Leverage (negotiation)

Last updated

In negotiation, leverage is the power that one side of a negotiation has to influence the other side to move closer to their negotiating position. A party's leverage is based on its ability to award benefits or impose costs on the other side. [1] [2] Another conceptualization holds that the party that has the most to lose from a "no deal" outcome has less leverage than the party that has the least to lose. [3]

Contents

Leverage has been described as "negotiation's prime mover," indicating its important role in bargaining and negotiation situations. [4] Individuals with strong leverage can sometimes overcome weak negotiating skills, whereas those with poor leverage have a reduced likelihood of being successful even if they have strong negotiating skills.

Bargaining power

It is said that those that one has discretion over can provide leverage and this can be demonstrated in the way advertising time sellers have bargaining power at holiday time or television shows if their advertisement slots are full. [5] In order for a negotiating side's leverage to work in their favor, the threats or promises they put forth must be perceived as credible by the opposing group. This does not mean that the threats and promises have to be based in facts, but the opposing group must believe that a specific threat or promise can be carried out and that it would make them better or worse off compared to the other side. [2]

Leverage can be measured qualitatively in terms of how much one side has to lose from not coming to an agreement. [2] [6] Generally, the side or group that is most in need of an agreement has the least leverage. The side or group that is willing to walk away (when this is a possibility) has the most leverage.

A key aspect of leverage is that it is a dynamic rather than a static factor. [2] This means that it can change as more information is gathered or the situation evolves. A hostage situation is a prime example of how leverage can be dynamic. Early on in a hostage situation, control is held by the hostage takers; they have the greatest leverage: the lives of their hostages. However, as the situation evolves, effective hostage negotiators can gain leverage, take control, and eventually free the hostages. Here, the fear of "no deal" can shift back and forth between the participants so that leverage changes moment by moment. [2]

Types of leverage

There are three types of leverage: positive leverage, negative leverage, and normative leverage. [1] [2]

Positive leverage

Positive leverage is a negotiator's ability to provide things that his or her opponent wants. Positive leverage is based in the ability of one party to satisfy the needs of another party. The power from positive leverage comes from the opportunity to provide or withhold the needed item or action. The strength of this type of leverage is determined by the other alternatives available to the opposition (often referred to as the "BATNA" or the best alternative to a negotiated agreement). If there are others who can also fulfill the opposition's needs, then the leverage is weakened since the opposition can go elsewhere to receive what they need. [1] [2]

In politics, an example of positive leverage is logrolling, or vote trading. Legislators will promise to vote the way that another legislator wants on one issue in order to gain their opponent's vote on another issue. [7]

Negative leverage

Negative leverage is a threat-based form of leverage that represents one side's ability to make the other side worse off. The power of negative leverage relies on loss aversion. Because potential losses are seen as worse than equivalent gains, negative leverage can be very powerful. However, it can also bring out strong reactions from the opposing party, straining the relationship. Neither party's interests are advanced by negative leverage except for the gain that the party employing the leverage may get towards their ultimate desired outcome from the negotiation. [1] [2]

Picketing in labor negotiations is an example of negative leverage. The goal of picketing is to attract negative attention to the employer, but the employees do not gain any material benefits from the act of picketing itself. [7]

Normative leverage

Normative leverage relies on using social standards or norms to encourage consensus. It draws from the principle of consistency, using such standards and norms as well as coherent positioning to advance or protect a position. [8] This type of leverage is maximized when the negotiating groups agree on these social standards or norms and see them as relevant to the discussion at hand. Normative leverage stems from people's desire to be consistent and reasonable in their decision-making. [2]

An example of normative leverage would be for one party to appeal to another's religious or moral standards as grounds for acting in a certain way. Richard Shell refers to the Hanafi hostage situation as an example of using normative leverage in his book on bargaining and negotiation. [2] Hostage negotiators read from and discussed the Koran (or Quran) with the hostage takers in order to encourage the peaceful release of remaining hostages.

Improving leverage

Since leverage changes over the course of a negotiation, a party's leverage can be improved through a number of ways.

Creating coalitions

Forming a coalition with other parties during a negotiation can increase the amount of leverage that group has over opposition. The improved leverage is a result of group dynamics which often favor the group with the largest membership. Studies in social psychology have found that individuals will often conform to the beliefs of the larger group. [2]

Gathering more information

As a negotiation moves forward, each party learns more about what the other side wants, its priorities, and its vulnerabilities. This information can shape the threats and promises that each side can make, as well as their weight. [2] Gathering information about the opposition and limiting the release of information about your position can help a party gain or maintain leverage.

