Emotions in Negotiations: Analysis of a Theory
Family Law Dispute Resolution
Einav Shlomovitz
Professor Linton
January 27, 2012
Emotions in Negotiations: Analysis of a Theory
Introduction:
Emotions pervade everyday life and are involved in everything one does. Emotions refer
to feelings and accompanying thoughts, psychological and biological states that endorse certain
actions.1 There are an endless amount of emotions one experiences throughout one day and
throughout life, at large. Emotions are universal, inescapable, and cannot be ignored. Most
importantly, emotions help fulfill many essential functions, from enhancing decision making, 2
to motivating actions, to providing people with important information about their surrounding
environment.3 It is not surprising then that emotions also play a key role in the process of
negotiations.
A negotiation is a dialogue and communication process that is used to resolve conflict
and come to mutual terms of agreement that are more or less to the satisfaction of all parties
involved.4 Similarly to emotions, many everyday interactions take some form of negotiation.
Due to the legal system’s strong turn towards alternative dispute resolution, it is of particular
importance for lawyers to have a well polished negotiation skill set; therefore, a comprehensive
understanding of the negotiation process is vital.
Claims theorizing the connection between emotion and negotiation have evolved over
time.5 Initially, researchers were heavily influenced by cognition and discounted the importance
1
Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam Books, 1995) at 289.
Antonio Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness (San Diego:
Harcourt, 1999) at 41.
3
Delee Fromm, “Emotion in Negotiation” in Colleen M. Hanycz, Trevor C.W. Farrow and Frederick H. Zemans,
The Theory and Practice of Representative Negotiation (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2008) at 220 [Fromm].
4
Charles Wiggins & Randolph Lowry, Negotiation and Settlement Advocacy: A Book of Readings, 2d ed. (St.
Paul: Thompson/West, 2005).
5
Fromm, supra note 3 at 219.
2
2
of emotion in negotiation.6 The predominant view was to “separate the people from the
problem.”7 Even the prevalent cognition models hypothesizing how the mind processes
information failed to acknowledge that rationality is directed by emotions.8 Roger Fisher and
William Ury advanced this principle by advocating the fact that negotiators must attempt to deal
with one another rationally, without misunderstanding, getting angry and taking things
personally.9
As discussed in the article Through the Looking Glass: Negotiation Theory Refracted
Through the Lens of Gender, another view put forth on the subject was presented by Sandra
Bem in which she asserted that rational and emotional attributes were perceived to be polar
opposites that describe gender differences.10 While the masculine characteristic of rationality
became to be considered the norm, the feminine characteristic of emotionality was, thus,
regarded as different and valueless.11
In light of the aforementioned views, negotiators were encouraged to ignore their
feelings, as emotions were devalued and regarded as detrimental to a successful negotiated
outcome.12 Practice became gendered as the attribute of rationality associated with masculinity
was more valued in the process of negotiation than the attribute of emotionality associated with
femininity.13 Rational judgment was held to be a central element of the dominant discourse of
6
Shirli Kopelman, Ashley Shelby Rosette & Leigh Thompson, “The Three Faces of Eve: Strategic Displays of
Positive, Negative and Neutral Emotions in Negotiations” (2006) 99 Organizational Behavior and Human
Decisions Processes 81-101 at 81.
7
Roger Fisher & William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (New York: Penguin
Books, 1981) at 17.
8
Supra note 1 at 41.
9
Supra note 7.
10
Debra Kolb & Linda Putnam, “Through the Looking Glass: Negotiation Theory Refracted Through the Lens of
Gender” [1995] at 7 [Kolb & Putnam].
11
Kolb & Putnam, Ibid.
12
Fromm, supra note 3 at 219.
13
Kolb & Putnam, Supra note 10 at 8.
3
negotiation,14 while emotions were considered to cloud one’s judgment and perception of
reality.15 Essentially, the process of negotiation was rooted in the idea of mind over matter,
rationality over feeling. Specifically, old theories alleged that “emotions may quickly bring a
negotiation to an impasse or an end.”16 As a result, negotiators were advised to “allow the other
side to let off steam”; suggestions like, “don’t react to emotional outbursts”17 and “deal
rationally with apparent irrationality” were often promoted.18
While this view has its merits, it is less than realistic and does not stand ground in real
life situations. It would most certainly seem ideal to remain calm and collected, if not
completely rational and objective, during negotiations; however, in a practical world and
especially in family disputes where emotions often run high, this ability is held by few people,
if any at all. As Debra Kolb and Linda Putnam have predicted, “by revealing aspects of
negotiation that are devalued and invisible, a gender perspective introduces options for new
models of negotiation that could lead to a radically different ways of thinking.”19
Indeed, it is recognized that negotiators are “people first” and are inherently emotional.20
Research illustrates that emotions are, in fact, very valuable in negotiations. Emotions can
actually enhance decision making, thus, making them integral to the negotiation process.21 Most
importantly, recent studies have also suggested that suppressing emotions can actually impair
cognitive processing.22 As a result, more fresh theories have emerged to fill in the conceptual
14
Kolb & Putnam, supra note 10 at 10.
