Power Dependence and Effective Management Harvard Business Review
Americans have probably always been suspicious of power—the Us was born out of a rebellion confronting it, and our political processes seem to confirm that distrust. Nosotros have equated power with exploitation and abuse. But, the writer of this article asserts, the negative aspects of power have blinded people to its positive points, to its uses, and to the fact that without it, people cannot accomplish very much anywhere. And that is particularly true in management. The author maintains that, every bit organizations have grown more complex, it has get more difficult, if not impossible, for managers to achieve their ends either independently or through persuasion and formal authority solitary. They increasingly need power to influence other people on whom they are dependent. Furthermore, he says, effective managers tend to be very successful at developing iv unlike types of power, which they utilize along with persuasion to influence others. And they do so, the author concludes, with maturity, smashing skill, and a sensitivity to the obligations and risks involved.
Author'southward Note: This reading is based on data from a clinical study of a highly diverse group of 26 organizations including big and small, public and individual, manufacturing and service organizations. The study was funded by the Partitioning of Research at the Harvard Business Schoolhouse. Equally part of the study process, the author interviewed nigh 250 managers.
Americans, equally a rule, are not very comfortable with power or with its dynamics. We oftentimes distrust and question the motives of people who we think actively seek power. We have a sure fearfulness of being manipulated. Even those people who think the dynamics of power are inevitable and needed frequently feel somewhat guilty when they themselves mobilize and use power. Simply put, the overall attitude and feeling toward power, which can easily be traced to the nation's very birth, is negative. In his enormously popular Greening of America, Charles Reich reflects the views of many when he writes, "It is not the misuse of power that is evil; the very existence of power is evil."1
One of the many consequences of this attitude is that power every bit a topic for rational study and dialogue has not received much attention, even in managerial circles. If the reader doubts this, all he or she demand practise is flip through some textbooks, journals, or advanced management course descriptions. The word ability rarely appears.
This lack of attention to the subject of power but adds to the already enormous confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the topic of ability and management. And this misunderstanding is becoming increasingly burdensome because in today's big and complex organizations the constructive performance of most managerial jobs requires one to be skilled at the acquisition and use of power.
From my own observations, I suspect that a large number of managers—especially the immature, well-educated ones—perform significantly beneath their potential because they do not understand the dynamics of power and because they have non nurtured and developed the instincts needed to effectively larn and use power.
In this reading I hope to clear up some of the confusion regarding power and managerial work by providing tentative answers to three questions:
1. Why are the dynamics of power necessarily an important function of managerial processes?
2. How do constructive managers learn power?
iii. How and for what purposes exercise effective managers use power?
I volition not accost questions related to the misuse of ability, but not because I think they are unimportant. The fact that some managers, some of the time, larn and use ability mostly for their own aggrandizement is obviously a very important consequence that deserves attention and careful study. Only that is a complex topic unto itself and one that has already received more attention than the subject of this article.
Recognizing Dependence in the Director'due south Job
1 of the distinguishing characteristics of typical managers is how dependent they are on the activities of a variety of other people to perform their jobs finer.two Unlike doctors and mathematicians, whose performance is more straight dependent on their own talents and efforts, a managing director tin can be dependent in varying degrees on superiors, subordinates, peers in other parts of the organisation, the subordinates of peers, outside suppliers, customers, competitors, unions, regulating agencies, and many others.
These dependency relationships are an inherent office of managerial jobs considering of ii organizational facts of life: division of labor and limited resources. Because the work in organizations is divided into specialized divisions, departments, and jobs, managers are fabricated directly or indirectly dependent on many others for information, staff services, and cooperation in full general. Because of their organizations' limited resources, managers are also dependent on their external environments for support. Without some minimal cooperation from suppliers, competitors, unions, regulatory agencies, and customers, managers cannot help their organizations survive and attain their objectives.
