William goldman

*109 buoy his spirits, then who was she to sit in judgment? . . . At thirty-eight years of age . . . she was learning to accept his weaknesses and enjoy his strengths.429

Once again, one sees the situational nature of power. In this example, despite being arguably the most powerful person in the world, Roosevelt had to achieve his goal through weakness, not strength.

Third, weakness can trump a stronger party’s power if the powerful party faces public criticism for taking action against the weaker. Publicity can often shift the balance of power when television and newspapers treat a powerful party’s actions as exploitative. For example, during the Montgomery bus boycott by blacks during the mid-1950s, media coverage from across the country exposed the oppressive nature of segregation in the south, slowly leading to reform efforts. Moreover, the publicity discouraged white violence and emboldened the black boycotters, eventually leading the city government to accede to their demands.430

Finally, weakness can lead to desperate acts, which in turn may make coercive behaviors by powerful parties very costly-so much that the battle may not be worth it.431 Rosa Parks, a black woman in Montgomery whose refusal to move from her seat to permit a white man to sit down triggered the historic boycott, had not sought a confrontation on the day that she was arrested. She was just tired and frustrated. As David Halberstam describes it:

Perhaps the most interesting thing about her was how ordinary she was, at least on the surface, almost the prototype of the black woman who toiled so hard and had so little to show for it. She had not, she later explained, thought about getting arrested that day. Later, the stunned white leaders of Montgomery repeatedly charged that Park’s refusal was part of a carefully orchestrated plan on the part of the local NAACP, of which she *110 was an officer. But that was not true; what she did represented one person’s exhaustion with a system that dehumanized all black people. Something inside her finally snapped.432

In such acts of desperation by the oppressed are sometimes born mighty movements that forever shift the power dynamics of a community, a city, and, ultimately, a nation. It, therefore, should not surprise that they can easily change the dynamics of a negotiation.

VI. Bargaining With Weaker Parties: Advice For the Powerful

Those who have a power advantage in a negotiation face challenges of a different sort than those with less power. As a starting point, they may find dealing with a weaker party difficult because of the weaker party’s natural hesitancy to negotiate from such a vulnerable position. They may also find weaker parties more inclined to lash out when pressed too hard.433 Moreover, even if the stronger party can force an agreement on the weaker party, the stronger party may find the deal undermined and nitpicked after the parties have signed a contract. A short-run advantage may well turn into a long run disaster.434

We offer three pieces of advice to more powerful parties to negotiations. First, do not always press advantages to the fullest. In a gracious manner, let the weaker party realize some gains that one could have taken for himself or herself,435 especially if there is even a slight *111 possibility that one will do business with the weaker party in the future. We urge this both on ethical and prudential grounds. Not only we do find overreaching to be unfair, but also we suggest that those who oppress today will find few supporters when the tables are turned-as often they are. Moreover, oppressive agreements are inherently unstable.436 To be successful in business, one needs not only to be viewed as tough and shrewd, but also as fair.437

Second, when one has done well in a negotiation, without appearing obsequious or patronizing, one should go out of his or her way to reassure the other side how well they have done.438 One of the secrets of being a “powerful” negotiator is convincing opponents to trust you during the negotiation439 and then showing them that they also have done well.440

Finally, we remind those with more power about the critical need to permit the weaker negotiators to “save face.”441 Fisher and Ury make a compelling argument that preserving each side’s dignity in a negotiation should be one of the main goals of a successful interaction.442 Time after time, they argue, individuals in the midst of a *112 bargain will refuse to agree to terms they otherwise find acceptable because they cannot accept the perceived humiliation of backing down in front of an opponent.443 Accordingly one of the most important steps one can take is to assist the other side in accepting the terms one has sought without losing face.

VII. Conclusion

George Bernard Shaw once said, “Power does not corrupt man; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”444 By this, we take it Shaw meant that power can be misused, but it can also accomplish important and useful things. We have discussed the complexity and subtlety of power in negotiations, and we hope to have convinced the reader that one’s first assessment of the parties’ power in a negotiation may well be mistaken. Power above all is a matter of perception-and perceptions are highly changeable. One should not despair about the power dynamics, but should work aggressively to change them (including one’s own confidence level) if it appears that one brings a deficit of leverage to the table. We believe that power in negotiation can be used wisely and well, and that it can promote excellent collaborative agreements. But, as we have argued, power must be invoked carefully and wisely not only by those who are weak, but also by those who are strong.

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.