The role of emotional intelligence in interest-based negotia

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Frame of references

In this section, previous literature within the research fields is presented. The main theories are emotional intelligence and interest-based negotiation, which originates from seminal work within the areas of inquiry. The theory forms the foundation of the hypotheses development.

Emotional intelligence

Salovey and Mayer (1990) initially identified emotional intelligence as: “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (p.189). This definition has been accused for being vaguely stated and thus, the authors later revised the definition to: “the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotions; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth” (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p.10). The latter definition is embraced in this study.
Some researchers raise criticism towards EQ due to the lack of consensus on the area, but Cherniss, Extein, Goleman and Weissberg (2006) suggest that this is a sign of vitality, rather than a weakness. The authors state that it is unreasonable to expect a concept at this stage in the theory development to be absolute and straightforward. However, several different models are being studied today, bringing scientific evidence to the legitimacy of the concept (Cherniss et al., 2006). George (2000) argues that EQ should, in either way, be acknowledged as a heightened mental ability. Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2008) describe EQ as a vast continuum with different levels, where the fundamental abilities involve perceiving emotions accurately, and the ability to effectively manage emotions is more complex. The upswing of EQ through the theory development of Goleman (1995) has helped shed light on the seminal framework of Mayer and Salovey (1997), which is divided into four categories and further presented below: perception, appraisal and expression of emotion; emotional facilitation; understanding and analyzing emotions; and reflective regulation of emotions.

Perceiving and appraising emotions

The basic ability of perceiving and appraising emotions, which is considered the most fundamental aspect of EQ (Mayer et al., 2008), is developed early in infants and young children (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Goleman (1995) refers to this phase of EQ as self-awareness, characterized by the ability to recognize a feeling or emotion as it happens, and to observe and assess emotions from different moments and situations.
This phase includes the capability to identify emotions in oneself and in others, with regards to physical state, feelings, thoughts, language and appearance (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). According to Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2008), this aspect is associated with recognition and input of information originating from the emotional system. These abilities may develop into skills of accurately expressing emotions and needs, and to correctly discriminate between honest or dishonest, and accurate or inaccurate expressed feelings (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). In example, one individual may easier sense when someone fakes a smile in attempt to seem happy, whereas an individual with lower EQ cannot connect the facial expression to the underlying emotion. George (2000) emphasizes this stage of EQ because receptivity of nonverbal cues is fundamental for discourse and conveyance, and accurately expressing emotions ensures effective communication.

Emotional facilitation

The second aspect of EQ involves facilitation of emotions to assist intellectual processing, i.e. how emotions serve as an alerting system to changes in the individual’s environment (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Mayer et al. (2000) describe this as using emotions to improve cognitive processes. For example, Salovey and Mayer (1990) explain how moods and emotions can be used as a motivation to persist challenging tasks, e.g. as a preparation during tests to perform better by imagining negative outcomes that will motivate additional effort to the task. Emotional facilitation is linked to what Goleman (1995) calls the motivational aspect of EQ, which is described to build on self-awareness, and is the ability to handle emotions to make them appropriate. An individual who is able to use emotions as a facilitator or motivation is more likely to recover quickly from a setback (Goleman, 1995).
The early-developed capabilities of emotional facilitation include the ability to let emotions prioritize thinking by focusing on important issues and information (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). This is exemplified by the authors of an immature child worrying about homework while watching TV, whereas a teacher who worries about next day’s class while watching TV finalizes the work before it takes over the enjoyment. Further, emotional facilitation also include the ability to use emotions as a tool to generate feelings on demand, which Mayer and Salovey (1997) describe as a “theater in the mind”, where emotions are anticipated and experienced in order to understand them accurately. Other aspects of emotional facilitation involve the skills of considering multiple alternatives and perspectives to a situation by utilizing different moods, which increases the ability and encouragement to solve problems through creative options (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). These abilities are, according to Mayer and Salovey (1997), useful in times of uncertainty.

Understanding and analyzing emotions

The third aspect of EQ concerns the ability to cognitively process emotions (Mayer et al., 2000), i.e. to understand and use emotional knowledge (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). It incorporates the ability to label emotions and to find connections among the labels, and to relate the reactions to situations in everyday life (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Later, these skills may develop into abilities of understanding the complexity of feelings, e.g. to feel love and hatred or surprise and fear simultaneously, and also to be able to identify and explain transitions from one emotion to another (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). George (2000) further highlights that this aspect of EQ includes the ability to understand how different stimuli may affect emotions and how emotions may change over time. According to the author, an individual with high EQ has the ability to recognize how the consequences of emotions may differ from individual to individual. To illustrate this, a person who is oblivious to the effects of their feelings, is likely to project their bad mood onto others, contaminating their surrounding and creating a vicious circle (George, 2000).

 Reflective regulation of emotions

To consciously reflect and regulate emotions is the last aspect of EQ and it concerns management of emotions in oneself and in others (Mayer et al. 2000). Even though most people are able to control their feelings, emotional intelligent individuals have the ability to consciously regulate their emotions to meet specific goals (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Salovey and Mayer (1990) also highlight that individuals can regulate their own and other’s moods to charismatically motive people towards beneficial goals, but also to use this ability to manipulate people to please their own interest.
Reflective regulation of emotions is described as the capacity to tolerate and welcome emotional reactions independently of their meaning and significance (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). It can further be developed into the ability of judging the content and usefulness of an emotion and determine whether the emotion should be regarded (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Individuals with high EQ may distinguish a feeling of nervousness from true fear, rather than to acknowledge it as an actual threat. George (2000) refers to this stage as a proactive dimension of EQ as it helps anticipate another individual’s reaction. As the individual matures, these skills develop into the capability to monitor and guide one’s emotions in order to recognize how influential, rational and clear they are, and further, to moderate one’s own and others’ emotions to enhance pleasant ones (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
Emotions are unavoidable in various situations in organizations, especially where conflicting interests meet (Ogilvie & Carsky, 2002). The ability to handle and manage emotions appropriately, i.e. emotional intelligence, will be elaborated below in regards to negotiations.

 Negotiations

Throughout history, decision-making took place at the top of the hierarchical pyramid while opinions of subordinates were neglected (Lewicki et al., 2009). Pasquier, Hollands, Rahwan, Dignum and Sonenber (2010) explain that the traditional view of negotiations is characterized by two or more parties’ effort of making an agreement based on conflicting positions and interests. The parties bargain by exchanging offers until a deal, that is acceptable to both parties, is made. Traditional negotiations, also referred to as position-based negotiations (PBN), are commonly looked upon as a fixed pie, where one party’s gain corresponds to the other party’s loss (Fisher & Ury, 2011). This is in line with the findings of Guillespie, Brett and Weingart (2000), who found that some negotiators perceive a successful negotiation to be one where they obtain the largest piece of the pie.
Pasquier et al. (2010) acknowledge some of the negative aspects of PBN. All relevant information about the situation and the negotiator is assumed to be available and correct. This approach is rather naive as parts of the information never reaches the table, and since opponents rarely know of all the alternatives of the other party. The authors further state that PBN often leads to unacceptable motions being rejected or counter-proposed, hence omitting further discussion. Today however, due to globalization, information and innovation, organizations are decentralizing and one cannot control others or rely on giving orders. Subsequently, one has to integrate all parts of the organization to reach a commonly agreed solution in decision-making processes (Fisher & Ury, 2011).

