The Role of Power in Decision Making - Term Paper Example

 The Role of Power in Decision Making 1.0 Introduction Power is the ability to get things done, to mobilize resources, to get and use whatever it is that a person needs for the goals he or she is attempting to meet (Kanter 1993). It is more often than not misconstrued as a concession that cannot be altered. This may be true during the early times when absolute political power is granted only to a single individual or to a limited few as what was conventional in Egypt, Great Britain, and other totalitarian societies. The common people were but adherents of the rules set forth by those in charge, and remonstrations were subject to adverse sentences. For this reason, power was wholly desired, and at the same time a basis for apprehensions of those under it. However, when pluralism came into the picture and the United States of America initiated the crusade for democracy, many believed that power was dispersed among qualified citizens of a territory. Pluralism is the view that “in liberal democracies power is dispersed among a variety of economic and ideological pressure groups and is not held by a single elite or group of elites. Pluralism assumes that diversity is beneficial to society and that autonomy should be enjoyed by disparate functional or cultural groups within a society, including religious groups, trade unions, professional organizations, and ethnic minorities” (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2011). The above notion proposes that power is but a diminutive piece of a puzzle that warrants connection with the rest of its kind before it can make an influence. Power has no real value if the parties concerned do not consent its amalgamation. This tends to imply that political power is of modest roots, contrary to the general impression that the same is abusive and overbearing. In effect, political leaders are also called public servants, as they require consensus of the majority of their constituents before any legislation is put into operation. In a corporate perspective, power is bestowed upon organizational managers, not for the mere purpose of implementing policies or taking control of the employees. They are not identified as rulers, but rather leaders who are expected to set good examples to their subordinates, to facilitate coordination among all levels of the organization, to formulate decisions when the need arises, and initiate alternative courses of actions at the presence of setbacks. In other words, organizational power in the corporate world is but accountability in its most prestigious form. Henry Minztburg, author of The Succesful Managers, defines ten managerial roles; all embracing interpersonal, social, and decisional aspects. They include figurehead, leader, liaison, monitor, disseminator, spokesperson, entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator and negotiator (Management.atwork.com 2008). All of these roles are what makes managers a figure of power in a corporate environment with the employees acting as contributors to the cause. In his work “Top Performance”, Zig Ziglar points out that “you won’t be an effective leader or manager unless you gain the willing cooperation of others. Cooperation is not getting others to do what you want, but getting others to want to do what you want” (Business Summaries 2009). In other words, a manager or a leader is unable to exemplify true power if support from subordinates is not given at will. Renowned author Stephen Covey suggests that there are four ingredients to a good leader: inspire trust, clarify purpose, align system, and unleashed talent (Covey 2007). He (2007) expounds that fine leadership is a product of combined character and competence demonstrated towards the benefit of not just the organization but also the people; that, an open communication is a conduit to an objective best identified. Should a leader be merited trust for the display of outstanding qualities, it is equally imperative that he extend the same to his subordinates and believe in what they can contribute to the pursuit of their goal (Covey 2007), otherwise power is immersed. As Richard Nixon wrote, it is not enough for a leader to know the right thing. He must be able to do the right thing. The ... leader without the judgment or perception to make the right decisions fails for lack of vision. The one who knows the right thing but cannot achieve it fails because he is ineffectual. The great leader needs...the capacity to achieve. Power should be inherent to decision makers; else their say will bear no weight at all. Unless decisions are backed by power, their implementations will never come about. Decision making is all about making up one’s mind on the most feasible choice from among the available options. It requires a mental exercise to intellectually settle on a certain choice depending on what the situation requires. Decisions are needed when there are two very close options, when problems arise and a solution is needed, when an opportunity comes along, and whenever the need to make a choice is required (Exforsys Inc. 2011). 2.0 Understanding Power and its Implications Power may be classified by the manner of influencing individuals, or by the type of organization involved (Russell & Brittan 2004). According to Bertrand Russell and Samuel Brittan (2004), an individual may be influenced by direct physical power over his body, e.g. when he is imprisoned or tortured; by rewards and punishments as inducements, e.g. in giving or withholding employment; by influence on opinion, e.g. propaganda in its broadest sense; and the opportunity for creating desired habits in others, e.g. by military drill (2004). They (2004) propose that the only difference of the last head is that in such cases, action follows without any such mental intermediary as could be called opinion. From the earliest civilizations to the present, the establishment of a governing body whereupon power is endowed, is what bring upon order and justice to common citizens, and therefore is inevitable. As diversity in culture is also predestined, societies give rise to governments that are distinct from one another—by character, components, and ideals. Nevertheless, power remains the common ground, and one of the key foundations for their existence. The fact that a government is determined by the society it represents does not necessarily mean that the power they hold is one and the same. The government exercises power by acting as emissary to the law and setting boundaries to individual freedom. There exist a multitude of restrictions, definitions of right and wrong, and limits to how far the people can go, among others owing to the existence of this recognized power. Further, the government assures security by commanding men on arms to stay on guard and apprehend whoever poses threat to peace and order in a society. As stressed by Russell and Brittan (2004), “the ultimate power of the Law is the coercive power of the State”. It is the characteristic civilized communities that direct physical coercion is the prerogative of the State, and the Law is a set of rules according to which the State exercises this prerogative in dealing with its own citizens. The Law is almost powerless when it is not supported by public sentiment (Russell & Brittan 2004). Society on the other hand is made powerful by affiliations, creating a common ground to people that advocate similar way of life or form part of a level may it be in terms of affluence, intellect, and anything that defines one’s well-being. It is free of dominance as it nurtures by itself, and therefore knows no rules and implements no laws. With interests in harmony there is neither a call for a leader nor a fear for mutiny. Men are alike in so many ways that with or without consent involved, this forms a society. Society though is not an organization but a mere representation of individuals in unison whereupon power is formed. Unfortunately, the presence of power is not always a case of favorable consequences. In Egypt for instance, “long years of coercion and exploitation by foreign ruling powers and native autocratic states have left its mark on the Egyptian personality” (Asante 2002). Based on their current political situation, the fact evidently shaped the character of the Egyptians and their attitudes towards the government. It is an Islamic ideology to concentrate power in one person, the Caliph, and hail him the "ruler of the world", and this remains the main characteristic of all the Muslim rulers in Egypt (Fahmy 2002). Muhammad Ali who led Egypt from 1805 to 1848, Gamal Abd al-Nasser from 1952 to 1970, Muḥammad Anwar el-Sadat from 1970 to 1981, and Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak from 1981 to 2011 all epitomized a government of absolute despotism; the “executive, civilian, military, and judicial functions” are vested solely upon the head of the state (Baron de Montesquieu 2007). In despotic states, the nature of government requires the most passive obedience and when once the prince's will is made known, it ought infallibly to produce its effect. Here they have no limitations or restrictions, no mediums, terms, equivalents or remonstrance, no change to propose, man is a creature that blindly submits to the absolute will of the sovereign. In his 30 years of presidency, Mubarak retained the emergency laws initiated by his predecessor. These laws gave him a greater presidential power “including the right to appoint the Cabinet, without any provision for parliamentary majority, and the role of supreme commander of the armed forces, and chief policy-maker in matters of security, diplomacy, and the economy. His stepping down from power and the implementation of democracy is what many suppose as the preeminent solution to the predicament that has been tormenting Egypt from way back up until this moment. Nevertheless, it is feared especially by the minor political groups, that power will be divided between the Muslim Brotherhood and Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, resulting to yet another pandemonium. On September 17, 1787 the Constitution of the United States of America was approved and instituted the following fundamental principles: (1) standard sovereignty, or control by the people, (2) a republican government in which the people select representatives to make decisions for them, (3) limited government with written laws, separation of powers, with checks and balances among branches to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power, and (4) a federal system that allows for states’ rights, because the states feared too much centralized control (Bardes, et. al., 2008). In the American tradition, the executive power was checked by the dispersal of power among States in a federation, and deliberate separation of powers among the distinct and independent executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government. “It represented an explicit attempt to design a system of political authority that would limit the power of government and protect individual liberty without leaving government bereft of any capacity to defend the public realm against external enemies or to attend to the common good” (Nethercote, 2001). It can be established in view of the above propositions that the government has been pushing for the dispersal of power amongst its citizens, and that the idea of a single entity acting as superior to all is precluded. From the given examples, it can be assumed that power does not have a predetermined sense. It can be officious as what was epitomized by the aforementioned Egyptian rulers or sympathetic as what the United States government strives to demonstrate. In either scenario, power is not to be classified as malevolent, as both are granted in ways lawfully defined by the society. It is also true that power can be modified contingent to the will of the greater population, or by command of the current situation. 3.0 The Complexities of Decision Making Edward de Bono (1999) identifies types of decision makers in the psychological aspect: intuitive, thinkers, feelers, and sensors. The intuitives are decision makers who are guided by their intuitions or gut feelings. Instead of focusing on information or details, intuitive decision makers trust their instincts more or what they believe is right. They tend to perceive things in a bigger picture. Thinkers are detail-oriented. They are precise with details and logical in manner. Thinkers trust facts and information more than feelings or emotions. Feelers are those who take interest in other people’s emotions. They do not analyze things that much and simply give in to their likes and dislikes. Sensors are also into details and facts. They perceive things as they are and can put situations in proper context. While it may seem obvious that decision-making begins with problem recognition, what is not obvious is that accurate problem recognition demands a clear analysis of values. All important decisions arise in the middle of living one’s life in which there already is a “present course” that has been challenged (Janis and Mann 1977). Part of this evaluation is determining very precisely which of our goals and objectives that are part of our present course are challenged by the threat to the status quo. Unless we have a clear idea of the goals that we are now trying to achieve, we cannot accurately appraise the nature of a problem. One situation in the United States that required serious deliberation of the problem is the decline in their labor unions. According to the Washington Post, the members of the labor unions now tallies to roughly 12%, a significant decline that started from way back 1950’s when they used to represent one third of the labor force in the United States. Several claims as to the reason of this occurrence emerged. First are the changes in the labor laws. Fingers were pointed to the Taft-Hartley Act (1947), also known as Labor-Management Relations Act, which abolished the closed-shop policy. Employment is no longer directly associated to union membership, thereby eliminating the principal motivation for joining the latter. Further, the Act limits the rights of the employees in the government sector to voice out their protests by penalizing boycotts. Another motion of the labor, though still not validated, is that the decrease in their numbers is “due to the fact the private employers retaliate against workers who are trying to form unions” (Stewart Acuff, AFL-CIO). With the corporations being in this position against labor unions, support for the latter is now associated with anxiety over termination and unemployment. To make the matter worse, black propagandas that include allegations of corrupt union leaders ward off employees’ interest to join. Consequently, once the root problem is acknowledged, decision makers will proceed with the evaluation of feasible solution, a process that takes into consideration all available resources—both tangible and intangible, anticipated results and corresponding contingency plans, and distribution of power. The last is what can give rise to directorial upheavals more so when the extent of power is not well-defined. This typically occurs in emergency situations where the key priority is alleviation of the problem at hand. Such a predicament was observed during the 9-11 tragedy in the United States. On September 11, 2001 American Airlines (AA) Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia just outside of Washington, D.C. and killed hundreds of people inside the building and onboard the plane. Four Al-Qa’ida