In the public sector there's an almost automatic reflex: when a project, a policy or a piece of communication affects several actors with different interests, the situation is assumed to be confrontational. That someone will win and someone will lose. And the negotiation begins by defending positions, not by exploring agreements.

The problem isn't that confrontation is impossible. Sometimes it is. The problem is that assuming it from the outset eliminates the entire zone where an agreement could have existed. And in institutional relationships that last decades, that mistake isn't paid for once: it's paid for every time you have to negotiate with the same actor again.

The trap of assuming zero-sum by default

When two departments within an administration compete for budget, when a project requires coordination with a private-sector actor, when a public policy has to pass through the filter of an organized interest group, the default reading is: if one side wins, the other loses. That reading simplifies the conversation, but it also impoverishes it.

In most of the real cases we've seen, there was a third way that neither side had explored, because both arrived at the table with the answer before the question: each one knew what it wanted to achieve and came in to defend it. Nobody asked what the other side actually needed to resolve, or whether what both were demanding were the only possible ways to meet those needs.

The most underused question in institutional negotiation isn't "what are you asking for," it's "what do you need to resolve."

Why a Think Win/Win mindset is difficult in public settings

It isn't a matter of goodwill. Three structural factors push public negotiations toward confrontation, even when nobody wants that:

  1. The short political cycle. Whoever is negotiating needs to show visible wins before the next electoral or budget milestone. A balanced agreement looks less impressive than a partial victory.
  2. The public traceability of concessions. In an environment where every decision leaves a paper trail, giving something up costs more than it would in the private sector, because the concession is on record and can be used against you later.
  3. Turnover among counterparts. Whoever signs an agreement today may not be in the role eighteen months from now. That weakens the incentive to seek long-term agreements.

Recognizing these factors doesn't eliminate them, but it does allow you to design negotiations that offset them: document the agreement in institutional terms (not personal ones), look for gains in the short term too (not only symbolic ones), and build continuity mechanisms that survive a change of counterpart.

How to prepare a negotiation that doesn't start from zero-sum

In our practice, negotiations that produce lasting agreements share three elements of preparation:

Three essential preparations

  • Map of interests, not positions: before the meeting, list what each party actually needs to resolve, not what it says it wants to achieve.
  • An explicit zone of possible agreement (ZOPA): identify the space where a mutual yes could exist before getting into figures or conditions.
  • Best alternative to a negotiated agreement: be clear on your own BATNA and, where possible, the other party's. Without that, any concession is invisible.

The role of communication in negotiation

Negotiation doesn't end at the table: it continues in how the agreement is communicated to each side's own audiences. A well-negotiated but poorly communicated agreement erodes within weeks. A reasonable agreement that is well communicated holds up over time, even if neither party got the ideal outcome it asked for.

This is where a public organization's communication function should be integrated with its institutional relations function. In practice, the two are most commonly disconnected: institutional relations negotiates, communication finds out afterward and has to justify the outcome with whatever it's handed. That's a failure of organizational architecture, not of talent.

When confrontation does make sense

There are cases where the game genuinely is zero-sum: when there's an indivisible resource, when one party is acting in bad faith, when the clash of values runs deep. In those cases, trying to force a win-win is naive and, at times, irresponsible. The point is never to avoid confrontation altogether: it's not to assume confrontation by default before exploring the alternatives.

The practical test we apply: before entering a negotiation in confrontational terms, write a page explaining why a mutually acceptable agreement isn't possible. If that page can't be written with solid arguments, the game probably wasn't zero-sum. It had only been read that way.

If your organization enters its institutional negotiations with the answer before the question, that's exactly the reframe we can work on together.

Let's talk

No commitment. Reply within 48h.

Conclusion

Negotiating with public stakeholders doesn't get easier when approached as confrontation. It gets more predictable, more corrosive and more costly. Every agreement lost to a poor initial read leaves a cost that accumulates in the next conversation with the same actor.

The change isn't one of attitude: it's one of method. Map interests before positions, identify the zone of possible agreement, communicate the outcome with the same seriousness used to negotiate it. That's what separates organizations that build lasting institutional relationships from those that burn themselves out negotiation after negotiation.