Expert answer:Power, Conflict and Resolution Discussion 250 word
Answer & Explanation:Power, Conflict and ResolutionEvaluate your workplace and identify a group that has “power” in the organization. Analyze why the group is considered powerful. (I am a preschool teacher who owns and operates her own preschool. I have 2 other employees. My husband is the business manager/assistant, and also have another part time preschool teacher.)a. What are the elements that contribute to the group’s power base?b. Is there a perception among employees in your organization that a disparity of power exists between the “powerful group” and other work groups? c. How can managers minimize the possibility of negative reactions or conflict between groups if the perception of power disparity exists? Textbook-MGT215_ch7and8.docx
mgt215_ch7and8.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
7.1
Power and Influence in Groups
Highly cohesive groups have more influence over their members. Thus, the study of cohesion naturally leads to morethoroughly examining how
groups affect their members. We can define influence as the interpersonal processes that changegroup members’ initial thoughts, feelings, an
d behavior, typically in the direction of group goals. Alternatively, groupinfluence may create inertia in members’ thoughts, feelings, and behavi
or when outside forces might argue for members tochange. Cohesive groups have more influence because their members want to belong. In th
e case of the interpersonalattraction dimension of cohesion, recall that group members may conform because they want to preserve harmony i
n thegroup and they want other people in the group to like them, or at the least to accept their membership in the group. Thuscohesive groups
can better set norms, or evaluative standards for behavior. Members of cohesive groups are more likely tobehaviorally conform to these norms
, that is, they willingly accept influence. Moreover, cohesive groups also are more likelyto be—or become—
marked by a relative uniformity of opinions, attitudes, and values.
Management Connections
Group Work
Think of some of the groups you’ve been in: Maybe you worked on your high school yearbook, were part of achurch choir, or belonged to a club
with fellow enthusiasts devoted to a particular pastime or hobby. In additionto these, you may also have participated in groups at work.
Begin by listing the various groups to which you have belonged (or currently belong), both at work and outsidework. Consider the dynamics of t
wo or three of these groups, and think about how you would, in generally,characterize how they functioned. Now consider these questions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What positive aspects of the groups can you identify?
What negative aspects of the groups can you identify?
What pressures were brought to conform to the values of the group?
What incentives were provided for creative and critical thought?
Was pressure to conform brought from within the group, or from outside of the group?
Were there any conflicts between your personal beliefs and the ideas expressed by the larger
group? Howdid you resolve any such conflicts?
Did you feel part of the group? If so, what made you feel part of the group? If not, what prev
ented it?
Did everyone feel included in the group, or were some people excluded in one way or anothe
r?
Now having assessed your experience with groups, what are three guidelines you would set if you weremanaging a group of people who were c
oming together for the first time for a project?
Power is the exercise or implementation of influence. Those who are able to exert power are able to get others to do whatthey want, that is, th
ey can control others’ outcomes, or they can stop unwanted behaviors in others. But it would be amistake to see power as simply residing in an
y one person, such as the titular group leader. Power is at least as muchrelational and positional as it is a personal characteristic. Power as a per
sonal characteristic implies a forceful individual whois able to exert influence through sheer force of will. On the other hand, power as defined r
elationally implies at least twoindividuals, one to exert influence and at least a second to accept it. We have actually met positional power befor
e when westudied social roles. Recall that the American president has certain prerogatives that reside in the role, rather than inindividual perso
nality characteristics. Bosses can typically make demands upon employees. Power and status intertwinebecause those individuals with higher gr
oup status typically are able to exert more influence as well.
Supporting the positional and relational perspectives, groups can wield power through the coordinated actions of theirmembers. For example,
when members at a group meeting declaim the actions of another member, culminating in expellingthat member from the group, we have see
n a collective, not an individual, application of power. When a work grouprecommends a course of action on marketing a new product, this is a
collective attempt to exert influence. Because groupscan appeal to certain bases of power, such as legitimate power, more than single individua
ls can, their decisions can appearmore justified and less capricious.
