The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  Implicit Power Theories.

  Research on implicit power theories (Coleman, 2004) has shed light on a central problem within the power-and-conflict dynamic: the unwillingness of the powerful to share their power (e.g., wealth, information, access, authority) with those in need. Implicit theories are cognitive structures—naive, unarticulated theories about the social world that influence the way people construe events. Research has identified two theories of power that people can hold: a limited-power theory that portrays power as a scarce resource that triggers a competitive orientation to power sharing and an expandable-power theory that views power as an expandable resource and fosters a more cooperative power-sharing orientation. The two competing views of power have been shown to affect people’s decisions and actions on whether to share or withhold resources, as well as the degree to which they involve others in decision-making processes (Coleman, 2004).

  Subsequent research on implicit power theories has demonstrated that the social environment can play a critical role in influencing their use by making different theories more or less cognitively salient. For example, in a study conducted in China, participants portraying managers in an organizational simulation were found to share more power (information and assistance) with subordinates when they were led to believe that their organization had a history of approaching organizational power as an expandable resource than when it was portrayed as traditionally viewing and approaching power as a scarce resource (Tjosvold, Coleman, and Sun, 2003). This research emphasizes the critical role the context plays in triggering and fostering differences in implicit theories. Thus, social and organizational structures, norms and climate around empowerment, as well as more informal influences such as myths and legends regarding preferred ways of interacting may be formative and go a long way in providing a context of meaning through which to interpret the value of power sharing.

  Social Dominance Orientation.

  A more recent model relevant to power and conflict comes from social dominance theory (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle, 1994), which contends that societies worldwide organize according to group-based hierarchies, with dominant social groups possessing a disproportionate share of positive social value (wealth, health, status). These hierarchies are maintained by several key factors, including the social dominance orientation (SDO) of members of the groups. SDO is defined as a very general orientation expressing antiegalitarianism; a view of human existence as zero-sum with relentless competition between groups; the desire for generalized, hierarchical relationships between groups; and a desire for in-group dominance over out-groups. The research on SDO has identified consistent gender differences in women’s and men’s levels of SDO (Sidanius, Pratto, and Bobo, 1994), with men having significantly higher levels of SDO than women do. We could expect this type of general orientation to group relations to contribute to a chronically competitive orientation (assertion) to power differences.

  * * *

  Other individual differences—as wide ranging as interpersonal orientation (high or low sensitivity to others), Machiavellianism, interpersonal trust, and gender—are relevant to discussing people’s orientation to power, but space does not allow for further elaboration (see Lewicki et al., 1994, for a discussion of these variables). Each of the distinct personal factors described here can work in concert to contribute to a chronic orientation and fixation on any one of the power orientations (such as powerlessness). These orientations affect how people perceive conflict, how they evaluate authority relations, and ultimately the decisions and responses they make to power differences in conflict situations. However, except for extreme cases, the influences of these individual difference factors need to be understood as operating in interaction with the individual’s environment.

  Environmental Factors

  Again, the environmental factors affecting personal differences and behavioral patterns regarding power are innumerable (see Deutsch, 2004, and Blalock, 1989, for summaries). The following sections examine a few major factors.

  Deep Structure.

  A few scholars propose that the deep structure of most conflicts is dictated by preexisting power relations (Chomsky, 2002). This structure, established through past relations between the parties, their differential access to resources, and existing norms and roles, has been historically constructed. This history is composed of the decisions and actions, victories and defeats, justices and injustices experienced by those who came before us: members of our families, our gender, our communities, our race, our nation, and so on. These cumulative experiences in many ways have defined the rules of the power game. This perspective emphasizes the influences exerted on power by such factors as class and race relations, intergroup conflicts of interest and social competition, inequity between social groups on highly valued dimensions, opportunity structures and the educational systems that perpetuate them, the relative stability of status and power differences, and the perceived legitimacy of all of these factors. Understanding the historical context encourages us to look beyond the current surface manifestations of secondary power and into the processes of primary power. From this perspective, people are seen as agents or carriers of power relations embedded in the wider structure of history and society. They can learn to understand the rules but are rarely able to change them significantly.

  Culture.

  The culture in which we are immersed is another important influence on our experience of power. Hofstede (1980) identified power distance as a dimension of social relations that is determined by and varies across cultures. He defined it as the extent to which the less powerful persons in a society accept inequality in power and consider it normal. Hofstede argued that inequality exists within every culture, but the degree to which society tolerates it varies from one culture to another. So, for example, in some high-power-distance cultures, such as in parts of India, the notion of empowering employees through participation in decisions and delegation of authority is considered inappropriate and insubordinate by the employees themselves. This cultural difference regarding power not only is the source of much cross-cultural misunderstanding and conflict but also significantly affects how individuals from different cultures respond to conflicts with others in high and low power.

