emotions in negotiation: how to manage fear and anger

Emotions in Negotiation:How to Manage Fear and Anger

Robert S. Adler, Benson Rosen,and Elliot M. Silverstein

When emotions run amok, negotiators lose perspective andmake serious mistakes or perform poorly. The authors describeemotions, explore their origins, detail their physiology, demon-strate their key role in human behavior (particularly innegotiation), and propose a series of recommendations for deal-ing with fear and anger, two critical emotions in negotiations.

A Few incidents better illustrate the magnitude of emotions run amok thanthe gruesome image of Mike Tyson biting off a portion of Evander Holyfield'sear in the midst of a heated championship boxing match. Although most ofus are unlikely to enter a boxing ring, we all face, at different times and in avariety of circumstances, intense stress not unlike that felt by pugilists. Formany people, high-stakes negotiation feels, in a psychological sense, likeentering the ring for fifteen rounds. That is, they encounter an array ofintense emotions — from fear to exhilaration to anger — in anticipation ofand during the negotiation.

Robert Adler is a professor and associate dean of the BSBA Program at the Kenan-Flagler BusinessSchool of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-3490. Benson Rosen is a profes-sor and senior associate dean at the Kenan-Flagler Business School of the University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-3490. Elliot M. Silverstein is director of psychology at DorotheaDix Hospital, Raleigh, N.C. and adjunct professor at the University of North Carolina Law School.The authors have taught negotiaton and conducted workshops in negotiation for a number of years.

0748-4526/98/0400-161$l5.00/0 C 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation Negotiation Journal April 1998 161

Intense emotions often trigger intense and, at times, irrational behavior.Consider, for example, a simple exercise used in negotiation courses and train-ing workshops. In the "Dollar Auction" (see Raiffa 1982: 85-90; Shubik 1971),group participants bid on a dollar in a straightforward manner, but with onetwist: the winner gets the dollar, but the second-highest bidder must pay hisor her losing bid to the auctioneer. Almost without exception, after a flurry ofoffers approaching one dollar, two bidders will be left, each realizing that if heor she is outbid, the winner will get the dollar and the loser will receive onlythe embarrassment of having to pay the auctioneer. At this point, emotionstypically escalate — especially if there is a group of observers chuckling at thetwo players' predicament and egging them on — and the bidding for the dol-lar will reach three-to-five dollars or higher until at last one of the players,visibly agitated, gives up. The "winner," realizing that he or she has attained, atbest, a pyrrhic victory, rarely looks much happier than the loser.

From a rational perspective, once it is clear that the bidders are merelyincreasing the loss they will incur and that neither will gain a financial advan-tage from further escalation, they should quit the contest. That, however,almost never happens. Anger and a reluctance to "lose face" overwhelmrational faculties during the auction (Murnighan 1991).

Runaway emotions do not occur just in small bargaining games. TheNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for example, attributesroughly 28,000 traffic deaths annually to the effects of "road rage" (Wald1997), revealing a new type of "DWI" driver — Driving While Infuriated.

In negotiations where large-scale financial stakes are involved, onewould assume that the parties would take particular care to guarantee thatirrational behavior not control the bargaining. Yet, the larger the stakes,often the more intense and uncontrollable the feelings. Runaway emotionscan surface in and destroy any negotiation — multi-billion dollar mergers andacquisitions (Callahan 1988; Daly 1991), baseball strikes (Reuben 1995) andthe operations of family-run businesses (Nash 1985). In so many ways and atso many times, the key to a successful deal lies not in technical details oreven in a favorable price, but in the proper treatment of the emotions thatdrive the parties to a negotiation (Garai and Pravda 1993).

Despite the critical impact that feelings have in negotiations, numerouscommentators have noted and deplored the fact that emotions are one of theleast studied areas in the field (Barry and Oliver 1996; Kramer et. al. 1993; Pil-lutla and Murnighan 1996; Thomas 1990). As Thomas notes, those whoanalyze negotiations only from a cognitive or economic perspective overly"sanitize" the process by eliminating emotions and their potentially strongeffects on thoughts and actions (Thomas 1990). In this article, we hope to putemotions in negotiations in their proper place. We describe emotions, exploretheir origins, briefly detail their physiology, demonstrate their key role inhuman behavior (particularly in negotiation), assess their positive and negative

162 Adler, Rosen, and Silverstetn Emotions in Negotiation

sides and, finally, propose a series of recommendations for dealing with fearand anger, the two most critical emotions in negotiation.

Of course, not all negotiations break down because of runaway emo-tions. Some deals cannot be consummated because there is no overlap interms acceptable to the parties. Although these instances may generate con-siderable emotion once the parties realize that no meeting of the minds ispossible, our concern lies more with situations in which, absent strong anddisruptive emotions, the parties would have reached agreement. As we shalldiscuss, we believe it is possible to employ bargaining approaches that mini-mize these occasions.

Emotions: A DefinitionDescribing an emotion to someone incapable of feelings would be as futileas explaining the color "blue" to someone born without sight. At some level,one must simply feel in order to experience an emotion because words can-not capture the sensation. As far as we can tell, no computer, howeversophisticated, has ever felt or will ever feel emotions — witness the eternalquest for this vital human trait by the android Data in the television series,Star Trek, The Next Generation.

