INTRODUCTION
Power, as defined
by Michener & Suchner (1972, as cited in Worchel, Cooper, Goethais &
Olson, 2000) is the capacity or potential to influence others and to resist
influence by others.
For Dr Ken Petress
(1998), Power is the ability to influence others to believe, behave, or
to value as those in power desire them to or to strengthen, validate, or
confirm present beliefs, behaviors, or values. He adds that power is the social
force that allows select persons to mobilize others; to organize others to act
in concert; and to melt away resistance to leaders’ authority.
Maire Dugan (2003)
also says power may include anything that instigates and sustains one man’s
control over another. Power thus covers the domination of man by man whether it
is disciplined by moral ends and controlled by constitutional safeguards (as in
Western democracies) or that untamed and barbaric force which derives its laws
from nothing but its own strength and its sole justification in its
aggrandizement (Morgenthau, 1985, as cited in Dugan, 2003).
Robert Dahl,
however, in a 1957 article, defined power as an attempt to gain control
followed by a change in the other’s behavior. If there is no change, there is
no power.
Definitions of
power should include the intended target’s resistance of the influence. The
target individual has an effect on the power of the wielder. If the individual
has a high resistance to influence, there may be very little power (Olson &
Cromwell, 1975).
From the above
definitions, it is not far-fetched to say that power is about influence and
dominance and for one to be called ‘powerful’, s/he must be influential.
It is worthy to
note that, power in this context, refers to social power – power that is
exercised in a society.
Although there is
so much literature on ‘power’, Forsyth (2010, 2006), states that, it was John
French and Bertram Raven who in 1959 identified five sources of power: legitimate, coercive, reward
(categorized as organizational power); expert
and referent (categorized as personal power) before Raven revised the model
in 1965 to include a sixth source of power by separating the informational power base as distinct
from expert power base.
LEGITIMATE POWER
According to
Petress (1998), legitimate power refers to the power exercised by anybody who
occupies a position of authority either by election, selection or appointment.
Such legitimacy is conferred by others and could be revoked by the original granters
or their representatives. Persons with legitimate power are obeyed not because of
their personality but their position or title so this type of power can easily
be lost. It is therefore not strong enough to be your only form of power. A police
officer’s authority to make arrests and John Mahama’s four-year rule as Ghana
President’s are examples of legitimate power. Over reliance on legitimate power may be problematic because:
(a) unexpected exigencies call for non-legitimized individuals to act in the
absence of a legitimate authority – such as a citizen’s arrest in the absence
of police official; and (b) military legitimacy can be extended criminally such
as at My Lai [village in Vietnam].
When President
Mahama’s first term of office ends and he is not reelected, he can no longer
appoint or sack ministers of state. That legitimacy would have been taken away
from him.
Indeed, Nicole
Lipkin (2013) says "if you have
this power, it's essential that you understand that this power was given to you
(and can be taken away), so don't abuse it."
COERCIVE POWER
When force or the
threat of force; whether physical, social, political, economic or emotional is
used to extract compliance from another. Coercion, in our society, is seen as
inappropriate; however, many victimizers and some victims fail to recognize
coercion or do not know how to counter coercion when it befalls them. The main goal of coercion is compliance.
Coercive power may also rely on bribery where one group (or
person) may withhold something from another group, knowing that it is valued by
that group. That is ‘do X if you want Y’. In either case of bribery and threat,
the root of coercive power rests on one group threatening to keep something of
value from another group or person (Petress, 1998).
In bidding at a
tender, a well connected contractor can threaten or even go ahead to have the
tender board in charge removed from their postion if s/he is not awarded the
contract or still induce the board with
bribes to favour his/her bid. The board, likewise, can threaten not to select a
particular bid if the contractor does not ‘motivate them’.
Coercion typically
signifies fear, distrust, a lack of positive regard for the powerful, and no
loyalty toward the powerful (Petress, 1998) and Lipkin (2013) argues that,
because you cannot build credibility
with coercive influence, “there is not a time of day when you should use
it".
REWARD POWER
Reward power,
according to Petress (1998), is founded
on the right of some to offer tangible, social, emotional, or spiritual rewards
to others for doing what is expected of them or to deny others something
tangible, social, emotional, political, or spiritual for failing or refusing to
do what is desired of them.
French and Raven (1959, cited in Petress,1998) say reward
power involves wielding the ability to grant another person things which that
person desires or to remove or decrease things the person does not desire. This
type of power is based on the idea that we (as a society) are more prone to do
things and do it well when we are getting something out of it.
Reward power could
either be negative (police/court fines for traffic offences, parents
restricting children from using internet because the children watched
pornography, demotions etc.) or positive (salary increments, promotions and
even positive compliments). When parents buy laptops for their children for
coming out tops in their class, they are rewarding them positively for doing
what is expected of them (learning hard and making the parents proud) but when
the same laptops are taken away because the children are using it to play games
and declining in their studies, they are rewarding them negatively for not
doing what is expected of them as children (concentrating on their studies).
Though reward
power is not as contentious as coercive power, it also has its shortfalls when
it is heavily relied. These may include: (a) fixation and dependency on rewards
to do even routine activities (eg. children requesting for toffees before
running errands parents); (b) immobilization some people due to too much fear
for punishment (eg. for fear of being punished, some children refuse to
socialise; (c) insufficiency of past rewards to motivate or activate desired
outcomes as time passes on (eg. The Single Spine Salary Structure was in its
early stages was deemed as a panacea to Ghana’s labour problems but after some
time, teachers, doctors and other public sector workers are still asking for
salary increments. With time, the reward the workers derived from the
implementation of SSSS has passed on and they have become less motivated.
Infact, there seem to have been more civil strikes in the era of SSSS than
previously); and (d) perversion negative rewards into positive attention
(Petress, 1998).
EXPERT POWER
Expert power is established
on what one knows, what experience one has, and/or what special skills or talents
one has (Petress, 1998).
Here, power is based on the extent to which others
attribute knowledge and expertise to the power holder. Experts are perceived to
possess expertise in well-defined functional areas but not outside them. To be
granted expert power, people must perceive the power holder to be credible,
trustworthy, and relevant (Luthans, 2011, cited in Lunenburg, 2012). Credibility is attained by having the
proper credentials. Doctors, engineers, lawyers and computer experts who
possess tangible evidence of their expertise will be listened to closely and
thereby granted expert power. If I have an ‘MA in Communication Studies’,
colleagues at my workplace are likely to seek my advice on matters concerning
communications thereby granting me expert power because of my credentials. Nonetheless, such specialists’ expert power
may not transcend their field to other functional areas. For instance, though
Dr Arthur Kennedy is an accomplished medical doctor and politician who writes
very well, when looking for a speaker at a lecture on the ‘Law of Contempt and
Journalism in Ghana’,
he would not be chosen. A person like Ken Kuranchie, a journalist/editor who
was recently jailed for contempt would be more appropriate for me. This is because;
the individual seeking expert power also must be trustworthy (Lunenburg, 2012).
Apart from being credible and trustworthy, Ken Kuranchie’s lecture will be more
appealing to the audience because his experiences will be more relevant.
Expertise can also be demonstrated – a bricklayer
relies on 20+ years of experience to prove expertise.
The most notable
drawback of expert power is that, In
order to keep their status and influence, however, experts need to continue
learning and improving (Lipkin, 2013). Drivers who fail to learn how to drive modern
cars are likely to lose their expert power over time in the same way as
journalists who fail to keep up with modern ways news reporting.
REFERENT POWER
It is the force of holding the ability to administer to
another a sense of personal acceptance or personal approval (Hinkin &
Schriesheim, 1989). This power is often regarded as admiration or charm. It is
so strong that, the wielder of such power is often looked up to as a role model. It is what advertisers refer to as endorsement and most
advertisers use it a lot to affect attitudinal change concerning a product or
service through persuasion. I was buying Nike shoes in my secondary school days
because of Michael Jordan’s (role model) endorsement.
Petress (1998)
explains that, referent power stems from the affiliations we make and/or the
groups/organizations we belong to or are attached to. The ethos of our
associates or groups to which we belong become, to some degree, our own ethos.
Nana Konadu
Agyeman-Rawlings’ political capital for example, was gained by her association
(marriage) with Former President J.J. Rawlings.
Referent power however, is easily lost if the charisma of a
leader is never connected to genuine integrity and strength of character. Tiger
Woods once wielded enormous referent power as the number one golfer in the
world which earned him endorsement deals with Rolex, a prestigious watchmaker,
but when his integrity was brought into question because he admitted to
infidelity in his marriage, his endorsement contract was terminated.
Some pitfalls that
occur because of referent assumptions include: (a) guilt or glory by association
where little or no true tie is established; (b) associative traits tend to
linger long after real association ends; (c) some individuals tend to pay
dearly for associates’ misdeeds or terrible reputations.
INFORMATIONAL
POWER
Information power
derives from possession of knowledge that others need or want. Information
possessed that no one needs or wants is powerless. This power type also extends
to the ability to get information not presently held such as a case with a
librarian or data base manager (Petress, 1998).
He explains that,
not all information is free flowing; some information properly is in control of
few people. Information such as: (a) national security data; (b) corporate
trade secrets; (c) juvenile court records; (d) privately settled lawsuit
documents; (e) Swiss bank account owners; and (f) private phone conversations.
Of course, legally
obtained phone tap warrants, spying, eavesdropping, group and group/agency
member leaks can allow others not intended [or wanted] to be privy to
information.
Possessing
information is not, typically, the vital act; it is what one can and does do or
potentially can do with the information that typically is of vital importance.
Information can,
and often is, used as a weapon as in a divorce, a child custody case, business dissolution,
or in civil suits discoveries. Information has been used by some to extort
action, utterance, agreement, or settlement by others (Petress , nd).
CONCLUSION
I sum up by
saying, Power, often used
interchangeably with terms such as influence, dominance, status and control (
Fitzpatrick, 1988b), means the ability of one to influence others to change so
as to dominate them.
And power, be it
informational, expert, referent, legitimate, reward or coercive power must be
used in moderation as it is fleeting. Legitimate power is bestowed and can be
taken away; Coercive power uses force or threat of it and the target of that
force will likely revolt to end that power; Reward power will definitely go
away when the power holder can no longer offer the desired rewards to the
target; an expert will no longer be an expert if s/he does not keep up with new
trends in that field; Referent power is only relevant when the power holder is
charismatic and Informational power thrives only when the information is
relevant.
PART II
Northhouse (2007, p3) defines leadership
as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve
a common goal.
The US Army, in a field manual in 1983,
defined leadership as a process by which a soldier influences others to
accomplish a mission.
The definitions above show a commonality –
a person influencing others to achieve a set goal. A leader therefore is a
person who through a process influences others to achieve a goal.
Leaders carry out this process by applying
their leadership knowledge and skills. This is called Process Leadership (Jago, 1982). However, we know that we
have traits that can influence our actions. This is called Trait Leadership (Jago, 1982), in that it was once
common to believe that leaders were born rather than made.
While leadership is learned, the skills and knowledge
processed by the leader can be influenced by his or her attributes or traits,
such as beliefs, values, ethics, and character. Knowledge and skills
contribute directly to the process of leadership, while the other
attributes give the leader certain characteristics that make him or her unique
(U.S. Army, 1983).
There are three theories on how leaders come into being.
They are: trait theory which
argues that are born not made; situational theory which argues that leaders occur according to
the needs of the groups they belong to; and the interactional theory which argues that leaders
emergence of a leader is as a result the leader’s characteristics, the
followers and the situation.
The effectiveness of a leader depends on the leader,
followers, methods of communication and situations the leader will encounter
(U.S. Army, 1983).
As a leader, you must have a
candid understanding of who you are, what you know and what you can do. You
must bear in mind that, it is the followers, not the leader or someone else who
determines if the leader is successful. If you lose their trust or confidence,
you cannot inspire them. To be successful you have to convince your followers,
not yourself or your superiors, that you are worthy of being followed.
A leader should also know the people s/he
is leading. Different people require different styles of leadership. An intern
at a workplace cannot be treated like an experienced worker. A leader must take
note of this and human characteristics, such as needs, emotions, and
motivation.
Effective leadership thrives on two-way communication much of which is nonverbal. You should set examples that
communicate to your followers that you would not ask them to perform any tasks
that you would not be willing to do. What and how you communicate either builds
or harms the relationship between you and your employees.
Lastly, a leader must know that all
situations are different. What you do in one situation will not always work in
another. You must use your sense of judgment to decide the best course of
action and the leadership style needed for each situation. For example, you may
need to confront an employee for inappropriate behavior, but if the
confrontation is too late or too early, too harsh or too weak, then the results
may prove ineffective.
Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt (1973) grouped leaders in two categories:
autocratic and democratic leaders. Though an autocratic leader may achieve more productivity than the democratic
counterpart, the former will
not be widely accepted like the latter.
For me, an effective leader is the one who
is able to strike a balance between autocracy and democracy. S/he must achieve
productivity targets as well as gain acceptance from his/followers by using his
expert power to gain legitimate power and using the legitimacy to reward the
followers in order to mobilize them to accomplish set goals.
.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dahl, R.A. (1957). The Concept of Power . Behavioral Science, 2:3 (1957:July)
p.201
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. A study of normative and
informational influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 629—636.
Dindia, C; & Fitzpatrick, M.A.; & Williamson, R.
(1991). Communication and control in spouse versus stranger interaction. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 16, 3-17.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of
social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of social power (pp. 150-167). Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan,
Institute for Social Research.
Forsyth, D.R. (2010, 2006). Group Dynamics. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
Goethals,
G.R., Worchel, S.,
Cooper, J. & Olson,
J.M. (2000). Understanding
Social Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kat, D. & Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organization. New
York: John
Wiley & Sons. p539.
Lipkin, N. 2013. What Keeps Leaders Up at Night:
Recognizing and Resolving Your Most Troubling Management Issues. AMACOM/American Management Association
Luthans, F. 2011. Organizational
behavior (11th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Morgenthau, H. J. 1985. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf. 6th Ed. p.11
Olson, D.H. & Cromwell, R.E. 1975. Power in Families. Beverly
Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Petress, K, PhD. (1998). Power: Definitions,Ttypology,
Description, Examples and Implications. University of Maine: Presque Isle 181 Main Street, Presque Isle,
ME 04769,
Ph 207.768.9400
Ury, W.L., Brett, J.M., and Goldberg, S.B. 1988. Getting
Disputes Resolved Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
U.S. Army. (1983). Military Leadership. Field
Manual 22-100. Washington, DC:
U.S.
Government Printing Office.
GHANA
INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM
(BA
COMMUNICATION STUDIES -- JOURNALISM)
COURSE:
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
DATE
OF SUBMISSION: 23RD NOVEMBER, 2013
INDEX
NUMBER: BACJ 2015222
