Today I was wondering.. how do you know when you've got a "good deal"? What makes a deal desirable and how does it differ in different types of business?
These are my instinctive thoughts on the matter...
In traditional enterprise the definition is both parties thinking they got the better deal.
In ethical enterprise it's both parties thinking each got a fair deal.
In social enterprise it's both parties thinking each received non-financial benefit from the deal.
So, think i've nailed it? .. Needs work?
Or am I talking utter rubbish again?
Feel free to discuss, below or on Twitter
1 comment:
I would agree the points on ethical enterprise and social enterprise, although I think that often in business its possible to get a good deal, but to understand that the other party got the better deal. Depending on the timescale involved I can see the case for 'loss leader' deals, where you allow the other party to get a better deal now, expecting... See more to profit in the longer term. In many business deals as well as social/ethical business deals the contract can be mutually beneficial, and maybe no-one needs to get the better deal :)
Its interesting negotiating business contracts in Sierra Leone, the emphasis from both parties was on a fair deal...at least when talking at below high management level. Both parties took a very detached view of the contract, as if the main motivation was to achieve a good quality document that treated both sides fairly. Almost like an academic procedure.
It may come down to who's paying though, as this was a deal funded by the EU, perhaps the emphasis was on creating a document that would show the project in good light rather than on personal gain.
I understand that at higher management level the situation can be more more interesting, with both parties to the contract working for mutual (personal) benefit. (Possibly at the expense of a third party, remote from the actual agreement).
Post a Comment