Ch8 Flashcards
how does power operate in negotiation
the probability that a negotiator will influence a negotiation outcome in the direction of his or her ideal outcome
for dual conerns model look at ch1 end subsection
2 perspective on pwoer
DISTIRBUTIVE: power used to dominate and control the other
INTEGRATIVE: power used to work together with other
why do people seek power
- negotiator believes they currently have les spower than other
- negotiator believes they NEED more power than other to gain/sustain advantage
3 different strategic paorcahes to negotion
INTERESTS: negts focus on this when they strive to learn about each others intersts to create value
RIGHTS: negts focus on rights when they seek to resolve a dispute by principles of law and fairness
POWER: focus on power when they use threats or other emans to coerce others to make concessions
sources of power
expert power
reward power: being able to reward others for doing what needs to be done
coercive power: being able to punish
legiitmate power
referent power: being likeld
5 differrent groupings of power
a. informational
b. personality and indiv differences:
c. position based power
d. relationship base dpower
e. contextual soruces of pwoer
Personality and individual differencesPower derived from differences in
Psychological orientation (broad orientations to power use).
Cognitive orientation (ideologies about power). []
Motivational orientation (specific motives to use power).
Dispositions and skills (orientations to cooperation/competition).
Moral orientation (philosophical orientations to power use).
Moods and dispositions.
Informational
Information: the accumulation and presentation of data intended to change the other person’s point of view or position on an issue.
Expertise: an acknowledged accumulation of information, or mastery of a body of information, on a particular problem or issue.
Power derived from expertise is a special form of information power. The power that comes from information is available to anyone who assembles facts and figures to support arguments, but expert power is accorded to those who are seen as having achieved some level of command and mastery of a body of information. Experts are accorded respect, deference, and credibility based on their knowledge, experience, or accomplishments. One or both parties in a negotiation will give experts’ arguments more credibility than those of nonexperts—but only to the extent that the expertise is seen as functionally relevant to the persuasion situation.6 For example, someone knowledgeable about cars may not be an expert on motorcycles. Thus, a negotiator who would like to take advantage of his or her expertise will often need to demonstrate that this expertise, first, actually exists and, second, is relevant to the issues under discussion.
Position-based powerPower derived from being located in a particular position in an organizational or communication structure; leads to several different kinds of leverage:
Legitimate power, or formal authority, derived from occupying a key position in a hierarchical organization. However, legitimate power can also influence social norms, such as
Reciprocity, or the expected exchange of favors.
Equity, or the expected return after one has gone out of one’s way for the other.
Dependence, or the expected obligation one owes to others who cannot help themselves.
Resource control, or the accumulation of money, raw material, labor, time, and equipment that can be used as incentives to encourage compliance or as punishments for noncompliance. Resource control is manifested
The second way that power can be created is through individual differences—stable tendencies and personality traits that affect how individuals acquire and use power. Individuals have different psychological orientations to social situations. We focus here on three such orientations that guide behavior in situations where power matters: cognitive, motivational, and moral orientations
Relationship-based power
Goal interdependence—how the parties view the interrelatedness of their goals
Referent power—based on an appeal to the other based on common experiences, group membership, status, etc.
Contextual powerPower derived from the context in which negotiations take place. Common sources of contextual power include
Availability of BATNAs.
Organizational and national culture.
Availability of agents, constituencies, and audiences who can directly or indirectly affect the outcomes of the negotiation.
cognitive orientation
Cognitive orientation refers to how individuals perceive and interpret power dynamics, influenced by three ideological frames:
Unitary Frame: Believes society is a cohesive whole, with individual and collective interests aligning. Power is seen as manageable, often used benevolently for the common good.
Radical Frame: Views society as a battleground of conflicting social, political, and class interests, where power is fundamentally imbalanced. This perspective is often associated with Marxist ideology.
Pluralist Frame: Assumes power is distributed fairly equally among various groups, leading to competition and negotiation for influence. This view is prevalent in liberal democracies.
These frames shape how individuals understand and engage with power dynamics in their environment.
motivational orientaiton
A second orientation focuses on differences in individual motivations—that is, differences rooted more in needs and “energizing elements” of the personality rather than in ideology. Several authors have suggested that orientations to power are broadly grounded in individual dispositions to be cooperative or competitive (e.g., the dual concerns model, Chapter 1).9 Competitive dispositions and skills may emphasize the “power over” approach and suggest that people with these dispositions maintain skills such as sustaining energy and stamina; maintaining focus; and having high expertise, strong self-confidence, and high tolerance for conflict. Cooperative dispositions and skills are more allied with the “power with” approach, emphasizing skills such as sensitivity to others, flexibility, and ability to consider and incorporate the views of others into an agreement.
moral orientation towards power
Individuals differ in their moral views about power and its use. The general belief among negotiation researchers is that negotiators dominantly act on the basis of self-interest, doing only what is best for themselves. In Chapter 5, we discussed how differences in the pursuit of self-interest broadly affect the use of ethical and unethical tactics in negotiation. But recent research has shown that there is a strong relationship between an individual’s self-interest and “moral identity”—that is, a broader commitment to act on behalf of the broader common good. Individuals with a strong moral identity are less likely to act in their own self-interest, even when they have more power than the other.10 Thus, the notion that “power corrupts” and leads power holders to abuse their power in a negotiation is not always true; a strong moral identity can moderate this tendency.
power based on positon in an org (structureal power)
In contrast to power based on personality characteristics and qualities, power is also shaped by the “structural” characteristics of an organization—that is, how a group or organization is designed so that some individuals have more power or authority than others. We discuss two different approaches to structure that can influence negotiating power. The first way relies on traditional approaches to organizational structure—that is, a hierarchy of boxes or organizational jobs and positions that form a traditional organizational chart. The second way involves an alternative approach to organization structure that thinks of these structures as networks, showing how a negotiator’s location in a network can also contribute to bargaining power.
elgitimate power
Legitimate power is derived from occupying a particular job, office, or position in an organizational structure. In this case, the power resides in the title, duties, and responsibilities of the job itself, and the “legitimacy” of the officeholder comes from the title and duties of the job description within that organization context. Thus, a newly promoted vice president acquires some legitimate power merely from holding the title of vice president.
Legitimate power is at the foundation of our social structure. When individuals and groups organize into any social system—a small business, a combat unit, a labor union, a political action organization, a sports team, a task force—they typically create some form of structure and hierarchy. They elect or appoint a leader and may introduce formal rules about decision making, work division, allocation of esponsibilities, and conflict management. Without this social order, groups have difficulty taking any coordinated action (chaos prevails), or everyone tries to participate in every decision and group coordination takes forever.
People can acquire legitimate power in several ways. First, it may be acquired at birth. For instance, the King of England may control a great deal of the personal wealth of the monarchy, but has little actual power in terms of his ability to run the day-to-day affairs of Britain. Second, legitimate power may be acquired by election to a designated office: The U.S. President has substantial legitimate power derived from the constitutional structure of the American government. Third, legitimate power is derived simply by appointment or promotion to some organizational positions, such as a corporate director, general manager, or CEO. Finally, some legitimate authority comes to an individual who occupies a position for which other people simply show respect. Usually, such respect is derived from the intrinsic social good or important social values of that person’s position or organization. In many societies, the young listen to and obey older adults. People also listen to college presidents or the members of the clergy. While clergy members, college presidents, and others in prestigious roles may have precious little they can actually give to individuals as rewards or use against them as coercive punishments, they still have considerable legitimate power.11
Page 186
The effectiveness of formal authority is derived from the willingness of followers to acknowledge the legitimacy of the organizational structure and the system of rules and regulations that empowers its leaders.12 In short, legitimate power cannot function without obedience or the consent of the governed. If the president’s cabinet members and key advisers are unwilling to act on presidential orders, then the president’s effectiveness is nullified. When enough people begin to distrust an authority or discredit its legitimacy, they will begin to defy it and thereby undermine its potential as a power source.
