‘In the negotiation of an International Dispute the least effective sources of power are position and coercion.’

Posted on by

Before going offline from LinkedIn for at least six months in order to maximize my available time for writing my next book – ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes’, I could not resist one more post.

I ma currently reading the ‘Handbook of Global And Multicultural Negotiation’ by Christopher W.Moore and Peter J.Woodrow (2020) which contains the following advice:

‘in the context of negotiations, the least effective sources of power are position and coercion. Positional power works only if the holder also possesses a number of other sources of power, such as perceived legitimate authority. Coercive power is effective only if a party actually possesses it, is willing to use it, can overcome resistance from the counterpart that the use of force provokes, and has accurately assess the ability of the counterpart to withstand the exercise of this form of power. If these conditions are not met, the use of coercive power will not only be ineffective, that may result in unanticipated negative consequences and make a situation worse. Negotiators should use only the minimum amount of power needed to obtain a desired change. Overuse of any source of power may cause resistance on the part of a counterpart.’

As I was taught by the Head of Legal of the Rolls-Royce industrial Power group at the tender age of 28, before being dispatched to the Far East to negotiate a multi-million pound ‘major project’ contract – ‘only ever make a threat, if you have the authority to carry through and are willing to do so. Otherwise, you will lose all credibility as a negotiator.’

This is wise advice that I follow to this day.

When as a negotiator you exercise power, there is no going back, so power should only be exercised when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the consequences may prove to be catastrophic.

The company was awarded the contract.

In my view, the equivalent of winning a contract in a conflict resolution scenario, is settlement. I consider that the wisdom outlined above transfers across and applies equally to the Mediation of an International Dispute. That is why a theatrical display of coercive power which cannot logistically be carried through with success, predetermines failure. In other words, it is an elementary and catastrophic mistake.

Comments added:

  • This by the way, is why it is so dangerous to bluff, i.e. because your counterpart may call your bluff! Then if a decision is made to go up the ‘escalation ladder’, without thoroughly thought through ‘logistical’ planning and preparation, then the outcome for the aggressor will be failure. Likewise, if their counterpart has anticipated the escalatory move and has prepared, then the outcome will be far worse, because not only will the aggressor have failed to achieve their stated strategic objectives, they will also have walked into a trap – which will result in a ‘quagmire’!