Chapter 3: Power and Leadership Flashcards
Power
defined as the capacity or the potential to influence others in relation to their beliefs, attitudes or activities
The classical social theorists ______ (1818–1883) and ______ (1864–1920) provided the foundations for contemporary studies on power in organizations
Karl Marx
Max Weber
For in Marx’s view, the making of history is
made not just in relation to the physical world but also through the struggles that some social groups engage against others in circumstances of domination
Weber believed power was derived from:
was derived from the knowledge and expertise necessary to operate the means of production as much from ownership
Weber power defintion
the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests’
Two central elements were crucial to the system of domination:
1) the legitimacy of the organizational leader’s power, and the perception by followers that the leader’s authority was legitimate for those who were subject to it
2) the creation of an ‘administrative apparatus’ in which followers carry out the commands of the leader (meaning
Power vs Authority
‘authority is the potentiality to influence based on a position, whereas power is the actual ability to influence based on a number of factors including organizational position’ in the hierarchy
The treatment of ‘power’ as ‘authority’ can be traced to the early American mistranslation of the term _________ to mean institutionalized ‘authority’
‘Herrschaft’
Power ‘over’
refers to the control of one agent over others
Power ‘to’
the capacity to realize ends
French and Raven (1960) ideas of power
This conceptualization of power likewise focuses on the potential ability of one individual to influence another within a certain social situation
This theory assumes that the particular ‘resource’ possessed by the individual that will have a utility in one situation, will have that usefulness in all situations. It also assumes perfect knowledge on the part of all concerned being able to judge correctly the utility of all resources in all situations
French and Raven five bases of power
1) referent,
2) expert,
3) legitimate,
4) reward
5) coercive
4 +5 = most important
Reward / coercive power example
An employer promising you a pay increase or promotion to act as he or she instructs or, in contrast, threatens demotion or redundancy, is using reward power and coercive power respectively
Giddens (1984) notes regarding power
All individuals may ‘have power’, but in an organizational context, power is influenced and constrained by the distribution of different types of resource (allocative resources or authoritative resources)
‘allocative resources’
refer to control over physical things such as monetary reward
‘authoritative resources’
which involve control over management practices
Example of ‘allocative resources’ and ‘authoritative resources’
an entrepreneur has the allocative resources of her capital, as well as authoritative resources granted by the legal system to establish her company and HR system in a way she feels is appropriate.
French and Raven’s restrictions to power
treats power as an attribute and the property of an individual leader
Stephen Lukes (1974) power ideas
treats power as a relational construct, and not solely the property of an individual.
power is a ‘three-dimensional’ phenomenon
Stephen Lukes (1974) power is a ‘three-dimensional’ phenomenon
One dimensional view of power
The one-dimensional view of power focuses on the individual’s ability to enact commands in observable conflicts.
For example, if an employer changes his mind for transferring operations abroad in response to a strike by workers, it would be evidence that the workers had power.
One-dimensional power dynamics focus
on the behaviour of leaders and followers in the making and enactment of decisions where there is a conflict of interest.
The outcome of a decision is ____ and shows which side is ______
observable
‘powerful’
Lukes’s explanation of a conflict of interest
Where, for example, conflict is just a matter of fine-tuning existing organizational structures and routines simply rooted in the contingencies of everyday organizational life
A two-dimensional view of power
extends the analyses by examining the ability of social actors to control the agenda, which is a source of power overlooked in the pluralist model, one-dimensional perspective
three-dimensional view of power
provides a ‘radical view’ of power. He argues that people sometimes act without coercion in ways that appear contrary to their self-interests. Lukes calls this the ‘manipulation of desires’
the social processes in which those with power induce the powerless to behave or believe as the former wish, without coercion. This is achieved by a complex infrastructure of persuasion or justification.
Foucault’s theory of power
For him, power operates within all social institutions, at all levels of social interaction and through all individuals.
Power does not intrude from powerful individuals; it exudes from within. Followers are not the victims of others’ power; rather, they are both the perpetrators and the victims of the very power that constrains their behaviour
For example, an employee feels obligated to stay late at the office because her team leader is still there; even though she does not know whether late working will result in anything either positive or negative.
power is associated with the web of policies, practices and procedures found within organizations
hegemony
which acknowledges the complexity and mixture of consensus and conflict, and hence power relations in a broad sense
In essence, it expresses the relationships of leadership and domination that produce a general sense of coordinated reality for most People
hegemony expresses two types of power relations
1) describes a group’s domination over other groups
2) describes a group’s leadership
Richard Sennett’s (2012) ‘social triangle’ concept
1) authority,
2) mutual respect
3) cooperation
remind us that human capability is different from other ‘resources’ because followers’ cooperation and commitment always have to be won and sustained by leaders and managers.
The Greek philosopher Epictetus declared that
‘no one is afraid of Caesar himself, but is afraid of death, loss of property, prison, disenfranchisement … When we love and hate and fear these things, it needs must be that those who control them are masters over us’
‘dark corners’ of organizational life that ‘stifle the individual’
The episodes of leader-coercive and bullying behaviours in workplaces
Bullying, harassment, any negatives to the work life
Those leader–follower interactions that include such behaviours clearly seek to humiliate and degrade the follower
Bullying behaviour
Includes: verbal abuse, harassment, bullying, sexual innuendo, physical violence
The academic debate around power in leadership is generally divided into two perspectives
1) The first is dominated by the way traditional leadership approaches (trait, style, contingency and new leadership) see power as a phenomenon within hierarchical structures and control systems of organization
2) The second focuses on the role of dispersed leadership theories and their emphasis on the promotion of empowerment through the transfer of leadership responsibilities to lower levels with post-bureaucratic organizations
Orthodox Theories
So-called orthodox theories adhere to an understanding of the conventional structures and control models of organizations and identify the leader–follower relationship as being of central importance to leadership practice within that structure.
Orthodox Theories Gordon 2002
identifies that this presents leaders with a dualistic position of privilege within organizations: they are considered to be superior to other followers, either through natural ability or particular attributes
Limits to orthodox theories
As a consequence, these theories tend to be ‘limited to reflections of surface-level issues and occurrences
Dispersed leadership theories
focus primarily on self-leadership and team-based leadership approaches
Unlike traditional theories, these approaches to work design espouse a sharing of power between leaders and followers.
However, this also assumes that power must be shared and that the process of sharing power will be unproblematic
Self-leadership
sees employees take responsibility for their own work processes and direction
Team leadership
Centres around autonomous work teams, which each have their own leader
Fleming and Spicer four sites of organizational power that are relevant to thinking around leadership
1) power ‘in’ organizations (which relates directly to struggles around formal organizational boundaries and the exercise of managerial command structures)
2) power ‘through’ organizations (when the organization itself becomes a vehicle to further interests or goals)
3) power ‘over’ organizations (draws attention to how elites might compete to influence how an organization develops)
4) power ‘against’ the organization (deals with attempts to use extra-organizational spaces to engage in political activity and create change within the sector)
Weberian social theory
bureaucratic organization is viewed as a ‘social tool’ and an expression of rational thought and action
Any follower in a large organization will encounter a complex flow of power down, up and across organization hierarchies
Dyadic relationship
Leader-follower
Power in leadership theory and management practice
2.1: Our perspective on power are non-management ideas, inspiring management-specific post facto explanation
Keep in mind that management involves application of ideas from reference disciplines
- 2: Management implementation of leadership theory presumes:
1) Natural or otherwise unquestionable hierarchy
2) or dependency relations
3) or at least communicative relations regarding acknowledged rules
