profit leads to the maximization of the losses of each one.
an assertive behavior aims at a gain-gaining ratio.

Random links: