Final answer:
The statement is true. The statement about conflicting power relationships in the workplace is false, as supervisors and union stewards often have different roles and interests. Majority rule can fail with more than two choices due to the Condorcet paradox, and sociological frameworks provide different approaches to understanding power dynamics in society.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement 'Conflicting power relationships develop in situations where the supervisor and union stewards pursue the same interests or goals' is false. Generally, supervisors and union stewards have different roles and often distinct interests. The supervisor's role is primarily to manage employees and ensure that the organization's objectives are met, while the union steward's role is to represent the employees and protect their interests, as defined by the union's mandate. However, there can be occasions where supervisors and union stewards work cooperatively to achieve common goals that benefit both the employees and the organization.
Majority rule can indeed fail to produce a single preferred outcome when there are more than two choices. This is known as the Condorcet paradox in social choice theory, where a cycle of preferences occurs, leading to an inconsistency in-group preferences.
Regarding the doubt about different sociological frameworks, functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism offer various perspectives on the study of power and government. Functionalism focuses on cooperation and shared goals, whereas conflict theory highlights competition for resources and symbolic interactionism looks at the individual perceptions of power in face-to-face interactions.