View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository

another instead of selfishly sticking to their individual interests. The resolution of a
core dispute is not always possible with consensus building, but it can be used with
sub-issues, while still opening the way for the use ofalternative strategies.
LOSE-LoSE AGREEMENTS
Thompson (1998:49) describes a lose-lose agreement as "a situation in which
two people fail to capitalize on compatible interests." These people want the same
outcome, but they fail to realise that the opponent has exactly the same interests.
Therefore they reach less desirable outcomes.
To avoid this situation Thompson (1998) suggests that negotiations should not
assume differences of interest, but should try to understand accurately what the other
party's interests are. They should also not make premature concessions to their
opponents.
Pure Coordination
This is the opposite of pure conflict. Thompson (1998:45) says here "parties
interests are perfectly compatible" i.e. what increases one party's interest also increases
the other party's interest. This kind ofnegotiation is also very rare.
Mixed-motive Negotiation
This is the most common negotiation where there is more possibility for
settlement for both parties. This is because, according to Thompson (1998:46) "parties'
interests are neither completely opposed nor purely compatible" One party's gains are
not equal to the other party's sacrifices. This kind of conflict has an integrative
potential, which is "the joint profit available to negotiators over and above the joint
profit afforded by a fixed-sum solution."
167