The Role of Empathy on Negotiations: Analytical Essay

Friendsgiving – a holiday filled with chosen family, potlucks, and for my group of friends, an intense discussion about hostage negotiation tactics. One of my friends taught a negotiation workshop based on the book “Never Split the Difference” by Chris Voss. Unexpectedly, he ignited a debate about the ethics and effectiveness of what Voss coined “tactical empathy.” Some of my friends argued that tactical empathy is inherently inauthentic and cannot co-exist with the human connection integral to empathy; the other side surely could see through feigned empathy, undermining the negotiator’s search for true interests. On the other hand, tactical empathy offers tools for understanding the other person’s interests underlying their position, which is necessary for getting a hostage home safely. This paper unravels the nuances of tactical empathy, or what might be more palatably called perspective taking, and empathy, an emotional connection to another person. Perspective taking and empathy are frequently used interchangeably, but successful negotiators would benefit from understanding how they affect negotiations differently so that they can mindfully employ one or both.

Implicitly underlying several key concepts of negotiation strategies is perspective taking. Perspective taking is defined as, “the cognitive capacity to consider the world from another individual’s viewpoint” (Galinsky et al, 2008, pg ?). Fisher and Ury stress the importance of focusing on interests, not positions, encouraging negotiators to put themselves in the other person’s shoes to understand their needs, hopes, fears, and desires (year). When Fisher and Ury describe how to invent options for mutual gain, again, they suggest creating ways to make the other person’s decision easy and again, they use the metaphor of shoes by suggesting negotiators put themselves in one person’s shoes at a time to transform the negotiators’ role into one that strengthens the other person’s hand (Fisher & Ury, year). Lewicki et al. suggest that one of the factors that facilitates a successful integrative negotiation is belief in the validity of the other party’s position, but they notably remark that believing the other person does not mean empathizing with them (Lewicki et al., year). The Chris Voss approach is to use tactical empathy to summarize what is important to the other people, and negotiators will know they have discovered the other person’s true interest when after summarizing, the other person responds, “that’s right” (Voss, year). Perhaps the concept of tactical empathy aligns with a specific suggestion from Lewicki et al. to be hard on the problem and soft on the people. That is, Lewicki et al. suggest creating cognitive differences for the other party by treating them with empathy and giving positive support and then being hard on the problem, a tactic that creates cognitive dissonance that the other party will seek to alleviate (Lewicki et al., year). Perspective taking is a useful strategy, but it maintains emotional separation between negotiating parties.

If perspective taking is getting in the other person’s head, empathy is akin to getting in the other person’s heart. Empathy is the “ability to connect emotionally with another individual” (Galinsky et al., 2008, p. ?). Indeed, empathy is essential in building respect (Dealing with Difficult People), and respect is a key component in integrative negotiations (Lewicki et al., year). Empathy, one of the three necessary components of trust, is the most likely to wobble (Frei, year; see Appendix A). When empathy falters, Frances Frei suggests looking up at the person across from us to identify to whom, when, and where people can offer empathy (Frei, year). Moreover, Lewicki et al. suggest separating the people from the problem by encouraging negotiators to not only see the situation as the other side sees it but to feel the emotional force the other person is experiencing (Lewicki et al., year).

Some research suggests perspective taking is more important than empathy for creating and claiming value. Galinsky et al. found that perspective taking increased individuals’ ability to uncover hidden agreements, but empathy led to individuals conceding more and was detrimental to one’s outcomes (2008). Other research, however, suggests perspective taking can lead to more selfish or antisocial behavior (Epley et al., 2006; Pierce, Kilduff, Galinsky, & Sivanathan, 2013). Additionally, as my friends worried about during the hostage negotiation discussion, perspective taking could situate the negotiator as inauthentic. Inauthenticity, or the compromising of one’s values, can be an ethical problem as well as an outcomes problem. Consider the following example, where the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) proposes raising basic cash assistance, a benefit for low-income families, and needs county commissioners to approve of the change:

• Commissioner: I am in favor of raising basic cash assistance because I think families deserve more, but my county is strapped for cash. We cannot afford this policy without knowing how many people will apply for it and if we’ll have funding for the county match.
• CDHS leader: I’m glad we agree that families deserve more economic support. I know the uncertainty of your county’s budget makes this decision a tough one. You have a lot of responsibility to manage a county’s budget. What information would help you feel comfortable making a decision?
• Commissioner: I would need projected costs to the county over the next 5 years.
• CDHS leader: Definitely, I understand why you would need that. We can provide that data.

