Power struggles are highly complex.  They may be a one-time event, or ongoing soap opera. As any parent of more than one child knows, it is not always easy to determine when the power struggle began.  “Mom, she hit me” the brother complains. The sister may indeed have hit her brother, but she did so in response to her brother poking her.  Is that when the power struggle began or is he poking her because last week she tattled on him.  It is probably futile to determine when it began, and not really necessary. 

Marital relationships which do not share power are doomed to failure, but the person who is least invested in the relationship has the most power.  They simply have less to loose if the relationship goes sour. Wilmot & Hocker (2007) say, “…within the confines of an ongoing relationship, maximization of individual power is counterproductive for both the higher-power and lower-power parties.  The unrestrained maximization of individual power leads to damaged relations, destructive moves, more destructive countermoves, and the eventual ending of the relationship.”

Sometimes it is even difficult to determine who holds the power.  Some people in powerful positions are puppets for others who really call the shots.  Traditionally, the husband was declared the “head of the household”, while many wives really ran the home.  Sometimes power is displayed more forcefully in ways that appear weak, as witnessed by the nonviolent strategies of Gandi and Martin Luther King.  Just because people hold similar power doesn’t mean they will apply it in the same way.  Some powerful people easily share power, while others hoard it.  Some see how their interactions are interrelated and influenced by others, while others perceive that they operate independently, the self-made man/woman.  Some people perceive that they are powerful when they are not, while others do not see the power that they hold.  Each of these will dramatically affect how the drama of power struggles plays out.

Cameron & Whetton (1995) found a curvilinear relationship between amount of power exercised and effectiveness.  You will be ineffective influencing situations if you lack any power.  As that power increases, your effectiveness also increases up to a point, but beyond that point your effectiveness rapidly DECREASES.  When too much power is applied people become resentful and rebel.  They fight back, disobey, argue, or go underground and sabotage your efforts. If they must comply, they do the least amount possible as slowly as possible.  Have you ever seen children respond this way?  What about adults?  People in a high power positions,  actually may be more influential if they recognize the interdependence between partners, and show restraint by not using all their power!

Give Them a Voice by Providing a Choice

Wilmot & Hoicker, (2007) say, the paradox is that the more you struggle against someone, the LESS power you have with that person.   Fey & Funk (1995) put it differently “Control is like love.  The more you give away, the more you get in return…We either give control on our terms or the kids will take it on theirs.”  Give control away to get it.  That sounds crazy and will lead to anarchy… or will it?  I am not advocating that we abdicate all power.  There is a curvilinear relationship so you must retain some control.  In my presentations I do a demonstration where I ask audience members to hold their hand steady as I push against it.  As I push harder they must push back harder just to maintain their position.  As I ease my pressure, they cease to push back.  Research[ii] has repeatedly shown that shared control enhances general levels of cooperation.   Giving people choices and ownership of their decisions actually gives you more control.  Why? Because those who have no control will spend most of their time trying to get it while people with some control over their life will spend little time trying to gain more.  That is why this paradox is true.

 To illustrate this point, let’s look at my early attempts to get my son to mow the lawn and how that changed when I gave choices.  I first asked my son to mow the lawn saying “The lawn needs mowing,” he responded, “I’m getting ready to leave with my friends right now.”   He always had reasons why he couldn’t mow the lawn.  I later modified my strategy to give him a choice, along with a call to action by asking him, “When can you mow the lawn before Sunday?” my son said, “I’ll do it Saturday afternoon,” delaying as long as possible.  Thursday came and went, and the lawn wasn’t mowed.  Friday came and went and the lawn wasn’t mowed.  I had to bite my tongue all week to avoid nagging him.  I felt like my tongue should be wrapped in gauze, but I said nothing. Saturday came and I was getting worried.  About ten minutes before we’d need to set up the flood lights to illuminate the lawn, out came the lawn mower and the grass was cut as promised without nagging. What was the difference?  I gave him some control.  That control came with limits; he had to have it done before Sunday.  But he could choose when he wanted to get it done within those limits.