Research Problem /
Issue
An international team of researchers recently addressed the
question “Is communicating anger or threats more effective in eliciting
concessions in negotiation?” They compared the respective effects of anger and
threats on concession making. Their results suggest that getting angry in a
negotiation may be unnecessary!
Background
In negotiation, a goal is to elicit a concession.
Negotiation is a value-claiming process. People use anger and threats as common
strategies to claim value in negotiation.
Anger and threats are distinguishable. Anger is an emotion
communication. Anger in the negotiation context signifies the threat of an
impasse or some bad consequence. A threat is a conditional statement.
A threat usually has an “if . . . then” phrase that includes
a negative consequence for noncompliance. In negotiation, a threat communicates
an intent to punish if the other side does not concede. Prior studies have
shown that emotional communication in negotiation can be strategic in that it
can warn about an “impasse” or signifies a potential “deal breaker”.
This research sought to clarify whether the more emotional
negotiation strategy, anger, is more effective than the colder strategy,
issuing threats. This research study sought to learn more about what makes
negotiation participants concede. Regarding negotiation, there is an important
distinction between communicating threats and anger. Anger reflects a lack of
poise. In contrast, nonemotional threats by a negotiator connote composure,
confidence, and control. The researchers hypothesized that threats would be
more effective than anger communication because of the greater poise conveyed
by threats in comparison to anger.
Statements Used In
Study
The researchers used prior research on anger in negotiation
and constructed statements which the participants in this computer-mediated
research study used. Anger: “I am very angry with your offer. This begins to
seriously get on my nerves.” “This negotiation really makes me angry. I’m fed
up with this. You need to make real efforts! It really starts to make me
annoyed. All this is not serious.” Threats: “If you seriously don’t modify your
offer, there will be consequences. It is up to you…”
Results
This article discusses the results of three experiments in
the study. The first part confirmed for
the first time an idea that had long been suggested in negotiation
research: anger elicits concessions in
negotiations because it conveys a threat.
The second part of the study looked at two separate issues:
comparing the effects of anger and threats on concession making in negotiation
and the timing of a value-claiming strategy. This part also looked at the
effect of perceived poise in the communicator. The results provide evidence
that communicating threats is a more effective strategy in negotiation than
communicating anger. Claiming value by communicating anger or threat later has
better effect than earlier in a negotiation.
The final part of the research study measured perceptions of
intensity and appropriateness, i.e. overly intense or inappropriate. The
participants in this part had an option of ending the negotiation and accepting
a valuable alternative, another offer from another. The participants in the
third experiment made more concessions to a counterpart who communicated a
threat compared to one who expressed anger.
Discussion
Prior research has shown that anger elicits more concessions
in negotiation than a soft strategy, such as communicating happiness. This
research, the first to assess the impact of anger by comparing it to another
tough, value-claiming strategy, threats, showed that anger may not only show
that the negotiator is “tough”, but also a more problematic perception – that
the negotiator lacks poise.
In theoretical implications, the research showed two things:
(1) the emotional communication of anger is less effective in eliciting
concessions as compared to the cooler expression of a threat; (2) more
generally, an emotional strategy can be less effective than its cognitive
equivalent in the negotiation context.
In applied implications, the research showed the importance
of managing the relationship with the counterpart in negotiation. Anger can
cause the recipient to in turn become angry. Threats are more effective than
anger, this research showed, because along with the greater poise conveyed,
there is an added benefit of being perceived as less coercive.
In summary, according to these researchers, “a strategy need
not rely on communicating aggressive emotions to be effective; communicating a
colder message along with the associated perception of a greater sense of
confidence and control may be bludgeon enough.”
Take Home Point
In negotiation, the goal is to claim value. Much prior
research has shown that emotional communication, anger, elicits more
concessions when compared to a softer strategy. However, this research compared
two “tough” strategies, anger and threats, and shows a surprising result:
“Calmly issuing a threat matter of factly shows greater poise and confidence,
deliberation, and appears to be more effective than getting angry.”
So, why not pick the “best” strategy? Anger may not be
necessary. Getting angry could be counter-productive. This report shows that
poise, confidence, and regulated emotions are perhaps the negotiator’s better
tools. Being “cool” in a “matter of fact” way when trying to claim value may be
the better way …….
Source: Psycholawlogy
No comments:
Post a Comment