The Use Of Power In Asymmetrical Negotiations Between Chinese And Foreign Negotiators

This is a study on asymmetrical negotiation and its power components as well as their practical use in real-life negotiation. Power is perhaps one of the most frequently discussed elements in negotiation. Yet, some Chinese negotiators occasionally get intimidated by their stronger opponents without realizing how much bargaining power they have and how to use it effectively. This paper thus intends to clarify what negotiating power is and what it is comprised of as well as how Chinese negotiators can better employ their negotiating power when confronting stronger foreign opponents. With an introduction of the power concept, the author looks back upon three Chinese historical volumes, namely, Sun Tzu: the Art of War, Tao De Jing and Gui Gu-tzu Tactics and four Western negotiation theories: Game Theory, concession / convergence theory, psychological-behavioral approach and principled negotiation. By drawing comparisons, the author explores some of the differences and similarities in their argument for power, attempting to seek their implications for the power use in modern negotiation. Following a rough review of the previous contributions to power and its relations to negotiation, the author goes further to elaborate on the three critical power components in asymmetrical negotiation: aggregate power, issue-specific power and behavioral power. Two relevant cases are examined: at a corporate level, Sino-South Korea soda ash negotiation; and at a state governmental level, Sino-US Intellectual Property Right Protection negotiation. Both cases highlight Chinese negotiators' initial disadvantage. But the Chinese expanded their own issue power through the use of clever tactics to achieve their desired outcomes. Their success was based on a clear understanding of each side's dynamic issue-specific power (BATNAs, commitment and control) and the employment of appropriate tactics. The conclusion is that issue-specific power determines the outcome of asymmetrical negotiation rather than aggregate power, and aspiration-based commitment increases one's issue-power when negotiating.