4 Pages

CHAPTER 10  POWER AND POLITICS 281

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 01

5

it is important to motivate through the power of shared goals, shared objectives, and shared standards.5

The first part of the chapter defines what is meant by power and describes how power is related to authority and influence. The next part concentrates on the various classifica- tions of power. Particular attention is given to the classic French and Raven identified sources of power. After an examination of some of the research results on power types, attention is given to some contingency approaches (for example, the influenceability of the target and an overall contingency model of power). Next, the popular approach of empow- ering employees is presented. The last part is concerned with organizational politics. Par- ticular attention is given to a political perspective of power in today’s organizations and to specific political strategies used in the acquisition of power.

THE MEANING OF POWER

Although the concepts in the field of organizational behavior seldom have universally agreed-upon definitions, power may have even more diverse definitions than most. Almost every author who writes about power defines it differently. Going way back, for example, the famous pioneering sociologist Max Weber defined power as “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resis- tance.”6 More recently, a search of the literature on power found it referred to as the ability to get things done despite the will and resistance of others or the ability to “win” political fights and outmaneuver the opposition. The power theorists stress the positive sum of power, suggesting it is the raw ability to mobilize resources to accomplish some end with- out reference to any organized opposition.7 Pfeffer, the organizational behavior theorist perhaps most closely associated with the study of power, simply defined power as a poten- tial force and in more detail “as the potential ability to influence behavior, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance, and to get people to do things that they would not otherwise do.”8

Usually definitions of power are intertwined with the concepts of authority and influ- ence. For example, the preceding definition uses the word influence in describing power, the pioneering management theorist Chester Barnard defined power in terms of “informal authority,” and many organizational sociologists define authority as “legitimate power.”9 These distinctions among concepts need to be cleared up in order to better understand power.

The Distinctions Among Power, Authority, and Influence

In Chapter 6 the power motive is defined as the need to manipulate others and have superiority over them. Extrapolating from this definition of the need for power, power itself can be defined as the ability to get an individual or group to do something—to get the person or group to change in some way. The individual who possesses power has the abil- ity to manipulate or change others. Such a definition of power distinguishes it from author- ity and influence.

One of the primary sources of definitional controversy revolves around the question: Is power the observed influence over others, or is it merely the potential to influence? An argument can be made that those individuals who have the most power are the least likely to need to demonstrate outward evidence that they hold it. Their mere presence is enough

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 . I n f o r m a t i o n A g e P u b l i s h i n g .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 3/3/2021 9:28 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 999823 ; Fred Luthans.; Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-Based Approach, 13th Ed. Account: s3642728.main.ehost

282 PART 3  DYNAMICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 01

5

to change the behaviors of others without lifting a finger or saying a word. This makes the study of power much more difficult, but at the same time conceptually should not be ignored.10 An employee who takes the back stairs to avoid confronting an intimidating coworker is being influenced without the coworker even knowing of the power held over the frightened coworker.

Authority legitimatizes and is a source of power. Authority is the right to manipulate or change others. Power need not be legitimate. In addition, the distinction must be made between top-down classical, bureaucratic authority and Barnard’s concept of bottom-up authority based on acceptance. In particular, Barnard defined authority as “the character of a communication (order) in a formal organization by virtue of which it is accepted by a contributor to or ‘member’ of the organization as governing the action he contributes.”11

Such an acceptance theory of authority is easily differentiated from power. Grimes notes: “What legitimizes authority is the promotion or pursuit of collective goals that are associated with group consensus. The polar opposite, power, is the pursuit of individual or particularistic goals associated with group compliance.”12

Influence is usually conceived of as being broader in scope than power. It involves the ability to alter other people in general ways, such as by changing their satisfaction and per- formance. Influence is more closely associated with leadership than power is, but both obviously are involved in the leadership process. Thus, authority is different from power because of its legitimacy and acceptance, and influence is broader than power, but it is so conceptually close that the two terms can be used interchangeably.

