Navigating Anger—Relational Approach [Mengendalikan Kemarahan]
Introduction
One component of my job description as a Category Manager is negotiation—specifically, conducting competitive bidding processes that result in contract awards. These negotiations often culminate in selecting the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) bidder, a decision rooted in fairness, compliance, and fiscal responsibility. Yet, despite the objectivity of the process, those who are not awarded the business frequently respond with anger, disappointment, or even hostility.
I value relational integrity towards the businesses I work with (Contractors, Suppliers and Consultants). I have learned that managing these emotionally charged conversations requires more than procedural transparency. This is where How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Practical Guide, by Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay[1] validates the practices I have used navigating difficult conversations in business environments.
Anger, frustration, and even hostility can surface, directed not at the process, but at me or my peers delivering the decision. As a Category Manager, this emotional tension demands more than procedural clarity; it requires relational wisdom.
Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay’s How to Have Impossible Conversations[2] offers a practical framework for engaging with difficult emotions, especially anger in high-stakes dialogue. Their approach is rooted in empathy, curiosity, and the art of de-escalation. Several best practices from the book are particularly relevant to my engagement in post-award conversations:
Scenario
In one instance, Construction Company M, represented by Mr. Y, appeared confident that they would be awarded a $5 million project. However, following a thorough technical and commercial evaluation, the contract was awarded to Company XYZ. Within two minutes of receiving the Notice of Award, Contractor M requested an immediate debrief.
Mr. Y sought to reopen negotiations, despite having previously declined to compromise during the initial bidding phase. It is not standard industry practice to renegotiate terms after a contract has been awarded, unless a significant issue arises with the selected Contractor.
Never respond to an angry email
I chose not to call him immediately, anticipating an emotionally charged response. Instead, I postponed the debrief for two days to allow him time to regain composure and to ensure I had sufficient time to gather and verify the relevant facts.
As the authors validated, “You’re also not under any obligations to respond”[3]
Date: Month, Date, 2025 | Project: Location, Name – RFP 123-SAS | Debrief: M Construction Inc.
Listen. Listen. Listen. Listening before explaining
The debrief was conducted in person. I greeted Mr. Y and his four team members at the security desk, noting his visible displeasure. As is my practice, I entered the meeting grounded in prayer. Moments after we sat down, Mr. Y erupted with frustration.
Rather than immediately defending the decision, in my experience I found it is more effective to begin with active listening. Boghossian and Lindsay emphasized that people need to feel heard before they can hear you.[4] Acknowledging the frustration—“I understand this outcome is disappointing”, I created a space for dialogue rather than defensiveness. I usually refrain from saying “I’m sorry” during debriefs —not out of insensitivity, but because the award decision was based on objective facts and a rigorous evaluation process.
Model calm and curiosity. Slow down[5]
The book underscores the importance of tone and posture. I have learned to remain calm, curious, and non-reactive. I usually start by asking “What would have made this process feel more fair to you?” Very often disappointed bidders make a stop because my question catches them by surprise. In this scenario, I encountered this question invited Mr. Y and his team to speak, ask questions about their proposal, exchange constructive feedback and it showed M Construction’s willingness to improve future proposals.
Bite your tongue[6]
Although I was inclined to respond to Mr. Y immediately, I chose to pause. His overconfidence contributed to his disappointment. M Construction’s proposal exceeded the projected budget and failed to meet the project’s technical requirements.
Avoid triggers[7]
While the authors made specific to avoid using the word, angry, I would add to avoid identity triggers as well. Anger often escalates when people feel their identity or competence is being questioned. Boghossian and Lindsay caution against language that sound accusatory. Instead, in my engagement with Mr. Y and his team, I focused on the process: “This decision was based on technical criteria and pricing thresholds, not personal preference.” This reframing shifted the conversation from personal grievance to procedural clarity.
While I am encouraged that this book affirms my approach to acknowledging anger, I also recognize that difficult conversations must have a respectful and intentional endpoint:
Knowing when to pause
Not every conversation can be resolved at the moment, especially in this scenario, recognizing when dialogue becomes unproductive. As such, I respectfully set boundaries: “Should there be further questions, I am open respond via email.” This preserves dignity while protecting the integrity of the process.
Future business opportunities
Recognizing potential future business opportunities with rejected bidders is essential. This mindset fosters ongoing professional relationships built on mutual respect and long-term collaboration.
Conclusion
In my role, I am not merely a negotiator, I am a steward of trust. By integrating the principles from How to Have Impossible Conversations, the book validates moments of tension into opportunities for connection, growth, and professional integrity. Anger may be inevitable in competitive environments, but how we respond to it defines the culture we create.
[1] Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, (New York: Hatchett Books, 2019).
[2] Boghossian and Lindsay, 122.
[3] Boghossian and Lindsay, 129.
[4] Boghossian and Lindsay, 128.
[5] Boghossian and Lindsay, 130.
[6] Boghossian and Lindsay, 129.
[7] Boghossian and Lindsay, 129.
About the Author
Shela Sullivan
Born and raised on the vibrant Penang Island in Malaysia, I cherish the Malaysian greeting, “Mari Makan!!” which reflects the warmth of shared meals. Since 1996, I have called Oregon my home enjoying the raindrops and the serenity of its beaches. The ocean connects me to nature and energizes me. I am a Wife - Mentor - Traveling Pastor - Sourcing Manager Construction. Favorite Bible Verse: "Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart." ~ Psalm 37:4~ I reside with my husband, David and our fur-baby Rolo. We share passions for travelling, culture, diverse cuisines, home improvements, classic cars and laughter.2 responses to “Navigating Anger—Relational Approach [Mengendalikan Kemarahan]”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Shela, I love the statement, “I am a steward of trust”. Trust is so crucial in our relationships. It takes a long time to earn trust, and broken so easily.
I love the questions that you asked in this example that you shared in your blog. I’m sure that these questions help engage rational thought for both yourself and your clients. What helps you to stay curious when emotions threaten to overtake? How do you go about framing these questions?
Hey Shela,
I echo Grant’s comment—I really appreciated when you said you are a steward of trust. That’s such a powerful posture to take, and I imagine incredibly challenging in your role. Thank you for sharing such a personal scenario. I’m curious—what did the learning process look like for you in cultivating healthy, dignified interactions with angry bidders? Honestly, I feel like I might melt in that situation. I also admire that you enter each interaction prayerfully.