 Interest-based negotiation

An alternative approach to PBN is interest-based negotiation (IBN). Contrary to PBN, this approach offers creative solutions and increased satisfaction for the stakeholders involved, in terms of substantive, procedural, and psychological outcomes (Katz and Pattarini, 2008). An IBN approach does not emanate a negotiation from a position, but rather initiates the discussion regarding the situation and context to gain an understanding of the interests, perceptions, needs and desires involved (Ridge, 2015).
To put PBN and IBN in perspective to one another, Kolb (1995) tells the story of two chefs disputing over the use of an orange to finalize each of their particular recipes for the President’s dinner. To solve the situation, the chefs compromised by cutting the orange in half. One chef used half the orange to squeeze the juice into a sauce he was preparing, but unfortunately it was not sufficient to make the sauce perfect. The other chef used the second half of the orange to grate the peel to use in his special-made cake. The peel from half the orange was not enough either, but given the situation, what could he have done? To the reader, it may seem obvious that the most beneficial solution would be to use the part they needed of the orange and both chefs would have enough for their recipes. In the given scenario, however, both chefs were focused on each other’s positions, rather than each other’s interests. By reconsidering the scenario from an interest-based perspective, the chefs could have utilized the orange and prepared their recipes in a way that satisfied both of their needs and interests if they had given attention to each other’s interests.
Patton (2005) elaborates on the importance of focusing on interests in negotiations. According to the author, interests are the main drivers in negotiations and serve as measurements to determine the success of negotiations, in other words, to what extent one’s interests are met. Interests enable multiple outcomes to exist, whereas positions have predetermined outcomes and merely represent one out of all possible solutions (Patton, 2005). Similarly, Patton (2005) explains that interests cover a wide range of outcomes, from instrumental aspects of money and goals to guarantees in terms of emotions and desires. In comparison, position refers to the substantive aspects (Patton, 2005). In line with these findings, Katz and Pattarini (2005) and Ridge (2015) also highlight the importance of discovering and evaluating the interests of the opponent to determine which are identical, differing or conflicting, in order to achieve a sustainable solution.
IBN has support for being a favorable approach in negotiations (e.g. Katz & Pattarini, 2008; Thompson, 2006; Fisher & Ury, 2011). Nevertheless, it may be discussed what is considered “better” in terms of negotiation approaches. Ury, Brett and Goldberg (1988) outline three possible criteria to resolve the term “better”. Firstly, transaction costs associated with the time, energy and financial resources spent during a dispute or negotiation. The second criterion involves the level of satisfaction with the outcomes, which subsequently is determined by the degree to which one’s interests are met. The last criterion concerns the recurrence of resolution, i.e. whether the solutions remain. Ury et al. (1988) further discuss the three criteria to intertwine, since failing on one criterion will affect the others, as the different costs are correlated with each other. According to Patton (2005), IBN is a superior approach as it is more beneficial to focus on discussing interests and the variety of solutions rather than accepting the first option as a final outcome. This inhibits quick and uncreative commitments and enables coverage of a wider range of possible solutions. In any way, formal engagements should be stored to the end of the negotiation to avoid disadvantageous concessions (Patton, 2005). Also, instead of making irrational decisions by “splitting-even” and compromising, all outcomes should be well reasoned. A well-reasoned argument strengthens its validity and allows for irrelevant content to be dismissed (Ertel, 1999).
In 1983, Fisher and Ury brought attention to IBN, referring to it as principled negotiation, and developed a set of principles that has become commonly accepted and widely used in further research within negotiations (e.g., Ridge, 2015; Katz & Pattarini, 2008; Leornadelli & Thompson, 2004). The framework includes the following principles: 1. Separate the people from the problem;
2. Focus on interests, not positions; 3. Invent options for mutual gain; and 4. Insist on using objective criteria.

 Separate people from the problem

At times, negotiations are seen as strictly corporate transactions, in which Fisher and Ury (2011) argue that human aspects are unrecognized. However, emotions, egos, different backgrounds, and misunderstandings are integrated in all negotiations and if ignored, it may have a disastrous impact. If negotiators use a PBN approach, relationships tend to get entangled with the substance of the, as increased focus on positions put relationship and outcome in conflict (Fisher & Ury, 2011). The contrary approach, IBN, proposes that the two do not have to be competing variables, but instead, acknowledged and treated as separate issues (Fisher & Ury, 2011). What is referred to as “people-problem” involves perception, emotion and communication aspects, which all have to be taken into account to deal with relationships and substantive issue separately, further presented below (Fisher and Ury, 2011).
Even though there is an objective reality, the issues in negotiations are ultimately observed and interpreted from the different perspective. Thus, one should discuss views and create an understanding of each other’s perceptions without assuming opponents’ intentions to be one’s worst nightmare. This issue also involves emotions, which may be difficult to deal with, e.g. anger, anxiety or fear. Consequently, a negotiator must be aware of how to alleviate and distinguish between emotions of people and the actual issue or dispute. Another major difficulty is poor communication. The authors identify common communication problems, which facilitate the diffusion of relationships and issues. Firstly, disputants may not be talking to each other, but rather to an outside crowd and thus losing focus of the core issue. Secondly, the disputants are not listening to each other, but instead preparing a response while the opponent is putting forward an argument. To actively prevent entangling relationships with the problems through miscommunication, active listening and paying attention can increase understanding of the people involved and their needs, and thus make the negotiations more efficient.
Negotiators should separate people from the problem in the sense that people have feelings and emotions, which can influence the core issue. Consequently, it is important to understand the human beings who are part of the negotiation in order to achieve an optimal outcome. In line with this, Katz and Pattarini (2008) contrast IBN from PBN by claiming position-based negotiators to see each other as a problem, whereas interest-based negotiators see each other as partners and their disagreements as challenges to overcome.

