Conflicts Resulting From
Competition
I believe the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game, the Red/Green Game, and the Ultimatum Game were all excellent examples of conflicting situations where people tend to act on impulse rather than on reason and logic. For instance, in the Red/Green Game, people were tempted to use means such as lying or trying to trick their opponents to gain an advantage. People would say they would all go Green, but when it came down to it, everyone wanted to benefit at the expense of others so nobody ended up winning. This is true in real life situations when people comparing themselves to their colleagues or employers and try to gain some kind of advantage over them. They are like parasites who are feeding off the misfortune of somebody else. Even though the logical thing was for everyone to go green, nobody would do that because 50 points doesn’t seem like very much would you could get 300 points. The same held true in the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game; each person should have collectively gone C so that both groups would have been equally compensated, but like normal Americans, we showed our desire to compete and do better than our classmate. Instead of really somebody was being nice and trying to help out everyone, we took it as that person was weak or didn’t know that they were being taken advantage of so we continued to pursue our selfish desire to win. Finally, in the Ultimatum game, the same held true. If you were fortunate enough to win the coin toss, eraser toss, or rock, paper, scissors game, you felt like you were better than the other person so you deserved more of the $100 payoff than the other person. This compares to real life situations where you may have been given certain abilities that are superior to your peers so you feel like you should be able to exploit them and earn more money than them even if they are trying just as hard as you are, or even if they deserve the reward as much as you. It seemed like whenever somebody got the upper hand, they would laugh as if they had won the game and then they would say their proposal as if they were being fair. Even those people nice enough to go 55-35 or 51-49, still felt it within their power to play ruler and to decide how much the other person deserved without basing the judgment on logic or fairness.
I think all of the games demonstrated real life situations very well because in America, we are raised to be independent and to compete for everything out there. That is why schools are structured with admission standards as well as certain colleges within the school (like the Business School), and if people don’t live up to the expectations or show that they are better than their counterparts, then they are left behind and deemed ignorant. I think it is unfortunate the American places so much emphasis on getting ahead and being first as opposed to succeeding as a nation and helping one another despite their abilities. I believe managers should realize how tempted people are to lie, cheat, and steal to get ahead of their neighbor; so we should try to socialize people differently and teach them that winning isn’t everything and that harmonization and network building are much more important goals to strive toward. If America keeps on putting so much pressure toward being successful, it will come back to bite us as we see our relationships disintegrate and America become a divided nation built on individualism. As proven time and time again, a team of individuals joining together can accomplish much more that any one sing le person as long as they all put in their fair share and work together in an organized and efficient manner. Through a new socialization system, we should be able to have America move to new heights through group accomplishments as opposed to people hiding ideas so their competitor doesn’t steal them or provide their own insights.
Honestly, I have been tricked several times by sales people since I was a kid. I used to have hard time dealing with sales people because they knew how to play on my sympathy and how to use my kindness, in order to push me to make concession and close the deals. For example, they would persuade me that I actually gained from the deal, at which they claimed that the offer was unfair to them but they would be still willing to sell it, for the sake of me as a valuable customer or for some other reasons, like they really needed the deal for their livings. If I hesitated for a bit, they would mention how poor they are, how tight their financial condition was, or even how many kids they needed to raise. If I hesitated for another while, they would probably give me an ultimatum, “Come on! Body. I’ve made a big concession for you here. If you don’t want this deal, that is fine because many people need this. It will be out soon. And…you can look around. I promise you no one will offer you this price. I like to offer you is because…” Often, after the emotional struggling, I made the deal. Even more often, I regretted for my decisions because I would find out that the price was still too high or that I didn’t even need the products.
This was one of my past experiences with sales people. Some of them were really good negotiators, knowing my weakness and creating a perception that I actually won the deals. As aging, now I know their tricks and know myself better. However, it is kind of odd for the people who know my family well to hear that I actually got tricked by sales people. My father is a very successful businessperson, negotiating with numerous business top guns around the world and making numerous big deals for his company. Even his negotiating opponents admire his negotiating styles and power. In my eyes, he could easily handle deals with big Japanese, European, and US retailing buyers. Yet, as his son, I could not even handle a $10 deal with a small vendor. What a shame! Later on, I found out that it was my father’s way to train me—letting kids to experience it themselves with humble minds. That was why my father never mentioned to me anything about the company, his expertise, and his story, even though I asked him. Now, perhaps, he feels I am old enough, so he begins to share his stories with me. Well, it is a long way to go. At least, he wanted me to feel this way, so that I will always push myself to learn more and never feel tired or arrogant.
* * *
If I ask what the toughest negotiation in the world is now, some people may answer that it is the one between Israel and its surrounding Arabian nations. In my opinions, I would say that it is the one between China, Taiwan, and the US, the triangle relations. In the Middle East, although people there seem to get used to the endless battles, at least they have been negotiating over certain issues for decades. I deeply believe that they will achieve a final agreement and settle down the conflicts someday, as long as they keep negotiating and fighting—it seems to be the way they talk to each other. I know it is hard to imagine this possibility, but let’s consider the case of the European Union for a while. It is like nobody during the WWII could imagine that 40 years later, European nations would settle down all the conflicts and tried to create a “United Europe.”
On the other hand, the case of China, Taiwan, and the US is not only an even more difficult negotiation situation but also an unsolved historical dilemma for all three nations. Also, three parties, carrying different interests, positions, goals, system, and values, have not begun any constructive and mutual negotiation yet. That is why it is not as simple as we can think of. Many people have different opinions and questions about issues of Taiwan’s ambiguous national state, China’s strong claims over Taiwan, and US’s active involvement in the Cross Strait tension. To fully understand and discuss the situation objectively, we have to go over the whole historical events and issues. Since this is not the purpose of this journal, I will just make some relevant points here about the relation between Taiwan and China.
First of all, China and Taiwan are preparing for crucial negotiations for decades. That’s why I strongly believe that Taiwan and China won’t go into the war. Although China aims all the missile weapons at Taiwan and frequently threatens that they will take over Taiwan by means of force, it is not likely the case. If China really meant it, they would not put several conditional clauses in the threat, like “We will use force, if Taiwan announces independence, if other nations invade Taiwan, if…” Instead, China could state the intention to use force directly or simply use it without any warning. In my opinions, this is the process of pre-negotiation. That is, China can enforce the bargaining power. Another evidence for China to level up its bargaining power is that they have actively reform the economy and attracted tons of foreign investments, especially from Taiwan’s companies. For Taiwan too, they have gradually built up its defense force and high-tech economy and actively democratized itself and drawn the attention from the whole world, especially the US, which adds into Taiwan’s bargaining power. Also, Taiwan has given the similar threat to China too, such as, “We won’t announce independence if you don’t use force.” All of these shows that both sides are trying to deal with this as rationally as possible in a form of business negotiation, rather than treating it as a dangerous nationality issue.
Second, both China and Taiwan understand that military force may be the inevitable ultimatum in this negotiation game. That is, if one side does something that is beyond the other side’s resistance point, the ultimatum may be used. However, since both sides know the ultimatum will make a lose-lose situation, both sides are smart and mature enough to not cross each other’s bottom lines. For example, in 1996, when Taiwan had its first direct President election, China threatened that if the Taiwanese people participated in the election actively, they would use force. It turned out that Taiwan had a successful President election with participation rate over 80%, and China did launch 2 missiles close to Taiwan’s coast. Besides, nothing else. Also, in 2000, after Taiwan had its second President election, the candidate of the pro-Taiwan’s independence, Mr. Chen, became the president. People thought he was going to announce Taiwan’s independence, but it turned out that he was looking forward to further peaceful negotiations with China. If we realize this fact, we can assume that all the threats and actions both sides have done to each other are indeed parts of the negotiation game.
Third, the most difficult part in this negotiation game is a cultural issue. Although the Taiwanese, most of whose ancestors are from the Mainland China, have been influenced by Japanese, American, and other cultures deeply, their rooted cultural characteristics are still very Chinese. In the Chinese culture, any critical negotiation game like this needs trust—No trust, no talk, and so no business. This is very different from other cultures. As we know, building trust needs time, especially when both side’s interests and positions are very different. For example, China claims Taiwan is part of its territory because Taiwan used to be part of its historical territory before 1989, although in the past, Taiwan was just treated as a remote and poor island by the Chinese’s several dynasties. That is, China didn’t really pay attention to Taiwan’s development. This is why Taiwan now claims that China never cared about Taiwan’s security and the people there. Ironically, the nation who helped build Taiwan’s basic infrastructure was Japan, a colonizer. Also, after Taiwan in 1949 was back from Japan to Kuomintang, the legitimate Chinese government by then, the government’s first action towards the Taiwanese folks was a brutal massacre, named 228 Incident. All of this has created a perception of mistrust for Taiwanese people towards China. For Taiwan, they don’t mind reunifying with China, but what they care about is whether China can keep the promise of Taiwan’s prosperity, freedom, and democracy and whether China can reform its own political situations. If these two conditions could not be met, there was no reason for them to change the status quo. In this negotiation game, what Taiwan wants is a fair game, although it is a very subjective issue.
I believe that China’s government understands this point. That is why since the mid 80’s, they’ve tried to create a common ground first between Taiwan and China—the economic interests. In response, Taiwan also permitted tons of business investments in China. In fact, nowadays both sides can’t live without each other in terms of the economic growth. Also, China actually has started the practice of some basic elections. Even though it is a slow and small step, it means a lot to Taiwan and the world as a whole. We couldn’t rush both sides to talk to each other soon with the equal mentalities of democracy and freedom. It is the time that matters. Time is the most difficult part in this negotiation. If either side is not patient enough, the ultimatum (lose-lose) will be the final resolve for sure. Yet, if both sides can give it more time, it won’t be that difficult to create a win-win situation. I love to see it in my lifetime.
Journal #4
Recently I have participated in a variety of _role-playing_
games, such as _The Salty Dog,_ _Red-Green Game,_ and the _Ultimatum
Game._ I enjoyed these immensely and
feel that they revealed a lot to me about myself and other people. I hope to give the reader a glimpse into my
head.
The _Salty Dog_ game was one of negotiation. My partner was very honest with me in the
start of the game and told me what her other offer was for ($5500). I opened my mouth for my response and I had
two choices. I could lie and take
advantage of her honesty or I could respond in kind. I chose the latter option.
I told her of my other offer for $3500.
Then I suggested we split the difference. She counter offered for a little bit more for herself and I agreed. I find it interesting that when it came down
to it, when it would have been advantageous for me to lie perhaps that I could
not look her in the eye and go through with it, even though I had every
intention to. Lying appeared to be a
dominant strategy for most of the class also, as it was very prevalent in the
other groups.
This is a much different outcome for me than the _Red-Green_
game. I suspect that the biggest change
was that in the first game I was negotiating one on one. With the RG game I was one of many
negotiating with another group.
Deception feels easier then because no one can pin all the blame on one
individual perhaps. Everyone lied for
most of the time, with the exception of the last two rounds. A deal was agreed to for all the groups to
vote _green_ which would have benefited everyone. There were of course deceivers (including my group) who reaped
the benefit of the cooperator_s trust.
It was easy for me to approve of my group lying to the other groups but
when I went up there to negotiate I found myself unable to agree to vote green
and just wanted to discuss the coordination problem we were having. I was hoping a solution could be found, even
though no one had authority over another so there could be no enforcement. Anyway, it appears that I am not a good
deceiver.!
This is a concern because it appears that the best leaders are
also the ones who have the ability to deceive the best.
Finally we played the _Ultimatum_ game. I only offered 50 cents figuring that offer
was better than nothing. I got no
affirmatives. People acted irrationally
and refused a situation in which both parties would be better off because it
was not _fair._ My strategy changed
considerably with giving the second player a chance to refuse and counteroffer. Even so an equable 50-50 split was refused
some of the time. A couple of times I
got an inequitable counteroffer, which I refused also on grounds of unfairness. What I got out of this is that humans are
very unpredictable and emotional beings.
We do not all come out of the same mold.
Journal Entry
5/15/01
The negotiation simulations were very interesting. I thought the
purpose of the simulations
was to improve our negotiation skills through
practice runs, to find out
the strategies of the other side, and to get
a better idea of the
different reactions from other people.
I found
that although the situations
were staged, I still had trouble
negotiating if I felt I was
trying to take advantage of the other person
(by lying or making a one
sided offer). Some people made
irrational
decisions, and I’m not sure
if it’s because it was a game, or if people
are that irrational dealing
with money in real life. I think the
simulations was helpful, and
if I were to do it again, I’d be more
comfortable with doing more
to increase the benefits for my side.
I think the simulations helped us get comfortable with
negotiations,
especially through the
“Salty Dog” exercise. That particular
simulation
was good for trying to get
the best for your side, reading people, and
negotiating with improvisation. I was trying to sell the snow plow, and
felt like I could have done
a better job. It was difficult to
effectively negotiate
without a clear idea of what to say. If
I were to
do it again I would have
included the knowledge that a major snow storm
was expected and would have
make the first offer. Andrea initially
offered to purchase the
Salty Dog for $3500; $2000 below the amount she
was allowed to spend. I countered with an offer of $4500, and we
finally agreed to
$4000. However, I think if I had
offered her the
truck at $5500, I could have
made more money in the deal. At the
time,
I think I was worried that
an offer that high would seem too high, and
she would have thought I was
trying to take advantage of her.
However,
in relation to the junkyard
offer of $3500, $5500 isn’t too much to ask.
I should have realized that
during the negotiation, however, some facts
escaped my mind as I tried
to make the sale. I also forgot that a
major
snow storm was expected
soon, and should have realized Andrea might have
been in a time crunch to
purchase the truck.
During the game where a $100 was split between the two
negotiators, I
found some people to be more
irrational than I thought. In
particular,
during one interaction I
offered to split the money 75/25 in my favor.
I thought $25 would be
sufficient for the other person to accept.
However, the person quickly
refused and appeared to be annoyed with such
an offer. I don’t know if it would have been different
with real money,
because I think $25 is much
better than nothing. I certainly would
have
taken it. Nonetheless, that person rejected it without
much thought.
In situations where an offer
was made to me, I was surprised at how fair
the others were being. In that situation I can either take their
offer
and get some money, or get
nothing at all. I felt like I had no
control. However, the lowest offer I received was
40/60, which was very
adequate for me to
accept. Perhaps their thinking was to
get as much as
they could without appearing
to be selfish.
I think the biggest takeaway from these lessons was at how
different
and irrational people can be
in negotiations. For some, the money
didn’t matter nearly as much
as respect did. Others cared mostly
about
money with little regard for
the emotions of themselves and others.
These differences made
coming to an agreement difficult. I
wasn’t sure
if the person was happy,
angry, or barely satisfied by my actions.
For
future reference, when I am
negotiating I will try to read the other
person, see their
perspective, and try to maximize my negotiation with
that information. Ethics will play a part, and I will take
emotions
into account, however, I
will also be aware that the person across from
me may also be trying to
maximize their gain through me.