Developing a Negotiating Style
EXHIBIT 5-10 Distinct Emotions
Source: Posner, J. Russell, J. A., & Peterson, B. S. (2005). The circumplex model of affect: Anintegrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology , 17, 715–734. ACTIVATION tense nervous stressed upset sad depressed bored calm relaxed serene contented happy elated excited alert DEACTIVATION UNPLEASANT PLEASANT
(“I really feel good about the negotiation—I got everything I wanted!”). Other negotiators made self-effacing remarks (such as “I really didn’t do that well”). Later, negotiators who overheard the other party gloat or make self-effacing remarks were given an opportunity to provide valu- able stock options to these same parties. Those parties who gloated received significantly fewer stock options than those who made the self-effacing remark. 76
Genuine Versus Strategic Emotion
Perhaps the key question when it comes to emotion at the bargaining table concerns whether emotions are genuine (behavioral manifestations of felt emotions) or strategic (carefully designed orchestration to take the counterparty off guard). The effectiveness of three different strategic emotions (positive emotion, negative emotion, and poker face [no emotion]) was tested in a distributive bargaining situation. 77 The positive and poker face strategies were distinctly more effective than the negative emotional strategy in obtaining a favorable outcome from a counterparty. (See Exhibits 5-11 and 5-12 to assess your own strategic use of emotion.)
76 Thompson, L., Valley, K. L., & Kramer, R. M. (1995). The bittersweet feeling of success: An examination of social
perception in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31 (6), 467–492.
77 Kopelman, S., Rosette, A. S., & Thompson, L. (2006). The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative,
and neutral emotion in negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99 (1), 81–101. EXHIBIT 5-11
Emotional Styles
Rational Positive Negative
Focus Conceal or repress
emotion Create positive emotion in other party Create rapport Use irrational-appearing emotions to intimidate or control other party
Distributive strategies (pie-slicing) Citing norms of fair distribution Compromise for the sake of the relationship
Threats; often tough bargaining Integrative strategies (pie-expansion) Systematic analysis of interests Positive emotion stimulates creative thinking Negative emotion may inhibit integrative bargaining
Implications for future negotiations and relationship
Not likely to say or do anything regret - table, but also may come across as “distant”
Greater feelings of commitment to relationship partner
Pressure to carry out threats or lose credibility
EXHIBIT 5-12
Emotional Style Questionnaire
Read each statement, and indicate whether you think it is true or false for you in a negotiation situation. Force yourself to answer each one as generally true or false (i.e., do not respond with “I don’t know”).
1. In a negotiation situation, it is best to “keep a cool head.”
2. I believe that in negotiations you can “catch more flies with honey.” 3. It is important to me that I maintain control in a negotiation situation.
4. Establishing a positive sense of rapport with the other party is key to effective negotiation. 5. I am good at displaying emotions in negotiation to get what I want.
6. Emotions are the downfall of effective negotiation.
7. I definitely believe that the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” in many negotiation situations. 8. If you are nice in negotiations, you can get more than if you are cold or neutral.
9. In negotiation, you have to “fight fire with fire.” 10. I honestly think better when I am in a good mood.
11. I would never want to let the other party know how I really felt in a negotiation. 12. I believe that in negotiations you can “catch more flies with a flyswatter.” 13. I have used emotion to manipulate others in negotiations.
14. I believe that good moods are definitely contagious.
15. It is very important to make a very positive first impression when negotiating. 16. The downfall of many negotiators is that they lose personal control in a negotiation. 17. It is best to keep a “poker face” in negotiation situations.
18. It is very important to get the other person to respect you when negotiating. 19. I definitely want to leave the negotiation with the other party feeling good. 20. If the other party gets emotional, you can use it to your advantage in a negotiation. 21. I believe that it is important to “get on the same wavelength” as the other party. 22. It is important to demonstrate “resolve” in a negotiation.
23. If I sensed that I was not under control, I would call a temporary halt to the negotiation. 24. I would not hesitate to make a threat in a negotiation situation if I felt the other party would
believe it. Scoring Yourself
Computing your “R” score : Look at items #1, #3, #6, #11, #16, #17, #20, #23. Give yourself 1 point for every “true” answer and subtract 1 point for every “false” answer. Then combine your scores for your R score (rational).
Computing your “P” score : Look at items #2, #4, #8, #10, #14, #15, #19, #21. Give yourself 1 point for every “true” answer and subtract 1 point for every “false” answer. Then combine your scores for your P score (positive).
