Ch.7-8-Power and Influence

I.       Why is Power Important to Negotiators?

A.    Seeking power in negotiation usually arises from one of two perceptions:

1.      The negotiator believes he or she

a)      currently has less power than the other party

b)       needs more power than the other party to increase the probability of securing a desired outcome.

Embedded in these two beliefs are significant questions of tactics and motives.

II.    A Definition of Power

A.    There are two perspectives on power:

1.      Power used to dominate and control the other.

2.      Power used to work together with the other.

3.      The effective use of power requires a sensitive and deft touch, and its consequences may vary greatly from one person to the next.

4.      Not only do the key actors and targets change from situation to situation, but the context in which the tools of power operate changes as well. 

III. Sources of Power – How People Acquire Power

A.    Raven (1959) identified five major types of power: Expert power, Reward power, Coercive power, Legitimate power and Referent power

B.     The major sources of power are embedded into five different groupings:

1.      Informational sources of power

2.      Power based on personality and individual differences

a)   Personal orientation  b) Cognitive orientation i) unitary ii) radical iii) pluralist

        c) Motivation orientation   d) Dispositions and skills e)Moral orientation

3.      Power based on position in an organization

a.       Legitimate power    b) Resource control

4.      Power based on relationships: Goals, Networks etc.

5.      Contextual sources of power: BATNAs, Culture, Environment, Situation

IV. Dealing With Others Who Have More Power

A.    Never do an all-or-nothing deal.

B.     Make the other party smaller.

C.     Make yourself bigger.

D.    Build momentum through doing deals in sequence.

E.     Use the power of competition to leverage power.

F.      Constrain yourself.

G.    Good information is always a source of power.

H.    Do what you can to manage the process.

V.    Two Routes To Influence: An Organizing Model

A.    Petty and Cacioppo (1986a, 1986b), suggest that there are two general paths by which people are persuaded:

1.      The first path occurs consciously and involves integrating the message into the individual’s previously existing cognitive structures

2.      The second route to persuasion, the peripheral route, is characterized by subtle cues and context, with less cognitive processing of the message. Persuasion via the peripheral route is thought to occur automatically leading to “attitude change without argument scrutiny.”

VI. The Central Route to influence: The Message and Its Delivery

A.    Message Content - Negotiators need to consider when constructing persuasive arguments

1.      Make the offer attractive to the other party

a.       To do this well, negotiators need to understand the other party’s needs.

b.      When negotiators are on the receiving end of a proposal, they frequently choose not to talk about the attractive features of an offer but rather to highlight why certain features are undesirable.

2.      Frame the message so the other party will say “yes”.

3.      Make the message normative

a.       People are motivated to behave consistently with their values, that is, their religious, social, or ethical standards, which become part of their self-image. People will go to considerable lengths to act or say things consistent with their self-image.

4.      Suggest an “agreement in principle”

a.       Getting an agreement on a general principle, such as a cease-fire, may be the first “yes” statement to which both parties can ascribe.

B.     Message structure

1.      One- and two-sided messages

a.       One-sided - Dealing with a problem by ignoring arguments and opinions that might support the other party’s position.

b.      Two-sided – An approach to ignoring the competition by mentioning and describing the opposing point of view, and then show how and why it is less desirable than the presenter’s point of view.

c.       Two-sided messages appear to be most effective:

a)      When the other party is well educated

b)      When the other party initially disagrees with the position

c)      When the other party will be exposed to people who will argue points of view different from the position advocated

d)     When the issue discussed is already familiar

2.      Message components

a.       Negotiators can help the other party understand and accept their arguments by breaking them into smaller, more understandable pieces.

3.      Repetition

a.       Encourages central-route processing and thus enhances the likelihood that the message will be understood.

4.      Conclusions

a.       Letting others draw their own conclusion (as long as it is the conclusion one wants drawn) can lead to a very effective presentation.

C.     Persuasive style: How to pitch the message.

1.      Encourage active participation

a.       People are more likely to change their attitudes and beliefs for the long term when they are actively involved in the process of learning new material.

b.      Dolinski, Nawrat, and Rudak (2001) argue that engaging the other party in dialogue causes them to perceive the situation as an interaction with an acquaintance, rather than a confrontation with a stranger.

