Using Tactical Empathy and Effective Silence to Negotiate an Outcome

Simulation – Role playing exercise negotiation skills assessment
Role Playing Exercise
Introduction
Relationships are crucial in any negotiation—in fact they are the bedrock of negotiation, as there can be no negotiation without first establishing the foundation of relationship. The relationship need not be identical to friendship, but it must be workable and rooted in respect. In the role playing exercise “Lost at Sea,” the items listed in Appendix A were ranked in order of importance, with 1 being the most important and 15 being the least important to a group of sailors lost in a life raft at sea after their ship had sunk. The fishing kit has been ranked most important, for instance, because it was viewed as a means of obtaining food for the group. The rum was ranked least important because it would only dehydrate and dull the senses. Among a group of sailors, the captain should have the most voice when making a decision about determining what items are most important, and just because the ship has sunk does not mean the captain has gone down with it. However, assuming that everyone on the life raft has equal status and rank, the need to negotiate which items are most important has to be considered.
Dealing with Conflict
In any negotiation there will be conflict. Conflict is the result of individual parties wanting different or opposing things. Conflict theory can help to explain conflict especially in light of negotiation, as it is based on the idea of Marx and is predicated on the notion that society is engaged in a continuous struggle that comes about as a result of there only being a finite supply of resources. From this seed, conflict theory emerged in sociology in response to structural functionalism, which posits that society functions as a result of various groups and organizations working together in a stable and functioning manner (Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2017). However, the stability is but one face of society, in conflict theory—the other face being one of conflict. There are those who conform and those who do not. There are those who accept integration even if it means subjugation and those who do not because they see themselves as valid and as having value that is being denied them by the powers of the ruling class.
The key to reducing the risk of conflict is to be mindful of the ways in which conflict is exacerbated. The strategy therefore is to adopt a cooperative strategy and to avoid attribution, i.e., the practice of attributing fault to others. For instance, if one group member wants to rank the rum as most important, instead of dismissing that person and attributing ignorance to him and thus setting off a powder keg of emotions likely inflamed by the stress of the situation, it is better to acknowledge the person’s thoughts and feelings and agree that, yes, the rum is important, but for now we should focus on nourishment and what items can help us to survive if we should be stranded out here longer than for what our meager rations will sustain us. Cooperation is what will help most in this negotiation as everyone is literally in the same boat. It would not be helpful to adopt a competitive strategy or a defensive strategy, which would put others on the offensive. Cooperation is best here because a favorable outcome relies on recognizing that any decision must be viewed as a win-win for all sides. Dismissing the needs of others will not help anyone—thus, if one party sees the rum as valuable it must not be dismissed as having no value because clearly it does to another. The key to cooperation is to acknowledge, understand, and communicate using reason to help to try to put focus on where it is most essentially needed.
Understanding expectancy violations theory is helpful, too. In this type of situation there is going to be a lot of blame going around and people are going to have expectations and those expectations will be crushed. So instead of ratcheting up hurtful words that reveal the extent to which someone has been wounded by having expectations denied, it is better to again demonstrate empathy and to do this by listening and repeating back to others what they have said. This shows acknowledgement and allows everyone to proceed without judgment.
Escalation of words and feelings is to be avoided as a strategy whenever possible. Calm use of reason and empathy are the tools that will help most in this type of setting and negotiation. The more reasonable all parties can be, even though the stakes are high, the better the outcome will be. The use of social and emotional intelligence in the negotiation is thus essential, as it helps one to see what the triggers of others are, and what words, attitudes, expressions, behaviors and body language is likely to cause a blow-up.
The competitive stance we take when viewing negotiation as a competitive environment often undermines one’s own advantage and puts the negotiating partner on the defensive or offensive. Instead of working together to get to “yes,” the two become embattled in a bitter zero sum game in which each member sees the other as trying to literally sink his battleship (Fisher & Ury, 1991). In this situation, the reality must be made clear: everyone’s ship has been sunk and now the only way out is to work together as a team, setting egos aside, and identifying the most important steps that need to be take up front.
Trust-Relationship-Communication
Trust is important in the negotiation process because both sides have to know that they can believe what the other is saying. If one side feels the other may go back on his word or not follow through on promises made, the process of negotiation will be undermined. Trust can be built by 1) understanding trust, 2) monitoring one’s reactions, 3) addressing concerns, and 4) showing appreciation to others by saying “thank you” (Combs, Harris & Edmondson, 2015). Understanding trust means showing empathy and concern for others. Leaders who do this will demonstrate that they truly care about their workers by asking about them, how their weekend was, etc. Monitoring reactions refers to being in control of one’s self, one’s tones, one’s actions, one’s body language at all times because one knows that one is on a stage and always in the spotlight and must be careful not to give others a bad impression. Addressing concerns refers to not ignoring problems or failing to act when the time to act comes. Showing appreciation refers making sure that other stakeholders know that their hard work is not going unnoticed by others. Building trust ties into building collective efficacy in terms of everyone being on the same page and having a sense of respect for everyone else. No one feels slighted or underappreciated and, as a result, everyone works hard to perform well and achieve the goals of the group.
Leadership can play a part in the negotiation practice if it is thought of as an influence process. In general, Lunenburg (2012) states that leadership is an influence process, meaning that what are often referred to as leadership styles—such as transformational, transactional, servant, democratic, or authoritarian leadership—are really simply influence processes that leaders engage in to varying degrees so as to positively affect their teams and workplaces and aid in the negotiation involved whenever two or more people are coming together to achieve an outcome that is positive for all. Singh-Sengupta (1997) has also argued that leadership styles are merely influence processes in which various interpersonal influences are used to motivate or to communicate with others to facilitate effective outcomes. Self-actualization is sometimes identified as the goal of leadership, and is identified by Maslow (1943) as the pinnacle of the hierarchy of needs—i.e., the goal motivators should seek to help individuals to reach so that they are inherently self-motivated. Being self-motivated in the negotiation process can help to ensure a more effective mindset for communication, supportiveness, empathy, and trust-building. If one is not motivated to succeed or to build trust, relationships will not develop and the negotiation will get nowhere. Trust has to be demonstrated, even if one is only doing it for the sake of developing esteem in the other person. It is a show of respect that must be made. Other influence processes, however, include direct decision-making and understanding the best way for allocating resources, (Brown & Trevino, 2014). Establishing credibility and utilizing expert power or referent/charismatic power are other ways to build trust and influence the relationship development process.
In the meeting, the whole team participated and there was no breaching of argreement. Everyone communicated respectful and used reason, demonstrating trust all along the way. In a real world situation, however, it is likely there would be much more stress and pressure to deal with, which would mean that a person would have to demonstrate a high level of social and emotional intelligence in order to facilitate the negotiation. Negotiation techniques used here included listening, acknowledging, clarifying and justifying, and engaging in situational awareness. Situational awareness was by far the most important aspect of the negotiation process used in this simulation because of the fact that the situation was dire and it meant everyone had to be on their best behavior or it could be the difference between life and death. With the stakes so high, situational awareness helped everyone to keep the right perspective.
Intra-Team Dynamics
Frustration did not occur but it in the real world situation it most likely would, as issues of influence and persuasion would become pronounced as interests began to grow or clash with other groups. The only problem with this simulation was that preparation could have better. Some did not know the purpose of a sexton, or why the shaving mirror might actually come in handy. This led to discussions that could have been avoided had they been addressed earlier and had everyone done his homework, so to speak, and understood why certain items would be effective in prolonging one’s life.
Decision making was not done in the democratic style but rather by a leader organically appearing to direct the negotiation process. Tactical empathy and effective silence were used by the leader to show that he had the calm spirit and command over self needed to marshal both his own feelings and the passions of others in the right direction, i.e., towards a resolution. Authoritative leadership was displayed and is known as visionary leadership for a reason: it commands the respect of others and shows to others that one has the principles, passion, power, discipline, vision, and confidence to lead and to get the job done. The authoritative leader presents himself as the example for others to follow, but he also takes the time to explain what he is doing and how he is doing it. The Authoritative leader is different from the autocratic leader in that the latter mainly gives orders (which are needed) without giving the example in his own person of what to do. Thus, when one member of the negotiation sought to be an autocratic leader, he was generally ignored, while the authoritative leader demonstrated in his own person what it means to have the kind of bearing and presence of mind needed to facilitate trust building, respect, communication, and resolution. The Authoritative leader sets the stage for how to act by leading the way personally. Situational leadership is another style of leadership that focuses on adapting to the needs of the environment and to the issues of the particular group. Situational leaders have to be good at communicating, and they have to be flexible and capable of identifying the needs of any given situation quickly and thoroughly. In this situation, the authoritarian leader also showed situational leadership skills and thus quickly became the decision maker behind whom everyone could rally with confidence.
Conclusion
Relationships were highly valued during this simulation as it was implicitly understood by all that only a cooperative strategy would help to see the negotiation process through to an effective resolution. If disputes arose, they were quickly settled through the application of tactical empathy and effective silence. Situational awareness was used and trust was built by showing respect to all, acknowledging what others were saying, and never dismissing anyone’s argument or reasons as silly. Instead, justifications and clarity were given for why some items had more immediate and lasting importance than others. Because relationships were valued most highly—even above the items—there was never any thought of escalating the situation or creating conflict. Conflict was avoided by avoiding attribution and being mindful and appreciative of others expectations and personal needs.
References
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2014). Do role models matter? An investigation of role
modeling as an antecedent of perceived ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 587-598.
Combs, J. P., Harris, S., & Edmonson, S. (2015). Four Essential Practices for Building
Trust. Educational Leadership, 72(7), 18-22.
Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to Yes. NY: Penguin.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2012). Power and leadership: An influence process. International
Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-9.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4),
370.
Ritzer, G. & Stepnisky, J. (2017). Modern sociological theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Singh-Sengupta, S. (1997). Leadership: A Style or an Influence Process. Indian Journal
of Industrial Relations, 265-286.



Appendix A
Items Ranked in Order of Importance from 1 to 15

8___ Sextant
6___ Shaving mirror
5___ Five-gallon can of water
10___ Mosquito netting
2___ One case of basic food intake
11___ Maps of the Pacific Ocean
12___ Seat cushion (flotation device approved by the Coast Guard)
4___ Small transistor radio
13___ Two gallon can of oil gas mixture
14___ Shark repellent
7___ Twenty feet of opaque plastic
9___ Fifteen feet of nylon rope
3___ Two boxes of chocolate bars
15___ Puerto Rican rum
1___ Fishing kit