Introduction
The negotiation table is perhaps the most critical aspect for organizations when they are looking to achieve their organizational strategies and objectives. It is necessary for organizations to understand the power of negotiations to effectively use tools at their disposal to achieve their desired ends and those of the organization. In this paper, the sources of power in negotiations are considered alongside the concept of power and influence and the best alternative to the negotiated agreement (BATNA).
Sources of Power in Negotiations
There exist different sources of power that could be brought to the negotiation table by negotiators. One such power, and perhaps the most powerful, is psychological power. The feeling that the negotiator is powerful can change outcomes at the negotiation table regardless of whether this is the objective assessment of the power difference in the negotiation. Research has found that increased confidence by reflecting on powerful times during one’s life could influence the individual’s conceptualization of power, thus shifting the negotiation in their favor. This is especially critical when a negotiator is facing an individual/organization considered to be far more powerful than they are.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A different source of power could be sourced from the individual’s role or positional stature. Where the negotiator bears a strong title or role within an organization, there is a higher conceptualization of power from their perspective (Konig & Slapin, 2004). For instance, when an employee negotiates with their superior, there is a tendency to concede to the superior’s desire due to his role power. The last source of bargaining power is the individual’s best alternative to the negotiated agreement. A strong external alternative to the one presented on the negotiating table can significantly influence negotiators to walk away from unfavorable terms within a negotiation. For instance, a home buyer could walk away from an unattractive house deal by finding suitable alternatives that they equally like.
Power versus Influence in Negotiations
Power is the ability to influence the outcomes of decision-making processes, in this case negotiations. For instance, power is illustrated above, where an employee is likely to cave to the employer’s demands in the course of negotiations. Influence, on the other hand, speaks to the individual’s ability to direct the decision making processes in their favor. Influence is often a result of power, but the opposite cannot be said to be true. However, research has indicated that influence is more preferable in negotiations compared with power (Wolfe & McGinn, 2005). This is because power often isolates others, whereas influence seeks to bring different parties together to achieve a similar goal. In this case then, power often directs the outcome of the negotiations in favor of the wielder of power whereas influence often considers both sides of the coin to come up with the best alternative for both parties within the negotiation.
Alternatives in Agreements
Providing alternatives within negotiations often provides parties with leverage in negotiations. This is because parties within negotiations often have personal interests when approaching negotiations which represent the needs of their organizations. As a result, evaluating alternatives within the agreement provides parties sufficient view of the needs of the organization and match them against the agreement they reach. Aside from the BATNA, there could exist other alternatives to the agreement, which represent the real options available to managers. Real options enable managers to determine the correct course of action despite the best alternative to agreement regardless of its attractiveness for the sake of organizational success. Again, other negotiators often have their own BATNA, which represents their own best alternative to the agreement set forward. Evaluating the other side’s BATNA enables the manager to make a wholesome decision that contemplates all the parties present in the transaction.
Styles of Negotiation
To get to the agreement, multiple methods could be used to negotiate. In some instances, hard negotiation styles are used to achieve the desired outcomes. These include aggressive, threatening, deceptive and coercive techniques. Hard style negotiators will almost always win in negotiations but run the risk of losing out on long-term relationships against soft style negotiators (Nye, 1990). Hard style negotiators could use aggressive means, where they seem to promote their ideas to the other negotiators at the expense of other ideas. Other negotiators could choose to remove unpleasant parts of their proposal in a deceptive manner, thereby influencing others to take up their ideas. Different negotiators could choose to threaten other parties due to an existing power difference between the two parties. By using this differential, these negotiators gain the advantage by exerting their power over others. Lastly, negotiators can choose not to consider other parties on the negotiation table and coerce other parties to agree to their terms. In such a case, coercive tactics will have been used to reach agreement during negotiations.
In conclusion, there are multiple concepts when contemplating negotiations. This paper has sampled different aspects of negotiations, including sources of power, the difference between power and influence in negotiations and the various styles of negotiation.
References
Konig, T., & Slapin, J. (2004). Bringing parliaments back in: The sources of power in the European treaty negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16(3) , 357-394.
Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power. Foreign policy, (80) , 153-171.
Wolfe, R. J., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Perceived relative power and its influence on negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(1) , 3-20.