Computing your “N” score : Look at items #5, #7, #9, #12, #13, #18, #22, #24. Give yourself 1 point for every “true” answer and subtract 1 point for every “false” answer. Then combine your scores for your N score (negative).
In another investigation, three strategic uses of emotion were examined: expressing truly felt emotions, hiding felt emotions, and feigning unfelt emotions. 78 Hiding truly felt anger and feigning anger benefits negotiators in terms of monetary outcomes. Feigning rapport with the counterparty is especially useful for garnering concessions, as is feigning resentment. Elation or joy, however, is an emotion that is best kept hidden from the counterparty.
One type of strategic emotion is feigned liking. Presumably negotiators feign liking as a way of gaining favor and achieving their ultimate interaction goals. However, using “fake” emo- tions can take its toll on the negotiator: People who fake positive emotion are more likely to feel stress and actually get lower service delivery ratings (e.g., ratings by customers). 79
Negative Emotion
Negotiators who use negative emotion feign temper tantrums as a way of threatening the coun- terparty to make a concession. It makes a difference whether the anger is “real” or “strategic.” Negotiators who are really angry and feel little compassion for the counterparty are less effective in terms of expanding the pie than are happy negotiators. 80 Moreover, they are not as effective in terms of slicing the pie. 81 In contrast, negotiators who are “strategically angry” are more likely to gain concessions from their opponent because the counterparty will assume the angry person is close to their reservation point. 82 Angry negotiators induce fear in their oppo- nent, and their opponents are more likely to succumb when they are motivated. 83 For example, before the annexation of Austria, Hitler met to negotiate with the Austrian chancellor, Kurt von Schuschnigg. At some point, in this dark historical meeting, Hitler’s emotional style became very angry:
[He] became more strident, more shrill. Hitler ranted like a maniac, waved his hands with excitement. At times he must have seemed completely out of control . . . . Hitler may then have made his most extreme coercive threats seem credible . . . . [He threat- ened to take von Schuschnigg into custody, an act unheard of in the context of diplomacy.] He insisted that von Schuschnigg sign an agreement to accept every one of his demands, or he would immediately order a march into Austria. 84
The effect of negative emotions on negotiator behavior are also influenced by the alterna- tives available to negotiators. Recipients who have particularly poor alternatives are most affect- ed by angry displays and therefore make more concessions 85 The motivations and goals of the
85 Sinaceur, M., & Tiedens, L. (2006). Get mad and get more than even: When and why anger expression is effective in
negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(3), 314–322.
78 Levine, R. C., Amanathullah, E. J., & Morris, M. (2009). Untangling the web of emotional deceit: Measuring strategic
use of emotions in negotiations. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual IACM Conference Kyoto, Japan.
79 Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional
exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46 (1), 86–96.
80 Allred, K. G., Mallozzi, J. S., Matsui, F., & Raia, C. P. (1997). The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70 (3), 175–187.
81 Allred, K. G. (2000). Anger and retaliation in conflict: The role of attribution. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.),
The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 236–255). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
82 Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in
negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (1), 57–76.
83 Ibid.
84 Raven, B. H. (1990). Political applications of the psychology of interpersonal influence and social power. Political
negotiator also influence the degree to which they react to the counterparty’s display of negative emotion. For example, whereas negotiators tend to make more concessions to an angry opponent than to a happy one, this tends to be more true when negotiators are motivated to understand the other party, such as when they are not under time pressure (and, therefore, have resources to engage in thought processing). 86 When expressing anger, negotiators should direct it to a specific behavior rather than another person, thereby separating the people from the problem. 87 Moreover, when negotiators do concede to an angry opponent, they will also tend to concede to that person in the future because they perceive the other as tough. 88
Communicating anger can sometimes backfire, such as when their opponent has the pos- sibility to deceive them during the negotiation and when the consequences of rejecting the angry negotiator’s offer are low. 89 The use of strategic negative emotion is not limited to displays of anger and temper tantrums. Displays of helplessness, pouting, and hurt feelings also can be used to manipulate others. For example, Effa Manley, a female baseball executive and owner of the Newark Eagles baseball franchise in the Negro League in the 1930s and 1940s, was not above shedding tears to get what she wanted at the negotiation table. Pittsburgh sports writer Wendell Smith recalls, “If she did not get what she wanted, Mrs. Manley would wrinkle up her pretty face and turn on the sprinkling system.” 90 Acting somewhat insane can achieve similar effects, such as when AOL’s Myer Berlow announced to his opponents during the middle of negotiations that his favorite movie was The Godfather and quoted his philosopher-hero, Machiavelli, saying “it is safer to be feared than loved.” 91
The type of negative emotion expressed may elicit very different reactions from counterpar- ties. For example, one investigation examined how negotiators responded to an opponent who was disappointed or worried (supplication) with a guilty or regretful opponent (appeasement) versus an unemotional opponent. Negotiators conceded more when the opponent showed supplication (disappointment and worry) and conceded the least when the opponent showed guilt. 92 People who are self-interested (pro-self) are more likely to concede to a disappointed opponent as compared to pro-socials, because they see disappointment as a threat to getting what they want. 93
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence is the ability of people (and negotiators) to understand emotions in themselves and others and to use emotional knowledge to effect positive outcomes. Whereas research and theory on emotional intelligence encourage people to be aware of their emotions, a large body of research indicates emotions, especially negative ones, can thwart people’s ability to make good decisions. For example, decision makers experiencing high levels of emotional stress
87 Steinel, W., Kleef, G. A., & Harnick, F. (2008). Are you talking to me?! Separating the people from the problem when
expressing emotions in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (2), 362–369.