Scientists continue to debate the precise nature of emotions — theirneurophysiology, the degree of their malleability, their relationship to cogni-tive processes, and so on (see, for example, LeDoux 1995). At their mostbasic, however, emotions are simply "impulses to act, the instant plan forhandling life that evolution has installed in us" (Goleman 1995: 5). But thereis more — not only are emotions impulses to act, they are also the feelingsthat trigger the impulse to act (Callahan 1988). Emotions intertwine withrational thought to make us human. Reason cannot easily operate withoutfeeling, nor vice versa. Callahan insists that both are critical. For example,without the two operating in supportive fashion, we cannot make properethical judgments since it is the emotion of empathy that drives us to wantto be good:

Emotions energize the ethical quest. A person must be emotionally inter-ested enough and care enough about discerning the truth to perseveredespite distractions. ... A good case can be made that what is specificallymoral about moral thinking, what gives it its imperative "oughtness," is per-sonal emotional investment. When emotion infuses an evaluativejudgment, it is transformed into a prescriptive moral judgment of whatought to be done (Callahan 1988:10).

Emotions: An Evolutionary LegacyEmotions play a central and, at times, dominant role in our lives for good rea-son. Without the "hair-trigger" push for action from emotions, our ancestors

Negotiation Journal April 1998 163

would have become food for a host of hungry predators long ago. However,the role of emotions goes beyond merely enabling us to escape attacks fromenemies. Goleman (1995: 6) insists that evolution has intertwined emotionswith the most critical aspects of our lives:

Sociobiologists point to the preeminence of heart over head. . .when theyconjecture about why evolution has given emotion such a central role inthe human psyche. Our emotions, they say, guide us in facing predica-ments and tasks too important to leave to intellect alone — danger, painfulloss, persisting toward a goal despite frustrations, bonding with a mate,building a family. As these eternal situations were repeated and repeatedover our evolutionary history, the survival value of our emotional reper-toire was attested to by its becoming imprinted in our nerves as innate,automatic tendencies of the human heart.

We can derive useful insights by contemplating the role of emotions inthe development of emotions. Given our common, albeit ancient, ancestry,we can be fairly certain that animals often have feelings not unlike ours(LeDoux 1995). When a zebra dashes from a pursuing lion, we can relate atsome level to the fear that it must feel. Similarly, we can empathize with thefierce protectiveness of a mother bear when she feels the well-being of hercub to be threatened. Accordingly, there seems little doubt that the study ofemotions in animals can shed light on our own emotional makeup. In fact,increasing reliance on animal experiments and observation have contributedgreatly to understanding our emotional nature (Matthews 1995). De Waal,for example, has observed that chimpanzees exhibit emotions such as anger,sympathy, sadness, and empathy in a variety of extremely sophisticated ways(De Waal 1996).

It seems likely that evolutionary dynamics have developed our "nega-tive" emotions (e.g., fear and anger) to engage more quickly and with greaterforce than our "positive" emotions (e.g., joy and serenity) because the for-mer carry greater survival potential. Affect that produces readiness andstrength is more likely to save us at critical moments than that which createscontentment (Barry and Oliver 1996). In the 17th Century, poet John Dry-den, bemoaning the imbalance between positive and negative emotions,wrote "For all the happiness mankind can gain is not in pleasure, but in restfrom pain." Regrettably, evolution rewards that which works best, not whichfeels best.

The neural circuitry that contains and controls emotions must be veryold, going back thousands of human generations. We carry what has ensuredour survival for the last 50,000 generations (Goleman 1995; LeDoux 1995).Such an ancient legacy is not an unmixed blessing. Given the dramaticchanges in social organization and interpersonal interaction of more recentgenerations, it should not surprise us that we sometimes find that nature has

164 Adler, Rosen, ami Silverstetn Emotions in Negotiation

"wired" us in ways that are incompatible with modern living. For example,humans rarely find ourselves hunted for food these days. Yet, our emotionalinfrastructure continues to prime us to react in the same manner as it didwhen we were the hunted as often as the hunters. It can be argued that thefierce ebb and flow of emotions that were vital to the survival of our ances-tors pushes us to foolish outbursts or excessive dread when, objectively, weshould adopt much calmer approaches. Realizing the evolutionary contextbehind these emotional states helps us understand and address them.

Physical Aspects of EmotionsIn recent years, through the use of such techniques as Magnetic ResonanceImaging of the brain, brain mapping, viral tracking, and observations ofbrain-damaged subjects, information about the neurobiology of emotions hasgrown enormously, leading to new understanding of the physical characteris-tics of emotions (Caldwell 1995; Goleman 1995; Matthews, 1995; andSchneider et al. 1995). Scientists now understand that the amygdala, a pair ofalmond-shaped organs situated above the brainstem (near the internal earstructure) plays a key role in producing and controlling emotions in humans.Although other portions of the brain undoubtedly participate in the develop-ment and display of emotions (LeDoux 1995), the amygdala has increasinglycome to be seen as central in our emotional lives. Sever the amygdala fromthe rest of the brain and the individual loses some or all recognition of feel-ing, and feeling about feelings (Adolphs et. al. 1995; Bower 1997; Caldwell1995; Goleman 1995). Such a person may never lose his temper, shed a tearin sorrow, recognize fear in another's voice, or be moved by a great musicalcomposition.

