— 109 --
Untapped Power: Emotions in Negotiation
Daniel L. Shapiro*
Editors’ Note: To many negotiators and mediators an “emotional issue” sounds like one with no real substance to it, yet one that’s liable to damage the situation at any moment. Shapiro shows how unsophisticated that view is. Emotions, recognized and unrecognized, regularly trap professional negotiators as well as clients, when these emotions can be anticipated and dealt with constructively. Not only that, but there are positive uses of emotion in negotiation.
This chapter is republished from the same editors’ Negotiator’s Fieldbook (American Bar Assoc. 2006). We appreciate the ABA’s courtesy in agreeing to this republication. Although this chapter was not updated for the NDR, we believe it continues to be a unique and valuable resource. Some formatting has been updated; the text of the chapter is unaltered.
We don’t experience the world as it is. We experience the world as we are.
Anais Nin
Two lawyers meet for the first time to negotiate a settlement. To the unaware observer, their greeting is perhaps notable for its uneventfulness. They shake hands, sit down, introduce themselves, and begin talking about the concerns of their respective clients. Each wants to negotiate this small case quickly in order to move on to big, lucrative cases waiting in the docket. And each knows that an agreement can easily be created to meet the interests of their current clients.
Under the surface, however, each lawyer experiences a world of emotions. “He’s much older than I expected,” thinks the one lawyer. She worries that he might try to control the whole negotiation process, and she calls to mind possible statements she could say to assert her professional status in the interaction. Meanwhile, the older lawyer looks at this younger negotiator and recalls an image of his ex-wife. He feels instantly repelled, but feigns cordial professionalism. Not surprisingly, then, neither listens very well to the other during the meeting; neither learns the other’s interests nor shares their own; and neither brainstorms options that might lead to mutual gains. They merely haggle over how much money the one client will pay the other. Each side firmly entrenches in a monetary position; and they close the meeting at impasse.
Are emotions a barrier to a wise agreement? Is it best for negotiators like these two lawyers to toss their emotions aside and to focus purely on the “important” substantive matters, like money? In this brief essay, I suggest reasons why emotions constitute a risk to negotiator efficacy. I then explain that emotions are unavoidable in a negotiation and propose ways in which emotions actually can be helpful in reaching a wise agreement.
Emotions Can Obstruct a Negotiated Agreement
There are a number of ways in which emotions can hinder the ability of negotiators to reach a wise agreement in a fair and amicable way.[1] First, emotions may divert our attention from substantive matters. If we or others are angry or upset, both of us will have to deal with the hassle of emotions. Whether we decide to yell back, to sit quietly and ignore the outburst, or to storm out of the room, somehow we will need to respond.
Second, revelation of emotions can open us up to being manipulated. If we blush with embarrassment or flinch with surprise, these observable reactions offer the other party hints about our “true” concerns. A careful observer of our emotional reactions may learn which issues we value most and least—and could use that information to try to extract concessions from us.
For example, John and Mary, a husband and wife, shopped for an anniversary ring in New York City. After hours of shopping, they entered a small store with a sign in the window that read, “Lowest price in town.” Mary spotted a sapphire ring in the corner of the main display case. She looked at John, looked at the ring, and smiled in excitement. A jeweler approached them and took the ring out of the display case. John inquired about the asking price. The jeweler named his “rock bottom” price. John was surprised, but not only because of its cost. Moments earlier, he had overheard the jeweler offering another couple that same ring for $400 less. John suspected that the jeweler had raised the asking price after seeing Mary’s excitement about the ring. The couple decided to buy a ring elsewhere.
Third, thinking may take a subordinate role to feeling. Emotions are desirable for falling in love, but they make it difficult to think precisely in a negotiation. Because we cannot easily quantify or measure emotions, talking about emotions reduces the role of hard data, facts, and logic. It makes little sense to try to negotiate quantitatively over emotions: “I’ll give you 10% more respect if you give me 20% less resentment.”
Fourth, unless we are careful, emotions will take charge of us. They may cause us to lose our temper, to stumble anxiously over our words, or to sulk uncontrollably in self-pity. We may neglect even our own substantive goals. In anger, we may reject an agreement that is superior to our alternatives.[2] Or we may focus not on our substantive goals at all, but rather on hurting the negotiator whose actions triggered our anger.[3]
Thus, it is not surprising that a negotiator may fear the power of emotions. They are dangerous and can be destructive. However, this analysis is only a partial picture of the role that emotions play in a negotiation.
….
For full contents please purchase The Negotiator’s Desk Reference.
Endnotes
*Daniel L. Shapiro, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Psychology at Harvard Medical School, and founder and director of the Harvard International Negotiation Program. His most recent book is Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: How to Resolve Your Most Emotionally Charged Conflicts (Penguin 2017.)
[1] The ideas in this section are drawn primarily from: Roger Fisher & Daniel Shapiro, Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate (2005).
[2] Max Bazerman, et al., The Death and Rebirth of the Social Psychology of Negotiations, in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology 196 (Garth Fletcher & Margaret Clark eds., 2000); Modan Pillutla & J. Keith Murnighan, Unfairness, Anger and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers, 68 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 208-24 (1996).