88 Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010). Longer-term consequences of anger expression in negotiation:
Retaliation or spillover? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (5), 753–760.
90 Moritz, O. (2003, June 20). First lady Effa Manley. New York Daily News , p. 33. 86 Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, “The interpersonal effects of anger.”
89 Van Dijk, E., Van Kleef, G.A., Steinel, W., & Van Beest, I. (2008). A social functional approach to emotions in bargaining:
When communicating anger pays and when it backfires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (4), 600–614.
92 Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Supplication and appeasement in conflict and
negotiation: The interpersonal effects of disappointment, worry, guilt and regret. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91 (1), 124–142.
93 Van Kleef, G. A., & Van Lange, P. A. M., “What Other’s Disappointment May Do the Selfish People: Emotion and
Social Value Orientation in a Negotiation Context,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (8), (2008): 1084–1095.
often undergo incomplete search, appraisal, and contingency-planning thought processes. 94 For this reason, it is important to draw a distinction between expressing emotion and feeling emotion. Even though a negotiator may feel emotion, he or she may not express that emotion.
Positive Emotion
Expressing positive emotion might have positive consequences in negotiations. 95 People process information differently when in a positive mood, as opposed to a negative or neutral mood. 96 Good moods promote creative thinking, 97 which, in turn, leads to innovative problem solving. 98 For example, in one investigation, negotiators watched a funny movie and were given a gift. These negotiators reached more integrative outcomes and generated more creative ideas than negotiators who did not watch the movie and were not given a gift. 99 Negotiators who are in a positive mood use more cooperative strategies, engage in more information exchange, generate more alterna- tives, and use fewer contentious tactics than do negative or neutral-mood negotiators. 100
Emotions in negotiation can create a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which negotiators’ emo- tions stimulate those emotions in the counterparty. In one investigation, people in a job-contract negotiation achieved lower joint gains when they experienced high levels of anger and low levels of compassion toward each other than when they experienced positive emotion. 101 Furthermore, angry negotiators were less willing to work with each other and more likely to retaliate. 102 However, when negotiators express happiness on the counterparty’s high-priority issue and anger on the low-priority issue, this reduces the fixed-pie perception and increases integrative behavior. 103
When people are in a positive mood, they are more creative, generate integrative informa- tion, and are more flexible in conveying their thoughts. 104 Why does positive emotion work? It is largely due to a combination of the self-fulfilling prophecy, information processing, and the fact that positive affect is associated with more creative and varied cognitions. For example, people
94 Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New
York: Free Press.
95 Kumar, R. (1997). The role of affect in negotiations: An integrative overview. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
33 (1), 84–100; Kramer, R. M., Pommerenke, P., & Newton, E. (1993). The social context of negotiation: Effects of social
identity and interpersonal accountability on negotiator decision making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(4), 633–654.
96 Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology: Vol. 20 (pp. 203–253). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
97 Isen, A. M. Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1129.
99 Allred, Mallozzi, Matsui, & Raia, “The influence of anger”; Barry, B., & Oliver, R. L. (1996). Affect in dyadic nego-
tiation: A model and propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (2), 127–143. Forgas, J. P. (1996). The role of emotion scripts and transient moods in relationships: Structural and functional perspectives. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 275–296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
104 Baron, R. A. (1990). Environmentally induced positive affect: Its impact on self-efficacy, task performance,
negotiation, and conflict. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20 (5), 368–384; Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, “Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving”; Isen, A. M., Niedenthal, P. M., & Cantor, N. (1992). An influence of positive affect on social categorization. Motivation and Emotion, 16 (1), 65–78.
