International Negotiations and Agenda Setting: Controlling the Flow of the Negotiation Process

When two groups are locked in conflict, the less powerful party often struggles to persuade the stronger side to negotiate. The more powerful group may see little reason to disrupt a status quo that works in its favor. With fewer incentives to change, it may resist talks altogether.

This dynamic is especially common in international negotiations and other protracted conflicts, where power imbalances can persist for years—or decades.

Yet research suggests that even when leverage is limited, the weaker party may still shape whether negotiations begin at all.

Power in Negotiations: The Role of Agenda Framing

In a 2013 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Nour Kteily of Northwestern Universityand his colleagues explored how agenda-setting influences willingness to negotiate in asymmetric conflicts.

Across four experiments, the researchers found a striking pattern:

• Participants assigned to a high-power role were more willing to negotiate when the lower-power group proposed discussing less important or less contentious issues first, followed by more difficult topics later.
• Participants in the low-power role, by contrast, preferred to tackle the most significant and contentious issues first.

In other words, the sequence of issues mattered—and different power positions interpreted that sequence very differently.

A Negotiation Example: Israel and Palestine

One experiment examined attitudes among Palestinian participants living in the West Bank and Jewish-Israeli participants. Both groups perceived Israelis as the more powerful party in the relationship.

When presented with a hypothetical negotiating agenda proposed by the other side:

• Palestinian participants were more willing to negotiate if Israelis proposed discussing the most difficult issues first.
• Israeli participants were more open to negotiation if the agenda began with less contentious topics.

Why the divergence?

Low-power disputants tended to view an agenda starting with minor issues as a stalling tactic—an effort by the stronger party to delay meaningful change.

High-power disputants, meanwhile, felt threatened by agendas that opened immediately with major, status-altering issues.

The same agenda ordering sent opposite signals depending on one’s power position.

Strategic Implications for Asymmetric Negotiations

For less powerful groups seeking to bring a stronger counterpart to the bargaining table, these findings suggest a counterintuitive strategy:

• Propose starting with smaller or less contentious issues.

Although it may feel unsatisfying to delay discussion of core concerns, beginning with limited issues can reduce perceived threat and increase the likelihood that talks begin at all.

Once negotiations are underway, however, it is wise to incorporate discussion of more consequential topics. Expanding the scope of conversation allows for tradeoffs across issues—a key component of integrative negotiation.

Agenda Control as a Subtle Form of Power

Power in negotiation is not limited to resources or formal authority. Agenda-setting itself can be a powerful influence tool.

By carefully structuring:

• The sequence of issues
• The framing of priorities
• The pace of escalation

Even a less powerful party may shape the trajectory of the conversation.

In asymmetric conflicts, securing a seat at the table is often the first—and most difficult—victory.

Negotiation Research article about Negotiating Power: “Negotiating Power: Agenda Ordering and the Willingness to Negotiate in Asymmetric Intergroup Conflicts,” by Nour Kteily, Tamar Saguy, James Sidanius, and Donald M. Taylor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2013.

How do you manage agenda-setting and control the flow of negotiations? Let us know in the comments.

Adapted from “Bringing Powerful Parties to the Table,” first published in the November 2013 issue of the Negotiation newsletter.