Power

“With Seniority comes power!” Introduction Since industrialization was introduced all working practices were designed by people in managerial positions and therefore legitimate power and position authority existed. Power was top down and had more status in high positions but in today’s changing environment power is part of our everyday lives and is involved with everything we do; whether it is at work, home or social events. Power was first introduced by Nicollò Machiavelli in the 16th century and was continued by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century. Both theorists talked about politics and the contrasts between the two theorists represent the two main thoughts of power. This essay looks at power in three different ways the first defined by Dahl (1957) as the ability to get others to do what you want against their will. This relates to Hobbes casual thinking of power as hegemony; his view of power is centralised and focuses on sovereignty which is associated with the one dimensional approach of power and Weber’s domination of legitimate power. The second view of power is exercised by Machiavelli who sees power in organisations decentralized and views power as a means and not a resource. Bacharach and Baratz’s (1962) view of power is based on decentralised power which is associated with the two dimensional approach of power and is related to Luke’s three types of authority. The third view of power is through the postmodern perspective where power exists in strategic roles and is seen as a web of power relations that are influenced by Foucault (1977), whose writing developed the discussion of the concepts of power and identified that those who possess power and locate power lose the importance of power. The essay explores the sources of power by French and Raven (1968) and concludes that power does not derive only from senior positions and instead sees power part of our everyday lives which we are either conscious or unconscious of it. Sources of power To view the concept of power it is essential to consider French and Raven (1968) sources of power. It consists of five main sources of power namely coercive power, expert power, legitimate power, referent power and reward power. Coercive power is based on punishment and fear, expert power is based on knowledge as a special benefit, legitimate power concerns influence and obligation, referent power is associated with management and is done through charismatic leadership. Lastly reward power is based on the belief to obtain tangible or intangible benefits. French and Raven’s framework on sources of power have been proven useful and reliable; the research in this area does not present a comprehensive picture of the patterns of relationships between senior power and lower levels of hierarchy and lacks consistence with regards to the source (Hinkin and Hining, 1989). Weber’s centralised power Weber’s theory of power continued Hobbes thinking of centralized power and developed organisational thinking. Weber’s interest of power is based on domination of authoritarian interests. Weber discusses three ways of claiming legitimacy and defines legitimacy as the right to govern and was based on charismatic authority, rational - legal authority and traditional authority (Weber, 1947). 1. Charismatic authority is dominated by leaders who claim commitment due to their unusual virtuosity. An example of a person with this type of power is Hitler. This is where the followers are attracted to the leader due to their qualities, and the authority continues to flourish even if the leader dies (Weber, 1947). It is arguable whether charismatic authority and the emphasis of “special qualities” of an individual or person are of the same character as the tradition authority and legal authority. Alvesson and Due Billing (1997) point out that the evidence is personal rather than organisational based and questions the statement on “special qualities” whether they are gender based. Alvesson and Due Billing (1997) find that the many of the public figures that fit into this category are men which are very masculine and have a heroic aura. 2. The second definition of authority is traditional legitimacy which is based on tradition and states that certain people inherit higher authority. Through this traditional authority, pre-modern societies believe that this type of authority arises due to unfair nature. This authority can be seen in Britain a country that encompasses a hereditary monarchy. With this monarchy a new monarch inherits and demands as much obedience as the previous monarch demanded. 3. Lastly rational legal authority defined by the functionalist is based on rational grounds and depends on rules that give those who hold authority the right to command and rule others. Bureaucracy Weber’s approach to power is connected to bureaucracy and links the concepts of power with authority and rule. According to the modern society bureaucracy depends on the obedience to authority. The hierarchical structure insists on the lower positioned people obeying the higher positioned people. The evidence that supports this statement can be seen in the work of Milgram's (1965) when people obey an order; their own moral judgment is counterweighted. Thus it can be dangerous in large organisations, as it leads to increased centralisation of power. With increased power arises a higher level of temptation to abuse and exploit the power, thus leaving the modern world helpless and defenceless Bauman (1989). The rules are strict within lower levels of hierarchy. Those that are positioned at the top of the hierarchy are allowed greater freedom to act with autonomy and it is because of this that power can be exercised largely without reference to workers at lower levels in the organisational hierarchy. Power use in organisations is usually from the top down and it was usually from someone higher in the hierarchy than the target Hogan (2008). Writers such as Eiser et al (1979), Mc Neilly (2008) suggest that the higher the status in the formal and informal hierarchy the more direct they status of power is, that is the higher the position, the more the power users select tactics that use direct power such as force, authority and threat. The lower the status the more the user selects and makes use of indirect forms such as manipulation, persuasion and influence. Power is symbolic and the evidence that supports this argument can be found in the work of Manning and Robinson (2010) who found evidence that the lower levels in the hierarchy have less power. This is due to the fact that middle managers tend to influence their subordinates with more coercive power as they consequences and approaches to influencing others is important. The assumption here is that senior managers have recognized authority and legitimate power therefore their power is likely to be recognized and accepted by others. Dahl (1961) theory of power is a continuation of Weber’s domination of power. Both theorists view power attributed to humans. The only difference is that Weber discusses power in organisations and Dahl discusses power within communities. The one-dimensional approach to power is solely based on assumptions that were criticized by those that continued it. This approach of power blames victims that do not involve themselves and is associated with Weber’s (1947) and Dahl’s (1961) views of power as it is associated with obedience at the cost of the preferences of others. Bacharach and Baratz decentralised power Bacharach and Baratz view of power was introduced as a critique of Dahl’s theory of power where his view lay in societies and viewed that community interests were an open process. Bacharach and Baratz (1962) view of power was based on the way decisions were made (overt face of power) and the way decisions were prevented from being made (covert face of power). This is connected with Luke’s three faces of power which are based on a radical view. Luke’s ( ) three faces are based on decision making, non decision making and shaping desires. 