Anger is a negative emotion

Anger is a negative emotion

Anger is a negative emotion that when applied, it turns negotiations into a competition that aims to satisfy self-interest, rather than ensuring collaboration to reach an amicable outcome. Thus, I agree with the conclusion that anger is not effective in eliciting concessions. Commonly, people enter negotiations intending to win a more substantial portion of the contested subject, and as such, anger is considered as a means to achieve an advantage. People think that anger makes one seem more powerful and able to succeed in grabbing whatever is of value. In this regard, the emotion is used as an intimidation tactic.

In my experience, it is hard to maintain my poise in tense negotiations. Negotiation is an interpersonal process, and the actions of either party can impact how the other reacts. In some cases, one party may push too hard to gain more concessions for their position, which can be unsettling, especially when I have tried to create value for everyone. Nonetheless, I make an effort to use effective strategies to avoid a negative outcome and achieve as much value as I can for my side of the deal.

One of the essential strategies I apply during negotiations is to try to anticipate some questions and come up with answers. For instance, when bargaining for a reasonable price, I should be aware of the average amount the item sells for or find out the prices other sellers offer. This approach allows me to counter at a reasonable price since giving a meager price can anger the seller as it would make them believe that I do not value their item or service. However, sometimes using a threat can be effective. For example, I can say that I will walk away from the negotiation or buy less if the price is not lowered. This action makes the other party reconsider their position since they risk failing to achieve their objective, explicitly making a sale. Therefore, a threat is useful when intending to nudge the other party into shifting from a hardline.