Kolb & Putnam, ibid. at 9.
16
Supra note 7 at 29.
17
Ibid. at 31.
18
Ibid. at 160.
19
Kolb & Putnam, Supra note 10 at 11.
20
Supra note 7 at 160.
21
Supra note 2.
22
Margaret A. Neale, “Emotional Strategy” Harvard Negotiation Newsletter (February 2005) at 3.
15
4
gaps of the old ones.23 These new theories purported to emphasize the important roles emotions
play in negotiation, advocating that they are superior because unlike previous propositions, they
espouse the view that “emotions should not be ignored or suppressed”.24
Delee Fromm is a Canadian negotiation expert who brought forth one of the most recent
theories on the role of emotions in negotiation. This paper will summarize and analyze the three
tenets upon which Fromm’s theory rests. Subsequently, it will outline four flaws found in
Fromm’s theory and conclude with several recommendations for future research.
The Theory of Delee Fromm:
In The Theory and Practice of Representative Negotiation, Fromm explores what it
means to be emotionally intelligent.25 Hinged on John Mayer and Peter Salovey’s
conceptualization, Fromm indicates that emotional intelligence includes the ability to recognize
emotions in both the self and others, the power to regulate those emotions, and the creativity to
use them in adaptive ways.26 Accordingly, Fromm’s theory is centered on three main tenets:
emotional awareness, dealing with strong negative emotions, and using emotion strategically in
negotiations.27 Negotiators are urged to take control of their unwanted emotions by complying
with these suggestions.
23
Supra note 6.
Fromm, supra note 3 at 229.
25
Fromm, ibid. at 221.
26
Peter Salovey & John D. Mayer, “Emotional Intelligence” (1990) 9 Imagination, Cognition and Personality 185.
27
Fromm, supra note 3 at 222, 229 and 238.
24
5
Emotional Awareness:
Emotional Awareness in Self:
Becoming emotionally aware includes being able to recognize personal feelings as they
arise during the course of negotiations.28 This ability is the very foundation of emotional
intelligence and allows negotiators to better control a negotiation.29 Fromm indicates that while
this is a challenging task, it is possible to achieve emotional awareness by becoming familiar
with the spectrum of possible affects, and by learning the “language of emotion”.30 Fromm
suggests that being aware of various emotions – from pride, to frustration, to anxiety – can help
trigger recognition of what one is feeling. The theory proposes that with the knowledge of this
broad spectrum of emotions, negotiators ought to be able to identify the corresponding physical
signs that arise in their bodies. Fromm suggests that this is possible to achieve by asking three
questions during a negotiation: are my emotions out of control? Are they risky? Are they
manageable?31 The idea is that negotiators who probe themselves with these thoughts ought to
become more aware of what is occurring inside their bodies. Fromm describes this process as
taking an “emotional temperature check”.32
Intrapersonal intelligence also guides intuitive signals that form gut feelings.33 Gut
feelings steer negotiators away from choices that experience has warned them against or alert
them as to an advantageous opportunity. Intuitive processing increases one’s sensitivity to one’s
environment and to social cues. This is not to say that rigorous analysis and logic is not
28
Supra note 1 at 43.
Ibid.
30
Fromm, supra note 3 at 222.
31
Roger Fisher & Daniel Shapiro, Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate (New York: Penguin Group,
2005) at 148.
32
Fromm, supra note 3 at 225.
33
Supra note 1 at 53.
29
6
necessary; however, sensitivity to emotion is also valuable. Although relying solely on intuition
would result in an unstructured negotiation, relying solely on logic would result in an impasse.34
A balance of intuition and logic is, thus, required to reach an optimal negotiated outcome.
Emotional Awareness in Others:
Emotional awareness does not only include that of oneself but also includes one’s ability
to recognize the emotional states of others. In negotiations, interpersonal intelligence offers
negotiators the ability to understand the other party, what motivates them, how they work and
how to work cooperatively with them to reach a desired outcome. Identifying another person’s
feelings can be achieved by listening intently to what is being said; more importantly, however,
Fromm’s theory advises that a good negotiator must read non-verbal cues as well. Specifically,
Fromm suggests focusing on the individual’s face, as research indicates that facial signals send
the most important, non-verbal information about emotions.
35
Another essential aspect of
reading non-verbal cues includes identifying the other negotiator’s gestures in the context of the
situation, noting the person’s typical movements and how they might differ from what is being
displayed during the course of negotiating.36 The ability to recognize emotions in others allows
negotiators to become better attuned to subtle signals that indicate what their opponents want
and need.
Interpretation of the other party’s intentions is also influenced by emotional
expressions.37 These emotional expressions are necessary to the development of relationships
34
Brian Clegg, Instant Negotiation: Reaching agreement with others (London: Kogan Page Limited, 2000) at 6.
Fromm, supra note 3 at 227.
36
Fromm, ibid. at 228.
37
Robert Baron, “Environmentally induced positive affect: its impact on self-efficacy, task performance,
negotiation, and conflict” (1990) 20 Journal of Applied Social Psychology 125-139.
35
7
between negotiators.38 Specifically, the expression of positive emotion and perceived
trustworthiness has been recognized as essential to the relationship. 39 The development of a
strong relationship between negotiators then leads to a cooperative and collaborative negotiation
process and mutually beneficial outcomes. Furthermore, having a good reputation as a pleasant
and trustworthy negotiator is valuable as it is likely to encourage future negotiations to proceed
in a cooperative and collaborative manner. Failure to express positive emotion and violation of
trust would likely shake the very foundation of a negotiation and lead to a breakdown in
communication, and may even impair future negotiations.
Being emotionally aware of others and oneself would also be beneficial in analyzing the
shadow negotiation. When people are in a physical negotiation, another mental negotiation
takes place below the surface of the physical negotiation.40 During a shadow negotiation
individuals ponder their strategy and their next move.41 At this time they also assess their
relationship with the other negotiator and the expectations they have of him or her. 42 Being
emotionally aware of oneself and others would offer an advantage in managing this shadow
negotiation successfully. The information collected through emotional awareness could be used
to think of the best strategic moves that would help these individuals establish the best place at
the negotiation table and resourcefully deal with challenges that they may face during the
negotiation.
38
Daniel Druckman & Mara Olekalns, “Emotions in negotiation” (2007) 17 Group Decision and Negotiation 1-11
at 3.
39
Michelle N. Shiota, Belinda Campos & Dacher Keltner “Positive Emotion and the Regulation of Interpersonal
Relationships” in Pierre Philippot & Robert S. Feldman eds., The regulation of Emotion (Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 2004) 129 at 130.
40
Debora Kolb & Judith Williams, Everyday negotiation: Navigating the hidden agendas of bargaining (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003).
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
8
Dealing with Strong Negative Emotions:
Once emotional awareness has been achieved, the theory suggests that negotiators ought
to deal with strong negative emotions, such as anger and fear, as they arise.43 Handling
emotions so they are channeled appropriately builds on self-awareness. Fromm indicates that
this is crucial because while emotions should not be ignored, emotional flooding can obstruct
negotiations.44 Intense negative emotions, such as those that are felt and expressed in family
disputes where stakes are high, can have the effect of cognitive-overload. Highly emotional
negotiators and disputants can become completely unaware of their surroundings due to
“emotional-overload”, 45 which can have a detrimental effect on a negotiation.
To avoid emotional obstruction, Fromm proposes that handling emotions can be
accomplished by identifying trigger points – most commonly threats to our identity – and by
employing techniques to reduce strong negative feelings as they arise. 46 The first of these
techniques is to take a mental or physical break, which purportedly enables negotiators to
distance themselves from the situation and consider what it is they are feeling.
47
Once the
negotiator is able to detach and relax, he or she can think of constructive ways to react. The
second suggestion is for negotiators to re-label their emotions so as to change a negative feeling
into a more positive one.48 Since feelings are connected to thoughts, feelings may be altered by
altering one’s thoughts. The last recommended technique is to use various communication
43
Fromm, supra note 3 at 229.
Fromm, supra note 3 at 229.
45
Supra note 38 at 7.
46
Fromm, supra note 3 at 229.
47
Fromm, ibid. at 232.
48
Fromm, ibid. at 233.
44
9
tactics to combat the verbal attacks intended to evoke unpleasant emotional responses; for
example, by correcting an accusation.49
Using Emotions Strategically:
Finally, Fromm urges negotiators to use their emotions ethically, albeit strategically,
during the course of negotiations.50 Fromm’s theory distinguishes between positive and
negative affects, highlighting the positive and negative consequences of using each type of
emotion. The idea advanced here is to become emotionally intelligent. A negotiator should be
fully aware of the effect that a positive or negative expression may have on the other side, and
convey each feeling appropriately.51
Using Negative Emotions Strategically:
Research has found that feelings of anger promote competition or aggression in conflict
situations.52 Nevertheless, negotiators who display negative emotions can, under certain
circumstances, get their opponents to make larger concessions by inducing fear and
compliance.53 Anger can increase a negotiator’s outcomes if his or her perceived limits are
high.54 Gerben Van Kleef and his colleagues learned that when anger is used in negotiations it
may produce positive results when: (a) it is directed at the task at hand and not the opposing
individual, (b) the opponent believes it to be justified, (c) the relationship between the
negotiators is interdependent, (d) the expression of anger provides informational value, (e) it is
49
Fromm, ibid. at 234.