1. Decision making is the power to make decisions and Luke viewed this type of power being associated with and involved with making decisions about issues that different individuals expressed. An example of this type of power is seen when the government proposes law the power lies in the Government. 2. Non decision making can be viewed as “power behind closed doors” and is associated when power derives from decisions that are limited; this power prevents decisions from being made. An example of this type of power is when the individuals or groups exercising power do so by preventing those who make decisions in terms of limiting the number of decisions they are able to make. Power can ignore demands of the weak by avoidance or bureaucracy and this can be seen with the third 'face' of Luke’s view on power. 3. Shaping desires the third face is different from the other two; it views people with power, are able to manipulate and change views of different groups through bureaucracy. An example would be when an individual or group are persuaded to do something or accept a situation without knowing that they have nothing to gain from it. This type of power is influenced with men and women as men manipulate women to believe that they have to cook, clean and be a housewife and make them believe that this is the acceptable norm. Foucault theory of power On the other hand, the essay considers the post-modern perspective and correlates the understanding of power through planned strategic roles and through this, power exists in a network or a web of power relationships that is largely influenced by Foucault (1977). According to Foucault he does not see a source from which actions may arise instead just an infinite series of practices. Foucault’s theory of power is associated with decentralization and therefore views of the Foucauldian web of power as twofold, the first being a network of social power and knowledge that influences individuals and the second is based on the fact that there is nothing outside the web of power therefore individuals tend to create themselves as a unique piece of art. Empowerment Clegg (1989) defines the term empowerment as, “processes that occur in the economic circuit of power.” Although the idea of empowerment occurs the concept of empowerment can either create or diminish power. My understanding of Clegg’s definition of empowerment is seen as a solution of a process in which power can be gained or lost. Empowerment is a means of delegating authority to lower levels of staff and is represented through power. It is a relationship that is shared amongst managers and employees which enables self-direction, self-development and enables the pressure to be removed amongst managers which in turn contributes to high levels of organisational performance Ripley and Ripley (1992).Although many theorists state that power lies in sovereignty empowerment is a concept that shows that power does not only lie in senior and high levels of hierarchy. Conclusion Overall, the concept of authority by Weber has been accepted by many sociologists, and although Luke’s' alternative definition of power is radical; they both provide understandable theories to the concepts associated with power. The discussion so far has reviewed the work of French and Raven (1959); Luke (2001); Weber (1947); Dahl (1961); Bacharach and Baratz (1962) which together call into question authority and power. There appears to be a number of mutual statements that serve to minimise the challenge of power and senior levels of hierarchy and can confirm that power in today’s organisations is becoming a redundant. The notion of position power is portrayed as over-simple and in today’s organisations it can be said that authority will have to be earned accompanied by additional pressures in order to be able to influence others. From all the evidence presented above power cannot be limited to organisations as it has been commonly thought. In today’s environment power is seen to be creative and has direct roles in people’s social life. Power is associated with multiple divisions and directions and can function from top down just as much as from the bottom up. Another issue relevant to this argument is that of Wilkinson (2001) because it suggests that empowerment is elastic which makes it unclear of what is required and is treated as a new concept which has no historical context. It states that not much research has been done on implementing empowerment strategies and that empowerment in context is ignored by management when implementing strategy. In summary we can see that there are a number of sources that enable power to derive and although there is substantial evidence in favour that senior positions and high levels of hierarchy initiate power (Robinson, 1997) there is also contrasting evidence that proves power is not necessarily in the hands of senior members in high positions. In developing this argument it can be agreed that any individual can have power and it is through the sources of power such as coercion, consent and discipline that power can be enabled. References Alvesson, M & Wilmott, H. (2003) Studying Management Critically. London, Sage. Bauman, Z. (1989): Modernity and the Holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Bachrach, P., Baratz, M. (1962), "The two faces of power", American Political Science Review, Vol. 56 No.4, pp.947-52. Clegg, S.R. (1989), "Some dare call it power", in Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C., Nord, W.R. (Eds), Handbook of Organisation Studies, Sage Publications, London, . Clegg, S, Kornberger, M & Pitsis, T. (2008) Managing & Organizations: An Introduction to Theory & Practice. (2nd Edition) London, Sage. Dahl, R. (1957), "The concept of power", Behavioural Science, Vol. 20 pp.201-15. Dahl, R. (1968) 'Power' in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, in David L. Sills (ed), vol. 12, pp. 405-15 Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin. French, J.R.P., Raven, B. (1968), "The basis of social power", in Cartwright, D., Zander, A. (Eds),Group Dynamics, Harper & Row, New York, NY, . Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R., Lee, C.A., Schneck, R.E., Pennings, J.M. (1971), "A strategic contingencies theory of intraorganisational power", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16 pp.216-29 Lukes, S. (1974), Power: A Radical View, Macmillan, London, Milgram, S. (1965), "Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority", Human Relations, Vol. 18 No.1, pp.57-76. Ripley, R.E., Ripley, R.J. (1992), "Empowerment:the cornerstone of quality", Management Decision, Vol. 30 No.4, pp.20-43Robbins, S.P. (1997) Organization Theory: Structure, Design and Applications. (Third Edition). Prentice Hall: NJ. Robinson, R. (1997) "Loosening the reins without losing control", Empowerment in Organizations, Vol. 5 Iss: 2, pp.76 - 81 Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. (Translated by AM Henderson & Talcott Parsons). NY: The Free Press Wilkinson, A. (2001), “Empowerment”, in Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (Eds), Contemporary Human Resource Management, Prentice-Hall, Harlow, pp. 336-76. Yukl, G.A. (1998), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY