Introduction:
To understand the uses of power in negotiation
one must first understand what the two terms negotiation
and power are. Hence in this paper, we will first
begin by understanding the very nature of these
two words. It is only then that we can study the
role of power in negotiation. Power can be of
many kinds and can be attributed to different
sources. Some of these types may help the negotiation
process while others may simply lead to a further
entanglement of issues.
Power:
Power refers to the potential to influence another
successfully. More formally, it is the capacity
to change the behavior or attitudes of others
in a desired fashion. It is different from simply
exerting social influence and is simply the capacity
to have a desired effect on others. There are
several different sources of such power, but in
general, these stem from two sources: one’s
personal characteristics and one’s organizational
position (Stewart, 1989).
Personal Power:
Power derived from one’s own qualities
or characteristics is known as personal power.
There are four sources of personal power: rational
persuasion, referent power, expert power and charisma.
Rational persuasion relies on logical arguments
and factual evidence to convince others that a
certain idea is acceptable. Rational persuasion
is highly effective when the parties involved
are intelligent enough to make their cases strongly
and to understand them clearly. Based on clear
logic, good evidence, and the desire to help the
company, rational persuasion tends to be quite
effective. Expert power is based on superior knowledge
of a certain field. A coach has power over athletes
to the extent he or she is recognized as knowing
what is best. Those who do not exhibit their expertise
clearly lack this important source of power. People
whose expertise is highly regarded are among the
most powerful people in organizations (Stewart,
1989).
Personal qualities also form the basis of people’s
admiration for them. Individuals who are liked
and respected by others can get others to alter
their actions, which is a type of influence known
as referent power. Some people are so liked by
others they are said to have charisma –
that is an engaging and magnetic personality.
Some people have also become highly influential
because of their charismatic ways. This is because
for one, highly charismatic people have definite
visions regarding their organizations and know
how to get there. Also, they tend to be excellent
communicators and inspire trust which is one of
their greatest strengths (Stewart, 1989; Kolb,
1995).
Position Power:
Position power is defined as the power based on
one’s formal position in the organization.
These formal powers remain vested in the position
and are available to anyone who holds that position.
There are four bases of position power: legitimate,
reward, coercive and information.
The power people have because others recognize
and accept the authority of their position in
the hierarchy is known as legitimate power. Associated
with holding certain jobs also comes the power
to control the rewards that others receive –
that is reward power. In contrast to this type
of power, power also results from the capacity
to control punishments. This is known as coercive
power. Often, people have power simply because
others know they have the opportunity to punish
them – even if no explicit threat is made.
The fourth source of power available by virtue
of a person’s position is based on data
and other knowledge – that is, information
power. Though it still exists, it is becoming
a less potent source of influence in many organizations
as technology has made it possible for more information
to be available to more people than ever before.
(Watson, 1994; Yukl & Taber, 1983)
Negotiation:
Negotiation is a more formal means of achieving
cooperation. It uses formal bargaining to win
acceptance and approval of a desired change. For
example, if the marketing department fears losing
power if a new management structure is implemented,
top managers may negotiate with marketing to reach
a resolution. General Motors, General Electric,
and other companies that have strong unions frequently
must formally negotiate change with the unions
(Menkel-Meadow, 1984).
Power and the process of negotiation:
The word power has somehow come to be associated
with a negative meaning. This is because most
people understand the word in reference with one
side dominating or overpowering the other. But
as defined earlier, power is simply the ability
to influence people or situations. Power is neither
good nor bad but it is the abuse of power that
is bad.
Power has many types and during the process of
negotiation, many of these types can influence
the result and the outcome. Their potential depends
on their usage, when power is not used or exercised,
it has no value. Position power for instance,
can definitely be used. If the person is the head
of the finance department, he can exercise his
influence during negotiations and decisions about
the annual budget of the company. Expert power
or information power is also helpful during a
negotiation process because the application of
knowledge definitely confers power. For example,
research can be performed before the negotiation
process to find out what the other party’s
goals are and discover the areas which they consider
negotiable, and then this knowledge can be used
during the negotiation process (Schneider, 2002).
