Union negotiations are emotionally and physically taxing for organization leaders.  They tap into underlying fears and frustrations and can activate the leaders’ threat response system.  This biological response is there to keep us alert and ready to act, but it can also cause our perceptions to become distorted, and we can make decisions and take actions that are not strategic.  Knowing that instinctively, most leaders work hard to stay calm.  In negotiations, which can drag on for months, this takes a toll.  So much so that the aftereffects linger far beyond the contract settlement, with negative impacts on the individuals and the organization.  

Research has shown that integrative [also called interest-based] bargaining is less adversarial and less triggering than traditional bargaining.  The training and conduct of this style of negotiating emphasize collaborative behaviors and empathy, both of which will reduce the threat response.  Moving toward these practices is an important step to making negotiations less painful and more generative.  However, even in integrative bargaining, and especially in traditional bargaining, feelings remain close to the surface.  Leading a nonprofit through negotiations requires practicing self-awareness and self-management at a high level.   This article explores why leaders have emotional and physical reactions to negotiations and links to additional writings on how to prepare effectively. 

The Feelings Are Real

On the surface, bargaining is a technical and legalistic process, not an emotional one.   If you look more closely, however, you will see that feelings play an outsized role in how things go.  This is happening to all the parties involved, which escalates the stakes.  When caught in the grip of an emotional reaction, leaders are more likely to make mistakes, overreact, shut down, or misinterpret signals.  

The body’s reaction to danger is outside our conscious control and sometimes outside our awareness.  When the feeling center of the brain senses a threat, the slower-moving thinking part of the brain comes in to interpret what is going on.  Because we are wired to give more credence to threats than safety, we may ignore opportunities to de-escalate and focus on the potential danger.  This means that when our emotions are activated, our thinking is inclined to justify our feelings, not to calm us down.  This is why the lead negotiator may continue on an unstrategic path, even after the immediate physical reaction has subsided.  

Five Key Concerns

In their book “Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate,” authors Daniel Shapiro and Roger Fisher assert that emotions are always present in negotiations.  At times, emotions actively sabotage progress, and at other times, they help move things forward. Ignoring them is not an option; they are best understood and managed.  In their research, the authors discovered that emotions in bargaining are a result of feeling affirmed or denied in one or more of five key areas of concern:

• Appreciation: Feeling that one's contributions are valued. 

• Affiliation: Feeling a sense of connection or belonging. 

• Autonomy: Having a sense of control over one's own situation. 

• Status: Feeling that one's position is respected. 

• Role: Feeling that one's role is clear and meaningful. 

Although we all have these needs, we each have our own set of weights and measures.   Based on our lived experience, some are more important to us than others.  Reflecting on when you are most likely to be upset or feel affirmed, which of these would you say matters to you?   Which might feel threatened during negotiations?  Which have you observed impacting those around you?

The Role of the Culture of Conflict 

In many nonprofit organizations, there is a strong culture of politeness and conflict avoidance. This can show up in negotiations or be overridden by an outside negotiator with a different style.   Either way, knowing that your organization has unwritten rules about conflict helps you surface and work through areas of concern, like those listed above.  Union negotiations are an opportunity to improve your organization’s culture of conflict.    There are ways to talk honestly and directly about hard things while also respecting the humanity of the people involved.  

Labor negotiations give a specific form to the “us vs. them” dynamic that might already exist in the organization’s culture.  It can surface as management vs. staff, or exacerbate generational, racial, gender, or political divides.   This is one way that the brain works to “other” people in a conflict.  We turn the differences into value-laden judgments that allow us to feel righteous in our positions.  When the other side is polarizing or antagonistic, it feels natural to mirror that back. Mirroring divisive behavior is counterproductive.  You can maintain a boundary as management while continuing to seek connection and common ground.  

Lastly, if your organization's culture includes gossiping, this is a tempting way to manage emotions stirred up in bargaining.  Venting with colleagues feels satisfying, but comes at a cost.  As you justify your “side”, you not only forgo empathy and listening, but you also reinforce differences and lengthen the time it takes to move through the distortion field.  It is possible to affirm that a comment or email was difficult to hear, without dropping into the personal and harmful aspects of gossip.

