Most people are exposed to coercion as their first conflict resolution
process. What child has not been punished by banishment to her room
or bed without dinner? Children quickly learn that personal autonomy
is dependent upon personal power. The bigger, stronger person usually
will get his or her way.
This lesson carries into adult life. Many people see power as the
means to exerting their will over others. Instead of using collaborative
processes, these people simply decree how conflicts will be resolved.
Usually, the conversation is something like “My way or the highway.”
Since no one likes to lose personal autonomy, and no one likes to be told
what to do, conflict resolution by coercion is not received happily.
Consequently, coercion tends to produce more conflict, not less.
I argue that coercion, except in emergency situations, is a very poor
way to resolve conflicts. Using coercion effectively to get one’s way
requires enormous resources. The Iraq war is perfect example of this
point. Regardless of what one thinks about the war, imposition of
American will on the resistant Iraqi elements has been and will continue
to be very expensive.
Coercion can be thought of in terms of exchange theory. Mary
has something that Kathleen needs, such the ability to hire or fire Kathleen.
Kathleen is willing to bargain her time and effort in her job in order
to satisfy Mary. Mary is willing to keep Kathleen employed so long
as Kathleen provides diligent, efficient service. The exchange relationship
sets up a power dynamic. If Kathleen values her job more than Mary
values Kathleen in the job, Mary has power over Kathleen. Likewise,
if Kathleen is the only person who can do the job and Mary needs the job
done, Kathleen has power over Mary.
Let’s assume that Mary has power over Kathleen, and they get into a dispute.
Mary wants her way and therefore dictates how the dispute will be resolved.
Coercion will only be effective if a number of conditions are met.
First, Mary must be able to exercise her power. If the power is
centered on Kathleen’s job retention, Mary should be able to fire Kathleen.
Second, for coercion to be effective, Kathleen cannot retaliate against
Mary. Retaliation is much more common than people in power think.
Retaliation can occur by being passive-aggressive, by sabotage (blowing
up the Iraqi oil pipelines come to mind), by forming a coalition with co-workers
thereby gaining more power, by taking legal action, or by protesting actions
up the chain of command. Any of these actions, if effective, will
render coercion ineffective.
Third, Mary must control sufficient resources to supervise Kathleen.
For coercion to work, the person being coerced must be monitored for compliance.
If compliance to an order cannot be assured, coercion will fail.
Thus, Mary must devote her personal time or direct other resources to enforcing
Kathleen’s obedience.
Fourth, Mary’s power base with Kathleen must be deep. Kathleen
can change the power balance with Mary by simply deciding that her job
is not worth the cost of coercion. Once Kathleen makes that choice,
she can remain in her job with impunity to Mary’s threats. If Mary
fires Kathleen, Kathleen is fine. If Mary does not fire Kathleen,
Kahtleen becomes impervious to Mary’s coercion. In either case, Mary
has paid a high cost for resolving the dispute. Mary can only have
confidence in her coercive power if Kathleen is completely dependent upon
Mary.
I learned about the importance of dependency in power relationships from
my friend John. John was a senior partner in an accounting firm in
San Jose. John had been with the firm for 30 years. He and the
managing partner Robert entered into a philosophical dispute about business
practices. As a result, Robert entered John’s office one Friday and
declared that John would not receive a paycheck from the firm until he agreed
to Robert’s business philosophy. John thanked Robert. The following
Monday, John walked into Robert’s office and resigned effective the following
Friday. John opened his own firm the following Monday. Within
three months, John was making more money than he had ever earned at his
old firm. The moral of the story is that dependency is in the eye
of the beholder. Robert, dependent upon the firm for his livelihood,
believed John was too. Since Robert was the managing partner, he thought
he could use John’s dependency to compel obedience. John chose not
to be dependent and left the relationship, taking a large revenue base with
him. Coercion in this dispute was costly.
While collaboration and cooperation seem to take more time, in the long
run, they are faster and less costly. Use them instead of coercion
to get your way.
Douglas E. Noll, Esq. is a lawyer specializing in peacemaking and mediation
of difficult and intractable conflicts throughout California. His firm,
Douglas E. Noll and Associates is based in Central California. He may
be reached through his website
and email at doug@nollassociates.com