The bad side of people

May 04, 2006 21:59

This week’s class of negotiation included a robust discussion of cultural differences and a final exercise which would prove to be the most energetic and wild one of this semester. I will begin this entry with an elaboration of the former and exhaust the topic of cross-culture negotiations before I transition into the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

Geno began the class by reviewing our experience and solutions from the Med Lee case. Ultimately, we were able to detect some of the genius that is Geno Schnell when he informed us about all the embedded information involved in the case. As a result, he took us through an elaborate examination of the stereotyped negotiations that occur as a result of cultural ignorance.

Geno said the number thing not to say is “I’m sorry if I insult you” because it is sign that the negotiator has not prepared. In fact, it made me think of all my experience abroad and how whoever I am speaking with is so happy when they see even a semblance of effort put forward by me when I am communicating with them. We also went onto to list some stereotypical characteristics we assign to Asian and Western culture respectively. Indeed in our minds, there were my differences in style and despite some recognition before the MedLee case of these differences; I still could not believe how many I had left out.

I think the most interesting note I got out of listing the characteristics was the drastic differences between each cultures definition of long term. For Western culture, we tend to look at long term as 3-5 years, however; Asian cultures define long term in almost generational terms. Geno also handed out an interesting article on the necessity of knowing more than just the basics to cross-cultural negotiations with a specific focus on China and the future of business.

From here, he concluded his lecture and prepared us for the Dishwasher’s case. This turned out to be a classic struggle of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. This case definitely brought out the ugly side to many of the people in the class, especially some who had seemed so sweet and nice. I won’t explain the gist of the dilemma too much in depth but essentially, one side could win big, win small, lose big, or lose small based on the other’s side decision. The smartest move is to win small and have the other side win small as well, however, the classic dilemma kicks in neither side trusts the other. Inevitably then, both sides will lose.

I decided and swayed my group that we should try to “not advertise” in the first round and see how the other group responds. We knew that they had Darryl, Deepa, and Rob, 3 people who are quite ferocious and all about winning it seemed. Ben was FURIOUS when I convinced that we shouldn’t advertise because he was certain they would. Indeed, he was right. They advertised 8 consecutive times and 1 time after meeting between Ben and Deepa in which she gave him her word that she would make sure her time didn’t advertise. Now, Ben was really furious and his anger took over the group like a torrential thunder-storm on a warm summer night in the midst of hurricane season. We advertised the rest of the way out and our company ended up losing 16 million dollars and they lost 12 million. The lesson I took from this is the value of trust and that if everyone in the world was like me, this would be a better place.
Previous post
Up