Introduction
In today’s workplaces, conflicts have become the norm. When one person has more power over the other person, the chances for conflict prevails. Conflict resolution refers to the process via which the conflicting individuals achieve a settlement. It is argued that handling the conflict in a constructive manner can yield positive results for not only the individuals but also the organization. This essay is based on the case “Power Play” in Hocker and Wilmot. This case is about a doctor with a power-over stance and an administrative assistant with a low-power stance, which in turn leads to a conflict. The essay looks at on the way the two parties can change their power stances to constructive ones more positively. It presents the way Coleman’s concept of power as a dynamic interaction is demonstrated in this conflict. It will also discuss how Waller's principle of least interest can affect the outcome of this conflict.
How might the administrative assistant have changed her low-power stance to a constructive one more positively?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are two key strategies which have proved valuable for individuals in low-power situations; effective communication and focusing on interdependence. The primary goal of these strategies is to temporarily balance power to allow the conflict unfold constructively. The administrative assistant can practice effective communication by demonstrating excellent conversation skills (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014). This power balancing tactic will add on to the employees’ sense of confidence, resilience, and efficacy. The administrative assistant can also try to focus on interdependence (Coleman et al. 2006). This involves highlighting the physician’s dependencies as a way of balancing power. The physician holds a high power stance. Usually, such individuals attempt to reduce interdependence. Hence, lower-power people must pin point how the conflict parties are more related than it appears. Sadly, when the administrative assistant failed to meet the demands of the boss, she decided to quit without notice. This is an effective approach because the high-power physician can easily hire another assistant or reduce interdependence.
How might the physician in charge have changed her power-over stance into a more constructive one?
The physician can change her power-over stance into a more constructive one by refusing to use all the currencies she has at her disposal (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014). Coaching the underperforming administrative assistant would be one way of the physician limiting her power usage. The physician should engage the administrator in a constructive dialogue about the issue at hand. Listen to her needs, promise to meet those needs and allow her to do the job again. The physician should not humiliate or shame the employee for whatever reason. If the physician fails to engage in natural responses, such restraint could easily change the automatic nature of a destructive cycle. This self-regulating strategy automatically grants power to the person in the higher position; power is not seen as an individual right. Just as countries prefer diplomacy instead of war, so, the physician may avoid hurting the administrator with deeds and words because she does not want the relationship to end. The physician should not use punitive power when the administrator fails to meet deadlines. Instead, just allow her to set her own deadline for the tasks that she can meet (Coleman et al. 2006).
What would the beginning of a constructive dialog on this matter between the doctor and the assistant sound like?
This conversation will be characterized by all the specifics low-power and high-power balancing. Because the administrative assistant is feeling low power, she will try to use “I” statements such as “Doctor, I appreciate for giving me this opportunity. However, I would like to be given some more time to work of the assigned task.” Using “I” statements to ask the person in high-power for something serves to validate and acknowledge the high-power individual (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014). On the other hand, since the physician is in a high power position, it is advisable to try and engage the administrative assistant. Firing her is a negative way of solving a conflict. Instead, call her for a one-on-one meeting and try to find out the cause of the problem. Ask questions such as, what do you need to deliver on the assigned tasks? I do not want to fire you; I just want us to reach some level of understanding so that we can forget about our disputes. Though the later statement is a promise, it also serves as a threat. So, the physician should accompany it with a statement that expresses optimism such as, “I know that if I talk with you, we will make a decision together and talk to resolve this issue easily.”
How was Coleman’s concept of power as a dynamic interaction demonstrated in this conflict?
Coleman defines power in relational terms and views power as a dynamic interaction (Coleman et al. 2006). Considering Coleman’s idea of power, conflicts about power are perceived as win-lose situations hence hampering the possibility of a satisfactory conflict resolution. This is evident in “power play” where a seemingly unequal power scenario forces the administration assistant to resign. Such a move on the side of the low-power individual is a superb example of “I won” move. This move shows how power dynamics shifted and how power is dynamic. In this conflict, each participant attempted to exercise a certain degree of power. When the assistant promised the physician that she would successfully oversee the conference arrangements and then failed, she destructively increased the physician’s dependence on her. The physician should have rethought about the employee's requests for a flexible schedule and give her because this is what she desired. Such a simple change would have been a wonderful example of solving this conflict constructively.
