要看看这个评论:
a comment from boston.com:
DaveHiersekorn
DECEMBER 09, 2014 — 09:08 PM
So, Edelman ate Duan's dinner, but Duan ate Edelman's lunch.
Okay, so let's start with the fact that Edelman is a Harvard B-School
professor who teaches in the Negotiations, Organizations and Markets
Division. Negotiations? Hah! That's hilarious because Edelman got absolutely
SCHOOLED in a negotiation by a small town restaurant owner who wasn't even
born here. Double immigrant hah!
At the beginning of the exchange, Edelman had leverage in three areas: (1)
the restaurant's desire for customer satisfaction; (2) Edelman's superior
knowledge of the law; and (3) the potential threat of punishment.
What ensued was a systematic pissing away of every advantage that Edelman
had. First, he started with a demand for triple the discrepancy. By
expressing his demand in terms of the statute, he removed himself from the
equation. He wasn't asking Duan to make a CUSTOMER happy. He was asking Duan
to make the LAW happy. That's fundamentally different. Customer
satisfaction died in that email. It didn't help that the demand was
unreasonable AND petty.
Duan mistakenly offered $3 instead of $4. But, Edelman's response was again
expressed in legal terms and served to make it even LESS about customer
satisfaction. He basically turned it into a "private attorney general"
action where Edelman was supposedly acting on behalf of the community as a
whole.
But, Edelman made two other mistakes in that email, too. He basically
spilled his guts on the law, and he said that the authorities were notified.
That removed every remaining bit of leverage that Edelman had. Duan knew the
legal basis, the argument and that the authorities would be following up.
At that point, why deal with Edelman? The whole "I'm acting on behalf of the
community" bit goes out the window when you actually notify the community
authorities.
Duan picked up on this immediately, and said that he would defer to the
authorities and pay whatever fine, penalty or refund that they recommended.
The trap springs two emails later. Duan writes:
"I have told you exactly how I am going to resolve this situation and have
already acted by fixing our website and by honoring the website prices,
unfortunately that wasn't good enough and you notified the authorities so
this is out of my hands now. I can only wait for them to see how we can get
this resolved."
At that point, Edelman is hosed. He is entirely without any leverage, and
Duan responds with a complete defection. (Game theory term.)
Edelman must have known that because he completely changed his strategy and
switched to a request for a reward (not a penalty) for helping the
restaurant fix a problem. Essentially, he is trying to manufacture an
entirely new form of leverage after giving away whatever leverage he had to
begin with.
Truly, that was awesome! Mr. HBS got rocked by a guy whose main skillset
involves stir-fry.
And, let's not forget that Duan managed to get a Boston.com article
published where an unreasonable and pissed off customer still has to admit
that the food was delicious. About the only thing Mr. Duan could've done
better would be to tell the reporter that any customer who mentions the
article will receive $1 off each entree, limit four entrees per order.
That would make it perfect.