An Important Feature of Power - Coursework Example

Topic: ‘Power is critical to understanding the difficulties managers confront when seeking to manage change’. Discuss. Introduction A discussion on power should start with a definition of it, as provided by Weber: “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance (see Grimes 1978, p. 725). This definition is somewhat confusing to the notion of power because of the defining element of “informal authority”. To resolve the ambiguity over the clarity in defining the constituents of power is to view it at the last stretch of the single continuum. Authority in a traditional organisation may be alternated for power but when organisational aims are not stipulated unanimously by those who matter in the organisational set up and adhered to by the lower ranks create power situations. Such situations may present dicey legal cover with given means of control as the response of juniors in the hierarchy may not be taken rightly when power is used. It could be planned involvement or distractive involvement. Buckley has provided a provisional definition of power as: “Control or influence over the actions of others to promote ones goals without their consent, against their will or without their knowledge or understanding (see Grimes 1978, p. 727). An important feature of power is the stress on private aim orientation in stead of together-goal orientation. Power, according to Gamson, is “potential partisans”, which can be defined as, “that set of actors who for a given decision are affected by the outcome in a ‘significant’ way, (See Grimes 1978, p. 727). The impact of partisans and the counter-impact of authority are normally named as power. Partisans attempt to impress upon the authority their side of the issue and its resolution. The notion of change is basic and concurrent in the thinking of management scholars on organisations. The literature on strategic change stresses on the need to adjust to the changing risks and opportunities of the new business environments. They also point out that such change is not recurrent in the occurred extent or direction required. Organisations need to develop this capacity for change to promote learning. There has been vast study on transformational leadership particularly and leadership generally that shows the seriousness of the topic for management purpose. The issue of change is more relevant also for practitioners, which is evident from the volume of books published on change management. Even then it is argued that both scholars and practitioners do not possess enough knowledge of and theoretical mechanism for change. To an extent, this failure to propound a theory may be because of various established perspectives or mechanisms (Ford and Ford, 1994). Change agents play a critical role in an organisation by helping in transformation process. Change agents need to be on the right path to steer an organisation on the road to positive change. Some of the crucial inputs of change are depicted in the chart below (Evans, 2010). Power is the most critical ingredient of effective change. These leaders of change can be seen throughout the organisational ladder. These leading change leaders can be holding any position or power variable to become an instrument of change (Evans, 2010). Organisational change management problems are often not given due attention or ignored totally. In reality, people issues are responsible majorly for project failures. Causes of Project Failure The survey undertaken by KPMG analysed the causes of failed projects. The finding closely associated project failures with behaviours and expertise of the respondents, mostly related to the capabilities, behaviour and attitudes of participants (EPM Book, 2007). Discussion Mintzberg (1984) discuses the power perspective in relation to organisation life cycle in three strides: first by analysing relationships of power dissemination internally in an organisation, with that covering a classification of six assemblies of organisation power is created; secondly, by analysing internal powers that function within each one of these assemblies to eliminate it, the possible changeover between these assemblies are found; and thirdly, by linking these changeovers collectively in successions over time as organisations preserve and mature. This chain of successive events is depicted through a model that stipulates outcomes in a society of big organisations. Kerr et al. (1987) have discussed the possibility of elimination of the rank of first-line supervisors. They have reviewed the literature on first-line supervisors to know the ranking status of first-line supervisors. They have discussed their functions related to subordinate output and behaviours in the context of growth tendencies in participative management, growing use of independent work groups and impact of staff experts. According to the authors, the rank of first-line supervisors is not going to be eliminated although in certain technology-driven companies, their role is at risk but future holds good for them as their rank is critical to the successful functioning of the future systems. There is agreement that their functions would be reduced to lesser jobs, centring around outside representation and inside human relations. With the decline in the powers of supervisors, positive impact will be felt over role and ranking issues. It can encourage management to outline new selection paths and training modules for front-line supervisors. Direction change is critical so that there is no dead-end ahead. Boonstra and Bennebroek Gravenhorst (1998) state an area research of impact tactics employed by agents of many stakeholders involved in constructive change processes. It was noticed that logical persuasion, moving requests and consultation were used more often. This is a welcome outcome because these three tactics are most dependable for achieving dedication and support to organisational change. Besides, it was noticed that line managers, workforce specialists, management consultants and members of works councils employed many impression tactics variously in the change process. The outcomes back the concept that normative re-educative and statistical-logical strategies are used randomly than coercive strategies and that the cultural and knowledge outlooks of change are leading in creative organisational change. Martinko and Gardner (1987) discuss the interactive two-some exchange of leader and member attributions and attitudes. The focus of their study was on attributions for bad projections between the leader and subordinate. Certain suggestions have been made in the attributions’ context for successful relationship between the leader and subordinate member. Researchers measuring the effect of success on subject responses to failure notice that incessant success also can produce draining impact. The outcome indicates that wrong and doubtful attributions for success could be harmful to the leader / member relations as those related to failure. Work guidelines can help in preserving a positive relationship between the two. Three logics of change include formal logic, dialectics and trialectics, as taken from Aristotle, Hegel and Ichazo. A mixing of these three outlooks would clear the maxims for further discussion. Trialectics present an outlook on change that encourages reasoning in other dynamics, nonlinear models of change and in the usage of the quantum framework to organisations. In the context of literature on organisational change, it helps scholars and practitioners both to work and comprehend the process of change in the usage of quantum mechanics for organisations. On the same thread, implications exist for scholars and practitioners also to function with the process of change, resistance and language of change (Ford and Ford, 1994). Lee (1977) has discussed the analytical approach of leader power for managing change which includes an appraisal of the leader power to bring about change. Such elements that obstruct the managers’ role in the change process are discussed by relying more on the managers’ ability to bring about change than on selection of change techniques. The Importance of Leader Power in Change Management Managers are the leaders of the change model with enough leader opportunity and capacity to impress behaviour whichever model of change it may be, such as force-field, un-re-freezing, power sharing participation or initiating structure. The leading stress of most change models is on the processes. Heller, (see Lee 1977, p. 74) pointed out that the attention on group processes has not enabled to explain the full range of circumstances under which management decisions are taken. Helen in his research on 260 American managers’ decisions has found that managers were demoted to low ranking employment for participating in bringing change. Nearly one-half of their critical decisions were taken without consultation or participation. Participation to them was more relevant in junior training, subordinate satisfaction and decision quality betterment than in bringing change. The research also indicated that the maximum the juniors experience, the minimum possibility is that their superiors adhere to centralised decision-taking. This is relevant with another of Heller’s findings which backs Mechanics subordinate expertise power, that the greater the expertise variance between the senior manager and his juniors, the more chances are that centralised decision style will be followed (Lee, 1977). Some change management theorists, stressing more on the trait of the internal change agent (respected, trusted, etc.) nonetheless see this persons power as a crucial factor in management of change: ‘The persons being influenced need confidence that the change can, in fact, be effected and a large part of this confidence comes initially from their confidence in the power and judgment of the influencing agent’ (see Lee 1977, p. 75). Irrespective of a number of references to manager power in implementing change, none of the change models calls for conducting a systematic power stock before attempting organisational change. Such a stock taking exercise should possibly be conducted before choosing a change strategy, as strategies differ somewhat in the types of powers required for their practice (Lee, 1977). A Manager Power System Inventory Model To tackle with this oversight, a complete power system approach is presented: total power impressing the subsystem equals leader power plus subordinate power plus work design power plus extraneous power, or TP = LP + SP + WDP + EP Solution for leader power: LP = TP - (SP + WDP + EP). In