Dealing with these dependencies and the director's subsequent vulnerability is an of import and hard part of a managing director's job because, while it is theoretically possible that all of these people and organizations would automatically act in just the manner that a manager wants and needs, such is almost never the example in reality. All the people on whom a manager is dependent have express time, energy, and talent, for which there are competing demands.
Some people may exist uncooperative because they are too busy elsewhere, and some because they are not actually capable of helping. Others may well have goals, values, and beliefs that are quite different and in conflict with the managing director's and may therefore have no desire whatever to help or cooperate. This is plainly true of a competing company and some times of a union, but it can also utilise to a boss who is feeling threatened by a manager's career progress or to a peer whose objectives clash with the director's.
Indeed, managers often find themselves dependent on many people (and things) whom they exercise not directly control and who are non cooperating. This the key to one of the biggest frustrations managers feel in their jobs, fifty-fifty in the elevation ones, which the following example illustrates:
Afterwards nearly a year of rumors, it was finally announced that the president of ABC Corporation had been elected chairman of the board and that Jim Franklin, the vice president of finance, would replace him every bit president. While everyone at ABC was aware that a shift would take place before long, it was not at all clear before the declaration who would be the next president. Most people had guessed it would be Phil Cook, the marketing vice president.
Nine months into his chore as chief executive officer, Franklin found that Phil Melt (still the marketing vice president) seemed to be fighting him in small-scale and subtle ways. There was never anything blatant, but Cook just did not cooperate with Franklin as the other vice presidents did. Soon afterwards being elected, Franklin had tried to bypass what he saw equally a potential conflict with Cook past telling him that he would understand if Cook would prefer to move somewhere else where he could be a CEO likewise. Franklin said that information technology would be a large loss to the company but that he would be willing to assist Melt in a number of ways if he wanted to await for a presidential opportunity elsewhere. Cook had thanked him simply had said that family and community commitments would prevent him from relocating and all CEO opportunities were bound to be in a different city.
Since the situation did not improve after the tenth and eleventh months, Franklin seriously considered forcing Cook out. When he idea about the consequences of such a motion, Franklin became more and more enlightened of just how dependent he was on Cook. Marketing and sales were generally the keys to success in their industry, and the company'south sales force was one of the best, if non the all-time, in the manufacture. Cook had been with the company for 25 years. He had built a potent personal relationship with many of the people in the sales force and was universally popular. A mass exodus but might occur if Melt were fired. The loss of a large number of salespeople, or even a lot of turmoil in the department, could have a serious effect on the company's performance.
After i yr as main executive officer, Franklin constitute that the situation betwixt Cook and himself had non improved and had get a abiding source of frustration.
As a person gains more than formal potency in an organization, the areas in which he or she is vulnerable increase and become more circuitous rather than the contrary. As the previous example suggests, it is not at all unusual for the president of an organization to exist in a highly dependent position, a fact oft not apparent to either the outsider or to the lower-level manager who covets the president's job.
A considerable amount of the behavior of highly successful managers that seems inexplicable in lite of what direction texts ordinarily tell us managers do becomes understandable when ane considers a manager's demand for, and efforts at, managing his or her relationships with others.iii To be able to programme, organize, budget, staff, command, and evaluate, managers need some command over the many people on whom they are dependent. Trying to control others solely by directing them and on the basis of the power associated with one's position simply will not work—first, considering managers are always dependent on some people over whom they have no formal authority, and 2nd, considering almost no one in mod organizations will passively accept and completely obey a constant stream of orders from someone simply because he or she is the "boss."
Trying to influence others past ways of persuasion alone will not work either. Although it is very powerful and possibly the single nigh important method of influence, persuasion has some serious drawbacks also. To make information technology work requires fourth dimension (frequently lots of information technology), skill, and information on the role of the persuader. And persuasion tin fail just considering the other person chooses not to listen or does non listen carefully.
This is non to say that directing people on the basis of the formal power of 1's position and persuasion are not of import ways by which successful managers cope. They obviously are. But, even taken together, they are not usually enough.
Successful managers cope with their dependence on others by beingness sensitive to information technology, by eliminating or avoiding unnecessary dependence and by establishing power over those others. Good managers then use that power to assist them plan, organize, staff, budget, evaluate, then on. In other words, it is primarily because of the dependence inherent in managerial jobs that the dynamics of power necessarily class an important part of a manager's processes.
An argument that took place during a center-management preparation seminar I participated in a few years agone helps illustrate further this important relationship betwixt a director'southward need for power and the degree of his or her dependence on others:
Two participants, both managers in their thirties, got into a heated disagreement regarding the acquisition and employ of power past managers. One took the position that power was admittedly central to managerial work, while the other argued that information technology was most irrelevant. In back up of their positions, each described a very "successful" director with whom he worked. In i of these examples, the manager seemed to be constantly developing and using power, while in the other, such beliefs was rare. Subsequently, both seminar participants were asked to depict their successful managers' jobs in terms of the dependence inherent in those jobs.
The young director who felt power was unimportant described a staff vice president in a small-scale company who was dependent only on his immediate subordinates, his peers, and his boss. This person, Joe Phillips, had to depend on his subordinates to do their jobs appropriately, but, if necessary, he could fill in for whatever of them or secure replacement for them rather hands. He likewise had considerable formal say-so over them; that is, he could requite them raises and new assignments, recommend promotions, and burn them. He was moderately dependent on the other iv vice presidents in the company for information and cooperation. They were as well dependent on him. The president had considerable formal authority over Phillips but was likewise moderately dependent on him for assistance, skillful advice, the service his staff performed, other information, and general cooperation.
The second young manager—the one who felt power was very important—described a service department manager, Sam Weller, in a large, complex, and growing company who was in quite a different position. Weller was dependent non simply on his boss for rewards and information, but also on xxx other individuals who made upwards the bounded and corporate superlative direction. And while his boss, like Phillips'due south, was moderately dependent on him likewise, most of the top managers were not. Because Weller's subordinates, unlike Phillips's, had people reporting to them, Weller was dependent not only on his subordinates but besides on his subordinates' subordinates. Because he could not himself easily replace or practise most of their technical jobs, unlike Phillips, he was very dependent on all these people.
In improver, for critical supplies, Weller was dependent on two other department managers in the division. Without their timely help, it was impossible for his department to do its job. These departments, notwithstanding, did non have similar needs for Weller's help and cooperation. Weller was as well dependent on local labor union officials and on a federal bureau that regulated the division'south industry. Both could shut his division down if they wanted.
Finally, Weller was dependent on two exterior suppliers of key materials. Considering of the volume of his department'south purchase relative to the size of these ii companies, he had footling power over them.
Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Sam Weller had to spend considerable time and effort acquiring and using power to manage his many dependencies, while Joe Phillips did not.
As this example as well illustrates, not all management jobs crave an incumbent to be able to provide the same amount of successful power-oriented behavior. But most management jobs today are more similar Weller's than Phillips'southward. And, perhaps more important, the trend over the past 2 or iii decades is away from jobs like Phillips's and toward jobs similar Weller'due south. So long as our technologies proceed to become more complex, the average organization continues to grow larger, and the average manufacture continues to go more competitive and regulated, that trend volition proceed; every bit information technology does and so, the effective acquisition and utilise of power by managers volition become even more important.
Establishing Power in Relationships
To help cope with the dependency relationships inherent in their jobs, constructive managers create, increase, or maintain four dissimilar types of ability over others.four Having power based in these areas puts the managing director in a position both to influence those people on whom he or she is dependent when necessary and to avoid being hurt by whatever of them.
Sense of Obligation
Ane of the ways that successful managers generate power in their relationships with others is to create a sense of obligation in those others. When the manager is successful, the others feel that they should—rightly—allow the managing director to influence them within certain limits.
Successful managers often go out of their way to practise favors for people who they expect volition feel an obligation to return those favors. As tin can exist seen in the following description of a manager by 1 of his subordinates, some people are very skilled at identifying opportunities for doing favors that cost them very little only that others capeesh very much:
"About of the people here would walk over hot dress-down in their bare feet if my dominate asked them to. He has an incredible capacity to practice piddling things that hateful a lot to people. Today, for example, in his junk mail he came across an advertizing for something that ane of my subordinates had in passing one time mentioned that he was shopping for. So my boss routed it to him. That probably took xv seconds of his fourth dimension, and still my subordinate really appreciated it. To give you some other example, two weeks ago he somehow learned that the purchasing manager'due south mother had died. On his way home that night, he stopped off at the funeral parlor. Our purchasing manager was, of course, there at the time. I bet he'll retrieve that brief visit for quite a while."
Recognizing that most people believe that friendship carries with it certain obligations ("A friend in demand…"), successful managers often effort to develop true friendships with those on whom they are dependent. They will too make formal and informal deals in which they give something upwards in exchange for certain future obligations.
Belief in a Manager's Expertise
A second mode successful managers proceeds power is past building reputations as "experts" in sure matters. Believing in the manager's expertise, others will often defer to the manager on those matters. Managers unremarkably establish this type of power through visible achievement. The larger the achievement and the more than visible information technology is, the more power the director tends to develop.
Ane of the reasons that managers display concern virtually their "professional reputations" and their track records is that these have an bear on on others' beliefs about their expertise. These factors become particularly of import in large settings, where nigh people have just secondhand information about most other people's professional person competence, equally the post-obit shows:
Herb Randley and Bert Kline were both 35-year-one-time vice presidents in a large research and development organization. According to their closest associates, they were every bit bright and competent in their technical fields and as managers. Yet Randley had a much stronger professional reputation in nearly parts of the company, and his ideas mostly carried much more weight. Shut friends and assembly claim the reason that Randley is so much more than powerful is related to a number of tactics that he has used more than than Kline has.
Randley has published more scientific papers and managerial articles than Kline. Randley has been more selective in the assignments he has worked on, choosing those that are visible and that require his strong suits. He has given more speeches and presentations on projects that are his own achievements. And in meetings in general, he is allegedly forceful in areas where he has expertise and silent in those where he does not.
Identification with a Manager
A third method by which managers gain power is by fostering others' unconscious identification with them or with ideas they represent. Sigmund Freud was the kickoff to describe this phenomenon, which is nigh conspicuously seen in the style people await up to charismatic leaders. Generally, the more a person finds a manager both consciously and (more of import) unconsciously an ideal person, the more he or she volition defer to that manager.
Managers develop power based on others' idealized views of them in a number of ways. They endeavor to look and behave in ways that others respect. They go out of their way to be visible to their employees and to give speeches about their organizational goals, values, and ethics. They even consider, while making hiring and promotion decisions, whether they will exist able to develop this type of power over the candidates:
One vice president of sales in a moderate-sized manufacturing visitor was reputed to exist then much in control of his sales strength that he could get them to respond to new and different marketing programs in a tertiary of the time taken by the company's all-time competitors. His power over his employees was based primarily on their potent identification with him and what he stood for. Emigrating to the United states of america at age 17, this person worked his way up "from nothing." When fabricated a sales managing director in 1965, he began recruiting other young immigrants and sons of immigrants from his former state. When made vice president of sales in 1970, he continued to do and so. In 1975, 85% of his sales forcefulness was fabricated up of people whom he hired directly or who were hired by others he brought in.
Perceived Dependence on a Manager
The last way that an effective manager oftentimes gains power is by feeding others' beliefs that they are dependent on the manager either for help or for not being hurt. The more they perceive they are dependent, the more than well-nigh people volition be inclined to cooperate with such a manager.
