Empathetic assertiveness: piloting tough negotiations 

Even seasoned negotiators can hesitate when addressing sensitive issues in difficult situations. Take the following simulation exercise: participants were tasked with confronting a military commander about serious allegations of sexual violence committed by soldiers under his command at a displaced persons’ site. Despite the gravity of the situation, the negotiator – fearing that a direct confrontation could jeopardize humanitarian access for critical services like food deliveries – softened the message, saying something along the lines of: “Commander, I just want to raise a small issue about a few violations that we heard about.”

In doing so, they unintentionally diminished the severity of the crimes, jeopardizing not only justice for the victims but also undermining their credibility during the negotiation. The military commander likely interpreted the message as referencing unconfirmed rumors of misconduct, rather than serious, substantiated allegations. As a result, the chances that he would take meaningful action became minimal, and he was likely unimpressed that such vague and seemingly minor concerns were even raised to his level of authority.

This raises crucial questions: What went wrong? How could such a sensitive and serious concern have been communicated in a way that maintained both access and integrity?

Effective communication is shaped by a combination of skills, cultural influences, personality traits, and individual confidence. While some people are naturally direct in addressing issues, others may avoid making a clear point. Directness can sometimes come across as harsh or confrontational, while hesitating to speak up can lead to confusion and make you appear weak or indecisive in the eyes of the other party. How can we address sensitive topics openly and honestly without antagonizing the other party and, instead, foster a conversation that leads to a mutually beneficial solution?

In this article, we explore our concept of empathetic assertiveness, which provides guidance on how to communicate effectively in difficult situations at work while maintaining positive, productive relationships.

Assertive vs. submissive communication

Avoiding conflict often leads to submissive communication, which may prevent confrontation in the short term. However, submission comes at a cost: you risk losing your self-respect and the respect of others. People who fear conflict may convince themselves they are simply being patient, but this avoidance can lead to growing frustration over time.

When conflict is acknowledged, it creates an opportunity for productive confrontation. With the right balance of assertiveness, this confrontation can evolve into a negotiation that benefits all parties. However, too much assertiveness can quickly shift the dynamic. If a negotiator becomes overly aggressive or defensive, the conversation can escalate into a standoff, effectively ending the discussion without resolution. The key lies in striking the right balance between assertiveness and empathy: navigating conflict with respect and purpose, asserting your position while simultaneously demonstrating genuine respect for the perspectives of others.

We recognize that the strongest place in any relationship is the combination of empathy and assertiveness, but that is not the same as merely stating your demand and then respectfully holding that position, which is known as “anchoring”.

In our experience, it is often more advantageous to delay asserting your position until you fully understand the other side’s perspective. It may initially feel submissive, but it is actually a strength. By choosing the right moment to present your position, you can shape it in a way that resonates more deeply with the other side.

Applying the “Empathy First, Assertiveness Later” approach asserts your position at the optimum time – when the other party feels heard, understood, and more open to considering perspectives beyond their own, including yours.

Mere assertiveness is not enough in a negotiation

Assertiveness can take many forms, and people often believe that to be perceived as strong, they must make forceful points and assert themselves, sometimes at the expense of acknowledging the other side’s needs. However, assertiveness alone is not enough to navigate complex negotiations; it must be accompanied by an awareness of your own and the other party’s emotional dynamics.

Four emotional states can accompany assertiveness in negotiations:

1. Empathy is the ability to perceive and understand the emotions that others may be feeling. It involves recognising and articulating what you see, hear, and understand, while also considering the surrounding context, which adds depth and value to the connection. Think of it as having an insider’s view into their situation and feelings, without passing judgment.
2. Sympathy occurs when you feel the emotions that the other party is experiencing. You internalize their feelings, often creating a deeper emotional bond, which can naturally lead to offering support or assistance.
3. Antipathy is when you recognize the emotions of others but consciously choose to disregard or ignore them, often as a form of self-protection. This response can arise when you feel overwhelmed by negative emotions or intentionally create emotional distance to maintain objectivity or resilience.
4. Impassivity is when you do not feel any emotional response at all. You may appear indifferent or emotionally detached from others, which can be a sign of emotional disengagement. In extreme cases, this can resemble psychopathy, where emotional connections are absent.

Understanding these emotional stages is crucial in a negotiation, as the way you engage with the other party’s emotions can significantly shape the outcome. Skilled negotiators balance assertiveness with emotional intelligence and empathy to foster productive, mutually beneficial discussions.

The ability to recognize others’ emotions within their specific context is vital in negotiation. When both parties genuinely share an emotion, such as sadness or happiness, the connection formed is often deeper and more meaningful than a simple demonstration of understanding.