Cross Cultural

Chapter 8

Power and Authority

Tamara D. Johnson

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the dynamic of power and its effects on perceptions and actual outcomes of negotiation in a cross-cultural context.
The chapter will give an overview of various power structures and the relationship between the negotiating counterpart and the principal authority. It will offer insight into the ways that perceptions of power can influence the actions, reactions, and willingness of parties to negotiate.

105

106

Cross Cultural Negotiation for U.S. Negotiators

I. Introduction

[T]he bargaining resources of the Arab oil producers have surprised the Western world . . . . Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Libya are hardly “powers” in the conventional sense. Yet their ability to use the dis- tribution of their raw materials as a source of bargaining influence has been remarkable. They forced sig- nificant changes in the foreign policies of the Western powers and Japan in a short period of time. Indeed, they may have begun a change in the way of life of some Western nations. In contrast to Taiwan and South Korea, whose ultimate hold over the United States government has been the destruction that they would experience if they were not supported, the Arab nations are not strong because of their weakness. Rather they are strong in spite of their weakness on most conventional indicators. Their small popula- tions, modest economies, and limited military strength mean they are vulnerable to foreign attack. Yet they have valuable mineral resources that they can use to influence the actions of others.1

“Power trumps everything (including culture).”2

This statement by Kevin Avruch of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, while somewhat extreme, is a testament to the importance of power dynamics in the negoti- ation process. Negotiation is the meeting of minds and resources in an effort to influence, persuade, and ultimately gain, through agreement, some advantage. The examples in the above passage give a glimpse into the different dimensions of power and how they factor into the negotiated outcomes between the parties involved. In these situations, the element of power is more than relevant to the preferred resolu- tion; it is integral. This chapter highlights the important role that power plays in multi-cultural negotia- tions and how parties can use the power that they possess to obtain the results they desire.

“El poder triunfa sobre todo (incluida la cultura)” 2.

Esta declaración de Kevin Avruch, del Instituto de Análisis y Resolución de Conflictos de la Universidad George Mason, aunque algo extrema, es un testimonio de la importancia de la dinámica de poder en el proceso de negociación. La negociación es el encuentro de mentes y recursos en un esfuerzo por influir, persuadir y, en última instancia, obtener, mediante un acuerdo, alguna ventaja. Los ejemplos del pasaje anterior dan una idea de las diferentes dimensiones del poder y cómo influyen en los resultados negociados entre las partes involucradas. En estas situaciones, el elemento de poder es más relevante para la resolución preferida; es integral. Este capítulo destaca el importante papel que juega el poder en las negociaciones multiculturales y cómo las partes pueden utilizar el poder que poseen para obtener los resultados que desean.

II. What is Power?

Dozens of definitions of power exist in the context of negotiations,3 and they vary from culture to cul- ture.4 However, most definitions converge on several common themes. One of most prevalent of these themes is that power is perceived, i.e., a negotiator’s relative power is based on how strong or weak she thinks her position is before and during the negotiations compared to how strong a counterpart perceives that position to be. Conversely, the perception of how strong a counterpart is compared to how strong that counterpart believes he is can come into play to help shape the negotiations.5 Power is also based on the capabilities of the people involved and their use of resources.6 If a counterpart has the ability to influence the other because he is capable of performing a needed service or providing sought-after resources, that per- son gains power by virtue of owning such possessions. Because the negotiator desires to obtain these pos- sessions, the counterpart has a substantial amount of leverage with which to bargain for desired outcomes.

Existen docenas de definiciones de poder en el contexto de las negociaciones, 3 y varían de una cultura a otra.4 Sin embargo, la mayoría de las definiciones convergen en varios temas comunes. Uno de los temas más frecuentes es que se percibe el poder, es decir, el poder relativo de un negociador se basa en cuán fuerte o débil cree que es su posición antes y durante las negociaciones en comparación con cuán fuerte percibe una contraparte que es esa posición. Por el contrario, la percepción de qué tan fuerte es una contraparte en comparación con qué tan fuerte esa contraparte cree que es puede entrar en juego para ayudar a dar forma a las negociaciones.5 El poder también se basa en las capacidades de las personas involucradas y su uso de los recursos.6 Si un La contraparte tiene la capacidad de influir en la otra porque es capaz de realizar un servicio necesario o de proporcionar los recursos buscados, esa persona gana poder en virtud de poseer tales posesiones. Debido a que el negociador desea obtener estas posesiones, la contraparte tiene una cantidad sustancial de influencia para negociar los resultados deseados.

Another element of power is that it is situational.7 There are times when a “stronger” party, who seem- ingly has more power through its military, its economic status, its affiliations, or its possession of resources may not be able to exercise its “preponderant power”8 because the circumstances have shifted in favor of its counterpart. Consider the example of the United States’ negotiations with North Vietnam during the Paris Peace Agreements.9 The United States was the nuclear power, which, at the time, was the ultimate intimidator. However, despite having this resource, the United States did not achieve an advan- tage in the negotiations.10 The use of nuclear power was highly contested because of the potential effects such use might have on the former Soviet Union’s position in the conflict. The capability to use this weapon against an enemy was only a powerful negotiating tool if that enemy, North Vietnam in this sit- uation, believed that the possessor would in fact use it to accomplish the goals they were seeking through negotiations. Interestingly, North Vietnam did not believe the United States would actually use nuclear weapons or even long-range bombers on the battlefield. In fact, the U.S. threat to use such weapons had the unintended effect of hardening the resolve of North Vietnam, making it less flexible in negotiating with the United States. Indeed, the “United States was effectively stripped of its nuclear capability at the Paris negotiations —its credibility was hopelessly compromised—and the gap in power between the United States and North Vietnam was thereby narrowed dramatically.”11

...