4
Where Does Power Come From?
Long-term studies of companies in numerous industries ranging from glass and cement manufacturing to the minicomputer industry “show that the most successful firms maintain a workable equilibrium for several years . . . but are also able to initiate and carry out sharp, widespread changes . . . when their environments shift.” 1These so-called discontinuous or frame-breaking changes always alter the distribution of power. Consequently, organizational innovation often if not inevitably involves obtaining the power and influence necessary to overcome resistance.
To be successful in this process, we need to understand where power comes from. It is critical to be able to diagnose the power of other players, including potential allies and possible opponents. We need to know what we are up against. Knowing where power comes from also helps us to build our own power and thereby increase our capacity to take action. It is useful to know that getting a new product introduced may involve power and politics, and to understand the pattern of interdependence and the points of view of various participants. But, to be effective, we also need to know how to develop sources of power and how to employ that power strategically and tactically.
We all have implicit theories of where power comes from, and we occasionally act on these theories. For instance, we may read and follow the advice of books on “power dressing,” pondering issues such as whether yellow ties are in or out and whether suspenders are a signal of power. The cosmetic surgery business is booming, in part, at least, because some executives are worried that the signs of aging may make them appear to be less powerful and dynamic. People attend courses in assertiveness training, go through psychotherapy, and take programs in public speaking for numerous reasons, but among them is the desire to be more powerful, dynamic, and effective.
Many of our theories about the origins of power emphasize the importance of personal attributes and characteristics—which are very difficult to alter, at least without herculean efforts. We sometimes overlook the importance of situational factors over which we may have more direct influence. If we are going to be effective in organizations, we need to be skillful in evaluating our theories of the sources of power, as well as sensitive to various cognitive biases. This chapter briefly outlines some issues to think about as we observe the world and try to diagnose the sources of power. It also sets the stage for the consideration of personal characteristics and situational factors as sources of power, which will occur in the later chapters of this section.
PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES AS SOURCES OF POWER
When we walk into an organization, we see people first, not situations. People are talking, moving around, and doing things. People have personalities, idiosyncrasies, and mannerisms that engage our attention and hold our interest. Our preoccupation with the vividness of the people we meet leads to what some psychologists have called “the fundamental attribution error”—our tendency to overemphasize the causal importance of people and their characteristics, and underemphasize the importance of situational factors.2 The phenomenon is pervasive, and there are many examples. One striking manifestation of the tendency to ignore situational factors in evaluating people is provided in an experimental study done by a colleague.3 The study entailed assessing the performance of a speaker—a situation not dissimilar to assessing the power of someone we encounter in an organization. In the study, evaluators asked questions that were either positively or negatively biased—and moreover, they were aware of the bias when asked about it later. Nevertheless, evaluators were themselves affected by the answers they elicited through their biased questions. They “underestimated the potential effect of their own behavior [the situation] in drawing conclusions based on potentially constrained answers.”4 Instead of discounting the diagnostic value of the behavior they had affected, evaluators used that information in making assessments both of the performance and (in other studies) of the attitudes of others. In other words, even when we know that the behavior we observe is strongly affected by situational factors, we readily make attributions and evaluations about others based on that behavior.
Not only do we overattribute power to personal characteristics, but often the characteristics we believe to be sources of power are almost as plausibly the consequences of power instead. Interviews with 87 managerial personnel (including 30 chief executive officers, 28 high-level staff managers, and 29 supervisors) in thirty southern California electronics firms assessed beliefs about the personal characteristics of people thought to be most effective in the use of organizational politics and in wielding power.5 The percentage of all respondents mentioning various characteristics is displayed in Table 4-1.
Personal Traits Characterizing Effective Political Actors
| Personal Characteristic | Percentage Mentioning |
|---|---|
| Articulate | 29.9 |
| Sensitive | 29.9 |
| Socially adept | 19.5 |
| Competent | 17.2 |
| Popular | 17.2 |
| Extroverted | 16.1 |
| Self-confident | 16. 1 |
| Aggressive | 16.1 |
| Ambitious | 16. 1 |
Source: Allen et al., p. 80. Copyright 1979 by The Regents of the University of California. Reprinted from the California Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 1. By permission of The Regents.
