A511.3.3.RB – Power and Influence
After studying about power and influence tactics, I was able to learn many theories and ways to approach such topic. The author Gary Yukl (2013) describes how organizational power can be acquire and how it can be lost. Amarjit Singh from the Organizational Power in Perspective journal believes “Power and influence are fundamental human phenomena that are deeply ingrained on the psyche and conscious personality of individuals. The difference between proper and improper use of power is the difference between success and failure, high and low productivity, motivation and disillusionment” (2009, p. 165). Similarly to the social exchange theory, Gary Yukl (2009) finds a leader’s success dependable very much on the person’s loyalty, capabilities, and the impact his or her involvement has to reach the organization’s goals. Additionally, to have power could also mean to have information power. The use of controlled information makes a leader a resourceful tool for an organization, but like everything, with great power comes great responsibility. Therefore, a source of power can successfully take a leader’s power to the top but it could also demonstrate lack of commitment, thus, subordinates are no longer dependent on such information.
Likewise, strategic contingencies theory emphasizes in the importance of providing unique expertise, which in return makes an organization dependable on a leader to critically solve problems. Gary Yukl (2013) uses institutionalization when influencing or protecting existing sources of power by exercising political tactics. In other words, “the evolutionary shift in power described by strategic contingencies theory can be delayed by the use of these political tactics, but if top management lacks the expertise to develop an appropriate strategy for responding to changes in the environment, the performance of the organization will decline” (Yukl, 2013, p. 201). Hence, very little research has been done about the consequences of power. Although, inconclusive results have been obtained, the correlation between leadership power and the consequences reveal that “effective leaders have more expert and referent power than less effective leaders, and they rely on their personal power more than on their position power “ (Yukl, 2013, p. 201).
On the other hand, it can be said that power comes from influence. There are three different types of influence processes: (1) Instrumental Compliance: when target follows orders and in exchange receives tangible rewards; (2) Internalization: the target accepts and is committed to follow orders because they respect the same morals as the agent; and (3) Personal Identification: target complies to the agent’s request because they feel identified and would like to please and become like the agent. In addition, these processes are influenced by, what Gary Yukl (2013) calls, influence tactics. These tactics are composed by another set of three general types: (1) Impression Management Tactics; (2) Political Tactics; and (3) Proactive Tactics. In order for the influence towards the leader’s target to be successful, there are three ways to anticipate the outcomes. Commitment is a very important part of an outcome since it refers to the effort made by a target and build by the agent (leader). Compliance is an outcome where the target is hesitant to follow the request and only provides minimal effort. Lastly, resistant is when a target is completely in disagreement with the request of an agent and as a result compromises the outcome and is unsympathetic about it.
While reflecting on the power I personally bring to my work place, I get to explore what are the sources of that power? What is the nature of that power? How is it used or not? And how is that power related to your ability to lead or follow?
Working in a high-pace environment where every second counts, like retail, I believe most of Gary Yukl’s sources of power are used. Legitimate power is used every day at work since subordinates are aware of the chain of command and they understand I am their lead on duty. Associates at work agree with the company’s rules because the benefits such as, vacation, time off, flexibility, and rewards are valued. I personally cannot reward my subordinates but I do use my power to influence them into doing their work, so that the company can use reward power on them. The organization will provide three percent for every protection plan is sold and it gives away a ten-dollar gift card for every five credit card applications an associate opens. “Reward power depends not only on a manager’s actual control over resources and rewards, but also on the target person’s perception that the agent has the capacity and willingness to follow through on promises” (Yukl, 2013, p. 195).
Moreover, the upper level managers but not myself use coercive power. As a leader, I am in charge to guide my associates (subordinates) on how to get the work done, to have structure at work, and to comply with the companies’ rules. Referent power is a source I get to experience a lot. Many times, I feel like my managers influenced me with their good leadership skills and I end up pleasing them in whatever they need or want because I feel I can be loyal to them. In the contrary, I tried to incentivize my subordinates by always pointing out their positive skills and trying to be subtle when providing a constructive critique. When it comes to expert power, my position allows me to know more about the software we use, how to do certain transactions, what rules apply to what, and so on. Hence, my subordinates are in constant need of my personal power much like the information and ecological power source.
Finally, have I experienced high quality LMX situations within my workplace, which are dysfunctional in the sense that Othman et al describe?
When it comes to LMX (Leader-member exchange), I have not directly experienced it but I have seen it happening and somehow I did not like it. Othman, Foo, and Ng (2010) explain “the leader-member exchange (leader-member exchange) theory basically argues that leaders develop differentiated dyadic relationships with their subordinates” (para. 2). That said, in different occasions, one of my managers has the tendency to let everyone know and talk bad about other people’s work. As we were upfront and we saw one of subordinates walking in, she made a comment and made a noise of desperation by saying, “I hate working with this girl, she does not know what she is doing unlike you guys; you are much better than she is.” When I first heard that, my reaction was of surprise. After reflecting on what she said, I realized how dysfunctional it was and that if I was in my coworker’s shoes, I would not have liked her comment. I believe that she does not have ethics and she probably earned her manager position with time and not because she knows how to be one. Everyone seemed to be okay with that comment and even felt flatter by it. I just felt uncomfortable and wish she had directed her opinion to her bosses and see how they can help that subordinate to become better.
References
Othman, R., Foo, F. E., & Ng, L. S. (2010). Understanding dysfunctional leader-member exchange: Antecedents and outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4), 337-350. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731011043357
Singh, A. (2009). ”Organizational Power in Perspective.” Leadership Manage. Eng., 9(4), 165–176.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. (8th ed.) Dorling Kindersley / Pearson Education, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment