Power Dynamics Management - Essay Example

Managing Power plays multiple roles in an organizational context. Power dynamics are strongly visible within organizations and can make major impacts on the management as well as the employees. “In organisational analysis, power is most often conceived as something that is exercised between groups-that is, for instance, between managers and employees, between different groups of professionals” (Villadsen ‎2007). In many occasions as well as stereotypically, power is viewed as something that exhibited or exercised from top to down, with the leaders or managers exhibiting the power downwards on the employees. That is, leaders with the powers bestowed on them due to their organizational position and the resultant responsibilities, manage, guide, and instruct the employees regarding their work roles and organizational goals. However, the contrary perspective is that power in an organizational context can also refer to the capacity that employees will possess and exhibit while accomplishing their tasks. This influence of power and its varying interpretation has been studied by many experts and theorists, with Michael Foucault being one of the prominent ones. Although, he theorized and discussed power in various cultural and social contexts, it is having in-depth applications in organizational context. His social theory of Panopticism, featured in the book, Discipline and Punish can be applied in organizations to reflect how leaders or managers even while exercising their power to manage the employees, can facilitate the employees to self-mange. “He who is subjected to a field of visibility [...]; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles [the prisoner and the guard M.I.]; he becomes the principle of his own subjection” (Foucault 1977, p.202-203). So, focusing on this above perspective of Foucault regarding power, the discussion will be about Foucault’s approach in relation to managerial work and management power/roles, backed by empirical examples and personal experience. Michel Foucault, a French philosopher, psychologist, historian, literary as well as cultural critic, have examined various fields of interest ranging from psychology, medicine, politics, social science, culture, and many more. Some of Foucault’s notable works comprises of History of Madness, The Order of Things, History of Sexuality trilogy, and importantly Discipline and Punish, which “undoubtedly had the most impact in management and organization studies over the last twenty years” (Butler 2012). Although his general ideas and theories were adopted by critical accountants from late 1980s, it was mainly from early 1990s that organization scholars have interpreted them from organizational perspectives, starting with his concept of disciplinary power. Foucault’s theories “provides a way to explain new organizational forms and innovative managerial techniques – such as team-working, total quality management and just-in-time production” as well as to make a “more nuanced understanding of human resource management practices as well as ethics and parrhesia in organizations” (Butler 2012). So, it is evident although Foucault’s ideas have applications in core sectors, its breadth had expanded enormously, particularly in the organizational behavior sector. As pointed out earlier, although power can be viewed as a positive influence, certain sections view and even utilize it in a negative manner. That is, leaders or managers normally use power to positively influence the employees and facilitate them to carry out the organizational operations in an effective manner. However, in certain cases, leaders will use their power to force or coerce the employees to do their jobs, although the employees might not be motivated to do that by themselves. So, it is evident that power could be interpreted and used in different manners by the leader or manager, and that puts optimal onus on the manager to view and use the power in a positive and effective manner. In that direction, Foucault’s views on power assumes significance. That is, he is basically of the view that “it is wrong to consider power as something that the institutions possess and use oppressively against individuals and groups” (Balan 2012, p.38). Then, instead of immediately painting power has a positive factor, Foucault tries to take a neutral stance. “He tries to move the analysis one step beyond viewing power as the plain oppression of the powerless by the powerful, aiming to examine how it operates in day to day interactions between people and institutions” (Balan 2012, p.38). After taking a basic and neutral stance, Foucault brings about the positive effects of power by pointing out how power can lead to positive changes on the behavior of individuals on whom power is exercised. “We must overcome the idea that power is oppression, because – even in their most radical form – oppressive measures are not just repression and censorship, but they are also productive, causing new behaviours to emerge” (Balan 2012, p.38). So, in that direction, when manager exhibit power on the employees, it can lead to the emergence of new, positive and constructive behavior from the employees and that can contribute to the effective functioning of the organization and at the same time development of smooth working relationship between the manager and the employees. Apart from these advantages, this change in behavior can also lead to a contrasting result as well. That is, this exhibition of power can facilitate the employees to become self-manageable as well in line with the prisoner-guard principle. Although, power is viewed as flow of instructions from top-to-bottom, it can also lead to decentralization and development of self-management on the part of the employees. So, Foucaults view is in line with the “essence of modern power, namely that its objective is not to suppress but to make individuals self-governing and that it works through individuals own free actions” (Villadsen ‎2007). As being pointed out above, traditionally, power has been viewed as a top-down approach with the leader or manger being at the forefront of that exhibition of power. However, this traditional power flow is being considered as outdated and instead a more equitable power balance is being actualized. “Currently, power seems to be increasingly decentred or delegated. Power should not be exercised authoritatively from the top, as this would represent an old