The CDHS leader is searching for the underlying reason that the commissioner disagrees with the proposal, rather than assuming that they do not want to help families. The CDHS leader remains authentic by affirming mutual interests while drawing out underlying concerns.

In negotiation contexts, empathy may have benefits to the relationship, to claim and creat value, to overcom cognitive biases, and to deter unethical behavior. Empathy may help build up a higher level of satisfaction between parties, particularly in repeat play and higher conflict situations (Galinsky et al., 2008). In some circumstances, appeals to sympathy through the revealing of weaknesses may prompt the other party to experience more sympathy and perhaps even empathy (Shirako, Kilduff & Kray, year). Appeals to sympathy may be even more effective than appeals to rationality and fairness and may create even more value claiming and creation (Shirako, Kilduff & Kray, year). Lewicki et al. suggest that the best way to overcome cognitive biases is to be aware of them, and some research has taken this analysis further to demonstrate that empathy is critical to overcoming biases and increasing the likelihood of cooperation (Holmes & Milo, 2017). Empathy can also deter unethical bargaining. Empathy – not perspective taking – can discourage negotiators from resorting to unethical tactics like attacking the other person’s networks, misrepresenting their positions, gathering information inappropriately, and feigning emotions to manipulate the other person (Cohen, 2010). Although empathy has positive outcomes for trust, satisfaction, and desire to work together in the future, empathy may lead negotiators to make excessive concessions at the expense of their interests (Kim, Cundiff & Choi, 2015; Galinsky et al., 2008). Empathy may lead people to violate norms of equity if they feel more empathetic toward one party than another in multi-party negotiations (Galinsky et al., 2008). The example of the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs (CCIA) mediating a conflict between the Northern Cheyenne, Northern Arapaho, and the Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes demonstrates the positive role of empathy:

• Northern Cheyenne: I believe the monument to honor our past should be placed prominently on the Colorado Capitol grounds so that every visitor sees it. The Capitol Grounds Committee says there is not space, but I will not have our history erased again.
• CCIA: I hear your frustration. You are saying that your history should not be ignored and that it’s important to have a prominent, highly visible location. Is that right?
• Northern Cheyenne: Right, but I think other tribal representatives would settle for a monument anywhere. It seems like they simply don’t care.
• CCIA: I can relate to your passion. Other representatives, how do you feel hearing that?
• Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho: It’s not a matter of ignoring out history. If there’s not space for a monument, there’s not space. Let’s just put a monument anywhere so at least we have one. We’re never going to get anywhere like this.
• CCIA: It seems like you are feeling like we are stuck. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I hear you saying that your priority is to have representation.
• Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho: No, that’s correct. Representation is important.
• Northern Arapaho: Well, if everyone agrees that representation is important, are there other ways we can advocate for representation of our history at the Capitol?

In this example, CCIA and the Northern Arapaho representative both served as mediators, echoing feelings of the other parties and allowing them to respond to each other by recognizing the underlying emotions and interests. By acknowledging and perhaps even feeling the underlying frustrations and fears, the parties avoided a stalemate and instead were invited to create value beyond the initial positions. The parties, feeling acknowledged, are more likely to work with each other in the future, showing that empathy is particularly important in repeat-play situations.

Mindfully using perspective taking and empathy

The tension between perspective taking and empathy revolves around ethics and effectiveness. Using either perspective taking or empathy is not ethically wrong, but using perspective taking and masking it as empathy undermines trust. Trust is essential in successful integrative negotiations, and so an unconscious negotiator who uses perspective taking while meaning to employ trust – or vice versa – may inadvertently undermine trust by compromising inauthenticity. Thus, I contend that both perspective taking and empathy are important for negotiation, and negotiators would benefit from mindfully employing one, the other, or both. Consciously employing one social competency or the other can help negotiators maintain trust while staying true to their authentic selves.

Regarding effectiveness, the research on the benefits and drawbacks seems mixed, so rather than defaulting to one social competency, negotiators would benefit from employing one or the other as the situation dictates. As negotiators prepare, they ought to consider what perspective taking may look like and where they may be able to empathize. The literature on perspective taking is vast, and negotiators can readily look to Getting To Yes, Never Split the Difference, and most Harvard Program on Negotiation resources. However, mainstream negotiation resources rarely describe how to practice empathy, perhaps because of an implicit bias that paints empathy as ineffective, too soft, and emotionally exhausting. This paper focuses on how to utilize empathy in negotiation situations and provides theoretical information alongside mini-case studies. Below are two strategies for introducing empathy into a negotiation, including utilizing a mediator and relying on individuals to mindfully express empathy.

Utilizing a mediator

Using a mediator is recognized as a viable option for helping disagreeing parties resolve conflict, particularly when the conflict feels intractable or when negotiating across cultures (Lewicki, Weiss, Lewin, 1992). A mediator can be a third-party, or negotiators can also mediate when they have a stake in the outcome (Lewicki et al., year). Mediators can play a key role in helping the parties access empathy. Mediators can help the parties understand each other’s interests by using the empathy loop, which is when the mediator creates openings and then listens, and then calls for the other parties to respond and recognize (Bush & Folder, year). In this way, mediators demonstrate empathy and give permission for negotiators to also feel empathy. Furthermore, empathy is more commonly granted to people when there are common identifiers, so mediators may help the parties uncover those common identities (Brown, 2012). As evidenced in the case study about the monument, the CCIA representative helped create an empathy loop for understanding. The mediator also allowed space for one of the negotiating parties to step in with a solution that seemed to meet the common interests of everyone.

Relying on individuals to mindfully express empathy

Empathy may be an internal mindset, but there is significant evidence that empathy is perceptual; that is, negotiators who express that empathy may create better relationships and negotiation outcomes than those who do not (Holmes & Milo, 2017). In fact, people who convey empathy can improve negotiation outcomes by up to 30% (Pentland, 2008). Individuals can convey their empathy to others through both words and behavior, including body language, unconscious mimicry, facial micro-expressions, and the use of empathetic language (Holmes & Milo, 2017). The Forbes Coaches Council describes 11 ways to convey empathy, and these techniques seem like they would be helpful in a negotiation context (Appendix B). Similar to behavior mirroring, synchronizing language style can also signal empathy (Lord et al., 2015). Negotiators could employ listening techniques to signal empathy, such as RASA (receive, abbreviate, summarize, ask) (TEDGlobal, 2011). If one negotiator conveys empathy, emotional contagion may be activated, prompting the other person to also feel and offer empathy. Emotional contagion may prompt the empathy loop to emerge, building the rapport between parties. Empathy is easier to convey in person (Holmes & Milo, 2017), so negotiators may want to arrange in-person negotiations when relying on empathy.

Of course, manufacturing empathetic behaviors creates an inauthenticity problem and may risk damaging trust, so the empathy expressed must be genuine. If negotiators do not naturally feel a lot of empathy, they may use techniques to help them reach a place of empathy before or during the negotiation. One study found people who performed a short mindful attention exercise prior to the negotiation claimed more value than their opponent and were more satisfied with the outcome and the process (Jochen Reb & Jayanth Narayanan, 2013). Mindful negotiators may be more aware of their emotional responses, which may allow them to better assess whether or not they should accept an offer. They may also be more likely to reduce mental commentary so that they can truly hear the other party instead of allowing cognitive biases to slip in (Kiken and Shook, 2011).

Conclusion

Perspective taking and empathy are both social competencies negotiators can utilize to ethically create and claim value. Negotiators can avoid ethical pitfalls of each by consciously choosing to employ one or the other. By choosing when to get inside the other person’s head or the other person’s heart, negotiators can remain authentic and build trust. When planning, negotiators should consider when to rely on perspective taking and when to enter a state of empathy. This paper has recommended three strategies for introducing empathy into negotiations, which are to utilize a mediator, rely on individual expressions, and practice mindfulness. Perhaps at the next Friendsgiving, I can share my insights and spark another interesting debate.