Negotiating with Your Nemesis

Barbara Gray is a Professor of Organizational Behavior and Director of the Center for Research inConflict and Negotiation at The Pennsylvania State University, 408 Beam Business AdministrationBuilding, University Park, PA 16802. Email: [email protected]. Dr. Gray has been studying organizationaland international conflict and negotiation processes for over twenty five years. She has authored orcoauthored three books as well as numerous journal articles. She is currently leading the Interuniver-sity Consortium on the framing of intractable environmental conflict.

0748-4526/03/1000-0299/0 © 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation Negotiation Journal October 2003 299

In Theory

Negotiating With Your Nemesis

Barbara Gray

The assumption that negotiators can and should eradicate emotions fromnegotiating is unrealistic. Instead, effective negotiators know how to han-dle emotional outbursts including how to respond when the othernegotiator evokes their “nemesis.” A “nemesis” is the hidden part of our-selves that we project onto others who push our hot buttons. Whenemotions are intense, understanding the possibility that you may be givingor receiving a projection can help you sidestep escalatory behavior. Thisarticle explores the concept of the nemesis and offers practical steps for con-fronting it as well as responding to others’ emotions at the negotiatingtable.

In the middle of a negotiation how often do you find yourself becomingemotionally entangled in the proceedings? Perhaps you are angered becausethe other party has made a ridiculous offer or an insulting comment or exas-perated because you cannot seem to get a word in edgewise? Negotiationscan easily get one’s dander up, make your blood boil or cause you to burnwith shame. They frequently engender strong feelings by one or more par-ties, and often the expression of strong emotions by one party (e.g. anger,

300 Barbara Gray Negotiating With Your Nemesis

resentment, disapproval, incredulity) triggers an equally strong—or evenstronger—reaction by their counterpart.

Consider these comments from negotiators:

“We don’t have many conflicts, but when there are clearly differ-ent opinions it can grow into one. We start with a normaldiscussion, then voices are raised a little and words become moreaggressive. A few people stop contributing. I stay in, and, in myopinion, I’m behaving perfectly, but I’m not saying I don’t raisemy voice. I do get angry at times.”

“There is a tension between Bill and Sam. They were thick asthieves in the beginning. Then something happened last year—afalling out. In public they put on a good show—they don’t dis-agree in meetings—but behind the scenes they are not confidentor close. Still, it’s very difficult to be in the same room with them.The tension is palpable.”

“The other negotiator kept insisting that we meet. After awhile Ibegan to get irritated at having to continually meet just to reas-sure her that everything was going all right. Pretty soon thisbegan to affect my attitude toward the other side, and my willing-ness to cooperate plummeted.”

“Either you have an organization where you can say what youthink or not—and not be afraid of consequences. One key admin-istrator, Linda, when asked for her opinion by Paul (the CEO),expressed it freely and then received a lot of criticism from Paulafterwards. Paul told me afterwards, ‘Maybe she doesn’t belonghere.’ The suggestion was she was a malcontent. But Linda per-ceived it as a threat. And, it’s a shame because she’s one of thebest we have. It’s resulted in a morale issue. People believe thatspeaking freely means getting called in and dressed down by Paul.Therefore, no one will talk.”

“I went into the negotiation ready to make some concessions. ButI didn’t getting any concessions from my counterpart. Conces-sions are supposed to indicate acknowledgment of the other’slegitimacy. I began to feel my confidence erode. I felt intimidated,as if we were not on the same level, that I was inferior. Eventhough I had more experience, I felt a lot of anxiety and a senseof inadequacy; then I realized I had felt this even before the nego-tiation began.”

“When Marcus gets on his high horse, he becomes very dismis-sive. It just makes my blood boil. It gets so that I can no longerthink straight—and all I want to do is deck the guy.”

In all of these situations, someone is suppressing feelings that effect thecurrent or ongoing negotiations between them—feelings that distract themfrom dealing effectively with the substantive problems they face. Whennegotiations get derailed this way, they can have lasting corrosive effects on

Negotiation Journal October 2003 301

interpersonal relations and on organizational morale and performance (Frost2002).