Without, for the moment, denying that these characteristics are associated with being powerful and politically effective, consider the possibility that at least some of them result from the experience of being in power. Are we likely to be more articulate and poised when we are more powerful? Are we likely to be more popular? Isn’t it plausible that power causes us to be extroverted, as much as extroversion makes us powerful ? Aren’t more powerful and politically effective people likely to be perceived as more competent? Certainly power and political skill can produce more self-confident and even aggressive behavior. And considering that people usually adjust their ambitions to what is feasible, people who are more powerful are probably going to be more ambitious, and to be viewed as such.
Why is the causal ordering of more than academic interest? The answer is that we may try to develop attributes to help us attain power, and if those attributes are ineffective or dysfunctional, we can get into trouble. Most of us can recall people who acted “out of role” and behaved as if they were more powerful and important than they were. This behavior typically only erodes support and makes one ineffective, even if the same behavior, exhibited by someone holding power, is accepted and enhances that person’s effectiveness.
A third problem in drawing inferences from personal attributes lies in the fact that people are seldom randomly assigned to their situations. External factors often have a direct bearing on the success or failure of an individual, and yet many studies of power fail to take account of such factors. Consider David Winter’s study of the effect of three individual dispositions—the power motive, the need for achievement, and the affiliation-intimacy motive—on various indicators of leader effectiveness, including one measure closely related to a common definition of power: the ability to get one’s way in terms of appointments or initiatives.6
Winter’s sample is the U.S. presidents, a nonrandom sample if there ever was one. Each president’s personality traits were assessed by scoring the first inaugural address for imagery that represents the underlying motive. Winter’s results are correlations between presidential scores on the three traits and several outcome measures such as being reelected, having court and cabinet appointments approved, and avoiding or entering war.7 The analysis does not consider the possibility that the type of person elected to office is not independent of the times and conditions that bracket the election, and that perhaps these factors, not just motive profiles, help explain outcomes such as avoiding or entering war.
Errors of this type are made routinely. For instance, in evaluating own-recognizance bail programs, studies often don’t account for the fact that the people are not randomly released on their own recognizance; only the less dangerous prisoners are likely to be released.8 Thus the tendency of those released without bail not to commit crimes does not necessarily mean that if the program were extended to all prisoners the same results would hold. The wider point here is that we need to understand and account for how people wind up in various situations, and to use this information in evaluating their power and their effectiveness. In general, we need to be thoughtful when we analyze personal characteristics as sources of power, particularly if we intend to take action based on those insights.
STRUCTURAL SOURCES OF POWER
Structural perspectives on power argue that power is derived from where each person stands in the division of labor and the communication system of the organization. The division of labor in an organization creates subunits and differentiated roles, and each subunit and position develops specialized interests and responsibilities. Further, each subunit or position makes claims on the organization’s resources.9 In the contest for resources, those who do well succeed on the basis of the resources they possess or control as well as the ties they can form with people who influence allocations.10 Control over resources, and the importance of the unit in the organization, are derived from the division of labor, which gives some positions or groups more control over critical tasks and more access to resources than others.11 Power, then, comes from the control over resources, from the ties one has to powerful others, and from the formal authority one obtains because of one’s position in the hierarchy.
For instance, in a study of 33 purchase decisions, the most frequently mentioned characteristic of those perceived to have influence over the decisions was that the choice would affect them:
. . . in a company which makes musical instruments, the choice of a tractor truck was said by one informant to have been influenced most by the traffic supervisor. “He lives with the situation, so he must have the choice,” he said.12
Who is affected by a decision is determined, obviously, by the division of labor. According to those interviewed in the study, people with formal responsibility for the unit where the product was to be used, or with responsibility for the performance or output of the product were also viewed as influential. Although interviewees were asked to judge who had the most influence “regardless of who had the final authority,” authority and responsibility were often-mentioned sources of influence in these purchase situations.13 Authority and responsibility, too, are conveyed by one’s position in the formal structure of the organization.
