Ch8 Power and Influence.docx

Chapter 8 – Power and influence How power is a source of influence and how powerful people influence their organizations or situations. “Power” is the ability to make someone do what they otherwise would not do or stop them from doing what they otherwise would not. Power is an interdependent relationship between people. A powerful leader without followers is a meaningless expression. Overt power – when people affected desist certain behaviour. E.g. starting new work schedule or desist from smoking near hazardous chemicals because they are told to do so. Covert Power: invisible effect of power on certain behaviours. E.g. not pursuing a harassment case. Five sources of Power according to French and Raven: Legitimate: power need not be effective in all context – having the right to order someone to do something does not guarantee that they will do it. Authority is not the same as power. Reward: enables people to exert influence by regarding those who obey instructions Coercive: punishment. Withholding a reward. Assigning someone to boring tasks etc. Referent: power is often intangible and inherent quality in the individual that gives him the power and influence over others. (hero like quality). Expert: Expert power is more tangible and subject to evidence. Sources of power can sometimes mutually conflict. In addition to the five above other sources of power are emotional (love, friendship, comradeship, solidarity and loyalty) Position power – from occupying a crucial position in the organization. Not the same as legitimate because positional power comes from controlling key resources even though the position may be low in hierarchy. Politics: two dimensions critical to political behaviour (political awareness and scruples) 0-889000 Political naivety is strongly associated with inexperience. Beginners are most prone and adhere to Type I decision making. The scrupulous–unscrupulous dimension is the second definer of political Behavior. The experienced manager’s scruples have been tested by events and by temptations of ambition and convenience. When powerful managers pass their prime they become astute but not naïve. Manages who know when they have passed their best, bow out gracefully. Political Activity – High Machs are described as people with manipulative orientation who are cool, emotionally detached and logically oriented. They act in disregard of their feelings and feelings of others. They believe that they are the masters of their destiny who are responsible for what happens to them. Believe that “end justifies the means”. High Machs thrive in limited formal structures that are open, adaptive and flexible. They keep emotional distance from those around and do not get involved in colleagues. They do just enough to create potential sponsors and dependency relationships with political protégés around them. They receive more information then they share. They are able to mimic convincingly the expression of beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of those above and around them. Low Machs are opposite. They are emotionally involved in what they do, hold to ethical principles and codes and are affected by their feelings and feelings of others. View the “the means determine the end” and would never justify evil or immoral means to achieve a worth end. They see their destinies as determined by outside their control of influence. Comfortable with the status of being a victim of others behaviors. Low Machs do well in highly structures orgs because they are comfortable in rules and constraints determined by others. Managing with power – Location is important in influencing with power. E.g. senior manager who choose to stay with team vs moving to close proximity to other senior managers and ceo. (He missed out on informal, unscheduled, and adhoc discussions with his colleagues and rival and was seen as someone with lacto of commitment. Seeking opportunities require contact and location is a factor in facilitating contact. Powerful people have influence to extend that they “know” everybody that matters and they know who to call (GOTT) or visit (GOYA). Influential managers have powerful associates. They meet formally and informally after and during work. Machiavelli warned that is not good enough to would the prince – he had to be killed and removed permanently. If a major policy has to be defeated – people behind the policy have to go as well. EPILOGUE The study of the influence of power can be a fascinating experience. The lives, loves and tribulations of powerful men and women hold the attention of most people, as evidenced by the popularity of films, books, documentaries and gossip about them. There is a lot to be learned from these accounts, be they a serious study or a daily flimsy story. In the age of mass media, the appetite for information about the powerful and the famous – some famous because they are powerful, others powerful because they are famous – appears to be insatiable. As students of influence, we have a different agenda. It is not for vicarious pleasure that you study the powerful – how they got there, what they do while they are there, and how, eventually, they lose whatever power they had. Your studies, in contrast, aim to inform you about how to emulate the powerful, perhaps on a smaller scale (to become head of your function) and perhaps on the world stage (to become president of the corporation, or even president of your country). This quest for knowledge links both the people with power and the people without power or authority. The same lessons, from different perspectives, confront both groups. They are both part of a common process, appropriately named the ‘greasy pole’ by past players, but they view it from different places on the pole. Some look ‘up’ to what they might be; others look ‘down’ to where they might go. Organizations consist of people who have titles, functions and interests. Sometimes their personal interests coincide with their corporate interests; sometimes they do not. But their interests are important