Not only does the amygdala serve as a critical source of emotions, italso acts in lightning-fast fashion, long before our rational faculties engage(LeDoux 1995). Current evidence suggests that the amygdala scrutinizesmost incoming data from our sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell to deter-mine whether immediate action is called for. If the data indicate that oneshould act quickly, the amygdala will instantly transmit messages triggeringhormones that mobilize a person for action. Heartbeat intensifies, concentra-tion focuses, blood pressure increases, muscles tense, and breathingbecomes heavy. In addition to these physical responses, the amygdalasearches the brain for useful information about dealing with the emergencyand imprints emotional memories for future reference (Goleman 1995).

We feel a variety of things during these amygdala-driven situations. Atone level, we feel the exhilaration of the moment, often inspiring us toachievements beyond our normal capabilities — which explains whycoaches work so hard at conditioning their teams' minds as well as their bod-ies (Despres 1997). On another level, the strain of an intense emotionalexperience can also lead to trembling, stomach upset, and oppressive ten-


sion — feelings that few of us enjoy and many of us go to great lengths toavoid. All of these reactions, experienced at an emotional level, derive fromspecific biochemical sources that produce physical effects.

What is critical to understanding the role of emotion is that the amyg-dala engages immediately at a primitive and powerful level before therational mind assesses a situation and decides how to react. Thus, it shouldcome as no surprise that emotions often explode before rational facultiesplay a role in our actions (Goleman 1995). Moreover, because emotionscarry such force, they may dominate our actions for some time before we"cool off" enough to assess what we have just done. When we are emotion-driven, we do not sense subtleties. The amygdala sacrifices accuracy forspeed — an absolute necessity from an evolutionary perspective (LeDoux1995). In emergencies, those who pause may be lost. From a modern per-spective, however, moments of crisis in a negotiation rarely involve, exceptin a metaphorical sense, "lifeor-death" elements. A state of instant readinessto dash a half-mile or to launch a physical attack on the source of our con-cern, while often unavoidable, is too often inappropriate.

Because no two human lives are alike, different stimuli trigger differentemotions in people. A beautiful spring day that evokes joy in someone whoanticipates a family barbecue may produce only despondency in anotherwhose loved one died on such a day. Despite the differences in our emo-tional reactions, however, there is a striking universality to emotions.Cross-cultural studies and infant research strongly suggest that humanityshares the same set of basic emotions, and that these emotions are conveyedthrough a common set of facial expressions (Callahan 1988; Scherer and Wal-bott 1994). Although disagreement remains regarding which emotions aretruly basic and which are variations on a theme, researchers find a dramaticsimilarity of emotions among all humans. One observer suggests four basicemotions: fear, anger, sadness, and enjoyment (Goleman 1995). Others positseven major emotions: joy, fear, anger, sadness, disgust, shame, and guilt(Scherer and Walbott 1994). Still another, Callahan (1988: 10), sees a richermix of basic emotions, and argues that they, "like the primary colors, can beblended, differentiated, and elaborated." To Callahan, the basic emotionsrange across a "mild to intense" continuum: interest to excitement, enjoy-ment to joy, surprise to startle, distress to anguish, anger to rage, disgust torevulsion, contempt to scorn, fear to terror, shame to humiliation, and guiltto remorse. Despite the shades of theoretical differences among theseobservers, they all insist that the universality of our emotional makeup pro-vides a key underpinning of our ability to communicate with one another.

The fact that emotions can be triggered so quickly — before ourrational faculties can assess a situation — does not mean that we must resignourselves forever to being led astray by our feelings. Recent psychological

166 Adler, Rosen, and Silverstein Emotions in Negotiation

research suggests that preventive measures can help avoid runaway emo-tions. Recognizing the physical effects of emotions helps provide a key tocontrolling them in moments of stress. In some cases, we may be able todefuse emotions before they intensify; in others, we can divert the force ofemotions away from destructive behavior.

Positive and Negative Aspects of Emotions in NegotiationsAmong other things, the art of negotiation lies in discerning and working outdifferences between the parties. At times the differences may provoke sub-stantial conflict, leading to emotional outbursts and heated discussions.Many people find exhilaration in the adrenaline "rush" that occurs duringsuch moments, but an equal or greater number react to conflict by dreadingand avoiding it. These varying reactions suggest that emotions function bothin positive and negative ways. In fact, we believe that emotions play a varietyof roles, some at times overwhelming and some often quite subtle.

The rich variety of functions precludes any easy generalization aboutemotions' role in negotiations. Those who would eliminate emotions innegotiation wrongly focus only on the negatives, missing the critical natureof emotion — after all, emotions are what give vitality to the values and goalsthat negotiators bring to the table (Callahan 1988). One need only ponderbriefly to see the many positives of emotions in negotiations. If we do notcare about what we seek, we become indifferent, and therefore ineffective,bargainers. Emotions give us our values and motivate us to pursue them.Moreover, the emotions that we display help us signal the other party aboutour intentions and give us critical feedback about the other side's mood andwillingness to agree (Putnam 1994).

Because we realize that the other side may scrutinize us for signs of fearor excessive eagerness, we try to subdue the outward manifestation of thesefeelings so that we will not be taken advantage of. At times, we all admirethe person who can maintain an impassive "poker face" in a negotiation,thwarting attempts to read his or her feelings about specific proposals. Simi-larly, those who can communicate confidence despite their inner quakesalso inspire our admiration. On the other hand, the opposite approach canalso be powerful. Extravagant displays of anger or irrational outbursts cansometimes be effective in breaking an impasse or intimidating an opponent.A "madman's advantage" can be produced by such displays, which cangreatly increase a bargainer's power at critical moments in a negotiation(Schoonmaker 1989).

