(Phone
rings)
Bartonic:
(phone picked up) Nathan Bartonic.
Ruan: My son was involved in something he didn’t understand. And he paid the price…. He’s got a good heart…. Not like our hearts.
Bartonic:
You killed Crown.
Ruan:
You shoot my son.
Bartonic:
No.
Ruan
: ….
Bartonic:
But I know who did.
Ruan:
….
Bartonic:
Maybe we should meet tonight….
Ruan:
….
Bartonic:
…Talk this through.
Ruan:
…..
Bartonic:
I know a place.
Ruan:
Where?
Bartonic:
‘Club’.
Ruan
who phone called Nathan (a police) is a serial bank rubber who never got caught.
The Nathan is the police who had been striving for catching Ruan for
years and years. For Nathan, nothing could be more heart bumping than this phone
call. The reason Ruan called Nathan was, as shown in the clip, was because he
thought Nathan made the recent death of his son.
But Nathan did not kill the son but knew who did and tried to exchange
the information with Ruan to come into sight. Ruan did agree the deal, which is
just unfair.
What did Nathan do to make it work? Nathan was actually prepared to negotiate. According to Deepak Malhotra
(2008) there are five-step pre-negotiation framework which may help understand what cognitive process was going on in Nathan.
Step 1) Assessing your BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement).
This step questions you “What will I do if the current negotiation ends in no
deal?” “What other options will I pursue?” The answer to these questions for
Nathan would be “staying awake every night regretting about the losing the
chance that may never come again in his life.” and “Repeating to fail in chasing
after Ruan and removed from any action”
Step 3) Assessing the other party’s BATNA.
When I was watching this part of the movie I thought that the deal was
completely unfair because the risk for being arrested is way bigger than having
the name of the killer. I may never be able to understand his decision before I
experience discovering my child unreasonably killed by someone else. The
mourning would never be comparable by anything in the world – presumably Ruan
must have called Nathan for asking him why he has to kill his son or possibly
warning for the revenge.Step4) Calculating the other party’s reservation value. Nathan’s level of negotiation skill is demonstrated by addressing this step. Ruan may have been thinking about other way to find out the killer without accepting such an foolhardy exchange if Nathan allowed days for considering. However Nathan prevented this by suggesting the appointment right ‘tonight’. By doing this Nathan was potentially eliciting the fixed-pie bias in Ruan’s mind by adding the time limit to make the meeting ‘tonight’.
Fixed-pie in negotiation refers to the circumstances that something
which is interested by both parties can be gained only at the expense of the other.
The only thing the both parties can do is to slice up the pie and try to get a
big piece of it. Fixed-pie bias refers to the misperception of the negotiation as
being under fixed-pie circumstance when it is in fact possible to expend the
pie (Thompson, 2001). Ruan could have asked Nathan to tell the killer’s name
first in the expense of his appearance at their appointment –the pie could have
been expanded. However, Ruan chose to believe everything just as told by
Nathan’s and that eventually appeared in the ‘club’ that night- thinking that
is the best possible negotiation..
Against the agreement, Nathan brought a company to take down Ruan and tried to shoot against him right at his appearance without a moment to say hi. After all Nathan was shot by Ruan and died from the fighting that night. (Punishment!)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.