MENADŽMENT , MARKETING I TR GO VINA Gordana Dobrijević Ph.D Singidunum University Rad primljen: 25.08.2010. UDK: 005.574/.58
NEGOTIATION AND POWER
PREGOVARANJE I MOĆ
Abstract: In every negotiation, power is the ele-ment that ultimately gives advantage to one party over the other. Various tactics used by negotiators are either aimed at increasing their own power or decreasing the power of the opponent. This paper presents a conceptual analysis that builds on past research on power and negotiation. Of sixteen sources of negotiation power that we identified, need is the most relied upon source of power in any given situation.
Key words: negotiation, power, sources of power.
Rezime: U svim pregovorima, moć je element koji pregovaračima daje odlučujuću prednost nad drugom stranom. Pregovarači koriste različite taktike da bi povećali sopstvenu moć ili da bi smanjili moć suparnika. Ovaj rad predstavlja analizu ranijih istraživanja o moći i pregovaranju. Od šesnaest izvora pregovaračke moći, potreba je izvor koji se najviše koristi, bez obzira na situaciju u konkretnim pregovorima.
MENADŽMENT
, MARKETING I TRGO
VINA
1. INTRODUCTION
The word power often has negative connotations, with a feeling of danger and manipulation. traditional approaches to power emphasized its aspects of domi-nation and punishment. Although many people think that power and violence are just manifestations of the same thing, they are different. Power is a psychological category, moral force that makes people want to submit, whereas violence enforces obedience through physical coercion. Vio-lence often decreases the power of those who use it, and at the same time in order to gain or preserve control, ever more and more violence is needed. Power can also have positive and constructive aspects (Coleman, 2000; Lewicki, Saunders and Berry, 2010). It can be used for motivat-ing others and delegatmotivat-ing authority, or to work with others. The ethics of power lies not in power itself but in the motives and values of the user. As with any other tool, we can use power for good or bad
(Fairholm, 2009), because power per se is
neither constructive nor destructive. Boulding (1989) believes that there are “three faces of power”: coercive power, exchange power, and integrative or col-laborative power. Coercion is often ac-complished without the actual infliction of force. The mere threat of its use, when believed, can be sufficient to obtain com-pliance. Exchange power relies on a vari-ety of exchange and reward possibilities. An exchange is often made or implied. Global economies are run largely on the basis of this kind of power. When using the integrative power, people change their behavior so that they may be more de-sirable to themselves or someone else. in
everyday life these types of power rarely appear alone. Power is usually a combina-tion of at least two, sometimes three, types of power. According to Boulding, perhaps the renunciation of power is the freest ex-ercise of the will. If we feel that we must exercise the power that we have, then we are trapped in almost deterministic situa-tion.
2. POwER IN NEGOTIATIONS
The study of power and its effect is important in the understanding of nego-tiation process and relationships flowing from it. every interaction and every social relationship, inside and outside organiza-tions, involves an exercise of power. In the context of negotiations, we don’t analyze the absolute power, but the power which is relevant for a specific conflict or situation. Power is a very important element of negotiation, because it gives advantage to one party over the other. At the bargain-ing table power is rarely distributed even-ly. In literature there are various definitions of negotiating power. According to Lewicki
et al. (2010: 197), it is “the capabilities ne-gotiators can assemble to give themselves an advantage or increase the probability of achieving their objectives”. For Salacuse (2003: 206), power is the key element in making, managing and mending deals, and “negotiating power means the ability to influence or move the decisions of the other side at the bargaining table in a de-sired way”. Cohen (2006: 235) describes power as “the capability – exercised or not – to produce the intended effect…it’s the know-how to influence the behavior of
another.”The definition of Dugan (2005)
MENADŽMENT
, MARKETING I TRGO
VINA
of them saying that “power is the capacity to bring about change“.
There is a difference between real or objective power and perceived or subjec-tive power. We agree with Sun Tzu’s fa-mous saying that power is in the eye of a beholder. In order to be efficient, power does not have to be completely in the pos-session of a negotiator. instead, the negoti-ator has to look as if he/she has the power, and that it can be used at will. If you – and other people – believe you have power, than you really have it.
We have to separate the concepts of
power and influence (Lewicki et al., 2010).
While power is the potential to alter oth-ers’ attitudes and behaviors, influence consists of actual messages and tactics an individual undertakes in order to change the attitudes and/or behaviors of others. In other words, power is potential influence, while influence is kinetic power (power in use). Achieving successful influence does not necessarily require having power over the individual(s) you seek to influence.
All negotiators want power, they know what they can do by putting pressure to the other side, convince the others to agree with themselves and to make the other par-ty give them everything they want. When a negotiator thinks he has less power than the other party, he/she believes that the other side already possesses some advan-tage that can be used and consequently starts looking for more power in order to neutralize the other party’s power. In an-other case, a negotiator believes that he/ she needs to have more power than the opposite party in order to acquire or sus-tain his/her advantage over the opponent and to get the desired outcome of the forthcoming negotiations. Various tactics
used by negotiators are either aimed at increasing their own power or decreasing the power of the opponent. Their result is either equality of power (when both sides have relatively equal level of power) or difference in levels of power (when one side has more power than the other).
Culture (national or organizational) of-ten shapes what kinds of power are seen as legitimate or illegitimate or how people use influence and react to influence. Some cultures tend to concentrate decision mak-ing at the top, and all decisions have to be approved by the leader. the negotiators from those cultures (e.g. Malaysia) may need to seek approval from their supervi-sors more frequently, and for more issues, leading to a slower negotiation process. Other cultures (e.g. Austria, Denmark) are more likely to spread the decision mak-ing throughout the organization, and while leaders are respected, it is also possible to question their decisions (Hofstede, 1983). Negotiators from those cultures will prob-ably have the authority to make decisions on their own.
Negotiator’s gender also influences the use of power. Approaching the negotiation with a powerful frame of mind can lead to higher outcome for the female negotiator, who might otherwise be at a disadvantage (due to differences in negotiation styles and the effects of stereotypes). Although wom-en twom-end to be more intimidated thwom-en mwom-en by the prospect of negotiating, this can be overcome when women first are introduced to think about power. It helps them focus on common goals and increase control over
the process. (Lewicki et al., 2010)
The balance of power can vary from one negotiation to another, even if the same people are present on both
occa-MENADŽMENT
, MARKETING I TRGO
VINA
sions. In any case, the person who stands to gain the most or lose the least from the process holds the most power (Nierenberg & Ross, 2003). Empirical evidence shows that power should be discussed in rela-tive rather than absolute terms (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2002).
Relative power can be a good pre-dictor of how a conflict will evolve. Other things being equal, when power is unequal, the more powerful party can achieve his or her goals more readily. Power imbalances in negotiation can represent clear dangers to the satisfaction of needs of both par-ties and to the collaborative process. that is because high-power parties pay little attention to the needs of low-power par-ties, who don’t get their needs met or use disruptive tactics that make collaboration very difficult (Donohue and Kolt, 1992).
