November 2, 2005
Beyond Reason - Part VI
Purpose 4: To Improve the Relationship
A fourth purpose for expressing strong emotions is to preserve or build your relationship with the other. Many negotiators deal with one another again and again. As with marriage, a failure to deal with undercurrents of tension can lead to a decreased ability to work together effectively. Each negotiator sees the other through an increasingly negative lens. Emotional residue builds until neither wants to deal with the other.
There are two key tactics to improve the relationship. First, explain your intentions for acting as you have. Too often, negotiators assume the worst possible explanation of another’s behavior. Clarifying your intentions can deal with that issue. For example, the other side might suspect that you wrote a first draft of an agreement to bias it in your direction. If untrue, you can simply say, “My intention for writing up the first draft of the proposal was to help us work efficiently together, since time is short. Please feel free to suggest modifications to this, since I am assuming that nothing suggested by either of us at this point is a commitment.”
Second, if you have said or done something that caused the other to develop strong negative feelings, an apology can diffuse their anger. Saying “I’m sorry” is a low-cost way to alter the course of a relationship. A well-timed, sincere apology can repair a tremendous amount of damage in a relationship. Some of the key elements of an effective apology include: recognition of the emotional impact of the action on others, an expression of regret, and a commitment not to repeat the negative action. Saying, “I’m sorry that you feel hurt,” is not nearly as powerful as saying, “I’m sorry for my poor behavior and for the hurt it has caused you.”
Beyond Reason - Part V
Purpose 3: To Influence the Other Person
A third purpose for expressing strong emotions is to influence the behavior of a person with whom you are negotiating. By expressing the intensity of your emotion, you demonstrate the importance of your interests.
Here we would like to distinguish between two situations. In one, negotiators honestly reveal a genuine strong emotion (that they might otherwise not disclose). They reveal their sincere feelings so that another negotiator may be moved by those feelings.
A quite different situation is one in which a negotiator feigns being emotionally upset in order to exert influence deceptively on another person. Rather than disclosing strong emotions that truly affect them, a negotiator here has become an actor and is falsely and deceptively pretending to be dominated by a strong negative emotion. This is being done, however, for the same purpose and with the same intent as the first case—to influence the behavior of another negotiator.
As we consider consciously using emotions in order to influence another negotiator, the distinction between revealing a genuine emotion of unknown strength that currently exists and pretending to have a powerful and perhaps uncontrollable emotion may not be as clear cut as the previous two paragraphs suggest. Expressing a strong emotion is sometimes a strategic act intended to influence the behavior of another person. A parent’s anger—clearly expressed—can get a teenager to do chores that no amount of reasoned persuasion ever could. Your strong expression of anger may persuade others to act in ways that further your interests. To influence another negotiator to make a concession, might you storm out of a meeting? Rip up your notes? Raise your voice? And whatever you do, others may try to express strong emotions deceptively in order to influence you, perhaps to influence you to raise your offer on their house.
Expressing strong emotions can also be a way to influence another’s image of you. A senior lawyer may perceive a new associate as weak, passive, and incapable of handling the tougher, prestigious clients. A young associate realizing the senior lawyer’s perception of him may make a point of passionately asserting his views during meetings.
The truth about the state of one’s emotions is rarely crystal clear. Fuzziness about that truth encourages negotiators to bluff, to mislead, and to act deceptively. As we mentioned earlier in this book, trusting others is a matter of risk analysis. Every embezzler is someone who was trusted—mistakenly. Be careful. Do not overload trust. At the same time, negotiators fare better to the extent that they are trustworthy and trusted. When it comes to being deceptive and misleading, be aware of the costs and risks. It is often possible and usually more enjoyable to behave in ways of which you, your children, and others can be proud.
Beyond Reason - Part IV
Purpose 2: To Educate Another About the Impact of Their Behavior on You
A second purpose for expressing strong emotions is to let the other person know the emotional impact on you of their actions. The other negotiator may have said or done something that had a powerful impact on your emotions. He or she can come to a greater sense of appreciation of your emotional experience if you clearly communicate the impact on you of their behavior.
For example, a young medical student was assigned a middle-aged physician as her supervisor. During hospital meetings, he routinely interrogated her on her knowledge of anatomy. When she gave incorrect answers, his fixed response was a sarcastic “Study more!” She felt singled out and humiliated by his comments. But instead of assuming his intentions were malevolent and venting at him, she set up a private meeting with him and calmly educated him about the impact of his comments on her:
“I appreciate your taking the time to meet with me. What I want to say is not easy for me to express,” she said. “I feel embarrassed when I answer your questions incorrectly. I study hard and am starting to feel hopelessly unable to succeed in medicine. I have been considering dropping out of school.”
His eyes widened with surprise at her comments. He confided in her that each year he chose one student who demonstrated superior academic skills. He pushed that student to excel. She was his chosen student for the year.
For this student, it paid off to describe to her supervisor the impact on her of his behavior. But what should she do if he responded with hostility, looking her in the eyes and saying, “Quit school if you must. If this isn’t the right place for you, then move on.”
She could respond by communicating the impact of that statement on her: “I feel lost at this school. It’s so big. And when you suggest that I move on, it doesn’t give me the guidance that I need right now.” The supervisor still may refuse to help her, but at least he now has a clearer understanding of the young medical student’s experience and emotional needs.
Beyond Reason - Part III
Purpose 1: To Get Emotions off Your Chest
It can be difficult to contain a strong negative emotion. Just as a person who is madly in love wants to tell the world, a negotiator who is extremely angry wants to release the internal tension generated by the emotion. A tempting way to release anger is to vent. Venting occurs when we openly and without censor express the extent of our anger to someone, typically to the person who caused it.
Consider the situation of “John” and “Louise,” who recently divorced after seven years of marriage. They have two children. Louise takes care of them during weekdays, and John is in charge of them during weekends. For several weeks in a row, John was late in returning the children to Louise’s house. After the first week that John was late, Louise said nothing. “Better to keep good relations for the sake of our kids,” she thought. After the second week John was late, she still kept quiet, but was biting her tongue to do so. After the third week, Louise decided that the best thing to do would be to vent her anger at John. But was that a wise decision?
Venting can make a bad situation worse. Venting often causes more harm than good. And venting to the person who angered us can be disastrous. Think about its effect on the interaction between Louise and John. As Louise gets angrier and angrier, she comes to believe that John slighted or “wronged” her. She thinks to herself, “How dare he keep the children more hours than he is allowed?” Her frustration festers until, during his third late arrival, she marches out of her house, storms up to his car, and yells: “Can’t you tell time? You’re late. You’re always late. This is my time with the kids, not yours! It’s just like you!” He defends himself and bites back at her: “If you hadn’t been late in dropping them off in the first place, then maybe they’d be home on time. But you can’t take away my time with my kids. It’s just like you to try to control me like that.”
The intensity of the back-and-forth venting escalates. For every attack one person makes, the other constructs a justification. Each person becomes increasingly persuaded that he or she is “right.” And as each gets angrier, he or she sees the situation increasingly in black-and-white terms. “I am right; my ex-spouse is wrong.” As a result, each person feels increasingly entitled to feel upset. This process easily can lead to an explosion of emotions.
Focus on understanding, not blaming. As your emotions heat up, recognize that you might feel the desire to blame someone for causing your emotions. You mutter to a colleague, “This is all your fault that we didn’t get the proposal in on time!” Or you blame yourself: “How could I have been so stupid not to make sure the proposal was sent.”
Either way, blaming does not help. It typically leads to a downward cycle of self-justifications, criticism, and negative emotions.
As an alternative, refocus your attention on trying to understand the “message” underlying your emotions. This may be hard to do if your emotions are heated (in which case you should first self-soothe). But if you feel capable, dig for core concerns that might have stimulated your emotions. Understanding what has upset you or others can make you feel somewhat better. At the very least, you know what is bothering you, and you can take corrective action.
Let’s see what happens if Louise uses this advice. Before John arrives, she spends a few minutes understanding her strong negative feelings. She recognizes that her autonomy feels impinged on by his repeated late arrival without first consulting her. This new understanding empowers her, and she feels a release of tension. Once John arrives, she is able to clearly express her concerns. Instead of saying, “You irresponsible parent! You didn’t get the kids to my house by the agreed upon deadline,” she says, “I feel upset. I understood that we had agreed upon the time to drop off the kids. Was I mistaken? I came home early from a meeting to make sure I was here.” After listening to him, she decides to learn more, asking, “How do you see the situation? Do you have ideas on how we might reduce the risk of upsetting each other like this?”
Still, there are moments when your emotions feel so intense that all the rational advice in the world seems useless. You just want to vent. At such times, we urge you to do so with caution.
If you vent, be careful not to further justify your anger. When you talk with someone about your strong negative emotions, recognize that you risk creating new justifications for your anger. The person with whom you are speaking may not think that your reasons for getting upset are appropriate; but you are likely to be persuaded by your reasons. The more often you justify your anger—with a colleague at work, with a friend, or with the person who upset you—the more persuaded you become. Rather than your anger being vented, it escalates.