Of course, not all emotions involved in a negotiation result in or carrypositive feelings. Where one party believes that the other side cannot betrusted, tries to overreach, or unreasonably rejects a fair offer, he or she may


experience frustration, anger, fear, or sadness. In these instances, emotionscan get out of hand and thwart agreement. At the extreme, intense anger canresult in violence, broken friendships, and festering anger. Intense fear canproduce equally unacceptable outcomes; fearful negotiators leave them-selves open to intimidation, exploitation, and capitulation.

Fear and Anger in Negotiations: Some Cautious AdviceUndoubtedly the two most intense emotions that confront negotiators arefear and anger. Anger can flash white-hot at a moment's notice and fear canreduce one to paralysis. Although other emotions arise during the course ofa negotiation, our experience strongly suggests that the two that affect nego-tiations most often and most dramatically are fear and anger. Accordingly, wefocus on them with the hope that addressing them can also provide insightinto dealing with other emotions.

We caution those who would rely on our advice to remember AugustusCaesar's admonition to "hasten slowly." No general principle works effec-tively in all circumstances and with all people. In some situations, in fact, thebest course of action may well be to do the opposite of what we counsel.Because of the complexity of life and human interaction, the only rule thatworks in all instances is "it depends." Accordingly, an ability to read the situa-tion at the moment helps enormously. Nonetheless, based on years ofpractice and confirmed by a number of studies, we believe that, in most situ-ations, what we recommend will help negotiators deal with highlyemotional settings.

Anger in NegotiationsTwo millennia ago, poet and satirist Horace wrote Ira furor brevis est — angeris a short madness. When we become truly furious, we may act in an utterlyirrational way for a period of time. Although a temper tantrum may relievepent-up feelings for a moment, we often find regret and negative recrimina-tions following such displays. On this point, Queen Elizabeth I reportedlyobserved, "anger makes dull men witty, but it also keeps them poor."

Anger springs from many sources. On one hand, it may arise from theperception that someone has violated written or unwritten rules of behavior.In chimpanzee society, De Waal (1996) notes that members of a groupexhibit what he terms moralistic aggression, that is, chimps perceived asstingy and unsharing are more likely to be attacked and refused favors thanthose that act in a more generous spirit. On a human level, someone whorudely breaks in line or who recklessly cuts us off in traffic will likely ignitefires of indignation if we are the victims of these transgressions.

Anger also arises when one encounters snubs, rudeness, or anythingthat provokes a feeling of being unfairly diminished — we get angry because


we feel vulnerable and exposed (Leritz 1987). In similar fashion, shame maytrigger anger. If our egos are bruised in a manner that makes us feel small,we react defensively, and often in anger (Retzinger 1995). The evolutionarybasis for anger seems clear: anger motivates us to retaliate when we areattacked and to defend ourselves against those whom we believe are doingus harm. As with other emotions, what one feels at any given moment isboth physical and situational. Fear may prompt a chimpanzee to flee from amore powerful lion, but anger will drive it to lash out at a weaker chimpwho snatches a piece of food that it was about to eat.

In the negotiation context, a host of factors can contribute to anger andaggression. Citing a variety of studies, Barry and Oliver (1996) suggest thefollowing examples where these negative emotions can arise in dyadic nego-tiations: where bargainers are accountable to angry constituents; wherebargainers face time pressures; where they perceive the situation as win-losewith divergent goals between the parties; or, generally, where the parties areotherwise unconcerned with protecting a working relationship. In a study ofanger in mergers and acquisitions, Daly (1991) found the following types ofbehavior likely to trigger anger: misrepresentation; making excessivedemands; overstepping one's authority; showing personal animosity; ques-tioning a representative's authority to negotiate; seeking to undermine arepresentative's authority by "going over his head"; and dwelling on unim-portant details.

There are occasions when anger, legitimately expressed, can play a pos-itive role in producing an agreement — for example, when it helps persuadeothers because it demonstrates intensity and sincerity of a position (Daly1991). On the other hand, this emotion often injects a sour note into theproceeding, impeding agreement. Anger does so in at least three ways: itclouds our objectivity because we lose trust in the other side; it narrows ourfocus from broader topics to the anger-producing behavior; and it misdirectsour goals from reaching agreement to retaliating against the offender (Daly1991; Thomas 1990).

Anger not only carries a high potential for disrupting negotiations, italso can present serious health risks. When we become angry, the stress hor-mones, adrenaline and cortisol, surge, raising heart rate and blood pressure,and triggering cells to issue heart-threatening fat and cholesterol into thebloodstream (Doner 1996). A substantial number of large-scale longitudinalstudies have shown a significantly increased risk for heart disease amongthose found to have high hostility levels (Doner 1996; Harvard MentalHealth Letter 1997).

As we indicated previously, negotiators can take steps to control theexcesses of anger and to manage it to productive ends. What follows is aseries of observations and recommendations for doing so.


Dealing With Your Anger

The critical need for self-awareness. Virtually all researchers and com-mentators on emotions and negotiations insist that the first step necessary incontrolling anger is self-awareness (see, for example, Doner 1996; Goleman1995; Leritz 1987; Nelken 1996). If we cannot sense when our anger hasbeen aroused, we will miss any opportunity to control it. Anger typically hasphysical manifestations, such as a rapid heartbeat, muscle tensing, increasedsweating, or flushed face (Goleman 1995).