Despite the prevalence of emotion in negotiation, much of the conven-tional wisdom suggests that emotions have no place at the bargaining table.Fisher and Ury (1991: 62) stress leaving emotions out of negotiations. Theywrite, “Emotional involvement on one side of an issue makes it difficult toachieve the detachment necessary to think up wise ways of meeting theinterests of both sides.” Many self-help books on negotiation go so far as tosuggest that emotions should be suppressed to prevent the deliberationsfrom getting out of control.

I find such advice to be counterproductive for training good negotia-tors. It suggests that one can easily stuff their own emotional reactions in abox and that, by doing so, it is possible to defuse or “contain” the reactionsof one’s counterpart. It is true that escalation requires a response to an initialprovocation (e.g. a threat for a threat) and that, if one does not respond inkind, it may be possible to prevent the conflict from spiraling out of control.However, ignoring the emotion is no guarantee that escalation will beavoided. Moreover, the assumption that emotions can easily be swept off thetable is not realistic. Even when emotions are repressed, they find expres-sion in non-verbal expressions, tone of voice or constriction of flexibility inoffers or concessions. Like energy, emotions cannot be destroyed. How thenshould good negotiators handle emotions in negotiations?

It is my contention that an effective negotiator can handle whateveremotions arise in themselves or those expressed by their counterpart(s). By“handling emotions” I mean that they can remain centered, feel their ownemotions and communicate them appropriately and still acknowledge theother’s feelings. Negotiators need to be able to stay centered in such circum-stances and respond effectively to the emotional outbursts while also notlosing sight of the substance of the negotiation. In the words of organiza-tional consultant, Leopold Vancina, this requires “the ability to stay in touchwith the total reality, as it is being constructed through interactions. Thetotal reality can be defined as containing the task of the negotiation andwhat working on the task invokes in me and in my counterpart.” This, how-ever, is a tall order and not only requires insight into what causes emotionsbut a certain degree of comfort with emotional expression.

On the interpersonal level, when you are negotiating with someonewho pushes all your emotional “hot” buttons, it’s important to step back andtry to understand what’s going on. Someone who can cause an elevation inyour internal thermometer is worth attending to closely. I refer to theprocess of confronting these emotions in negotiations as “negotiating withyour nemesis.” A nemesis, according the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is a for-midable and, usually, victorious rival. While, at first blush, our nemesisappears to be our counterpart, we will see that this enemy who appearsexternal to us is really within us and can undercut our own effectiveness as anegotiator.


Understanding Our Own Emotional ReactionsConsider the interaction between John and Jane in Figure 1. John isextremely angry, and is shouting at Jane and putting her down. Jane sees himas belligerent; her conscious voice reports, “I don’t like him. He’s so belliger-ent.” John is provoking Jane and evoking her nemesis.

Figure 1The Anatomy of an Argument

HE’SANGRY

HER PROJECTION:“He’s belligerent”

When we encounter our nemesis, the focus of our attention is usuallyon the behavior of the provocateur. But this is not where we should concen-trate our attention. Although doing so seems to be standard operatingprocedure for many of us in our personal relationships (“If only my partnerwould change his/her behavior…”), it is a futile activity unless you areextremely powerful. Even if you can coerce them to change, it’s unlikelythey will internalize the new response and permanently adapt to suit yourneeds (Kelman 1975).

When your hot button has been pressed, instead of trying to changeyour negotiating partner (whether it be your spouse or a business associate),you should start by trying to understand yourself and your reaction. To gaininsight into your response, it is important to label the feelings that are gener-ated within you and to understand their source. The following steps canhelp you to do this.

1. Label their behavior (to yourself). Acknowledge to yourself thattheir behavior is disturbing, distasteful or even despicable, if you feel a needto label it. Indeed, the way they have chosen to express their emotions maybe immature, counterproductive, or even hurtful. But your task is to separatethe emotion from its form of expression.

