How are "power" and "change" used in conflict?

Power is defined as “the ability to influence or control events.”¹   Power is one of the tools used by people to affect the outcome of a conflict.  People who possess certain powers, either a job, a tradition, or a strong-will, use them to manipulate people and situations to their advantage.  This power comes in several varieties, each with its own peculiarities in influencing outcomes.  The use of power during a conflict is common and interferes with the structured process for working through the problem to resolution.

Formal power is specific authority, responsibility, rights, or privileges which are granted to individuals.  The senior pastor has a certain amount of authority and responsibility in the church.  Generally there is a constitution or some other governing document for the church that will specify the role and responsibilities of the senior pastor.  The senior pastor may have explicit authority (formal power) to change the worship service to an earlier start time.  In exercising this option, the pastor will undoubtedly run into another kind of power -- the informal variety.  Joe, Sam, and Frank are charter members of the church.  Everyone looks to them for approval or disapproval of anything new.   If they like the time change, then everything is fine.  If they disapprove, it just will not happen.  The pastor quickly finds out whether the formal power is worth the paper on which it is written.  Though Joe, Sam, and Frank have no formal, explicit power, they wield considerable influence over events in the life of the church.  Power is used in varying ways to make the outcome of the conflict more favorable to the side that exercises that power.

Similarly, personal power is that used by one person to influence a situation.  That personal power may be attributed to charisma, such as that demonstrated by Ronald Reagan as President, or to some physical characteristics, such as a three hundred pound tackle for the Chicago Bears.  Either attribute enables one to get what he wants, be it right or wrong.  I may have the strongest, factual case for keeping my wallet.  But in a dark alley with a hungry, three-hundred pound tackle, the outcome of the conflict is certain.

Positional power can also be used to influence the outcome of a conflict.  When the pastor and the building committee have a sharp dispute over the size and scope of the effort, the members of the finance committee can settle the dispute by not approving the expenditures.  Likewise, the personnel committee can settle the dispute by firing the pastor.  The point is not which is right or wrong but that the power in the positions held are used to affect the conflict management process.

Change is that necessary evil for the resolution of conflict whereby a party must alter (gasp!) what they do or how they do it.  Consider two bible study classes who dispute who has the right to use the nice room with the white board.  They cannot both use it at the same time since it is too small.  Two groups of people are anxiously waiting outside the door to get in.  What must happen is change.  One or both parties must alter their desire to use the room, the day or time they use it, or perhaps the number of people involved.  All that is needed is change.

So conflict usually generates the need for change.  Unfortunately, facilitating organization change is a complex process.  In this previous example, the change may possibly be an easy one.  A more difficult change may be the replacement of a pastor.  Still more difficult may be the cultural shift toward more contemporary worship practices.

The ability of individuals to assimilate the change affects their level of resistance to it.  The larger the group of people or the more significant the change personally affects individuals, the harder it is to make the change.  People who are not personally affected by a change usually are not resistant to it.  My company recently changed its name to BellSouth from Southern Bell.  It really had no personal effect on me so the change was a non-event.  If my job had been to repaint the logo on all the trucks, the change would have made a big difference in my life.  In conflict situations, the higher the degree of change needed for the resolution, the harder it will be to reach and maintain an agreement among the parties.
 
 

End Notes

1. Donohue, William A.  and Kolt, Robert. Managing Interpersonal Conflict. Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA. Copyright 1992. p.90.

Our Creator God loves you and wants you to know Him! If you would like to contact this ministry for further information or questions, please send your e-mail to:
Email: ministryrequest1@WordTruth.Com
Web Site: WordTruth.Com

Copyright 6/4/2001, Randy Lariscy.