inputs into the games they play and can never be discounted. The ability to understand how interests coalesce and divide to produce coalitions and factions with ever changing compositions is an essential attribute of those who would become, and of those who are, influential. Influencing is not about leading a group of likeminded ‘happy campers’ towards some end they find attractive. Influencers must be able to influence disparate groups of people, some of whom cannot bear to be in the same room together, to do what they otherwise would not do, or not do what they otherwise would do. Managing a coalition of allies means managing a coalition of interests. Some people you regard as mere pawns in your grand plan may privately, regard you as the pawn and themselves as the would be kings. The eventual denouement will educate one of you in the politics of the careless attribution of roles (and where you are, or are going, on the greasy pole!). If you survive, you will do so only by accumulating power in the organization and the wider environment in which you operate. Having power also follows the universal rule of ‘use it or lose it’. For a time, it may be enough to use what power you have to gain more power, but accumulating power and merely holding on to it exacts an enormous toll in time and energy. Unless it is directed to some agenda (reelection, acquisitions, market share, profitability and so on), your power base will atrophy and you will provoke rivals to maneuver to replace you. It is easy to become distracted by the trappings of power (for instance, status, executive jets, penthouse suites, deference and publicity) and lose touch with the purposes for which you sought the power you have. That is why observation of the doings of the powerful – foibles and all – are a never-ending fascination for so many of us. To keep a sense of perspective, I am mindful of the apocryphal story of the CEO of a global corporation, who took a holiday on one of the lovely Greek islands and relaxed each day on the beach for a week, not doing much. It was totally relaxing for him. He also occasionally conversed with a local beach boy, who ran a typically disorganized Greek beach stall, from which he was often absent, and sunbathed and swam and fooled around with friends, drinking beer and chasing girls? In his last conversation before he flew off in his private jet back to his corporate empire, the CEO suggested to the young Greek that he changed focus and joined a company, work his way up it, and took it over. ‘Why should I do that?’ said the beach boy. ‘Well,’ said the CEO, in a triumph of ambitious reasoning, ‘you would have lots of money and could holiday on any beach in the world, like me.’ The boy looked around the beach and then at the CEO. He shrugged, saying, ‘But I am already here on a beach.’ Influence- Module 8 Power and Influence 8.1: Introduction Pfeffer, and other exponents of the managing-with-power approach, observe how powerful men and women exert influence, how they acquire more power and thereby more influence, and how, sometimes, they lose their power and with it their influence. 8.2: Power Power: is the ability to make someone do what they otherwise would not (or stop them doing what they otherwise would). This definition incorporates both the overt effect of power on behaviour (those who are affected by a person’s exercise of overt power commence or desist in certain behaviours) and the invisible effect of power on certain behaviours (the people affected behave in reaction to other people’s covert power). Examples of the effect of overt power on behaviour could be when employees start operating new work schedules, or when they desist from smoking near hazardous chemicals, because they are instructed so to do. An example of the covert effect of power on behaviour could be when an employee does not pursue a harassment case because she persuades herself that it is not in her best interests, or where she holds back from seeking promotion because she believes the selectors prefer another person. Bob Dailey defines power as ‘the ability to influence someone else’ and relates it to the ‘capacity to modify employee behaviour in a desired manner while being able to avoid having one’s own behaviour modified in undesirable ways’. Dailey considers it to be appropriate to look at the relationship between power and influence and to consider how this relationship operates in organisations. It is also important to recognize that power is an interdependent relationship between people. It expresses itself through people who are in varying degrees dependent on each other. A powerful leader without followers is a meaningless expression. The academic study of power is dominated by myriad citations of the work of John French and Bertram Rave. French and Raven classified five sources of power: Legitimate – deriving from the right of authority; Reward- deriving from an ability to reward; Coercive- deriving from an ability to punish; Referent- deriving from intrinsic qualities such as charisma; Expert- deriving from specialized “know-how”; Legitimacy as a source of power need not be effective in all contexts. Having the right to order someone to do something does not guarantee that they will do it. Authority is not the same as power because a conferred right does not necessarily ensure an ability. If people comply with your instructions, you can be said to have legitimized your right to instruct; if they do not comply, your legitimacy is in question. Reward power enables people to exert influence by virtue of their ability to reward those who obey their instructions. The power to punish matches the power to reward. Withholding a reward punishes; actively imposing sanctions on someone to ensure their compliance is coercion. People who can coerce others have discretion to impose avoidable punishment. Referent power captures the perceived characteristics associated with an individual by those influenced by them. Referent power is the often intangible and inherent quality of the individual that gives him or her power and influence over others, much as a hero-like reputation for a quality (probity and integrity) that is considered useful for certain tasks. Expert power is more tangible and is often subject to evidence. ‘Red’ Adair had a considerable reputation in extinguishing fires in oil wells. Sources of power can also sometimes mutually conflict. A person who exercises legitimate power (from holding a position in a hierarchy, for instance) can provoke resistance to his influence by unfairly exercising coercive power – as was the fate of Lieutenant William Bligh, commander of HMS Bounty, in 1789. The five sources of power identified by French and Raven are not exhaustive. To them can be added emotional sources of power, and thereby of influence, from such qualities as love, friendship, comradeship (especially in situations of shared high stress or danger), solidarity and loyalty. These emotional qualities can be sources of power and influence that so bind together the people they affect that extraordinary self-sacrifices are possible from subordinates, even at the cost of their lives. There are other sources of power, notably positional power (discussed in Module 2 of this work), in which power and influence originate from occupying a crucial position in an organisation (and which, at first glance, may not even appear important). Positional power is not the same as the power of legitimacy (power accorded to the holder of a rank or title) because positional power comes from controlling key resources, even though the position may be relatively low in the formal hierarchy. Remuneration Committees in corporations exert great influence over the members of the main board because the committee decides on remuneration, including the size of share options, and the amounts granted as golden handcuffs (to retain) and golden parachutes (to terminate). Thus, the possibility that power can influence others from multiple sources in different combinations and that relationships between people can also influence their behaviours, suggests that the links between influence and power are as complex as they are interesting. They are also subject to changes, prominent among which has been the erosion of deference in society over recent decades. Hierarchies have flattened – some dramatically – and people holding previously highly regarded positions in organisations no longer attract the same degree of deference that their predecessors enjoyed, often merely by virtue of their holding specific positions. Legitimacy is probably less of a source of power and influence than it was, and in some contexts it may be counter-productive. The unilateral discretionary powers of managers have also become constrained. Legislation to protect employees from unfair and arbitrary dismissal, tyrannical or unsafe work practices, harassment of various kinds, pay cuts, and extensions to hours of work or attendance, weaken the power of a manager to use the promises of reward or threats to punish employees they wish to influence. Increasing technology and more complex information flows are changing the shape of management structures. In place of top-down hierarchies there are mutually dependent centre’s of decision making. Managers have to get things done through other people who bring to the process their expertise in their specialist areas. These managers need to interact formally and informally to process their bit of information into the group decision. Changes in the bases of power (less deference, less respect for authority, greater division of expertise into smaller units of information, which is quickly outdated, lower reliance on referent qualities in leadership) have increased the role of influencing strategies because of the wider use of groups in decision making. Where groups thrive, politics proliferates. 8.3: Politics One interesting way of looking at politics in an organization is by way of a simple diagram. (Figure 8.1: Politicians in an organization) Political naivety is strongly associated with inexperience, though for many managers the condition continues long after experience should have cured it. Beginners are most prone to political naivety. They adhere to Type I models of decision making, like the early Kissinger, and are innocent of how decisions are made. They can also acquire experience and remain naïve. Unable or unwilling to develop their political skills in the organisation, they choose to leave the politics to others and slip into the role of followers (of the ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’ variety), forgoing all interest in, and responsibility for, decision-making. The scrupulous–unscrupulous dimension is the second definer of political behaviour. To what extent is a manager guided by scruples? The young, inexperienced, person tends to idealism, and so far has unchallenged and innocent scruples. The experienced manager’s scruples have been tested by events and by temptations of ambition and convenience. Political astuteness is associated with experience (though some learn from their experience a lot faster than others) and the experienced practise their politics in the prime of their managerial careers. They know ‘where the bodies are buried’ – and they may have helped their bosses to bury them in their early careers. They know how decisions are made in the organisation and how to get others to do what they want done, cunningly using all the artifices of political manipulation at their disposal. They exercise their influence through judicious use of their power over their colleagues and their followers. They share with their followers a willingness to disregard or suspend such scruples that others profess to uphold. They ‘get the job done’, often regardless of the collateral damage to their relationships. When powerful managers pass their prime and approach retirement, they pass from a tendency to ruthless unscrupulousness to a sort of rediscovery of long-forgotten scruples. They become astute but not naïve. They can still make things happen in the organisation – especially in a