Persuasion: Implication of Sharing Sensitive Information in Negotiation
A story was told of a young man from one of the developing countries who treasured education as his everything. Yet his educational journey has been one of his most embarrassing experiences. He buried those embarrassing stories deep, which helped him find the courage to continue schooling. After finishing university, he had the opportunity to pursue postgraduate (master’s) studies at some of the elite universities in America.
He was offered partial scholarships, but to make it work, he had to look for finances to pay for the remaining cost. His only hope of getting money was either external scholarships (he applied to more than 80 but was unsuccessful) or requesting the school increase his scholarship percentage. After long back-and-forth emails with the school administration, they stopped responding to his email. He was running out of options. Determined not to give up, he wrote a detailed letter hoping to persuade the school administration to increase his scholarship percentage. In it, he shared those experiences he numbed. It was his first time visiting some embarrassing moments of his life that he vowed never to revisit.
Because of the brutal civil war that destroyed his village, he grew up without parents or a home. Schools became his home, and education became his only hope and joy. Some of his schoolmates were the only people he held onto for love, companionship, and a sense of belonging. Yet, he could not afford to pay or remain in one school for more than a semester. He moved from school to school because every school he joined kept kicking him out because of school fees.
At some point, he was the only one in school without shoes, a book, and a uniform. He was the only one who wore torn clothes. He disgruntled some teachers. They refer to him as ashaming, burdensome, and an embarrassment to the school. Some fellow students avoided him, and others bullied and tortured him (they beat him and forced him to sit on the floor even when there were enough desks). Teachers did not protect him from those bullies. Some teachers thought and would only say, “if he were bullied enough, he would stop showing up to school.”
To his surprise, opening up and sharing these embarrassing pieces of information did little to influence or persuade the school administration to increase his scholarship percentage. The school did not respond to his letter. Against this background, this blog examines:
Whether it’s strategically smart to rely on sensitive or vulnerable information as a negotiation tactic.
What are the pros and cons of being vulnerable in a negotiation?
Fisher and Ulry, in their book Getting to Yes, discouraged being vulnerable or personal in negotiation. They termed this approach a positional negotiation technique. According to them, this approach produces unwise outcomes and endangers relationships. Instead, they established and encouraged a principled negotiation approach known as negotiation on merit. It focuses on substance and procedure. The principled negotiation style follows four pillars.
People: Separate the people from the problem
Interest: Focus on interest, not position
Option: Invent multiple options, looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do.
Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.
Effective negotiation approaches must be tailored to the specific subject being negotiated. Negotiators must be creative when negotiating. Negotiation outcomes must produce a wise agreement as much as possible. It must be efficient and improve, or at least not damage, the relationship between parties.
However, it is inconclusive whether vulnerability or reliance on sensitive information in negotiations is unwise and should be avoided. Instead, the question should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the subject being negotiated and the negotiators’ position, i.e., are they negotiating for constituencies other than themselves?
Another consideration when deciding whether to rely on sensitive information is the readiness and willingness of a negotiator to share such vulnerable information without expectation. Also critical is the nature of the relationship and trust between negotiating parties, i.e., has the other party/negotiator earned the right to hear your vulnerable information? In the words of Brene Brown, you may share those sensitive pieces of information with the people who have earned the right to hear the story. Vulnerability information, if properly used, can tremendously impact negotiated outcomes. But, if improperly used, it can drastically frustrate negotiation and lead to adverse results.
IMPACT OF VOLUNTEERING AND RELYING ON THOSE PIECES OF INFORMATION
A) It leads to resentment.
Volunteering sentimental or embarrassing information makes negotiation personal. It makes you vulnerable and emotional. As a result, you’ll most likely take a positional approach- relying on emotion at the expense of rationale. This may lead to two results, i.e., you get the deal or you don’t. Suppose you get the deal or reach an agreement. It may make you feel good that you have achieved your desired outcome. However, that outcome might be induced out of pity. As a result, it might frustrate the possibility of negotiating with that person again. If you do not reach an agreement, you take it personally. You may develop resentment because vulnerability is often associated with uncomfortable emotions, which many people either numbed or attached so many positive expectations to result from it. The young man in this story was frustrated when the school did not respond to his letter. He avoided engaging with school administrators because he was blindfolded to only one expectation of being vulnerable.
B) It worsened the relationship.
All parties must be ready and willing before sharing vulnerable information. If the other negotiator is not ready, volunteering vulnerable information might be interpreted as manipulative or overly persuasive. As a result, it might freak the other negotiator out because not everyone knows how to handle sensitive and vulnerable information.
Furthermore, disappointment is at the core if you offer vulnerable information to a counterpart who is not ready for it or when you do not receive the outcome you expected. In that case, your immediate response will likely be, “How could you”? Maybe you are not the person I thought you were. Maybe our relationship is not what I had expected. You start distancing yourself from them. So before volunteering to be vulnerable in a negotiation, you must ask yourself these reflective questions:
Do I trust you enough to share my sensitive information?
Am I ready to be vulnerable without expectation?
Is your counterpart ready and willing to be vulnerable with me? Etc.
C) It erodes trust and limits your chance of future negotiations.
To most people, being vulnerable is no fun. It is the last thing they would do. They do so only if they have to. As a result, they attached so many positive expectations to come from it. When they do not receive the desired or expected response, that marks the end of the negotiation—no MORE ATTEMPTS. Yet, effective negotiation should stop at nothing. Whether or not you get the deal, you don’t stop negotiating. If you do not reach an agreement, you negotiate on what could be done differently to reach an agreement.
If you get the deal, you negotiate about how to improve it. This is called post-negotiation negotiation. To your counterpart, too much sensitive information paradoxically erodes their trust rather than builds it. They might interpret it as a sign of desperation, manipulation, or dishonesty, which can lead to a breakdown in trust and goodwill.
D) It blocks your path of reasoning, which compromises informed decision-making.
Sharing personal vulnerabilities can trigger emotional responses in both you and the other party, making it difficult to engage in reasoned and logical discussions. Without rational or critical analysis, decisions based on emotions may not yield the best outcomes. Furthermore, focusing on one’s vulnerabilities or sensitive information diverts attention from other critical aspects of the negotiation, such as exploring creative solutions, understanding the interests of both parties or developing mutually beneficial agreements.
This tunnel vision hinders the development of a more comprehensive and favorable deal. To negotiate effectively, it is crucial to balance transparency and discretion. While information sharing (in general) may be necessary for building trust and reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement, it should be done strategically and selectively. Prioritize safeguarding their core interests and not letting the sharing of sensitive information block parties’ path to reasoned and informed decision-making.
E) Increased risk of exploitation and reduces strategic leverage.
When you share so much sensitive information, you become susceptible to manipulation by your counterpart. They may use that information to push you into making concessions or agreements not in your best interest. This exploitation can occur because the other party realizes they have leverage over you. Furthermore, sharing sensitive information also reduces your strategic leverage because negotiation power hinges on the perceived strength of each party’s position. You may weaken your position when divulging sensitive information by demonstrating that you lack alternatives, resources, or commitment. As such, it reduces your ability to negotiate from a place of strength.
CONCLUSION:
Sharing vulnerable and sensitive information during or as a strategy in negotiation can be a double-edged sword. While transparency and openness can foster trust and cooperation, they can also harm the negotiation process. When you reveal too much about your vulnerabilities or sensitive information, it can block your path to reasoning. Therefore, it is crucial to balance transparency and discretion to navigate negotiations effectively. While information sharing may be necessary for building trust and reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement, it should be done strategically and selectively.