  Legitimizing Myths.

  The extent to which power disparities between people and between groups are accepted in any society are embedded and constructed within a contradictory set of “legitimizing myths” about hierarchy and group superiority present in every society (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). These myths, or systems of beliefs, tend to either support and enhance hierarchical relationships and dominant group superiority (examples are sexism, racism, classism, meritocracy, and conservatism) or challenge and attenuate these social arrangements (e.g., feminism, multiculturalism, pluralism, egalitarianism, and liberalism). These divergent sets of myths exist in a state of oppositional tension in many social systems (e.g., conservatism versus liberalism), which can provide important checks and balances against the fanaticism of either side. In some settings, these myths become infused into the “fairness-making” and “conflict-resolving” structures, thereby institutionalizing group dominance, bias, and conflict (Rapoport, 1974).

  Roles.

  Another powerful aspect of the structure of many social situations is the roles people assume. Role theory views power relations as if they were scripted theater. The theory holds that the roles we have in society or in our organizations (manager, laborer) often dictate the social rules or norms for our behavior. These roles establish shared expectations among members of a system, which in most cases came into existence long before the individuals who now inhabit them. It argues that we largely act out these preexisting scripts in our institutions and organizations and that these roles, these shared norms and scripts, dictate our experiences, expectations, and responses to power. So, for example, role theory argues that the CEO from our initial example was acting more or less consistently with what would be exp
ected from someone in his position. Furthermore, if any one of his employees had been in the same position, that person would have made essentially the same decision, for it is within the underlying structure of the organization and its place in society that power relations between groups are largely predetermined and thereby constrained and perpetuated.

  One of the most blatant examples of the power of roles to determine behavior is the classic experiment conducted at Stanford University on the effects of deindividuated roles on behavior in institutional settings (Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo, 1973). Student subjects were recruited for this study and randomly assigned to play the role of either a guard or a prisoner in a simulated prison environment for two weeks. From the very beginning, the “guards” abused and denigrated the “prisoners,” showing increasingly brutal, sadistic, and dehumanizing behavior over time. The research observations were so disturbing that the study was called off after only six days.

  Hierarchy.

  A related component of structure is hierarchy. Barnard (1946) argued that distinctions of status and authority are ultimately necessary for effective functioning and survival of any group above a certain size. As a result, most groups form some type of formal or informal hierarchical structure to function efficiently. Often the greater advantages associated with higher positions lead to competition for these scarce positions and an attempt by those in authority to maintain their status. This is consistent with the findings of social dominance theory (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999).

  However, a hierarchical structure does not necessarily lead to competitive or destructive power relations within a group. In a series of studies on power and goal interdependence, Tjosvold (1997) found that variation in goal interdependence (task, reward, and outcome goals) affected the likelihood of constructive use of power between high-power and low-power persons. Cooperative goals, when compared to competitive and independent goals, were found to induce “higher expectations of assistance, more assistance, greater support, more persuasion and less coercion and more trusting and friendly attitudes” between superiors and subordinates (Tjosvold, 1997, p. 297). The abundant research on cooperative and competitive goal interdependence (see chapters 1 and 4 in this Handbook) has consistently demonstrated the contrasting effects of these goal structures on people’s attitudes and behaviors in social relations. Among other things, competition fosters “attempts to enhance the power differences between oneself and the other,” in contrast with cooperation, which fosters “an orientation toward enhancing mutual power rather than power differences” (Deutsch, 1973). In cooperative situations, people want others to perform effectively and use their joint resources to promote common objectives.

  Inequitable Opportunity Structures.

  At the structural level, we also see the establishment of opportunity structures that often grant the powerful unequal or exclusive access to positions of leadership, jobs, decent housing, education, health care, nutrition, and the like. Galtung (1969) labeled the effects of this “structural violence” because of its insidious and deleterious effects on marginalized communities. These inequities contribute to a setting where difficult material circumstances and political conflict lead to social disorganization, which makes it harder for some people to get their basic physical and psychological needs met. The result is a pervasive sense of powerlessness for many members of low-power groups. The privileged circumstances of the powerful, on the contrary, insulates them and contributes to their lack of attention and response to the concerns of those in low power until a crisis, such as an organized or violent act of protest, demands their attention (Deutsch, 1985). Typically, the powerful respond to such acts of protest with “prosocial” violence to quell the disturbance and maintain the status quo.

  * * *

  The many personal and environmental factors outlined here interact to both encourage and constrain responses to power inequality and conflict. However, because these different areas of research have often gone off in different directions, we today find ourselves with a rather fractured understanding of power and conflict dynamics. We currently have a series of midlevel or microlevel models of antecedents, processes, and outcomes that have yet to become convergent with a more general theory of social relations.

