Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Конспект_Делов_протокол_Иваненко_2010-11.doc
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
01.03.2025
Размер:
414.72 Кб
Скачать

Interpersonal Power

French and Raven (1959;150-167) suggested five interpersonal bases of power that are important to negotiators.

  • Legitimate power

  • Reward power

  • Coercive power

  • Expert power

  • Referent power

We will examine only Legitimate power in this edition of the Winner’s Circle and will cover the remaining interpersonal power bases in subsequent editions.

Legitimate power is derived from the ability to influence because of position. A person at a higher level has power over the people below. However, each person with legitimate power uses it with a personal flair.

Subordinates play a major role in the exercise of legitimate power. If subordinates view the power as legitimate, they comply. However, the culture, customs and value systems of an organisation determine the limits of legitimate power. In other words, there are times when people respond to directions from another, even directions they do not like, because they feel it is proper and legitimate for the other to tell them and proper (obligatory) for them to obey. This is legitimate power.

Legitimate power is used in many ways during negotiation. People with a lot of legitimate power could use their positions of authority to ‘instruct’ other parties to follow certain procedures. Depending on the authority of the individual, the other players in the negotiation could follow whatever is decided, relying totally on the abilities of the individual in authority.

Sometimes one party will use legitimate power as a tactic against another party by:

1) bringing in someone who has the influence to make important decisions, and who has credibility with the other party; or by

2) assigning a lot of legitimate power to an individual or individuals within opposing parties so as to use the need for power and status that exists in all individuals to get major concessions from them. This is sometimes referred to as ‘ingratiation’ or stroking.

It is important to recognise that legitimate power can only have influence if it is recognised by other individuals because it occurs only in a social structure. Some negotiators may attempt to deny the other party some of their legitimate power by:

1) denying them an opportunity to talk;

2) preferring to make reciprocal offers while insisting the other party continue to make concessions;

3) ignoring prior agreements on how to proceed; or

4) denying that any one of the other party can have any legitimate position of significance.

In such situations a negotiator could find it necessary to establish some minimal legitimate authority before proceeding, and in some cases may in fact be advised to refuse to proceed until the other party shows by his or her behaviour, that the authority is in place. Once a small, secure base of legitimate authority is established, a skillful negotiator can extend it.

Reward power. Power can be derived from the ability to reward compliance. Reward power is used to back up legitimate power. If rewards or potential rewards such as recognition, a good job assignment, a pay rise, or additional resources to complete a job are promised, the employee may reciprocate by responding to orders, requests and directions, according to Gibson et al.(1991:331).

Rewards are often monetary but can also be intangible. Research has shown that verbal approval, encouragement and praise are frequently good substitutes for tangible rewards. Experiments on the use of positive reinforcement and behaviour modification in the classroom or work setting have shown that verbal rewards could take the form of: "extreme politeness”, "compliments”, and "praise for past behaviour”.

Non-verbal rewards could take the form of: " Giving individuals in the other party more space at the table; " Nodding of the head to indicate approval and acceptance; " Eye contact to indicate attention; and " Open and non-aggressive gestures to indicate acceptance and respect.

Rewards could also take the form of verbal promises of financial benefits to be gained by establishing a relationship.

Ingratiation is sometimes called the art of flattery, and is an example of the use of reward power in social settings. Friedman, Carlsmith and Sears (1974) provide interesting overviews on the impact of ingratiation in interpersonal situations. Most of us know that if other people like us, they will be more willing to do us favours or carry out actions we request that if they dislike us. " Individuals seeking to increase others' liking of them can convince these persons that they share basic values or are similar in other ways. " The most common tactic of ingratiation in negotiation involves the communication of high personal regard to the intended targets of influence. This tactic, usually known as "other enhancement" often takes the form of flattery - exaggerated praise of others. And often, it succeeds: praising others does increase their liking of the flatterer.

In general, the use of reward power seems to be very effective, especially in the longer term. Reward power is sometimes used together with coercive power and these two can be subject to semantic confusion. It is important to describe coercive power before comparing it with and evaluating it against reward power.

Coercive Power is the opposite of reward power. It is the ability of the power holder to take something away from the target person or to punish the target for non-compliance with a request.

For example: Coercive power could be the threat to strike from a labour union; the threat of blocking promotion or transfer of a subordinate for poor performance; it could be the threat to go to court; it could be at threat of non-payment; it could be the threat to go public; and it could even be a threat of bodily harm.

All of these practices have an important element of fear. The fear that these threats will be used is called coercive power.

It is often pointed out that victims can be left in the wake of the use of coercive power. This is probably why the use of coercive power could be effective but is often short lived in its effect, with a long process of rebuttal later on. The price of integrative negotiation seems to be paid before the actual agreement is reached, while the price of war is often paid afterwards (and in many cases, for centuries after the war has taken place).

Obedience

During the years 1933 to 1945, millions of innocent people were killed in Nazi Germany's gas chambers. The deaths of these people were engineered by a single person who, through a series of commands (combining authority with fear), gave orders to have the grim deeds carried out. The fabric that binds command to action is obedience. According to psychologist Stanley Milgram (1963) obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual actions to political purpose. It is the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority. Because people tend to obey orders, history has witnessed many atrocities. Some historians suggest that during the course of history more hideous crimes have resulted from obedience to authority than from any type of rebellion.

The problem of obedience to authority is age old and has been recognised for thousands of years. This is one of the reasons why people with authority can be extremely effective in negotiations with subordinates.

Comparing reward power and coercive power

Although coercive power sometimes results in amazing short-term effects, it would seem fairly clear that reward power is, according to Lewicki et al (1985:247), far more likely to produce desired consequences, with less close observation and control than coercive power.

Yet, efforts at coercion are a common occurrence in negotiation. When simple persuasion fails, when tempers flare, when self-esteem is threatened, or when the vision of material gain overshadows the understanding of the potential cost of its use, the efforts at coercion through threats and hostile language are likely to increase. It is at these times that the emotional expression of anger or feelings of frustration and impotence may overwhelm the rational understanding of the effectiveness of reward strategies.

Expert Power

A person who possesses expertise that is highly valued has expert power. Experts have power even when their rank is low. An individual may possess expertise on technical, administrative, or personal matters. The more difficult it is to replace the expert; the greater is the degree of expert power that he or she possesses. Expert power is sometimes referred to as information power and is often a personal characteristic.

For example: A secretary who has a relatively low-level organisational position may have high expert power because he or she knows the details of operating the business - where everything is or how to handle difficult situations.

According to Lewicki et al. (1985:249), men and nations will act rationally when all other possibilities have been exhausted. Within the context of negotiation, expert power is the most common form of power in use. Expert power refers to the persuasive, influential nature of the information itself. It refers to the accumulation and presentation of information that will change the other's point of view on an issue.

Lewicki et al. (1985:251) are of the opinion that expert power is a special form of information power. Information power can be used by anyone who has studied and prepared his position for negotiation. Expert power, according to this author, is accorded to those who are seen as having mastered and organized a great wealth of information.

Lewicki et al. are of the opinion that there are methods by which a negotiator can establish him or herself as an expert in the eyes of the other party:

  • By citing facts and figures.

  • By 'name dropping'.

  • By citing examples of detailed experiences gained in well-known institutions.

  • By being known through the press or through other people, or through writing articles in well-known journals (by being visible).

Presentation of information

Within the context of negotiation, information power is at the heart of expert power. Even in the simplest negotiation, the way that information is presented could make a large impact on the outcome. In the light of this it can be seen that visual aids like charts, graphs and good statistics have a substantial impact on a negotiation. Market research on other prices in the area, on consumer's opinions and on financial position and the interest of suppliers is important information to gather when preparing oneself. Care should be taken that this information is trustworthy, since if it is proved to be untrue this could damage the trust built through negotiation in a serious way.

Information power is often used in a distributive way so that information is manipulated to control the options open to the other party. For example, the other's choice of behaviour is influenced by sending him positive information about the option we want him to choose, or by concealing information about an option we don't want him to choose.

In some cases experts are brought into negotiations since people are less likely to argue with a perceived expert in the area of his expertise. To really take on the challenge, the non-expert would probably have to consult with another expert, which is costly, time consuming and somewhat risky. The lack of confidence of the non-expert is often quite visible in his body language, posture and manner speaking.

Countering good information

Countering information power can be a real problem. When information or an expert is brought in to counter the other side's information, it can lead to an escalation in conflict with either a negative result of no resolution of the conflict and hence agreement; or a positive result which leads to a search for other alternatives which could be beneficial to the negotiation process. So the best approach would be to: Explore all the information at hand. See an expert for what he is. All experts have abilities in a certain field, but seldom over the whole field covered by the negotiation.

Either specify or generalize depending on the posturing of the opposition. For example, if the opponent comes with very specific information, an effective counter would be to return with very general information.

Referent Power

It is common to identify with and be influenced by a person because of his personality or behavioural style. The charisma of that person forms the basis of referent power. A person with charisma is admired because of his or her personality. The strength of a person's charisma is an indication of his or her referent power. Charisma is a term used to describe the magnetic personalities of some politicians, entertainers and sports figures. Some managers are also regarded by their subordinates as extremely charismatic.

Referent power is sometimes referred to as personal power. Referent (or personal) power is based on the target's attraction to the power holder - liking, perceived similarity, admiration, desire to be close to or friendly with the power holder. This attraction may be based on physical attractiveness, dress, mannerisms, lifestyle or position, but can also include friendliness, congeniality, honesty, integrity and so on.