Individual members within groups often jockey for status, power, and rewards. For example, there is commonly competitionfor promotions and
raises within a particular organization. In courses that are graded on a curve, students contend for grades.Individuals also keep an eye out for o
ther groups, perhaps to increase their status or power by moving from one group toanother, either within the same organization or from one o
rganization to a second. And of course, within the same companygroups can compete with other groups to increase their overall status or powe
r.
This chapter mostly addresses influence that flows from group members. Later in the chapter, we focus further on howgroups as collectivities w
ield influence. Obviously, more influential groups also have a greater impact on group performance.In Chapter 9, we will study leadership in con
siderable depth. Important members, groups, and leaders form a triangle ofinfluence.
7.2
Conformity Versus Compliance
In recent years, social psychologists have drawn a clear terminological and motivational distinction between conformityversus compliance. This
distinction is still relatively new and it is important because earlier treatments of influence tended toblur the differences between these two co
ncepts. Thus, Milgram discussed his classic research in the shock studies we willexamine below as “conformity to obedience.” A more recent gr
oup dynamicist would call Milgram’s research examplescompliance rather than conformity, because study participants became highly reluctant
to cooperate in the later stages of theexperiments.
In conformity, individuals accept influence because they want to. Thus, conformity is internally driven: It is affected bymotivation, internalized
norms; by the desire to belong to a particular collectivity, and sometimes by whether the behaviorappears meaningful. In conformity, there is t
ypically correspondence between the individual’s internal feelings and his or herexternal behavior; acceptance of influence occurs in both publi
c and private behavior. For example, if your doctor persuadesyou that it is in your best interests to lose weight, exercise more often, and stop s
moking, and you feel her directives makesense, your initiation of a new diet and exercise plan would be considered conformity—
you conformed to your doctor’ssuggestions for healthier living.
Listening to and acting on your doctor’sprescriptions is an act of conforming. Americanstend to think of conform
ing as a negative thing,but obviously that’s not always the case.
Many of the adjustments of attitudes and behavior in groups occur because ofconformity. Group members may not even be consciously aware
that theyhave conformed because their behavior is “unthinking” (Berkowitz, 1990).Even when conformity may be awkward, difficult, or costly, i
ndividuals mayadjust because the behavior is normative, that is, it is seen as legitimate, right,and proper. Consider a devout Christian attending
services at a Hindu ashram.There may be some degree of conflict in terms of the behavior asked of theChristian, but the obvious thing to do is p
articipate in a service one voluntarilyattended. In this case, conformity seems quite appropriate. Consciencebehaviors, even when the individua
l realizes that they may incur penaltiesfrom other groups or the larger society, are an example of normativebehaviors. Imagine you are sitting ar
ound with a group of friends, one ofwhom tells an offensive, racist joke. It may be easier to conform and laughwhen everyone else does, than t
o indicate that you find the joke offensive.How often are we willing to speak up in such a situation? What is implied if wedo not challenge the as
sumptions of the person telling the joke?
Similarly, consider how we have conformed in the work environment whereuniforms are not required but business dress is the norm. In what a
reas ofappearance do we look to group members for cues as to how we shoulddress? For starters, we also may look to group members for cues
on hairlength, visible tattoos, appropriate modes of communication, and acceptabletypes of emotional responses.
On the other hand, in compliance, individuals accept influence because theymust. Compliance is externally imposed, often by the promise or th
reat of strong rewards or punishments. Internally,individuals may disagree with the external mandate or feel uncomfortable about it, but nonet
heless in public their behavioradjusts to the source of influence. Colloquially put, we go along to get along. Because people want to belong to p
articulargroups, compliance can be one of the prices exerted by influence in groups, especially cohesive groups.
Compliance behavior can occur more often when individuals believe they have few or no alternatives in group choice, that is,their comparison l
evel for alternatives is below their comparison level (CL). For example, the job market where the individuallives may be poor and for many reas
ons she or he may be unable to relocate. Sometimes the individual is determined to jointhe higheststatus fraternity, sorority, or graduate program. If no substitute will do, that individual may comply with demandsfrom the university or social g
roup. If, for example, the worker in the opening to this chapter had ended up shaving his head,he would, in effect, have complied with the man
date of the office. He certainly didn’t want to shave his head, but externalforces might have been so great that he felt in order to keep his job h
e had no other choice but to comply.
Compliance is also more likely in a total environment, where the group controls many or most domains of an individual’s life,such as parents an
d small children or officers and soldiers, and thus the group or its leaders have control over memberrewards and punishments. Compliance is m
ore likely among low-status group members, whereas conformity is more likelyamong high-status group members, in part because higherstatus members usually play a larger role in setting group agendas.Highly cohesive groups not only can create more conformity, but, should the
individual wish to belong no matter what, caneven be more coercive as well.
With compliance, individuals accept influence because theymust—
not because they want to. For example, you mightcomply with the demands of an aggressive boss who haspowe
r over your job status.
Rather than forcing members to merely comply with groupregulations, most groups prefer to instill internalized conformity intheir members. T
here are several reasons why compliance is amuch more costly mechanism for groups and societies thanconformity:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Surveillance.
Typically, compliance requires surveillance tobe effective. Leaders or their represen
tatives mustcarefully watch and correct members because groupmembers may resist influen
ce in their more privatebehaviors.
Enforcement. Compliance may require specialized roleoccupants to enforce, such as police or sol
diers to ensurethat directives are carried out or deviant behavior issquelched.
Blowback. Group members may be disgruntled and as aresult engage in sabotage attempts.
Decreased productivity. Due to coercion attempts andenforcement, many group members may beco
me anxious.If anxiety levels due to coercion are high, this may interfere with and lower their
productivity on group tasks.
Diminished cohesion. Identification with the collectivity will be lower, which may also negatively infl
uenceperformance.
Higher turnover. If the opportunity presents itself, members may leave the group entirely for an al
ternative.
All of these potential consequences of trying to force individuals to behave a certain way should warn businesses that the”carrot is better than t
he stick.” External demands have a tendency to result in member resentment, lost productivity, andprobable attempts to find employment else
where. It is worth the extra time to use more gentle influence and persuasionattempts to instill internally motivated conformity. Consider a bos
s who has a very productive worker, but who has extensivetattoos on his arms that seem to bother some of the company’s customers. The boss
wants to keep the worker; will it bemore successful to order the worker to hide those tattoos, or are there more subtle—and more effective—
ways to achievethis same result?
Often companies use a sixmonth probationary period where the new hire is given high level of support by trainers andsupervisors. The trainee is motivated to adhere to c
ompany rules so that he or she can get off probation and become aregular member of the organization. Sometimes there is a raise at the end of
the six-month period. During the sixmonthperiod the trainee is encouraged to ask questions so that he or she can adequately learn the company culture and rules. Thecompany als
o supplies the trainee with an employee handbook and may reward the trainee for being able to prove that he orshe is reading it.
Compared to compliance, conformity is relatively cheap! It may require propaganda or perhaps hiring attractive role modelsto perform behavio
rs or deliver persuasive speeches. Possibly higherprestige group members may be willing to welcome,speak with, or otherwise influence recruits and current members or even act as mentors to
socialize new recruits. Influencemay be delivered through mass means, such as emails, bulletins, or television campaigns. A manager, for instance, mighttake a group of employees out for lunch, or happy hour: While informal
and relaxed, such a setting can be very conducive togetting the corporate message across. In this way, the message is delivered in a stressfree environment. A manager who hasthe respect of the employees will, of course, be still more effective at delivering this message.
Because conformity is internalized, individuals will perform the behaviors in private as well as in public, and require relativelylittle prompting. B
ehavior is more consistent, sabotage attempts relatively rare, and commitment to action should be muchhigher.
In Chapter 6 on group cohesion, we discussed how a smart large organization will find a way to pull smaller subgroups withinthe organization to
its side. One way to do so, you will recall, is to give these groups some determination over, for example,larger group goals or working condition
s. When people feel they have a choice over their courses of action, they becomemore committed. In the terms in this chapter, this means that
they conform, rather than comply. However, the key to realsuccess, research finds, is for solicited input to actually be taken into account; that i
s, the larger organization must sincerelywant the input of its subgroups. If the input of subgroups becomes a sham, if it is an ingratiation tactic t
hat employers userather than a democratic way of sharing power, there is no corresponding increase in commitment among group members(G
erson, 1975).