easy terms, only the leader power remains after deducting all kinds of subordinate power, different powers taken away from the leaders power by the type of the work and work environment and that power taken away by sources external to the subsystem. This explanation of the system allows actual analysis of differences in the employees that affect a leaders capacity to use any given change model (Lee, 1977). Intuitively, role of a supervisor of a group of Mexican-American farm workers in Arizona carries greater leader power than the head of a state university department. Both these ranks require different leadership or change model. These raw variations are not based on any actual analysis, but it can help in knowing the causes for many change modelling drawbacks (Lee, 1977). Power Sources Leader Power - Power theorists have found the presence of leader power in various forms such as: 1. Position power or legitimate power comes from the rank of a leader in the organisational set up through owner-ship, selection or election. It includes various powers coming from information, veto powers and power to formulate policy. 2. Coercive power accrues from the juniors fear of punishment and the leaders power to impose it. 3. Reward power is derived from the subordinates’ hopes of positive rewards and the leaders power to reward them. 4. Expertise power comes from juniors and others respect for leaders distinct knowledge or expertise. 5. Referent or charismatic power accrues from followers recognition with the leader because of individual characteristics. The anticipation upon which the leader power part of the power stock model is based are Proposals LP 1 - 5: The greater the: LP1: position power, LP2: coercive power, LP3: reward power, LP4: expertise power, and/or LP5: referent power of the leader, the more remainder power remains with the leader after power cuts from other sources have been computed. Subordinate Power - There is no standard list of worker power sources. References to the deterioration of management rights in the labour relations area are generally not fit for a model. Subordinates’ power opportunities accrue from many sources. Some of the relatively crucial of these which can control leader powers are: 1. Gathered power from subordinates membership in a union or unofficial meeting of workers when combined can change leader behaviour or hold the leader or the organisation from completing aims. 2. Legal powers coming from laws governing the behaviour of workforce or their unions over selection, hours, pay, race, sex, national origin, religion, fringe benefits, and working conditions (safety and health). 3. Referent or charismatic power is based upon juniors impression on the leader, superiors, and co-associates because of individual characteristics. 4. Affluence power comes from the cut in juniors’ dependence upon employing organisations for monetary reasons. This is mostly done through juniors mind make-up to hold change or leave their jobs and by remaining absent from work, going late and threats to break leaders rules or company policy. 5. Expert power comes from leaders and organisations dependence upon juniors knowledge, special expertise. It also includes power coming from difficult-to-replace personnel. This part of the power stock model is based on the following proposals: SP1: The larger the combined power of juniors, the less the total power with the leader. SP2: The larger the legal powers of juniors, the less the cumulative power with the leader. SP3: The larger the overall impression of juniors over their colleagues and others in the organisation because of personality traits (referent power), the less the accumulated power with the leader. SP4: The larger the monetary freedom of juniors from their income from the organisation, the less the accumulated power with the leader. SP5: The larger the junior skill level relatively to that of the leader and/or the bigger the hurdle in replacing the junior, the less the accumulated power with the leader (Lee, 1977). Work Design Power - Woodward, et al. and others have researched on work design power affecting the leader-followership systems. Outcomes by researchers such as the House and Dessler, Stinson and Johnson, and Hunt and Osborn indicate that certain work designs like engineering function power affect leader power. Leader power loss because of work design can happen in certain types as machine-based assembly lines, engineered assembly sequences and production timing fixed outside the production unit. Little contact time is left for referent power of the leader to discuss with subordinates the ways of work. Due to minimal leader-follower power in certain work profiles as plant managers, field geologists, global airline captains, area sales representatives and supervisors in various work shifts reporting to the general supervisor, leader power is affected. Certain other tasks that are over-the-leader’s-head are quite beyond the comprehension of the leader such as inter-department R & D projects wherein the gathered skills powers reduce the leader’s powers (Lee, 1977). Extraneous Powers – There is yet another power that comes in the way of managers/leaders, taking away their power base; these are called extraneous powers, related to the leader-follower technology subsystem. Extraneous powers exert pressure on leader power from many sources such as from organisation’s policy and processes, structure power, the veto-power of the superior of the leader, public power getting expressed through outburst against leader’s behaviour particularly in the category of reward and penalty (Lee, 1977). Practitioner Uses of the Model The leader power system inventory model as discussed above provides relatively analytical way to those who want to better their management of change. Special about this model is that the leader need not change the personality mechanism or the organisation structure. Such functions as sensitivity and grid training are not required. As per this model, there is no such inkling of discarding any leader or change models but by practicing this model, a leader desiring to bring change should take sufficient break to stock the power for impressing upon people to follow the desired approach. It denotes the possibility of ad-hoc suggestion "Dont just do something - stand there!" The model does not suggest a “Give-up” reaction to indications for required change (See Lee 1977, p. 78). U. S. Copper Mining Case This case study provides a clue of the working of various powers blocking the general manager’s path to change and how he used his leader power strategically. It is related to the rank of general manager of a mining segment of a leading mining company. His job requirements included managing an underground and an open pit mining operation, a major crusher, a 27-mle company-proprietary rail-road and a mill at the other corner of the railroad. The general manager faced the dilemma of slow speed of change. As his office was situated at the mine location, he had little power to impress change due to the far-away location of the mill management. His powers suffered further cut because of subordinate skills, as he was from mining background, not chemical and engineering. The collective powers of the management further negated his impact, as he stated that “the management always stick for each other over there” (p. 79). The division manager took a number of initiatives to increase his overall power. He left no opportunity unturned to bring the management under his influence. He shifted his office mid-way between the mine and the mill, gaining back some of the power taken away because of distance. He shifted functions related to industrial relations and industrial engineering to a central location, thus increasing his position power relatively straight to the mill management. He could have taken more steps such as appointing an assistant, qualified in chemical engineering and thus, minimising the robust expertise power of the mill management (Lee, 1977, p. 79). Conclusion Organization change theorists, like other theorists, view their work with a global perspective, offering a set of pre-existing notions for comprehension and analysis. Various logics provide intuition and handicaps in the path to organisational change. It depends on given circumstances to decide which logic is right. Various logics need to be tested when deployed to find how the successes and failures to an organisation demand a different logic than what was employed so that the desired logic provides relatively effective and suitable outcome. References: Boonstra, Jaap J., and Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Kilian M., 1998. Power dynamics and organizational change: a comparison of perspectives. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7 (2), 97–120. Available from: http://www.pluspulse.nl/pdf/EJWOP%20perspectives.pdf [Accessed 19 Feb. 2012]. EPM Book, 2007.Organisational change management: why, what, how? epmbook.com. Available from: http://www.epmbook.com/orgchange.htm [Accessed 20 Feb. 2012]. Evans, Joe., 2010. Change agents: the power behind effective change management. Available from: http://www.methodframeworks.com/blog/2010/change-agents-power-behind-effective-change-management/index.html [Accessed 20 Feb. 2012]. Ford, Jeffrey D. ., Ford, Laurie W.., 1994. Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. The Academy of Management Review, 19, (4), pp. 756-785. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258744 [Accessed 20 Feb. 2012]. Grimes, A. J., 1978. Authority, power, influence and social control: a theoretical synthesis. The Academy of Management Review, 3, (4), pp. 724-735. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/257928 [Accessed 20 Feb. 2012]. Kerr, Steven., Hill, Kenneth D.., Broedling, Laurie., 1986. The first-line supervisor: phasing out or here to stay? The Academy of Management Review, 11, (1), pp. 103-117. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258334 [Accessed 20 Feb. 2012]. Lee, James A., 1977. Leader power for managing change. The Academy of Management Review, 2, (1), pp. 73-80. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/257608 [Accessed 19 Feb. 2012]. Mintzberg, Henry., 1984. Power and organization life cycles. The Academy of Management Review, 9, (2), pp. 207-224. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258435 [Accessed 19 Feb. 2012]. Martinko, Mark J. and Gardner, William L., 1987. The leader/member attribution process. The Academy of Management Review, 12, (2), pp. 235-249. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258532 [Accessed 19 Feb. 2012]. Read More