Power during Conflict

The effects of power largely remain intact during conflict, though the levels of dominance might change. That is, the interaction can reveal more or less domi­nance from one person than another.

Consider the conflict interaction below. It continues the conversation of a couple we introduced in the last chapter, AZ couple #26. The woman adopts many conflict behaviors that reflect an internal’s conflict tactics. As a result, she appears confident in herself and how she can control the conversation. Note in particular how she persists in her goal of getting her husband to go to church on his only free evening. This segment is rather long as it shows her persistence and his one-down posturing. Interestingly, she indicts his watching television though it appears she watches TV just as much (see his comment in 34.1). We pick up the conflict where we left off in Chapter 7:

If the person initiating a control attempt is powerful, that attempt is usually met by compliance from the less powerful person; if the person initiating a control attempt is less powerful, the attempt is usually met by a counter-attempt from the more powerful partner. Although powerful people may not want to exert their power through control attempts, they can respond in dominant ways when the other person attempts to dominate discussion. Moreover, even though powerful people may not want to dominate interaction, they might still show more signs of dominance if warranted (Dunbar et al., 2008).

Access to bases of power also affects how people conduct conflict. Tedeschi (2001) explains that people high in French and Raven’s (1959) power bases, espe­cially when they have power from multiple bases, believe they will succeed when using negotiation and will, in turn, be more persuasive. Teachers and parents can use their legitimate and expert powers to influence their students and children rather than resorting to instrumental threats or punishments. Conversely, people who lack multiple power bases will be more coercive. For instance, Goodstadt and Hjelle (1979) found that low power people were more likely to use Direct Fight tactics if they were temporarily given a superior’s role. That is, lower power people believe they can control others through coercion rather than through communication processes.

Persistence makes a big difference. Less powerful people who repeatedly try control attempts are usually more successful than powerless people who give up (Dunbar et al., 2008). In a similar vein, Tedeshi (2001) stated that when power­ful people encounter consistent resistance from their less powerful partners in response to their conflict and influence strategies, powerful people tended to reduce their own use of threats. However, when their partners complied, they continued to use coercive behaviors to win the conflict.

Of course, when being persistent, people should be careful to avoid what might be perceived as whining or nagging. With that in mind, children may respectfully ask their parents multiple times for something that is important, clearly mak­ing their argument so that the parents eventually understand the importance and change their response. However, to be successful they need to avoid comments and nonverbal behaviors that make their requests sound annoying and pestering. Likewise, employees can present their argument several times until their super­visors eventually understand its strengths so long as they make their arguments clearly and logically and at appropriate intervals.

Levels of power do not always remain consistent throughout a conflict. McDonald (1980) indicates that people can give power to the other person dur­ing conflict through behavioral choices—events that increase or decrease power. The more powerful person may ask questions to allow the less powerful person to explain his/her perspective, overlook opportunities to use power to end the interaction, or consider the needs or goals of the less powerful person.

For example, when a student asks permission to submit a paper after the due date, the professor is the more powerful person in the interaction; the professor has legitimate, coercive, reward, and expert power in this situation. As mentioned above, attractive professors can use referent power. As the conflict progresses, the professor may choose to allow the student to argue to convince him to accept the paper rather than simply refuse the request and impose a punishment, actions his position of power would allow. By behaving in this manner, the professor has given the student the opportunity to use information power to win the conflict; he or she has in essence ceded some power to the student.