2. Label your own feeling. Take the time to allow yourself to notice andexperience whatever you are feeling. If you have a strong reaction, you may

Jane’s consciousvoice says: “I don’tlike him. He’s so

belligerent.”

Her subconscious voice says: “I don’tlike myself when I’m belligerent.”


want to ask for a short pause in the negotiation, so you can step away, allowthe feeling to register, sort out what it is and let off steam or compose your-self, as necessary. While you can’t change the other person’s behavior, youare in charge of your own behavior so you do have some leverage here.However, to change your behavior you first need to know what’s going oninside of you (Goleman 1998). And, you need to be reasonably “comfort-able” with your own emotionality.

3. Step outside your comfort zone. Accepting our own and others’emotional expression often puts us outside of our comfort zone. This is thefirst manifestation of your “nemesis.” Handling the emotional as well as thetask components of negotiating is often upsetting. Working with this “totalreality” in the midst of the negotiation, can stir some additional emotionswithin us.

For many of us, working at this emotional level may seem like we arebreaking one or more unspoken rules. These rules may be prohibitions wehave learned against showing emotion or acknowledging another person’sfeelings (for fear they will feel justified in escalating their expression ofthem). Such emotional work may also arouse our own anxiety. Anxiety mayarise from: 1) anticipating the consequences or reactions of our counterpartto our breaking these rules; (2) our own perceived ineptitude in communi-cating at a feeling level; and/or (3) our perception that we are violatingsocial norms. The latter may be especially true in settings where emotionalexpression is typically suppressed.

Callister, Gray, Schweitzer, Gibson, and Tang (2003), for example, foundthat many organizational contexts (such as social work organizations andhealth clinics) have explicit norms prohibiting the overt expression of angerwhile others (such as labor organizations or surgery units) encourage or atleast expect and tolerate anger release. It is also likely that status and genderexpectations influence how comfortable we feel expressing our anger inorganizations. When our own and the organization’s propensities are to sup-press feelings, our resolve to deal constructively with these emotions mayquickly disappear.

To overcome these barriers, you first need to recognize them, acknowl-edge how they are fueling your resistance to addressing the originalemotional outburst, and tell yourself that such reactions are normal underthe circumstances (Adler, Rosen and Silverstein 1998). Here, the support of athird party may be helpful; choose someone you can entrust to establish asafe, constructive climate for pursuing the negotiation.

4. Identify and examine the assumptions that lead to your emotionalreaction. Feelings usually arise when an assumption that we hold is violated.For example, a negotiator who expects his or her counterpart to use thesame standards of fairness may feel extremely discouraged or angry if theother party makes much smaller concessions than he/she does. Thesesmaller concessions violate the negotiator’s assumption that fairness equateswith making concessions of equal size. Once this assumption is unearthed,


consider when it might not be true. For example, if your opening offerplaced the other party much closer to their reservation point than you wereto yours, they would have good reason to offer smaller concessions. The dis-crepancy between your original assumption and this revised one creates anarea for further examination in the negotiation.

5. Express your feelings appropriately. This approach exemplifies whatKolb and Williams (2000) call making a countermove, one that turns thenegotiation away from your defensiveness and establishes your feelings andmotives as legitimate instead. In the above example, you might say, “I feelrather discouraged at the moment because I have made more concessionsthan you. I had expected a more equal quid pro quo, and am disinclined toreach an agreement unless this disparity shifts. How can you justify thisinequity?” Explaining your own feelings and the interests that accompanythem can help to keep the focus on principles (Fisher, Ury and Patton 1991),signal to the other side your interest in fairness, and ensure that your inter-ests get a hearing.

Dealing with Shadow DynamicsIn some negotiation circumstances, the expression of strong emotions byone party may reflect the presence of “shadow” dynamics at work (Jung1963; Harding 1964; Zweig and Abrams 1991). Our shadows consist of char-acteristics that we are not comfortable accepting in ourselves and can beeither positive or negative (Harding, 1964). They are the remnants of ourupbringing and cultural training.

