I kinda feel bad for Mel Gibson and
Tiger Woods (he said whilst evading
flying objects and hostile emails).
I agree they are terrible husbands, have done awful things and have more money than I could imagine
how to spend (although my imagination can
be pretty ambitious if I have some time).
However, there are few people in history who have experienced the unique
sensation of watchinig one’s serious (non-criminal, as of yet)
character defects scrutinized by over a billion people within a 24-hour news
cycle. Neither man was torturing puppies
or attacking old ladies. This is a matter
of broken hearts, not broken laws (again, as of now).
(Update: I've never been very politically correct. My comments above are based on the fact that no charges have been filed against anyone involved. Thanks to DA for pointing out that charges may still be coming for Gibson. When that happens, my opinion may significantly change. In the meantime, I can't make any assumptions about the status of law enforcement investigations.)
What’s intriguing about these
breakups (beyond the obvious) has been the seemingly opposite tactics utilized
by Gibson and Woods in resolving them. Mel's Anger vs. Tiger’s accommodation. Mel’s
rejection vs. Tiger’s rehab. Mel’s accusations
vs. Tiger's apologies. One would suspect that
the public stances Gibson and Woods have taken in these disputes would not be
terribly far from the private positioning at a mediation table. This begs the question, which technique is
more effective?
A study from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology examined the effects of “angry
negotiators” versus “happy negotiators”.
The authors demonstrated that coming to the table angry does in fact
cause the other side to ask for less and give more. However, much to Mel’s chagrin, the research
also indicated that this “angry tactic” only works when the opponent feels low
power in the relationship, had a low need for cognitive closure, or were under
low time pressure. As Oksana heads for “Dancing
with the Stars”, I’m not getting a low-power state of mind.
One must also remember the that
personality and cultural background of the opponent in a negotiation will
heavily alter tactics. An article from
the Association for Psychological Science compared European American and Asian/Asian
American reactions to anger in negotiations.
The study found that “appropriate” anger during negotiations caused
large concessions from both European American and Asian/Asian American
opponents. However, “inappropriate”
anger caused the Asian/Asian American negotiators to significantly reduce their
level of concession and increase impasse. This begs the question, what is the “appropriate”
level of anger of Elin Nordegren to display towards Mr. Woods?
It would be easy to imagine Tiger
empathizing with Elin’s plight, but research out of Psychological Science suggests this is not a good idea for achieving a favorable
settlement. They discovered that it is
far more helpful to focus on the other side’s logical perspective and goals,
rather than their emotional state of mind.
As one of the study’s authors put it:
“Negotiators give themselves an advantage by thinking about what is
motivating the other party, by getting inside their head… Perspective-taking
gives you insights into how to structure a deal that can benefit both parties.
But unfortunately in negotiations, empathizing makes you more concerned about
making the other party happy, which can sometimes come at your own expense.”
Interestingly, there is further
research that supports the theory of keeping focused on your own emotions. Another article from Psychological Science asked people to play “the ultimatum game” and try to find the most beneficial
settlement that both parties could accept.
The results established that emotional self-talk significantly
influenced negotiated outcomes. The
study concluded that those who were primed to “trust their own emotions” fared
much better in resulting agreements than those who did not give themselves
confidence building pep talks.
So, what is the answer? If you sit down at the table too angry it may
shut the other side down. If you sit down
at the table too happy it may get you fleeced.
If you try to empathize with your opponents then you may lose your own
perspective, but empathizing with yourself is an odd path to victory.
Honestly, as a current
litigation consultant and former mediator I have not yet found the silver
bullet for negotiating conflict.
However, I will leave with a favorite quote from Lance Morrow to aid Mel
and Tiger on their search for settlement:
“Never forget the power of silence, that massively disconcerting pause
which goes on and on and may at last induce an opponent to babble and backtrack
nervously.”
If you can master the skill of silence, the world is your oyster.
Blogger: Matt McCusker
