The literature on power and conflict in committees says contradictory things. Firstly, it is assumed that committees are where arguments are won and lost (and yet evidence suggests that committees do not make full use of argumentation), which implies, secondly, that power in committees is assumed to be visible and belong to the winner of arguments (despite other literature in political science which contrasts visible, mass political communication about intangible promises with invisible, insider political communication of tangible rewards). Thirdly, it is assumed that there is a decision point which comes when all arguments have been heard, and which all members then have to immediately accept (yet the social constructionist literature emphasises the provisionality and problematic nature of social boundaries such as deadlines, decisions, and delivery). Fourthly, no means has yet been discovered of distinguishing between “constructive” and “destructive” conflict in committees nor has any means of integrating them been observed.
To address these issues, a model is suggested in which a major task of leaders (the powerful) is integrating all sides’ points of view and avoiding destructive conflict associated with sacrifices, blame, and loss of face. In the model important leadership tasks are the creation and maintenance of a cooperative atmosphere; the use of positive politeness language forms to protect followers (the powerless) from a sense of loss of respect, approval or intimacy; the use of language which reduces social distance and followers’ perceptions of leaders’ dominance; the avoidance of challenges and reason-giving; and topic direction, by means of topic avoidance and topic widening. Having been in a committee at which they do not voice serious criticisms and where they consider themselves implicated in the committee’s work means that followers later seek to reduce cognitive dissonance and reconcile their views with the committee’s positions they have already passively accepted. Leaders increase this sense of complicity by embedding references to shared objectives in their talk. Followers ask questions and use negative forms of politeness in order to reduce leaders’ sense of being imposed upon by their criticisms. A model of the relationship between power and conflict is suggested in which (a) committee members use politeness rules which acknowledge power and which reduce conflict; and (b) when conflict is not acceptable then power is made invisible (reasons are not disclosed). The model is illustrated by examination of one committee meeting using an analysis of four information sources: the committee meeting transcript, the committee agenda, the pre-committee report, and the transcript of a private meeting of leaders prior to the committee meeting.
For more information about this talk contact: J.Sillince@rhbnc.ac.uk