2.      Use vivid language and metaphors

a.       The vividness and intensity of the language negotiators use have a major effect on their persuasiveness.

b.      Research has shown that the effect of intense language depends in part on who uses it. Sources with high credibility can use more intense language than those who are not seen as credible.

c.       Metaphors and analogies are a particularly useful way to elevate the vividness of a message in the service of persuasion.

3.      Incite fears

a.       Messages that contain threats can be useful when a negotiator needs to underscore the absolute importance of a point being made.

b.      Threats are probably used less frequently than one might expect, for several reasons:

a)      The other person’s reaction to a threat is hard to predict.

b)      It is hard to know how menacing the threat appears to the other party.

c)      Threats put other parties in a position where they can call the bluff, forcing the negotiator to carry out the threat.

d)     Threats may produce compliance, but they do not usually produce commitment.

4.      Violate the receiver’s expectations

a.       People who argue positions that are thought to be counter to their self-interest are generally more persuasive because they violate the receiver’s expectation about what the sender should be advocating.

b.      Receivers’ expectations can also be violated occurs when they expect one style of delivery from the speaker and then experience a very different style.

c.       Barry (2001) proposed a model of interpersonal influence. The model proposes that violated expectations will alter how the target of influence attends to an influence-seeking message.

VII.           Peripheral Routes to Influence

A.    Aspects of messages that foster peripheral influence

1.      Message order

a.       Primacy effect: The first item in a long list of items is the one most likely to be remembered.

b.      Recency effect: the tendency for the last item presented to be the best remembered.

2.      Format

a.       certain arguments or appeals may be more or less effective depending on the channel in use or the format of the presentation

3.      Distractions

a.       People start to defend themselves against being influenced as soon as they suspect that someone is trying to persuade them. As they listen, part of their attention is devoted to what is being said, but a large portion is also devoted to developing counterarguments.

B.     Source characteristics that foster peripheral influence

1.      Source credibility

a.       Source credibility depends mostly on three things: the qualifications of the source, the perceived trustworthiness of the source, and self-presentation.

b.      Many other factors contribute to source credibility.

a)      Personal reputation for integrity - Integrity is character—the personal values and ethics that ground your behavior in high moral principles. Integrity is the quality that assures people you can be trusted, you will be honest, and you will do as you say.

b)      “Benefit-of-the-doubt” first impressions - When meeting others for the first time, people generally tend to evaluate them positively rather than negatively.

c)      Intention to persuade - The more people detect that a negotiator’s mission is to influence their views, the more suspicious and resistant they may become.

d)     Use or minimize status differences - Persuaders need to decide whether they should enforce a status difference or minimize the difference by acting or dressing more like the listener.

e)      Appearance and self-perception - Often appearance and dress are tied to the status difference and intent-to-persuade issues.

f)       Associates - Whom you associate with also can influence how you are perceived, in terms of both status and expertise.

g)      Perceived expertise – There are numerous things you can do to establish your expertise:

(i)     Find ways to introduce your education or experience into the conversation

(ii)   Cite other highly credible sources of information.

(iii) Ask questions or draw quick conclusions that could only be derived from in-depth, firsthand knowledge or experience.

h)      Persistence and tenacity – The effective use of persistence doesn’t mean pursuing your goals blindly and rigidly because you can be effectively rebuffed; instead, it means displaying creativity in finding new ways to pursue the objective.

c.       Personal attractiveness

a)      People are less likely to feel that attractive negotiators will be dishonest or attempt to coerce them; more likely to accept their influence, believe them, and trust them.

b)      The following tactics are some of the many ways that an individual can enhance his or her personal attractiveness to a target of influence or a negotiating opponent.

(i)     Friendliness - Warmth, empathy, and simple direct, personal interest in others all help to soften the harder edges of some of the other power sources. Friendliness also involves an emotional component, appealing to the other party’s moods and feelings as well as to his or her intellect.

(ii)   Ingratiation - Ingratiation involves enhancing the other’s self-image or reputation through statements or actions, and thus enhancing one’s own image in the same way.

(iii) Likeability - People you like have more influence over you. Liking can occur through many different approaches.

(iv) Helping the other party – by doing a favor, allowing extra time, providing confidential information, complying with a request, or helping with a constituency.

(v)   Perceived similarity - The more similarities people find between one another, the more bonds they establish, the better both parties feel, and more important, the more receptive they will be to each other’s messages and efforts at persuasion.

