Talking Shop
Though less bloody than intergroup strife, business negotiations can turn ugly, too, especially when one party engages in dirty tactics. In an as yet unpublished study psychologist Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University asked mock negotiators to imagine the tactics that the person on the other side of the table would be willing to use—a classic method for fostering perspective taking. What he found was startling: “When you thought about the other person, you were more likely to act unethically,” Galinsky says. Considering a competitor's position even caused negotiators to act unethically toward other people, for example, by lying to an experimenter about how well they performed on a task that was unrelated to the negotiation.
Galinsky believes that the competitive nature of business negotiation may produce a sense of threat, causing perspective takers to disproportionately focus on a rival's nefarious plans to cheat and cajole. This emphasis on others' malicious intent could encourage both sides to employ dirty tactics, especially when they perceive a threatening tone: “When you're in a cold state, perspective taking can warm you to cooperation. But when you're in an inflamed state, thinking about the other person's mind changes perspective taking from the glue that binds us together to the gasoline that worsens the competitive fire,” Galinsky says. This insight could apply to a number of situations in everyday life: circumstances in which people are upset or angry (think marital spats) might make surprisingly bad ground for perspective taking.
Treading Carefully
At first blush, Bruneau's and Galinsky's findings appear bleak. Perspective taking might help friends and colleagues cooperate if they are likely to do so anyway. Just when it is most needed—combative situations in which interpersonal understanding is badly lacking—perspective taking backfires. But the news is not all bad. Bruneau's research suggests a relatively simple way to smooth encounters between warring factions: permit members of the less dominant group to engage in perspective giving first. This work implies that in more commonplace clashes such as those between a student and mentor or an employee and boss, the person in power should make a point of allowing the less dominant individual to feel that he or she is being heard.
For business negotiators, similar framing tactics might help. Negotiations are often perceived as zero-sum: gains for one side must come at a loss to the other. This perception can ramp up the “hot” affective states that render perspective taking most damaging. Negotiations can also be couched as positive-sum, however, in which both parties can potentially gain. For example, a car salesperson and a buyer might have competing goals—pushing a car's price higher or lower, respectively—but they also have the larger, mutual goal of getting a transaction to occur. Focusing on such shared, positive-sum goals might facilitate agreement.
Stepping into another person's shoes is one of the most important aptitudes of humans. It allows us to cooperate on a grand scale and often fuels our desire to guard others' well-being. Yet instead of treating this shift in point of view as a cure-all, understanding its failures can give us a window into social interactions and tell us when—and how—getting inside someone else's head can best help us get along.
See what we're tweeting about
5 Comments
Add CommentI would suggest that as the technique is directed by egoism not altruism, it never actually does anything save bringing subconscious motivation to the surface.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, lets start with "supposed," because actual "weak" and "dominant" -- true or not -- have little to do with the matter. The essential point actually appears to be an underlying (even subconscious) mix of egoistic mix of avoiding pain of guilt and/or pain of fear, and the pleasure of dominance.
When one feels guilty or fearful, there is motivation to truly wish to identify with the source as "being him/her" in a sense relief -- how could I have any sense of guilt or fear regarding myself? As well, pain makes "death" a draw for the ego. As such, what would seem altruistic, temporarily making the other more real at the expensive of my own existence, is really just the balance sheet of pure egoism.
When the motivation is dominance, its a matter of pleasure and the ego draws towards "life." It certainly does not want to identify with the other -- it wants to eat the other alive! The beginning of hunting is study of your prey like the "sympathetic" tyrannosaurus in Jurassic Park who tilted its head to the side in its stare, just before swallowing the object of its "identification" whole.
To this we must understand that at least at the subconscious level, the business people of the second case -- whether from a "dominant" or "weak" company, both were acting to dominate (strengthen the grip or turn the tables, respectively).
Regarding the first case, one must look at the education -- formal and societal -- of a typical Israeli and Palestinian teenager.
The former gets the mixed signal of guilt in terms of Israeli rule over Palestinians in isolation; and fear over terrorism, and potential genocide connected with the Palestinians in the context of the greater Arab and Islamic worlds. So the Israeli teenager is coming from pain of guilt and fear.
The latter gets a signal of Israelis as a conquering enemy in the context of "in the end its going to be either us or them." So the Palestinian teenager is coming from the pleasure of a weak company wishing to dominate/eliminate the strong.
Again, this has nothing necessarily to do with objective reality, even conscious motivations.
In the end, mutual responsibility will be the key to altruism and true happiness. It's not imagining myself as the other and trying to empathize, but rather truly knowing that in this interconnected world, my own happiness/sadness is in that of the other, AS the other.
I agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor eliminating the present problems, conflicts in the world we have to start with education, an education that prepares young and "old" generations for the global, integral world we evolved into, concentrating on our interconnectedness, how much we rely, depend on each other, giving people the means to establish a common space above their differences, cultures, traditions, judgements even hatred, from which common, mutual space we can build a new, united Humanity.
Or maybe the weaker group shouldn't have to listen and try to understand and appreciate the dominant group's position? Should slaves have had to listen to white slave owners talking about how hard their life would be if the slaves were freed? I think it's essentially the same situation in many cases, certainly Israel and Palestine (though I'll admit Indians and settlers might've been a better comparison). Maybe we should educate the dominant group more about what they've done to the subordinate group.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. Works in one direction and not [sometimes] in the other. Why does this stuff seem so obvious when it is pointed out?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I read through the article, I began to notice that a significant element was absent, which affects or can affect the outcomes one might expect. I would imagine that further exploration which incorporates this element will show a more positively homogenous result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisParticularly when the subject matter of shared perspectives is emotionally intense with at least two distinct sides or versions of, or bases for such emotional intensity, whatever result from sharing perspectives may well be similarly intense. And the degree of disparity between emotional intense perspectives (as opposed to merely being different) may also increase the cumulative response results.
As noted in the article, the direction of increase in the emotional context of two differing perspectives, may become what is (initially) noted as being more divergent. However, the additional element of longer time and more inter-perspective sharing between the parties, especially in a cooperation-fostering environment, can lead in useful directions. One is, both parties getting accustomed to the information and perspective to which they were initially reacting, and some related compromises or even changes in each party's own perspectives. Another is further evaluating the benefit of compromise and tolerance versus the pain or detriment of refusing these.
A common example is when people get married. The two parties each have different perspectives, and early on these begin to be noticed more and more as being different than each party's own and as different than the projected positive blending expected. Given enough time, if the parties are genuine in purpose and willing to find a peaceful and workable path to preserve that which is best between them, greater understanding of each other in terms of perspective differences is found. Greater appreciation for the bases for those differences and greater tolerance or willingness to compromise in meaningful ways are also found. While clearly this is not the case with all marriages, the perspective sharing at least offers each the "opportunity" of reevaluating their own perspective, considering the perspective of another more completely, and weighing these in terms of what they want. Some may fly off center wildly, and some may simply agree to disagree and move on. But in the cases of those with both positive and negative results, these aspects of self and another (or others) are brought to the surface from their formerly hidden space. Overall? A good thing I think...with caution to not allow these to become too explosive.