Jim Camp

ethnocentric and pessimistic. Doesn't grasp or address the fact that the problem is in an adversarial system that feigns "win-win" and often limits it to business environments. The problem isn't "win-win" as a possibility, but the fact that it is abused to cajole impracticable preliminary agreements. The book dismisses "win-win" entirely however.

It fails to see that the culture at the center of its view does not so adhere to "win-win" in the first place. Mentions sports but how many of those are win-win? Awards? "Competition" underpins the entire doctrine of "a marketplace of ideas." Mentions law, how much of that is win-win? Compare it to the European system, of which the author is an ardent admirer, which is an inquisitorial system, and closer to "win-win" than the culture the book claims to be overtaken by it. Because the very legal system -the book's culture of origin's regulatory apparatus- is founded on an "adversarial" system, the book seems to be carrying coals to Newcastle.

The issue is that win-win should mean win-win, yes mean yes, and no mean no!

If you think this is a book about saying "no" and standing on principles; it's not, it is about starting with "no" as a negotiating tactic, even if you have interest in saying "maybe," indeed even if you have strong interest in saying "yes," on the assumption that most negotiations -without rigorous negotiation- manufacture inequitable consent, that's not too problematic, but the assumption that all "win-win" is willful spin is excessive.

In one way alone, did this book deliver. It isn't afraid to challenge what it thinks is the status quo.… (más)