>> MIM Speaks
EXERCISING POWER AS A MANAGER
JAN 19, 1997 -
NEW STRAITS TIMES
WHAT is power? Put simply, lt is the ability to influence.
When we sre able ta influence the thinking, attitude or
behaviour of people we demonstrte power.
Most of us tend to react negatlvely when we hear remarks such
as, "He has power over someone." Our tendency is to assume
that with power over a person, manipulative or exploitative
actlons will take place.
But the use of wwer need not always be so. Used rightly, power
can be good or neutral on the factory shop floor, for
lnstance. The patient supervisor's influence over a
recalcitrant worker can be very positive, resulting in a
win-win situation for the worker, supervisor and company.
As for the sources of power, basketball star Michael Jordan of
the Chicago Bulls has the power to increase the sales turnover
of Nike Shoes. Jordan has what (in management jargon) is
called referent power'.
This power base actually flows from the fans who want to
associate themselves with Jordan or to emulate the way he
dresses. In another way, if a teenager looks up to you as a
rolemodel and tries to emulate your exemplary behaviour, you
have 'referent power'.
Additionally, power comes from the following four sources:
1. Position: Your position as manager/chairman gives you
`legitimate power'. By virtue of that position, you are
entrusted the right (and responsibility of course) to be in
charge, issue instructions, take care of the over all interest
of the group of people, and ensure things get done, and so on.
2. Money: Money has power over people, and those with money or
the ability to give rewards have `reward power'. But this is
only so when people are willing to subject themselves to that
influence in return for the money and reward.
Because managers have the power to promote subordinates, raise
their salaries or give free overseas trips, there always is
the tendency to abuse this power.
The use of this power strongly reflects the integrity of the
manager and thereby determines the amount of respect (or a
lack of it) from the subordinates.
8. Muscle: When muscle, brute force or fear is used to
influence people to work, `coercive power' is said to be wed.
Somehow most human being instinctively learn to use this power
base.
Moreover, because coercive power yields almost instantaneow
results, it is the most popular form of power wed in the
society, homes and offices.
Earlier we remarked that `power over someone' arouses negative
emotions. It is this coercive power (the use of force or
threats) that gives a negative face.
Somehow we have learned to associate power with this ugly face
of it than with the other more positive uses of power.
Again, the use of this power will indicate the level of
maturity of the manager and the amount of respect his
subordinates bestow upon him.
4. Knowledge Is Power: If we have the Knowledge or expertise
that others want we have `expert power' over them. But without
that need for your expertise, you have no influence over
people from this power base.
And to think of oneself as an expert and therefore has `expert
power' is merely an illusion.
Managers or team leaders need to learn when and how much of
each base to use under different situations. No fixed formulae
or rules exist as too many factors are involved.
It depends, for instance on our experiences, skills integrity,
selflessness, subordinates gullibility, maturity, servile
attitude, docile or aggressive behaviour and so on.
Each of us need to learn through the process of knowing,
observing and from making mistakes. As an old eastern saying
goes, `good judgement comes from experience, and experience
comes from bad judgement.'
MOTIVES OF POWER USE.
BASED on Harvard Professor David McClelands "power motive'
model, there are basically three different types of managers:
affiliatlve, institutional and personal power managers.
1. Affiliative Managers: Managers having strong af filitive
motives are those whose desire to be liked (by those around
him) are greater than thelr concern for getting things done.
Such managers use (or abuse) their discretionary powers to
make people like them. Getting things done through people
seldom make a manager a nice guy.
The nice manager overly empathises with the needs of his
subordinates. For instance, a caring mother who is often late
for work is not told to observe punctuality.
An informal group that regularly takes more than an hour for
lunch is not reprimanded.
So, after some months shrewd employees exploit this new
managers weakness, and organisational discipline and
orderliness go out of the window.
When company policies and rules are not enforced firmly and
fairly, in the same manner to every one, chaos takes over.
Operating procedures become topsy turvy because Mr Nice Guy
makes ad hoc decisions to Please some people. Work flow are
disrupted. Young and hard working individuals wanting to get
ahead in their careers feel angry with the system as they
can't learn anything new.
Not taking to task employees whose actions go against company
rules, make people irresponsible. And treating individual
employees differently is simply detrimental to team work.
Managers who e need to be liked is higher than the need to
exercise power to ensure orderliness and achieving tasks, end
up making their subordinates feel demoralised weak and lacking
responsibility, and alienated from their collies ues.
The more unfortunate part of this paradox is that they are
unaware that they are the root cause of inefficiency.
2. Institutional Managers: Firstly, they use their power to
achieve corporate goals. But in their use of power to
influence people they need not be dictatorial or domineering.
In fact, their managerial style is more participative than
autocratic. Instead of ordering or shouting at their
subordinates, they instruct, discuss with or coach them.
And their instructions are always respected and carried out
effectively.
Institutional managers' concern for getting things done is
much higher than their desire to be liked. Their maturity and
integrity makes them loyal and responsible. They see to it
that the tasks entrusted upon them are carried out.
They use their power to ensure things are properly organised
and co-ordinated Tasks are delegated to the most capable.
Instructions are thoroughly communicated to all those
concerned.
Excuses are not.tolerated. And equally important, though they
may be tough task masters, they reward people for good
performance and dedication.
The other characteristic separating them from affiliative and
personal power managers is self restraint. Power is not used
for their our selfish motives. Power is exercised for the
benefit of the company as well as the workers as a whole.
Self restraint and a participative managerial style in return
earn respect and dedication from those who work under them.
Human beings today are no longer receptive to a purely
autocratic, command control approach.
The fact that it still.remains the predominant management
style is simply, bad habits die hard.
On the contrary, subordinates working under tough, firm and
fair managers, benefit from being stretched by the hardwork
and responsibilities placed on them.
They achieve higher productivity because they pull their
weight together in one direction. They enjoy a feeling of
camaraderie, and a satisfying feeling of contribution and
achievement. They are motivated.
3. Personal Power managers: Personal power managers use their
ligitimate power to achieve organisational goals. Like
institutional managers they instil a sense of responsibility
and team effort in their subordinates.
They are different from affiliate managers in that their
concern for corporate goals is higher than their desire to be
popular or be liked.
But this third category of managers is called personal power
managers because they tend to mold their subordinates to be
loyal to them instead of being loyal to the organisation.
But many personal power managers started off as
"institutional" managers, loyal to the company. because most
organisation practive office politics and favoritism, and the
forming of political camps, novice institutional managers
learn to become personal power managers.
They do this partly because of survival in the or ganisation
and partly for personal satisfaction. Let's face it. In
organisation the conflict between company goals and personal
goals is always present.
Only the very good organisations are able to tip the scale to
the formers.
There is another thing associated with personal power
managers. When they resign from a company two things happen.
They either take along with them the key subordinates, or
leave the subordinates `leaderless' and not knowing what to
do.
Institutional managers on the other hand, can easily be
replaced by another manager as the subordinates have been
encouraged to be loyal to the organisation.
|
