Emotions in Negotiation – The Effects of Emotion & Methods to Maintain Control


image723_color.jpg
data-animation-override>
Emotions can diminish the success of your negotiations, or derail them entirely. They can make you look and act weak, or make your counterparts less willing to deal with you in the future.

Bob had been Fred’s
client for a long time.  Normally,
he was low-key and easy-going. Not today. 
He was angry and it showed. 
His wife Keiko sat teary-eyed and sniffling next to him.

‘Fred, I want you to make
George Stevens’ life a misery, do you
hear me?”

“I hear you, Bob. But I
don’t get it.  Sure, your tenant left
the property a shambles.  But Stevens
is more than able to pay any damages. His lawyer is a friend of mine. We can probably settle by the end of
the month. Why so upset?”

Keiko spoke for the first time: “Fred,
you remember garden?”

Fred smiled at the
thought of Keiko’s peaceful and precise Japanese garden. “Of course I do,
Keiko. I especially love the koi pond.”

Keiko frowned. “Koi gone.
Pond gone. …Garden gone! She dissolved in tears.

Bob grimly explained to a
startled Fred: “Stevens re-landscaped the entire backyard. Now it’s a big lawn
with a barbeque. Years of my
wife’s work – gone. Every time I
look out my back door I want to beat on him.”

Fred slowly exhaled.
“Wow. But you know, suing instead of settling won’t bring the garden back. A lawsuit
will cost a lot more than redoing the garden, and take much longer…”

“It’s the principle of
the thing.  — Just do it, Fred.”


The Effects of Emotion

Bob
and Keiko’s story is based on real events. It illustrates that disputes are not always all about the
money. Our emotions affect every
decision we make, because the emotional centers in our brains (the amygdala)
react much more quickly than those devoted to rational thought (the cerebral
cortex).

Each
emotion we experience has distinct effects on us, and on those we encounter:

EmotionEffect on NegotiatorEffect on Counterpart
ANGERThe angry negotiator is overconfident, risk-tolerant, and over-eager to act. He or she feels in control. Objectively, he or she often overpays for “victory.” Anger shifts a negotiator’s focus from resolution to the injustice of the anger-producing event.Anger is a ”high status” emotion; An angry negotiator is seen as tough and competent. An opponent in a weak position will concede more to an angry negotiator; But anger breeds competition, negativity, and a reduced willingness to negotiate in the future.
FEAR or WORRYThe fearful negotiator is pessimistic, risk avoidant, and feels out of control. He or she sees the situation as high risk, and is motivated to change conditions.The fearful negotiator is seen as incompetent and low-powered. However, displays of fear or worry can lead to lowered demands or increased offers to assist a needy party.
SADNESSThe sad negotiator is eager to change the situation, even to their loss. Sad negotiators are less likely to trust, and more likely to be analytical. Their willingness to spend rises.Sad negotiators are seen as weak and incompetent. But like fearful negotiators, they are needy, leading counterparts to moderate their positions.
GUILTGuilty negotiators punish themselves. They are cooperative, increasing concessions and decreasing demands, even against self-interest.Opponents take advantage of guilt-induced generosity, unless the guilty one is also “needy,” so that demands are moderated.
HAPPINESSHappy negotiators concede more than others. In a competitive setting, they recover less. In a cooperative setting, joint gains are maximized.Opponents concede less to happy negotiators, who are seen as content with the status quo. Happy negotiators are perceived as weak, with low settlement limits.

Emotions
can diminish the success of your negotiations, or derail them entirely. They
can make you look and act weak, or make your counterparts less willing to deal
with you in the future.  And it
doesn’t always matter if you are unemotional about the topic of the
negotiation.  Harvard professor
Jennifer Lerner has discovered that the emotional effects set forth above apply
even if the genesis of the emotion is completely unrelated to the dispute.  Professor Lerner calls this effect an
“emotional hangover.”

So, if before a negotiation you hear unrelated
happy news, you will ask less and concede more than if you were neutral.  The fact that even unrelated emotions
can interfere with our negotiation performance means that we need to find a way
to change the game.


Methods to Maintain Control

Fortunately, there are simple,
straightforward techniques that help diffuse emotions and mute their
counterproductive results.  In
general, they work across the emotional spectrum.

Combating
emotion usually means slowing things down and involving the thoughtful part of
ourselves:

1. Be mindful. We can’t address our
feelings or those of our counterparts if we’re oblivious to them.   Take a few attentive minutes to
monitor your feelings before going in to any important session.  What are you feeling right now? Why? Is
your anxiety a result of the deal ahead, or something unrelated?  Either can affect you. Write your
answers down, because the act of identifying and writing will help engage your
cerebral cortex and disengage your emotions.  Also, if there are strong emotions about the deal, they
probably signal issues that need to be dealt with for the deal to move forward.