Time

Time can be a key factor in a negotiation. The party with the most patience and ability to wait has greater leverage. As time moves forward, leverage can shift if one group needs to come to a resolution sooner than the other. [2] Transportation workers, for example, can use time to their advantage by conducting last minute strikes that put increased pressure on their employer to settle labor disputes in order to be able to fulfill their obligations to their customers. [6]

Coercion

If leverage is abused it can lead to coercion. [1] This happens most often with the use of negative leverage. The improper use of negative leverage can put the opposing party in duress, leading them to make decisions that they normally would not if they had free will. [9] Abuse of positive leverage can also lead to coercion, including bribery and blackmail. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negotiation</span> Dialogue intended to reach an agreement

Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more parties to resolve points of difference, gain an advantage for an individual or collective, or craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. The parties aspire to agree on matters of mutual interest. The agreement can be beneficial for all or some of the parties involved. The negotiators should establish their own needs and wants while also seeking to understand the wants and needs of others involved to increase their chances of closing deals, avoiding conflicts, forming relationships with other parties, or maximizing mutual gains. Distributive negotiations, or compromises, are conducted by putting forward a position and making concessions to achieve an agreement. The degree to which the negotiating parties trust each other to implement the negotiated solution is a major factor in determining the success of a negotiation.

In economics and related disciplines, a transaction cost is a cost in making any economic trade when participating in a market. The idea that transactions form the basis of economic thinking was introduced by the institutional economist John R. Commons in 1931, and Oliver E. Williamson's Transaction Cost Economics article, published in 2008, popularized the concept of transaction costs. Douglass C. North argues that institutions, understood as the set of rules in a society, are key in the determination of transaction costs. In this sense, institutions that facilitate low transaction costs, boost economic growth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Power (social and political)</span> Ability to influence the behavior of others

In social science and politics, power is the social production of an effect that determines the capacities, actions, beliefs, or conduct of actors. Power does not exclusively refer to the threat or use of force (coercion) by one actor against another, but may also be exerted through diffuse means. Power may also take structural forms, as it orders actors in relation to one another, and discursive forms, as categories and language may lend legitimacy to some behaviors and groups over others.

In politics, hard power is the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. This form of political power is often aggressive (coercion), and is most immediately effective when imposed by one political body upon another of lesser military and/or economic power. Hard power contrasts with soft power, which comes from diplomacy, culture and history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extortion</span> Criminal offense of obtaining benefit through coercion

Extortion is the practice of obtaining benefit through coercion. In most jurisdictions it is likely to constitute a criminal offence; the bulk of this article deals with such cases. Robbery is the simplest and most common form of extortion, although making unfounded threats in order to obtain an unfair business advantage is also a form of extortion.

In negotiation theory, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA refers to the most advantageous alternative course of action a party can take if negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached. The BATNA could include diverse situations, such as suspension of negotiations, transition to another negotiating partner, appeal to the court's ruling, the execution of strikes, and the formation of other forms of alliances. BATNA is the key focus and the driving force behind a successful negotiator. A party should generally not accept a worse resolution than its BATNA. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that deals are accurately valued, taking into account all considerations, such as relationship value, time value of money and the likelihood that the other party will live up to their side of the bargain. These other considerations are often difficult to value since they are frequently based on uncertain or qualitative considerations rather than easily measurable and quantifiable factors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bargaining</span> Negotiation between a buyer and seller over the price and nature of their transaction

In the social sciences, bargaining or haggling is a type of negotiation in which the buyer and seller of a good or service debate the price or nature of a transaction. If the bargaining produces agreement on terms, the transaction takes place. It is often commonplace in poorer countries, or poorer localities within any specific country. Haggling can mostly be seen within street markets worldwide, wherein there remains no guarantee of the origin and authenticity of available products. Many people attribute it as a skill, but there remains no guarantee that the price put forth by the buyer would be acknowledged by the seller, resulting in losses of profit and even turnover in some cases. A growth in the country's GDP Per Capita Income is bound to reduce both the ill-effects of bargaining and the unscrupulous practices undertaken by vendors at street markets.

In law and economics, the Coase theorem describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are sufficiently low transaction costs, bargaining will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasean bargaining. This 'theorem' is commonly attributed to Nobel Prize laureate Ronald Coase.

The foundations of negotiation theory are decision analysis, behavioral decision-making, game theory, and negotiation analysis. Another classification of theories distinguishes between Structural Analysis, Strategic Analysis, Process Analysis, Integrative Analysis and behavioral analysis of negotiations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Picketing</span> Form of protest, usually labor action

Picketing is a form of protest in which people congregate outside a place of work or location where an event is taking place. Often, this is done in an attempt to dissuade others from going in, but it can also be done to draw public attention to a cause. Picketers normally endeavor to be non-violent. It can have a number of aims, but is generally to put pressure on the party targeted to meet particular demands or cease operations. This pressure is achieved by harming the business through loss of customers and negative publicity, or by discouraging or preventing workers or customers from entering the site and thereby preventing the business from operating normally.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zone of possible agreement</span>

The term zone of possible agreement (ZOPA), also known as zone of potential agreement or bargaining range, describes the range of options available to two parties involved in sales and negotiation, where the respective minimum targets of the parties overlap. Where no such overlap is given, in other words where there is no rational agreement possibility, the inverse notion of NOPA applies. Where there is a ZOPA, an agreement within the zone is rational for both sides. Outside the zone no amount of negotiation should yield an agreement.