101 Allred, Mallozzi, Matsui, F., & Raia, “The influence of anger.” 102 Ibid.
103 Pietroni, D., Van Kleef, G.A., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Pagliaro, S. (2008). Emotions as strategic information: Effects
of other’s emotional expressions on fixed-pie perception, demands and integrative behavior in negotiation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (6), 1444–1454.
100 Carnevale & Isen, “The influence of positive affect.”
98 Carnevale, P. J. D., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integra-
who experience positive emotion see relationships among ideas and link together nontypical category exemplars. 105 This response builds rapport, which, in turn, helps to avoid impasse and facilitates the negotiation process. 106
Emotional Intelligence and Negotiated Outcomes
The relationship between measured emotional intelligence (EQ) and negotiation outcomes is not totally straightforward. 107 On one hand, framing negotiations in affective (as opposed to purely cognitive-intellectual) terms allows negotiators to be more involved and positive, but they simultaneously have lower levels of trust and use of cooperative negotiation tactics. 108 People who are high in measured emotional intelligence experience greater subjective out- comes in negotiation than do people lower in emotional intelligence, however, high EQ nego- tiators achieve lower objective outcomes. 109 Apparently, people high in emotional intelligence feel better emotionally and create objective value for their counterparty but not for themselves.
ACCURACY The ability to accurately read emotions in others, particularly the counterparty, is important for successful outcomes. Indeed, a consistent positive correlation exists between emotion recognition accuracy (ERA) and goal-oriented performance. 110 Greater recognition of facial expressions predicted how well negotiators did in a buyer-seller negotiation, in terms of both distributive and integrative outcomes 111
SELF-EFFICACY Part of emotional intelligence is a certain degree of self-efficacy and confi- dence. Whereas no one likes an overly confident, arrogant person, we admire people who have a quiet, steady belief in themselves and a “can do” attitude. Just as there are many types of nego- tiation skills, it stands to reason that there are many areas of skill about which negotiators may or may not be self-confident. Distributive self-efficacy refers to a negotiator’s belief in his or her ability to claim resources effectively (e.g., “gain the upper hand”; “persuade others to make the most concessions”); in contrast, integrative self-efficacy refers to a negotiator’s belief in her or his ability to create resources (e.g., “establish rapport”; “find tradeoffs”). 112
107 Fulmer, I. S., & Barry, B. (2004). The smart negotiator: Cognitive ability and emotional intelligence in negotiation.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 15 (3), 245–272.
108 Hunt, C. S., & Kernan, M. C. (2005). Framing negotiations in affective terms: Methodological and preliminary
theoretical findings. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16 (2), 128–156.
109 Foo, M. D., Elfenbein, H., Tan, H. H., & Aik, V. C. (2004). Emotional intelligence and negotiation: The tension
between creating and claiming value. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15 (4), 411–429.
110 Elfenbein, H. A., Foo, M. D., White, J., Tan, H. H., & Aik, V. C. (2007). Reading your counterparty: The benefit of
emotion recognition accuracy for effectiveness in negotiation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31 (4), 205–223.
111 Elfenbein, Foo, White, Tan, and Aik, “Reading your counterparty.”
105 Forgas, J. P. (1998). On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining
strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (3), 565–577; Isen, Niedenthal, & Cantor, “An influence of positive affect on social categorization.”
106 Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how face-to-face contact fosters
cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36 , 26–50; Moore, D. A., Kurtzberg, T. R., Thompson, L., & Morris, M. W. (1999). Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotia- tions: Group affiliations and good vibrations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 77(1), 22–43; Thompson, L., Nadler, J., & Kim, P. H. (1999). Some like it hot: The case for the emotional negotiator. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 139–162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
112 Sullivan, B. A., O’Connor, K. M., & Burris, E. R. (2006). Negotiator confidence: The impact of self-efficacy on
Strategic Advice for Dealing with Emotions at the Table
Negotiators who understand how emotions work can be more strategic at the bargaining table.
UNDERSTAND INCIDENTAL EMOTIONS People often do not realize that they are affected by their own transient emotions. As a result, decisions based on a fleeting incidental emotion can become the basis for subsequent decisions and outcomes. 113 Moreover, people are affected by the affective displays of emotion with a given behavior. For example, looking disgusted or frus- trated when doing something nice is viewed much less positively; similarly, looking pleased when engaging in a negative behavior does not lead to a positive impression. 114