You bet! It's deeply ingrained in our social DNA to trust a friendly opponent in a negotiation more than a scowling adversary. In an experiment by Stouten¹ in De Cremer² When students were tested, it turned out that participants preferred to bet on the credibility of the smiling opponent rather than the angry one, based on two different photos of the same person. And that's a shame, because facial expressions, broad gestures, stomping, and middle fingers say nothing about the credibility of a stakeholder, but they do say something about their state of mind and the tension they are experiencing. And that is important information for us as environmental professionals.

Separate the person from the content

One of the principles of MGA theory is to separate the person from the issue. You may not like someone, but that says nothing about their credibility. A stakeholder who is genuinely angry about your initiative and expresses that verbally and non-verbally is likely closer to their emotions than someone who smiles and says they would deeply regret it if your initiative halved the value of their home. Emotions are not only expressed verbally; they also involve facial expressions, hands, and feet.

Separating the person from the content requires patience. Often, stakeholders feel much better just having their anger seen, meaning recognized and acknowledged. So, do that. Put into words that you see and feel the anger, sadness, and disappointment. Ask follow-up questions to truly understand where it's coming from. Be careful about making assumptions; we often think we know the source of the anger, but still phrase this as an open question. Remember NIVEA (Don't Fill In For Another) and ANNA (Always Check, Never Assume)!

Genuine interest

As an environmental professional, genuinely engage with the reaction. Don't fall into the trap of being falsely sympathetic, because people will see through it. A stakeholder isn't waiting for your sympathy, but wants their interests to be taken seriously. By asking probing questions, stay close to the stakeholder's words to avoid stating incorrect assumptions, as this will reignite anger. It helps to always start your questions from your own observation. “I see that this affects you. Can you tell me how I can better inform you about the consequences?”, “I think it would be good if we discussed this calmly soon. Shall I make an appointment to visit your company?” Offer the stakeholder a perspective for action beyond the anger or frustration of the present moment.

Deal with an angry stakeholder just as professionally as with a friendly stakeholder. Credibility cannot be read from the corners of the mouth.

¹ Jeroen Stouten is a professor of work, organizational, and personnel psychology at KU Leuven.

² David de Cremer is a professor at the University of Cambridge, specializing in issues of leadership, trust, and ethical aspects of decision-making in organizations.

Co-founder, Trainer

Hans van Zijst