Let’s Get a Little Crazy - Emotion as a Negotiation Strategy
If you’ve ever negotiated with a toddler, you already know this: unpredictability moves people. One minute there’s giggling, the next there’s a full sit-in over broccoli. And somehow, you’re the one conceding “Fine, three bites and a cookie.” As funny (and humbling) as that is, the same psychological levers show up at the B2B table, just with fewer chicken nuggets and more enterprise licenses.
A 2013 paper in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology found that emotional inconsistency, strategically alternating between, say, concern and firm disappointment, made counterparts feel less in control and, as a result, more likely to concede. In other words, when your emotional stance isn’t perfectly predictable, your counterpart’s brain works harder to regain control, often by moving toward your position. the University of Bath's research portal
That finding isn’t a license to be erratic or manipulative. It is a prompt to think more deeply about how your emotional signals shape the deal, especially if you lead a sales team or you’re in the room for big numbers.
Why emotions steer deals (and why predictability matters)
Emotions in negotiation aren’t just background noise; they’re data. The Emotions as Social Information (EASI) model argues that people read your emotional displays as signals about your priorities, constraints, and intentions. Your counterpart uses those signals to adjust their own strategy: “She looks genuinely concerned; maybe this timeline really is tight,” or “He’s calm; perhaps there’s more flexibility here.” JSTORScienceDirect
Here’s the twist: if your signals are too consistent, if you’re always smooth, always upbeat, always “no worries!”, your counterpart can forecast you. Forecasts create comfort. Comfort slows movement. The 2013 study tested that by alternating displayed emotions (e.g., measured frustration followed by cooperative warmth). That inconsistency reduced perceived control on the other side, and with lower perceived control came higher compliance and concessions. Columbia Business School
A field story: The CFO who kept moving the goalposts
A sales director, let’s call her Maya, was negotiating a global consolidation with a customer who’d split spend across five tools. The customer’s CFO was mercurial: effusive about savings on Monday, icy about “vendor lock-in” on Wednesday, inquisitive and collaborative on Friday.
Early on, Maya took it personally. Then she reframed it: the CFO’s emotional variability was a tactic that made Maya’s team chase “the right tone,” inching price and terms to restore equilibrium. Once Maya recognized the pattern, she altered her response cadence:
When the CFO was warm, she didn’t rush to reciprocate with concessions; she used the moment to probe for problem depth and internal politics.
When he was stern, she didn’t flood the zone with justifications; she paused, offered a crisp tradeoff (“longer term for lower price”), and then, this is key, returned to neutral faster than he expected.
The result: they closed at her target price, with a longer commitment and a reference clause. She didn’t mirror his swings; she paced and led them.
That’s the takeaway: emotional inconsistency on one side doesn’t obligate you to mirror it. But recognizing it lets you decide when to stabilize the moment and when to invite a little productive uncertainty of your own.
Unpredictable, not unhinged
Let’s draw a bright red line: faking strong emotions (especially anger) can backfire by eroding trust and prompting tougher demands. A separate 2013 paper found that when negotiators feigned anger, counterparts became more demanding, because the display felt inauthentic and signaled opportunism. Translation: counterfeit fury is expensive. ScienceDirect
So what does ethical, effective “managed unpredictability” look like?
Range, not rage. You operate within a bounded emotional range (e.g., concerned - resolute - collaborative) rather than jolting people with theatrics.
Signals tied to substance. Your shifts map to the conversation, not to whim. When scope balloons, you show disappointed resolve. When the customer thoughtfully de-scopes, you show visible relief and re-engagement.
Recovery to calm. You always come back to steady. The surprise is the momentary pivot, not a sustained mood swing.
Under the EASI lens, those momentary pivots are informational nudges: “That request hits a real boundary,” or “This trade genuinely helps us.” Done well, they keep momentum without costing credibility. JSTOR
Power complicates the picture (especially for sales leaders)
If you’re in a position of power, title, budget control, brand dominance, you’re statistically more likely to misread others’ emotions and anchor on your own perspective. That makes your emotional choices blunter and less calibrated. Classic research by Galinsky and colleagues shows that power dampens perspective-taking and even reduces accuracy at reading emotional expressions. The fix is simple but non-negotiable: build deliberate perspective checks into your prep and your live calls. PubMed
Try this cadence:
Pre-brief: “What might they be feeling at each agenda point (pride, exposure, time pressure)?”
Live mirroring (light): Paraphrase the felt concern: “It sounds like the implementation risk sits on your desk.”
Post-deal hygiene: Ask a trusted counterpart what they read in your signals. Calibrate.
Powerful people get the benefit of clarity, not the permission to be opaque. If anything, you owe the room more skill.
Scripted moments of useful surprise
Here are three places to intentionally introduce small, authentic emotional pivots that align with the 2013 findings and keep the deal moving:
The first principled “no.” When a customer asks for a large, non-reciprocal concession, let your face and tone reflect measured disappointment, not anger, followed by a calm, options-oriented reset: “I’m disappointed because that undercuts the economics. If budget is the driver, here are two scoped packages we can do.” You mark a boundary, reduce their sense of control over “just taking,” and invite a constructive move. the University of Bath's research portal
The unexpected appreciation. After a tough exchange, deliberately soften: “I appreciate you pushing there, it surfaced where we actually have room.” The shift from firm to appreciative can restore rapport without surrendering leverage, and the contrast increases salience.
The late-stage safeguard. Near signature, flag one non-price risk with visible concern (e.g., data migration downtime), then offer a tight mitigation plan and visibly relax. That arc; concern → solution → relief, telegraphs competence and care, and subtly nudges the other side to reciprocate with a final concession to “lock safety in.” Under EASI, you’re conveying priorities in a compact, memorable way. JSTOR
Channel and intensity matter
Newer research shows that how you communicate emotions changes their effects. For instance, the impact of expressing anger varies with the communication channel and intensity, video, voice, or text can alter both the economic outcome and the relationship tone. In short: if you must show firmer emotion, do it live and briefly; email is for documentation, not drama. PMC
A practical rule for enablement teams: train reps in channel-appropriate displays. Role-play the same “no” across Zoom, phone, and email. In Zoom, use a 3-second pause and a steady exhale before the boundary. On phone, modulate pace. In email, strip adjectives and lean on structure: Because X, we can’t do Y. To help, here are two Z alternatives.
A 60-second exercise for your next pipeline review
Map three emotions you can authentically deploy (e.g., resolute, concerned, appreciative).
Mark two deal moments where each emotion is appropriate.
Rehearse a pivot line that moves you back to neutral: “Let me step back and look at options,” or “Here’s how we can protect both timelines.”
Assign a spotter. A manager or deal partner watches for over-shoots (“You stayed in ‘concerned’ too long”) and under-shoots (“Your appreciation never landed, try a longer pause.”)
This is not theater. It’s discipline: using emotion as a precise instrument, not a blunt weapon.
Ethics and long games
Could you jack up inconsistency to squeeze a deal today? Probably. Should you? Not if you want referenceability. Remember the counterfeit-anger finding: perceived inauthenticity taxes trust. Your goal isn’t to keep people guessing about who you are, it’s to keep them leaning forward about what matters now. That balance, transparent values, tactically varied signals, is how you win deals and stay invited back. ScienceDirect
The closer
Negotiation is not a logic contest. It’s a meaning contest. Your words set the logic; your emotions set the meaning. When your emotional stance has a measured range, with occasional, intentional pivots, you create movement without mayhem. As the 2013 research shows, a touch of unpredictability can reduce your counterpart’s sense of control and nudge concessions; paired with authenticity and perspective-taking, it’s a powerful, ethical edge. the University of Bath's research portalPubMed
So the next time you enter a high-stakes sales call, bring your numbers and your emotional playbook. Be steady. Be human. And when the moment calls for it, surprise them just enough to move the deal.
