Finding Power. Abstract. Power is often regarded as an absolute tool for leader, for power brings the capacity of influence

Transcription

1 Running head: FINDING POWER!1 Finding Power Abstract Power is often regarded as an absolute tool for leader, for power brings the capacity of influence in leadership. Instead, this essay discusses and suggests power as a tool for leadership practice by weaving theories of power through individual, organisational and societal levels, using the three significant theories of power by French and Raven, Lukes and Foucault, to review on existing constructs of power. It also explores the underlying theoretical implications of power to leadership dynamics as a process for sensemaking, and provides my personal reflection of power as a leadership tool in the field of leadership and organisational studies. Do leaders need power that is the question. Keywords: Leadership, Power, Social Construct, Sensemaking, Leader

2 !2 Finding Power My interest to find power sparks from the notion that leadership and power are inextricably intertwined in leadership studies. The complexity of this relationship is reflected upon contestations of leadership writers to derive a concise definition that encapsulates the fluidity of power, as literatures (Bass, 1990; Lukes, 1974) concur that theorists have explored power from different phenomena and have conceptualised contrasting and varied definitions of power. This essay will analyse the concept of power as a leadership practice by circuiting power through three widely cited theories: French and Raven s (1959) power taxonomy as an individualistic vehicle, Lukes (1974) dimensional powers in an organisational infrastructure, and lastly, Foucault s (1980) power theory in societal network. The interpretation of power in this paper as a capacity of influence (Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydell, 2010) is anchored by the fundament of leadership as a social influence process (Northouse, 2000). This outlook aligns power as a leadership practice, and also provides a context to link power and leadership, as affirmed by scholars (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2009) that leadership exists to establish relationships that influence behaviours amongst the followers. This essay will argue that leaders are immersed within the omnipresence of power in a socially constructed environment, through weaving the relations of power from micro-level of individuality into meso-level of organisations, and eventually into macro-level of society. Power as an Individual Vehicle To trace power within individual, it is wise to draw on French and Raven s (1959) power bases to grasp the sources of power within individuals. Although Knights and Willmott (1985) deliberate power to be a property of interaction as it does not reside within individuals, it is worthy to consider that leaders have to progressively build power bases to gain legitimate power in order to manifest effects upon others. French and Raven s (1959) taxonomy establishes power as a legitimate possession that leaders can source and exercise to maximise influence. The legitimacy of power in an interpersonal relation is regarded as the key characteristic of power within bodies, that possesses authority to influence and effectuate compliance (Bass, 1990). While legitimate power is

3 !3 assumed to be exercised through leadership positions, Braynion (2004) maintains that power also resides in non-leadership appointments. This clarifies that power exists beyond leadership contexts, as illustrated by air-traffic marshals exerting power on pilots to obey instructions (Pedler et al., 2010). French and Raven s (1959) five bases of power are dichotomised into position power: legitimate, through authorised roles; reward, using incentives, and coercive, by instilling fear; and personal power: expert, using subject expertise; and referent, by leaders charisma to followers. In positional power, the development of authority initiates through legitimate power of rank and position (French & Raven, 1959) to create a framework for compliance through administering obligation and responsibility. Legitimate power may allow organisational leaders to gain control and submission of followers, when combined with effective use of coercion and incentives (Yukl, 2009). Contrastingly, personal power inheres within individuals, as Bass (1990) advocates that leaders have less control of personal power, and are based on followers recognition of referent and expert powers in their leaders. Unlike personal powers, positional powers focus on the leader s conferred appointment and his ability to employ these powers (Heifetz, 1994), which highlights that leaders may exploit positional powers to increase their power bases. In later studies, Raven (1993) extends the power bases to include information power, discussing social influence and logical information can alter and normalise the followers mindsets to bring compliancy. Yukl and Falbe (1991) echo Student (1968) that legitimate power holds significance to ensure instrumental compliance, while Podsakoff and Schriescheim (1985) observe referent power to be most enduring to influence compliance. Intuitively, it can be contended that all power bases yield influence, and leaders can draw multiple sources of power to improve their influence. Conversely, these power bases, by extension, are relationship dependent (Heinemann, 2008) as power and leadership are arguably not enacted within vacuum, and followers may react differently to different sources of power (Bass, 1990), which elucidate the deviation in cited opinions on the strongest reason for conformity. Nevertheless, these influences can be weakened by the followers formation of coalitions with countervailing power (Bass, 1990) as they are not effectively permanent, and leaders should exercise the power bases cautiously.

4 !4 Although French and Raven (1959) offer theoretical appreciation of power at micro-level, it is often criticised as an overly individualistic perspective for presuming the leaders rights to exert power onto others (Podsakoff & Schriescheim, 1985), whereas it does not fit the hypothesis of power as a tool for social influence in leadership studies. It ignores the contextual presences and responses of followers by assuming static characterisation in followers (Raven, 1993), as power and influence, argued by Yukl and Falbe (1991), have differentiated the level of influence attempts, and does not always occur through power exertions (Elias, 2008). With an underlying methodology for leaders to shape power in French and Raven s (1959), the proceeding section discusses the aggregation of individuals in organisational contexts, where these acquired powers surge within systems of hierarchy (Barnes, 1988). Power in Organisational Infrastructure While French and Raven (1959) provide building blocks to locate power, Lukes (1974) model of power adds to reveal legitimate power as a leadership resource in organisations. Lukes distinguishes power into three tiers, from influencing decision-making and setting barriers, to dominating minds within organisations through idealising power as a network of resources. The literatures of Lukes poses an overarching argument that power shapes power, through erecting an invisible barrier to restrict individuals within their roles (Morriss, 2006). In one-dimensional, Lukes (1974) describes power as a resource for decision-makers, where leaders can influence through decision-making. Ideally, this decision-making authority remains exclusive to reinforce the positional powers of power-holders, however Clegg (1989) contests that decision-making in a pluralist community does not always lie within the elites, but exists in an aggregate voice of consensus. This underscores Lukes assumption that power is exercised through making decision on issues which present conflict of interests between decision-markers, and power would bestow on those who make the eventual decision. At two-dimensional, Lukes proposes that leaders can set barriers to mitigate conflicts by confining agenda towards the power-holders objectives. This implies that power-holders operate powers to design a structurally biased system towards themselves so that unfavourable topics will not be presented or discussed (Clegg, 1989). This structural barriers, in Rodriguez, Langley, Beland and Denis (2007) words, can dictate

5 !5 situation and limit participation to avoid conflict by complicating processes or reducing knowledge of other participants. Moving forward, Lukes three-dimensional arises from his argument on the inadequate attention of social power in previous dimensions (Braynion, 2004), as he suggests the presence of an invisible power of societal forces that can dictate individual decision-making and awareness. This invisible power defines working realities and maintains societal power structure by dominating desires and oppressing thoughts (Dowding, 2006) to instil compliance through social norms, and thus emphasises on operations of societal forces to regulate a functional social system by overpowering individual s interest. Moreover, Gaventa and Cornwall (2008) substantiate that controlling knowledge is essential to exercise power in domination of ideologies and behaviours in those without prior knowledge. Lukes model was critiqued for a monotonic view of power as Knights and Willmott (1989) claim that Lukes views of power only as a resource for control, and also overlooking the followers responses, as sustained by Morriss (2006) that Lukes model focused on asymmetric power exertion. Likewise, Lukes (1974) admits his model was too individualistic to ignore social responses. Although the model portrays leaders as manipulators, another weakness is alluded to lack of discussions if leaders themselves are also subjected to manipulation (Bradshaw, 2004). Nevertheless, Lukes model addresses the fundamental insights of power in leadership, that circuits of power can be built through organisational networks to expand leaders power bases of influence (Dowding, 2006). On hindsight, Lukes (1974) model exemplifies that power can be exercised as a resource within organisational networks, where power begets power through invisible barriers to restrict the powerless. This model presents a radical transformation of power from an individualistic vehicle into an organisation infrastructure, and also develop awareness to locate power at societal level. Power in Societal Network To find power in societal network, Foucault s (1980) power theory augments on earlier concepts of French and Raven (1959) and Lukes (1974), to offer a macroscopic assessment of the dynamism of power through knowledge, identities and interactions. However, Foucault s ideology

6 !6 on power diffusion contrasts to French and Raven s as individual possessions, and Lukes as organisational resources (Gaventa & Cornwall, 2008). In his works, Foucault emphasises that power is omnipresent as a form of knowledge within societal constructs to control through social institutions and structures. Foucault theorises knowledge and power as inescapable subjects (Mills, 2003); as power weaves webs of knowledge, and knowledge reflects power relation, to construe realities, construct social truths and constitute subjects. Foucault (1969) builds on the symbiosis of power and knowledge, to transit power from traditional coercion into a diffused and meticulous institutionalised structure of social surveillance to emerge normative social order. Fostering on Foucault s, scholars (Barnes 1988; Lawrence, 2008) agree that power exists in a system of institutions to act as recurring activated controls and orders. Abstractly, knowledge is also studied by Raven (2005) as informational power, and in Lukes (1974) three-dimensional power. Differently, Foucault (1982) moots power to be viewed beyond exclusivity, negativity or repressive, into productive currents that circuit throughout society. Despite so, Foucault recognises that power is pervasive and can be employed socially to effect reactions and resistance, in which power cannot be contained by barriers. Foucault (1982) perceives that power exists within and over the body, where normalisation of truth occurs in a discourse. Discourse, in Foucault s definition, produces topic of meanings to shape identity, as Barnes (1988) supplements that social beliefs construct truths to influence the society s sense of things. Interestingly, the illusion-of-truth effect (Bell, 2009) in the field of Psychology considers truth to serve only as a legitimation of power to those who claim to know and is meaningless in societal knowledge; which infers truth as a personal construct through social apprehension and is relative to perceptivity. Even so, this truth can be magnified in discourse through the social multiplier (Glaeser, Sacerdote, & Scheinkman, 2002), when common beliefs inscribe a shared meaning into truth that becomes a societal knowledge, as also elaborated by Foucault (1969) that knowledge compatible to prevailing power relations forms an authorised knowledge for normalisation and sensemaking. In this aspect, the view of power as an entity has possibly evolved into distributed commodities embedded within socially constructed ideologies.

7 !7 Conceptually, the process of normalisation in Foucault s (1982) is enlightened by Weick s (1995) sensemaking. Van-Dijk (1989) believes that multitude of discourses structure sensemaking, and strengthens by Pye (2005) that reality can be made sensible through formal institutionalised power. This advocates that normalisation creates an identity for the sense-maker, and truth may collectively integrate and formalise into social interactions as a plausible ideological reality (Bell, 2009), as Barnes (1988) supports that norms are internalised to determine identity-based actions in a functional social system. This proves insightful to Weick s studies, that identity stems sensemaking through a purported knowledge of reality and truth in social constructs (Mills, Thurlow, & Mills, 2010; Pye, 2005), and aligns the six other properties of sensemaking to interpret senses based on the constructed identity (Weick, 1995). Although Mills and colleagues (2010) argue that identity construction structures sensemaking, scholars (Corley & Gioia, 2004; Nicholson & Carroll, 2013) have challenged that a range of identities may be confined by rhetoric and interactions in one s active sensemaking to produce limited or multiple inferences. Nevertheless, distributed knowledge influences sensemaking to effect actions (Barnes, 1988; Van- Dijk, 1989) which, aggregately and simultaneously, initiates a cyclical mechanism to knit the fabric of reality in enforcing a social truth within the constructed ecosystem. Together with Foucault s (1980), this implies that power has the ability, as forms of awareness, to constantly renew structures of society. This ongoing normalisation of social structure generates a disciplinary power that Foucault (1991) characterises as forms of surveillance to maintain and recur orders through social institutions. The Foucauldian s studies, however, differentiate from Bourdieu s (1985) ubiquitous structuralism, as the Bourdieusian s conception of social institutionalism is symbolically relegitimised through an interplay between individuals to shape social normality, and cumulatively evolve to form the Foucault s disciplinary institutions. Similarly, Lawrence (2008) writes that institutionalisation composes the way of things, and refutes that alternatives are thinkable by individuals. Comparably, leaders are not excluded from the systems of surveillance (Foucault, 1991; Halls, 2001) and are equally subjected for scrutiny by structured norms through institutions in social constructs. This is evident when organisations formalise policies that leaders themselves are not immune to their own works, and are required to abide and self-regulate within

8 !8 the specifications (Anderson & Brion, 2014). This clarifies Barnes (1988) argument that internalised norms are insufficient to achieve total compliancy, and disciplinary power is necessary to inflict conformity onto societal norms, as resonated in Foucault s. The Foucauldian theories (1980, 1991) stress the multiplicity of power in society, that power no longer serves as entities to individuals and organisations, but debatably as a form of social construct through an emphasis of social order. This engages my arguments that power embeds into the societal ecosystem, and power shapes people, including the leaders. In Closing Although this essay adopts power as an instrument for influence, it recognises power is not definitive and the myopic perception of only one paradigm can obscure the vision of prospective line of enquiry. The essay proceeds to find power by visualising a circuit for power flow to examine the mechanisms of each theory: French and Raven s (1959) taxonomy provides individualistic guide to build power bases through personal and position powers; Lukes (1974) model outlines the operational aspects of power in organisational leadership through limiting authority and manipulating thoughts, while Foucault s (1980, 1991) writings suggest that societal power moulds individuals who continually sense-make and normalise through internalisation and surveillance. Despite the distinctiveness in theoretical concepts, all three perspectives converge to acknowledge the significance of knowledge as a form of cognitive power to rationalise norms, as testament to French and Raven s informational power, Lukes three-dimensional power and Foucault s theory of power. Returning to my thesis, this essay suggests that leaders are immersed within power forces and relations driven by the flow of truths set within social constructions. It fulfils the aims to locate power through distilling three unique lenses of power which collectively argue that internalisation of norms through societal knowledge empowers sensemaking to shape and maintain societal structure, and also provide a glimpse of power within individuals, organisations and societies. This concludes that leaders are no longer custodian of power, as they are also within the process of internalisation, and are socially controlled by power relations to effectuate norms in a vicious cycle.

9 !9 So, where is power I argue that power is a social construct that lies within the complex dimensions of society. Reflectively, power gets things done but it often sends negative connotations. This is not uncommon in journeys of sourcing and utilising power at an expense of others, as evident in everyday lives where those powerless are at mercy of the powerful, and those resisting under power may attempt to gather power bases through malicious means. Whereas it is stereotyped that leaders need absolute power, I persuade, instead, that power is a tool that leaders can practise to enhance and complement leadership. Indeed, power is not always the domineering trait across leadership styles (Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2009), and the concept of leadership is extensive to encompass other key practices in Pedler and colleagues (2010) text as responses to leadership challenges. Retrospectively, the exploration of power from three perspectives have crystallised my understanding of the complex relationship between leadership and power. As the saying: with great power comes great responsibility, my research towards this writing is overwhelmed with interesting insights and wonders of power, both as a leadership practice and a social science. This paper presents fresh avenues of enquiry to challenge my perception, as leaders may no longer be the custodians of power in leadership, and that power occurs through social relations to enhance leadership. This found power contributes to my learning, and hopefully, transform me into a responsible leader 1 as I grow my leadership knowledge. Inter alia, this paper has enlighten the hypothesis of power, that power is embedded within structures of society, and we, as leaders of tomorrow, must be able to comprehend this essence of power to effectively contain, utilise and reap the benefits, so that we do not get enslaved by power. 1 See Appendix A for Leadership Resolution

10 !10 REFERENCES Anderson, C., & Brion, S. (2014). Perspectives on power in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), Barnes, B. (1988). The nature of power. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge Polity Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research (3rd ed.). New York: Collier Macmillan. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), Bell, D. (2009). Is truth an illusion? Psychoanalysis and postmodernism. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 90(2), Bradshaw, A. (1976). A Critique of Steven Lukes Power: A Radical View. Sociology, 10(1), Braynion, P. (2004). Power and leadership. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 18(6), Clegg, S. R. (1989). Frameworks of Power (1st ed.). United Kingdom: Sage Publications. Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), Dowding, K. (2006). Three-Dimensional power: A discussion of Steven Lukes power: A radical view. Political Studies Review, 4(2), Elias, S. (2008). Fifty years of influence in the workplace. Journal of Management History, 14(3), Foucault, M. (1969). Archaeology of knowledge (1st ed.). London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, (C. Gordon, Ed.) (1st ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books, a division of Random House. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin Books. French, J., & Raven, R. (1959). The bases of social power. In Classics of organization theory (1st ed., pp ). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2008). Power and knowledge. The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, 2nd Ed., Glaeser, E., Sacerdote, B., & Scheinkman, J. (2002). The Social Multiplier. Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 1(2-3), Halls, S. (2001). Foucault: Power, Knowledge and Discourse. In Discourse Theory and Practice: A reader. SAGE. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Heinemann, P. (2008). Social influence and power. Power Bases and Informational Influence Strategies, 7 49.

11 !11 Knights, D., & Willmott, H. (1985). Power and identity in theory and practice. The Sociological Review, 33(1), Lawrence, T. B. (2008). Power, Institutions and Organizations. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage. Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View (1st ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mills, J. H., Thurlow, A., & Mills, A. J. (2010). Making sense of sensemaking: The critical sensemaking approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 5(2), Mills, S. (2003). Michel Foucault (Routledge critical thinkers). London: Routledge. Morriss, P. (2006). Steven Lukes on the concept of power. Political Studies Review, 4(2), Nicholson, H., & Carroll, B. (2013). Identity undoing and power relations in leadership development. Human Relations, 66(9), Northouse, P. G. (2000). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (2010). A manager s guide to leadership (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Professional. Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriescheim, C. A. (1985). Field studies of French and Raven s bases of power: Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), Pye, A. (2005). Leadership and organizing: Sensemaking in action. Leadership, 1(1), Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), Rodriguez, C., Langley, A., Beland, F., & Denis, J.-L. (2007). Governance, power, and mandated collaboration in an Interorganizational network. Administration & Society, 39(2), Student, K. R. (1968). Supervisory Influence and Work-Group Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(3), Van-Dijk, T. A. (1989). Structures of discourse and structures of power. Communication Yearbook, 12, Weick, K. E. (1995). Making sense of the organization (1st ed.). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers. Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership in organizations (7th ed., pp ). United States: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3),

12 !12 APPENDIX A MY LEADERSHIP RESOLUTIONS Extracted from A Manager s Guide to Leadership by Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (2010) I RESOLVE These are my Leadership Resolutions. They are my statements of intent in the face of the challenges I see around me. Their purpose is to help me contribute to leadership around here and to develop my leadership practice. As a Leader, I resolve to: 1. Work towards becoming a well-informed and responsible leader through honing my leadership capabilities, and integrating the study of leadership into my leadership practices so to improve my self-leadership skills. 2. Be purposeful in my leadership to lead with passion and visions, so that I can serve and inspire my followers to excel beyond what they can achieve. 3. Use power responsibly as a leadership resource and tool to influence, only to help and to abuse the authority. 4. Take risk, explore ambiguity, embrace change and challenge the norms so to excel in things I do. Even if I fail, I will take with stride and never shy away from risk. 5. Engage in critical thinking and to ask challenging questions so to enrich my awareness of the situations around, and not take things for granted. 6. Facilitate as a leader, mentor, colleague and a friend, by communicating more powerfully through listening to the needs of others so that I can better serve and lead them. 7. Be a positive influence to those around, by building firm networks and creating good relations with others. 8. Be the leader that I would want to follow. Signed: Date: 2 December 2015