There are two methods that successful managers often use to create perceived dependence.
Finding and Acquiring Resource In the showtime, the manager identifies and secures (if necessary) resources that another person requires to perform the job, resources that he or she does not possess, and that are non readily bachelor elsewhere. These resource include such things as authority to brand certain decisions; command of money, equipment, and role space; access to important people; information and control of information channels; and subordinates. And so the manager takes action so that the other person correctly perceives that the manager has such resources and is willing and ready to apply them to help (or hinder) the other person. Consider the following extreme—but true—case.
When immature Tim Babcock was put in charge of a division of a large manufacturing company and told to "turn it around," he spent the start few weeks studying it from afar. He decided that the sectionalisation was in disastrous shape and that he would need to accept many large steps quickly to relieve it. To exist able to practice that, he realized he needed to develop considerable power fast over most of the division's management and staff. He did the post-obit:
1. He gave the sectionalisation's direction two hours' detect of his arrival.
2. He arrived in a limousine with half-dozen assistants.
3. He immediately called a meeting of the 40 acme managers.
four. He outlined briefly his assessment of the situation, his delivery to plough things around, and the basic direction he wanted things to movement in.
5. He then fired the four meridian managers in the room and told them that they had to be out of the building in ii hours.
half dozen. He then said he would personally dedicate himself to sabotaging the career of anyone who tried to cake his efforts to save the partitioning.
7. He ended the lx-minute meeting by announcing that his administration would fix upward appointments for him with each of them starting at 7:00 the next morning.
Throughout the critical half dozen-month menses that followed, those who remained at the segmentation generally cooperated energetically with Mr. Babcock.
Affecting Perceptions of Resources A second way effective managers gain these types of power is by influencing other persons' perceptions of the manager's resources.5 In settings where many people are involved and where the manager does not collaborate continuously with those he or she is dependent on, those people will seldom possess hard facts regarding what relevant resources the manager commands straight or indirectly (through others), what resources he or she volition command in the future, or how prepared he or she is to apply those resources to assist or hinder them. They will exist forced to make their own judgments.
Insofar as managers can influence people's judgments, they can generate much more ability than i would generally accredit to them in lite of the reality of their resources.
In trying to influence people'south judgments, managers pay considerable attention to the "trappings" of power and to their own reputations and images. Among other actions, they sometimes advisedly select, decorate, and adjust their offices in ways that requite signs of power. They acquaintance with people or organizations that are known to be powerful or that others perceive as powerful. Managers selectively foster rumors concerning their own power. Indeed, those who are particularly skilled at creating ability in this way tend to be very sensitive to the impressions that all their actions might have on others.
Formal Authority
Before discussing how managers utilise their power to influence others, it is useful to run across how formal say-so relates to power. By formal authority, I mean those elements that automatically come up with a managerial task—mayhap a title, an office, a budget, the right to brand certain decisions, a ready of subordinates, a reporting relationship, and so on.
Effective managers use the elements of formal authority as resources to assist them develop any or all of the four types of ability previously discussed, merely as they employ other resources (such equally their education). Two managers with the same formal authority can accept very different amounts of ability entirely because of the manner they have used that authority. For example:
1. By sitting down with employees who are new or with people who are starting new projects and clearly specifying who has the formal authority to do what, i director creates a stiff sense of obligation in others to defer to her authority later.
2. By selectively withholding or giving the high-quality service his section tin can provide other departments, 1 manager makes other managers conspicuously perceive that they are dependent on him.
On its own, then, formal authority does not guarantee a sure corporeality of power; it is only a resource that managers can use to generate power in their relationships.
Exercising Power to Influence Others
Successful managers use the power they develop in their relationships, along with persuasion, to influence people on whom they are dependent to behave in ways that make information technology possible for the managers to get their jobs washed effectively. They use their ability to influence others directly, face to face, and in more than indirect ways. (See the Showroom below.)
Showroom: Methods of Influence
Contiguous Influence
The primary advantage of influencing others directly by exercising whatsoever of the types of power is speed. If the power exists and the manager correctly understands the nature and forcefulness of it, he or she can influence the other person with nothing more than a cursory asking or command:
Jones thinks Smith feels obliged to him for past favors. Furthermore, Jones thinks that his asking to speed up a projection past 2 days probably falls within a zone that Smith would consider legitimate in light of his own definition of his obligation to Jones. So Jones simply calls Smith and makes his asking. Smith pauses for just a second and says yes, he'll do information technology.
Manager Johnson has some power based on perceived dependence over manager Bakery. When Johnson tells Baker that he wants a study done in 24 hours, Baker grudgingly considers the costs of compliance, of noncompliance, and of complaining to higher authorities. He decides that doing the written report is the to the lowest degree costly activity and tells Johnson he will practice it.
Porter identifies strongly with Marquette, an older manager who is non her dominate. Porter thinks Marquette is the epitome of a great manager and tries to model herself afterward her. When Marquette asks Porter to work on a special project "that could exist very valuable in improving the visitor's ability to encounter new competitive products," Porter agrees without hesitation and works fifteen hours per week higher up and across her normal hours to get the project done and done well.
When used to influence others, each of the four types of power has different advantages and drawbacks. For case, ability based on perceived expertise or on identification with a manager tin can oft be used to influence attitudes too as someone'due south firsthand behavior and thus tin have a lasting impact. Information technology is very hard to influence attitudes past using power based on perceived dependence, but if it can be done, it commonly has the advantage of being able to influence a much broader range of beliefs than the other methods do. When exercising power based on perceived expertise, for case, i can merely influence attitudes and behavior within that narrow zone defined by the expertise.
The drawbacks associated with the use of power based on perceived dependence are especially of import to recognize. A person who feels dependent on a manager for rewards (or lack of punishments) might quickly agree to a request from the manager but and so not follow through—especially if the manager cannot hands find out if the person has obeyed or non. Repeated influence attempts based on perceived dependence also seem to encourage the other person to try to gain some ability to residuum the manager's. And perhaps nigh important, using power based on perceived dependence in a coercive way is very risky. Compulsion invites retaliation.
For instance, in the example in which Tim Babcock took such extreme steps to save the division he was assigned to "turn around," his development and use of power based on perceived dependence could have led to mass resignation and the plummet of the sectionalization. Babcock fully recognized this risk, nevertheless, and behaved as he did considering he felt there was simply no other manner that he could proceeds the very big amount of quick cooperation needed to salvage the partition.
Effective managers volition ofttimes draw on more than ane form of power to influence someone, or they will combine power with persuasion. In full general, they do so because a combination can exist more potent and less risky than whatsoever single method, as the following clarification shows:
"1 of the best managers we accept in the company has lots of ability based on i thing or another over most people. But he seldom if e'er but tells or asks someone to practise something. He almost always takes a few minutes to try to persuade them. The ability he has over people by and large induces them to listen carefully and certainly disposes them to be influenced. That, of course, makes the persuasion process become chop-chop and easily. And he never risks getting the other person mad or upset by making what that person thinks is an unfair request or control."
It is also common for managers not to coercively exercise power based on perceived dependence by itself, but to combine it with other methods to reduce the risk of retaliation. In this style, managers are able to take a large impact without leaving the biting aftertaste of punishment alone.
Indirect Influence Methods
Effective managers also rely on two types of less direct methods to influence those on whom they are dependent. In the first way, they employ any or all of the face-to-face methods to influence other people, who in turn accept some specific impact on a desired person.