Although we have been talking about organizational structures and positions as conferring legitimacy, it is also possible to apply the notion of legitimacy to certain social norms or conventions that exert strong control over people.13 Examples include the following:
The legitimate power of reciprocity, a very strong social norm that prescribes that if one person does something positive or favorable for the other, the gesture or favor is expected to be returned (“I did you a favor; I expect you to do one for me”).
The legitimate power of equity, another strong social norm, in which the agent has a right to request compensation from the other if the agent goes out of his or her way or endures suffering for the other (“I went out of my way for you; the least you could do for me is comply with my wishes”).
The legitimate power of responsibility or dependence, a third strong social norm that says we have an obligation to help others who cannot help themselves and are dependent on us (“I understood that the other really needed help on this and could not do it alone”).
resource power
People who control resources have the capacity to give them to someone who will do what they want and withhold them (or take them away) from someone who doesn’t do what they want. Resources can be many things. Particular resources are more useful as instruments of power to the extent that they are highly valued by participants in the negotiation. In an organizational context, some of the most important resources are:
Money, in its various forms: cash, salary, budget allocations, grants, bonus money, expense accounts, capital appropriations, and discretionary funds.
Supplies: raw materials, components, pieces, and parts.
Human capital: available labor supply, staff that can be allocated to a problem or task, temporary help.
Discretionary time: free time, the ability to meet deadlines, the ability to control a deadline.
Equipment: machines, tools, access to complex technology, computer hardware and software, vehicles.
Critical services: repair, maintenance, upkeep, procurement, delivery, installation, technical support, and transportation.
Interpersonal support: verbal praise and encouragement for good performance or criticism for bad performance. This is an interesting resource because it is available to almost anyone, it does not require significant effort to acquire, and the impact of receiving it is quite powerful on its own.
Page 187
The ability to control and dispense resources is a major power source in organizations. Power also comes from creating a resource stockpile in an environment where resources appear to be scarce. In his book Managing with Power, Pfeffer illustrated how powerful political and corporate figures build empires founded on resource control.14 To cite one example, during his early years in Congress, President Lyndon Johnson took over the “Little Congress” (a speaker’s bureau for clerical personnel and aides to members of Congress) and leveraged it into a major power base that led him to become Speaker of the House of Representatives, Senate majority leader, and eventually president.
To use resources as a basis for power, negotiators must develop or maintain control over some desirable reward that the other party wants—such as physical space, jobs, budget authorizations, or raw materials—or control over some punishment the other seeks to avoid. Successful control over resources also requires that the other party deal directly with the powerholder. Finally, the
power based on location in a netwrok
A second major type of structural power also comes from location in an organizational structure, but not necessarily a hierarchical structure. In this case, power is derived from whatever critical resource flows through a particular location in the structure (usually information and resources, such as money). The person occupying that position may not have a formal title or office; their leverage comes from the ability to control and manage whatever critical resource flows through that position. For example, individuals such as secretaries, office workers, or technology workers—who have access to a large amount of information or who are responsible for collecting, managing, and allocating vital resources (money, raw materials, permissions and authorizations)—may become very powerful.15
Understanding power in this way is derived from conceptualizing organizations and their functioning not as a hierarchy but as a network of interrelationships. In a network diagram, key individuals are represented as circles or nodes and relationships between individuals as lines of transaction. Figure 8.1 presents an example of a network as compared with an organizational hierarchy. In the network shown in the figure, the lines (ties) represent flows and connect individuals or groups (nodes) who actually interact or need to interact with each other in the organization. In a formal hierarchy, authority is directly related to how high the position is in the vertical organization chart and how many people report to that individual from lower levels. In contrast, power in a network is determined by location within the flows (of information, resources, transactions, etc.) that occur across that node in the network. For instance, the more information that flows through a node, the more power that node has because the person knows more, and can choose to regulate flows to other parts of the network.
3 key aspects of networks shape power
tie strength: the srength of ties with the others
tie content: resources that pass along the tie to other person
netwrok structure: centrality [the mroe central a node, the more power] critcality/relevance [what does flow may be essential ord mission makor task and key product] flexibility, visibility, ebmership in a coalition
Flexibility. A position’s flexibility is the degree to which the individual can exercise discretion in how certain decisions are made or who gains access. Flexibility is often related to criticality and relevance from the previous section. A classic example of flexibility is the role of gatekeeper (Figure 8.1), the person in a network who controls the access to a key figure or group.