In a quiet moment, one should reflect on the warning signs that indi-cate the onset of one's anger. We need to know how quickly we anger andhow soon we get over it. If need be, one should consult with friends andfamily to see whether one exhibits any warning signs that a tantrum is immi-nent. The earlier that anger can be sensed, the more likely it is to becontrolled. One also needs to determine how visibly one displays anger.Some people quickly lose their temper in extremely obvious ways. Otherssmolder but show few external signs that they are angry. Showing angeris not always bad, but the trick is to do so only when it serves a strategicpurpose.

Determine situations that trigger inappropriate anger. In some cases,anger is an appropriate response to a provocative situation. At other times,we may instantly, and inappropriately, ignite in circumstances that mostother bargainers would not find provocative. For example, some peoplereact furiously to meetings that start a few minutes late. Others become lividat real or imagined slights to their dignity. Anger at these moments generallyserves no useful purpose. Determining those things that trigger inappropri-ate anger may permit us to take steps to avoid them or to take preventivemeasures to control anger.

Decide whether to display anger. Recognizing how and why our angerarises does not mean that we should always avoid angry feelings or never dis-play anger. But, if one can recognize the onset of anger, one can decide howbest to deal with it. In some cases, we should reveal our feelings. For exam-ple, if a fellow negotiator has just falsely accused us of lying, we might wantto demonstrate extreme displeasure in a way that persuades the other sidethat such charges are false and will not be tolerated. The trick is to do so in amanner that makes the point, but does not undermine the negotiation. Thisrequires a careful assessment of the circumstances and of our opponent'sreaction to our anger, and a measured approach to expressing our feelings.

Behavioral techniques to reduce anger. In some cases, one may feelanger but realize that it is inappropriate to the setting. For example, if ouranger stems from outside circumstances or if displaying anger will under-


mine our goals in a negotiation, we should do our best to bring such feelingsunder control. Experts suggest a variety of behavioral techniques (Hendrix1995; Goleman 1995; Doner 1996) that can work, including:

• call a temporary halt to the negotiation to cool off;

• count backwards from 10 to 1;

• go to the restroom;

• get a drink of water or soda;

• tense and untense your leg muscles under the table;

• begin writing points that you wish to discuss later in the negotiation (thiswill help you stay organized and will give you some time to cool off);

• consciously try to take deep breaths in a silent manner;

• think about a scene from your past in which you were relaxed;

• imagine the source of your anger in a setting where he or she is gettinghis or her just desserts;

• exercise vigorously prior to and after a challenging negotiation.

Studies show that "cooling-off" periods, although one of the most com-monly employed and successful methods of lessening angry moods, will notwork if that time is spent re-living the anger-triggering moment and wallowingin the perceived outrage (Goleman 1995). What is needed, instead, is timespent focusing on other matters or reassessing the situation to realize the inap-propriateness of an angry outburst. Studies also show that it is possible to usea so-called "freeze-frame" approach in which negotiators shift their attentionfrom angry thoughts by recalling a pleasant experience to focus on calmingtheir heartbeats until they feel a "calm, anchored sensation" in the chest. Thistechnique moderates the heart and nervous system (Doner 1996).

Express anger and disappointment effectively. In addition to thebehavioral techniques for dealing with the physical and emotional aspects ofanger, we need ways to communicate our displeasure and convey our con-cerns. Accusing an opponent of improper behavior rarely moves anegotiation forward and typically sets it back when he or she reacts in a pre-dictably defensive manner. Instead, we need to be assertive withoutprovoking or escalating deal-killing emotions in the other side. Among theapproaches for doing so are the following:

• explain the behavior that upsets you in specific and objective terms;

• describe your feelings about what bothers you;

• try to get your opponent to view the matter from your perspective;

• do not accuse your opponent of misbehavior;


• show respect for your opponent;

• apologize for any misunderstanding that your own behavior might havecaused if that will help move the discussion without making you appearweak.

Avoid "negotiator's bias." Most negotiators view themselves as fair andhonest. Yet, we often fall into a perception trap in which we, without justifi-cation, view opponents whom we know nothing about as hostile. Why isthis? Negotiation is a process that obviously involves conflict and competi-tion, which call for intense "thrust-and-parry" skills. Accordingly, warynegotiators will approach bargaining with caution and trepidation. Althoughbeing on-guard makes perfect sense, research suggests that we have anunconscious tendency to carry a "negotiator's bias" into bargaining sessions;that is, we view our opponents as competitive while viewing ourselves asnoncompetitive and cooperative (Thomas and Pondy 1977). Moreover,when disagreements arise in negotiations, each party tends to view his orher behavior as relatively innocent while seeing the opponent as intention-ally harmful, hostile, or aggressive (Neale and Bazerman 1983; van de Vliertand Hordijk 1989). To say the least, the tendency to jump to such negative,and often unwarranted, conclusions explains why emotions can becomeinstantly heated. Avoiding hasty judgments about our opponents' intentionsrequires realistic, clear thinking (Kramer et. al. 1993).

Try to promote trust. Trust is a key underpinning of successful negotia-tions (Putnam 1994). If negotiators cannot trust each other, then every issuerequires verification and each agreement necessitates iron-clad guarantees.Anger, expressed inappropriately, can destroy trust. To promote good feel-ings and trust, various commentators recommend "positive-framing"approaches that promote the sense that our opponents have gained conces-sions from us rather than that we have handed them favorable terms thatcost us little and about which we care little (Goleman 1995; Kahneman1992). In fact, research suggests that the most effective concessions that onecan make are those that reduce or eliminate an opponent's losses; the leasteffective are those that somewhat improve gains already made by the otherside (Kahneman 1992).

