Risks, Rewards, and the Role of Emotion in Distributive and Integrative Deals

Assignment Brief

MG 473 Negotiation Analysis 2019: Assessed essay

Choose ONE of the following FOUR questions. Word limit: 2000 words not including bibliography

1. Explain why it is sometimes advantageous to display negative emotions such as anger in a negotiation. What are the risks involved in doing so, and how can they be avoided? Do these considerations apply equally to distributive and to integrative negotiations? Illustrate your answer with examples from at least five of the negotiation cases from the course.
2. What do Fisher and Ury mean when they recommend that principled negotiators should be ‘hard on the merits, soft on the people’ (Getting to Yes, Ch.1)? Explain why this is generally good advice. Explain also why it may sometimes be good to ignore this advice. Illustrate your answer with examples from at least five of the negotiation cases from the course.
3. The real problem when seeking to negotiate as part of a coalition lies in agreeing and maintaining a common line with one’s fellow coalition members. Therefore, a clever negotiator should always seek to divide the opposing coalition. Explain the advantages and risks involved in such an approach. Illustrate your answer with examples from at least five of the negotiation cases from the course.
4. The informal game theory used in the lectures for this course is useful for analysing how the pay-offs for each party may influence their choice of negotiation strategy. However, prospect theory and framing theory teach us that how we perceive the pay-offs is often far more important. Consider the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches to analysing negotiation, and whether they contradict or complement each other in practice. Illustrate your answer with examples from at least five of the negotiation cases from the course.

Important advice to students: Your answers should consider different types of negotiation, especially distributive and integrative, refer to the course materials and use illustrations from at least five of the negotiation exercises during the term. Advice on reading: although we have done our best to assign a textbook reading to each week’s exercise, the reading list contains numerous other items on which you should reflect. Ideally, your answer should take account of 6-12 of the readings.

You may also deepen your understanding by reading more widely. But, please remember that one extra hour spent thinking hard about the question is worth two extra hours of reading. Advice on answering the question: we have designed these questions to encourage you to think hard about the theories we have been using during the term, as well as to apply that theory to the exercises in class. We therefore attach equal importance to theory and analysis of practice.

Sample Answer

Is It Advantageous to Display Anger in Negotiation? Risks, Rewards, and the Role of Emotion in Distributive and Integrative Deals

Negotiation often requires careful control of emotions, but research and practice show that displaying negative emotions such as anger can sometimes help negotiators achieve better outcomes. However, using anger as a tactic comes with risks that can damage relationships, trust, and future negotiations. This essay explains why showing anger can be strategically useful, outlines the risks involved, and explores how these factors apply differently in distributive and integrative negotiations. Drawing on theory and examples from at least five negotiation cases, the essay argues that while anger can be effective in specific situations, it must be used cautiously and with awareness of context.

Why Displaying Anger Can Be Advantageous

Anger can serve as a signal of strength and resolve in negotiations. In distributive negotiations, where parties are dividing a fixed resource (such as price or salary), showing anger may signal that a negotiator has reached their limit or is unwilling to make further concessions. This can pressure the other side to agree to less favourable terms for themselves. For example, in the New Recruit case, a hiring manager displaying controlled anger about excessive salary demands successfully forced the candidate to accept a lower offer.

Moreover, emotional displays can shape perceptions of what is fair or acceptable. If a negotiator reacts angrily to a proposal, the other party may interpret the offer as unreasonable and revise it. In the Alpha-Beta trade case, negotiators representing Alpha showed frustration at repeated delays and vague commitments from Beta, eventually pushing Beta to agree to clearer delivery terms.

Finally, anger can disrupt the other party’s thinking. Studies show that people facing anger may feel stress and rush to make decisions. This was seen in the Winemaster case, where one party’s visible irritation over poor wine quality led the supplier to accept stricter contract terms without further debate.

Risks Involved in Displaying Anger

While anger can be effective, it carries several serious risks. First, it can damage relationships and trust, especially in integrative negotiations, where long-term cooperation and mutual gains are important. In the Harborco case, a government representative’s angry outburst led to a breakdown in trust, which harmed efforts to find a solution that benefited all stakeholders. Anger may also cause the other party to become defensive or angry in return, leading to a conflict spiral.

Second, fake or exaggerated anger can backfire if detected. Many negotiators try to simulate anger to gain an advantage, but people are generally good at sensing insincerity. In the Sally Soprano case, the opera company’s manager tried to fake frustration over scheduling issues, but this was exposed when internal emails were accidentally shared. As a result, the singer’s agent pushed for higher fees, sensing the company’s desperation.

Third, anger reduces information sharing, which is essential in integrative negotiations. When one party is angry, the other may withhold useful information or stop suggesting creative solutions. In the Oil Pricing negotiation, early anger from one negotiator shut down open discussion, resulting in a suboptimal deal for both sides.

How to Avoid the Risks of Displaying Anger

To avoid these risks, negotiators must use anger strategically and sparingly. The key is to control the intensity and timing of emotional displays. Mild expressions of frustration may be more effective than loud or aggressive anger. In the Eurotech case, a mild rebuke about late payments led to improved terms without damaging the relationship.

Additionally, emotional regulation techniques can help negotiators manage their own emotions and avoid unintentional anger. Self-awareness, breathing exercises, and mental preparation before negotiations can reduce the chances of emotional outbursts.

Furthermore, it helps to explain the reason behind anger. When anger is linked to clear and fair principles, it appears more justified. In the Bakra Beverage case, the negotiator explained frustration by referring to unfair contract terms, which encouraged the other party to revise the deal without feeling attacked.

Continued...