Visibility. Nodes differ in their degree of visibility—that is, how visible the task performance is to others in the organization. Visibility is not necessarily the same thing as centrality or criticality. A person who negotiates with the other side while in full view of his or her constituency (e.g., in the same room) has high visibility; if the negotiator gains significant concessions from the other party while being watched, the team will give that negotiator a great deal of affirmation. A node with high centrality and criticality may not necessarily be visible, but if it is not, it is much less likely to be recognized and rewarded.
Membership in a coalition. Finally, as a node in a network, you can be a member of one or more subgroups or coalitions. Coalitions often act together to represent a point of view or promote action or change; the more coalitions you belong to, the more likely you will be to find allies who can help you meet key people, obtain important (often “inside”) information, and accomplish objectives.
power based on relationships
3 types: goal interdependance, refeerent power, social capital
goal interdependance
How the parties view their goals—and how much achievement of their own goal depends on the help received from the other party—has a strong impact on how likely parties will be to constructively use power. Goals consistently affect negotiators’ attitudes and behaviors by influencing the disposition parties take toward power. Cooperative goals tend to shape the “power with” orientation, inducing “higher expectations of assistance, more assistance, greater support, more persuasion and less coercion, and more trusting and friendly attitudes.”17 In contrast, competitive goals lead the parties to pursue a “power over” orientation; to reinforce or enhance existing power differences; and to use that power to maximize one’s own goals, often at the expense of the other.18 For example, relationships and goal interdependence are key sources of power in salary negotiations
Salary and negotiation expert Paul Barada points out that power is one of the most overlooked but important dynamics in negotiation. He says that power relationships aren’t like blackjack, but there is one parallel: Power will determine who has the better hand. The employer often has the better hand because he or she has something the candidate wants—the job opening—and there are probably many candidates who want the job (employer probably has a good BATNA). But if the candidate has unique skills that the employer wants, or if there is a shortage of talent in a particular field, the candidate can have a lot more power (and hence a good hand). A job candidate can increase his or her power as follows:
Determine what skills one has, and which ones can be transferred to the job one has applied for.
Do homework on the demand for those skills in various jobs and industries.
Know what is a fair and reasonable salary for this job, given the market conditions and the geographic area in which the job is located.
Be prepared to make a convincing set of arguments for the value one will bring to one’s new employer.
Determine a fair compensation rate (target) and a threshold below which one will not go (walkaway point).
If the candidate determines that he or she does not have the appropriate skills, education, or experience, he or she should consider how to gain those skills or experience to give him or her more power in job negotiations.
Source: Adapted from Paul W. Barada, “Power Relationships and Negotiation,” Monster.com, 2008.
referent power
Referent Power
Referent power stems from the respect and admiration one commands through personal attributes like integrity and interpersonal style. It fosters identification and connection, often based on shared experiences. However, negative referent power can arise when individuals create division, as seen in political contexts where labels are used to undermine opponents.
Culture
Culture shapes the meaning systems within social environments, influencing how power is perceived and exercised. It establishes norms around interaction and decision-making. For instance, in some organizations, public agreement may mask private dissent, undermining collaborative decisions. Cultural dimensions, such as “power distance,” distinguish how cultures accept or reject hierarchical power structures, influencing relationships and negotiation dynamics.
Agents, Constituencies, and External Audiences
Negotiations become more complex when representatives, multiple parties, or observers are involved. The presence of external audiences can alter power dynamics and pressure negotiators, emphasizing the role of social capital. Strong networks that share common goals enhance collective negotiation power through mutual support and information sharing.
Contextual Sources of Power
Power is not only individual but also context-dependent, influenced by the negotiation environment. Recognizing short-term conditions can help negotiators leverage temporary power bases, especially when feeling powerless.
