Finding and Using Negotiation Power Objectives 1. Understand different approaches to defining “power” in negotiations and why power is critical to negotiation Explore different sources or bases of power in negotiation. Consider different strategic approaches for negotiators who have more power and for negotiators who have less power and must deal with others who have more power In this chapter. we focus on power in negotiation, By power, we mean the capabilities nezo- tintors can assemble to give themselves an advantage or increase the probability of achiev- ing their objectives. All negotiators want power; they want to know what they can do to put pressure on the other party, persuade the other to see it their way, get the other to give them ‘what they want, get one up on the other, or change the other's mind. Note that, aecording to this definition, we have already talked about many power tactics in Chapters 2 and 3. The tactics of distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation are leverage tacties—tacties, used fo exert influence over the other party inthe service of achieving the best deal for one ‘or both parties. ‘We begin by exploring the nature of power, showing why power is important to negoti- ators, and discussing some of the dynamics ofits use in negotiation, We focus on the power Sources that give negotiators capacity to exert influence. Of the many sources of power that exist, we consider three major ones in this chapter: the power of information and expertise; power derived from personality and individual differences; and the benefits of power that ‘may derive from one’s structural position in an organization or network, including control ver resources, We also explore the nature of the relationship between the negotiating par- ties and the power derived from the specific context of a negotiation. Why Is Power Important to Negotiators? Most negotiators believe that power is important because it gives one negotiator an advan- tage over the other party. Negotiators who have this advantage usually want t0 use it to secure a gre in negotiati L Thenes situatio will bes ‘The neg the prot that ad negotiaa ned tacties may power and te motive ques major reasos to create pow moves. Suc ing the way § less common equalization to dominate ¢ ccompromisin evaluates whe oran emphas Jn geners oor who have ¢ tions proceed outcome. In exceed the off the negotiati Various tive negotiati 200d alterna information focused spocit discussion. Ho of how manag negotiation sit A Definitio Ina broad sense desire” or “the: party with po‘A Definion of Poner secure a greater share of the outcomes or achieve their preferred solution. Seeking power {in negotiation usually arises from one of two perceptions 1. The negotiator believes he or she currently as less power than the other party. In this situation, a negotiator believes the other party already has some advantage that can and Will be used, so he or she seeks power to offset or counterbalance the other's advantage ‘The negotiator believes he or she needs more power than the other party to increase the probability of securing a desired outcome. In this context, the negotiator believes that added power is necessary to gain or sustain one’s own advantage inthe upcoming negotiation. Embedded in these two beliefs are significant questions of tacties and motives. The lwetics may be designed to enhance the negotiator's own power or to diminish the other's Power and to create a state of either power equalization (both parties have relatively equal oF countervailing power) or power difference (one’s power is greater than the other's). The motive questions relate to why the negotiator is using the tactics, There are usually two malor reasons. First and perhaps more commonly, negotiators employ tactics designed {0 create power difference as a way to gain advantage or to block the other party’s power moves, Such tactics enhance the capacity for one side to dominate the relationship, pav- ing the way fora competing or dominating strategy and a distributive agreement. Second, Jess commonly but equally necessary negotiators employ tactics designed to create power ‘aualization as a way to level the playing field. The goa i to minimize either side's ability {0 dominate the relationship. This lays the groundwork for moving discussions toward a compromising or collaborative, integrative agreement. Box 8.1 presents a framework thet evaluates when negotiators might use power as a tactic, as opposed to a focus on interests or an emphasis on “rights” in a dispute. ‘In general, negotiators who are less concerned about their power (relative tothe other) ‘oF who have matched power with the other—equally high or low—find that theit delibera- {ions proceed with greater ease and simplicity toward a mutually satisfying and acceptable ‘outcome. In contrast, negotiators who do care about their power and scek to match or exceed the other's power are probably seeking a solution in which they either do not lose ‘he negotiation (a defensive posture) or dominate the negotiation (an offensive posture), Various tools of power are implied in the use of many of the competitive and collabora tive negotiation tactics described earlier, such as hinting to the other party that you have 200d alternatives (a strong BATA) in order to increase your leverage, or manipulating information by lying to the other (See Chapter 5). Relatively few research studies have focused specifically on power in negotiation, and we integrate those that have into our ‘iscussion. However, much of our discussion of power is also drawn from broader stushes of how managers influence one another in