In the same way, be
attentive
to your counterparts. 
What strong emotions are they showing? Does something about the deal
trigger those feelings or does it seem to come from an outside influence? What,
if anything, does that tell you about your next step?  What does his or her negotiating behavior tell you about the
underlying emotions? Don’t be intimidated by the idea of diagnosing emotions.
You do it all day. You can walk into a room and know how someone feels without
hearing a word.  We’re all built
that way.

2. Plan.  Before any negotiation, have a plan. Sit down and
decide on concrete, realistic goals. 
Plan not only where you’d like to end up, what concessions you’re
willing to make – and which you aren’t. 
Think about what the other side is likely to do and decide your
reaction.  Know when you would walk
away, and what your alternatives are if the deal doesn’t work out.  Don’t forget to factor in both the cost
and the likelihood of success of alternatives to a negotiated agreement.  If you want $100,000, but the chance of
winning at trial is only 50%, and trial will cost $10,000, anything over
$40,000 is an economic win in a negotiation ($100,000 x .50 – $10,000 =
$40,000).  Economists call this
number the “expected value” of the negotiation, and it is crucial to determining
whether an offer is beneficial or not.

Having a plan and committing ahead of time to
stick to it introduces accountability, which has been shown to reduce the
likelihood that emotions will warp our decision-making.    Not only will a plan engage the thinking part of your
brain (and disengage the emotional part), it will make you a better negotiator,
because you know the alternatives to a successful agreement, your goals, your
deal-breakers, and so on – without figuring them out on the fly.

3. Pause to
reflect
. When emotions run high,
it’s a good idea to take a break to cool down. During this time, you can review
your goals, which will engage the reasoning, rather than the reacting, parts of
your brain, and decrease the influence of feelings. You can also identify and
explain your feelings, which may help pinpoint parts of the deal that aren’t
working. (“Every time I think about the payment schedule, I get mad, because…”)

4. Consciously change how you feel. Dr. Randy Chittum of Georgetown University notes
that it’s hard to have two opposing emotions at once, and recommends dealing
with strong negative emotions by focusing on what makes us grateful or happy.
Our families, our hobbies, our vacations – anything, so long as it elevates our
mood and dissipates our anger.

5.
Listen and Choose. If you have an advisor
or team with you (or available by phone, Skype, texting, etc.) listen carefully
to what they have to add.  Decide what makes the most sense. Discuss alternatives. Not only will evaluating
and choosing engage your rational thought process, developing alternatives has
been shown to reduce negative emotions like fear and worry by increasing a
sense of control.

6. Treat each situation as
unique.
If you deal with similar
issues day in and day out, certain situations or arguments might anger or
frustrate you.  You should treat
each situation as unique. This will require a conscious effort, because we are
hard-wired to treat past occurrences as predictive of future events.  Think of how this case is different, not how it is the same.  Remind yourself that to others
involved, it is unique and important.
Once again, this requires thought rather than emotion.

7.  Model how you want to feel. Emotions are contagious. Dr Sigal
Barsade of The Wharton School says that mimicking an emotion leads to actually
feeling that emotion.

“[W]e usually think of emotion as
originating only from the inside out: I feel happy, so I show this by smiling
outwardly. Emotional contagion shows that emotions can also be produced from
the outside in: When you see someone smile, it makes you smile and then makes
you happy. Emotional contagion has
also been shown to occur at a conscious level through social comparison
processes in which people look around and compare their affective moods to
those of others in their environment and then respond accordingly.”

The emotional
contagion phenomenon gives us a tool for emotional influence. If you want to
change negotiating partner’s emotions – or your own – model the desired
feeling.


8. Help others change
their negative emotions by recognizing and empathizing.
Sometimes, all it takes to diffuse emotion is
recognizing it.  Recognizing
emotions gives them importance. Recognizing an emotion validates it, while
reducing its strength.  Recognition
meets the strong human need to be heard. For example:

“Bob, from what I
understand, you’re angry about the rent escalation clause of the lease.
Unfortunately, I can’t do anything about that … let’s focus on what we can do
together” (or, “Here’s what I can do…).”

A statement like this is not a concession or an
agreement, but it might help you reach one.

Each of these methods is easy to implement.  Consider the vignette below:

Let’s
say your client, Terry Timid, gets nervous about her ability to pay the mortgage
on the house she wants, so that the transaction (and your commission) is at
risk.  Here’s how a conversation
might go:

“Terry, you seem worried
about whether you can make the payments on this house   I understand that feeling very well; it’s a big
commitment to make (acknowledgment of the emotion).

 But let’s go through the numbers again.
Your income is more than enough to cover your expenses, and your job is
stable.  You pay almost as much in
rent now and have no mortgage interest tax deduction. What is it about the
situation that scares you (engaging the analytical part of the brain)? If you
can make a larger down payment your monthly payments will be lower.  Let’s talk about ways you could do that
(generating alternatives).”

This
brief vignette should give you confidence. The techniques are simple and will
be easy for you to use.


