John Eldred’s Power Strategies: model and teaching cases

Domination

Unequal power; conflicting goals.

One person has the power to impose an outcome, while the other wants something different. Compliance may leave the underlying disagreement untouched.

What would make the less powerful person’s concerns count?

Influence

Unequal power; compatible goals.

One person holds more power, but the goals can support each other. Each can contribute something the other needs.

How can we help each other succeed without pretending our authority is equal?

Negotiation

Similar power; conflicting goals.

Neither person can simply decide for the other. Progress depends on understanding what each can give, protect, or change.

What could each of us change without giving up what matters most?

Collaboration

Similar power; compatible goals.

Power is relatively balanced, and the goals can work together. There is room to share ownership and build on each other’s contribution.

What can we accomplish together that neither of us could do alone?

The launch

“We both want this to succeed.”

A project lead wants to launch this month. The operations lead wants a service her team can reliably support. They have equal say—and a very different idea of “ready.”

• Project lead: “We need to learn from real customers.”
• Operations lead: “We need to deliver what we promise.”

Make the launch smaller.

Agree on a limited pilot and a support threshold.

A path toward collaboration. A smaller pilot could serve both learning and reliability. The goals become more compatible without changing who holds authority.

Still to work through: The actual workload still matters. A “pilot” that quietly creates a full launch’s demands has not resolved the conflict.

Ask a senior sponsor to decide.

Move the decision to someone with more authority.

A decision, with a power imbalance. Suppose the sponsor backs the original launch. The project now has stronger authority, while the operational concern remains. This may settle the date without settling the disagreement.

Still to work through: Escalation can be appropriate. The question is whether the decision also addresses the costs borne by the team that must deliver it.

Trade time for capacity.

Explore extra support in exchange for the date.

A negotiation with something to exchange. The discussion becomes concrete: what support would make the date workable? Both sides still need to judge the tradeoff.

Still to work through: A promise of capacity is only useful if someone can actually commit it.

What would count as a real shared goal here—and what would only be a nicer way of describing the same disagreement?

The promotion

“Only one of us can get it.”

Two colleagues have built a strong partnership. Now both want the same leadership role. Their standing is similar, but success suddenly feels like a contest.

• One colleague: “I’m ready to lead the team.”
• The other colleague: “I want my contribution to be recognized.”

Explore what each person really wants.

Separate the title from the work, growth, and recognition.

Possibly more room than it first appears. Suppose one person wants people leadership while the other most wants ownership of a new business area. Different opportunities could make some goals compatible.

Still to work through: There may still be only one promotion. A useful conversation does not guarantee that both people get what they want.

Agree on a fair process.

Keep credit honest and the working relationship intact.

Constructive negotiation. They may continue to want the same scarce role. Fair criteria and a commitment to support shared work can contain the conflict without making their goals identical.

Still to work through: A healthy process does not erase disappointment. The relationship will need care after the decision, too.

Win a powerful sponsor’s backing.

Increase one person’s influence over the decision.

More power, the same conflict. Suppose one colleague gains decisive backing. The power difference grows while the competing ambition remains.

Still to work through: Sponsorship can be legitimate. Using it to deny another person fair consideration would be a separate ethical choice.

When the outcome really is scarce, what can still be cooperative—and what should be acknowledged as a genuine conflict?

The new leader

“I know what this team needs.”

A new director arrives with a plan. An experienced team member sees a delivery risk. The director can set the direction; the team member understands where the work can break.

• New director: “We need to show progress quickly.”
• Team member: “We need a plan that survives contact with the work.”

Invite the team member to revise the plan.

Keep the objective; give the concern real influence.

Influence with shared direction. The director retains authority, but a revised plan may serve both progress and reliability. Expertise has a route into the decision.

Still to work through: The invitation must allow a meaningful change. Listening without considering revision may leave the original dynamic intact.

Delegate a bounded decision.

Give the team member authority over the delivery approach.

More shared power over this decision. Suppose the director agrees on the outcome and gives the team member real discretion over the approach. Within that boundary, both goals and authority become more balanced.

Still to work through: This does not make their organizational power equal. It changes the power arrangement for a specific part of the work.

Reaffirm the deadline and the plan.

Use formal authority to create a clear direction.

Clarity through authority. The director can require the work to proceed. If the delivery concern remains, the relationship still contains both unequal power and conflicting goals.

Still to work through: Urgency may require a decision. It does not make the underlying risk disappear.

What would tell the team member that their input can change the plan, rather than simply make them feel heard?