organizations, and we apply those findings to negotiation situations as appropriate A Definition of Power {nabroad sense, peopl have power when they have “ihe ability to bring about outcomes they Ae Never do an att. break deal with th pe the low-power partner out, Make the other party smatien In ealing with a high-power party, Particularly iri ‘84 2700p or organization, atempe to csc ‘maltple relationships and engage‘Chapter Finding end Using Negotiation Power in multiple negotiations. By dealing with a variety of different individuals and «departments in the high-power party, you may be able to “divide and conquer” by diversifying the relationships and the multiple interests that may be served in ‘working with these different subgroups ‘Make yourself bigger: Similarly, low-power players should attempt to build coalitions with other low-power players 50 as to increase their collective bargaining power This has to be done carefully: research suggests that if a low-power player tres to “make itself bigger” by becoming more agaressive, he or she achieves significantly ‘poorer outcomes than if he or she accepts the low-power position. * Build momentum through doing deals in sequence. Early deals can be done to build relationship, strengthen the relationship with the high-power party, and perhaps ac- ‘quire resources (information, technology, seed capital, etc). Select those high-power targets that have the most to gain, and maximize visibility of those deals to other parties Use the power of competition to leverage power. This is a variation on the power of ‘4 BATNA. If you have something to offer, make sure you offer it to more than one high-power party. Ifyou can get them competing against each other for what you ‘want, some may actually do a deal with you simply to keep you from doing a deal ‘with one of their competitors, Constrain yourself. Te your hands by limiting the ways that you can do business or who you can do business with. However, while these constraints might drive away ‘your competition, they also have the liability of constraining you as well, yu loin aon (© Mick Stvens The Aw Yorker Colection / vo arioonbark com Cha Inthis¢ otitio to think. power is ture, and shared we oals an and defn in this seategies tive nego Wes + Inform expert Person ogni Aisposs Endz * Salaam Daly, 19577. Good information is always a source of power Seek. ind case, compelling or persuasive tot uickly and assemble it tobe maximally persuasive {at los of questions to gain more information. Research shows that negotiators With less power ask more diagnostic than leading questions at constantly showed their willingness to cooperate outcomes. Way to assure Controls the process, he ors tageous direction, Chapter Summary In this chapter, we discussed the nature of power in ne- gested that there were two major ways ower: “power oven,” Which suggests that ower i fundamentally dominating and coerce nna ture, and “power with;* shared with in this chapter and our review of the basic negotiation trmegies, "power with is cica to successful integra live negotiation, We reviewed five major sources of power: Informational sources of power (information and expertise) Personal soures of power (psychological orientation, ‘cognitive orientation, motivational orientation, ceraie Aspositons, and moral orientation and sills). Endnotes "Salam and Pet, 1977 * Dal 1957; Emerson, 1962 id that these behaviors resulted in better power party able to steer the deal in an advan- * Position-based sources of power (legitimate power an resource contra, + Reletonship-hased power (goa interdependence and referent power and networks, Contextual soures of power (vilabilty of BATNaAs, availabilty of agents, and the organizational or nay Yona culture in which the negotiation excurs. In closing, we wish to stress two key points Fist Mile we have presented many vhictes for ataiing st be remembered that ower can be highly elusive and fleeting in negotiation, Almost anything can bea source of power iit gives tae Aceon a temporary advantage oer theater party (8.4 BATNA ora piece of eritical information) Sec, ond, power is only the capacity to nfluence using that Power and skillfully exerting influence on the other Tequiesa great deal of sophistication and experience, * Coleman, 2000, “Whd-p.an,202 Chapter 8 Finding and Using Negtiction Power “Foe, 942 Dats, 1973, pp 885 i ip 85; "Researchers hve doe an individual diferene caled com ‘munication competency (Spaterg and Capach, 1985), Individuals who ar high in comunicton competency are ey to have sung vera bility, re able to atte booth vay he communica from one tution he ex aca easly tke the pepectve ofthe et pu Individuals who are song in cmmunsaton compotnee se able to adap to difeet sation and do what erat neces an deseable in any sven sation, "Ferone comprehensive approach tn analyzing the se of power ‘mean, see Kim, Pinky, and Frale, 2005 "French and Raven, 1959, ont and Lisa, 1976, 1980 "Detach 1985.74, ° Bure and Morgan 1679 "Coleman, 2008, p16 "MClellan 1975, McClean and Buran, 1976 "domo, FeK-Brunwck, Levinson aed Salon, 1980, "Dl, 1992 Fo, 18 "* DeCetes, Dee, Margolis, and Cran, 2013, * Overbeck, Nel, nd Govan 2010 * See Cink, 200, on he isons of utr, * Bama 1938 ® Raven, 198; Rive, Sctwatznald and Kew, 199, * rer, 192, See Charen, 1991; Kaplan, 1984; Krackhantand Hanson, 193 "Mara and Anas, 1993, PBs 1984, * Tswld, 1997. 297 * Deutch, 1973; Hosa, Gas nd Thomson, 2007 ® Raven and Rubin 1976, Mage, Galinsky, nd Grif, 2007 © Mabots and Gino, 2011 Shei, 1988, Hole, 19903, 15825, 1089 "Matra Bazecman 2007: Waki, 2002 Doo an Tyr, 207 de Drew and van Kee, 2004, pee Bigeeeee p E ane Chal Trad one fe