Power and Conflict Outcomes
Deutsch (1973) noted that frequent use of negative and coercive strategies leads to alienation and resistance from partners. The power base someone chooses to use affects aspects of a relationship including trust, conflict, and satisfaction (Johnson & Evans, 1997).
Using “power over” too much may lead to immediate compliance but will not produce commitment. Reliance on competitive approaches to power reduces people’s ability to perceive sharing power as a way to increase their own power. Also, the use of coercive strategies reduces the ability to use other types of strategies because people must continue to oversee and enforce their power because others haven’t internalized the behavior or formed positive attitudes toward the actor (Coleman, 2000). Children will obey their parents about doing their homework as long as their parents are present to provide punishments for disobedience. But because they have not internalized the belief that this is a positive behavior, once they leave home for college, these young people frequently will ignore these previous expectations and behave as they choose, all too often to their detriment. Clearly, then, coercive strategies may provide shortterm compliance, but they do not produce lasting changes.Conversely, the use of legitimate, expert, information, and referent power produce both public compliance and changes in changes in private beliefs. Therefore, if parents use these types of power to influence their children’s behavior, the children will comply in the short term, but they might will also over time internalize the importance of the behavior and be likely to continue it even when the parents are absent. When discussing drug use with their children, using their position as parents (legitimate), being well informed about the consequences of drugs and alcohol use (expert and information), and creating a reasonable argument (information) will allow parents to influence their children’s behavior and their beliefs.
They should avoid using threats and punishments (coercive) and promising rewards because neither provides long term compliance. Referent power, the one type that produces the most positive outcomes, including interaction and identification with the person, is the trickiest to use because it relies on the receiver, in this case the children, wanting to be like the actor (parents). This type of power develops over time as children need to develop respect for their parents.Levels ofpower also affect people’s attributions that explain conflict (see Chapter 9 on Interpreting Conflict). In their study focused on attribution of responsibility for arguments, Trentham and Larwood (2001) found that a person’s level of power and the type of power the person had affects participant attributions. Overall, participants attributed greater causal responsibility to the person with more power in the situation. They also expected the more powerful person to take steps to resolve the problem. People with power appear to possess the resources to solve the conflict; they may use those resources to be sure the conflict is managed so that they achieve their goals, but their partners still see this as what they are supposed to do.
Here are our conclusions and suggestions for how power can help your strategic conflict:
Conclusion 8.5: Powerless people can persist in order to achieve their goals.
Conclusion 8.6: Social actors can use power to develop functional relationships where people share in achieving your goals, including “power with” and “empowerment” forms.
Conclusion 8.7: When more powerful people ignore the needs of the other person and dominate conversation, they preclude mutual problem-solving, support, and buy-in to the decision.
Suggestion 8.5: To achieve your goals in cases where you feel powerless, persist if it is appropriate to your partner's expectations for specific behaviors.
Suggestion 8.6: Rely most on positive bases ofpower to get your way; avoid coercion as that tends to work against productivity.
Suggestion 8.7: To obtain the other person's reasons, mutual support, and buy-in to the conflict outcome, consider the other person's goals and specific objectives for the conversation.