Based on the information given, in which region(s) of Coleman’s model, do you believe this conflict is located? Explain.
Coleman’s model is divided into five distinct regions. These are R1 (high-power, cooperative), R2 (low-power, cooperative), R3 (high-power, competitive), R4 (low-power, competitive), and R5 (equal power, mixed-motive) (Coleman et al. 2006). Each region has a high degree of interdependence. Consistent with Coleman, this conflict is located in Region 1 (high-power, cooperative) simply because the physician is solely interested in conquering the assistant by firing her (Coleman et al. 2006). On the other hand, the assistant successfully conquered the physician by resigning without notice at a time when the physician was planning to fire her. Thought the assistant valued certain things like flexible time schedule, the physician was forcefully domineering and did not consider constructive conflict resolution methods like persuasion, joint problem solving, and constructive dialogue processes with the assistant.
How might the doctor in charge and the administrative assistant have each worked to balance the power in this situation?
The doctor and the assistant can balance power by engaging in productive methods. For instance, the stronger party (the doctor) should empower the weaker party (the assistant), the physician should also limit her power or increase her dependence on the weaker party hence increase the assistant’s power. The physician should try restraining from using certain power sources for the purpose of achieving harmony and balance in this relationship. She can empower the lower party by developing her sources of power, for instance, developing her expertise. Such strategies will prevent either party from maximizing their individual power and motivate them to do what is required to balance power in their relationship.
How might Waller's principle of least interest affect the outcome of this conflict?
Willard Waller introduced the principle of least interest in the 1930s (Strong et al. 2011). The principle reads, “The person who loves the least has the most power –the person who loves the least has the most power” (Strong et al. 2011). This principle falls primarily within the conflict perspective of sociology. Simply put, in a relationship, the person who loves the most is likely to do anything to ensure the relationship stands. The person with high power is likely to seize the moment by enticing the other party to meet his demands, desires, and needs. Knowing that someone will do anything to keep the relationship going marks the onset of a power struggle. If people know your behavior pattern, they will easily control you.
In this case, Waller’s principle dictates how power is distributed between the doctor in charge and the administrative assistant and how it is unequally balanced (Strong et al. 2011). This unequal power balance leads the low-power party trying to struggle to obtain a grasp of some power. For example, in Power Play, the assistant valued the option of flexible work schedule. She resorted to destructive tactics such as making mistakes, making promises, and then not meeting them, calling in sick, losing files, forgetting and complaining to colleagues. When she failed to deliver on the assigned task, the physician was ready to fire her only to discover she had already resigned without notice. In this case, the assistant promised the physician that she would make the conference arrangements thereby increasing the physician’s dependence on her. This, in turn, increased the assistant’s power over the physician. To make it worse, the assistant knew the physician’s behavior pattern. Knowing that the physician would fire her, she resigned early, which demonstrates that she had the least interest in the organization and the assigned tasks (Strong et al. 2011).
Conclusion
In the words of George Bernard Shaw, “power does not corrupt man; fools, however, if get into a position of power, do corrupt power”. To put this statement into perspective, some people can misuse power. However, others can use it to achieve useful and important things. This paper is based on the case “Power Play” in Hocker and Wilmot. This case is about a doctor with a power-over stance and an administrative assistant with a low-power stance, which in turn leads to a conflict. The essay looked at the way the two parties can change their power stances to constructive ones more positively. Also, the paper presents the way Coleman’s concept of power as a dynamic interaction is demonstrated in this conflict. It also discussed how Waller's principle of least interest could affect the outcome of this conflict.
References
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (2006). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hocker, J. and Wilmot, W. (2014). Interpersonal Conflict. Tenth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education
Strong, B., DeVault, C., & Cohen, T. F. (2011). The marriage and family experience: Intimate relationships in a changing society . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
