The Power and Influence Process
To negotiate successfully, one often needs to exert influence to convince others to change their positions, offer concessions, and refrain from engaging in difficult or conflict-oriented tactics. Used responsibly, power and influence can be used to elicit cooperation.
However, there is also the dark side of power and influence: being domineering or manipulative to motivate others to make decisions that are favorable to them, and knowing the basics of power an influence can prepare you to defend against unethical applications of influence in the process.
Four Basic Defensive Moves
There is a cascading yes tactic by which a negotiator makes a series of statement with which you agree, hoping to get you into a "yes-yes-yes" pattern before sneaking in something that you should disagree with - or making it seem as if disagreeing with one statement means disagreeing with the one preceding it. The fundamental defense is simply being alert and considering each question - and if you sense that they are trying to herd you, object to it by asking them to cut to the point.
Another common tactic is the power play, in which a negotiator uses a position of influence to dictate terms to the other party without the opportunity to negotiate. In many cases, the other party will simply accommodate the other party because they feel intimidated - even when it is not in their interest to do so. Pushing back is delicate, and the authors suggest the "yes and" response - in which you don't refuse, but state what you expect in return for complying.
Another tactic is making a strange request - in which the opponent presents a request in an unusual manner in hopes that it will confuse you into being compliant. This is common in con games, where a very unusual situation arises and you are willing to go along with something that ought to strike you as being a bad idea. To defend against the strange request, ignore the incidentals and focus on the goal - what is the person asking, and is it logical for you to concede, regardless of the presentation.
Finally, there's booze. It is not uncommon for someone to attempt to mix drinking and negotiating in order to gain an advantage - it may be that the negotiation is introduced in a social setting by design. The defense is simply to avoid drinking (be social, but order a soft drink), or establish some ground rules about not making business commitments in social situations.
Informal Sources of Power
The dimension of power is always central in negotiation. Thus far, power has been defined as being in a position of advantage as a result of one's interests and the need to bargain, but there are other sources of power one can tap:
- Being reasonable and fair provides power by virtue of the position, and it gives you a sort of moral authority over an opponent who has taken a more extreme position
- Innovative thinking can also be a source of power. If you have a creative way to address a problem, it can be compelling.
- Having stronger negotiation skills puts you in a position of power over an opponent with weaker skills
- Consistency is also a source of power - if you are persistent, and if you seem to have a clear direction, you have power over someone who is irregular or random
Additional Sources of Power
In addition to the sources of power above, there are also sources of power that you can tap into:
Information is power - or more aptly, ignorance is weakness. You can gain a position of authority, hence power, by gaining knowledge and expertise that your opponent lacks, or close the information gap to decrease the power others have over you.
Alliances are also a form of power. Having the buy-in of people higher up the food chain, or people with whom the opposing party wishes to establish or maintain a positive relationship motivates them to be more flexible with you. Even small players can form alliances that enable each to have a stronger position due to their connections to others.
Control of resources provides power over how the resources are to be used. If another party wants access to a resource you control, they are in a disempowered position.
Time constraint - or more aptly, lack of time constraint - is a source of power. A party whose need is time-sensitive, or who is trading in resources that expire, is pressured to come to an agreement.
Inclusion is also a basic source of power. When a party is excluded from a negotiation, their interests are not represented, and they will find it difficult to regain ground in arrears. This is especially true in multiparty negotiations, in which it is not uncommon for someone who controls the schedule to purposefully exclude another party.
Uses of Power
One use of power is the directive: you make a demand without stating that you have any intention of "punishing" the other party for failure to comply. In most cases of authority, there is implicit power to punish, and you will find that those over whom you have power will comply without having to rattle your saber at all.
The next level of power is the ability to make an indirect threat, generally in order to reframe the issue or refocus the discussion. You could state that "I'm within my rights to sue in court, but I would much rather work out a settlement between the two of us" - this brings the threat a little closer to the surface without making it directly.
Finally, making a direct threat may be necessary - but it should be as a last recourse, and made with great care. Be sure you have the power to act on your threat - and that you have the will to do so. If the other side calls your bluff, you will have lost power in then situation, and they will not be motivated by later threats. And so, be very reluctant to motivate by threat - but if you go there, make good.
There may be instances in which one party chooses to abdicate power (an executive who is willing to listen to suggestions from his inferiors). This is typical of collaborative situations, where the person in question doesn't want to ruffle feathers by pushing people around. Or it may be because they are uncertain of their power in a situation (management dealing with union employees, a high-ranking executive dealing with a low-level employee with technical expertise).
Framing a Strong Influence Message
Editorial note: it's ironic that the authors talk about a persuasive message as an afterthought, as it's the most powerful way to motivate others and the other tactics they mention here are generally "tricks" to use when you don't have the rhetorical skills to deliver a good message.
Moreover, they do a lousy job of it and provide vague, random, and sloppy advice (quote: "put the important stuff at the front"), so I'm skipping this section entirely, on the principle that bad advice is worse than none at all.