Win-Win vs. Compromise: Which is better in Procurement Negotiations

Which’s better in Procurement Negotiations?

I remember an incident sometime back when I was negotiating a contract with a critical supplier. The pressure was intense: our budget was tight and the supplier had the leverage.

Initially, I leaned toward a compromise, splitting the difference seemed safe. But then I paused and asked myself: Is meeting halfway really the best outcome? Or is there a way both sides walk away with a win-win?

Instead of settling, I shifted my approach. I dug into what the supplier valued most: flexibility in delivery schedules; and what we needed: cost predictability. We agreed to a delivery schedule that provided flexibility for the supplier, and this afforded them the ability to commit to our price structure.

By creatively combining both our main priorities, we structured a deal that met both parties’ needs. The result? We saved costs, strengthened the relationship, and the supplier felt valued and motivated to deliver even more than expected.

Looking back, compromise might have seemed quicker, but it wouldn’t have built the trust and collaboration that the win-win approach achieved. In procurement, compromise often means each side gives something up; win-win means everyone gains something important.

So next time you’re at the negotiation table, ask yourself: Are you settling, or are you creating real value for both sides? Value creation requires us to dig deeper, unearth our main priorities and work out a win-win solution. The difference could be huge not just for the immediate deal, but for the relationships and results that follow.

Need procurement specific training? Reach out to support@efemini.com and we'll get you sorted.