Do you agree with the conclusion?
According to research results by Sinaceur and Van, getting angry in negotiations is unnecessary. I agree with these findings because, in most cases, threats and anger are not effective in successful negotiations. Mostly, anger does not elicit genuine concessions in negotiations. Negotiations are valued claiming processes; therefore, extracting concessions is the primary goal. People who use threats and anger as negotiation strategies often fail to claim value. As the researchers rightly point out, emotional communication signifies terrible consequences in a negotiation. Since threats are conditional statements, some parties in the negotiation will feel disenfranchised and obligated to make concessions. Anger puts the burden of proper action or behavior on negotiation parties being threatened. This strategy is often under-rewarded because the threatening party underestimates their counterpart’s strength, leaving them vulnerable to retaliation. Therefore, I concur with the researchers that anger and threats are not successful in negotiations.
Why is anger so often used as a negotiation strategy?
Anger is a form of emotional communication meant to elicit concessions from negotiation parties. Many people use anger as a strategy to communicate the intent to punish the other parties if they fail to concede. Threats and anger threaten the other person with negative consequences for noncompliance. Previous research studies have shown that using anger in negotiation can be successful in that it warns about an impasse. In some cases, negotiation participants concede when threatened with unspecified consequences for their noncompliance. Anger makes a person more likely to make concessions (late in negotiations) when he interprets it as an implied threat. People use anger for short-term negotiations. It is a beneficial strategy, even though it creates a lasting resentment towards the threatening party. Threats (“take it” or “leave it”), elicit concessions when made in angst. Therefore, many people use this strategy to yield short-term results and concessions.
Do you find it difficult to maintain your poise in tense negotiations?
I find difficulties maintaining my poise in tense negotiations. I do not concede to threatening negotiators because they are bullies and not likable. I do not participate in emotional negotiations, where threats are issued, because some parties will feel disadvantaged during the talks. In tense negotiations, I only concede if my needs are agreed to by the other party. Negotiations are meant to benefit all parties involved through consensus. For me, anger reflects a lack of practical communication skills, etiquette, and poise in the other negotiation party. Tense negotiations require confidence, composure, and control. Threats and emotions betray the principle of fairness in negotiations, victimizing the other parties involved. Negotiations should elicit long-term benefits to all parties involved. I find it difficult to maintain poise in negotiations where basic ethics and communication principles are violated. All parties involved should claim value through the negotiation.
When seeking to negotiate for a lower price or better deal, what is your basic strategy / approach? How and when might you use a threat, as defined by the article?
I try to reach a consensus with the other party when I am negotiating for a lower price or better deal. I listen to the other party’s argument, making logical suggestions when and where necessary. When negotiating, I respect the communication principles, allowing the other party to make his argument before making my suggestions. This strategy has been effective since I have succeeded in creating better deals through a consensus.