groups carried out the terrorist attacks. The other two hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 and destroyed the World Trade Center's North and SouthTower. The last coerced control of the United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives states the power to respond to emergencies, and most states allocate this power to their local jurisdictions. There are instances when the local government, with the capacity of men and resources in less proportion with the degree of emergency, is beyond power to act by itself; thereby acquiring support from bordering regions or from the state government. Under the 1974 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the state Governor, in turn could ask for federal help. This, however, does not indicate a transfer of command (power) to the higher authorities. The local jurisdiction will remain in control of the incident until such time that the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) demands so. “Because the Pentagon is located not in Washington, DC, but across the Potomac River in Arlington County, responsibility for responding to the Pentagon attack belonged to the Arlington County Fire Department” (Varley 2003). Architects of the Incident Command System (ICS) had assumed that all the agencies and organizations participating in a given response effort would be familiar with the ICS and be willing to submit to its rules, such as reporting to a staging area for assignment”; but it did not turn out as expected as some carried out their own agenda without regard to the ICS program (Varley, 2003). Furthermore, the ACFD had to “contend with the professional mandates of the DOD, the FBI, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)” (Varley 2003). Owing to the fact that some leaders acted on their own initiative and that not all organized units are aware and coordinating of the ICS (the central power at the time), certain decisions proved obstructive during the Pentagon attack. It is known to all that decision making does not always generate favorable outcomes. There is no guarantee of a flawless strategy regardless of meticulous deliberations and steadfastness to the established goal. Nevertheless, as power is in their hands, managers or leaders instinctively take responsibility in the event of a failure, or credit upon successful resolution of a predicament and attainment of a purpose. 4.0 Conclusion Power is simply the capacity to bring about a certain intended consequences in the behavior of others. It is not an appalling force that can bend a particular predisposition without consent from its subject. Power, as mentioned, is conferred to a competent individual or group, for that matter, through appointment by the majority or ascent to a managerial position. As both are trusted to work for the common good, political and organization power should not be totally distinct from each other. The one who has the power is to be held responsible for the aftermath of an event, may it be ordinary or inexorable. As the decision maker, the leader is bound to remain resilient in mind and spirit for if a drawback sets in, there is no one to instigate alternative solutions but the one in charge. Similarly, power is restrained when subordinates have less confidence in the integrity of their leaders. The extent by which understanding of power helps in the appreciation of problems and paradoxes that a rational decision maker has to deal with is determined through considerations of several principles. First is the intensity of power and the factors that play a part to its rise and fall. Second is the complexity in the decision making process attributable to the urgency of the problem, the enormity of damages, availability of resources, and dispersal and coordination of authority. 7.0 Bibliography Asante, MK 2002, Culture and customs of Africa: Culture and customs of Egypt, Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc, Connecticut Bardes, BA, Shelley, MC & Schmidt, SW 2008, American government and politics today, Cengage Learning, Wardsworth Bertrand R & Brittan S 2004, Power: A new social analysis, Routledge, New York Bono, ED 1999, Six thinking hats, Back Bay Books, New York Business Summaries 2005, Top performance by Zig Ziglar, OMF Literature Inc., Retrieved from http://www.bizsum.com/2page/b_TopPerformance.php Covey, SR December 10, 2007, The leader formula: The four things that make a good leader, Retrieved from http://www.stephencovey.com/blog/?p=6 Fahmy, NS 2002, Politics of Egypt: state-society relationship, RoutledgeCurzon, New York Kanter, RM 1993, Men and women of the corporation, Perseus Books Group, New York Management.atwork.com. April 15, 2008, Mintzberg’s ten managerial roles, Retrieved from http://management.atwork-network.com/2008/04/15/mintzberg%E2%80%99s-10-managerial-roles/ Nethercote, JR 2001, Liberalism and the Australian federation, The Federation Press, Sidney, Australia Pluralism 2011, In Encyclopædia Britannica, Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/465174/pluralism Varley, P 2004, Command performance? Response to the 9/11 Pentagon disaster, Retrieved from http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=135 Read More