This is the first of what I hope to be many smaller and more accessible posts that unpack a lot of the insights that emerged in the dissertation research I did on how unequal negotiation can lead to flourishing outcomes. But the first step is to lay some groundwork on what we are talking about when we’re talking about negotiation – because it conjures a lot of different images. If you want to see any of the summaries or the dissertation, reach out to me.
When narrowing down my research topic, I was motivated by years of experience watching and experiencing interactions that were leader to leader, across power differences. Sometimes there was conflict. Sometimes it was just “work” and business. Sometimes it was collaboration. But these were interactions that would routinely surface experiences and behaviors that seem shame driven in some situations or that were in some way about power or identity.
I researched leaders in the U.S. and Southeast Asia and both talked about the challenge of negotiating “up” with someone with greater power – greater ability to get their interests met in the face of resistance. Both regions have different assumptions and cultural expectations related to power, but all were mindful of how power could hinder and advance the meeting of interests. In my classes with students, it’s one of the most common questions and often carries urgency and sometimes pain with the question, “How do I negotiate when the other person has all the power?” This was standard in both contexts, but power distance was expressed very differently in each context.
It wasn’t until later that I placed the general “category” or field of study as negotiation. Bob Burns, Tasha D. Chapman, and Donald C. Guthrie write in The Politics of Ministry of the nature of negotiation as the political interaction between leaders,
“All of life is political, since people daily use their power to negotiate their interests in relationships with other people, always with ethical implications, in order to get things done.” (pg. 17)
Their work on negotiation was a helpful framework for me as I was framing my research, especially some of the ways they seek to illustrate how negotiation shifts depending on the interests and power involved. But negotiations are happening all the time in organizations and churches and in everyday life. Sometimes they go well for both sides. Sometimes one benefits while another loses. And sometimes both lose! This is true in life as it is in leadership. But to start thinking about whether negotiation is resulting in flourishing outcomes means you have to frame negotiation in a way where ethics and impact are part of the understanding from the beginning. They expound on the essentials of negotiation by defining it as involving four unique activities.
-
People bring their own specific interests to the process. -
People promote their interests between each other.
-
People use the power available to them to promote their interests.
-
People affect the ongoing interests and power of those involved by their actions during and after the negotiation. (pg. 27)
We’ll tackle power, interests, and all sorts of things in future posts, but definitions and basic frameworks are important to all that follows. But there are some other definitions that are helpful. One of my mentors Chip Zimmer likes to describe it generally as any discussion between parties to reach an agreement when there is either a substantive or relational goal to resolve.
The research interviews yielded over 70 case studies in which leaders were recounting negotiations in which the power was unequal in some way and where in most cases, the interests and goals were diverse or conflicting in some way that made it a memorable case study for the participants to recount.
The theory that emerged in the research explored the factors that shaped whether the unequal negotiations would move in a more flourishing direction or in more diminishing directions. But a theory is only useful if it can be brought to bear in real life. Here are some questions I hope to share insight about from the research in coming weeks…
How does power impact negotiation?
How does power influence access, voice, trust, and safety in unequal negotiation?
How does identity impact negotiation?
How does identity influence the power used in a negotiation and how does power influence identity?
How does power become an interest in the negotiation in its own right, not just the means to achieve interests?
How does emotional reactivity and anxiety influence choices related to power and identity in unequal negotiation?
What role does risk and the threat of loss play in unequal negotiation processes and outcomes?
How does vulnerability, humility, and the dynamics of self-preservation shape dynamics in unequal negotiation?
That’s just a taste! If any of that is of interest to you, I invite you to keep coming back or subscribe for more!
