Power incapacitates your Power to Negotiate
“Power is the great aphrodisiac”, said Henry Kissinger. If we look a little deeper, then we can further say that power is not only an aphrodisiac but also capable of forcing people to do weird things. When people feel powerful, they stop trying to 'control themselves’ and it has bearing on their success in personal and professional life including negotiation.
Power is widely acknowledged to affect the outcome of negotiation in favour of the party having power. Most conceptions of power are founded on Weber's (1947) classic definition of power as “the probability that a person can carry out his or her own will despite resistance”. Each party in negotiation tries to influence the behaviour and tactics of the other party to have a favourable outcome. Power is the necessary tool to achieve this objective. The greater one's power relative to the power of the other party, the more resources one is capable to claim.
While there is no denying the fact that the balance of outcome in a negotiation often tilts in favour of the party having greater power, there are examples where people with greater power have harmed their cause in negotiation. A simple thing like having done well in one negotiation makes people prideful and they may have their guard down going into the next negotiation. Becker and Curhan in an experiment with both college undergraduates in a lab and employees of a shipping company who undertook repeated negotiations over fuel prices found that those who felt proud in one round suffered in the next round when shifting to negotiate with a new party.
One classic example comes from Camp David Accords. Camp David Accords is an agreement between Israel and Egypt signed on September 17, 1978, that led to a peace treaty between these two countries. The accord was mediated by the then U.S. President Jimmy Carter between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and was titled the “Framework for Peace in the Middle East.” The agreement became known as the Camp David Accords because the negotiations took place at the U.S. presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland.
Sadat’s political position affected his bargaining success at Camp David. The centralized political system in Egypt resulted in committing several bargaining mistakes on Sadat's part. As the President, he had complete decision-making authority and the political power to influence public opinion. “The people of Egypt could be easily manipulated by Sadat, and their beliefs and attitudes could be shaped by their leader,” wrote Carter in his book ‘Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President’. Therefore, Sadat could not buy time in the name of saying that he needs to consult his other constituents. Everyone knew that his hands were not tied politically and thus he had to decide on the fly. Also, this concentration of power led to overconfidence. Sadat would often override the better judgment of his advisors, sometimes even to the point of causing public humiliation. “Thus, Sadat’s strong position in the Egyptian government harmed his ability to negotiate an optimal outcome for his country,” wrote Telhami Shibley in Political Science Quarterly.
Power has been found as a contributing factor towards lowering inhibitions just like alcohol does. Does it look like we are talking about Vijay Mallya? Just a coincidence. Powerful people tend to act with great daring. They work with the mindset of ‘no holds bar’. Does it look like we are talking about Harshad Mehta? Just a coincidence. With power comes arrogance and arrogance leads to over-confidence. A simple story explains this phenomenon. A very strong guy once upon a time went hunting and shot a bird. As he wanted to take the bird from the farm where the bird had fallen, there was a very slim boy who stopped him. He told this guy that to take the bird he has to play a game with him. In this game they both will give three punches to each other turn by turn and finally whosoever accepts the defeat will be the loser and the winner will have the right to keep the bird.
The guy looked at himself and then at this young and slim boy and accepted to play the game. As this young boy wanted to do the toss to decide who will be the first one to give three punches, confident of his capabilities the guy said to the boy that there is no need to do the toss. He can be the first one to give three punches. This boy gave him the first punch, then the second and finally the third. Having given three punches the guy said, “Get ready now it is my turn.” The boy in turn said, “Sir there is no need, I accept my defeat and you can take the bird.”
Arrogance, over-inflating one’s self-worth and pleasure in belittling others, has all the hallmarks of forcing people to do blunders. People with power pay very little attention to what others think. They are overly optimistic and more likely to take wild risks. Does it look like we are talking about Donald Trump? Just a coincidence. Roderick Kramer of Stanford notes that powerful people are likely to find that every mirror held up to them says, in effect, you are the fairest of them all. In their love for themselves, they close their eyes to the fact that people do not like powerful people.
In a classroom experiment, a class of 90 students was formed into groups of 3 each. They were assigned number 1, 2, and 3 on a random basis and then were told that the participant with number 1 has 20 votes, 2 has 30 votes and 4 has 40 votes. They were told that any coalition of 2 participants with 50 or more votes will entitle them to get 10 marks as part of their course evaluation, but they need to have an agreement as to how those 10 marks would be split between the two of them. The condition is that the split will take place in the open. When one member proposes to the other member of the group a split of say 7 marks for me and 3 marks for you, the third member of the group has the authority to intervene and can make a counter proposal that could be a better deal to the one who was offered 3 marks by the first member of the group. For example, he can offer 6 marks to the other and keep 4 marks for himself. Now the first member who is likely to be out of the coalition intervenes and makes another tempting offer to either of the other two members of the group. The game continues till they reach an agreement or for a specific time allotted for this purpose. Every year when this game is conducted, it is found that in almost 70 to 80 per cent of the cases coalition take place between participants who had 20 and 30 votes. The one with 40 votes was often out of the coalition.
Thus, having fewer votes led to a better outcome. When asked to explain why a person with more votes was out of the coalition, the answer – he/she looked very arrogant, had a greater sense of entitlement, and thought that he/she can dictate the terms of negotiation and wanted a greater share of the pie. We wanted to teach him a lesson.
The use of authority, dominance, force and manipulation is never appreciated by others. Successful negotiators ensure that even though the outcome may not be favourable to their counterpart, they should go back with a smiling face and a feeling of victory. Research on procedural justice has found that people feel more satisfied when a negotiation involves procedures that they perceive to be fair. To get this win-win outcome to follow fair processes, acknowledge your counterpart’s perspective and never make them feel inferior. The ultimate lesson? Try whatever is necessary to amass power in negotiation but always remain focussed on your interests, the satisfaction of your counterpart and never allow your position to incapacitate you.The
The author is a Professor of Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management at IIM Raipur. He can be reached at kamal@iimraipur.ac.in.