Do Not Act when Activated!

Self-protection can elicit powerful reactions that derail even our best intentions. It can make listening hard, shut down opportunities for connection, and obscure common ground. When we’re emotionally activated, we’re more likely to lean on biases—like confirmation bias, proximity bias, and stereotypes.   This is because we feel an urgent need to judge whether we’re safe, and so our brain uses these unreliable shortcuts to quickly assess the level of danger.

Self-protective emotions set off what is known as a conditioned response.  This is a deeply patterned behavior that we have developed over time to protect us from harm.  A conditioned response might be to shut down, to blame yourself, or to get angry at others.  It is so automatic that we might not even feel like we have a choice.  As we begin working to improve our handling of stressful situations, it is important to be able to recognize a conditioned response and realize that it is possible to choose a different reaction.  

Acting on your feelings can feel good in the moment, but it usually does not have the impact that you would choose if you were grounded in your purpose.  On the other hand, holding in your emotions does not mean you are free of them.  Your thoughts still race, making it difficult to listen and respond thoughtfully.   Whether you lash out or freeze up, you are unlikely to have the emotional bandwidth to take in the staff’s perspective —and empathy is one of your greatest assets at the bargaining table. You are more likely to see your choices as win or lose, and will be less creative and generative in finding ways to move negotiations forward.  

Fortunately, negotiations are set up to facilitate pausing.  You can call for a caucus, offer to get back to them at the next meeting, or simply take a break.  If you are the lead negotiator, be sure to have someone in the “second chair” who you can turn to for help.  As you develop your ability to reframe and process the activating situations, you may find you have the grounding to respond strategically and intentionally.  Until that time, use the process to give yourself the time you need.  

Summary

Labor negotiations are full of potential antagonism and risk, even in the nonprofit world.  Biologically, we’re wired to react emotionally to danger because doing so creates the energy we need to protect ourselves.  However, those reactions can shape our perceptions and cloud our judgment.  At the same time, in the dominant culture, we are rewarded for suppressing our emotions and trusting our intellect. The result is we underestimate how much we are influenced by our emotions and overestimate our ability to think and respond logically during heightened stress. As a result, we are unable to accept and process how we are feeling and respond from a place of centered calm.  

Our best advice to the Executive Director at the top of this essay is the following: 

1. Internally scan for both physical and emotional reactions consistent with a threat response.   

2. Notice what was said or done that may have activated your nervous system.   

3. Name what it is you are feeling and see if you can connect it to an unmet need.  For example, “I am feeling disrespected because of the lack of appreciation for what I have done for this organization.”

4. Remember, “Do to Act when Activated.”  If a response is needed.  Take a pause to breathe, move, reset, or in other ways metabolize the physical and emotional activation before deciding on the next action.

Citations:

 Daniel Shapiro, Roger Fisher, “Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate,” (2006) Harvard Negotiation Project.

 Dan and Chip Heath, “Switch: How to Change when Change is Hard,” (2010) Broadway Books.

This emotional takeover has been called an ‘amygdala hijack,’ after the small part of the brain that scans for threat. It evolved in early humans to protect us from physical danger.   If you’ve ever experienced a “jump scare” in a movie or real life,  you have felt that system in action.  That is useful for falling rocks and saber-tooth tigers, but today,  when danger can come in the form of a PDF, that shot of adrenaline can be destabilizing.  Dan and Chip Heath call this phenomenon “the elephant and the rider,” with the elephant being embodied emotions and the rider being our logical mind.  The rider thinks they are steering the elephant, but when the beast wants to go in a different direction, the rider is powerless to stop them.

When negotiations heat up, both sides firmly believe their side is rational and the other side is not.  They may even characterize their position in moral terms,  making it difficult to compromise.  Often, the first and most important step to right-sizing an emotional response is to acknowledge to yourself that you are feeling it.  And the second step is to understand that you need a pause.