Stay on topic. To avoid a litany of self-justifications, avoid introducing into the conversation a list of grievances from the past. “Well, this is just like the time that you . . .” Although John and Louise were arguing about the punctuality of dropping off their children, each strayed from the topic. Louise attacked John by saying, “You’re always late.” John bit back by telling Louise, “It’s just like you to try to control me like that.” These insults and attacks transformed a contained conflict into an uncontained mess.
Our advice: Stay focused on the current situation. Establish a rule that it is off limits to raise past grievances or to insult one another. The only issues to be raised are those that directly pertain to the current situation. Establish a second rule that if the first rule is broken, each party takes a short break to think about how to move forward productively.
Vent to a third party, not to the person who triggered your emotions. Even venting to an uninvolved person, such as a close friend, can be risky. If the friend is unconditionally biased in your favor, he or she may reinforce your negative perceptions of the person who angered you. For example, John heads to the local bar after dropping off his children. He realizes the importance of staying on good terms with his ex-wife for the sake of their children, but is frustrated by his interaction with her. He meets a close friend at the bar and immediately starts venting: “That damned Louise! She’s out of control. It’s like she’s trying to hold the kids hostage from me. Totally out of line!”
John’s friend concurs, saying, “Yeah, that sounds ridiculous! She has no right to claim your kids like that!”
Consequently, John feels increasingly justified for his self-serving beliefs, making the cycle of anger between John and Louise likely to escalate even more.
To prevent venting from turning into a festival of self-justification, we recommend that you not vent directly to the person who upset you. Instead, communicate your emotions to a disinterested friend or colleague who can moderate your perspective and give balance to your self-justification. For example, after dropping off the kids, John might call up a close friend who John trusts to moderate his perspective. John says, “I just got into another fight with my ex. I need to blow off a little bit of steam. Do you have a few minutes for me to tell you what happened? I’d appreciate your feedback since I don’t think I’m seeing clearly right now.”
Vent for the other side. If you are venting to yourself or to a close colleague, you want to be careful not to talk yourself into making the situation worse. One helpful activity is to vent as though you are the other side. What would they say? How would they describe the conflict? By venting as though you are the other side, you gain a better understanding of their perspective and consequently soothe some of your strong feelings.
Write a letter to the person who triggered your anger—but don’t send it. Sometimes it is impractical or unappealing to enlist the assistance of a third party to help you deal with your strong emotions. On your own, you can do things to deal with your emotions. After the negotiation or during a break, it can be helpful to write a letter or e-mail to the person you feel has injured you. In writing such a letter, describe the impact of their behavior on you. Include a section on ways to keep the negotiation moving forward. Don’t send your letter, however. Don’t give it to the other person—at least not before taking a day or so to reflect with a clear head on whether such a letter will further your purposes in the negotiation. You might share the letter and the experience with a trusted colleague and get their thoughts on the matter.
Beyond Reason - Part II
BEFORE YOU REACT EMOTIONALLY, FORMULATE YOUR PURPOSE
Strong emotions inform us that a concern is probably not being met, and they rattle us to try to satisfy that concern now. We often feel compelled to deal immediately with strong emotions—ours and those of others. We want to alleviate the gnawing feeling inside us, or we want to extinguish any negative emotions directed toward us.
Immediate action puts us at risk of acting counter to purposes that are more important. If strong emotions are getting out of control, it is likely that each of us is reacting to the other and not acting with a clear purpose in mind. Without much time for thinking, emotional temperatures rise, as do the stakes in a negotiation. What was initially a straightforward transaction over money can become a conflict over status or autonomy.
How do you decide the right strategy for expressing your emotions? Know your purpose. Once you have a clear purpose in mind, it becomes much easier to choose a beneficial strategy to deal with your emotions.
For example, if your purpose is to educate the other party about the impact on you of their insensitive behavior, you may want to have that conversation over coffee when your client is not paying for your services. If your purpose is to get strong negative emotions off your chest, you may want to talk about the situation first with your spouse or with a trusted colleague.
In a negotiation, there are four common purposes for expressing strong negative emotions:
- To get emotions off your chest
- To educate others about the impact of their behavior on you
- To influence the other
- To improve the relationship
Beyond Reason - Part I
Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate
by Roger Fisher, Daniel Shapiro
Viking - October 2005
256 Pages - 0670034509
The title of this book caught my eye. So, I picked it up and read it. It's interesting because when negotiating, emotions often come into play. They can be difficult to control much less use for a productive outcome. In Beyond Reason, Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro will help you recognize your emotions and use them to negotiate more effectively. The following excerpts are from chapter 8 titled "On Strong Negative Emotions: They Happen. Be Ready".
Also, if you prefer it in audio, an abridged version read by the authors is available on our audio blog. Check it out here.