All negotiations require well-being (satisfaction) of both parties. That is why manuals emphasize the management of expectations and perceptions, and advise conducting negotiations in a way that is respectful of alternative views and perceived to be fair.
Even then at the moment of closing the deal, the winner will usually attempt to make the loser feel good, even feel like the winner. Perhaps sometime later, the loser will discover that the great deal was actually a poor deal.
However, the situation envisaged by this framework of PH-L4s is one in which all negotiation and bargaining is taking place between members of the same group. This changes the game in a fundamental way.
Exploitation or crushing tactics, common in win-lose negotiations, will damage well-being, possibly irreparably. Such an attitude is wholly counterproductive within a group suffering discord. Well-being is required and only win-win negotiation can deliver that.
The paradox of bargaining where the strongest party is the one with the least interest in a deal may apply to a group where a sub-group is prepared to split off. Sometimes such a departure cleanses the group which then orients itself around the remaining sub-groups. Sometimes, the departure mortally wounds the group.
In society at large, it is not uncommon to hear one political party express the wish and intention to eradicate opposing ideologies. Mutual hostility between adherents of competing value systems (tribes) is a natural state, but peaceful coexistence is the only solution if they share a territory. Putting hostility into practice runs counter to this framework. Not only is it certain to fail, but it increases the level of internal discord, and weakens social cohesion. So long as ideological adherents exist in a free society they should be allowed to hold their views.
Initially posted: Aug-2013