ACTIONS: Is Head Better than Heart in Negotiations?

A group of MBA students participating in three studies on negotiations were given a task: A gas station is for sale. The sellers and the buyers have compatible interests, but the sellers’ minimum price is higher than the buyers’ limit. MBA student “buyers” were to negotiate a creative solution to close the deal.
In the first study, buyers were given no instructions about negotiating tactics, but a week after their negotiation, they completed personality inventories to determine whether they were perspective-takers (who used their heads to figure out their seller’s viewpoint) or empathizers (who connected emotionally). Results: Perspective-takers reached a deal more often and paid a lower price than empathizers.
In a second study, buyers were given one of three instructions prior to their negotiations: understand what sellers were thinking (perspective taking), understand what sellers felt (empathy), or focus on their own role (control group). Again, perspective-takers secured the most agreements and paid less for the gas station. In the last study, participants negotiated a job hire, and once again the perspective-takers created more value and earned significantly more points for themselves than controls or the empathizers (who had the lowest score).
“Unfortunately in negotiations, empathizing makes you more concerned about making the other party happy, which can come at your own expense,” concluded researcher Adam Galinsky, Ph.D., of the Kellogg School of Management.
And the moral of this story? If you’re an S&H reader whose head is working in conjunction with your heart, and you’re in negotiations with a head-centered MBA, your goal might be to understand — and even empathize with — this heart-less perspective and make your decisions accordingly. After all, at the end of their paper, Galinsky et al. did accede that although empathy was generally less useful than perspective-taking, its benefits could emerge over time.

Betsy Robinson