3. SOURCES Of NEGOTIATION POwER
French and Raven (1960) were the first to identify five sources of power: expert power, reward power, coercive power, le-gitimate, and referent power. A decade later, Sharp (1973) provided a similar list of sources of power (authority, human re-sources, skills and knowledge, intangible factors, material resources, and sanctions and reprisals). Sources of power in general can be applied to the context of negotia-tion. Director of the Harvard Negotiation
ProjectRoger Fisher (1983) talks about six
categories of power: skill and knowledge, good relationship, elegant solution, legiti-macy, commitment, and good alternative to negotiating. Sources of negotiating power
for Lewicki et al. (2010) are information,
personal sources, position in an
organiza-tion, relationships and context (alterna-tives, culture and constituents). Salacuse (2003) recognizes difference between physical sources of power, such as capital, technology or organization, and intangible factors, such as an original idea, a strong relationship or a reputation for honesty. Davis (2007) made a list of eight sources of power in negotiations: need, options, time, relationships, investment, credibility, knowledge, and skill. On the other hand, one of the main assumptions of Bacharach and Lawler’s Dependency theory of bar-gaining power (Bacharach & Lawler, 1981) is that power in negotiation does not ex-ist apart from bargainers’ perceptions of it, whilst it also has objective components, such as money, status, and knowledge. From a negotiator’s perspective, his lever-age is how the other side perceives it. We don’t actually need a strong position, as long as the other side thinks we have one. it’s all subjective. if our opponent thinks we can affect their satisfaction or dissatis-faction, we wield the power to determine the outcome (Cohen, 2006). Negotiating power is sometimes based on illusion of the participant that the other side has the power and can use it. In this context Gos-selin (2007) sees negotiation power as function of alternatives:
Alternative sources for satisfying our own
needs
Alternative currencies – they have value
in proportion to how well they satisfy the needs of the other party (tangible, e.g. money, equipment; and intangible, e.g. recognition, flexibility)
Alternative skills and behaviors – it is not
only having the currency that is impor-tant, but also positioning it so that the other side will appreciate and value it.
MENADŽMENT
, MARKETING I TRGO
VINA
Sometimes, making an illusion of power, the negotiator deceives not only his/her opponent, but himself as well. Cultural dif-ferences between negotiating parties can influence perception of power and success in use of particular power tactics.
Based on the works of Fisher (1983), Davis (2007), Fairholm (2009), Lewicki, Saunders and Berry (2010), Sharp (1973) and Gosselin (2007), we developed a comprehensive list of sixteen sources of negotiating power:
Need: The essential question here is:
who needs the negotiation more, one side or the other. the more you need to reach a conclusion, the more power the other side will have.
Alternatives / Options: What are the
options for each party if an agree-ment is not reached? The better your BAtNA – best alternative to a negoti-ated agreement (Fisher & Ury, 1981), the more power you have.
Time / Deadline: It refers to any
im-pending events that place a deadline on either negotiating party. it can also mean waiting for the right moment or starting negotiations with an initiative.
Relationships: if negotiators have high
quality relationships with the other side, they have relationship power.
investment: the more effort or resources
someone invests, the more committed he or she will be to reaching an agree-ment, and that will give more power to the other party.
Credibility: Material proofs of your
former successful work increase your negotiating power, as well as having large and important parties among your partners.
Information / Knowledge: The more
knowledge you have about the other party, the more negotiating power you will have. In international negotiations it implies thorough understanding of the other party’s culture.
Skills: the ability to listen to others,
empathy, sensitivity to others, clear communication, speaking foreign lan-guages etc. Negotiating skills can be both learned formally and acquired through experience.
elegant solutions: in any negotiation,
there are many shared and conflict-ing interests. One way to influence the other side is by finding a good solution to the problem. the more complex the problem, the more influential an elegant answer is.
Legitimacy: A negotiator should look
for objective standards and criteria, as well as propose solutions that are le-gitimate in the eyes of the other side.
Commitment: There are two different
kinds of commitments: affirmative and negative (willingness or unwillingness to reach an agreement).
Authority: the perception among the
governed that the leader has the right to give them directives. it includes re-wards and sanctions tore-wards subordi-nated.
Coalitions: includes making alliances
with the more powerful.
intangible factors: Psychological and
ideological factors, habits and attitudes toward obedience and submission, and the presence or absence of a common faith, ideology, or sense of mission. in-cludes reference power.
MENADŽMENT
, MARKETING I TRGO
VINA
Material resources: Control over wealth,
property, natural resources, communica-tions, and transportation. include bud-geting, routine decisions on responsibili-ties and tasks, information processing, controlling agenda and schedules.
Perception: The more power the other
party thinks you have, the more power you actually have.
in a recent study undertaken among Serbian professionals, we had some inter-esting findings about sources of power. In five possible negotiation settings the results were as follows:
In case of being the more powerful
party when negotiating with external partners, findings indicate that the ma-jority of negotiators would use need and alternatives, and more than half would use perception.
If they are the less powerful party,
credibility, need, and perception are most used.
