The View from Above and Below: The Effects of Power and Interdependence Asymmetries on Conflict Dynamics and Outcomes in Organizations

Abstract

Deutsch’s theory of conflict resolution is a vital model for understanding the fundamental dynamics of conflict and its constructive resolution. However, the original formulation of the theory assumed equal power and equal degrees of interdependence between the parties in conflict. Although subsequent research has investigated the effects of relative power and interdependence differences on negotiations and conflict, they have yet to be integrated into one model that can account for interactions between the dimensions. This article presents research investigating propositions from a new, integrated model of power, interdependence, and conflict, which extends Deutsch’s theory into situations of asymmetrical power and interdependence. First, two exploratory studies are described that set the foundation for our model. Then, an experiment is presented that induced differences in relative power and interdependence through different versions of a work conflict scenario. The findings supported our model. Different combinations of relative power (high, equal, or low), types of interdependence (cooperative, competitive, or mixed), and degrees of interdependence (high or low) led to significantly different conflict orientations—which affected perceptions, experiences, and responses to conflict. Implications for future research are discussed.

Navigating conflict and power at work: the effects of power and interdependence asymmetries on conflict in organizations

“…Different regions of the three‐dimensional conflict stimulus field will induce significantly different perceptions, aspirations, values, feelings, and behaviors in response to conflict. Past research has provided preliminary support for this model (Coleman et al., ). The current studies will extend this research by (a) examining the effects of different regions of the stimulus field on participants' emotional reactions; (b) testing the relative degree of comfort participants experience when experiencing conflicts across the regions; and (c) moving beyond previous lab research by testing the model in the context of a 2‐day organizational simulation game.…”

Adaptive mediation: an evidence-based contingency approach to mediating conflict

“…Although the adaptive mediation model is still nascent, it offers a promise of a sound evidence-based field of mediation practice. (Zartman, 1989(Zartman, , 2001), power differences between disputants (Coleman et al, 2010), cultural differences (Lederach, 1995) or differences in mediator power (Carnevale, 2002) are also likely to play a role. The aim of the situated model is not to provide a comprehensive account of mediation contingencies, but rather a minimalist account that serves as scaffolding for subsequent research that may identify other influential parameters relevant to mediation behaviors and outcomes.…”

“…The current paper contributes to an ongoing program of research (Coleman et al, 2010(Coleman et al, , 2013(Coleman et al, , 2015(Coleman et al, , 2016 aimed at developing a new contingency model of adaptive mediation. It presents findings from two studies that further develop and support the utility of an adaptive or situationally contingent approach to mediation, where mediators learn to use alternative or enhanced strategies in response to fundamentally different challenges they face in mediations.…”

“…This approach reflects a trend in social-science research to "situate" individual experiences, decisions and behaviors within salient dimensions of the context in which they occur (Coleman et al, 2010(Coleman et al, , 2013Deutsch, 1982Deutsch, , 1983Jost and Kruglanski, 2002;McGuire and McGuire, 1988;Wish et al, 1976). The researchers began by conducting an extensive review of empirical studies on the antecedents of different mediation behaviors and outcomes published between 1993-2012.…”

“…Furthermore to advance the efficacy of the field, it is crucial for mediators to have access to evidence-based information and evaluations about which mediation strategies work best in different situations. In sum, the field is lacking an integrative model, which would best enable empirical research to advance mediators' understanding of how to approach distinct types of mediation situations (Wall and Dunne, 2012).The current paper contributes to an ongoing program of research (Coleman et al, 2010(Coleman et al, , 2013(Coleman et al, , 2015(Coleman et al, , 2016 aimed at developing a new contingency model of adaptive mediation. It presents findings from two studies that further develop and support the utility of an adaptive or situationally contingent approach to mediation, where mediators learn to use alternative or enhanced strategies in response to fundamentally different challenges they face in mediations.…”