How to Deal with an Angry Negotiator
Hello and welcome to the new Negotiations blog brought to you by the Center for Executive Education at UC Berkeley. In this blog, we will be sharing with you strategies to make you a better negotiator.
In negotiations, anger may be genuine or it may be tactical—feigned for the purpose of gaining leverage or to intimidate the other side for immediate advantage. Recipients of anger should respond differently depending on whether the anger is genuine or tactical (stay tuned next week for how to determine the difference). Having the right response will determine your success in a negotiation.
The four approaches below are strategies that recipients may use to manage an anger attack. Although all four may work in either tactical or genuine anger situations, the first two, labeling the anger and matching and de-escalating are particularly useful when the anger is tactical. The second two, controlling the process and building a relationship, are particularly useful when the anger is genuine.
· Labeling Anger. The credibility and power of the instigator will be lost if the anger is identified as a tactic of intimidation and the “angry” negotiator is called out on the tactic.
· Matching with Firmness and De-escalating. To equalize power with the perpetrator, it is important to match the power of the expressed anger (e.g., using intensity of tone of voice or posture), before engaging in a de-escalatory move to continue progress in the negotiation. Responding in a manner that shows that you, the recipient of the anger attack, can be just as powerful or angry without being genuinely angry.
· Control the Process (Strategic Breaks). Calling for a break can disrupt the negative intensity and agenda of the negotiator who uses anger as a tactic. The break also allows the recipient of the anger to regain mental balance and plan a strategic response given the information collected from the angry outburst.
· Communicate and Build a Relationship. When a negotiator feels genuinely attacked it is important not to yield to the natural reaction of striking back, giving in, or walking away. None of these natural reactions will help to resolve the conflict. Instead, the negotiator can refocus the angry party on interests by demonstrating an understanding of their concerns without agreeing with their arguments.
Excerpt from:
“Some Like It Hot: Teaching Strategies for Managing Tactical versus Genuine Anger in Negotiations” by: Holly A. Schroth (The full article with citations will be published in Negotiations and Conflict Management Research)
**Stay tuned for our next post on how to tell if anger is genuine or tactical**