Stanley Milgram’s Classic Studies on Obedience
The horrors of the Nazi regime during World War II lead toan abundance of research into group dynamics, especi
allyregarding power and obedience. Social researchers wanted tounderstand how so many people could be com
plicit in suchunthinkable atrocities. The Milgram experiments attemptedto answer some of those questions.
Stanley Milgram’s (1963; 1974) famous series of experimentsduring the middle 1960s initially must have seemed innocuous tothe largely middl
e-aged white male study volunteers whoresponded to a newspaper advertisement and came to an office ina lowrise shopping strip block in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Eachsubject entered to see another middleaged man seated in a chairand a third man dressed in a white coat sitting at a desk; these twomen were actually confederates, part of the exper
iment. Shortlythereafter, the subject was told he was participating in anexperiment to assess the effects of punishment on learning; hewas to b
e the “teacher” and administer electric shocks to one ofthe confederates, who would be seated in another room andstrapped to an electric sho
ck machine as the “learner.”
The subject was given a sample 45volt shock so he could judgewhat it felt like and was told that each time the learner made amistake, he, the “teacher,” was to escalate the level
of electricshock administered. At first, the learner feigned discomfort byresponding to the shocks with grunts and groans. Then as the voltage w
as turned increasingly higher, the learner began tofuriously protest: His “heart [was] bothering him” and he “want[ed] to end the experiment.”
At 330 volts, the monitoringapparatus turned ominously blank and silent and the learner no longer responded, as if unconscious or possibly dea
d.
At these points nearly all the subjects paused. They asked the head of the experiment, “Mr. Williams,” to check on thelearner. They asked (not
demanded) if the experiment could be discontinued. Mr. Williams consistently responded that theexperiment must continue, but also reassure
d the subjects that their payment for participation was theirs to keep. Not untilthe subject refused to continue did the experiment conclude. In
the end, most of the subjects continued escalating the shocksbeyond the already dangerous level of 330 volts. Approximately twothirds of the subjects continued until it reached 450volts, the highest voltage possible.
This particular experiment was only one of the scenarios that Stanley Milgram used in his series of studies. Milgram’s firstsubjects were Yale un
dergraduates. Although a panel of psychiatrists that he consulted estimated that fewer than onepercent of individuals would continue to shock
simply on an unknown experimenter’s request, nearly all of the studyparticipants proceeded to shock the initially unseen and unheard victim to
450 volts. Milgram repeated the basic experimentmany times, varying the amount of contact between subject and learner, the distance betwe
en subject and learner, thelocation of the experiment (downtown Bridgeport, CT or Yale University), and the demographic of the subjects used,
includingthose recruited through newspaper advertisements. Obedience (or compliance) to the experimenter was most pronounced(90 percen
t) when the subject was a minority of one in a small group of compliant confederates. It was least likely (10percent) if the subject had to force t
he learner’s hand directly onto a shock plate.
Business in the Real World
Power Corrupts?
In August of 1970, psychology professor Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment now generally known as theStanford Prison Experiment. Usi
ng the basement of the Stanford psychology building, Zimbardo selected 24students to serve as prisoners or as prison guards. The experiment
was to last for two weeks, and as realistic asituation as possible was set up: Prisoners, dressed in appropriate clothing, were placed in cells and
addressed bynumber rather than name; prison guards were dressed in a way that indicated their authority over the prisoners.
Think about this experiment for a moment. What do you think would take place? What did Professor Zimbardolearn about how people would b
ehave if put in these roles? What do you think those who were prisoners learnedabout themselves? About those who were serving as prison gu
ards? What did the prison guards learn about howthey would interact with the prisoners?
Some “prisoners” quit early. Some had severe psychological reactions, while others rebelled against the guards.The guards became abusive, an
d as many as onethird engaged in behavior described as “sadistic.” Famously, theexperiment had to be halted …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades