Hair is back on Broadway, the Packers won the Super Bowl and Wisconsin played in the Rose Bowl. And thousands of civil servants and supporters were recently camped out at the state Capitol protesting legislation to limit their collective bargaining rights.
It appears we have been swept back into the 1960s. But we have not. This was Madison, Wisconsin, in 2011.
Over a period of a few weeks, this conflict over worker’s rights became a laboratory for the uses and misuses of negotiating power.
During the debate, we have witnessed the use of coercive power, information power, expert power and associative power.
We have also seen the use of legitimate power, the power that is brought as a matter of law.
In a business negotiation, each of these powers has its positives and negatives and should be used in specific situations.
For example, when one uses coercive power, there is a high probability that the relationship will be damaged. Strikes, which are a form of economic power, can easily morph into coercive power and can become divisive. Threats of violence, threatening e-mails, the threat of a recall election are all examples of coercive power and in many cases take away from the legitimacy of one’s negotiating stance.
Both sides to this conflict have elected to use information power. It has manifested in television spots highlighting each side’s position on the pending legislation. In many cases, the absence of certain facts in these communications has bordered on propaganda. The signs hung in the Capitol and the banners carried by the demonstrators are both examples of information power.
The governor’s daily press conferences were examples of both information and coercive power. As he kept the public up to date on what was transpiring, he also publicly called for the state senators to return or layoffs would be necessary.
When the throngs of demonstrators were addressed by Bradley Whitford and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the unions and their supporters were using both associative power and expert power. Associative power is driven by who you know and their position in society. It is perceived as power by your opponents. Expert power is the knowledge and experience one has gained in life or business.
Jackson is perceived as an expert because he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s and helped influence a nation that change was needed, which resulted in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He has also been at the forefront of many other movements leading social change both in our country and abroad. Whitford’s claim to fame is eight seasons on the West Wing and his credentials as a known social activist.
The last type of power that has been used is legitimate power. The unions as the representative of the union members can bring suit in state court to try to block the legislation from being enacted. The governor has the power given him by the state constitution to propose legislation. The legislature has the power granted by the same constitution to pass such legislation if the necessary numbers of votes are exercised. Here is where a major conflict arose that galvanized the union constituency and their supporters. In order for the state Senate to pass the legislation, at least one Democrat needed to be present to have a quorum. The Democrats used legitimate power and left the state so not vote could be taken.
As I alluded to earlier, the governor used his press conferences to try to put pressure on the 14 Democrats to return to the state. This power play failed, and so did the strategy of leaving the state. The governor spun off the collective bargaining portion of the budget repair bill and since it did not include financial or budgetary components, the legislature passed it without the need of a quorum.
I am amazed that when a party elects to use power in a negotiation, whether it is for business or in a political situation, they sometimes forget to truly see the impact it will have on the relationship, both in the short and long term.
What would it have cost to sit down with the parties involved and try to find common ground? An agreement that is reached after both parties suggest alternatives, and compromises are offered and accepted, is one that that both parties can support. The revenge factor is introduced when either party chooses to use coercive or another power choice to force an agreement.
The result is the next time they sit down, the other party will demand justice for being wronged in the previous negotiation. Instead of a collaborative relationship, we now have one that is distributive.
The question is: Did this power choice enhance the relationship or damage it? That is the power paradox.