 Focus on interests, not positions

Lewicki et al. (2009) explain that in contrast to IBN, some negotiators try to solve problems through their positions by determining who is right or who has more power. Instead of addressing issues from different positions, i.e. saying what you want, agents should start off by discussing the situation, contexts and perceptions (Ridge 2015). The aim of an IBN approach is to create solutions that meet interests of both parties, whereas position-based negotiators strive to achieve one’s own predetermined solution (Katz & Pattarini, 2008). Lewicki et al. (2009) define interests as needs, desires, fears and things that we essentially care about and the problematic aspect of interests is that they can be intangible, inconsistent or even unconscious. Positions are easier to uncover since it concerns what the agents say they want. Lax and Sebenius (1986) further claim that negotiating agents often try to focus on concrete things that can be bought, sold or put in a contract. In contrast, Fisher and Ury (2011) argue that negotiating parties must find out about each other’s abstract interests, since interests define the problem and the core of the negotiations. To uncover interests, according to Katz and Pattarini (2008), is beneficial because it continuously discloses the priorities of the parties involved, and allow them to develop alternative solutions and encourage a dynamic onward conversation. Yet, to merely identify interests is not sufficient to develop sustainable solutions. To gain a comprehensive understanding of interests and needs, motivators behind those interests need to be determined (Katz & Pattarini, 2008). According to Lewicki et al. (2009), motivators can be revealed by asking “why” questions during negotiations and Katz and Lawyer (1992) suggest two essential skills in order to develop a discussion where underlying interests and motivators can be identified (cited in Katz & Pattarini, 2008). First, reflective listening ensures that the needs are understood and heard, and if handled properly it may increase trust, which in turn may generate in revealed interests. Second, chunking questions is a tool to deepen knowledge of interests and to disclose the reasons behind certain needs. For example, one can fill information gaps and achieve a full and detailed understanding of the situation by asking probing and follow-up questions.

1 Introduction
1.1 Problem statement
1.2 Purpose and research questions
1.3 Delimitations
1.4 Contribution
1.5 Definition of key terms and abbreviations
2 Frame of references
2.1 Emotional intelligence
2.2 Negotiations
2.3 Interest-based negotiation
2.4 The role of emotional intelligence in interest-based negotia
2.5 Hypotheses development
3 Method
3.1 General research method
3.2 Methodology
3.3 Research method
3.4 Method for literature review
3.5 Sample and sampling technique
3.6 Survey
3.6.1 Profile of Emotional Competence
3.6.2 Interest-based negotiations test
3.6.3 Pilot questionnaire
3.7 Method of data analysis
3.8 Criticism of method
3.9 Dependent and dependent variables
3.10 Control variables
3.11 Reliability
3.12 Validity
3.13 Ethical considerations
4 Results and interpretations
4.1 Descriptive statistics
4.2 Assumption of regression analysis
4.3 Hypothesis 1
4.4 Hypothesis 1a  Interpretation of hypothesis 1a
4.5 Hypothesis 1b  Interpretation of hypothesis 1b
4.6 Hypothesis 1c  Interpretation of hypothesis 1c
4.7 Hypothesis 1d  Interpretation of hypothesis 1d
4.8 Interpretation of control variables
4.9 Correlation matrix of EQ and IBN
5 Conclusion
6 Discussion
6.1 Limitations
6.2 Contributions and future research
6.2.1 A new recruitment tool
6.2.2 Educational agenda
6.2.3 Influencing factors
6.2.4 Future research
7 References
Appendix
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT