Not leaving negotiations with one or both parties enthusiastic, or at best disappointed and angry, is a potentially disastrous time to conclude negotiations. You may be happy to finish, but if a sense of valuable performance isn`t shared by both parties, you`re more than likely to renegotiate sooner than you think (or in a contract dispute). In a distributive approach, each negotiator fights to get the biggest piece of cake possible, so the parties tend to see each other as adversaries rather than partners and take a harder line.  Given that prospect theory indicates that people value losses more than profits and riskier losses, convergent concession negotiation is probably more relentless and less productive for an agreement. The sum of the advantages and disadvantages to be distributed as part of a negotiation is illustrated by the notion of a negotiation cake.  The course of negotiations may lead to an increase, contraction or stagnation of these values. If the negotiating parties are able to expand the overall pie, a win-win situation is possible, provided that both sides benefit from the expansion of the pie. However, in practice, this maximization approach is often hampered by what is known as Petit Bias, i.e. the psychological underestimation of the size of the negotiated cake. Similarly, the possibility of enlarging the cake may be underestimated due to what is known as the lebias of incompatibility.  Unlike the increase in the cake, the cake can also decrease during negotiations, for example.
B due to the (excessive) costs of negotiations.  Unlike paving solutions, permanent solutions have two characteristics: (1) they address all aspects of the problem and (2) they are win/win, as they offer acceptable benefits to all parties involved. . . .