In a zero-sum game, the sum of all outcomes always equals zero, signifying that no new value is created or destroyed, only redistributed among the players.
I had a client some time ago that insisted on making offers well below list price on properties for sale. This isn’t an issue for me; when representing a buyer, my job is to get the best deal for my buying client. However, whether it be politics, real estate or interpersonal relationship issues, part of an effective negotiation strategy is knowing the other party’s position and pain points.
In what would be our last negotiation together, my client directed me to make an offer on a property about $40K below what the person paid for it two years earlier. Based on my research on the property, I could tell this would mean they’d need to bring money to the table to sell the same. We were in an up market and the property had been listed for just 48 hours or so.
I mentioned to my client, “I will absolutely make this offer for you but I am compelled to share this will mean the sellers will have to pay to sell the property.”
“So?” they replied. “This is part of my strategy.”
“I understand,” I replied, “but part of an effective strategy is knowing your opponent’s position.”
I was fired after this but the point of the anecdote here is that while you may get short term gains from zero sum interactions, it’s generally more effective to consider your opponents position in a negotiation.
A zero-sum mindset limits one’s view to a narrow set of possibilities—essentially, I win, you lose. This perspective restricts the adjacent possible by failing to consider alternative, mutually beneficial outcomes that could be just one step away.
By shifting away from a zero-sum mindset and considering the other party’s position, you open up a new set of possibilities for both parties involved. This aligns with the theme of exploring the adjacent possible, as it encourages a more expansive, open-minded approach to negotiation, which in turn can lead to unexpected and more fruitful outcomes.