Production manager Stein needed plant manager Billings to "sign off" on a new product idea (Product X) which Billings idea was terrible. Stein decided that there was no way he could logically persuade Billings because Billings just would not heed to him. With time, Stein felt, he could have broken through that bulwark. Just he did not have that time. Stein also realized that Billings would never, just because of some deal or favor, sign off on a product he did not believe in. Stein also felt information technology not worth the take a chance of trying to force Billings to sign off, so here is what he did:
On Monday, Stein got Reynolds, a person Billings respected, to transport Billings two market research studies that were very favorable to Product 10, with a notation attached saying, "Have you seen this? I found them rather surprising. I am non sure if I entirely believe them, just still…"
On Tuesday, Stein got a representative of ane of the company's biggest customers to mention casually to Billings on the phone that he had heard a rumor about Product X being introduced soon and was "glad to meet you guys are on your toes equally usual."
On Wed, Stein had two industrial engineers stand nearly three feet away from Billings as they were waiting for a meeting to begin and talk about the favorable test results on Product X.
On Thursday, Stein prepare a meeting to talk about Product Ten with Billings and invited only people whom Billings liked or respected and who too felt favorably about Product 10.
On Friday, Stein went to run across Billings and asked him if he was willing to sign off on Product X. He was.
This blazon of manipulation of the environments of others tin can influence both behavior and attitudes and tin can oft succeed when other influence methods fail. Simply it has a number of serious drawbacks. Information technology takes considerable fourth dimension and energy, and it is quite risky. Many people remember information technology is wrong to try to influence others in this fashion, even people who, without consciously recognizing it, use this technique themselves. If they think someone is trying, or has tried, to manipulate them, they may retaliate. Furthermore, people who gain the reputation of beingness manipulators seriously undermine their ain capacities for developing power and for influencing others. Almost no ane, for example, will want to place with a manipulator. And virtually no one accepts, at face value, a manipulator's sincere attempts at persuasion. In extreme cases, a reputation as a manipulator can completely ruin a manager's career.
A 2d way in which managers indirectly influence others is by making permanent changes in an individual's or a group'due south environment. They change job descriptions, the formal systems that measure performance, the extrinsic incentives available, the tools, people, and other resources that the people or groups work with, the compages, the norms or values of piece of work groups, and so on. If the manager is successful in making the changes, and the changes have the desired effect on the private or group, that effect will be sustained over fourth dimension.
Effective managers recognize that changes in the forces that environs a person tin can accept great touch on that person'southward behavior. Dissimilar many of the other influence methods, this 1 doesn't require a big expenditure of limited resources or effort on the part of the manager on an ongoing basis. Once such a change has been successfully made, information technology works independently of the managing director.
This method of influence is used past all managers to some degree. Many, however, use it sparingly just because they practice non accept the power to change the forces acting on the person they wish to influence. In many organizations, only the top managers have the power to modify the formal measurement systems, the extrinsic incentives available, the compages, and so on.
Generating and Using Power Successfully
Managers who are successful at acquiring considerable power and using it to manage their dependence on others tend to share a number of common characteristics:
ane. They are sensitive to what others consider to be legitimate behavior in acquiring and using power. They recognize that the iv types of power carry with them certain "obligations" regarding their acquisition and use. A person who gains a considerable amount of power based on his perceived expertise is generally expected to be an expert in sure areas. If it ever becomes publicly known that the person is conspicuously not an adept in those areas, such a person will probably be labeled a "fraud" and will not only lose his power but will suffer other reprimands too.
A person with whom a number of people place is expected to human action like an ideal leader. If he clearly lets people down, he volition non only lose that power, he volition also endure the righteous anger of his ex-followers. Many managers who have created or used power based on perceived dependence in ways that their employees have felt unfair, such equally in requesting overtime piece of work, have ended up with unions.
2. They take proficient intuitive understanding of the various types of ability and methods of influence. They are sensitive to what types of ability are easiest to develop with different types of people. They recognize, for instance, that professionals tend to be more influenced past perceived expertise than by other forms of power. They also take a grasp of all the various methods of influence and what each tin accomplish, at what costs, and with what risks. (Meet the Exhibit.) They are good at recognizing the specific atmospheric condition in any situation and then at selecting an influence method that is compatible with those conditions.