Fromm, ibid. at 238.
51
Fromm, supra note 3 at 239-242.
52
Gerben A. Van Kleef, Carsten K.W. De Dreu & Antony S.R. Manstead, “Interpersonal Effects of Anger and
Happiness in Negotiations” (2004) 86:1 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57-76 at 58.
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
50
10
used as a strategic tactic to encourage coordination, and (f) the opponent is not deceitful.55
However, a negotiator should take caution when expressing feelings of anger as such tactic has
the potential to fail.
Several variables can lead a communication of anger to backfire. An expression of anger
will not produce favourable outcomes to a negotiator if an opponent is able to convince that
negotiator that low offers are, in fact, high.56 Additionally, when consequences of rejecting a
negotiator’s offer are low, anger does not produce concessions.57 While not as relevant in
family dispute resolution, expression of anger is also not beneficial in multiparty negotiations.
In multiparty negotiations, expressing anger impedes coalition formation, which allows for the
maximization of benefits.58
Using Positive Emotions Strategically:
To ensure good outcomes, a negotiator may be better off expressing positive emotion,
rather than negative emotion. Positive feelings translate to optimism and increased expectation
of a successful negotiation.59 As previously discussed, positive expressions are beneficial to the
development of relationships between negotiators.60 Research has illustrated that negotiators
who express positive affect are more cooperative; they make more concessions and make more
integrative offers to the other party.61 Additionally, negotiators who convey positive emotions
can more easily induce the other party into acting cooperatively and, thus, come to more
55
Supra note 52 at 72.
Ibid.
57
Ibid.
58
Supra note 38 at 6.
59
Peter Carnevale & Alice Isen, “The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative
solutions in bilateral negotiation” (1986) 37 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1-13 at 12.
60
Supra note 38.
61
Supra note 59.
56
11
innovative solutions.62 It is in this way that Fromm suggests negotiators can use emotions to
their advantage and fulfill their interests.63
Analysis of Delee Fromm’s Theory:
Fromm’s updated theory impressively presents what roles emotions play in negotiations
in a conceptual manner. Although Fromm does not specifically argue a gender perspective, the
theory recognizes that emotions, attributed to femininity as per gender theories, are inherent in
arriving at any settlement. This is a vital element of the theory and it is precisely what older
theories lacked. Fromm’s theory also stresses the disadvantages of ignoring emotions and the
need to be in touch with those feelings. These assertions are more consistent with current
research findings. Further, this new theory outlines various strategies for negotiators to employ
in order to increase their emotional intelligence, and to help curb the negative effects of intense
emotions. These tactics are helpful, in theory, and provide some guidance when planning ahead
for negotiations.
The fact that everything is rooted on the reality that emotions are inherent in negotiation
makes this theory very accessible to anyone who has ever attempted to negotiate even a simple
argument. Emotions pervade absolutely everything in negotiations, from setting the initial tone
of the discussions, to advocating clients’ interests. From experience, it is not only difficult to
ignore emotions while negotiating, it is nearly impossible. Further, it is very challenging to
control and use intense emotions in strategic ways in the heat of the moment. Especially in
family disputes where emotions are often intense and raw and at any point strong emotional
62
63
Supra note 59.
Fromm, Supra note 3 at 242.
12
reactions can be produced, the ability to manage emotions can be very tough. For this reason,
Fromm’s theory falls slightly short in terms of its practicality.
While Fromm’s theory has undoubtedly taken steps in the right direction, it is still more
idealistic than realistic, and far from perfect. In general terms, the biggest problem is that
Fromm’s theory presumes that people are rational enough during their emotionally-laden
moments to not only be aware of emotions but to also take control and manage unruly feelings.
The theory proposes a set of specific techniques for negotiators to implement in order to curtail
the effects of strong emotions, but that suggestion itself misses the point: emotions are intense,
often hard to control, and defy rationality. As Margaret Neale outlines in her article, “…feelings
too often draw our attention away from the demands of an interaction.”64 From my limited
amount of negotiation experience and from speaking to fellow classmates, this is, indeed, the
consensus. Human beings are governed by emotions and, thus, are not entirely rational. In light
of this, emotions, even those that are unrelated to the issue addressed in a negotiation, can and
do overtake negotiation strategies.