When negotiating with peers,
negotia-tors use relationships, need, and intan-gible factors.
Authority and material resources are
mostly used when negotiating with subordinates, but instead of proposed intangible factors, more than two-thirds chose need as the third most used source of power.
When negotiating with superiors, need,
credibility, and knowledge/information will be used.
We also found out that investment will be least used as a source of power.
4. CONCLUSION
Power is a very important element of negotiation, because it gives advantage to
one party over the other. After reviewing extensive relevant literature, we identified sixteen sources of power used in different negotiation settings: need, alternatives/op-tions, time/deadline, relationships, invest-ment, credibility, information/knowledge, skills, elegant solutions, legitimacy, commit-ment, authority, coalitions, intangible fac-tors, material resources, and perception. Need appears as the most widely used source of power among Serbian profes-sionals, regardless of the negotiation set-ting. the results also suggest that invest-ment and commitinvest-ment are least used in negotiations.
Although there has been some very im-portant research in the area of negotiation during last decades, a great deal of work still remains to be done towards formulat-ing the best general advice to negotiators to increase their ability to influence others. We do not attempt to advance proposi-tions that will be true in every case, only to suggest some rules of thumb that should be helpful in negotiation in Serbia, consider-ing that negotiation behaviors vary across cultures.
references
[1] Bacharach, S.B. & Lawler, E.J. (1981) Bargaining:
Power, Tactics, and Outcomes, Jossey-Bass, Inc., San
Francisco
[2] Boulding, K. E. (1989) Three Faces of Power, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California
[3] Cohen, H. (2006) Negotiate This! By Caring, But
Not That Much, Warner Business Books, New York,
NY
[4] Coleman, P. T. (2000) “Positive Power: Mapping the Dimensions of Constructive Power relations“, na web stranici:
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/icccr/Documents/ Coleman/PCPositivePower.pdf
[5] Davis, K. (2007) Eight Sources of Power in a Sales
Negotiation [online] URL:
MENADŽMENT
, MARKETING I TRGO
VINA
[6] Donohue, W. A., and Kolt, R. (1992) Managing
Interpersonal Conflict, Sage, Newbery Park, CA
[7] Dugan, M. A. (2003) Power. [online] URL:http:// www.beyondintractability.org/essay/Power [8] Fairholm, G. (2009) Organizational Power Politics:
Tactics in Organizational Leadership, second
edition, Greenwood Publishing Group, Santa Barbara, CA
[9] Fisher, R. (1983) “Negotiating Power: Getting and Using Influence”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 149-166
[10] Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981) Getting to Yes:
Ne-gotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, MA
[11] French, J. P. R. Jr., & Raven, B. (1960) “The bases of social power” In Cartwright, D. & Zander, A. (Eds.). Group Dynamics, Harper and Row, New York
[12] Gosselin, T. (2007) Practical Negotiating: Tools,
Tactics and Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, New Jersey
[13] Hofstede, G. (1983) “National Cultures in Four Dimensions”, International Studies of Management
and Organization, Vol. 13, Issue 1-2, p. 46
[14] Lewicki, R., Saunders, D. M. & B. Barry, B. (2010)
Negotiation, 6th ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Singapore
[15] Nierenberg, J. & Ross, I. (2003) The Secrets of Successful Negotiation: Effective Strategies to
Improve Your Negotiating Skills, Duncan Baird
Publishers, London
[16] Salacuse, J.W. (2003) The Global Negotiator: Making, Managing and Mending Deals around
the World in the Twenty-First Century, Palgrave
MacMillan, New York, NY
[17] Sharp, J. (1973) Power and Struggle: Politics and
Nonviolent Actions, Part I, Porter Sargent, Boston.
MA
[18] Somech, A. & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2002). “Rela-tive power and influence strategy: the effects of agent/target organizational power on superiors’ choices of influence strategies“, Journal of
Orga-nizational Behavior,Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 167-179
author:
Gordana Dobrijevic, Ph.D
Assistant Professor, Singidunum University, Belgrade, Danijelova 32
e-mail:
[email protected] Research interests:
management, negotiation,