Finally, to no one's surprise, humor, especially when directed at our-selves, helps create a particularly warm atmosphere for a negotiation (Thomas1990). As Henry Ward Beecher wrote, "good humor makes all things tolera-ble." For most people, ill feelings and good humor cannot coexist.

Dealing With Your Opponent's AngerJust as we need to develop a good instinct for determining when we becomeangry, we also need to be able to read our opponents' moods, particularly


those involving frustration and anger. Here are some techniques that may beuseful:

Defuse heated emotional buildups. Every good negotiator seeks toremain alert to the mood of a negotiation at all times. One should alwaysseek to monitor opponents for anger. If one senses a rising temper on theother side, it may help to ask directly: "Mary, is something bothering you?"or "Tom, did my comment about the necessity of meeting deadlines disturbyou?" or "Regina, you look angry. Are you?"

Assess the significance of angry displays. When an opponent erupts inanger, one should assess as carefully as possible the significance of the anger.Does it seem calculated? Can the person regain composure? In some cases,the other side may try to convey anger as a strategic maneuver to dislodge usfrom a firmly-held position. Dealing with such an approach calls for a differ-ent response than dealing with a truly lost temper. Trying to placatesomeone who is using anger strategically to gain concessions may well leadus to make overly generous offers.

Address an opponent's anger. In some cases, you may need to saysomething like "Irv, I'm sure you're going to rethink the comments you'vejust made. I hope that you realize they were inappropriate. In the meantime,you've made me angry, so I need a break before we resume bargaining." Itrarely hurts to acknowledge an opponent's anger even when one disagreesthat it is justified. In some cases, an apology — even one felt to be unde-served — will help smooth the course of a negotiation. You should notapologize, however, in a way that leads an opponent to conclude that youhave conceded a point that remains in dispute or that you are a weak nego-tiator. Thus, instead of offering a personal apology, you can — as easily andas effectively — simply apologize for the "bad situation."

Respond to anger in strategic ways. In some cases, the only appropri-ate response to a lost temper is to lose yours as well. Responding in kind,however, is usually not effective. Instead, think strategically. Temper lossesoften put the angry person at a disadvantage and the nimble negotiator canadvance his or her position decisively. If you need a break to avoid losingyour temper, take one. If not, you can wait silently for the angry person tobecome contrite and to make concessions. Sometimes a modest concessionon your part immediately after an outburst by your opponent will elicit amuch larger one from him or her.

Help an angry opponent save face. Perhaps the biggest deal breaker innegotiations is "face loss" (Brown 1971). Where parties feel they will loseface if they agree to an opponent's demands, they are likely to derail thenegotiation even if it is not in their interest to do so. So critical is "face" to anegotiation that parties will hold to untenable positions that will cost themmoney or even provoke wars — Schoonmaker (1989) cites the example of


two Latin America countries that fought a war because of angry feelings overa soccer match. Accordingly, one should always try to help an angry oppo-nent save face especially if lost face is what triggered the outburst in the firstplace. A friendly, reassuring (but not patronizing) approach may work won-ders in these situations.

Involve a mediator when you anticipate anger. If you believe that astrong potential for destructive anger exists in a particular negotiation, enlistthe aid of a mediator or someone whose presence will act as a calming influ-ence to the process.

Fear In NegotiationWithout doubt, fear is a pivotal emotion. At extreme levels, fear mobilizes allof the body's resources to escape physical harm; at lesser intensities, it leadsus to worry about looming problems or pending concerns. Worry serves avital function when it is contained properly — it leads us to plan ways todeal with our daily challenges. For example, worries about an exam willprompt us to study to ensure a satisfactory performance.

The neural pathways that trigger a fear reaction are well developed andstrong (LeDoux 1995). Recent studies that trace neural pathways of animalsconditioned to fear brief electrical shocks have provided a large body of dataabout fear responses. The data strongly suggest heavy involvement of theamygdala in assessing danger and triggering fear responses (LeDoux 1995). Acritical insight derived from various studies is that trauma experienced atyoung ages — from one to three — may have particularly powerful and last-ing effects because they are retained as emotional memories in theamygdala, but not as conscious declarative memories because the brain'shippocampus (where conscious memories are stored) may not have maturedto the level where it can retain such memories (LeDoux 1995). Thus, wemay react with dread to stimuli that provoke emotional memories, but notbe able to explain the source of the fears.

Fear in negotiations arises in a variety of circumstances. If we face anaggressive opponent, if we bargain without adequate preparation, if wesense that our opponent has superior bargaining power, if we feel insecureabout our ability as a negotiator, we may experience moderate to extremelevels of fear. In extreme cases, we may simply fear the physical manifesta-tions of fear itself — sweaty palms, shaky legs, queasy stomach, thumpingheart beat, trembling muscles, and even disrupted vision (Despres 1997).This so-called "fear of fear" syndrome (Williams et al. 1997) can be particu-larly debilitating because those who suffer it will seek to avoid stressfulsituations, even those in which they otherwise might have the power to pro-duce favorable outcomes for themselves.


Dealing With Your Fear

Know your warning signs. As with anger, you should learn to sensewhen you begin to experience fear or anxiety. The body's reaction to fear isdifferent from that of anger. With anger, for example, blood flows to thehands, making it easier to strike an opponent. With fear, blood rushes to thelarge skeletal muscles, such as the legs, making it easier to flee. In metaphor-ical terms, our blood "boils" when we experience anger, but it "runs cold"when we are frightened (Goleman 1995).

Understand that fear is often a normal reaction. When you face achallenging situation, scientific research suggests you will often experience aquickened heart rate, a rise in blood pressure, stomach turbulence, muscletension and a heightened awareness. Although most of us welcome theheightened awareness, we find the other physical manifestations of fear tobe quite unpleasant. Most successful people, especially athletes, learn to har-ness the symptoms of fear to improve their performances (Despres 1997).Trying to ignore your feelings can be dangerous — you may suddenly freezeor "choke" if you are feeling tense due to fear. The key is to channel the feel-ings into effective responses and to minimize the disruptive effects of fear.

Determine how visibly you display fear. Displaying fear is rarely help-ful in a negotiation. Accordingly, it is useful to get a sense of how you lookwhen you are fearful. One of the quickest giveaways of fear is a crackingvoice. An inability to make eye contact is another easily detected mannerismof fear. If your voice feels likely not to hold, make sure that you have a glassof water nearby. A quick gulp followed by clearing your voice usually putsthings in order. Speaking slowly in the bottom ranges of your voice, from aslow in your diaphragm as you can manage also helps.

Determine situations that trigger fear. Determine whether your fearrelates to the situation in which you must act or to the person with whomyou must interact. If you suspect that you will be fearful during a negotia-tion, redouble your preparations. For most of us, a planned-for contingencyis rarely as frightening as an unplanned-for emergency.

Behavioral techniques to reduce feelings of fear. Most of the behav-ioral techniques that dispel anger also work in reducing fear. For example,calling a temporary halt to the negotiation to regain your composure orgoing to the restroom are as effective in dealing with fear as they are inreducing anger. Two slightly different approaches from those recommendedfor anger control are to:

• think about a scene from your past in which you were confident and incontrol; and


• imagine the source of your fear in a setting where you control them orwhere they look ridiculous and weak.

Careful preparation reduces fear. Preparation for a negotiation involvesresearching the problem and developing a strategy. Few things dispel fearmore effectively than careful preparation. Sometimes a rehearsal of the nego-tiation helps build confidence. Researching your opponent may also help.Negotiators who have prepared carefully and who know their "bottom line"or their "walk away" points are much less likely to be cowed or tricked in anegotiation (Adler et al. 1996). To the extent that you know your goals andstrategy and stick to them, you will probably be able to control your fears. Inall instances, keep your goals clearly in mind.

Act confident even if you do not feel so. Although there are probablyoccasions where showing anger makes sense in a negotiation, it is difficult toimagine instances in which showing fear strengthens one's hand. Accord-ingly, to the extent possible, try to project an appearance of confidence. Infact, researchers suggest that it is possible to increase feelings of confidenceby focusing our thoughts on our strengths, and by substituting positive self-statements for fearful thoughts (Despres 1997; Matthews 1995). Becauseperceptions play such a large role in negotiation, one should work hard atdeveloping a confident demeanor and by backing it up with a positive atti-tude in approaching a negotiation.

Avoid quick agreements motivated by fear. If you are on the verge ofagreeing to a deal that makes you feel uncomfortable, indicate that you needto consult with a superior or that you feel a need to think over the matter.

Try to reduce your stress level. If you are someone who feels anxietymore than you would like to or who constantly loses control when you arefearful or anxious, stress experts indicate that there are steps you can take toreduce anxiety. You should consider the following steps:

• short-term cognitive behavior therapy that teaches you to recognize andreduce inappropriate anxiety;

• relaxation therapy that teaches you simple steps to follow for avoidinganxiety;

• talk about feelings of anxiety with friends and family (if they will listenwith sympathy);

• try to develop coping strategies by noting which personal techniqueshelp reduce your anxiety;

• exercise on a regular basis;

• exercise vigorously before or after stressful situations; and


• discuss anti-anxiety drugs with your physician.

Dealing With Your Opponent's Fear

Monitor all negotiations for emotional buildups. Every good negotia-tor seeks to remain alert to the mood of a negotiation at all times. You shouldalways seek to monitor your opponent for fear.

Show flexibility in bow you react to your opponent's fear. In somecases, your opponent's fear can open the way for a settlement that isstrongly in your favor. In others, fear may hinder agreement if your opponentbecomes immobilized, loses the ability to bargain thoughtfully, or explodesin anger. Also, if you plan to enter into a long-term relationship with youropponent, you may wish to go out of your way to dispel his or her fears.

Where helpful, share your fears and anxieties with your opponent.Empathizing with your opponent by describing your own fears in similar sit-uations may help dispel your opponent's fears. Of course, one should avoidproviding an opponent with ammunition to be used against him or her at afuture time. Sometimes, however, sharing vulnerabilities promotes trust inways that no other approach can do.

Help your fearful opponent save face. Again, where parties feel theywill lose face if they agree to an opponent's demands, they are likely toderail the negotiation even if it is not in their interest to do so.

ConclusionEvolution and our individual neurophysiology set the template for our emo-tional lives and for our approach to negotiation. We should accept this realityand respect it.

