ORGANISATIONS POWER AND THEIR IMPACT ON LEADERSHIP AND
COMMUNITY
In order to increase organizational power, effective leaders recognize the significance of
coming up with their own personal power (Rahim, 1989). Kotter, (1977) asserted the
significance of planning, organizing, budgeting, staffing, regulating, and evaluating the
people on whom the leader depends. Attempting to regulate others exclusively by directing
them on the basis of authority related with one’s position seldom works .Leaders who are
effective often become reliant on individuals over whom they have no formal authority. Also,
in this modern age ,few employees inactively accept and obey authorities who give a constant
stream of instructions simply because they are the boss (Hackman, 1991).To increase one’s
organizational power in another way, a person can demonstrate an attitude of trust in other
organizational members. At the same time, developing a high level of expertise in an
organization increases a leader’s personal power. Juniors gain respect for leaders when
expertise rises and subordinates grow an attitude of trust toward the leader. Increasing one’s
own accomplishments and making them known creates a higher organizational standard
which subordinates can look up to and honour. As honour goes up among the subordinates
via a track record of achievements, the leader’s personal power in the organization increases
(Kotter, 1977)
While operating in a system, knowing how to categorize power makes it easier to go for the
type which works best. The most commonly types of power are: coercive, reward, legitimate,
expert, and referent (French, 1993) .Coercive power centres its efficacy on the ability to
administer penalty or give negative underpinnings. The second type, reward power, is based
on the ability to deliver something appreciated by the receiver. People who can provide
money, jobs, or political support have something other people want, and thus become very
powerful in organizations. Legitimate power, the third type, belongs in a person’s position
rather than the real person himself or herself. It relies on position in an authority order.
Sometimes, people with legitimate power don’t recognize they have it, and they may start to
see others going around them to achieve their goals. The fourth type, expert power, resides on
a person’s special knowledge and capability in a given field .Anybody can posses it if he or
she formally and informally sufficiently prepares. The last type, referent power, this type
encompasses a leader admiration, which is usually accepted by the subordinates (French,
1993). Referent power acts a little like role model power. It is dependent on respecting,
liking, and holding another individual in high esteem. It oftenly develops over a long period
1
of time. Amongst these sources of power, creating a positive operating climate involves
choosing the most suitable compliance gaining schemes, which lead to greater life or job
fulfilment Kearney, (1985) claims that depending on expert, reward and referent power
produces the major satisfaction, while reliance on coercive and legitimate power has the
contrasting effect. Rahim, (1989) found legitimate power beneficial in obtaining compliance,
but gratification from supervisees reduced. Expert and referent power bases interrelated with
both compliance and satisfaction. Rahim, (1989) also note effective leaders can improve their
referent power base if they learn to be thoughtful of their subordinates’ needs and feelings,
treat them fairly, and protect their interests when acting as their representative. Effective
leaders pool the various sources of power, electing to use them in suitable situations. An
effective leader seldom relies on only one source or base of power (Rahim, 1989).
According to Payne, (1996) leaders who use power effectively achieve tasks in the
organization without relying on their job title. Kanter, (1977) suggests powerful leaders
depend more on personal power than job title, or credentials, to organize their resources,
inspire creativity, and in still assurance among subordinates. Block, (1987) says leaders
become more powerful as they nurture the power of others. Jamieson and O’Mara (1991)
argues that as a manager who empowers others, you will act as a colleague more than a boss,
depending on influence, respect, and associations to work with employees .Authorising
managers seek to share power, to give it away, then grip those to whom they gave it very
answerable (Stewart, 1997). They identify and reward people for their achievements,
contributions, and ideas. They inspire participation, petition input, and involve people in
decisions, giving praise to those who have earned it. They compensate people who produce
the greatest influence toward organizational goals, compensating results rather than processes
.Powerful leaders impact followers to do what they want done (Yuki, 1991).
Galbraith, (1983) says a leader who is powerful is judged by how effectively he or she coaxes
his or her subordinates to agree solutions to problems that lead to organizational
goals .Political arena competency involves awareness of power ,skill at using the sources of
power effectively, using technical skills with know-how, proper use of information ,forming
effective alliances within the organization, and practicing authority over others with
sensitivity to their feelings (Mintzberg, 1973).Leaders who use power well care about people
and avoid ruling them. They rely on deftness, rather than flexing their muscle. They go for
honour over friendship, and want truth rather than lies .McClelland, (1970) claims the
2
positive or socialized face of power stresses a worry for group goals, finds the goals which
encourage people, helps the group articulate them, takes the initiative in providing members
of the group the means to gain them, and gives group members support, power, and skill
needed to work hard toward accomplishing them. McMurry, (1973) claims leaders who can
coax are able to influence their audiences both emotionally and rationally. They analyse their
audience in terms of needs, desires, and values after which they draw their attention on a
connection with their audience on collective ground before moving into areas of resistance.
Areas of resistance must be carefully handled, respectfully, and in a non-dogmatic way.
Payne, (1996) reminds leaders of the significance of not only what they say, but how they say
it.
REDEFINING WORK-BASED PROBLEM
As a result of problematizing process, the work-place based problem has been redefined in
that people want to use their abilities, bond with others, and guide their own efforts (Deci,
1989). According to Herzberg, (1950) Global Self Determination Theory (SDT) research has
clearly established that regardless of gender, age, ethnicity, culture, or life experiences
everyone shares these needs for competence, relatedness, and self-sufficiency. Leaders can
support internal inspiration in employees by applying three best practices :Take on the
employee’s perspective .An employee’s exclusive perspective is the truth from which that
employee functions .Effective trains develop a deep understanding of employees’ viewpoints
as a basis for all exchanges .Information helps employees know their work and make wise
choices. Controlling or judgmental communication blocks the three mental needs. Effective
training communicates in need supporting ways. Effective coaching provides significant
choices and allows active participation consistent with all three needs (Harlow, 1950).
Calder, (1975) shows that ,skill in giving response helps leaders support the internal
motivation of employees to grow their understanding and capability. Employees gain internal
motivation when work allows them to fulfil their psychological needs, including self-
sufficiency, or make decisions about their own actions. Yet organizations need employees to
work within firm procedures and time frames .When an employee’s choices clash with
organizational needs, operational leaders share information and forward efforts in other
words, they give feedback (Assor, 2004). Giving feedback without undermining internal
motivation is a serious challenge for every leader .Feedback that consistently brings results
3
takes an employee-centred approach, comprising :Genuine two-way dialogue ,Vibrant
reasons for required structures and actions ,Collaboration on solutions and next steps and
Unequivocal links between a solution and the employee’s psychological needs .While a
leader’s every action influences motivation, few conversations are as vibrant as giving
feedback to make even individual activities with group and organizational needs. The aim of
all effective feedback is an employee internally motivated to take the appropriate steps (Lam,
2008).
The outcome of external motivation is a short term enactment gain, quickly followed by a
drop in motivation when the recompense is achieved or the intimidation is gone .In contrast,
if a leader can help employees gratify their needs for competence, relatedness, and self-
sufficiency, the result is internal motivation (Baard, 2004).The outcome of internal
motivation, confirmed by broad research and the experience of effective leaders, is constant
performance over time .
The study so far has aided to realize that Employees have many needs. Two of them are to
achieve rewards, monetary and otherwise, and to avoid punishment .If leaders emphasise on
these needs to improve understanding, resolving and implementing solutions, they get back
external motivation to gain the reward or avoid the punishment (Chirkov, 2003).The aim of
performance planning can best be defined in terms of outcomes. By the conclusion of the
performance planning the following outcomes should have been attained: The job task and
objectives of the employee will be aligned with the goals and objectives of the department
and division. The employee will realize the link between his or her accountabilities and the
overall goals. Job responsibilities will be amended to reflect any changes in the work context.
Supervisor and employee will agree to the major job tasks and objectives for the employee,
how victory will be measured, what assignments are most or least significant, and the level of
authority the employee has with respect to each job responsibility (Richer, 2002).
To move forward with the problem solving process we should realize that employees have
dormant talents and existing skills that leaders often fail to leverage. Turning these talents
into skills is a leader’s most important work and an obligation for long-term organizational
4
success. It is imperative that the supervisor and employee agree on which objectives are most
important and which are of less importance. The setting of priorities should be an equitably
straightforward process .The employee and supervisor should do it together, so they arrive at
a joint understanding (Ryan, 1995). Employees need to know when they can make decisions
on their own and when they need to refer the supervisor .According to Scott, (1975) a
supervisor might use the following rating system: Complete Authority: No need to get
permission or report afterward. Act and Report: Employee can make judgement and act, but
needs to report decision to the supervisor. Ask: Employee needs to get decision or
authorization to decide from supervisor. Decisions about level of authority should be
influenced by the ability and track record of the employee. It is vital that both the employee
and supervisor come to a common understanding concerning level of authority.
5
REFERENCES
French, J. R. (1993). Working through Conflict. The basis of social power.
Hackman, M. &. (1991). A communication Perspective. Leadership, 23-65.
Kotter, J. (1977). Power,dependence and effective management. Cambridge: Harvard
Business Review.
Mintzberg. (1973). Power in and around organizations. New Jersey: Prentice hall.
Rahim, A. (1989). Relationship of leader power to compliance and satisfaction with
supervision. Journal of management, 545-556.
Stewart, T. (1997, January 13). Get with the new power game. Fortune, pp. 58-62.
Yuki, G. F. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations.
Journal of applied psychology, 416-423.
Assor, A. D. (2004). The Emotional Costs of Parents' Conditional Regard. Journal of
personality, 47-88.
Baard, .. (2004). Intrinsic Need Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2045-
2068.
Chirkov, V. K. (2003). Differentiating Autonomy From Individualism And Independence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97-110.
Deci, E. R. (1989). Self Determination in a work Organization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 580-590.
Harlow, H. (1950). Learning and Satiation of Response in Intrinsically Motivated Complex
Puzzle Performance By Monkeys. Journal of Comparative and Physiological
Psychology, 289-294.
Lam, C. G. (2008). Self-Determined Work Motivation Predicts Job Outcome. Journal of
Research in Personality, 1109-1115.
Richer, S. V. (2002). A Motivational Model of Work Turnover . Journal of Applied Social
Psychology.
Ryan, R. (1995). Psychological Needs and the Facilitation of Integrative Process. Journal of
Personality, 397-427.
6
7
