Negotiation assertiveness style and understanding how others perceive assertive behaviours can determine success in bargaining, according to Columbia University’s Daniel Ames and Abbie Wazlawek.

Individuals who apply more assertiveness than required to achieve their goals have less-accurate self-perception than less assertive people, and both groups experience “self-awareness blindness.”

A mismatch between negotiation partners’ ratings of appropriate assertiveness was linked to poorer negotiation outcomes for both parties.

Nearly 60% of negotiators who were rated as appropriately assertive but felt over-assertive (“line-crossing illusion”) negotiated the inferior deals for themselves and their counterparts. 

This finding suggests that disingenuous emotional displays (such as “strategic umbrage” – feigned anger) were associated with a negotiation partner seeking the first acceptable deal. 
This reduces the opportunity to achieve an optimal outcome for both participants.

Negotiators can increase their accuracy in judging their negotiation partner’s impression of their degree of assertiveness in the negotiation, (“meta-perception“) by:

-Participating in 360 degree feedback,

-Increasing skill in listening for content and meaning,

–Considering whether negotiation proposals are “reasonable” in light of alternatives,

-Requesting feedback on reactions to “strategic umbrage” displays to better understand perceptions of “offer reasonableness,”

-Evaluating costs and benefits of specific assertiveness styles.

Over-assertiveness may provide the benefit of “claiming value” in a negotiation but may lead to ruptured interpersonal relationships, according to Jeffrey M. Kern of Texas A&M, SUNY’s Cecilia Falbe and Gary Yukl.

Cultural norms for assertiveness vary across countries. 
In “low context” cultures like Israel, dramatic displays of emotion and assertion are  expected in negotiations.
In contrast, “high context” cultures like Japan, require more nuanced assertiveness, with fewer direct disagreements and fewer “strategic umbrage” displays, according to Edward T. Hall, then of the U.S. Department of State.

Under-assertiveness may minimise interpersonal conflict, but may lead to poorer negotiation outcomes and undermined credibility in future interactions, according to Ames’ related research.

To augment a less assertive style, he suggested:

• Set slightly higher goals,
• Reconsider assumptions that greater assertion leads to conflict,
• Increase proactivity to show respect and improve outcomes,
• Observe outcomes when collaborating with more assertive other people.

To modulate a more assertiveness style:

• Make slight concessions to increase trust with others,
• Evaluate the outcomes when collaborating with less assertive other people.

*How do you match your degree of assertiveness to negotiation situations?

RELATED POSTS:

• How Effective are Strategic Threats, Anger, and Unpredictability in Negotiations?
• Expressing Anger at Work: Power Tactic or Career-Limiting Strategy?
• Anxiety Undermines Negotiation Performance
• Power Tactics for Better Negotiation
• Do You Accept Bad Deals?
• Decision Maximizers, Satisficers and Potential Bias
• “Honest Confidence” Enables Performance, Perceived Power

©Kathryn Welds