Using
what you know.

How to plan                                                                                 

A. Brainstorm about alternatives. There’s almost always more than one good outcome
to a dispute. Talk them out with people you trust.  Listen if those people tell you an alternative is
outstanding, or unrealistic.  Ask
why.  If an economically beneficial
alternative is unacceptable, force yourself to figure out why.  What’s in the way? Recognize the
underlying emotions and needs, and you’ll diminish their tendency to block your
success.

B. Know the facts – yours and your counterpart’s. Start early.  Talk to your opponent as much as
possible about the issues under negotiation, if you can do so without creating
more strong negative emotions in them. 
Know their best arguments and think
ahead
about your response.  Know
what you want and what they do, too – by asking why a lot, and what would make
the dispute go away. Whatever you learn will help you later. Know what you are
willing to give up, and what is a deal-breaker. You won’t be able to predict
everything but the process will give you confidence and reduce fearful
emotions. 

C. Do your homework. Ask, look up, or estimate the cost of things and the likelihood of
various outcomes, so you can figure out the expected value of your
alternatives.  Look for objective
standards to help you, and ask people experienced in the area for their
opinion.  Not only will you be more
persuasive in the actual negotiations, thinking about such standards and
analyzing how they apply will engage your rational mind.

D. Choreograph the dance. Negotiation has been referred to as a “dance.” If
that’s right, then planning is the choreography.  Where do you plan to start? Where do you see your
counterpart (or “dance partner”) starting? Where do you want to end up? What
are the steps in between (demands you plan to make that exceed your bottom
line?) If your ‘partner’ does X, how will you respond? Of course, you’ll need
to improvise along the way, but if you’ve done your homework, you should be
able to navigate the dance floor comfortably.

E. Consciously reject “winning” as an objective. Don’t compete for competition’s sake
Think about what your counterpart needs.  Can you give it at little or no cost, or get something better
in return?  A good example is an
apology, which studies show can eliminate demands for damages, lower jury
verdicts, and re-establish relationships without cost to the contrite party.
Even if thinking about needs doesn’t result in an elegant answer – even if the
best strategy is to aggressively maximize your return – focusing on meeting
needs will give you insight into your opponent’s likely actions while helping
you to be analytical.

F. Practice attentiveness, analysis, modeling,
and emotional replacement.
We tend to think of emotions as unconscious
forces beyond our control.  They
aren’t, but if we are to change them in the midst of a high-pressure negotiation,
we need to practice doing so beforehand. Several times each day, ask yourself
how you are feeling, and why. 
Resist the temptation to automatically say “I’m fine.” If there’s
emotional content, name it, figure out the reason for it (is it a
direct response to circumstances or an emotional hangover? What for? Try to replace it or diffuse it. Think
about things with different emotional content, act as you would if you felt differently, analyze it, talk about
it, write it down.

If you can get a friend to help you, practice reducing or influencing another’s
emotions, and get feedback on what’s effective.  These practices may seem tedious, but they will pay off and
make you better at getting what you want.


Testing your understanding.

Below are a number of questions to help you think
about and understand the previous advice. It isn’t a test, but it may help you
be more confident.

     

  1. In the vignette
    about Bob and Keiko, what emotions was each feeling? Who is better suited to getting the most money from George Stevens? Why?
  2. Now assume
    that Bob and Keiko are being sued for defaming Stevens, and are likely to lose.
    The goal is to pay as little as possible. Does the answer change? Why?
  3. Write down at least two things Bob and
    Keiko could do to reduce the likely payout in Question 2.
  4. What
    emotion would you prefer your counterpart to feel, all other things being
    equal? Why? Is there an answer
    that applies generally? Why or why not? What could you do to stimulate that
    emotion in your counterpart.
  5. Why might
    someone feign anger against a weak opponent? Do you see
    any problems with feigning an emotion?
  6. Suppose you
    had only two minutes to advise a very sad Keiko in a negotiation to recover
    damages against Stevens. What brief advice would you give her and why?
  7. Suppose you
    are being sued for $400,000, and you feel sure that your chance of losing at
    trial is only 40%, but it will cost you $35,000 to go to trial. Plaintiff
    offers to settle for $175,000. Economically speaking, should you settle or not? Why?

TRENDING NEWS

Get Noticed



Scott Van Soye
Managing Editor - Scott Van Soye is the managing editor of ADR Times. He is also a full-time mediator and arbitrator working with the Agency for Dispute Resolution with offices in Irvine, Beverly Hills and nationwide. He is a member of the California Bar, and practiced real estate, civil rights, and employment law for over twenty years. He holds an LL.M. in Dispute Resolution from Pepperdine University, where he is an adjunct professor of law. He welcomes your inquiries, and can be reached at [email protected] or (800) 616-1202, Ext. 721

For Reprint Rights:

Please email [email protected] for pricing.
Direct dial: (949) 702-5390

error: ADR Times content is protected!