crisis – but mostly they seek to remain ‘above the fray’. They no longer feel the passion for the battle that they once had. They tend to be dismissed by subordinate leaders as ‘no longer up to it’ and they suffer from moves to remove them or to ‘kick ’em upstairs’. Politically astute managers, who know when they have passed their best, bow out gracefully. Others try to carry on as if nothing has changed, which may be a mistake if the business has changed fundamentally from, say, technological developments or new rivals sweeping the market. If they are not astute enough to recognize these changes, they will be swept aside by those who outplay them at the political game at which they once excelled. Arrogance, overconfidence, defiance and non-relevant memories of past victories over rivals are so common in the political end games that signal the demise of the men and women who overstayed their welcome that it is a wonder so many wise, experienced and capable people suffer the public ignominy of a boardroom coup. If they did see the writing on the wall, why did they not quit while they were still ahead? 8.4: Political Activity ‘Mach’ I refer to the 16th-century Italian political thinker, Niccolo Machiavelli, whose books, The Prince and the Discourses (1515), are still in print. They continue to generate controversy, and Machiavelli’s name is associated in popular comment with political manipulation, intrigue and amoral behaviour, though this may be a case of the messenger being blamed for the message. The fact is that Machiavelli’s image (more so than his actual writings) is a useful category for certain types of behavioral analysis and it is well established in influencing studies, as evidenced by the use of ‘High Machs’ and ‘Low Machs’ in the literature. ‘Machs’ were first described by Richard Christie and Florence Geis. They described ‘High Machs’ as people with a manipulative orientation who are cool, emotionally detached and ‘logically’ (by their own standards) oriented. Allegedly they act in disregard of their feelings and the feelings of others. Their behaviour is summarized by the popular notion that ‘the end justifies the means’. High Machs also believe that they are the masters of their destiny who, alone, are responsible for what happens to themselves. People, by contrast, who complain about their personal fate, in the view of a High Mach, are pathetic figures who are unworthy of the sympathy they crave. ‘Low Machs’ are the opposite kind of people. They are emotionally involved in what they do, hold to ethical principles and codes, and are affected by their feelings and the feelings of others. Low Machs subscribe to the view that ‘the means determine the end’ and would never justify evil or immoral means to achieve a worthy end. They also see their personal destinies as determined by forces outside their control or influence. They are comfortable with the status of being a victim of the behaviours of others. The nature of the organisation influences the way High Machs and Low Machs thrive. Highly structured organisations (traditional bureaucracies, for instance) are not conducive to High Mach behaviours because employees in them have to work within the system as given by their rules, regulations and restrictions. In contrast, Low Machs can do well in such organisations because they are comfortable working within structures that have rules and constraints determined by others. Organisations with limited formal or bureaucratic structures are far looser, open, adaptive and flexible than their highly structured counterparts. High Machs thrive in such circumstances, while Low Machs are ineffective and uncomfortable in the absence of strict structures (where they have difficulty, for example, coping with ambiguity). Succession politics dominates in the traditional bureaucratic organisation very much as it does in the less structured – it just takes a different form! Being adept at the slower and more regularized game of succession is a political skill at and near the top in the structured organisations Observation suggests that disguising one’s inherent Machiavellianism (and its amoral tones) in the tight confines of a bureaucratic regime for long periods without detection is extremely difficult and demanding. This situation supposedly gives the political advantage to the genuine Low Machs but cunning and well camouflaged High Machs who seek high office can do just as well. Generalising, High Machs keep their emotional distance from those around them. They do not get too involved with colleagues. They do just enough to ingratiate with potential sponsors above them and to create dependency relationships with potential protégés around and below them, because if they become too close, they might have difficulty ditching someone who becomes an embarrassment in the organisation. Keeping decision making confined to a tight group keeps it under control and protects the High Mach from unforeseen events, such as an unwelcome consensus influenced by rivals or random and maverick outsiders. Also, participative democracy does not fit the image of bold and confident leadership that the High Mach strives to project. Niggardliness in the sharing of information is also practiced, at least from the High Mach to others. Receiving information from others and storing it until it might be fruitful to pass it on is commonplace. Basically, the High Mach receives more information than he or she shares. Joining a function in the organisation that has a future is a classic sign of a High Mach at work. So is joining a moribund department that can be used as leverage to a better position in the future. A moribund department is not the same as a declining function. A department may be moribund because it is not performing under the current leadership or circumstances. A declining function may be terminally declining with no hope of recovery. High Machs are able to mimic convincingly the expression of the beliefs, attitudes and behaviours – and even the lifestyle codes – of those above and around them. 8.5: Managing