BATNAs (Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement)
A strong BATNA provides negotiators with significant power by offering alternatives to the proposed deal, allowing them to negotiate from a position of choice. Studies show that having a viable BATNA increases the likelihood of making the first offer, enhances outcomes, and boosts confidence in negotiations.
In summary, power in negotiations is derived from referent qualities, cultural contexts, external dynamics, and strong alternatives, all of which shape negotiation effectiveness.
dealing with others who have more power
Here’s a numbered list with the first sentence of each point:
- Never do an all-or-nothing deal. Relying on a single opponent and creating a make-or-break deal with him or her leaves the low-power party highly vulnerable.
- Make the other party smaller. In dealing with a high-power party, particularly if it is a group or an organization, attempt to establish multiple relationships and engage in multiple negotiations.
- Make yourself bigger. Similarly, low-power players should attempt to build coalitions with other low-power players so as to increase their collective bargaining power.
- Build momentum through doing deals in sequence. Early deals can be done to build a relationship, strengthen the relationship with the high-power party, and perhaps acquire resources.
- Use the power of competition to leverage power. This is a variation on the power of a BATNA.
- Constrain yourself. Tie your hands by limiting the ways that you can do business or whom you can do business with.
- Good information is always a source of power. Seek out information that strengthens your negotiating position and case.
- Ask lots of questions to gain more information. Research shows that negotiators with less power asked more diagnostic than leading questions.
- Do what you can to manage the process. If the high-power party controls the negotiation process, they can assure outcomes they want.
INFLUENCE IS POWER IN ACTION
Thus far in this chapter we have discussed power as the potential to alter others’ attitudes and behaviors. We now turn to power’s complement, influence—the actual strategies and messages that individuals deploy to bring about desired attitudinal or behavioral change. Negotiators frequently need to convince the other party that they have offered something of value, their offer is reasonable, and they cannot offer more. Negotiators may also want to alter the other party’s beliefs about the importance of their own objectives and convince the other party that their concessions are not as valuable as they first believed. Negotiators may portray themselves as likable people who should be treated decently. All these efforts are designed to use information, as well as the qualities of the sender and receiver of that information, to adjust the other party’s positions, perceptions, and opinions; we call this group of tactics influence. Effective influence is not just a way for negotiators to claim more value for themselves; it can also help to persuade the other party to see possibilities for joint benefit and to increase the other party’s satisfaction with the deal that does ultimately result.29
Page 194
People differ widely in their ability to use influence effectively. Some believe the ability to persuade is something with which people are born—you either have it or you don’t. Although the natural persuasive abilities of people do differ, persuasion is as much a science as a native ability; everyone has the opportunity to get better at it. Our aim in this chapter is to discuss a variety of influence tools that are available to the savvy negotiator. To set the stage, we begin with an organizing framework that defines influence seeking in two broad categories that correspond to two different social–psychological avenues for achieving influence.
2 routes to influence
One way to think about how people are influenced by others is to assume that effective influence occurs when a person is exposed to, pays attention to, comprehends, retains, and acts in accordance with the content of a message. Researchers came to understand, however, that people can be influenced—their attitudes and behaviors can be changed—without their having to understand, learn, or retain the specific information contained in a message. In fact, people can be influenced even when they are not actively thinking about the message itself.30
Accordingly, there are two general paths by which people are persuaded:31
The first path occurs consciously and involves thinking actively about an influence-seeking message and integrating it into the individual’s previously existing cognitive structures (thoughts, intellectual frameworks, etc.). This path to persuasion is called the central route, which “occurs when motivation and ability to scrutinize issue-relevant arguments are relatively high.”32
The second route to persuasion, the peripheral route, is characterized by subtle cues and context, with less active thought and cognitive processing of the message. Persuasion via the peripheral route is thought to occur automatically (i.e., out of conscious awareness), leading to “attitude change without argument scrutiny.”33 Because the information is not integrated into existing cognitive structures, persuasion occurring via this route is likely to last a shorter time than persuasion occurring via the central route.34
For clarity of presentation, elements from both paths are represented in a single diagram (Figure 8.2). Many of the common elements used to increase leverage are part of the central route: the structure and content of the message or the relationship between sender and receiver. However, several influence strategies are designed to persuade through the indirect, or peripheral, route, such as enhancing the attractiveness and credibility of the source, invoking the principle of reciprocity (you should do something for me because I did something for you), or drawing on appeals to popularity (you should think this way because many others do).35 The remainder of this chapter addresses the approaches to influence presented in Figure 8.2. We organize this discussion according to the distinction between central and peripheral routes to influence.
The Central Route to Influence: The Message and Its Delivery
Facts and ideas are clearly important in changing another person’s opinions and perceptions, but the effectiveness of a persuasion effort depends on how the facts and ideas are selected, organized, and presented. There are three major issues to consider when constructing a message: the content of the message (the facts and topics that should be covered), the structure of the message (how the topics and facts should be arranged and organized), and the delivery style (how the message should be presented).
message content
When constructing arguments to persuade the other party, negotiators need to decide what topics and facts they should include. In this section, we discuss three questions negotiators need to consider when constructing persuasive arguments:
how to make offers attractive to the other party,
how to frame messages so the other party will say yes, and
how to make messages normative.
Make the Offer Attractive to the Other Party
In structuring the message, negotiators should emphasize the advantage the other party gains from accepting the proposal. Although this may seem obvious, it is surprising how many negotiators spend more time explaining what aspects of their offer are attractive to themselves than identifying what aspects are likely to be attractive to the other party. Experienced negotiators ensure that the other party understands what they will gain by accepting an offer. To do this well, negotiators need to understand the other party’s needs. A good salesperson will identify a customer’s needs and requirements before getting down to the details of what a particular product or service can do for the purchaser. Labor negotiators often have preliminary, unofficial meetings with management at which both parties discuss the upcoming deliberations and signal the high-priority issues for the year. The better a negotiator understands the other’s real needs and concerns, the easier it is to formulate a proposal the other party will find genuinely attractive (even if that other party is reluctant to admit it) and to package the proposal with arguments that anticipate the other’s objections.
Frame the Message So the Other Party Will Say Yes
Advertisers discovered long ago that people who agree with one statement or proposal, even though it may be minor, are likely to agree with a second, more significant statement or proposal from the same person or on the same topic.36 Hence, if you can frame your message in a way that gets the other party to agree to something—almost anything—then you have laid the foundation for subsequent agreement. (We discussed framing in negotiation at length in Chapter 6.) The task is to find something that the other party can agree with that puts them in the mindset of saying yes. A real estate salesperson who gets potential buyers to agree that the house they are visiting is in a nice neighborhood or has a nice yard for their children has made the first step toward getting them to say yes to buying the house (even if it is not the ideal size, layout, or price).
make the message normative
It is easy to assume that people are driven by simple and direct self-interest. There is plenty of evidence, however, that people are motivated to behave consistently with their values—that is, their religious, social, or ethical standards. A standard is normative when it involves actions that people think they should do as a form of right or appropriate behavior. Normative standards become part of people’s self-image, a concept in their mind of what they are really like. A powerful argument in negotiation is showing the other party that by following a course of action (your proposal), they will be acting in accordance both with their values and with some higher (more noble, moral, or ethical) code of conduct. At times, the simple statement “This is the right (or proper) thing to do” may carry considerable weight as a normative influence appeal, especially when a negotiator is trying to induce the other party to act in a way that is contrary to a narrow reading of that other party’s self-interest.
Message Structure
People are influenced not only by the substance of what negotiators say but also by how they arrange the words. How should arguments be arranged? Should counterarguments or opposing ideas be mentioned at all? Surprisingly, many of those elements that you might expect to have an important impact, such as the structure of logic in the message, have not been clearly shown to be important. Here we discuss three aspects of message structure that help to explain when and how persuasion occurs through the central route:
one- and two-sided messages,
message components, and
conclusions.
one- and Two-Sided Messages
When negotiators try to persuade the other party, it is because they believe that the other holds an opinion different from theirs. Many people deal with this problem by ignoring arguments and opinions that might support the other party’s position—a one-sided approach. An alternate
pproach is to mention and describe the opposing point of view, and then show how and why it is less desirable than the presenter’s point of view—a two-sided approach. The question then arises: Which of these approaches is most effective?
