Search results

This paper aims to identify and discuss four major sources of power in negotiations.

The four sources of power are alternatives, information, status and social capital. Each of these sources of power can enhance a negotiator’s likelihood of obtaining their ideal outcome because power allows negotiators to be more confident and proactive, and it shields them from the bargaining tactics of their opponents.

The paper discusses how negotiators can utilize each source of power to improve their negotiation outcomes.

The paper provides a parsimonious definition of power in negotiations, identifies the four major sources of negotiator powers and highlights two pathways by which power affects negotiation outcomes.

Purpose – This chapter provides a framework that captures the fundamental impacts of power at the individual, dyadic, small group, and organizational levels. Within each level, we trace the psychological, cognitive, and behavioral consequences of having or lacking power.

Approach – We integrate theoretical approaches from psychology, sociology, behavioral economics, and organizational theory to underscore the far-reaching effects that power has.

Findings – We review theoretical and empirical evidence that demonstrate that (a) power leads people to take action, increases their general sense of control, and shape the way they construe the world; (b) power anesthetizes people to other people's emotions and immunizes them from the pressures of conformity; and (c) power differences within groups may facilitate group functioning by creating order, reducing conflict, and facilitating coordination. In addition to providing a framework for existing research on power, we also provide three research directions in hope of generating fruitful future research.

Originality/value – Through a careful review of the literature, we demonstrate that power helps people know who does what, when, and how.

A growing literature has recognized the importance of mental simulation (e.g., imagining alternatives to reality) in sparking creativity. In this chapter, we examine how counterfactual thinking, or imagining alternatives to past outcomes, affects group creativity. We explore these effects by articulating a model that considers the influence of counterfactual thinking on both the cognitive and social processes known to impact group creative performance. With this framework, we aim to stimulate research on group creativity from a counterfactual perspective.

We present a model of how culture affects both the conceptualizations and behavioral consequences of power, focusing in particular on how culture moderates the previously demonstrated positive relationship between power and assertive action. Western cultures tend to be characterized by independence, whereas individuals in East Asian cultures tend to think of themselves as interdependent. As a result, power is conceptualized around influence and entitlement in the West, and Westerners behave assertively to satisfy oneself. In contrast, East Asians conceptualize power around responsibility and tend to consider how their behavior affects others. As a result the experience of power activates a tendency toward restraint. Therefore, power is associated with an increase in assertive action in independent cultures, whereas it leads to restraint of action in interdependent cultures. We discuss a number of moderators of this effect including the type of actions and the groups who are affected by those actions.

[Conquer with inaction] (L. C. Tsu (600 BC) Tao te ching).

When will individuals accept or reject systems that subordinate them, when will they take actions that will challenge these status hierarchies, and when will such challenges be more intense, overt, and non-normative? Research suggests that individuals often justify and maintain systems that subordinate them, yet we suggest that there are certain boundary conditions that predict when individuals will no longer accept their place in such systems. We propose a model that examines how multiple factors: A sense of power, emotions associated with power, and perceptions of the system's legitimacy and stability – predict when those in low power will act against authority or when they will act to justify and maintain such systems. We also suggest that the level and type of action taken against a hierarchy changes as more of the elements (i.e., sense of power, emotions, perceptions of the status hierarchy) of our model are present. We predict that the actions taken against hierarchies become more overt and non-normative as more of these factors are present.

We present a model of reappropriation, the phenomenon whereby a stigmatized group revalues an externally imposed negative label by self-consciously referring to itself in terms of that label. The model specifies the causes and consequences of reappropriation as well as the essential conditions necessary for reappropriation to be effective. To place the concept of reappropriation in proper context, we begin by discussing the roots of stigma and the mediating role played by social categorization and social identity in the realization of stigma’s deleterious effects. We also discuss the strategies available to both individuals and groups by which stigmatized individuals can enhance their devalued social identities. We provide a discussion of two historical cases of reappropriation and some preliminary empirical evidence concerning the consequences of self-labeling and attempting to reappropriate a stigmatizing label. Finally we discuss the implications of the model for groups and teams, both within and outside of organizations.

A full understanding of organizational and group effectiveness must take into the account the causes and contexts that exacerbate and reduce tension between groups, and the individual psychological mechanisms involved. This chapter attempts to analyze intergroup behavior through a phenomenological lens: examining how people perceive groups, their own and others, and how these perceptions shape subsequent behavior. Two individually based processes, categorization and egocentrism, and two group-based processes, competition over scarce recourses and strivings for positive social identities, allow intergroup hostilities and biases to flourish. Two strategies for reducing intergroup tension, both of which involve transforming representations of the out-group, are discussed. One is a group-based strategy, which involves structurally altering the relationship between groups by increasing their interdependence. The other strategy, perspective-taking, is individually based. Perspective-taking increases out-group evaluations, decreases stereotyping, and decreases the selection of expectancy-consistent information, all through activation and application of the self-concept. Because many intergroup biases are rooted in individual psychological processes, such as categorization and egocentrism, it is suggested that strategies designed to reduce intergroup tensions that build off these biases might be particularly effective. Implications of intergroup conflict and perspective-taking for organizations are discussed.