  Principles of Power-Conflict Dynamics

  The following set of principles is gleaned from the literature and grounded in the assumption that power differences affect conflict processes that can affect power differences:

  Significant changes in the status quo of the balance of power between parties can affect experiences of relative deprivation and increase conflict aspirations. Relative deprivation theory is a central model of the origins of conflict, which specifies the conditions under which need deprivation produces conflict (Merton and Kitt, 1950; see chapter 45 in this Handbook). Relative deprivation is said to occur when need achievement falls short of a reasonable standard determined by what one has achieved in the past, what relevant comparison others are achieving, what law or custom entitles one to, or what one expects to achieve. Research has shown that people compare themselves with others who are salient or similar to themselves in group membership, attitudes, values, or social status (Major, 1994). However, when changes in the status quo lead to a reordering of relative group status (such as through changes brought on by elections or military coups), new comparisons will be made to the previously dominant (and incomparable) groups, leading to an increase in awareness of deprivation relative to those groups (Gurr, 1970). Such changes are likely to increase demands for change by those experiencing deprivation, and thus to the open expression of conflict. This dynamic has been central to many social movements in the United States, such as the civil rights and women’s movements.

  Obvious power asymmetries contain conflict escalation, while power ambiguities foster escalation. Research suggests that situations where there exist significant imbalances of power between groups are more likely to discourage open expressions of conflict and conflict escalation than situations of relatively balanced power (Deutsch, 1973). For instance, in a historical analysis of wars between 1816 and 1989, Moul (2003) found that approximate parity in power capabilities (abilities to oppose individual states) encouraged wars between great power disputants. Sidanius and Pratto (1999) have argued that this can account for the utility and ubiquity of asymmetrical group status hierarchies worldwide. However, research in the interpersonal realm has shown that the relationship between power symmetry and destructive conflict is moderated by trust; when parties of equal power are trusting of each other, they will choose more cooperative strategies to resolve their differences (Davidson, McElwee, and Hannan, 2004).

  Sustainable resolutions to conflict require progression from unbalanced power relations between the parties to relatively balanced relations. Adam Curle (1971), a mediator working in Africa, proposed a particularly useful model for understanding the longitudinal relationships between conflict, power, and sustainable outcomes (see Lederach, 1997, for more detail). He suggested that as conflicts moved from unpeaceful to peaceful relationships, their course could be charted on a matrix that compares two elements: the level of power between the disputants and the level of awareness of the conflict. Curle described this progression toward peace as having four stages. In the first stage, conflict is hidden to some of the parties because they are unaware of the imbalances of power and injustices that affect their lives. Here, any activities or events resulting in conscientization (erasing ignorance and raising awareness of inequalities and inequities) move the conflict forward. This is where the experience of relative deprivation fits it. An increase in awareness of injustice leads to the second stage, confrontation, when demands for change from the weaker party bring the conflict to the surface. Confrontations, of course, can take many forms from cooperative to nonviolent to violent. Under some conditions, these confrontations result in the stage of negotiations, which are aimed at achieving a rebalancing of power in the relationship in order for those in low power to increase the
ir capacities to address their basic needs. Successful negotiations can move the conflict to the final stage of sustainable peace if they lead to a restructuring of the relationship that effectively addresses the substantive and procedural concerns of those involved. Support for this model is anecdotal and could be considerably strengthened through case studies and longitudinal survey research.

  A chronic competitive (assertive) orientation to power is often costly. From a practical perspective, a chronic competitive approach to power has harmful consequences. Deutsch (1973) suggested that reliance on competitive and coercive strategies of influence by power holders produces alienation and resistance in those subjected to the power. This in turn limits the power holder’s ability to use other types of power based on trust (such as normative, expert, referent, and reward power) and increases the demand for scrutiny and control of subordinates. A parent who demands obedience from his adolescent son in a climate of mutual distrust fosters more distrust and must be prepared to keep the youngster under surveillance. If the goal of the power holder is to achieve commitment from subordinates rather than merely short-term compliance, excessive reliance on a power-over strategy eventually proves to be costly as well as largely ineffective. Research by Kipnis (1976) supported this contention by demonstrating that a leader’s dependence on coercive strategies of influence has considerable costs in undermining relationships with followers and in compromising goal achievement. Furthermore, it is evident that when power holders have a chronic competitive perspective on power, it reduces their chance to see sharing power with members of low-power groups as an opportunity to enhance their own personal or environmental power (Coleman, 2004). From this chronic competitive perspective, power sharing is typically experienced as a threat to achieving one’s goals, and the opportunities afforded by power sharing are invisible. If the father views the conflict over curfew as a win-lose power struggle, he is unlikely to reflect on the advantages of involving his daughter in reaching a solution and thereby engendering in her an improved sense of responsibility, collaboration, and trust.