Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B. Getting to Yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981.
Foeman, A. K. “Managing Multiracial Institutions: Goals and Approaches for Race-Relations Training.” Communication Education, 1991, 40, 255–265.
Gabarro, J. J. “The Development of Trust Influence and Expectations.” In A. G. Athos and J. J. Gabarro (eds.), Interpersonal Behavior: Communication and Understanding in Relationships. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1978.
Gambetta, D. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Boston: Blackwell, 1988.
Glick, S., and Croson, R. (2001). Reputations in negotiation. In S. Hoch and H. Kunreuther (eds.), Wharton on Making Decisions. New York: Wiley, 2001.
Goel, S., Bell, G., and Pierce, J. L. “The Perils of Pollyanna: Development of the Over-Trust Construct.” Journal of Business Ethics, 2005, 58, 203–218.
Gottman, J. M. Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1979.
Han, G., and Harms, P. D. “Team Identification, Trust and Conflict: A Mediation Model.” International Journal of Conflict Management, 2010, 21, 20–43.
Huston, T. L., and Levinger, G. “Interpersonal Attraction and Relationships.” Annual Review of Psychology, 1978, 29, 115–156.
Jeffries, F. L., and Reed, R. “Trust and Adaptation in Relational Contracting.” Academy of Management Review, 2000, 25, 873–882.
Jennings, E. E. Routes to the Executive Suite. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Jones, G. R., and George, J. M. “The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork.” Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 531–546.
Jones, R. A., and Brehm, J. W. “Attitudinal Effects of Communicator Attractiveness When One Chooses to Listen.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 6, 64–70.
Jones, W. H., and Burdette, M. P. “Betrayal in Relationships.” In A. L. Weber and J. H. Harvey (eds.), Perspectives on Close Relationships. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1994.
Kanter, D. L., and Mirvis, P. H. The Cynical Americans: Living and Working in an Age of Discontent and Disillusion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.
Kim, P., Dirks, K., and Cooper, C. D. “The Repair of Trust: A Dynamic Bilateral Perspective and Multilevel Conceptualization.” Academy of Management Review, 2009, 34, 401–422.
Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., and Ferrin, D. L. “When More Blame Is Better Than Less: The Implications of Internal vs. External Attributions for the Repair of Trust after a Competence- vs. Integrity-Based Violation.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2006, 99, 49–65.
Kim, P, Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., and Dirks, K. T. “Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology versus Denial for Repairing Competence-versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004, 89, 104–118.
King-Casas, B., Tomlin, D., Anen, C., Camerer, C., Quartz, S., and Montague, P. R. “Getting to Know You: Reputation and Trust in a Two-Person Economic Exchange.” Science, 2005, 308, 7883.
Kramer, R. M. “Divergent Realities and Convergent Disappointments in the Hierarchic Relation: Trust and the Intuitive Auditor at Work.” In R. M. Kramer and T. R. Tyler (eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
Kramer, R. “Identity and Trust in Organizations: One Anatomy of a Productive but Problematic Relationship.” In M. Hogg and D. J. Terry (eds.), Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 2001.
Kramer, R. “When Paranoia Makes Sense.” Harvard Business Review, 2002, July, 5–11.
Kramer, R. “Trust as Situated Cognition: An Ecological Perspective on Trust Decisions.” In R. Bachmann and A. Zaheer (eds.), Handbook of Trust Research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2006.
Kramer, R. M., and Cook, K. S. Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004.
Kramer, R., and Lewicki, R. “Repairing and Enhancing Trust: Approaches to Reducing Organizational Trust Deficits.” Academy of Management Annals, 2010, 4, 245–277.
Kramer, R., and Tyler, T. R. (eds.). Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
Larson, J. M. “Exploring Reconciliation.” Mediation Quarterly, 1993, 11, 95–106.
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., and Saunders, D. Negotiation. (6th ed.) Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2010.
Lewicki, R. J., and Bunker, B. B. “Trust in Relationships: A Model of Development and Decline.” In B. B. Bunker and J. Z. Rubin (eds.), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.
Lewicki, R. J., and Bunker, B. B. “Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships.” In R. Kramer and T. R. Tyler (eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
Lewicki, R. J., and McAllister, D. J. “Confident Expectations and Reasonable Doubts: The Social Dynamics of Ambivalence in Interpersonal Relationships.” Paper presented to the Conflict Management Division, Academy of Management National Meetings, San Diego, 1998.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., and Bies, R. J. “Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities.” Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 438–458.
Lewicki, R. J., and Stevenson, M. A. “Trust Development in Negotiation: Proposed Actions and a Research Agenda.” Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 1998, 16, 99–132.
Malhotra, D. “Trust and Reciprocity Decisions: The Differing Perspectives of Trustors and Trusted Parties.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2004, 94, 61–73.
McAllister, D. J. “Affect-and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal, 1995, 38, 24–59.
McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., and Thoresen, C. E. Forgiveness: Theory, Research and Practice. New York: Guilford Press, 2000.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., and Chervaney, N. L. “Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships.” Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 473–490.
Miller, P. J., and Rempel, J. K. “Trust and Partner-Enhancing Attributions in Close Relationships.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2004, 30, 695–705.
Morrison, E. W., and Robinson, S. L. “When Employees Feel Betrayed: A Model of How Psychological Contract Violation Develops.” Academy of Management Review, 22, 1997, 228–258.
Nakayachi, K., and Watabe, M. “Restoring Trustworthiness after Adverse Events: The Signaling Effects of Voluntary ‘Hostage Posting’ on Trust.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2005, 97, 1–17.
Osgood, C. An Alternative to War or Surrender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962.
Polin, B., Lount, R., and Lewicki, R. J. “On the Importance of a Full Apology: How to Best Repair Broken Trust.” Paper presented to the Academy of Management, 2012.
Putnam, L. L., and Jones, T. S. “Reciprocity in Negotiations: An Analysis of Bargaining Interaction.” Communication Monographs, 1982, 49, 171–191.
Robinson, S. L. “Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 1996, 41, 574–599.
Rothman, J. Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations, and Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Rotter, J. B. “Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust.” American Psychologist, 1971, 26, 443–452.
Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., and Camerer, C. “Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust.” Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 393–404.
Rusbult, C. E., and Martz, J. M. “Remaining in an Abusive Relationship: An Investment Model Analysis of Nonvoluntary Dependence.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1995, 21, 558–571.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R., and Davis, J. “Empowerment in Veterinary Clinics: The Role of Trust in Delegation.”
Paper presented to the 11th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, 1996.
Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., and Bradlow, E. T. “Promises and Lies: Restoring Violated Trust.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2006, 101, 1–19.
Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B. H., and Cheraskin, L. “Business on a Handshake.” Negotiation Journal, 1992, 8, 365–377.
Sheppard, B. H., and Sherman, D. M. “The Grammars of Trust: A Model and General Implications.” Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 422–437.
Simons, T. “Behavioral Integrity: The Perceived Alignment between Managers’ Words and Deeds as a Research Focus.” Organization Science, 2002, 13, 18–35.
Simons, T., and McLean Parks, J. “The Sequential Impact of Behavioral Integrity on Trust, Commitment, Discretionary Service Behavior, Customer Satisfaction and Profitability.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Toronto, Canada, 2000.
Sitkin, S. B., Rousseau, D. M., Burt, R. S., and Camerer, C. (eds.). “Special Topic Forum on Trust in and between Organizations.” Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23 (entire issue 3).
Thibaut, J., and Kelley, H. H. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley, 1959.
Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., and Griffin, D. W. “Let’s Not Be Indifferent about (Attitudinal) Ambivalence.” In R. E. Petty and J. A. Krosnick (eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995.
Tomlinson, E. C. “The Context of Trust Repair Efforts: Exploring the Role of Relationship Dependence and Outcome Severity.” Journal of Trust Research, 2011, 1, 139–157.
Tomlinson, E. C. “The Impact of Apologies and Promises on Post-Violation Trust: The Mediating Role of Interactional Justice.” International Journal of Conflict Management, 2012, 23, 224–247.
Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., and Lewicki, R. J. “The Road to Reconciliation: Antecedents of Victim Willingness to Reconcile Following a Broken Promise.” Journal of Management, 2004, 30, 165–187.
Tomlinson, E., Lewicki, R. J., and Wang, S. “Trust Therapy: The Effects of Impact and Intent Strategies on Trust Repair.” In C. A. Schriesheim and L. L. Neider (eds.), Research in Management: Perspectives on Trust and Justice in Organizations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2012.
Tomlinson, E. C., and Mayer, R. C. “The Role of Causal Attribution Dimensions in Trust Repair.” Academy of Management Review, 2009, 34, 85–104.
Ullmann-Margalit, E. “Trust, Distrust and In Between.” In R. Hardin (ed.), Distrust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004.
Weber, J. M., Malhotra, D., and Murnighan, J. K. “Normal Acts of Irrational Trust: Motivated Attributions and the Trust Development Process.” In B. M. Staw and R. Kramer (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. San Diego: Elsevier, 2005.
Wicks, A. C., Berman, S. L., and Jones, T. M. “The Structure of Optimal Trust: Moral and Strategic Implications.” Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24, 99–116.
Worchel, P. “Trust and Distrust.” In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1979.
