Using anger judiciously in a negotiation appears to be a viable strategy, one that signals to the other side that you are serious and tough-minded.

Concessions can then follow.

In the job interview or performance evaluation situation this would equate to flexibility in the candidate’s salary demands, or an admission of a skills gap in the employee on the receiving end of the performance interview. This is exactly what you want.

In actual practice anger has a very small place in HR because the gains above are normally swamped by the loss of trust that the anger engenders. But the use of anger can be applied to individuals in particular situations.

For example, you may have someone in front you you who is clearly overstating their skills, and who has presented only their ‘interview face’, as opposed to their real capabilities. In this case little doses of anger, frustration or push-back can be useful for ferreting out what they really have and whether they make the grade. For a performance review it might allow you to bring a recalcitrant employee back into line.

It’s not an easy process. Weak or inexperienced interviewers are often unable to summon up the requisite courage to do a little pushing, and really dig into a candidate’s skills base. You have the capacity to take a position as someone who is not likable. But if you can do this, the addition of a little firmness in your questions tends to sort out the wolves from the sheep. It needs maturity to take the initial plunge, and a lot of experience to calibrate it effectively.

At the same time, first round interviews definitely need to be open and engaging, with very little use of toughness or anger. Later, at the end of a technical or final interview, you can add a little bit of punch. This signals to the candidate that hiring is a serious process, and you are a serious company. It tells them that this is not just another position that will pay money until something other position can be found. At best it gets closer to the real skill level of the candidate, and at worst it scares away those who know they won’t make the cut.

Anger Management

A big caveat on the issue of anger in the interview is the cross-cultural issue. From research it appears to works best in a Western context. Westerners are more susceptible to it, and tend to cave in more quickly. They tend to assume that the other side is negotiating in good faith, and that the anger is genuine. So they think it is a real message to adjust their negotiating position.

Anger used as a strategy in China tends to backfire because the loss of control it implies suggests that the angry person is less than professional; in fact much less than professional. As a result the person on the other side of the table is more likely to provide less information or give fewer concessions than break down and concede an issue. If you are at the final interview, or worse still the job offer stage, you have a big problem.

So use your anger very wisely, and sparsely. Force of personality is not an effective strategy, unless you hold all the cards.