Charismatic individuals and people with referent
power are also valuable assets during a negotiation
process because individuals who are seen as trustworthy
or who are good communicators can at many times
facilitate the process and win the cooperation
of the other side. The fact that they are well-liked
by others often helps to swerve the outcome in
their favor. Reward and coercive power can also
be used during the negotiation because people
who have the power to bestow rewards and laurels
on others, as well as those who can punish or
penalize others hold significant power. Through
the sheer strength of this power, they can influence
the outcome of the negotiation process (Adler,
Rosen & Silverstein, 1993).
Negotiation can have many different styles as
it can be based on logical arguments or friendly
and affable persuasion and discussion. But when
negotiations are conducted on the basis of power,
the process is completely different. This is because
firstly, there is no reliance on strong and convincing
arguments but on the apparent strength of the
two parties. Secondly, as is the case with negotiations
conducted on the basis of logic, here the two
sides will not be open and honest about the shortcomings
of their recommended solution but will try to
emphasize the positive and conceal the negative
at all costs. Lastly, there will be hardly any
solid arguments. Each party will simply try to
overwhelm the other by stressing that they are
right and the other is wrong. A negotiation process
where power is used becomes nothing more than
a contest of wills in which each party attempts
to demonstrate superior power and strength (Davis,
1989).
Coercive power for example is often used as a
means of getting one’s way in a negotiation
process. Threats can be explicitly made or implied
but it is essential that the threatened means
actually exist and that the party making the threats
is indeed prepared to carry them through. If this
proves not to be the case, that party's position
will be seriously undermined.
When power is used in a negotiation process,
the parties can use a variety of means to establish
that power. For example, strikes can be held,
legal proceedings can be conducted, protest meetings,
demonstrations, publicity-seeking ventures, retention
of experts and even the suspension of negotiations
altogether – all these are resources which
parties can deploy to introduce power in the negotiations
or to negotiate solely on the basis of power.
The use of any resource depends on the intensity
and proportion of the issue (White, 1984).
When negotiations are to be carried out with
power as an important trump card, the bulk of
the work has to be done before the discussions
actually begin. First, the party wanting to exert
power over the other must decide on its source
of power, its own resources and not just his,
but must also closely estimate the means at the
other party's disposal. It must also decide how
much it would be willing to shift or maneuver
during the negotiation. An objective has to be
clearly set and a lower limit has to be identified:
what would be the least that the party would accept.
The objective is obviously the target and the
lower limit is the resistance point. For a party
with absolute power over the other, both these
points would be the same. The other party would
also have an objective and a resistance point
and the room for negotiation lies between both
the parties’ resistance points. (White,
1984)
Negotiations based solely on power have a chance
of failure. It might happen that no agreement
can be reached and discussions might get suspended.
Failure can have unwanted results like a schism,
stand-off or violence in which forceful measures
are used as a last resort. As an extreme example
of a failed negotiation process, when the interests
of an ethnic minority in a country were not respected,
an (armed) struggle began to force separation.
(White, 1984; Menkel-Meadow, 1993)
There can be a number of reasons for the above-mentioned
failed negotiation proceedings. The most common
of these is a setting of resistance points in
a way that no agreement is possible. But when
power is involved, often an adjusting of objectives
and resistance points is also seen because no
party actually wants to see the implied threats
being exercised at its expense. A lot of the time,
the resistance points start to converge until
they coincide or the smallest possible room for
negotiation has been created. A good negotiator
will always ensure that there is also room for
adjustment. (Menkel-Meadow, 1993)
Power also is a deterrent in the negotiation
process because it inherently brings with it conflict.
It can minor as simply bringing a sour taste to
the proceedings, or an explicit sparring row or
legal proceedings. Both parties are trying to
force the other to do something which it is initially
unwilling to do. There is an undercurrent of pressure
and conflict and this often leads to a failure
of such negotiations where power is too often
used as a pawn. (White, 1984)
Conclusion:
The role of power in the negotiation process is
just like its name: ambiguous, it can be good
or bad. The abuse of power will most often lead
to negative results but power can be used in a
meaningful way to facilitate the negotiation process.
If however the process is based solely on power,
the risk of failure will run high. The different
types of power are all different in their execution
and implications – all power is not bad
but powers like coercion have ethical and moral
issues attached to them. Hence during negotiation,
the use of power is not necessarily bad, its abuse
however will most likely lead to failure.
|