Putting an end to quarrels in organisations

When power and status collide, people in groups start behaving badly

INTERPERSONAL conflict in organisations, whether they be businesses, political parties or social entities, can be costly in terms of the time it takes to resolve and because it removes the focus from the organisation’s core purpose.

A recent study by CPP, a firm that specialises in personality, career and organisational assessments, found that 85% of employees surveyed have had to deal with conflict to some degree and that 29% have had to do so “always” or “frequently”.

The study, “Workplace Conflict and How Businesses Can Harness It to Thrive”, says these battles are usually blamed on personality clashes and warring egos, followed by stress and heavy workloads. Other factors are culture and a lack of honesty.

But according to a study published late last year in the journal Organization Science, structural factors are the cause of interpersonal conflict. In particular, this study explores how roles that give their incumbents power — but not status — result in interpersonal conflict and demeaning treatment.

The study, “When the Bases of Social Hierarchy Collide: Power Without Status Drives Interpersonal Conflict”, is by Eric Anicich and Adam Galinsky, both of Columbia Business School, Nathanael Fast of Marshall Business School at the University of Southern California, and Nir Halevy of the Graduate Business School at Stanford University.

The study has special relevance for South Africa’s private sector, which is set to become the most contested terrain for the racial composition of the upper echelons of management and leadership.

Giving people power, but in lowstatus positions, will be a recipe for heightened interpersonal conflict, the researchers have concluded.

Drawing on the work Social Hierarchy: The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status”, by Joe Magee and Galinsky, the researchers from the Columbia, Marshall and Stanford business schools define status as respect and admiration in the eyes of others and power as asymmetric control over valued resources. Both form the basis of formal and informal hierarchies in the workplace.

Anicich, Fast, Halevy and Galinsky write: “Status and power often covary in social hierarchies. Respected and admired individuals often gain access to valued resources; similarly, having control over important outcomes and resources often leads to respect and admiration.”

Although status and power co-vary and can mutually reinforce each other, they are conceptually distinct. This, according to the authors, means that some roles afford status without power. Others confer power without status.

Status and power impact social interactions. Status often makes those with a high status more socially conscious: more helpful, cooperative, giving and just. This is because roles that confer status on the incumbent increase the esteem people hold them in, raising the incumbent’s sense of self-worth and affiliation. People who lack status, on the other hand, are “psychologically aversive”.

On its own, status doesn’t trigger meanness towards others. For a lack of status to translate into mistreatment of others there must be a catalyst — and the authors say this can be role-based power.

Power, the authors find, liberates people to act on their true feelings and these feelings are often shaped by the status associated with their roles. So people feeling disrespected — and at the same time liberated to act on these negative feelings — interact to produce interpersonal conflict. This would explain why people in high-status roles, or low-status/low-power roles, are less likely to instigate conflict.

The authors conclude that, when making appointments, leaders must be aware of the levels of both status and power afforded by various organisational roles.

“Organisational leaders should avoid creating roles that lack status but afford control over valued resources and outcomes. However, it is not always possible to avoid such roles. Thus, finding ways to raise the status of specific roles that have power but confer little respect may prove to be an effective strategy.

“It is important for organisations to understand the type and magnitude of status enhancement that is required to reduce interpersonal conflict among high-power employees,” the academics write.

“For example, acknowledging the value of the contributions associated with a particular role — and connecting those contributions to the broader organisational mission — may lead others in the organisation to view the role with greater respect, thereby imbuing it with higher status over time.”

The authors caution, however, against dressing up low-status roles as high-status ones. Similarly, they warn that when granting additional power to employees, managers “would be wise to ensure that increases in role status accompany these increases in role power, lest employees who lack status use their new-found power to antagonise those around them”.

This is my last column for Business Times. I have accepted a new assignment about which an announcement will be made shortly. Thank you, dear readers, for all your comments and words of encouragement.

85% of employees surveyed have had to deal with conflict to some degree

For now, Sikhakhane is deputy editor of The Conversation Africa Comment on this: write to letters@businesstimes.co.za or SMS us at 33971 www.sundaytimes.co.za