with Power Power is exercised by various means that serve to badge those who exercise it. Strict codes are elaborated to ensure that managers know their place in the hierarchy and that their place is known to everybody that knows the code. Dependency is a source for transmitting support, and power players look for opportunities to enhance their own power by making less powerful players dependent. Seeking opportunities requires contact and location is a factor in facilitating contact. The people who control the departments that supply the services can use their positional power to gain influence, though on a much smaller scale than was exhibited by Robert Moses. The main goal of elected politicians is to be re-elected. The main goal of public officials is to protect their jobs. True, both have many sub-goals, such as favorable publicity, protecting their department’s budgets, hiring more staff and avoiding scandals, etc. If the politicians fall out with a council official, this may threaten the official’s job; if a council official causes maladministration of a service, the electors could vote out of office the politician they regard as responsible politically for the service. Therefore, each is interested in the other’s welfare to protect their own interests. Players who can gain control of resources – the Golden Rule – exercise power disproportionately. In a trade union, the official who controls the votes of the largest branch effectively can sometimes control the union executive. As indicated by these two examples, the ‘gold’ does not have to be money. It can be promotions, recruitment, resources, facilities, visibility and the many ‘currencies’ discussed in Module 4. In an organisation where decisions on these issues are made by interlocking committees, it is essential that the players who seek influence locate themselves or their dependent allies on these committees. Hence, expect to find players basing their influence by membership of key committees in the organisation. Membership of committees is a chore to most people and the reluctance of people to work them assiduously provides gaps in the structure through which power bases can be built. Powerful people have influence to the extent that they ‘know’ everybody that matters (and many that don’t) and they know whom to call (GOTT) or visit (GOYA) and whom they can invariably expect to return their calls or find time to see them. Communication networks in an organisation – formal and informal – are well traversed territories for people with power and those searching for power. Influential managers have powerful associates. They meet formally within the organization’s communication structure and also informally on a semi-social level. Watch with whom they lunch or socialize after work. Because they mix with the powerful, they appear to be powerful themselves by implicit association (a point noted by the ambitious). This means spending a considerable amount of time socializing with people whom they do not particularly like (compared with others that they could meet) and participating in social activities that would not be their first choice in entertainment. Their willingness to endure some of these events and the people who go with them is part of the price they pay to obtain and exercise influence. A willingness to execute tough decisions and see them through against opposition is a decisive requirement for the powerful influencer. The tough decision can be a policy issue – a major change in direction – or a personnel problem, including removing a serious rival from contention in the hierarchy. Successfully executing tough decisions is a powerful confirmation of a person’s influence and, providing the decisions are successful, a reputation for success reinforces a claim to power. Conversely, a failure in either respect – to carry through the tough decision or to successfully implement it – can be a career-breaking move. Machiavelli warned that it was not good enough to ‘wound the Prince’; he had to be killed, because a wounded Prince could fight back. He had to be removed, permanently. If a major policy has to be defeated, the people behind the policy have to go too. Underhand tactics include meeting without the target person present and securing the votes to dismiss him or her before the formal meeting. Epilogue: It is not for vicarious pleasure that you study the powerful – how they got there, what they do while they are there, and how, eventually, they lose whatever power they had. Organisations consist of people who have titles, functions and interests. Sometimes their personal interests coincide with their corporate interests; sometimes they do not. But their interests are important inputs into the games they play and can never be discounted. The ability to understand how interests coalesce and divide to produce coalitions and factions with ever changing compositions is an essential attribute of those who would become, and of those who are, influential. Influencing is not about leading a group of like-minded ‘happy campers’ towards some end they find attractive. Influencers must be able to influence disparate groups of people, some of whom cannot bear to be in the same room together, to do what they otherwise would not do, or not do what they otherwise would do. Managing a coalition of allies means managing a coalition of interests. If you survive, you will do so only by accumulating power in the organisation and the wider environment in which you operate. Having power also follows the universal rule of ‘use it or lose it’. For a time, it may be enough to use what power you have to gain more power, but accumulating power and merely holding on to it exacts an enormous toll in time and energy. It is easy to become distracted by the trappings of power (for instance, status, executive jets, penthouse suites, deference and publicity) and lose touch with the purposes for which you sought the power you have. That is why observation of the doings of the powerful – foibles and all – are a never-ending fascination for so many of us.