Nonetheless, our emotional framework is a starting point, not an end.Depending on how we approach emotions in negotiation, we may be eitherslaves or masters to them — with varying consequences. We believe thatavailable evidence strongly suggests that negotiators can improve their self-awareness of emotions, and that we can control them to our advantagewhen we bargain. The one thing we cannot do — nor should we try to — iseliminate emotions.


REFERENCES

Adler, R., B. Rosen, and E. Silverstein. 1996. Thrust and parry: The art of tough negotiating. Train-ing & Development (March) 43-47.

Adolphs, R., D. Tranel, H. Damasio, and A. Damasio. 1995. Fear and the human amygdala. Journalof Neurosctence 15(9): 5879-5891.

Barry, B. and R. Oliver. 1996. Affect in dyadic negotiation: A model and propositions. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67(2): 127-143.

Bower, B. 1997. Brain structure sounds off to fear. Science News 151(3): 38.Brown, B.R. 1968. The effects of need to maintain face on interpersonal bargaining. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology 4: 107-122.Callahan, S. 1988. The role of emotion in ethical decisionmaking. Hastings Center Report

June/July. 9-14.Caldwell, M. 1995. Kernel of fear: Amygdala in the brain is responsible for association with certain

stimuli. Discover 16: 96-103.Daly, J. 1991. The effects of anger on negotiations over mergers and acquisitions. Negotiation

Journal7: 31-39.Derrow, P. 1996. Thinking from the heart. American Health 15(3): 82-84.Despres, R. 1997. The face of fear. Women's Sports and Fitness 19(5): 52-57.De Waal, F. 1996 Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Doner, K. 1996. Heal your angry heart. American Health 15(7): 74-78.Garai, G. and S. Pravda 1993. Defusing emotions of buyers and sellers in getting deals done. Merg-

ers & Acquisitions 23-28.Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Harvard Mental Health Letter. 1997. Hearts and minds 14: 1-5.Hendrix, B. 1995. Constructive anger. Medical Laboratory Observer 27(8).Hopman, T. and C. Walcott. 1977. The impact of external stresses and tensions on negotiations

(Chapter 10) in Druckman, Daniel, Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives. BeverlyHills, Calif.: Sage.

Kahneman, D. 1992. Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes 51: 296-312.

Kramer, R., E. Newton, and L. Pommerenke. 1993. Self-enhancement biases and negotiator judg-ment: effects of self-esteem and mood. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses 56: 110-133.

Leritz, L. 1987. No-fault negotiating. New York: Warner Books.LeDoux, J. 1995. Emotions: Clues from the brain. Annual Review of Psychology. 46: 209-236.Matthews, G. 1995. Anxiety, emotion and cognitive theory: Diversity and innovation. British Jour-

nal of Psychology 86(2): 315-320.Murnighan, J.K. 1991. The dynamics of bargaining games. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Nash, A. 1985. Family feud: The war between the Binghams. Working Woman 10: 134-142.Neale, M. A. and M. H. Bazerman. 1983. The effect of perspective taking ability on the negotiation

process under different forms of arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 36:378-388.

Nelken, M.L. 1996. Negotiation and psychoanalysis: If I'd wanted to learn about feelings, Iwouldn't have gone to law school. Journal of Legal Education 46(3): 420-429.

Pillutla, M. and J.K. Murnighan. 1996. Unfairness, anger and spite: Emotional rejections of ultima-tum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68(3): 208-224.

Putnam, L. 1994. Challenging the assumptions of traditional approaches to negotiation. Negotia-tion Journal 10: 337-346.

Raiffa, H. 1982. The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Retzinger, S. 1995. Identifying shame and anger in discourse. American Behavioral Scientist

38(8): 1104-1114.Reuben, R. 1995. Baseball strike teaches legal lessons: Lawyers should reassess strategies, avoid

animosities in negotiations. American Bar Association Journal 87:42-43.Scherer, K.R. and H.G. Walbott. 1994. Evidence for universality and cultural variation of differen-

tial emotion response patterning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(2):310-329.


Schneider, F., R.E. Gur, L.H. Mozley, R.J. Smith, et al. 1995. Mood effects on limbic blood flow cor-relate with emotional self-rating: A PET study with oxygen-15 labeled water. PsychiatryResearch Neuroimaging 61(4): 265-283.

Schoonmaker, A.N. 1989. Negotiate to win: Gaining the psychological edge. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Shubik, M. 1971. The dollar auction game: A paradox in non-cooperative behavior and escalation.Journal of Conflict Resolution 15 (March): 109-111.

Thomas, K.W. 1990. Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In Handbook of Indus-trial and Organizational Psychology, 2d ed., edited by M. Dunnote and L.M. Hough,Chicago: Rand McNally.

Thomas, K.W. and L.R. Pondy. 1977. Toward an "intent" model of conflict management amongprincipal parties. Human Relations 30: 1089-1102.

Travis, J. 1995. Viruses reveal the brain's fright circuits. Science News 148(18): p. 276.van de Vliert, E. and J.W. Hordijk. 1989. The difference in the meaning of forcing in the conflict

management of actors and observers. In Managing conflict: An integrative approach,edited by M.A. Rahim. New York: Praeger.

Wald, M. 1997. Anger cited in 28,000 road deaths a year. The New York Times 18 July 1997, p.A10.

Williams, E., D.L. Chambless, A. Ahrens. 1997. Are emotions frightening? An extension of the fearof fear construct. Behaviour Research & Therapy 35(3): 239-248.


emotions in negotiation: how to manage fear and anger

Documents