Does expressing anger help resolve a conflict?
In a commercial or internal disagreement, raising one's voice can appear to break a deadlock. The useful managerial question is more precise: is a concession made in response to anger a reliable indicator of resolution?
What the literature establishes
Gerben A. van Kleef, Carsten K. W. De Dreu and Antony S. R. Manstead (2004, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) showed in experimental negotiations that participants could concede more to a counterpart expressing anger than to one expressing happiness. Anger could lead them to infer more demanding negotiation limits and adjust their requests accordingly. This finding concerns the influence of an expressed emotion, not the general merits of confrontation.
The role of alternatives
Marwan Sinaceur and Larissa Z. Tiedens (2006, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology) show that the effect of anger depends in particular on the alternatives available to its recipient. In their experiments, anger encourages concessions when the recipient has poor alternatives; it also makes the counterpart appear tougher. The mechanism is therefore not necessarily persuasion: conceding may reflect a limited ability to walk away from the negotiation.
The premature conclusion
One might turn these findings into an instruction: express anger to secure an agreement. The studies do not justify this prescription, because an immediate concession demonstrates neither commitment to the decision nor the disappearance of disagreement. For managers, the crucial distinction is between securing movement in a negotiation and building a settlement that will actually be implemented. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
These findings come from experimental designs that isolate certain effects but do not reproduce the full history of a working relationship. They are insufficient to establish the lasting consequences of repeated anger within a team or between business partners. Everyday practice makes a comparable mistake when silence after a tense exchange is treated as evidence of agreement.
A practical check in Lugano
As an application of SHR's « Gestion du conflit » programme, organisations in Lugano could track agreements arising from disagreements in a bank, fashion business, trading company or Italian-speaking family SME. During a four-week pilot, record an action, an owner and a deadline for each agreement, then ask the parties separately, in Italian if that is their working language, what they believe they have accepted. At the deadline, calculate the proportion of agreements for which the action has been completed and the parties give matching accounts of what was agreed. This monitoring does not measure the causal effect of anger, but it checks whether the apparent closure of a conflict corresponds to an agreement that is understood and implemented. To go further: explore the Conflict Management training in Lugano, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Conflict Management in Lugano
- conflict management
- Lugano
- research
- training lugano