What goes into our shadow is largely determined by our culture andour parents, but can also be shaped by teachers, friends, clergy and thewider culture in which we are socialized. Not only do we learn properbehavior, but we also learn what is taboo—that which is “mean-spirited,shameful and sinful” (Zweig and Abrams 1991: xvii). Since the content ofour shadows is that which we cannot accept in ourselves, we consciouslywork to repress it and to keep it hidden. But the shadow has a nasty way ofinserting itself in our relationships with others. “Things that are not recog-nized as our own shadow qualities…are projected to another person; weeither blame him, criticize him, or revenge ourselves upon him for them. Or,if the material projected is not negative but positive, we admire him, lovehim, perhaps envy him, or possibly even hate him for having what we havenot got” (Harding 1964: 75).

Other people can serve as triggers for this unfinished business in ourown psyche. When we have a strong emotional reaction to another person,particularly one that seems disproportionate to the situation, it signals thatour shadow is at work. Because we are blind to the shadow’s unacceptablecharacteristics in ourselves, we react to them in others who reflect themback to us like mirrors (Harding 1964).

Despite the fact that we unconsciously repress our shadow, it has a cer-tain stubborn persistence and often shows up when we least expect it—and


when we are least prepared to deal with it. This shadow is the second mani-festation of our “nemesis,” the enemy who appears external to us, but isreally within. This enemy, however, is much more difficult to confrontbecause it is part of our unconscious mind.

Since our shadow is buried in our psyche, it is difficult to apprehend,and, if we do uncover it, it is often difficult for most of us to admit to thecharacteristics buried there. When negotiating, we may be forced to face ourshadow at work. However, instead of confronting our shadow head on, weencounter it indirectly “in the distasteful traits and actions of other people,out there where it is safer to observe it” (Zweig and Abrams, 1991: xviii). So,we respond by using what psychologists refer to as “projection.” When weproject, we attribute a “quality to the other person in an unconscious effortto banish it from ourselves, to keep from seeing it within” (Zweig andAbrams, 1991: xviii). When we project our shadow onto someone else, thatperson becomes our nemesis, when, in reality, we are wrestling with unfin-ished business within ourselves. By projecting, we avoid the painfulawareness that the characteristic we loath (or admire) in others, is really partof ourselves. Nonetheless, as Pogo wisely admitted, “We have met theenemy, and he is us.” Our nemesis is really part of ourselves.

Now let’s revisit the negotiation between John and Jane (See Figure 1).Jane sees John as belligerent, and her conscious voice reports, “I don’t likehim. He’s so belligerent.” Deep inside, her unconscious voice is saying, “It’swrong to be so angry. I hate myself when I behave like that because I’vebeen told that getting angry is not OK.” Or, if Jane is especially skillful atrepression, “I would hate myself if I ever expressed my anger that way.”

Jane is unaware of her projection onto John. Unaware of her ownshadow, she sees the problem between them as totally John’s fault. CertainlyJohn may be behaving badly, but what is important for Jane to recognize isher own projection. Until she does, she is likely either to spend unproduc-tive time trying to get John to change his behavior, or she may become angryherself and escalate the conflict. So, although Jane appears to be negotiatingwith John, she is largely ineffective because the real negotiation is the uncon-scious one going on with her own shadow.

Let’s consider another example of projection. In this case Frankbecomes extremely judgmental of Maria when she shows signs of vulnerabil-ity. Perhaps Maria starts to cry or says that she is really hurt by somethingthat occurred in her interaction with Frank. Frank thinks Maria is just being awimp and should not display signs of what he regards as weakness. If Frankcould peer into his subconscious at this moment, what he might discover isthat he is really uncomfortable with his own vulnerability. In fact, he is souncomfortable that he doesn’t even allow himself to be aware of it. Instead,he represses these feelings, covering them over with a “tough guy” facade.However, his subconscious reaction is different.

Frank is really very uncomfortable with his own potential to be vulnera-ble. Through years of training, it has been drilled into him that it wasn’t OK


to feel fearful or vulnerable—men shouldn’t have such feelings. By judgingMaria so harshly for being hurt, Frank is projecting his dislike for his ownfeelings of vulnerability onto Maria. His own shadow is keeping him fromexperiencing a side of himself with which he is not comfortable. And, by notrealizing his own potential to be wounded, he cannot develop compassionfor the vulnerability of others. Until he accepts that, as a human being, hetoo can be wounded and feel vulnerable, he will be unable to appreciatewhat someone else is experiencing and develop an empathic and emotion-ally intelligent (Goleman 1998) rather than judgmental response.

Developing empathy for Maria does not mean that Frank automaticallyacquiesces to Maria’s requests in their negotiation. It does mean, however,that he can acknowledge her feelings of vulnerability. This acknowledgmentalone may allow Maria to get back on track to continue the negotiation.

Learning about Our NemesesShadow dynamics can impede effective negotiations. People who are notaware of their own shadow are likely to have “hot buttons” that other nego-tiators can easily push. If you find that you consistently have strong reactionsto someone or to certain kinds of behavior, do a shadow check. See if youcan identify the hooks that are triggering your strong emotions. Is your coun-terpart’s behavior evoking messages that were drilled into you as a child?

Confronting your nemesis is not easy because shadow material is storedin the unconscious. “The shadow by nature is difficult to apprehend. It isdangerous, disorderly, and forever in hiding, as if the light of consciousnesswould steal its very life” (Zweig and Abrams 1991: xvii). However, we canlearn about it through feedback from others, by paying attention to our hotbuttons, or through personal therapy or coaching. Shadow dynamics alsoappear in our dreams (Jung 1963; Hardin 1964).

We can get an inkling that shadow dynamics are at work if we experi-ence repeated instances in which we have intense negative or positivereactions to certain types of behaviors in others. For example, Jane mightwant to confront her nemesis by asking herself, “When I feel angry, what doI do with my anger instead of acknowledging it? Why is it not okay for me toget angry? What do I fear will happen if, or what has happened when, Ireally get angry? Under what circumstances might it be important for me toexpress my anger? How can I learn to tell people how strongly I feel aboutsomething without blowing up?” Answering these questions can preventJane from having a knee-jerk reaction and enable her to clearly express herconcerns and listen to John’s.

Another helpful to learn about your nemesis is to invite others to askyou questions or give you some feedback about your own behavior. Sinceprojections send inaccurate representations of what is really going on insideus and are usually disproportionate to the situation, we may be totallyunaware of the false signals we are transmitting to others. Although we maybe blinded to our shadow, others can often see it when we can’t. Conse-


quently, sorting out exactly what is your unconscious judgment, and comingto terms with it, may require strong external emotional support from a pro-fessional therapist, a friend, a family member or a coworker who can offerinsight about what you might be projecting onto them.

Once we recognize our shadow, owning it is often a humbling experi-ence. For those parts of the shadow that are negative, none of us like tothink of ourselves as capable of the “bad” emotions that lurk in our darksides. We have spent years—often virtually all of our life—repressing suchthoughts and squelching such behaviors in order to please others and thinkpositively about ourselves. For positive shadow characteristics, we mustovercome our own unconscious inferiorities.

Our repressed selves can be compliments to our conscious self: theego; and when acknowledged and embraced, spur our development throughadulthood. Unless we confront our shadow, we will never know ourselveswell, develop emotional intelligence (Goleman 1998) or become fullyhuman. And, our effectiveness in certain circumstances will remainimpaired.

So, where does this leave the negotiator? Skillful negotiators can learnto handle their own emotions and those expressed by others more effec-tively by beginning to recognize their own shadows at work anddistinguishing the negotiation they need to have with their nemesis from theone they are having with the person across the table. Then they are free torespond constructively to their opponent.

