Research shows silence during negotiations leads to better results
Pausing silently helps negotiators shift from fixed pie thinking to a more deliberative mindset. This, according to new research led by Jared R. Curhan, Professor and Associate Professor of Work and Organization Studies, at the MIT Sloan School of Management. The study finds that periods of silence interrupt default, zero-sum thinking and help foster a more deliberative mindset, which results in both sides performing better. The research, conducted by Prof. Curhan and his colleagues, is slated to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology.
"Pausing silently can be a simple yet very effective tool to help negotiators shift from fixed pie thinking to a more reflective state of mind. This, in turn, leads to the recognition of golden opportunities to expand the proverbial pie and create value for both sides."
Jared R. Curhan, Professor and Associate Professor of Work and Organization Studies
MIT Sloan School of Management
Curhan noted, "When put on the spot to respond to a tricky question or comment, negotiators often feel as though they must reply immediately so as not to appear weak or disrupt the flow of the negotiation. However, our research suggests that pausing silently can be a simple yet very effective tool to help negotiators shift from fixed pie thinking to a more reflective state of mind. This, in turn, leads to the recognition of golden opportunities to expand the proverbial pie and create value for both sides." The research consists of four studies. In the first study, the research team explored the effect of silence as it occurs naturally in a negotiation. Participants arrived at a laboratory two at a time and were randomly assigned to one of two roles—candidate or recruiter—in a negotiation simulation. The candidate and recruiter had to negotiate over multiple issues concerning the candidate's employment compensation package. Using a computer algorithm to measure intervals of silence lasting at least three seconds, the team found that periods of silence tended to precede breakthroughs in the negotiation. In fact, breakthroughs were more likely to occur after silent pauses than at any other point in the negotiation.
Three other experiments looked at how people can use silence as a strategy. Again, participants were randomly assigned roles in an employment negotiation; but for these studies, at least one party was privately instructed to add silent pauses to their negotiation. After the negotiation, participants were asked to report their outcomes and the extent to which they experienced a deliberative mindset. When silence was used as a tactic, the researchers found that the silence user tended to adopt a deliberative mindset and was more likely to recognise opportunities for both sides to get more of what they wanted.
According to Prof. Curhan, silence affords the initiator the chance to think more deeply about the problem and enlarge the pie efficiently. The findings have practical applications for everyday negotiations. He concluded, "In conventional wisdom, negotiation is seen as a tug of war—any gain to one side reflects a loss to the other. But it doesn't have to be a battle, and the pie isn't necessarily fixed. There are creative ways to address conflicts, and there is more room for agreement than people assume. Our study shows that one way to find that room and spark that resourcefulness is through silence."
Paul Arkwright
Publisher