As Follows, Fromm’s theory has four major flaws. First, the theory presumes that
people have the capability to be perfectly self-aware and identify all of their trigger points.
Second, the theory presupposes that people are able to read and understand others’ verbal and
non-verbal cues. Third, the theory presupposes that people can constructively deal with strong
negative emotions using its suggested techniques. Lastly, the theory presupposes people are
able to control and use their emotions strategically.
64
Supra note 22 at 5.
13
Flaws in Delee Fromm’s Theory:
Flaw #1: Presupposing People Are Emotionally Self-Aware and Can Identify Trigger Points:
Fromm’s theory presupposes that negotiators are composed of a perfect mix of reason
and action and that they are only affected in their negotiation by facets of the issue with direct
connection to the negotiation; however, since even unrelated emotions can affect a negotiation,
it can be difficult to accurately identify trigger points prior to their emergence or even as soon
as they arise and begin to pose a problem. Additionally, Fromm presumes that emotions remain
static at least just long enough for them to be identified. The reality is, however, that emotions
are constantly changing and transitioning; an individual may go from being happy to angry at
practically a drop of a hat.
By answering three questions (“Are my emotions out of control? Are they risky? Are
they manageable?”), Fromm implies that negotiators ought to be able to identify what they are
feeling and whether their trigger points have been activated. However, this presupposes that
people have enough control to put rational thought into what they are experiencing. In reality,
by simply identifying possible trigger points in the negotiation’s preparation stage, are you able
to identify – in the heat of the moment – what it is that you are feeling? As much as parties may
prepare prior to negotiations, they will never know what issues could be presented that they did
not anticipate, which, in turn, could trigger certain unpredictable emotions.
By suggesting that people can regulate their emotions by identifying all of their trigger
points, the theory assumes that negotiators can learn to expect for the unexpected. This is not
very practical in real life negotiations. As previously summarized, Fromm’s theory discusses
how it is apparently possible to deflect the negative effects of strong emotions by preparing for
14
their inevitable appearance. More specifically, negotiators are urged to identify their trigger
points in the hopes of anticipating which situations may flare their tempers. Arguably, it may be
beneficial to be aware of the fact that having your competence questioned, for example, is a
sure way to set you off; but does that stop you from getting enraged when someone actually
doubts your capabilities? I would have to say no.
As I have learned from my own experience during one of the in-class simulations, as
much as one prepares, one cannot prepare enough. Prior to the Rebecca/Shabir mediation
exercise, I well familiarized myself with the facts and produced a negotiation strategy;
nevertheless, my opponent unpredictably presented me with a case that awarded the wife
constructive trust, which led him to request constructive trust from my client. I did not expect
this, which surprised and frustrated me greatly. I was not familiar with the case presented,
which made me feel resentful that it was being brought up. I do, however, understand that there
will always be instances in which a negotiator will be thrown unexpected curveballs. Prior to
and throughout a negotiation, a negotiator must continuously think about his or her interests,
goals and alternatives; however, it is too naïve to argue that one can and will anticipate every
challenge that comes one’s way.
Fromm’s theory also presupposes that once trigger points have been activated during the
course of negotiations, people are actually able to identify that they have been made active. As
previously outlined, Fromm suggests that constantly taking “emotional temperature checks” can
help negotiators recognize what they are feeling. Although this is, theoretically, a beneficial
approach to take to manage emotions, in practice it may not likely to be as achievable. Drawing
from my experience during the Rebecca/Shabir mediation, I did not find that I was able to take
time to analyze and assess my emotions and bodily changes in the heat of the moment, when all
15
I was really concerned about was whether my client was receiving a fair deal. Additionally, it is
fair to presume that most negotiators do not stop mid-negotiation to consider whether trigger
points have been activated and check how they are feeling, nor do they, then, continue on to
actively strategize how to handle those feelings.
Flaw #2: Presupposing People Can Read and Understand Others’ Verbal and Non-Verbal
Cues:
Fromm suggests that negotiators can also assess the emotions of others and identify
what they are feeling by reading non-verbal cues. As previously outlined, the theory indicates
that one way of understanding another negotiator’s actions is to look at their behaviour and
compare it to how they “typically” act. However, if you have never met the other negotiator
before, how is it possible to contextualize their behaviour? Can you realistically know whether
someone habitually crosses their arms, for example, or whether it is an indication that you have
upset them in some way? By implying that it is possible to compare a negotiator’s typical
movements with what is being displayed at the table, the theory assumes that people who
negotiate with one another will necessarily be familiar with each other’s habitual characteristics.
Aside from the obvious smile or frown, however, it is impossible to read non-verbal cues
perfectly; what is typical of one person can be out of character for the next.