(vi) Emotion - Emotion combined with persistence leads to assertiveness and determination. Used effectively, emotion may enhance a message source’s attractiveness by instilling in listeners the belief that the speaker holds appealing deep-seated values.  An important aspect of the role of emotion in influence and negotiation is being aware of the other party’s emotions.

d.      Authority

a)      People with authority have more influence than those without authority.

b)      The principle of authority can be used in many ways.

(i)     The use of a title, such as doctor or professor, gives the user more authority and thus more influence

(ii)   Authority is more than position; it can further lead to attributions of expertise.

c)      Researchers have distinguished between two broad uses of authority in influence-seeking

(i)     Authority based on one’s personal expertise or credibility

(ii)   Authority based on a person’s legitimate position an existing social hierarchy

C.     Aspects of context that foster peripheral influence

1.      Reciprocity

a.       The norm of reciprocity suggests that when you receive something from another person, you should respond in the future with a favor in return.

b.      The norm of reciprocity plays an important role in negotiations. Negotiators give concessions and expect concessions in return.

c.       A negotiator can counter the effects of the norm of reciprocity by refusing all favors in a negotiation setting, though it may cause more problems than it resolves.

d.      Cialdini offers ways for a negotiation to respond to favors.

2.      Commitment

a.       Commitment relies heavily on the common need that people have to appear consistent, both to themselves and to others.

b.      Commitment strategies are very powerful devices for making people comply. One way to increase commitment is to write things down

c.       Commitment in a negotiation is usually incremental.  Agreement to innocuous statements early in the negotiation may be used as a foundation for further and further concessions.

3.      Social proof

a.       The principle of social proof suggests that people look to others to determine the correct response in many situations. This principle suggests that people often behave in certain ways because everyone else is doing so.

b.      The principle of social proof works because questionable information (“everyone thinks this product is good”) is given weight in decisions.

4.      Scarcity

a.       The principle of scarcity suggests that when things are less available, they will have more influence.

b.      In negotiation situations, the scarcity influence strategy may be operating whenever there appears to be a great demand for a product.

5.      Use of reward and punishment    

a.       These resources can be used in at least two major ways:

a)      Negotiators can use exchange—the process of offering resources or favors (promises and assistance) to secure the other’s compliance and cooperation.

b)      Negotiators can use this power by applying pressure—that is, by the threat of punishment.

VIII.        The Role of Receivers – Targets of Influence

A.    Exploring or ignoring the other’s position

1.      Selective paraphrase

a.       Paraphrasing ensures that both parties have understood each other accurately. If you haven’t understood the other party, then he/she has the opportunity to correct you. 

b.      You can also ask the other party to restate or paraphrase what you have said.  This process accomplishes several things:

a)      It asks the other party to listen closely and recall what you have said.

b)      It gives you the opportunity to check out the accuracy of his or her understanding.

c)      It emphasizes the most important points of your presentation.

2.      Reinforce points you like in the other party’s proposal

a.       People are more likely to repeat behavior that is rewarded than behavior that is not rewarded

b.      The simplest way to reward people for what they say during a negotiation is to acknowledge and support a point they have made

c.       You can also compliment speakers when they make points you want emphasized, and express appreciation to them for considering your interests and needs.

B.     Resisting the other’s influence

a.       Have a BATNA and know how to use it - To use a BATNA effectively, a negotiator must assess the other party’s awareness that it exists and, if necessary, share that fact.  BATNAs should be improved before and during a negotiation to enhance leverage.

b.      Make a public commitment - One of the most effective ways to get someone to stand firm on a position is to have him make a public commitment to that position.

c.       Inoculate yourself against the other party’s arguments

a)      There are three approaches for inoculating against the arguments of other parties:

(i)     Prepare supporting arguments for your position only.

(ii)   Develop arguments against your position only and then develop counterarguments

(iii) Develop arguments both for your original position and against your position, and then develop counterarguments to refute both (this is a combination approach).

b)      Research reveals that the best way to inoculate against being influenced is to use the combination approach—developing arguments both for and against your position, and counterarguments to refute them.

c)      Research on inoculation also suggests that:

(i)     The best way to inoculate people against attacks on their position is to involve them in developing a defense.

(ii)   The larger the number of arguments in any defense, the more effective it becomes.

(iii) Asking people to make public statements supporting their original position increases their resistance to counterarguments.