One-sided messages can backfire: Just because the person making an argument doesn’t mention the other side’s counterarguments doesn’t mean the other party won’t think of them and consider them. This is especially risky when the one-side argument you are making is easy to refute, which one study found leads negotiators to make smaller concessions.37 In general, they are more effective, working best
when the other party is well educated,
when the other party initially disagrees with the position,
when the other party will be exposed to points of view different from the position advocated, and
when the issue discussed is already familiar. In addition, two-sided arguments work best when the preferred argument is presented last.38
But there is a drawback: Research has shown that a change in someone’s attitude is more likely to produce a corresponding change in behavior when that person has been exposed to a one-sided message rather than a two-sided message.39 This link between attitude change and behavior change matters because a negotiator isn’t just trying to persuade the other party to think more favorably about the offer; they want the other party to act on that attitude by making a concession or agreeing to a deal.
Message Components
Big ideas or large propositions are hard to grasp and accept, especially when they are significantly different from your own. Negotiators can help the other party understand and accept their arguments by breaking them into smaller, more understandable pieces—a process known as “fractionating.”40 It is even better if one can show that the component parts contain statements that the other party has already accepted or agreed with. For example, a company that is having trouble getting a union to accept a whole package of rule changes could break its presentation down into separate discussions of specific rules: transfers between departments within a plant, transfers between plants, temporary changes in work classifications, and so on. It is possible that breaking down complex arguments into smaller parts will lead the parties to see the possibilities to logroll, bundle, and trade off across issues (see Chapter 3) because the issues will be seen in sharper focus. If the goal is to find and capitalize on integrative potential, however, it is important that the parties not let splitting up of issues into smaller pieces lead to separate and final settlements on those piecemeal issues. In order to succeed as mechanisms for achieving mutual gains, logrolls, bundles, and trade-offs require that multiple issues be on the table and in play.
Persuasive Style: How to Pitch the Message
When negotiators select a delivery style for the message they have constructed, they set the emotional tone and manner of their presentation. We now consider four major elements of persuasive style and how they affect successful persuasion:
active participation versus passive responding,
use of vivid language and metaphors,
use of threats to incite fears, and
violation of the receiver’s expectations.
Encourage Active Participation
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.43 Good teachers know this—rather than lecture, they ask questions and start discussions. Teachers are even more effective when they can get students both intellectually and emotionally engaged. Negotiators who use active approaches are generally more persuasive than those who don’t because an active approach requires the receiver to exert effort, which leads to involvement, which leads to attitude change.
It can be helpful to precede negotiations with a friendly and engaging dialogue. This extends beyond simple politeness; inquiring about an individual’s day or mood and then responding accordingly can spark cooperation; moreover, when a request is preceded by a pleasant dialogue rather than simply a pleasant monologue, subjects were more willing to concede to the request.44 Furthermore, these findings generalized across a variety of interactions and settings, even holding up when the subject declared being in a bad mood. As we mentioned in our discussion of communication in Chapter 7, the development of rapport between negotiators has a number of positive benefits for avoiding impasse and achieving integrative outcomes.
Consider Vividness and Intensity of Language
The vividness and intensity of the language negotiators use have a major effect on their persuasiveness. Saying “This is certainly the best price you will get” is more compelling than saying “This is quite a good price.” Similarly, the statement “I don’t feel like going out tonight” is not as intense as “You couldn’t drag me out tonight with a team of horses.” The intensity of language can also be increased through the use of colorful metaphors, swear words, or a change in intonation—from quiet to loud or loud to quiet.45
Page 199
You might think that the most intense language would also be the most persuasive. On the contrary, language of relatively low intensity is at times more effective. 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.46 It is also the case that effective influencers will match their emotional fervor to the ability of the target of influence to receive and interpret the message.47 Bottom line: Although there is a strong temptation to use intense language to make a point, it is often wise to moderate this impulse.