The preceding discussion points out that an operational definition of power is lacking, and this vagueness is a major reason power has traditionally received relatively little atten- tion in the study of organizational behavior. Yet, especially when it is linked to the emerg- ing concern for the informal organization and organizational politics, the study of power can greatly enhance the understanding of the ways in which organizations function and the dynamics of organizational behavior. As one observer of the dynamics of the informal power network of organizations keenly noted:

Anyone who has ever worked knows that the org chart, no matter how meticulously ren- dered, doesn’t come close to describing the facts of office life. All those lines and boxes don’t tell you, for example, that smokers tend to have the best information, since they bond with people from every level and department when they head outside for a puff. The org chart doesn’t tell you that people go to Janice, a long-time middle manager, rather than their bosses to get projects through. It doesn’t tell you that the Canadian and Japanese sales forces don’t interact because the two points of contact can’t stand each other.13

The Classifications of Power

Most discussions of power often begin and sometimes even end with a review of the widely recognized five categories of the sources of social power identified many years ago by social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven.14 Describing and analyzing these five classic types of power (reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert) serve as a necessary foundation and point of departure for the entire chapter. Most of the examples and applications to organizational behavior derive from the following five types of power.

EBSCOhost - printed on 3/3/2021 9:28 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

CHAPTER 10  POWER AND POLITICS 283

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 01

5

Reward Power

This source of power is based on a person’s ability to control resources and reward others. In addition, the target of this power must value these rewards. In an organizational context, managers have many potential rewards, such as pay increases, promotions, valu- able information, favorable work assignments, more responsibility, new equipment, praise, feedback, and recognition available to them. In operant learning terms (covered in Chapter 12), this means that the manager has the power to administer positive reinforcers. In expec- tancy motivation terms (covered in Chapter 6), this means that the person has the power to provide positive valences and that the other person perceives this ability.

To understand this source of power more completely, one must remember that the recipient holds the key. If managers offer their people what they think are rewards (for example, a promotion with increased responsibility), but the people do not value them (for example, they are insecure or have family obligations that are more important to them than a promotion), then managers do not really have reward power. By the same token, manag- ers may not think they are giving rewards to their people (they calmly listen to chronic complainers), but if they perceive this to be rewarding (the managers are giving them atten- tion by intently listening to their complaining), the managers nevertheless have reward power. Also, managers may not really have the rewards to dispense (they may say that they have considerable influence with top management to get their people promoted, but actu- ally they don’t), but as long as their people think they have it, they do indeed have reward power.

Coercive Power

This source of power depends on fear. The person with coercive power has the ability to inflict punishment or aversive consequences on another person or, at least, to make threats that the other person believes will result in punishment or undesirable outcomes. Research also suggests that subordinates are less likely to retaliate against abusive supervi- sors due to coercive power.15 This form of power has contributed greatly to the negative connotation that power has for most people. In an organizational context, managers fre- quently have coercive power in that they can fire or demote people who work for them, or dock their pay, although the legal climate and unions have stripped away some of this power. A manager can also directly or indirectly threaten an employee with these punish- ing consequences. In operant learning terms, this means that the person has the power to administer punishment or negatively reinforce (terminate punishing consequences, which is a form of negative control). In expectancy motivation terms, this means that power comes from the expectation on the part of the other person that they will be punished for not conforming to the powerful person’s desires. For example, there is fear of punishment when the rules, directives, or policies of the organization are not carefully followed. It is probably this fear that gets most people to arrive at work on time and to look busy when the boss walks through the area. In other words, much of organizational behavior may be explained in terms of coercive power rather than reward power.

Legitimate Power

This power source, identified by French and Raven, stems from the internalized values of the other persons that give the legitimate right to the agent to influence them. The others feel they have the obligation to accept this power. It is almost identical to what is usually

EBSCOhost - printed on 3/3/2021 9:28 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

284 PART 3  DYNAMICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 01

5

called authority and is closely aligned with both reward and coercive power because the person with legitimacy is also in a position to reward and punish. However, legitimate power is unlike reward and coercive power in that it does not depend on the relationships with others but rather on the position or role that the person holds. For example, people obtain legitimacy because of their titles (captain or executive vice president) or position (oldest in the family or officer of a corporation) rather than their personalities or how they affect others.

Legitimate power comes from three major sources. First, the prevailing cultural values of a society, organization, or group determine what is legitimate. For example, in some societies, the older people become, the more legitimate power they possess. The same may be true for a certain physical attribute, gender, or job. In an organizational context, manag- ers generally have legitimate power because employees believe in the value of private property laws and in the hierarchy where higher positions have been designated to have power over lower positions. The same holds true for certain functional positions in an orga- nization. An example of the latter would be engineers who have legitimacy in the opera- tions or information systems areas of a company, whereas accountants have legitimacy in financial matters. The prevailing values within a group also determine legitimacy. For example, in a street gang the toughest member may attain legitimacy, whereas in a work group the union steward may have legitimacy.

Second, people can obtain legitimate power from the accepted social structure. In some societies there is an accepted ruling class. But an organization or a family may also have an accepted social structure that gives legitimate power. For example, when blue-col- lar workers accept employment from a company, they are in effect accepting the hierarchi- cal structure and granting legitimate power to their supervisors.

A third source of legitimate power can come from being designated as the agent or rep- resentative of a powerful person or group. Elected officials, a chairperson of a committee, and members of the board of directors of a corporation or a union or management commit- tee would be examples of this form of legitimate power.

Each of these forms of legitimate power creates an obligation to accept and be influ- enced. But, in actual practice, there are often problems, confusion, or disagreement about the range or scope of this power. Consider the following:

An executive can rightfully expect a supervisor to work hard and diligently; may he also influence the supervisor to spy on rivals, spend weekends away from home, join an encounter group? A coach can rightfully expect [her] players to execute specific plays; may [she] also direct their life styles outside the sport? A combat officer can rightfully expect his men to attack on order; may he also direct them to execute civilians whom he claims are spies? A doctor can rightfully order a nurse to attend a patient or observe an autopsy; may he [or she] order [him or] her to assist in an abortion against [his or] her own will?16

These gray areas point to the real concern that many people in contemporary society have regarding the erosion of traditional legitimacy. These uncertainties also point to the com- plex nature of power.

Referent Power

This type of power comes from the desire on the part of the other persons to identify with the agent wielding power. They want to identify with the powerful person, regardless

EBSCOhost - printed on 3/3/2021 9:28 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

CHAPTER 10  POWER AND POLITICS 285

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 01

5

of the outcomes. The others grant the person power because he or she is attractive and has desirable resources or personal characteristics.

Advertisers take advantage of this type of power when they use celebrities, such as movie stars or sports figures, to provide testimonial advertising. The buying public identi- fies with (finds attractive) certain famous people and grants them power to tell them what product to buy. For example, a review of research has found that arguments, especially emotional ones, are more influential when they come from beautiful people.17

Timing is an interesting aspect of the testimonial advertising type of referent power. Only professional athletes who are in season (for example, baseball players in the summer and early fall, football players in the fall and early winter, and basketball players in the winter and early spring) are used in the advertisements, because then they are very visible, they are in the forefront of the public’s awareness, and consequently they have referent power. Out of season the athlete is forgotten and has little referent power. Exceptions, of course, are the handful of superstars (for example, Wayne Gretzky, Shaquille O’Neal, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods) who transcend seasons and have referent power all year long and even after they have long ago retired.

In an organizational setting, referent power is much different from the other types of power discussed so far. For example, managers with referent power must be attractive to their people so that they will want to identify with them, regardless of whether the manag- ers later have the ability to reward or punish or whether they have legitimacy. In other words, the manager who depends on referent power must be personally attractive to subor- dinates.

Expert Power

The last source of power identified by French and Raven is based on the extent to which others attribute knowledge and expertise to the power holder. Experts are perceived to have knowledge or understanding only in certain well-defined areas. All the sources of power depend on an individual’s perceptions, but expert power may be even more depen- dent on this than the others. In particular, the target must perceive the agent to be credible, trust-worthy, and relevant before expert power is granted.

Credibility comes from having the right credentials; that is, the person must really know what he or she is talking about and be able to show tangible evidence of this knowl- edge. There is basic research indicating the significant positive impact that credibility has on perceived power18 and there is much evidence from everyday experience. For example, if a highly successful football coach gives an aspiring young player some advice on how to do a new block, he will be closely listened to—he will be granted expert power. The coach has expert power in this case because he is so knowledgeable about football. His evidence for this credibility is the fact that he is a former star player and has coached championship teams. If this coach tried to give advice on how to play basketball or how to manage a cor- poration, he would have questionable credibility and thus would have little or no expert power. For avid sports fans or players, however, a coach might have general referent power (that is, he is very attractive to them), and they would be influenced by what he has to say on any subject—basketball or corporate management. For example, successful coaches such as basketball’s Mike Krzyzewski and Rick Pitino have written best-selling books aimed at effective business management and leadership.

In organizations, staff specialists have expert power in their functional areas but not outside them. For example, engineers are granted expert power in technical matters but not in personnel or public relations problems. The same holds true for other staff experts, such

EBSCOhost - printed on 3/3/2021 9:28 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

286 PART 3  DYNAMICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 01

5

as computer experts or accountants. For example, the computer person in a small office may be the only one who really understands the newest software and how to use it, and this knowledge gives him or her considerable power.

As already implied, however, expert power is highly selective, and, besides credibil- ity, the agent must also have trustworthiness and relevance. By trustworthiness, it is meant that the person seeking expert power must have a reputation for being honest and straight- forward. In the case of political figures, scandals could undermine their expert power in the eyes of the voting public. The same could be said of significant events over time in the world of business. As noted by one devil’s advocate for the blind belief in the value of trust in our business leaders:

As events such a September 11 or Edward Snowden and the NSA leaks have reminded us, we have long operated under the illusion that we live and work over safety nets, not realizing—or even questioning—how flimsy those nets really are. Such high levels of trust have made us less vigilant and thus less able to protect ourselves.19

In addition to credibility and trustworthiness, a person must have relevance and usefulness to have expert power. Going back to the earlier example, if the football coach gave advice on world affairs, it would be neither relevant nor useful, and therefore the coach would not have expert power in this domain.

It is evident that expertise is the most tenuous type of power, but managers and espe- cially staff specialists, who seldom have the other sources of power available to them, often have to depend on their expertise as their only source of power. As organizations become increasingly technologically complex and specialized, the expert power of the organization members at all levels may become more and more important. This is formally recognized by some companies that deliberately include lower-level staff members with expert power in top-level decision making. For example, Andy Grove, the former CEO of Intel, has stated: “In general, the faster the change in the know-how on which a business depends, the greater the divergence between knowledge and position power is likely to be. Since our business depends on what it knows to survive, we mix ‘knowledge-power people’ with ‘position-power people’ daily, so that together they make the decisions that will affect us for years to come.”20

It must also be remembered that French and Raven did recognize that there may be other sources of power. For instance, some organizational sociologists recognize the source of power of task interdependence (where two or more organizational participants must depend on one another). An example would be an executive who has legitimate power over a supervisor, but because the executive must depend on the supervisor to get the job done correctly and on time, the supervisor also has power over the executive. There is research evidence that those in such an interdependent relationship with their boss receive better pay raises21 and even that such interdependence can enhance the quality of the professor-student relationship.22

Closely related to interdependence is the use of information as a source of power. A person who controls the flow of information and/or interprets data before it is presented to others has such information power. Information power is distinguished from expert power because the individual merely needs to be in the “right place” to affect the flow and/or dis- tribution of information, rather than having some form of expertise over the generation or interpretation of the information.23

Besides recognizing that there may be additional sources of power, French and Raven also point out that the sources are interrelated (for example, the use of coercive power by managers may reduce their referent power, and there is research evidence that high coer-

EBSCOhost - printed on 3/3/2021 9:28 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

CHAPTER 10  POWER AND POLITICS 287

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 01

5

cive and reward power may lead to reduced expert power),24 and the same person may exercise different types of power under different circumstances and at different times.

Research indicates that French and Raven’s five bases of power may be summed to develop a measure of global power.25 This more global measure was found to be internally consistent and significantly related to each of the five individual power bases. It also accounted for additional variance in studies of the relationship between power and other variables such as resistance, compliance, and control. Additional research has found the role that procedural justice may play in the bases of power. One study indicates that although the bases of power are related to effective work reactions, they are also mediated by perceptions of procedure justice.26 This means employees are inclined to form evalua- tive perceptions regarding the fairness of actions exhibited by power holders and respond accordingly. Specifically, when the actions seem fair or justifiable, employees respond more favorably to the power influences being used by their supervisors. These findings and the previous discussion of the impact of the situation and time lead to the contingency mod- els of power in organizations.

Contingency Approaches to Power

As in other areas of organizational behavior and management, contingency approaches to power have emerged. For example, Pfeffer simply says that power comes from being in the “right” place. He describes the right place or position in the organization as one where the manager has:

1. Control over resources such as budgets, physical facilities, and positions that can be used to cultivate allies and supporters

2. Control over or extensive access to information—about the organization’s activities, about the preferences and judgments of others, about what is going on, and about who is doing it

3. Formal authority27

There is some research support28 for such insightful observations, and there are also research findings that lead to contingency conclusions such as the following:

1. The greater the professional orientation of group members, the greater relative strength referent power has in influencing them.

2. The less effort and interest high-ranking participants are willing to allocate to a task, the more likely lower-ranking participants are to obtain power relevant to this task.29

Besides these overall contingency observations, there is increasing recognition of the moderating impact of the control of strategic contingencies such as organizational interdependence and the extent to which a department controls critical operations of other departments30 or the role of influence behaviors in the perception of power.31

Also, the characteristics of influence targets (that is, their influenceability) have an important moderating impact on the types of power that can be successfully used. An examination of these characteristics of the target and an overall contingency model are presented next.

EBSCOhost - printed on 3/3/2021 9:28 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

288 PART 3  DYNAMICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 01

5

Influenceability of the Targets of Power

Most discussions of power imply a unilateral process of influence from the agent to the target. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that power involves a reciprocal rela- tionship between the agent and the target, which is in accordance with the overall social cognitive perspective taken in this text. The power relationship can be better understood by examining some of the characteristics of the target. The following characteristics have been identified as being especially important to the influenceability of targets:32

1. Dependency. The greater the targets’ dependency on their relationship to agents (for example, when a target cannot escape a relationship, perceives no alternatives, or val- ues the agent’s rewards as unique), the more targets are influenced.

2. Uncertainty. Experiments have shown that the more uncertain people are about the appropriateness or correctness of a behavior, the more likely they are to be influenced to change that behavior.

3. Personality. There have been a number of research studies showing the relationship between personality characteristics and influenceability. Some of these findings are obvious (for example, people who cannot tolerate ambiguity or who are highly anx- ious are more susceptible to influence, and those with high needs for affiliation are more susceptible to group influence), but some are not (for example, both positive and negative relationships have been found between self-esteem and influenceabil- ity).

4. Intelligence. There is no simple relationship between intelligence and influenceabil- ity. For example, highly intelligent people may be more willing to listen, but, because they also tend to be held in high esteem, they also may be more resistant to influence.

5. Gender. Although traditionally it was generally thought that women were more likely to conform to influence attempts than men because of the way they were raised, there is now evidence that this is changing.33 As women’s and society’s views of the role of women are changing, there is less of a distinction of influenceability by gender.

6. Age. Social psychologists have generally concluded that susceptibility to influence increases in young children up to about the age of eight or nine and then decreases with age until adolescence, when it levels off.

7. Culture. Obviously, the cultural values of a society have a tremendous impact on the influenceability of its people. For example, some cultures, such as Western cultures, emphasize individuality, dissent, and diversity, which would tend to decrease influ- enceability, whereas others, such as many in Asia, emphasize cohesiveness, agree- ment, and uniformity, which would tend to promote influenceability. As the accompanying OB in Action: Taking as Long as It Takes indicates, controlling the agenda and time in foreign cultures may be used to gain power and influenceability.

These individual differences in targets greatly complicate the effective use of power and point up the need for contingency models.

An Overall Contingency Model for Power

Many other contingency variables in the power relationship besides the target could be inferred from the discussion of the various types of power, for example, credibility and sur- veillance. All these variables can be tied together and related to one another in an overall contingency model.

EBSCOhost - printed on 3/3/2021 9:28 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

CHAPTER 10  POWER AND POLITICS 289

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 01

5 The classic work on influence process, by noted social psychologist Herbert Kel-

man,34 can be used to structure an overall contingency model of power. According to the model, the target will comply in order to gain a favorable reaction or avoid a punishing one from the agent. This is the process that most supervisors in work organizations must rely on. But in order for compliance to work, supervisors must be able to reward and punish (that is, have control over the means to their people’s ends) and keep an eye on them (that is, have surveillance over them).

People will identify not in order to obtain a favorable reaction from the agent, as in compliance, but because it is self-satisfying to do so.35 But in order for the identification process to work, the agent must have referent power—be very attractive to the target—and be salient (prominent). For example, a research study by Kelman found that students were initially greatly influenced by a speech given by a very handsome star athlete; that is, they identified with him. However, when the students were checked several months after the speech, they were not influenced. The handsome athlete was no longer salient; that is, he was no longer in the forefront of their awareness, and his previous words at the later time had no influence. As discussed earlier, except for the handful of superstars, athletes are soon forgotten and have no power over even their most avid fans. Once they have gradu- ated or are out of season, they lose their salience and, thus, their power.

Finally, people will internalize because of compatibility with their own value struc- ture. But, as Figure 10.1 shows, in order for people to internalize, the agent must have expert or legitimate power (credibility) and, in addition, be relevant. Obviously, this pro- cess of power is most effective. Kelman, for example, found that internalized power had a lasting impact on the subjects in his studies.

In recent years many American firms doing business internationally have found, to their chagrin, that their overseas hosts have been using the agenda to gain power over visiting dignitaries. Here is a story related by a business lawyer who recently returned from Japan.

“I went to Japan to negotiate a licensing agreement with a large company there. We had been in contact with these people for three months and during that time had hammered out a rough agreement regarding the specific terms of the contract. The president of the firm thought that it would be a good idea if I, the corporate attorney, went to Tokyo and negotiated some of the final points of the agreement before we signed. I arrived in Japan on a Sunday with the intention of leav- ing late Friday evening. When I got off the plane, my hosts were waiting for me. I was whisked through cus- toms and comfortably ensconced in a plush limousine within 30 minutes.

“The next day began with my host asking me for my return air ticket so his secretary could take care of con- firming the flight. I was delighted to comply. We then spent the next four days doing all sorts of things—sight- seeing, playing golf, fishing, dining at some of the fin-

est restaurants in the city. You name it, we did it. By Thursday I was getting worried. We had not yet gotten around to talking about the licensing agreement. Then on Friday morning we had a big meeting. Most of the time was spent discussing the changes my hosts would like to see made in the agreement. Before I had a chance to talk, it was time for lunch. We finished eating around 4 P.M. This left me only four hours before I had to leave for the airport. During this time I worked to get them to understand the changes we wanted made in the agree- ment. Before I knew it, it was time to head for the air- port. Halfway there my host pulled out a new contract. ‘Here are the changes we talked about,’ he said. ‘I have already signed for my company. All you have to do is sign for yours.’ Not wanting to come home empty- handed, I signed. It turned out that the contract was much more favorable to them than to us. In the process, I learned a lesson. Time is an important source of power. When you know the other person’s agenda, you have an idea of what the individual’s game plan must be and can work it to your advantage. Since this time, I have all my reservations and confirmations handled stateside. When my host asks me how long I will be staying, I have a stock answer, ‘As long as it takes.’

OB IN ACTION: TAKING AS LONG AS IT TAKES

EBSCOhost - printed on 3/3/2021 9:28 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

290 PART 3  DYNAMICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 01

5

Researchers have had problems constructing ways to measure compliance, identifica- tion, and internalization.36 However, this model of power does have considerable rele- vance as to how and under what conditions supervisors and managers influence their people. Many must depend on compliance because they are not attractive or do not possess referent power for identification to work. Or they lack credibility or do not have expert or legitimate power for internalization to occur. Kelman’s research showed that internaliza- tion had the longest-lasting impact and, as shown in the model, does not need surveillance or salience. In other words, what is generally considered to be leadership (covered in the last two chapters) is more associated with getting people not just to comply but also to identify with the leader and, even better, to internalize what the leader is trying to accom- plish in the influence attempt. This internalization would be especially desirable in today’s highly autonomous, flat organizations with cultures of openness, empowerment, and trust.

The Two Faces of Power

Besides the sources and situational, or contingency, nature of power, there are also dif- ferent types of power that can be identified. Well-known social psychologist David McClelland did, as Chapter 6 points out, considerable work on the impact of the motiva- tional need for power (what he called n Pow). His studies indicated that there are two major types of power, one negative and one positive.