Understanding and Responding to Your OpponentEven though your counterpart may have expressed their feelings in a volatile,immature, counterproductive, or even hurtful way, a skillful negotiator willhave a repertoire of moves to redirect the negotiation to the important issues(Kolb & Williams 2000). Consider the following steps you can take:

1. Separate the emotion from its form of expression. Consider theemotion as a signal that the person is trying to express an important underly-ing interest. Then look past the emotion and try to figure out what isprompting the other party to act the way they are; that is, try to discernwhat interest might be so important that they would resort to such disturb-ing behavior to express it.

2. Turn the table: Imagine you felt the way he/she does. One produc-tive way to conduct this query is to ask yourself, “If I were behaving thatway, what would be the reason?” Chances are, if the tables were turned, youwould identify some circumstances in which the same behavior would beviewed as “legitimate” if you were the one exhibiting it. For example, if theother person was treating you in a condescending manner, you might findthis irritating and unacceptable. However, if you were behaving condescend-ingly, you might justify such behavior on the grounds the other personwasn’t giving you the respect you deserved.


The critical point here is that the other person’s behavior, too, is moti-vated by a legitimate need for something. Your job is to figure out what thatsomething is and acknowledge it. This doesn’t mean accepting the behav-ior, just the underlying feeling or need. View it as another interest to besatisfied in the negotiation.

3. Reflect back the emotion that is being expressed. Frequently, whenpeople have strong feelings, they just want to be heard. By reflecting back atthe feeling level, you provide confirmation that you are listening to them andthat their concern is being heard (Rogers and Farson 1984; Athos andGabarra 1978). Such acknowledgment is not an indication that you are agree-ing with them or granting them a concession; it is simply recognizing thatthey are a human being with feelings. For some people, this acknowledg-ment may be even more important than satisfying the interest that motivatedthe feelings.

4. Ask questions to uncover the interest or concern behind the feeling.Once you know what their underlying concern is, you can treat it as one ofthe issues to be addressed in the negotiation.

For example, reconsider the interaction between John and Jane in Fig-ure 1 in which John is expressing anger toward Jane. In addition to noticingher own reaction to John’s anger, she might ask herself, “When I get angry, Iusually have a good reason for it. I wonder what could be bothering John somuch that he needs to spout off like this?” In this way, Jane can begin toquestion the source of John’s anger, rather than reacting to how heexpresses it.

If Jane acknowledges the emotion, asks John why he is so angry, and lis-tens carefully to his answer, she can begin to discover John’s interests lurkingbehind the anger. For example, Jane might say, “John, you are obviously veryangry about this (situation, behavior, statement, etc.). Can you explain to mewhat led to your anger?” Remember, his interest is legitimate even if hismeans of expressing it is not. Jane’s job is to discover the underlying interestor concern that prompted John’s outburst. This is a key opportunity for Janeto break into John’s world and learn his story. As Fisher and Brown (198: 77-78) observe,

“Learning someone else’s story helps overcome my self-centerednessand reveals facts, perceptions, and values that I would otherwise miss. Also,the better I know someone’s story, the more likely that person is to becomesomeone of concern to me. That concern will itself help us work throughour problems.”

Once you are able to listen to and acknowledge someone’s emotions,particularly if they are expressing anger toward you, it is often unnecessaryfor them to continue their emotional outburst because what they wantedwas simply to be heard or taken seriously.

Once you identify the interest underlying the emotion, both of you canturn your attention to considering how to respond to it along with the other


interests you have identified during the negotiation. Later you can alsoexpress your reaction to your counterpart’s behavior. For example Janemight say, “I do want to know and understand how you feel John, but it iseasier for me to hear your concerns when you are not yelling them at me.”This kind of constructive feedback may cause your counterpart to re-exam-ine their own behavior.

Being the Object of Another’s ProjectionIf you find that someone has a disproportionately strong reaction to you andyour behavior, you may be the recipient of their projections. When we arethe object of someone’s projection, we realize that the way we are beingtalked to or what we are being accused of by the other person, does notreally apply to us. For example, let’s assume that you are very prompt inanswering client requests. However, on one occasion, you were particularlybusy and didn’t return a client’s phone call the same day they called. Thenext morning your supervisor lashes out at you for failing to get back to theclient in a timely fashion. Under the circumstances your supervisor’s reac-tion seems disproportionately strong; you may be the victim of his or herprojection.

Your supervisor may be very intolerant of her own procrastination inresponding to clients—but isn’t aware of this. Instead, she projects her owninternal anger at this failing in herself onto you. To reach this realization thesupervisor would need to confront her own nemesis, but without feedbackabout her behavior and some knowledge of what is means to “negotiatewith your nemesis,” it is not likely she would come to this realization on herown.

What can you do if you suspect that you are the recipient of another’sprojections? You may be able to quickly temper your own tendency torespond in kind (e.g., to engage in defensive or accusatory behavior andthereby escalate the conflict) by recognizing that the anger directed at you islargely misplaced. This, of course, takes a good deal of emotional fortitude—like wearing a kind of emotional flack jacket that you can use to deflect theanger, recognize it is not really intended for you, and then concentrate onunderstanding the other’s interest; without taking it personally.

In this case, the supervisor’s interest may be to ensure that the quotafor the month is met. The best response to the anger would be to acknowl-edge it, search for their underlying interest, and attend to the client rightaway, but avoid taking the criticism personally.

ConclusionFinally, remember you and your negotiating partner are only human. Negotia-tions are often stressful events and can generate strong emotional reactions.When emotions are intense, understanding the possibility that you may begiving or receiving a projection can help you sidestep escalatory behavior.We all have nemeses and acknowledging yours is not likely to be flattering,but being able to negotiate with your nemesis is necessary if you want to


become a skillful and unflappable negotiator. Once you reconcile with yournemesis or recognize someone else’s you can refocus on finding solutions tothe issues that are critical to you both.

REFERENCES

Adler, R. S., B. Rosen and E. M. Silverstein. 1998. Emotions in Negotiation: How to Manage Fearand Anger. Negotiation Journal, 14(2):161-179.

Athos, A.G. and J.J. Gabarro.1978. Interpersonal Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Callister, R., B. Gray, M. Schweitzer, D. Gibson and J. Tang. 2003. Organizational Contexts and

Outcomes of Anger Expressions in the Workplace. Paper to be presented at the Interna-tional Association of Conflict Management Meeting, Sydney, Australia in June.

Fisher, R. and S. Brown. 1988. Getting Together: Building relationships as we negotiate. NewYork: Penguin Books.

Fisher, R., W. Ury and B. Patton. 1991. Getting to YES. New York: Penguin Books.Frost, P. 2002. Toxic Emotions at Work: How compassionate managers handle pain and con-

flict. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Goleman, D. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.Harding, M. E. 1964. The I and the Not-I. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Johnson, R. 1997. On the Teeter-Totter of Ego. Parabola, XXII, (2): 21-25. Jung, C. J. 1963. Memories, Dreams and Reflections. Aniela Jaffe, Ed. New York: Pantheon Books.Kelman, H.C. 1975. “Processes of Opinion Change.” In R.O Carlson (Ed.), In communications

and Public Opinion: A Public Opinion Quarterly Reader. New York: Praeger, 229-249.Kolb, D. M. and J. Williams. 2000. The Shadow Negotiation: How women can master the hidden

agendas that determine bargaining success. New York: Simon & Schuster.Rogers, C.R. and Arson, R.E. 1984. “Active Listening.” In D.A. Kolb, I.M. Rubin, J.M. McIntyre

(Eds.), Organizational Psychology, 4th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 255-266.Zweig, C. and J. Abrams, (Eds.). 1991. Introduction: The shadow side of everyday life. In Meeting

the Shadow. Los Angeles: Jeremy Tarcher, pp. xvii. Zweig, C. and S. Wolfe. 1997. Romancing the Shadow. New York: Ballantine Books.

Negotiating with Your Nemesis

Documents

Transcript of Negotiating with Your Nemesis