Negotiations, Cultures and Power-The Orange Exercise

Did you ever wonder why people hoard things they don't even need? Why people seem to be disinterested in something until another person expresses interest? Why people guard their budgets, resources and manpower. Why people care if you are on their land, even if they have quite enough for themselves? Why the guy in the office who has employees that are not working at capacity will not allow you to get them to assist on a project that is at deadline?

I think this is a very good thing to think about. It is very linked to culture too. In one of my business classes we did a small experiement with an orange, and it went like this:

With 30 people in the class, only 15 get an orange. The object is to negotiate on who will get what they want with regard to the orange.

One person gets a small piece of paper with rules for negotiation on it. It instructs them to negotiate for this orange. The reason why this person needs it, is because they are going to a party and have been asked to bring a dish that they are famous for making. They need the orange rind/peel (the outside of the orange only), but not the orange pieces. However, they may not tell their negotiating partner that they only need the rind/peel, nor are they allowed to tell their partner the truth about WHY they need it. They have to try to get the whole thing.

The other person gets a piece of paper with rules for negotiations too. He needs the inside of the orange (the slices) because he has been asked to make a dish that he is famous for making to bring to a party as well. He does not need the rind/peel, only the inside/slices. He is not allowed to tell his partner that he only needs the inside, nor allowed to tell the truth about WHY he needs the orange at all.

The two partners pair up and the orange is arbitrarily given to one of the negotiators. Negotiations begin and last for 10 minutes.

In my class, most people did not reach agreement. The orange was still in the hands of the person that had it to begin with. Most people did not break the rules and tell their partner why they needed it, what they were going to do with it, or what part of it they needed. Some people, split the orange in half....these tended to be non-americans. Only one person out of 30 actually broke the rules and told their partner WHAT PART of the orange they needed. Two told their partner WHY they needed it. About six told their partner sob stories that convinced their partner their need was greater. Two people simply gave their partner the whole orange without knowing why or what part they needed...both of the two were Chinese who were negotiating with one African and one Turkish guy...and later they both said they simply gave the orange to them because they did not think THEY had a good reason for wanting the orange at all. None of the 4 Americans gave up their orange at all.

What we learned was about power and why people cling to things they don't really need very much. The orange symbolized a lot for me, and I wrote my "what did you learn this semester essay" about that ten minute exercise because it was very insightful for me, though no one else seemed to be so engrossed by it. The man I negotiated with had the orange, and he was from Haiti. He would not give it up, and neither of us broke the rules. He had three friends in this class with him, and the three were from Haiti or the Islands.

The next week, I asked him outright why he didn't give me the orange, and he said "It was a pride thing. My friends told me not to give up my orange, because they were not going to either." As it turned out though, one of them actually did agree to split his orange with his partner, and they teased him about it before they found out what the exercise was all about.

It was interesting to see all of the Indians and Asians deal with the orange negotiation, because they produced the majority of compromises. I always wondered afterwards what they learned from that about other cultures who were not so willing to compromise that day. The women were no different either...culture was the predicting factor overall.

We all cherish our power and resources. We don't want to give up any information to a person who might compete with us. We don't want to admit to why we need something or what it is we need, if we even know ourselves...and many times we really don't know at all. We always try to make the deal work out best for us...all the time...every time. Individualism and tribalism served cultures well in the past century but now that we are ALL competing with cultures that have always known how to consult and collaborate we are not doing so good. These cultures do not consider compromise a fault in character, but instead a good thing to do, and they do not always have to have it all their way, or have it ALL or risk losing face. When we compete directly with these cultures we find that the old ways we cling to are losing out. We are proud, and stubborn and we cannot give an inch because it might give the other guy the advantage. Everything is guarded for our people alone to use or have part in, and this has given us nothing but war and a lack of cohesiveness that would lead to success in this new global economy, where collaboration is like a currency, and it can buy things for all of us that do not involve money transfers, but instead knowledge transfers.

The lesson for me is to share as much as I can, and encourage others to do the same. The cumulative effect will be more for everyone, because more value is put into the system...and we are a system...we can no longer deny that what happens in Madagascar directly effect us, in fact recently it impacted the the price of vanilla ice cream (Madagascar is where vanilla is extracted from orchids). We are linking in global supply chains, at every level, big companies, small companies and even some individuals are in direct competition. Those who are not linked are NOT HAPPY...and we must work to link everyone so that each gets the piece of the pie/orange that they need. This is sort of knowledge marxism. A global structure that provides the tools for those who cannot afford them otherwise, teaches the skill needed to use the tools, but then relies on them to come up with the best way to use those tools. It is also knowledge capitalism, because it allows free expression of value added ideas to enter a free market. Nothing holds you back if you are connected, but everything holds you back if you are not connected. We have to recognize that as long as people are disempowered, and prevented from accessing the tools to be successful, that the world will be very dangerous, but when we are all part of someone's supply chain, and we are all sharing because it is to our advantage to put ideas out there and take other people's ideas in, in order to improve our own ideas, then we will really be on our way to repairing the world, and the tyrants will not be able to win anymore....because technology will allow the people to simply go around them.