fashioned, out-of-date type of management” (Villadsen ‎2007). Foucault has focused on this perspective of how institutions should not adopt power in a top-down format, and instead should allow power to be distributed in an equitable manner throughout the institution, whether it is a governmental institution or a business organization. Foucault (1981, 22) has stated that modern power does not arise from the state apparatus and does not be exhibited in top-down approach, but is rather to be found in all the mundane micro-social relations in an institution. In that direction, Foucault in a way implied that in modern power, managers has to not only exercise power but also have to facilitate the employees to exhibit power in line with the prisoner-guard principle. According to Foucault (1977), modern power fundamentally differs from the traditional discipline or sovereign power in that it adopts the basic premise that individuals are naturally independent identities and so they will operate or be facilitated to operate by seeking to shape their free actions. This perspective of Foucault leads to the basic argument that individuals or employees should not be disciplined or controlled “from the outside” and instead should be prepared to become “self-disciplined”. This clearly shows that power in an organizational context operates horizontally by focusing on individuals’ self-relation as well as the micro-relations between individuals. For modern management, this perspective of Foucault means that mangers should not exercise their powers in a commanding or controlling or disciplinary manner. “Current management literature proclaims that management is not about dictating, controlling or putting demands at people, but should have as its objective to make individuals active and initiating” (Villadsen ‎2007). Instead, managers should connect to employees self-government and actualize self-management through number of organizational processes thereby positively benefiting both the organization and the employees as well. So, it is obvious that “basic objective of modern power is, as Michel Foucault has shown us, to make people active in their own self-government or self-management” (Villadsen ‎2007). Speaking of self-management as equitable distribution or balance of power, Foucault does not explicitly point out or discuss about this concept of self-management in his works. However, “a common thread in many of his analyses of power, is how one is managing oneself” (Paulsson 2011). He brings out this perspective by focusing on how resistance and power are inseparable, and how interactions between the two lead to self-management. The idea that power needs resistance can be best understood by Foucault’s oft-quoted phrase, “Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power” (Foucault 1998, p.95). In that direction, when power is used to facilitate the employees to function effectively, it can condition them thereby forcing them to manage themselves. Here is what Foucault writes about this interaction, “what defines a relationship of power is that it is a mode of action which does not act directly and immediately on others. Instead, it acts upon their actions: an action upon an action, on existing actions or on those which may arise in the present or the future” (Foucault 1982, p.789). This facilitation for self-management happens when the organizational structure of an organization is “flattened” with the employees being allocated and given responsibility to definite tasks importantly in line with organizational goals. Although, the concept of self-management can be viewed as a “substitute for leadership”, that does not imply there is no management or leader or manager. Instead, in line with the prisoner-guard principle, organizations need to have an external leader, who “needs to balance between building relationships, and empowering and persuading their teams for them to function” (Paulsson 2011). In the contemporary business environment with modern power being highly practiced, self-management has become a key strategy to bring out optimal productivity from the employees and thereby improve organizational functioning. Self-management is considered to be “critical for competitive advantage in contemporary markets because of its emphasis on employee commitment rather than on control-oriented approaches to management” (Uhl-Bien and Graen 1998, p.340). When commitment comes internally from the employees and not through external coercion, they can initiate an organizational process, monitor it, manage it, and reach it to its logical and successful end. “Self-managing individuals are responsible for determining approaches to task execution as well as for monitoring and managing their own behaviors.” (Uhl-Bien and Graen 1998, p.340). This way, the power of the employees accentuates within the organizational context. That is, when the leader using his/her power facilitates self-management among employees, he/she can take a back-seat or overseeing position and allow the employees to exhibit their abilities and perform their roles thereby reflecting their power. So, here again the leader plays both the power-exhibiting roles of initiator and facilitator thereby fulfilling the prisoner-guard principle. When employees indulge in self-management, they would be able to carry out many organizational tasks, which are normally carried out by the leader or manager. In that direction, many of the functions traditionally reserved for managers, particularly decision-making process and the related actions of defining organizational goals, strategies formulation, performance monitoring, taking corrective action, and seeking necessary guidance or resources have to be carried out by the employees (Uhl-Bien and Graen 1998, p.340). So, in organizations where self-management is practiced in line with Foucault’s power theories, when a decision-making process is initiated, organization will actively involve employees thereby helping them find their roles and responsibilities. Foucault’s “the analysis of power” focuses on how various institutions exert their power on groups and individuals, and how the latter affirm their own identity and resistance to the effects of power” (Balan 2012).When leaders facilitate their respective employees to formulate organizational strategies, they can come up with effective ideas as well as feedbacks. That is, when the employee is given the responsibility to formulate ideas or even given feedbacks, it will naturally elevate their motivations and increase their productivity thereby reflecting their power or they will become empowered. Kirkman and Rosen (1999) also found that the more responsibility employees or team is given, the more they will be empowered and also productive. The responsibility is accentuated because after the employees spell out their ideas or feedback, they have to put in their best efforts to actualize their plans or ideas. That is, the traditional role or duty of employees in an organization is to mainly accomplish the given plans or tasks, and when they are given responsibility to come up with their own plans or tasks, they will be doubly or optimally motivated to accomplish those plans. It is a kind of tricky power exercise because giving the employees the responsibility to spell out their plans “ties” them to their plans or their own words. Foucault (2000) terms this kind of “exercising power pastoral, hereby drawing a line back to the technologies of confession and self-examination that were used in the Christian church to bring forward the truth about the inner qualities of every member of the congregation” (cited by Villadsen ‎2007). So, it is evident that actively involving the employees as part of decision-making and giving them responsibilities in line with self-management and prisoner-guard principle accentuates their power thereby leading to effective results. This is validated through a research project by Atzeni and Ghigliani (2007) on employees’ self-management in Argentina, which has been conducted in four factories in the Province of Buenos Aires in 2006. According to the results of the study, employees in those factories exercised and defended their own power over the organization during the decision-making process “by proudly stressing their freedom from direct/supervisory control, the existence of equalitarian relations and the benefits of democratic participation” (Atzeni and Ghigliani 2007). Another study conducted in a service organization operating in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) also toed the same line regarding the role of self-management in power exhibition. That is, this study pointed out how leaders who promote self-management can evoke powers from the employees thereby leading to number of benefits including increased creativity from the employees. Politis (2005) stated “the key finding of this study is undoubtedly that the leaders who encourage employees’ self-leadership behaviour are most helpful to promote the stimulant work dimensions that foster a creative working environment”. From the above analysis, it is evident that Foucault’s approach to power focuses on how leaders or managers have to not only play the initiator’s role but also the facilitator’s role. Leaders apart from exhibiting or exercising their power, bestowed on them through their organizational position and responsibilities, have to facilitate employees to self-manage thereby aiding them to exhibit their powers. “Employees should not be told what their specific role is, or specifically what the organisation needs from them. Rather, employees should become self-initiating, take responsibility, and see for themselves what the organisation needs” (Villadsen ‎2007). Some of the management practices that I have experienced focuses on this above-perspective of how employees or subordinates needs to be given a free-hand and opportunities to come up with their own ideas or plans for the organization. In those organizations, I understood that when employees are given adequate “space” to generate their own ideas as part of self-management, they optimize their mental thinking and even their physical efforts to come up with good ideas. They researched and studied a lot of materials, ranging from other company reports, organizational behavior books, and many more to come up with effective ideas. So, when the time came for the decision-making process, those employees were brimming with ideas. This clearly validates the perspective that when leaders shape and influence their respective employees instead of forcing or controlling them, it can lead to optimal results. “Modern power, then, should not act directly upon people to force and control; it should rather shape and influence the ways in which people act upon themselves” (Villadsen ‎2007). To sum up, it is possible to state that power is not something that will be only owned by a leader, instead in an organization it should flow with both leader and employees exhibiting and exercising power for the effective functioning and development of organizations. References Atzeni, M and Ghigliani, P., 2007. Labour Process and Decision-making in Factories under Workers’ Self-Management: Empirical Evidence from Argentina. Work, Employment and Society, vol.21, no.4, pp.653-671 Balan, S., 2012. M. Foucaults view on Power Relations. Available from http://cogito.ucdc.ro/nr_2v2/M.%20FOUCAULT%27S%20VIEW%20ON%20POWER%20RELATIONS.pdf(accessed on April 26, 2015) Butler, N., 2012. Michel Foucault: Overview on Michel Foucault and CMS. Available from http://www.criticalmanagement.org/michel-foucault(accessed on April 26, 2015) Foucault, M., 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Foucault, M., 1981.The History of Sexuality, vol. 1: The Will to Knowledge. Penguin, London. Foucault, M., 1982. The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, vol.8, no.4, pp.777-795 Foucault, M., 1998. The History of Sexuality. An Introduction. Penguin Books, Hammondsworth. Kirkman, BL and Rosen, B., 1999. Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal, vol.42, no.1, pp.58-74. Paulsson, A., 2011. Resisting self-management? On the possibility of dissolving oneself in fast food restaurants. Available from http://www.ephemerajournal.org/contribution/resisting-self-management-possibility- dissolving-oneself-fast-food-restaurants(accessed on April 26, 2015) Politis, JD., 2005. The Impact of Self-Management Leadership on Organizational Creativity. Available from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc5/papers/h- 1_politis.pdf(accessed on April 26, 2015) Uhl-Bien, M and Graen, GB., 1998. Individual Self-Management. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 41, no.3, pp.340-356. Villadsen, K., ‎2007. Managing the Employees Soul: Foucault applied to Modern Management Technologies. Available from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679- 39512007000100002(accessed on April 26, 2015) Read More