Everyone who has tried a negotiation faces a dilemma. What is the minimum bargaining term that you should negotiate for? What is the maximum? If you ask for the minimum, would that not open the floodgate for the other negotiation party to negotiate for even lower? This is a dilemma that every negotiator has to face, and require negotation skill.

There are many variations to the original story, but this is how one goes: The District Attorney had caught two suspects (who collaborated with each other) for a serious crime. He hoped to be able to convict both the suspects but did not have adequate evidence. Determined to convict at least one of them, he decided to separate them and negotiate with them separately.

The District Attorney first spoke to Suspect "A" - if both the suspects were to confess to the crime, then both of them will get 10 years imprisonment sentence. If Suspect "A" confessed to the crime but Suspect "B" were to deny it, then "A" would go free and "B" would get 20 years' sentence. However, if "A" was to deny and "B" confessed, then "A" would be sentenced to 20 years and "B" would go free instead. If both of them decided to deny, then both will get 3 years sentence each.

He next spoke to Suspect B and offered him with the same deal.

The scenario is summarised as follows:

• Both suspects confess - 10 years sentence each
• Suspect A confess, Suspect B denied - "A" walks free, "B" gets 20 years sentence
• Suspect A denied, Suspect B confess - "A" gets 20 years sentence, "B" walks free
• Both denied - both get 3 years sentence.

If both the suspects were allowed to discuss about their situation, then likely both of them would chose to deny to the crime, and both will get 3 years sentence. Even then, there is no guarantee that one suspect will not betray the other, i.e. by denying to the crime when the other suspect confesses. In this case the betrayer will walk free, while his partner will get the maximum 20 years sentence. Hence, both the suspects are faced with this dilemma.

In negotiation, negotiator faces similar dilemma although they were allowed to discuss with each other. This is called the Negotiator's Dilemma. Please read on...

Many negotiation training workshop organiser use a varied form of negotiation game to reinforce the theory of the Negotiator's Dilemma.

In this negotiation game, both negotiators were given a red card and a blue card. They were to play on 10 rounds and the objective of the game was to maximise their scores. This is how the scores are calculated:

• Both the negotiator plays blue: both get +5 points each
• Negotiator A plays red but Negotiator B plays blue: Negotiator A gets +10 points, Negotiator B gets -10 points
• Negotiator A plays blue but Negotiator B plays red: Negotiator A shall get -10 points, Negotiator B gets +10 points
• Both negotiators play red: both get -5 points each

They were allowed to discuss their game after the fourth and the eight round. To tempt defection, the scores (both the pluses and minuses) are doubled on the ninth round and the tenth round.

Simple mathematics will tell us that any one of the negotiator would earn the most points by playing the red card from the first round till the last round, provided that the other negotiator kept playing the blue card and get beaten for every round. In this case, the winning negotiator would gain +10 points x 8 rounds plus +20 points x 2 rounds which would equate to 120 points, while the loser Negotiator who kept playing the blue card would get -120 points by the end of the game. This will result in a "win-lose" situation.

However, if both the negotiator were to think the same and played the red card from round one to ten, then both of them would end up with -5 points x 8 rounds plus -10 points x 2 rounds which would equate to -60 points by the end of the game. This will result in a "lose-lose" situation.

Since non of the negotiator is likely willing to be a loser and play the blue game all the way, then logic would tell us that the best way for both the negotiator to maximise their scores would be for both of them to cooperate and play the blue card for all the rounds. This way, their points shall be +60 points by the end of the game and they would have achieved a "win-win" situation.

Results compiled from the workshop shows interesting behaviour about the negotiators. In most cases, both the negotiator plays the red card on the first round. On the second round, some began to switch to the blue card. Usually, one of the negotiators would play the blue card at least once throughout the game. An aggrieved negotiator who plays blue and got beaten by a red card for most of the rounds, would likely start playing the red card irrespective of the final results.

Most of those who started with the red card do that not so much because they are trying to hurt the other negotiator. They were just being rational. To them the maximum score they may lose may be -5 points, but they may stand to gain a +10 points. What about those who started with a blue card? Their reasoning was that they wanted to signal a desire for co-operation in the negotiation game.

The discussion after the fourth round of the negotiation game usually helps to direct both the negotiator to find a basis for co-operation. The form of co-operation includes those who were having the higher score, played on purpose in such a way to enable the other one to catch-up on their score. If this happen, then both the negotiator is likely to continue playing the Blue card to maximise the scores to the end of the game.

This game helps us to understand the negotiator's mentality in the negotiation process, which is summed up as follows: If they protect themselves from the vulnerability to the other negotiator's predatory behaviour, then they will be assured of a smaller loss than if they actively trust the other negotiator's good intentions. There is still much to be learnt about negotiation skill.

If you like this hub, please also read my previous hub on Quitting Your Job.