3. They tend to develop all the types of ability, to some caste, and they apply all the influence methods mentioned in the Exhibit. Unlike managers who are not very proficient at influencing people, constructive managers normally practise not think that only some of the methods are useful or that but some of the methods are moral. They recognize that any of the methods, used under the right circumstances, can assist contribute to organizational effectiveness with few dysfunctional consequences. At the same time, they generally endeavor to avoid those methods that are more than risky than others and those that may have dysfunctional consequences. For case, they dispense the environment of others only when absolutely necessary.
iv. They establish career goals and seek out managerial positions that allow them to successfully develop and apply ability. They look for jobs, for example, that use their backgrounds and skills to control or manage some critically important trouble or environmental contingency that an organization faces. They recognize that success in that type of job makes others dependent on them and increases their ain perceived expertise. They also seek jobs that do not demand a type or a volume of power that is inconsistent with their own skills.
5. They use all of their resources, formal authority, and power to develop however more power. To borrow Edward Banfield'southward metaphor, they actually look for ways to "invest" their power where they might secure a loftier positive return.half-dozen For example, past asking a person to exercise him ii important favors, a manager might be able to finish his structure program one twenty-four hours alee of schedule. That request may cost him virtually of the obligation-based ability he has over that person, merely in return he may significantly increment his perceived expertise equally a manager of construction projects in the optics of everyone in his organization.
Just as in investing money, there is always some chance involved in using power this style; it is possible to get a aught return for a sizable investment, fifty-fifty for the most powerful manager. Constructive managers do not effort to avert risks. Instead, they expect for prudent risks, just as they do when investing uppercase.
half dozen. Effective managers engage in power-oriented behavior in ways that are tempered past maturity and self-control.vii They seldom, if ever, develop and utilize power in impulsive ways or for their ain inflation.
vii. Finally, they also recognize and accept equally legitimate that, in using these methods, they clearly influence other people's behavior and lives. Unlike many less effective managers, they are reasonably comfortable in using ability to influence people. They recognize, often only intuitively, what this article is all most—that their attempts to plant ability and employ information technology are an admittedly necessary role of the successful fulfillment of their difficult managerial role.
Yous can't learn to acquire ability by rules: information technology has to come up from within. But by post-obit certain rules, you can develop an sensation of it. We all have a power potential, just few of the states use it, or even know information technology'due south in that location.
1. Charles A. Reich, The Greening of America: How the Youth Revolution Is Trying to Make America Liveable (New York: Random House, 1970).
2. See Leonard R. Sayles, Managerial Behavior: Administration in Complex Organization (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964) as well every bit Rosemary Stewart, Managers and Their Jobs (London: Macmillan, 1967) and Contrasts in Direction (London: McGraw-Colina, 1976).
three. I am talking about the type of inexplicable differences that Henry Mintzberg has plant; encounter his article "The Manager'southward Task: Folklore and Fact," Harvard Business Review (March–April 1990): 163.
4. These categories closely resemble the v developed past John R. P. French and Bertram Raven; see "The Base of Social Power," Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zandler, eds. (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), Chapter 20. Iii of the categories are like to the types of "authorization"-based ability described by Max Weber in The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York: Free Printing, 1947).
v. For an excellent give-and-take of this method, run across Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Ability (New York: John Wiley, 1960).
6. Encounter Edward C. Banfield, Political Influence (New York: Gratuitous Press, 1965), Chapter eleven.
7. See David C. McClelland and David H. Burnham, "Ability Is the Great Motivator," Harvard Business Review (March–April 1976): 100.
A version of this article appeared in the July 1977 issue of Harvard Business Review.
plummerupostionots.blogspot.com
Source: https://hbr.org/1977/07/power-dependence-and-effective-management
0 Response to "Power Dependence and Effective Management Harvard Business Review"
Post a Comment