In previous negotiations I conducted, positive emotions developed and trust was built
more quickly resulting in more successful negotiated outcomes when I had been formerly
acquainted with the other side. An explanation for this may be that since both parties knew each
other previously, they were able to better read each other’s verbal and non-verbal signals and
compare them to previous interactions. When a relationship is not formed prior to a negotiation,
16
negotiators have no knowledge of their opponents’ subtle cues, which may then be tricky to
discern. Reading verbal and non-verbal cues is even more difficult and less accurate across
different cultures.
Although it has been found that certain basic emotions – anger, fear, disgust, happiness
(amusement), sadness, and surprise – are recognized across a wide range of cultures,65 culture
does influence how people communicate and express certain emotions verbally and nonverbally.66 Body language is also different across cultures; a behavior that may be offensive in
one culture may be perceived as innocent and completely inoffensive in another culture. 67 For
instance, a negotiator from Southeast Asia may avoid eye contact during a negotiation because
in Southeast Asia direct eye contact should be avoided until a relationship is firmly
established.68 On the other hand, in Canada, avoidance of eye contact may be perceived as an
attempt to deceive or lie. Therefore, individuals who are not familiar with the culture their
opponent is from cannot assume to understand that person’s emotions and behavior and must
take into consideration that cultural differences may exist.
Flaw #3: Presupposing People Can Deal with Strong Negative Emotions Constructively:
Aside from discussing trigger points and assessing emotions, much of Fromm’s theory
is centered on various strategies for negotiators to employ in order to increase their emotional
intelligence, and to combat the effects of strong negative emotions as they arise. The reason for
this, as Fromm underlines, is that while “emotions should not be ignored… emotional
65
Disa Sauter et al., “Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations”
(2010) 107:6 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2408-2412 at
2409.
66
Roy Lewicki et al., Essentials of Negotiation (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 2011) at 220.
67
Ibid at 223.
68
Dean Allen Foster, Bargaining across Borders: How to Negotiate Business Successfully Anywhere in the World
(New York: McGraw-Hills, 1992) at 281.
17
flooding… can obstruct negotiations”.69 This statement certainly holds truth to it. As such,
Fromm’s suggested techniques to deal with strong negative emotion could potentially be
valuable if properly employed. The techniques that Fromm outlines in her theory for handling
strong negative emotions include caucusing, taking a mental break, changing emotions by relabeling them, and using communication strategically.70 In theory, these techniques should
prove to be quite helpful; however, in the practical world, these would be difficult to
implement.
Caucusing:
Caucusing is, in fact, a beneficial way for a negotiator can get some distance from the
situation at hand. By removing him or herself from the room for a few minutes, the negotiator is
able to regain perspective on the events that have occurred and on what he or she is feeling. As
Fromm well describes, “[a] break lets you step away and become a detached observer – to
figure out what you are feeling and why”. For instance, during the Rebecca/Shabir exercise, I
came to a crossroads where I did not know how to proceed or how my client wanted to proceed,
which was frustrating. In order to allow negotiations to get back on track I felt I had to caucus
with my client to regain perspective on my client’s interests and goals.
In contrast to caucusing, however, Fromm’s other suggested techniques do not offer a
negotiator sufficient distance from the negotiation. Further, even if it was possible to garner
enough perspective by taking a mental break, re-labeling emotions, or altering communications,
these three enumerated techniques are arguably difficult to implement.
69
70
Fromm, supra note 3 at 229.
Fromm, ibid. at 232-236.
18
Taking a Mental Break:
Taking a mental break during a negotiation is easier said than done. While Fromm
suggests pausing to say, “let me think about that”,71 it is not realistic that a negotiator would be
provided with enough time to seriously think about the issue or emotions he or she is feeling.
Even if everyone in the room sat patiently and waited while the negotiator took his or her
‘mental break’, I imagine it would quite uncomfortable for that negotiator to sit in front of the
other negotiators while mulling his or her thoughts over. It would also likely be even more
difficult to concentrate with the added pressure of everyone waiting. Therefore, a mental break
would be beneficial if the negotiator would have a simple issue to think about that could be
resolved in a short amount of time; however, if it was a more complex issue that required
extended thought and consideration, a short mental break would likely not suffice.
Re-Labeling:
Fromm suggests changing an emotion by taking a “look at the thoughts fuelling that
emotion.”72 Again, this seems slightly impractical to accomplish during the course of
negotiations. A negotiator is actively involved in the entire negotiation process, from
advocating for his or her client’s needs to trying to decipher the other party’s interests;
therefore, it seems absurd to contend that a negotiator has the time to step back, consider his or
her feelings and then actively engage in re-labeling any negative emotions. While in theory this
technique would be quite beneficial, in reality it would not likely materialize.
