SBenegaL

Blog

  • Power 9

    In the last byte, we looked at the intergroup sources of power. In today’s byte, we look at concept of Power in a slightly different context.

    Amitai Etzoni looked at power from a sociological orientation and developed a theory of power analysis – that identifies three types of organizational power and three types of organizational involvement; which lead to either congruent or incongruent power uses.
    The three types of organizational power are:
    • Coercive Power – influencing members by forcing them to do something under threat or punishment
    • Utilitarian Power – influencing members by providing them with rewards and benefits
    • Normative Power – influencing members by using the knowledge that they want to belong to the organization and by letting them know that they are expected to do the right thing.
    The three types of membership are:
    • Alienative Membership – the members posses hostile, negative feelings towards the organization. They do not want to be there. Ex: Prisons
    • Calculative Membership – the members weigh the benefits and limitations of belonging to the organization Ex: business
    • Moral Membership – the members have positive feeling about the organizational membership and could also deny their own needs. Ex: an NGO working for better health etc.

  • Power 8

    In the last byte, we looked at the positive and negative faces of power. In today’s byte, we look at intergroup sources of power.

    Teams in organizations derive their power from either of the 2 sources:
    • Control of Critical resources
    • Control of Strategic Contingencies.
    Strategic contingencies refers to the activities that other groups depend on in order to complete their tasks.
    Strategic contingencies could arise from any of the three factors:
    1. ability to cope with uncertainty – a group’s ability to help others deal with uncertainty
    2. high degree of centrality – the group’s functioning is important to the organization’s success
    3. non substitutability – the extent to which the groups function is indispensible to an organization example a very specialized experience.

  • Power 7

    In the last byte, we looked at some of the ethical issues that come in the context of power usage. In today’s byte, we look at the two faces of power – personal power (a negative one) and social power (a positive one).

    Personal Power is a negative face of power and essentially signifies the use of power for personal gains. Another description for the managers who use personal power is “power hungry”. Extreme cases of personal power are called – Machiavelli – i.e. willing to it whatever it takes to get one’s own way. These people are generally unconcerned about other’s opinion or welfare.

    The positive face of power – Social power – represents the use of power to create motivation or to accomplish group goals. This could be done through the following four power-oriented characteristics:
    1. Belief in the authority system
    2. Preference for work and discipline
    3. Altruism
    4. Belief in justice.

  • Power 6

    In the last byte, we looked at information power and understood the role it plays. In today’s byte, we look at some of the criteria one could use to answer the question of ethics in the context of power usage.
     
    1. Q1: Does the behavior produce a good outcome for people both inside and outside the organization?
    2. Q2: Does the behavior respect the rights of all parties?
    3. Q3: Does the behavior treat all parties equitably and fairly?
    Only if a decision meets all the three criteria, would it seen as an ethical usage of power-related behavior. Even if the behavior of choice fails one of the three questions/criteria listed above, one would be in a better situation by taking care of all these three.
     
    Definitely, there could be conflicts amongst the various criteria and in such situations – choices need to be made. It is best that the criteria be filtered on a case-by-case basis to help solve complex ethical issues surrounding the use of power.

  • Power 5

    In the last byte, we looked at a few guidelines for the judicious use of power. In today’s byte, we look at a new type of power – Information Power.

    Information Power could be defined as – the power derived through the access to and control over important information.

    An example: Let us assume the case of a CEO’s personal secretary. He or She would have the information about the CEO’s schedule that would help other get an appointment with the CEO.
     
    The central crux of an individual’s information power is the person’s position in the communication network in the organization – both the formal and informal one.
     
    Managers could not just pass on information they receive to their subordinates, but also filter it based on the influence the information might have on the subordinate. This could give interesting “spins” to the whole information.
     
    Information power need not always be interpreted as a downward flowing power. It could also be an upward flowing power – ex: In a manufacturing plant the operators could feed in information that would drive the managerial decision making at higher levels.

  • Power 4

    In the last byte, we looked at the various interpersonal forms of power in greater detail. In today’s byte, we look at a few guidelines for the ethical use of power.

    We use the following table to summarize these:

     

    This table has been adapted from the reference book.

  • Power 3

    In the last byte, we defined the various Interpersonal Forms of power. In today’s byte, we look at these in a greater detail.
    Reward power was defined in the earlier byte, and it would be interesting to note that this could lead to better performance only as long as the employee sees a clear and strong link between performance and rewards. The manager would need to be explicit about the behavior being rewarded and should make the connection clear in case this is to function well.
    Coercive power would leverage on the threats of punishments – managers using this power could be found to verbally abuse employees or withhold support from them.
    Legitimate power would be effective only if the employee also believes that the manager has the right to tell them what to do! The manager thinking that he has the right to influence the target would have little to no influence in this case!
    Referent power emerges since the target identifies with or wants to be like the agent. Charismatic leaders are often thought to possess referent power – there is no mandate that the agent has to be superior to the target in any way!
    Expert power needs three conditions to be in place:
    1. The target must trust the expertise given is accurate
    2. The knowledge involved must be relevant and useful to the target
    3. The target perception of the agent as an expert is crucial

  • Power 2

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on Power, in today’s byte we look at some of the interpersonal forms of power.

    Interpersonal powers are used in interactions with others, one of the earliest studies by French and Raven identified five forms of this power, viz – reward, coercive, legitimate, referent and expert. These could be defined as below:

    1. Reward Power: This power refers to an agent’s ability to control rewards that a target wants.
    2. Coercive Power: Refers to the power that is based on an agent’s ability to cause an unpleasant experience for a target.
    3. Legitimate Power: Refers to the power that is based on position and mutual agreement, agent and target agree that the agent has the right to influence the target.
    4. Referent Power: Is an elusive power that is based on interpersonal attraction.
    5. Expert Power: This power refers to the power existing when an agent has specialized knowledge or skills that the target needs.

  • Power

    In the last byte, we looked at the managerial implications of the decision making dimensions that we had discussed. In today’s byte, we begin our discussion on the concept of power.

    Power could be understood as – “the ability to influence another person.”

    Note the term used here is not authority but influence. It is important to understand the distinction to be able to grasp the concept:
    Influence is – the process of affecting him thoughts, behavior, and feelings of another person.

    Authority is – the right to influence another person.

    To understand it better, a manager may have the authority but no power! The position could give the individual the right, as a supervisor/boss; however the person may not have the skill or ability to influence others. 

    An important aspect here is the understanding of the “zone of indifference” – It is a range in which any attempt to influence a person will be perceived as legitimate and will be acted on without a great deal of thought. Ex: An employee wouldn’t see working for forty hours per week, greeting customers, solving problems and collecting bills, when requested by the manager as completely legitimate and within the zone of indifference. However, if the manager requests the employee to organize a birthday gift for the manager’s spouse, or to over charge a customer etc; it goes beyond the zone of indifference.

    The constant challenge for the manager is to work on enlarging the employee’s zone of indifference and this could be accomplished by power rather than authority!

  • Decision Making – Managerial Implication

    In the last byte, we looked at the ethical dimension of decision making. In today’s byte, we look at the managerial implication of decision making as a critical activity.

    As a manager, it is rare to have the luxury of optimizing, satisfying is a more realistic approach that one would need to take. Many a times the decision could be unpredictable and random!

    Given that individuals differ in their preference for risk as well as styles of gathering information and making judgment; the manager would benefit from understanding these individual differences and can help managers maximize strengths in employee decision styles and build teams that capitalize on strengths like – creativity. By creating an enabling environment that is supportive, the employee’s creativity could be nourished.

    There is also no strict rule that defined whether decisions need to be taken up by individuals or teams/groups; it depends on the kind of requirement – the need to diagnose the situation, implement the appropriate level of participation etc and keep an eye on the potential for group think and other relevant biases that could creep in.

    Ethicality in decision making is the bedrock on all good decision making.