A scene from the cult-classic sci-fi series ‘Firefly’
presents us with a brilliant (read: amusing) example of negotiation. Without
dropping too many spoilers on those who have not yet gotten around to watching
the series, in the aptly named episode ‘The Train Job’, Mal (played by Nathan
Fillion) and co. attempt to cancel a deal to deliver a stolen package, after
the contents cause a moral dilemma. The crime lord who offered the job dispatches
a gang in response, who unsuccessfully try to take the cargo by force from the
fleeing crew. The video shows the ‘negotiation’ that takes place as Mal
attempts to reach an amicable resolution to the hostilities.
There are three people involved in this negotiation: Mal,
the first (unfortunate) gang member, and the second gang member. Whilst Mal
does not exactly spend long at the negotiation table, he does exhibit a few
qualities of a good negotiator. Firstly, he has alternatives: simply leave, as
was the plan from the beginning before the second alternative arrived
(returning the up-front payment). There is a certain level of patience, what
having just being attacked by those he’s trying to negotiate with. Mal also
knew when to sensibly back out of negotiations upon recognising the poor
negotiation skills of the first thug: impatience, stubbornness, being unaware
of the value of each offer and unaware of his own and Mal’s alternatives. We
know emotional thinking impairs discrimination, so perhaps the first gang
member allowed feeling of anger to affect his negotiation ability.
By comparison, the second gang member, despite being
admittedly under the influence of social consensus after noting the general
disproval from an audience at refusing the offer (Goldstein et al., 2008), and
being likely to settle for less whilst having negative emotions (Lerner et al.,
2004) is a better negotiator. He is aware of his options (do or die) and also
the value of each offer (his life = valuable to him, not to Mal; returning the
money = valuable to Mal). There may also be recognition of the Zero Sum
Fallacy, in that he is unlikely to be affected financially by returning money
to the leader, and that he also wishes to live: everybody wins.
This example provides a good introduction to basic
principles in negotiation, most prominently knowing your alternatives, and
those of the other party. Whilst we may not likely to employ the tactics used in
this clip, we can learn something from the space-cowboys, as they do pose a
solid lesson the importance of knowing other peoples interests.
Stuart Miller
References
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., 7 Griskevicus, V. (2008).
A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental
conservation in hotels. Journal of
Consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482.
Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004).
Heart strings and purse strings: Carryover effects of emotions on economic
decisions. Psychological Science, 15(5),
3337-341.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.