[3] Joseph Daly, The Effects of Anger on Negotiations Over Mergers and Acquisitions, 7 Negotiation Journal 31-39 (1991).
This chapter is republished from the same editors’ Negotiator’s Fieldbook (American Bar Assoc. 2006). We appreciate the ABA’s courtesy in agreeing to this republication. Although this chapter was not updated for the NDR, we believe it continues to be a unique and valuable resource. Some formatting has been updated; the text of the chapter is unaltered.
We don’t experience the world as it is. We experience the world as we are.
Anais Nin
Two lawyers meet for the first time to negotiate a settlement. To the unaware observer, their greeting is perhaps notable for its uneventfulness. They shake hands, sit down, introduce themselves, and begin talking about the concerns of their respective clients. Each wants to negotiate this small case quickly in order to move on to big, lucrative cases waiting in the docket. And each knows that an agreement can easily be created to meet the interests of their current clients.
Under the surface, however, each lawyer experiences a world of emotions. “He’s much older than I expected,” thinks the one lawyer. She worries that he might try to control the whole negotiation process, and she calls to mind possible statements she could say to assert her professional status in the interaction. Meanwhile, the older lawyer looks at this younger negotiator and recalls an image of his ex-wife. He feels instantly repelled, but feigns cordial professionalism. Not surprisingly, then, neither listens very well to the other during the meeting; neither learns the other’s interests nor shares their own; and neither brainstorms options that might lead to mutual gains. They merely haggle over how much money the one client will pay the other. Each side firmly entrenches in a monetary position; and they close the meeting at impasse.
Are emotions a barrier to a wise agreement? Is it best for negotiators like these two lawyers to toss their emotions aside and to focus purely on the “important” substantive matters, like money? In this brief essay, I suggest reasons why emotions constitute a risk to negotiator efficacy. I then explain that emotions are unavoidable in a negotiation and propose ways in which emotions actually can be helpful in reaching a wise agreement.
Emotions Can Obstruct a Negotiated Agreement
There are a number of ways in which emotions can hinder the ability of negotiators to reach a wise agreement in a fair and amicable way.[1] First, emotions may divert our attention from substantive matters. If we or others are angry or upset, both of us will have to deal with the hassle of emotions. Whether we decide to yell back, to sit quietly and ignore the outburst, or to storm out of the room, somehow we will need to respond.
Second, revelation of emotions can open us up to being manipulated. If we blush with embarrassment or flinch with surprise, these observable reactions offer the other party hints about our “true” concerns. A careful observer of our emotional reactions may learn which issues we value most and least—and could use that information to try to extract concessions from us.
For example, John and Mary, a husband and wife, shopped for an anniversary ring in New York City. After hours of shopping, they entered a small store with a sign in the window that read, “Lowest price in town.” Mary spotted a sapphire ring in the corner of the main display case. She looked at John, looked at the ring, and smiled in excitement. A jeweler approached them and took the ring out of the display case. John inquired about the asking price. The jeweler named his “rock bottom” price. John was surprised, but not only because of its cost. Moments earlier, he had overheard the jeweler offering another couple that same ring for $400 less. John suspected that the jeweler had raised the asking price after seeing Mary’s excitement about the ring. The couple decided to buy a ring elsewhere.
Third, thinking may take a subordinate role to feeling. Emotions are desirable for falling in love, but they make it difficult to think precisely in a negotiation. Because we cannot easily quantify or measure emotions, talking about emotions reduces the role of hard data, facts, and logic. It makes little sense to try to negotiate quantitatively over emotions: “I’ll give you 10% more respect if you give me 20% less resentment.”
Fourth, unless we are careful, emotions will take charge of us. They may cause us to lose our temper, to stumble anxiously over our words, or to sulk uncontrollably in self-pity. We may neglect even our own substantive goals. In anger, we may reject an agreement that is superior to our alternatives.[2] Or we may focus not on our substantive goals at all, but rather on hurting the negotiator whose actions triggered our anger.[3]
Thus, it is not surprising that a negotiator may fear the power of emotions. They are dangerous and can be destructive. However, this analysis is only a partial picture of the role that emotions play in a negotiation.
….
For full contents please purchase The Negotiator’s Desk Reference.
Endnotes
*Daniel L. Shapiro, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Psychology at Harvard Medical School, and founder and director of the Harvard International Negotiation Program. His most recent book is Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: How to Resolve Your Most Emotionally Charged Conflicts (Penguin 2017.)
[1] The ideas in this section are drawn primarily from: Roger Fisher & Daniel Shapiro, Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate (2005).
[2] Max Bazerman, et al., The Death and Rebirth of the Social Psychology of Negotiations, in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology 196 (Garth Fletcher & Margaret Clark eds., 2000); Modan Pillutla & J. Keith Murnighan, Unfairness, Anger and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers, 68 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 208-24 (1996).
[3] Joseph Daly, The Effects of Anger on Negotiations Over Mergers and Acquisitions, 7 Negotiation Journal 31-39 (1991).