Role Play Name : 67 Fishpond Lane
Your Role : Seller of the House with Marlee.
Person Playing Other Role : Steven and Valerie V, playing the buying
$Results : 380,000$ for house + 20,000$ for birds
This case presented me a huge impression since it was the first time we did case in groups, where as all the cases we did previously, including the sophisticated Riverside vs. DEC case, were all individual works. One thing I found vey difficult about this case was the fact that one needs to listen to both the other party’s arguments and his/her partner’s statements, and the uneasiness of reaching consensus among partners is vividly demonstrated when one is not familiar with the teammate’s negotiation style. For example, after we made our deal, which was to sell the house with 380,000$ and birds for 20,000, Valerie actually blamed Steven’s negotiation style: “you always rush things and make decisions so quickly that leaves no alternatives for others.” For us, even though Marlee and I shared the goal, which was to sell the house as high as possible, our approaches were totally different. Marlee tried very hard to come up with something that can benefit both parties in the long term. In response to the other party’s request to lower the price, Marlee asked if they possess anything that we can invest in, so that we can cooperate in a long run. I really appreciated her effort to be more creative. However, her statement sounded unpractical to me; I just felt that it was not the right time to bring “future cooperation” on the table when we have not settled down on anything. If I were the other party, I would have felt being offended since Marlee’s statement of “investing on us” sounded like she wanted to exploit on my MBA degree and knowledge.There are two things that went well in the negotiation. First of all, even though Marlee and I...