Imagine a grandfather who’s grumbly at a family
holiday dinner: the presenting behavior is that he’s cranky,
but the underlying emotion is a sad sense of loneliness from
his family never seeing him.
What good negotiators do when labeling is address those
underlying emotions. Labeling negatives diffuses them (or
defuses them, in extreme cases); labeling positives
reinforces them.
We’ll come back to the cranky grandfather in a moment.
First, though, I want to talk a little bit about anger.
As an emotion, anger is rarely productive—in you or the
person you’re negotiating with. It releases stress hormones
and neurochemicals that disrupt your ability to properly
evaluate and respond to situations. And it blinds you to the
fact that you’re angry in the first place, which gives you a
false sense of confidence.
That’s not to say that negative feelings should be
ignored. That can be just as damaging. Instead, they should
be teased out. Labeling is a helpful tactic in de-escalating
angry confrontations, because it makes the person
acknowledge their feelings rather than continuing to act out.
Early on in my hostage negotiation career, I learned how
important it was to go directly at negative dynamics in a
fearless but deferential manner.
It was to fix a situation I’d created myself. I’d angered
the top FBI official in Canada when I entered the country
without first alerting him (so he could notify the Department
of State), a procedure known as “country clearance.”