Wrightsman, L. S. Assumptions about Human Nature: A Social Psychological Approach. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, 1994.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, W., and Perrone, V. “Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance.” Organizational Science, 1998, 9, 141–159.
aRoy Lewicki wishes to thank Carolyn Wiethoff for her contribution to the draft of this chapter for the second edition of this Handbook.
CHAPTER SIX
POWER AND CONFLICT
Peter T. Coleman
In the Sonagachi red-light district in Calcutta, India, prostitutes have organized to mobilize against AIDS, altering the power structure by challenging any pimp or madam who would insist on a customer’s right to sex without a condom.
At a company in the United States, in an attempt to avoid layoffs, the great majority of employees agreed to cut their own salaries by 20 percent; the CEO rejected the offer and chose instead to fire 20 percent of the workforce, stating that “it was very important that management’s prerogative to manage as it saw fit not be compromised by sentimental human considerations” (Harvey, 1989, p. 275).
In the wilds of Wyoming, groups of ranchers and environmentalists, historically bitter adversaries, have teamed up to fight the problems posed by an increase in the population of wolves in their neighboring national parks.
All of these conflicts have one basic element in common: power. Power to challenge, power to resist, and power through cooperating together. In fact, virtually all conflicts directly or indirectly concern power. Conflict is often a means of seeking or maintaining the balance or imbalance of power in relationships. It may also be waged as a symbolic expression of one’s identity and right to self-determination. Power is commonly used in conflict as leverage for achieving one’s goals. It influences the types of conflicts to which people of differing levels of power are more or less frequently exposed to, as well as the relative availability of the strategies and tactics employed. The powerful also largely determine what is considered to be important, fair, and just in most settings and thus shape and control many methods of resolution. Of course, changes in power, particularly when they are dramatic, can also affect conflict, with substantial impacts on people’s motivations, aspirations, and tactics. Because of its ubiquity, it is paramount that when we address conflict, we consider power.
This chapter provides an overview of some key components of the relationship between power and conflict. It is organized in five sections, beginning with a discussion of the dimensions of power that are important when considering conflict and its constructive resolution. In the second section, I describe some of the personal and environmental factors that research has shown affect people’s behavioral tendencies and responses to power in social relations. In the third section, I discuss the relevance of these ideas to conflict resolution, examining some of the principles of the dynamics of power and conflict and outlining the tendencies of members of both high-power and low-power groups in conflict. I then describe a new situated model of power and conflict, before concluding by discussing the implications of these ideas for training in conflict resolution.
A DISCUSSION OF POWER
Bertrand Russell wrote, “The fundamental concept in social science is power, in the same sense in which energy is the fundamental concept in physics” (1938, p. 4). Despite its pervasive role in social relations, power has proven to be a particularly difficult and elusive concept. There are many treatments of it in the social sciences. It has been conceptualized alternatively in terms of sources of power (Depret and Fiske, 1993; Emerson, 1962; Fiske and Berdahl, 2007; Kipnis, 1976; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959), the capacity to bring about effects (Boulding, 1990; Cartwright, 1959, 1965; Coleman, 2004; Follet, 1924/1973; French and Raven, 1959; Lewin, 1943; Pfeffer, 1981; Rummel, 1976; Weber, 1914/1978), influential actions (Deutsch, 1973; Foucault, 1984; Zartman and Rubin, 2002), and its resultant effects (Dahl, 1957; Russell, 1938; Simon, 1957). Clearly, power means different things to different people.
Even once power is defined, its meaning often remains mercurial. For instance, if power is defined as “a capacity to produce effects,” its effects can be intentional or unintentional; it can be employed effectively or ineffectively in achieving goals; it can be associated with a wide variety of sources, strategies, and tactics, all with different qualities and consequences, and these qualities and consequences can vary dramatically across contexts and cultures. This capacity can also vary in terms of its relative (local) or absolute nature, be associated with helping or harming others, and be of a hard (military, economic) or soft (attractive) nature (Nye, 1990). Such nuance and complexity of meaning has resulted in a long list of (sometimes contradictory) definitions and operationalizations of power in theory and research and more than a fair amount of confusion.
Nevertheless, the literature on social power that has accumulated over many decades has identified a number of important distinctions that can help us to better specify and comprehend power. We next look at these.
Power as a Dynamic
Power is often attributed to people as a stable characteristic (“Donald Trump is a very powerful person”). However, the ability to make things happen is most often determined not only by people but by the dynamic interaction of particular people behaving in a certain manner in a given situation. Accordingly, Deutsch (1973) described power as a relational concept functioning between the person and his or her environment. Power therefore is determined not only by the characteristics of the person or persons involved in any given situation or solely by the characteristics of the situation, but by the interaction of these two sets of factors. The power of the Indian prostitutes, for example, can be seen as the result of their ability to organize and mobilize their colleagues in this particular setting where demand for their services was high.
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed) Page 24