When discussing a conflict, the common perception when using the word “power” and “using power” is commonly related to the physical act of resolving the dispute or aggression, which is only partially true. Power can be seen as a set of unique resources, skills, expertise, and others, and in that regard, aggression might be seen as a negative example of power in a conflict. Regarding conflicts, power is an essential part of conflict theory, and accordingly, the perceptions of that power also play a significant role in battles.
Generally, power is present in all social interactions, which people mostly deny. In that regard, the conflict itself is directly connected t power in terms of “seeking and maintaining the balance or imbalance of power in relationships.” (Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2006) An example can be given based on the statement above, wherein the employees have the power when a strike of employees due to salary cuts is a conflict.
As power is based on one’s dependence on resources or currencies that another person control or seems to “possess” “(Wilmot & Hocker, 2007, p. 105 ), the money that the employees possess is the reward and the punishment, specifically the latter in that example, where their refusal to work can control the other party when managing the conflict.
The main perceptions of power and their role in conflict communication can be analyzed through the main power orientations. The first orientation, i.e., the distributive definition of power, is when believing that “with force, control, pressure or aggression, one individual can carry his or her objective over the resistance of another” (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007, p. 96) In that regard, the believing that the other person has more power, and the win-lose situation will result in that the communication will simply increasing the usage of power during the conflict.
Another perception regarding the definition of power is related to integrative power, where the power is limited to the party’s rights and interests. (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007, p. 100) According to that perception, the communication within a conflict becomes directed toward empathy and responsibility. An example can be seen through the struggle of conflicting parents regarding the children.
The designated power, on the other hand, is “giving power to some other group or entity.” (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007, p. 101) This power is an example of how the misconception of the energy being an attribute of the person. Communication can be affected by referring to that group when acknowledging that their power cannot solve the conflict.
An example of such a group can be police officers, politicians, judges, etc. It could be said that the reference to that sort of power can be related to threats during communication. Still, according to the currencies of power within the relationship, this sort of reference might be used when conflicts arise within a formal situation, e.g., a conflict at work. In that regard, a legal representative can be the only way of solving the conflict.
References
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (2006). The handbook of conflict resolution : theory and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spangle, M., & Isenhart, M. W. (2003). Negotiation : communication for diverse settings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2007). Interpersonal conflict (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.