Zimpapers Logo

Elliot Ziwira @ The Book Store

Coercive power is as corrupt as it is destructive and leaves innocent victims in its wake.

Negotiation is an art that one can decide not to understand at one’s own peril because all our everyday interactions are permeated by it; be it at the personal, familial, communal or national levels.

According to Bates (1993:158) negotiation is “a process through which an attempt is made by two parties with differing views to reach a mutually acceptable agreement”, and is influenced by a plethora of factors, chief among them being power, culture, setting and the media.

It is a given gentle reader that as human beings we will always share divergent views, which is not a folly but our foible in most cases is our failure to realise that at some point we need to negotiate so that a compromise is reached.

One of the most significant factors that can influence negotiation is power, which in some cases may be abused. According to Gibsons et al (1991:329) power is “simply the ability to get things done the way you want them done”, and as posited by Stoner and Freeman (1978) power is “the ability to change or influence the behaviour and attitudes of others”. It is never linked to price but always to value and should not be confused with authority which is regarded as “the formal power that a person has because of the position that he or she holds in an organisation”, (Gibsons et al, 1989:330).

French and Raven (1959) posited five interpersonal bases of power which are legitimate power, reward, expert, coercive and referent. All these power bases influence negotiation in different dimensions.

Legitimate power, which is similar to Weber’s (1946) concept of authority, is derived from the ability to influence because of position. Legitimate power is acquired through a number of ways; by birth, election or awarded in an institution. It can also be obtained through the ability to control rewards, or usurped. One who controls the flow of negotiation using legitimate power can opt to use it as a tactic in integration or stroking.

However, it is interesting to note that legitimate power has its on shortfalls. Firstly, it can only have influence if recognisedby the other part because it occurs mostly in social and political structures. Thus, it can be countered by denying the power holder an opportunity to talk. This is made possible through reciprocal offers while insisting that the other party continues to make concessions.

Secondly, it can be pared by denying outright that any of the parties has legitimate power of significance, (Spoelstra and Piennar (1996).

Reward power, which is the ability to reward compliance, is used to compliment with legitimate power. For instance, one with legitimate power can promise subordinates rewards to motivate and make them obey orders, requests and directions.

Rewards are not only monetary but they can also be intangible, for example, verbal approval, encouragement and praise are good substitutes for tangible rewards. Extreme politeness on the part of the power holder complements praise for past behaviour as a way of manipulating future behaviour.

Reward power is optional in circumstances where the power holder expects resistance from the target and where monetary rewards are used to avert future resistance instead of combating the present resistance and where persuasion efforts would have failed (Lewicki and Litterer, 1985). Thus this power base can be used as a modifier of behaviour because the power holder controls resources which can only be allocated to those in compliance to his or her ideas.

However, reward power is dysfunctional in that it is temporary. The instance the reward expires or loses value or the power holder loses his or her position, the power inevitably disappears.

A person who possesses expertise that is highly sought has expert power. Even though one may be ranked lowly in institutional echelons, if he/she has information he/she has expert power. As postulated by Spoelstra and Piennar in their book “Negotiation Theories: Strategies and Skills” (1996: 121), “a secretary who has relatively low level organisationalposition may have high expert power because he/she knows the details of operating the business — where everything is or how to handle difficult situations.”

Knowledge, therefore, is power and to establish one’s self as an expert in the eyes of the other party one can make such credentials like university degrees known, citing examples of experiences of well-known institutions abroad, name dropping or through visibility in the media.

Expert power can be countered by exploring all the information at hand, check on limited expertise by observing body language, posture and manner of speaking and respond with general information. Escalation of power can also be stalled by pointing out to the other party that their expertise is intimidatingly disadvantageous to them.

Referent power or personal power is manifest in personality or behavioral style. Charismatic or magnetic attributes like dress, attraction, self- confidence, congeniality, honesty and integrity command admiration, making people want to be friendly or identify with the power holder.

Another power base which is usually used or rather abused in negotiation is coercive power. Coercive power, which is the opposite of reward power, is “the ability of the power holder to take something away from the target person or to punish the target person for non-compliance with a request” (Spoelstra and Piennar, 1996). The threat to strike by civil servants and other labour unions, threat of expulsion from a political party or any other institution, threat of blocking from promotion or transfer of a subordinate for poor performance, go to court, go public or non-payment as a way of pushing for compliance, are all examples of the use of coercive power to influence negotiation outcomes.

There is a remarkable element of intimidation, and it is this fear of threats that constitutes coercive power. This form of power has been used to a great deal in South African politics and business during the apartheid era; and in Zimbabwe in the last 15 or so years to date.

In the South African experience, the international community excluded the country from its ranks as a way of forcing compliance. In the Zimbabwean experience, the international community under the tutelage of Britain and the United States of America formed a league to isolate the Southern African country in a bid to force the Harare Government to reverse its land reform policies.

The current wave of violent demonstrations which can be blamed on the opposition parties is a clear indication of the devastating nature of coercive power. The police use coercive power to intimidate protesters or would-be protesters. All political unions are born of coercive power.

Recently civil servants downed tools to force the Government to the negotiating table so that their salaries are paid timely. In sport the performance of our cricket team goes back to the tiff between players and the Cricket Union of Zimbabwe. The players were subsequently expelled and Zimbabwe as a country lost because it marked a dearth in our cricket.

Coercive power is as corrupt as it is destructive and leaves innocent victims in its wake. Although coercive power is effective in the short term it leads to animosity in the long term as its effect on the losing party is permanent. Innocent people who are caught up in the fracas will always remember how they lost their property, limbs, breadwinners and loved ones.

Fear, therefore, will always whisper in the ears of the individual whose compliance is an offspring of the inducement of fear.

However, all power forms can be can be countered through parity, collapse of power bases or by apologising as the words, “we are sorry are some of the most powerful words that can be used in negotiation situations” (Spoelstra and Piennar, 1996:129)..