Real Life Negotiation – Summer Uncertainty
Cameron Thum
Heading into our third year summer, my friends and I were in a relatively good position. We had all secured internships in our fields of interest for the summer and, better yet, many of us received placement in New York. Within my closest group of friends, however, this blessing became a source of indecision and frustration. Seven of us would be interning in New York, and we would inevitably have to split into two groups of four for housing. The question before us was who’d live with who, and why? Facing this decision, the seven of us sat in a room together one spring afternoon to hash out the lingering uncertainty. We didn’t want anyone to be upset with the final decision and were looking for a pareto optimal outcome.

While few of us bore particular preferences for groupings heading into the meeting, it soon became clear that particular individuals had an idea already in mind. The conversation began with casual suggestions for room groups: “Jack and I lived together last year, so maybe it would make sense for us to room together this next summer.” Many of the initial suggestions were similar to this – trying to obtain one’s personal preference without much more than prior relationship as support.

Quickly we realized that the conversation was not going anywhere, particularly due to the fact that many of us had lived with others in the group before. But the matching process was complicated by the available dorms. All of the dorms we had been looking at fit four people in two bedrooms, meaning each group member would be paired in rooms with one other member. However, the seventh individual would become the odd-man-out and have to find an alternative individual to room with. This was an obviously less desirable situation for not only the seventh individual, but for the fifth and sixth individuals (who would have to live with the unknown eighth individual) as well.

Due to this, the negotiation grew heated for fifteen minutes as individuals flung back and forth reasons why they specifically shouldn’t have to be the seventh man, or the fifth/sixth at that. While being close friends would make for a better living situation, I realized that it complicated the negotiation. Individuals brought up past transgressions made against them, biases they held, and concessions they had made to others in the group as justification for them getting their desired outcome. Clearly, prior negotiations had occurred in this group, and the outcomes of those negotiations were influencing this one.
Eventually, I pointed out that we were not getting anywhere by making the decision off of social preferences or past events. I began asking others where their offices would be, where in New York each wanted to live, and what their budgets were. When each of us put this information forward, we saw that there were two clusters of us. Five of us would be working in Midtown, and the remaining two in Downtown. Additionally, three of us wanted to live in Murray Hill, two wanted to live by Union Square, and two had no preference. All of us were given similar housing stipends by our firms, so budget became a non-factor. Office location was a non-factor as well; both of the dorms were conveniently located by subway lines that went uptown and downtown.

With this information in the open, the process became much easier. Acting as the moderator for the negotiation, I asked the Murray Hill threesome if they would be interested in living together. They expressed that they would, and as an added benefit two of the three had stated early in the negotiation that they wanted to room together. I think that the group’s spirit was lifted when we were able to arrive at an outcome that met their preferences, and we grew optimistic that all of us would end satisfied.

Being one of the two who wanted to live in Union Square, I turned to the two who lacked location preferences. At this point, either those two would be able to join my Union Square twosome and form a full apartment, or they could split themselves between the Murray Hill and Union Square Groups. Knowing that the third, unpaired individual in the Murray Hill Group could have a hot temper – and that he was facing the risk of being the dreaded seventh individual – I was concerned that this part of the negotiation would again be contested.

At this point, however, the third, unpaired individual spoke up: “I actually have a good friend from home who will be in New York this summer; would you two [in the Murray Hill Group] be interested in living with him?” The Murray Hill pair asked a few questions about the potential roommate. When they found out that he would be doing Sales and Trading – waking up at 5:30AM for his internship and potentially disrupting the others’ sleep – a member in the pair expressed great hesitation. I realized that it was in my interests for their apartment to be filled by the friend from home so that I could live with my three friends in the group. I reminded the hesitant individual that he had already received his roommate and location preference, and that the early morning disturbance from the fourth roommate would not be significant. He realized this was true, and accepted living with the friend from home. With this small concession made, we ended happy with the outcome and eager for the summer ahead.
n