As the introductory comments point out, over the years power has often had a negative connotation. The commonly used term “power-hungry” reflects this negative feeling about power. According to McClelland, power

is associated with heavy drinking, gambling, having more aggressive impulses, and col- lecting “prestige supplies” like a convertible.… People with this personalized power concern are more apt to speed, have accidents, and get into physical fights. If … pos- sessed by political officeholders, especially in the sphere of international relations, the consequences would be ominous.37

McClelland felt that this negative use of power is associated with personal power. Peo- ple with this “face” of power are primarily looking out for themselves and how they can get ahead; they are very “I” oriented, as in “I should look good if this project is completed so I can get a raise and promotion out of it.” McClelland felt that this personal power is primi- tive and does indeed have negative consequences.

The contrasting “other face” of power identified by McClelland is social power. It is characterized by a “concern for group goals, for finding those goals that will move people, for helping the group to formulate them, for taking some initiative in providing members of the group with the means of achieving such goals, and for giving group members the feeling of strength and competence they need to work hard for such goals.”38 In other words, social power types are very “we” oriented, as in “We are going to have the best unit in the company, and we will all reap the rewards.” Under this definition of social power, the manager may often be in a precarious position of walking a fine line between an exhi- bition of personal dominance and the more socializing use of power. McClelland accumu- lated some empirical evidence that social power managers are quite effective. In some ways this role power may play in organizational effectiveness is in opposition to the more humanistic positions, which emphasize the importance of democratic values and participa- tive decision making. There is also more recent empirical evidence that would counter McClelland’s view. One study found that those with a high need for power may suppress

EBSCOhost - printed on 3/3/2021 9:28 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

CHAPTER 10  POWER AND POLITICS 291

IAP PR

OO FS

© 2 01

5

the flow of information, especially information that contradicts their preferred course of action, and thus have a negative impact on effective managerial decision making.39

The negative use of power can also show up in situations such as sexual harassment. Unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature takes place when someone uses coercive power to threaten another with negative consequences if they do not submit to sexual advances. This is known as quid pro quo harassment. A hostile work environment (sexual jokes, leering, posters) is another inappropriate use of one’s power over another. In all such inappropriate circumstances, harassment is based on power being used to intimidate another, especially those in a subordinate formal position. However, regardless of some of the controversy sur- rounding power, it is clear that power is inevitable in today’s organizations. How the dynamics of power are used and what type of power is used can vitally affect human per- formance and organizational goals.

THE SPECIAL CASE OF EMPOWERMENT

Closely related to social power is the popular technique of employee empowerment. Empowerment may be defined as “recognizing and releasing into the organization the power that people have in their wealth of useful knowledge and internal motivation.”40

Empowerment is the authority to make decisions within one’s area of responsibility without first having to get approval from someone else. For example, the head of a large Indian outsourcer, HCL Technologies, says he wants to “destroy the office of CEO” in order to remind employees that they are empowered to make the decisions and should not look to him for answers.41 Although this type of empowerment is similar to traditional del- egated authority, there are two characteristics that make it unique. One is that employees are encouraged to use their own initiative, and, as they say at Cummins Engine, “Just do it.” The second is that empowered employees are given not only the authority but also the resources, so they are able to make decisions and have the power to get them implemented.

Empowerment programs can transform a stagnant organization into a vital one by cre- ating a “shared purpose among employees, encouraging greater collaboration, and, most importantly, delivering enhanced value to customers.”42 To do so, the organization must overcome certain obstacles, such as becoming impatient, assuming employees have all the needed skills without first checking to make sure they are qualified, and creating confusion through contradictory rewards and the model’s behaviors. This means there must be a link- age of the power with self-reliance, managerial authority, and expecting individual contrib- utor commitment.43 In order for this to occur, empowerment must become embedded in an organization’s cultural values operationalized through participation, innovation, trust, open communication, and accountability.44

The Complexity of Empowerment

Empowerment assumes that employees are willing to accept responsibility and improve their daily work processes and relationships. A recent survey revealed that almost all U.S. workers do feel personally responsible and want to improve quality and perfor- mance. Many companies are now discovering that empowerment training can be extremely useful in showing employees how to participate more actively and make things happen. There is also empirical research evidence that where participation is part of an empower- ment program, workplace performance improves.45

EBSCOhost - printed on 3/3/2021 9:28 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use