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.
Claim your FREE copy: International Negotiations
Claim your copy of International Negotiations: Cross-Cultural Communication Skills for International Business Executives from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
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.
Claim your FREE copy: International Negotiations
Claim your copy of International Negotiations: Cross-Cultural Communication Skills for International Business Executives from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
When there is a conflict between two parties will it be a interesting if the ‘strong’ one starts negotiating with the otherone or a mediation is the most appropriate process for a good outcome?
Excellent topic. We need more suppirtive rules to carry out some difficult negotiations facing strong partner. Thanks a million
I have a few issues with the way all these negotiation studies generally are undertaken: q.v. “… low-power groups can influence powerful parties …” – how does one know what is low vs. high power? After all, the most you could do is put certain factors on ORDINAL scales, i.e. you cannot apply arithmetic operations like “add up and divide” to them. Therefore there is NO way of telling the exact “magnitude” of powers in such negotiations. The question then is: do we apply guesswork? How is our guessing influenced by our preconceptions? Etc. etc. The same applies e.g. so grading at school: there is no objective measure to e.g. evaluate an essay in English or French. Even in mathematics, if you allot 5 points to task A and another 5 points to task B, then the same to task C and student I solves A and B but student II solves B and C – both would get ten points. But how on earth do you know that tasks A, B and C should have the same “weight”, i.e. have the same OBJECTIVELY MEASURED difficulty? There is NO way to “measure” this. Equally I very much doubt you could really tell the negotiation powers apart by anything else but non-objectifiable “guesswork?!
Well-written piece. This approach makes psychological sense because as the article stated “high-power disputants were threatened by proposed agendas that suggested less powerful parties would try to alter the status quo right from the start.” You side-step this very real psychological concern by starting with less contentious issues. Find ways to overcome fear and resistance first and create a more receptive environment for your stronger interests.
Enjoyed the Israeli-Palestinian example.
excellent and informative. Reference to more sources can be helpful.
Most agendas are heavily biased towards ‘Content’ issues needing to be resolved. The more effective agendas are ‘Process Agendas’ which are agreed with the other party well in advance and allow formal negotiations over contentious issues to proceed more constructively.’Process’ agendas are tactical and benefit both parties.