Emotions are a vital dimension in conflicts among nation-states and communities affiliated by common ethnic, economic, or political interests. Yet the individuals most responsible for managing such conflicts--heads of state, CEOs, intellectual or religious leaders--are often blind to the psychological forces affecting their interests. During 20 years of international research, consulting, and teaching, I have developed a program for teaching thought leaders how to apply psychological principles to achieve their aims while also reducing negative outcomes such as violence, social upheaval, and economic displacement. In this article, I present relational identity theory (RIT), a theoretical and intellectual framework I have originated to help people understand and deal with key emotional dimensions of conflict management. I argue that national and communal bonds are essentially tribal in nature, and I describe how a tribe's unaddressed relational identity concerns make it susceptible to what I term the tribes effect, a rigidification of its relational identity. I provide strategies based on RIT for mitigating the tribes effect and thus enhancing global security.

Folk wisdom suggests that a negotiator (1) should avoid getting emotional and (2) is a passive recipient of the whims of emotion. In this article, I argue that both of these notions are false and that a better pair of assumptions is that (1) emotions can positively affect our ability to reach negotiation goals and (2) we can actively negotiate which emotions are experienced and how intensely. I extend the emotional appraisal work of Lazarus (1991) and Parkinson (1995) by suggesting that we appraise situations emotionally for their personal relevance by evaluating relational identity concerns—namely autonomy and affiliation. Negotiating emotions entails negotiating these relational identity concerns and the tensions that a conflicting set of concerns can create.

Shapiro refers to what he calls a fundamental dynamic of human relations, confronted by every organization, even at the level of a team or a division. People want both affiliation and autonomy, creating tension and therefore challenges for managers. This can trigger what he calls the “‘Tribes Effect,’ a mind‐set that pits team members against one another: It is me versus you, us versus them.” He discusses and explains “five lures of the tribal mind.” These are vertigo, repetition compulsion, taboos, assault on the sacred, and identity politics. “The key,” Shapiro writes, “is to promote positive relations and counteract the Tribes Effect, turning conflict from an obstacle into an opportunity for organizational success.”