The two dollar game: 2 people found at the same time 2$ in the street.
With secret instructions we had to get as much as we can of these 2$.
Round 1:
Personally, I had to get at least 50
cents to get the bus to get back home, otherwise I will have to walk more than
one hour and it will be dark and cold out where I live. We started to both
wanted the 2$. My partner need to have at 1$ to buy the CD she likes. First, she
started, saying we are friend and I can give her all the money. She used
emotional and sentimental arguments. I replied that a need this money for more
vital need to get home, for it was more important than the CD and I used
security and life argument. She offered me to drive me home, but I said that I
had first to buy bread. It was a mistake because she asked me how can I buy
bread if I can buy a bus ticket. So, to bypass the reflexion I said I had to
visit my grandmother who can give me the money. I had to be careful because I
started to found to many different arguments which can be in contradiction. Caroline,
used again emotional argument and said that it would be a pleasure for her to
drive me and I answered I won’t go with her because she is driving bad because
she only had her licence since a few months. Then I had to apologized because
she said she had it for a longer period, and to cut the negotiation I suggest
share equally. Its was our best BATNA for both because each party were winning
in the bargaining. I get more than what I needed and she get her reservation
price.
The good points of my partner were her
ability to use emotional factor and create a context to touch the other party
but she was not very powerful for convincing. I was lucky to get a win/win approach
because I used more objectives arguments related to basically needs, I get more
money and my partner was easy to convince one time the agreement founded. But I
need to be careful to develop my arguments and not try to find a lot to avoid contradiction.
Round 2 :
For this 2nd round I was
supposed to talk the less as I can, listening to my partner. It was pretty
difficult at the beginning because my partner was only asking questions. This round
was for me easier because I knew which working arguments I can used. This is
why I take the bus ticket excuse again. We also started wanted the 2$ both of
us. But this time my partner was more
difficult to convince because she also used objective arguments: she told me
that if somebody found money in the street, they have to go to declare it to
the police, that way if the person who lost the money called for a lost the
police can give her the money back. Using the legal aspect was a very good idea
and make her more competitive because she was trying to afraid me. I didn’t really
have an opposite argument and I answered with generalities: nobody is doing it,
if we get the money back none of us will have money so better we share. After she
used a less persuasive argument: she told me she needs this money to buy
medicines for his dog who is dying. I told her that this not with this 2$ that
she can them. She was exaggerated the situation, trying to put me in a
sentimental context. Like my previous partner, she used emotional argument. She
was lying on her BATNA and here I saw a way to weaken it and improve my
position and reach more favourable interests. She was not willing to share equally
because for her her dog was more important than me. Here she was trying to
improve her position by creating the values at her disposal. We negotiated the
price until one of us reach its reservation price but I was aware to get as
much as I could. At the end, we find a common zone of possible agreement
(ZOPA): this time she gave me more than the average and I will invite her
another day for a coffee. It was a win/win negotiation again, successful for me
because I get more money and my partner didn’t feel bad at the end of the negotiation.