Cooperative bargaining is a process in which two people decide how to share a surplus that they can jointly generate. In many cases, the surplus created by the two players can be shared in many ways, forcing the players to negotiate which division of payoffs to choose. Such surplus-sharing problems are faced by management and labor in the division of a firm's profit, by trade partners in the specification of the terms of trade, and more.

In a notable study of power conducted by social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven in 1959, power is divided into five separate and distinct forms. They identified those five bases of power as coercive, reward, legitimate, referent, and expert. This was followed by Raven's subsequent addition in 1965 of a sixth separate and distinct base of power: informational power.

<i>Getting to Yes</i> 1981 book about negotiation methods by Roger Fisher

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In is a best-selling 1981 non-fiction book by Roger Fisher and William Ury. Subsequent editions in 1991 and 2011 added Bruce Patton as co-author. All of the authors were members of the Harvard Negotiation Project.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Naïve cynicism</span> Cognitive bias

Naïve cynicism is a philosophy of mind, cognitive bias and form of psychological egoism that occurs when people naïvely expect more egocentric bias in others than actually is the case.

A contingent contract is an agreement that states which actions under certain conditions will result in specific outcomes. Contingent contracts usually occur when negotiating parties fail to reach an agreement. The contract is characterized as "contingent" because the terms are not final and are based on certain events or conditions occurring.

A conflict is a struggle and a clash of interest, opinion, or even principles. Conflict will always be found in society; as the basis of conflict may vary to be personal, racial, class, caste, political and international. Conflict may also be emotional, intellectual, and theoretical, in which case academic recognition may, or may not be, a significant motive. Intellectual conflict is a subclass of cultural conflict, a conflict that tends to grow over time due to different cultural values and beliefs.

A delaying tactic or delay tactic is a strategic device sometimes used during business, diplomatic or interpersonal negotiations, in which one party to the negotiation seeks to gain an advantage by postponing a decision. Someone uses a delaying tactic when they expect to have a stronger negotiating position at a later time. They may also use a delaying tactic when they prefer the status quo to any of the potential resolutions, or to impose costs on the other party to compel them to accept a settlement or compromise. Delay tactics are also sometimes used as a form of indirect refusal wherein one party postpones a decision indefinitely rather than refusing a negotiation outright. To use a delaying tactic, the delaying party must have some form of control over the decision-making process.

In international relations, migration diplomacy is 'the use of diplomatic tools, processes, and procedures to manage cross-border population mobility,' including 'both the strategic use of migration flows as a means to obtain other aims, and the use of diplomatic methods to achieve goals related to migration.' Migration has come to constitute an increasingly-important area of states' engagement with one another, with bilateral multilateral strategies including the promotion or discouragement of bilateral migratory flows; agreements on preferential treatment to certain foreign nationals; the initiation of guest-worker programmes or other short-term labor migration schemes; the deportation of foreign nationals; and so on.

The 2021–2022 Columbia University strike was a labor strike involving graduate student workers at Columbia University in New York City. The strike began on March 15, 2021, and ended on May 13, 2021. However, additional strike action commenced on November 3 and lasted until January 7, 2022, when a tentative agreement with the university was reached. The strike was organized by the Graduate Workers of Columbia–United Auto Workers Local 2110 (SWC–UAW), a labor union representing student workers at the university. The goals of the strike were an increase in wages, increased healthcare and childcare coverage, and third-party arbitration in cases of discrimination and sexual harassment.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 F., Kirgis, Paul (2014-01-01). "Bargaining with Consequences: Leverage and Coercion in Negotiation". Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 19.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Shell, G. Richard (2006-05-02). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People 2nd Edition (2 ed.). Penguin Books. ISBN   9780143036975.
  3. Shell, G. Richard (2006-05-02). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People . Penguin. p.  85. ISBN   9781101221372. leverage negotiation dynamic.
  4. Lee, Hetherington, H. (1995-01-01). "Negotiating Lessons from Iran: Synthesizing Langdell & Maccrate". Catholic University Law Review. 44 (3).
  5. Kennedy, Gavin (2009). Essential Negotiation: An A to Z Guide, Second edition. New York: Bloomberg Press. p. 132. ISBN   9781576603529.
  6. 1 2 Volkema, Roger J. (2006-01-01). Leverage: How to Get It and How to Keep It in Any Negotiation. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. ISBN   9780814426968.
  7. 1 2 Dictionary of American history. Kutler, Stanley I. (3rd ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 2003. ISBN   0684805332. OCLC   50404043.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  8. Cooley, John W. (2006). The Mediator's Handbook: Advanced Practice Guide for Civil Litigation, Second edition. National Institute for Trial Advocacy. p. 215. ISBN   9781556819940.
  9. Nozick, Robert (2013-11-12). Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Reprint ed.). Basic Books. ISBN   9780465051007.