The Power and Control - Essay Example

ON POWER INTRODUCTION As people interact with one another, create and enter into organizations many factors that influences and affects their relationship and dealings manifest itself. Of these factors, the more salient and pronounce is power and control. Power has been defined as “something to do with relationships between two or more actors in which the behavior of one is affected by the behavior of the other.”1 Thus, it can be said, “power exists within the relationship between social actors rather than residing within the actors themselves.” 2 And it is in this framework that I have chosen the article of John R.P.French Jr. and Bertram Raven “The Bases of Social Power.” CLASSIFICATION AND RELEVANCE I think the article “The Bases of Social Power” can be considered as a combination of the three perspectives classical, modern and symbolic-interpretive. I may appear to be playing safe in my analysis but the way I see it the entire article elucidates the varieties of power that may be at play in an organization. And in this view I think the discussion can be considered under the purview of classical perspective since it cannot be denied that the concept of power is better approached under the idea of the “effect of organization in the society”3 and modern and symbolic-interpretive perspective because we can say that the “objective measures is a result of meaning created and maintained by human association through shared values, traditions and customs.”4 Thus it can be gleaned that discussion of power is something that may permeate the different perspective in the understanding of organizations. Although I would really like to cut it down to one perspective only, like the symbolic-interpretive perspective, but I think that will not be consistent to the article since the whole article is merely laying down different categories of power. As the authors present the different forms of power, I honestly think that they are not raising any arguments either for or against any of the forms of power. They are not even trying to influence us in making a decision regarding which is (if there is) a better kind of power. Being such, I think the authors intention is not really to argue for or against any type of power but, rather, just to inform the reader of the existence of such concepts. And if my estimation of their article is correct I think that they are able to fulfill their intention. Since in presenting the forms of power and its corresponding dynamics, the reader now learns and understands the possible explanation of the interplay of control and power in their own organization. It is also in this sense, that I think the real challenge that the article poses to its readers is not an internal criticism of the work but rather a criticism, a re-looking of the notion of power in one’s own organization via the lens of the information that French and Raven have given. THEORETICAL INTEGRITY In the article of John French and Bertram Raven “The Bases of Power”, they have presented a rundown of the various kinds of power that are at play in an organization. By laying down the basic definition and influences of each they are able to give a clear and simplified understanding of how these various forms of power may be observed and seen in the organization. As such, in doing this, it affords the reader the chance to evaluate the possible power play that is being engaged in in the organization. This on one side is to be appreciated as positive action since it allows persons in the organization to assess and evaluate power. Since, basically I think that no matter how simplistic it may seem it cannot be denied that ‘knowledge is power.’ However, what I do notice in their article is that it is simply an itemization of the possible kinds of power that are technically perceivable. Perceivable for it can be safely assumed that power just like politics has permeated all human and social interactions. And being such, it leaves traces or signs that observers may pick up along the way as they try to analyze the power dynamics in the organization. What I think is missing in the discussion is the explication or the discourse of faint, abstruse forms that power assumes as it takes part in the organization. These indistinct forms being shadowy or blurry in itself are not explicitly conceived of as part of power-control dynamics. In fact, most of these forms have become entrenched in the system already that people more often than not are no longer aware that as they perform particular actions or embark on specific endeavors that certain power dynamics control their performance. For instance, in a factory when workers are asked to wear a particular color–coded shirt or when you see markings in the gates which states ”no ID, no ENTRY” we are basically seeing forms of power control that are thought of being merely part of the system but in if analyzed in a different sense it may be considered as structures the intention of which is to keep people under a particular subtle control. And I am technically basing my analysis from Michel Foucault’s discussion of power, which I honestly think should also have been part of the authors’ discussion. More over, I think it would have been also better if the authors alluded to the type of power that is being practiced under lean management system. Although this is not so old, in fact I consider it as a neophyte system, it is being seen as a viable alternative to management learned style under mass production. As such, I think they should have at least presented a little background of it. I deem this as important since lean production system incorporates a type of power play wherein power is no longer concentrated at the hands of the single group or few persons. In fact lean system encourages teamwork, team building and recognizes the significant role of collaborative effort. Being such, lean production system decentralizes power by technically empowering everybody through open exchange of information among all the people involve in the organization. And this is I believe a deconstruction of our traditional conception of power. Thus, I feel that it is better if the decentralize notion of power has been included in the article. COMPARE AND CONTRAST It is interesting to note that the article of James G. March “The Power of Power” though also dealing with the concept and idea of power is different from the article “The Social Bases of Power” since it is trying to root and explain not power in relation to the environment, to actors and agents where it is at play but, rather, it is trying to understand power from the perspective of its self. “The Power to Power” intends to analyze power from its very nature, answering the rhetorical but essential question “what is it in power that makes it a power?” In the end, I believe that though power and control are terms that may have a negative connotation one important and integral is the idea that we ought to be “bringing human scale to the problems of organization and change is about pragmatism. It is about resolving today’ problem today. One need to give people a vision of the future, but one also needs to help them see the steeping stones along the way…for the practical side of leadership depends not on grand theories but, rather, on the ability to encourage others to action.”5 REFERENCE LIST: Carnall, Colin A. Managing Change IN ORGANIZATION 4th Ed. England: Prentice Hall, 2003. French Jr., John R.P. and Raven, Bertram. “The Social Bases of Power” in Classics of Organization Theory. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz, Steven Ott and Yong suk Jang. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005. Hall, Richard. Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999. Hatch, Mary Jo. Organization Theory: Modern Symbolic and Post Modern Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. March, James. “The Power of Power” in Classics of Organization Theory. Eds. Jay M. Shafritz, Steven Ott and Yong suk Jang. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005. Read More