71
72
Fromm, supra note 3 at 232.
Fromm, supra note 3 at 233.
19
Communicating Effectively:
The last of Fromm’s techniques, using communication effectively, is similarly difficult
to implement because most people find it impossible to think clearly while experiencing strong
emotions.73 Specifically, the theory suggests constructing a three-part message that consists of a
non-judgmental description of the other side’s behaviour, how it made you feel, and disclosure
of how the behaviour affected you.74 I imagine that it would be quite difficult to formulate such
eloquent outcries when another negotiator has wronged you in some way.
Despite the aforementioned techniques, regardless of how much one prepares and plans
prior to a negotiation, it is oftentimes not possible to regulate strong emotions or to use them in
adaptive ways. The implication in Fromm’s theory is that if one employs these techniques, one
should be able to control one’s emotions and steer the negotiations to one’s advantage.
Unfortunately, it is much more difficult than that. As Mayer and Salovey outline, while
emotional intelligence is common to everyone, there are large “individual differences in
processing styles and abilities”.75 This finding is significant because it recognizes that people,
and hence negotiators, differ in their capacity to understand and express emotions. Furthermore,
and most relevantly, it has been established that people also differ greatly in their ability to
control their own emotions.76 This suggests that although there may be the odd negotiator who
is able to harness his or her strong emotions and use them advantageously, the average person
will have substantial difficulty in doing so.
73
Supra note 22.
Fromm, supra note 3 at 234.
75
Supra note 26.
76
Ibid.
74
20
Flaw #4: Presupposing People Are Able to Control and Use Their Emotions Strategically:
Even if a negotiator was able to anticipate and identify all the possible “trigger points”
and situations that would arouse an emotional response, and even if that person was able to
channel these emotions positively, the emotions would then be, in reality, hard to use
strategically. As Kopelman, Rosette and Thompson explain in their article, “the negotiator’s
emotional strategy may be at odds with how he or she feels at the moment.”77 The more parties
care about a certain issue and are invested in it, the more likely it is that emotions will influence
their objectivity and actions.
As has been illustrated to me in every negotiation and mediation exercise throughout the
course, it is very difficult for parties to separate their emotions from the issues at hand in family
disputes. Many times during the negotiations, when I acted both as a client and a lawyer, I felt
that negotiations quickly fell apart when emotions overtook reason. Understandably, as a client,
I became very emotional during the exercises as I felt a personal, direct connection to the issues
at hand; however, when I acted as a lawyer, I was taken by surprise when I came to the
realization that I was internalizing my client’s feelings on the issues, thus, leaving me feeling
vulnerable and at risk of being taken advantage of. At that point, I did not feel the ability to use
my emotions “strategically” to my benefit.
Admittedly, it is possible to feign emotions when there are no other dominant feelings
present. For instance, it may be possible to act happy to set a collaborative tone for the
negotiation. What happens, however, when the negotiator is already experiencing a strong
negative emotion? Even if the best strategic course to take would be to continue to display a
77
Supra note 6.
21
positive affect, it seems unlikely and unrealistic to assume that most people are Oscar worthy
actors and are able to control and display their emotions in this manner without letting their
dominant feelings seep through.
From personal experience throughout the term, I have found it possible to control
diluted feelings, but impossible to take charge of strong negative emotions. I, therefore, believe
that controlling strong emotions is much easier said than done. I have in fact attempted to
implement the various techniques that Fromm advocates in her theory. When I am not
overtaken by intense emotions, I find Fromm’s strategies to be helpful; however, the same
cannot be said when strong emotions arise during the course of negotiations. Ultimately, I find
that sometimes the only recourse is to simply accept that intense emotions exist and attempt to
let reason take control. I can appreciate, however, that with practice and experience, negotiators
can potentially become better at disassociating their emotions from the issues and can use these
emotions beneficially and strategically, at which time Fromm’s strategies could prove to be
helpful.
Suggestions for the Future:
If I were to suggest something to add to Fromm’s theory, it would be to emphasize the
fact that emotions are extremely hard to control. This is not a reality that should be skirted over.
I would also include the caveat that while some negotiators may be able to control their
emotions if they successfully anticipate them, unexpected situations will inevitably always
arise. In that same vein, it is typical to prepare for the existence of an emotion but to feel it even
more intensely than at first predicted. A more practical theory would explain that in essence,
there is little that can be done to reverse a strong negative emotion in the heat of the moment.
22
The best and most realistic suggestion is to caucus and try to get some distance from the
situation.
Admittedly, it is quite impressive that Fromm’s theory has advanced the issue of
emotion, associated with femininity, and illustrated that it does have a place in negotiations and
that it is quite valuable. Nevertheless, I believe a more complete, well-rounded theory is needed
to also reconcile the dichotomy of emotion and rationality, a masculine attribute. Emotionality
and rationality work in perfect harmony and there is no reason to gender them or create gender
polarization; there is no reason to study one without the other. Emotions feed into the rationale,
while the rationale then refines the emotional mind; therefore, a theory that finds balance
between the two would also be essential.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Fromm’s theory on emotions in negotiation has definitely taken great
leaps from the theories that preceded it. Instead of urging negotiators to ignore emotions,
Fromm emphasizes their importance and inherent nature in everyday life. Fromm also puts
forward a lot of impressive thought on how to conceptualize emotions and the possible ways
negotiators could, in theory, avoid the negative consequences of unwanted feelings. The
problem that arises with Fromm’s theory is that negotiations are practical, and although the
theory purports to be practical as well, it essentially does not fully serve its purpose. Although
Fromm’s thoughts and suggestions are certainly appreciated, her theory is best left at that: a
theory, and not a realistic guide for how to control emotions in negotiations.
23
Bibliography
Baron, Robert. “Environmentally induced positive affect: its impact on self-efficacy, task
performance, negotiation, and conflict” (1990) 20 Journal of Applied Social Psychology
125-139.
Carnevale, Peter & Isen, Alice. “The influence of positive affect and visual access on the
discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation” (1986) 37 Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1-13.
Clegg, Brian. Instant Negotiation: Reaching agreement with others (London: Kogan Page
Limited, 2000).
Damasio, Antonio. The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of
Consciousness (San Diego: Harcourt, 1999).
Druckman, Daniel & Olekalns, Mara. “Emotions in negotiation” (2007) 17 Group Decision and
Negotiation 1-11.
Filipowicz, Allan, Barsade, Sigal, & Melwani, Shimul. “Understanding Emotional Transitions:
The Interpersonal Consequences of Changing Emotions in Negotiations” 101:3 Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 541-556.
Fisher, Roger & Shapiro, Daniel. Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate (New
York: Penguin Group, 2005).
24
Fisher, Roger & Ury, William. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In
(New York: Penguin Books, 1981).
Foster, Dean Allen. Bargaining across Borders: How to Negotiate Business Successfully
Anywhere in the World (New York: McGraw-Hills, 1992).
Fromm, Delee. “Emotion in Negotiation” in Hanycz, Colleen M., Farrow, Trevor C.W.,
& Zemans, Frederick H. The Theory and Practice of Representative Negotiation
(Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd., 2008).
Goleman, Daniel. Emotional Intelligence (New York: Bantam Books, 1995).
Kolb, Debra & Putnam, Linda “Through the Looking Glass: Negotiation Theory Refracted
Through the Lens of Gender” [1995].
Kolb, Debora & Williams, Judith. Everyday negotiation: Navigating the hidden agendas of
bargaining (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003).
Kopelman, Shirli, Rosette, Ashleigh Shelby, & Thompson, Leigh. “The Three Faces of
Eve: Strategic Displays of Positive, Negative and Neutral Emotions in Negotiations”
(2006) 99 Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes 81-101.
Kopelman, Shirli & Rosette, Ashleigh Shelby. “Cultural variation in response to strategic
emotions in negotiations” (2008) 17 Group Decision and Negotiation 65-77.
Lewicki, Roy et al., Essentials of Negotiation (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 2011).
25
Martinovski, Bilyana & Mao, Wenji. “Emotion as an Argumentation Engine: Modeling the
Role of Emotion in Negotiation” (2009) 18 Group Decision and Negotiation 235-259.
Neale, Margaret A. & Bazerman, Max H. Cognition and Rationality in Negotiation (Toronto:
Macmillan Canada, Inc., 1991).
Neale, Margaret A. “Emotional Strategy” (February 2005) Harvard Negotiation
Newsletter.
Salovey, Peter & Mayer, John D. “Emotional Intelligence” (1990) 9 Imagination,
Cognition and Personality 185.
Sauter, Disa et al. “Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional
vocalizations” (2010) 107:6 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 2408-2412.
Shiota, Michelle N., Campos, Belinda, & Keltner, Dacher. “Positive Emotion and the
Regulation of Interpersonal Relationships” in Pierre Philippot & Robert S. Feldman eds.,
The regulation of Emotion (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004).
Van Kleef, Gerben A., De Dreu, Carsten K.W., & Manstead, Antony S.R. “Interpersonal
Effects of Anger and Happiness in Negotiations” (2004) 86:1 Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 57-76.
Wiggins, Charles & Lowry, Randolph. Negotiation and Settlement Advocacy: A Book of
Readings, 2d ed. (St. Paul: Thompson/West, 2005).
26