Truly charismatic people - those who have a unique blend of physical characteristics, speech, mannerisms and self-confidence- are able to influence very large groups of people by their actions. Referent power is based on the need of an individual to identify with people of influence or attractiveness. The more the target admires or identifies with an individual, the more referent influence the power holder has and the more control he can exert because of this identification. This form of power is often regarded as one of the strongest in negotiation.

In international negotiations governments realise the importance of sending professional negotiators or individuals with special qualities of referent power to negotiate on their behalf. If personal power is abused by any side it can lead to tremendous distrust between the parties involved. Personal power is seldom associated with destructive tactics of any form, because individuals with an abundance o personal power will often try to find those agreements that could befit both sides as not to leave any victims in their wake and thus lose their source of attractiveness.

The personal integrity of an individual in the opponent's team could be a very strong from of common ground in negotiations. Many negotiators fall back on the integrity of the parties and the relationships built up between individuals as the strongest bond that exists between negotiating parties. The very existence of this bond will encourage them to find solutions for any conflict that may occur.

Power in negotiations

Negotiation power can be defined as the ability of one negotiator to influence or modify the behavior of another. It has a variety of aspects and qualities. Power is not absolute but relational; one has power in relation to some other person or event. It is relational because the ability to influence others has to be accepted by them. Often power cannot be acquired rather it is given by others, for example, when one acts on behalf or a corporation or a large group of people.

Power is the source of pressure, while influence is the use of power. It is often associate with strength; powerful politicians, speakers and corporate officers can influence organizations and groups of people. But weak have power if they can deny what others wish to obtain.

Power is effective only when the target agrees to comply. Everybody may be able to resist the power of another. But one may feel powerless to resist. Also, the social, political, personal, and/or emotional price to be paid may be considered too high in comparision with compliance. Fear of failure in resisting someones power may be another reson for compliance.

The aspects and qualities of negotiating power include:

  • It is relative between the parties;

  • Changes over time;

  • Is always limited;

  • Can be either real or apparent;

  • Its exercise has both benefits and costs;

  • It relates to the ability to punish or benefit;

  • It is enhanced by legal support, personal knowledge, skill, resources and hard work;

  • It is increased by the ability to endure uncertainty and by commitment;

  • It is enhanced by a good negotiating relationship;

  • It depends on the perceived BATNA; and

  • It exists to the extent that it is accepted

Sources of power ( J. French and B. Raven, "The Bases of Social Power." In D. Cartwright (ed.), "Studies in Social Power." Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 2001, pp. 150-167.)

  • Information power and expert power is based on based on what one knows, what experience one has, and/or what special skills or talents one has. It involves the ability to present facts, make credible arguments, be persuasive with data.

  • Reward power is based on the ability of some to offer positive or negative rewards be it tangible (e.g., monetary) or intangible (e.g., spiritual). It requires access to (re)sources that others require: direct and indirect control over resources.

  • Legitimate power gives you authority because of your position in a hierarchy. This often gives you also information and resource power. Legitimate power can also be gained by reputation and performance have an influence. If you get things done (performance), people will respect the fact that you can get things done (reputation).

  • Referent power comes from affiliations and location in organizational structure: social networks can give you information power. Some positions are more powerful in terms of centrality, criticality, flexibility and visibility in a network

  • Coercive power exists when the use of or the threat of force is made to extract compliance from another. Force can be physical but also social, emotional, political, or economic.

  • Personal sources of power: friendliness, emotion, integrity, and persistence.

Strategies of influence

  • Persuasion - ability to create a compelling logical argument.

  • Exchange - offering favors or promises to secure the other person's cooperation. "One hand washes the other"

  • Legitimacy - ability to give direct orders and control the content & process of negotiation.

  • Friendliness - Establishing rapport

  • Praise or reinforcement - strong influence on shaping people's behavior

  • Assertiveness - being very direct, using strong and compelling language.

  • Inspirational Appeal - emotional appeal that targets someone's values or aspirations

  • Consultation - involving others makes them more likely to follow final decision

  • Pressure - like commitments, defines some consequence for your behavior

  • Coalitions - getting support from others to strengthen your case

Illustration of the relativity of power

This story has been circulated on the internet. Allegedly it is based on an 'actual radio conversation' between a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier (U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln) and Canadian authorities of the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995.

Canadians:

Please divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid collision.

Americans:

Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.

Canadians:

Negative. You will have to divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid collision.

Americans:

This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.

Canadians:

No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.

Americans:

This is the aircraft carrier uss lincoln, the second largest ship in the united states' atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that you change your course 15 degrees north. I say again, that's one five degrees north, or counter-measures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.

Canadians:

USS Lincoln, this is a lighthouse.....Your call.