Or consider the power sometimes possessed by purchasing agents.14 They stand between engineering, production scheduling, and marketing on the one hand, and outside vendors on the other. Some purchasing agents were able to use this intermediary position to obtain substantial influence over other departments that, in many instances, possessed more formal status and authority than they did. By relying on purchasing rules and procedures (which they often had developed themselves), the agents made it necessary for other departments to accede to their power—as is evidenced by the willingness of other departments to provide favors to those in purchasing in exchange for preferential treatment.
The point about situational sources of power is that one possesses power simply by being in the right place—by being in a position of authority, in a place to resolve uncertainty, in a position to broker among various subunits and external vendors—almost regardless of one’s individual characteristics. Authority and responsibility are vested in positions, and one’s ability to broker is affected significantly by where one sits in the structure of interaction. Of course, not all people in the same situations are able to do equally well. Some purchasing agents, for instance, were much more successful than others in raising the power and status of their departments, in spite of the fact that virtually all wanted to do so, and some of this difference resulted from variations in political skill among the purchasing agents in the various companies. This suggests that while situations are important, one’s ability to capitalize on the situation also has decisive implications.
THE FIT BETWEEN SITUATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND PERSONAL TRAITS
An important source of power is the match between style, skill, and capacities and what is required by the situation. For instance, in a study of influence at a research and development laboratory of 304 professionals, the participants were questioned about influence in their organization. Was influence primarily related to being 1) an internal communication star, someone who had extensive contacts within the laboratory but who was not linked to external sources of information ; 2) an external communication star, someone linked primarily to external information and not well connected in his own unit; or 3) a boundary spanner, someone linked both to others within his own unit and to external sources of information? 15 Influence was measured with respect to technical, budgetary, and personnel decisions. The principal finding was that the type of person who was influential depended on the nature of the project: in technical service projects, with less task uncertainty, internal communication stars were most influential, while in applied research units, boundary spanners carried the most weight.
Another illustration of the contingency between situations and the characteristics that provide influence comes from a study of 17 organizations that had recently purchased a piece of offset printing equipment.16 For some organizations, the purchase was new and therefore totally unfamiliar; for others, it involved the replacement of an existing piece of equipment; and for still others, it involved adding a piece of equipment. Clearly, the amount of uncertainty differed, it being greatest for those buying offset printing equipment for the first time, and posing the smallest problem for those firms that were merely acquiring another piece of the same equipment they already had. Individual experience was most highly related to influence in the case of purchasing an additional piece of equipment. Internal communication and the number of different sources of information consulted were most strongly related to influence in the case of new purchase decisions. Those who were able to affect perceptions of need were most influential in adding a piece of equipment, while those who gathered external information were more influential in the situation in which new equipment was being purchased. These two studies, as well as other research, strongly suggest that:
The influence of a subunit or individual on a decision is a function of (1) the kind of uncertainty faced by an organization, (2) the particular characteristic or capability which enables reducing organizational uncertainty, and (3) the degree to which a particular subunit [or individual] possesses this characteristic. As decision-making contexts vary, so do the sources of organizational uncertainty, and consequently, the bases for influence in organizational decision-making.17
The necessity of matching personal characteristics to the situation can be seen in politics as well as in business. Ronald Reagan, the former movie actor and U.S. president, came to office at a time in which mass communication, through the medium of television, was essential. Reagan had no skill in dealing with details, but was a “great communicator.” Lyndon Johnson rose to power at a time when television was less important, and party organizations were stronger. The ability to pay attention to small details and the willingness to do favors for colleagues and constituents were critical. Had Reagan and Johnson been able to exchange decades, it is likely that neither one would have been elected president. Johnson’s difficulty in responding to the rise of the media in his administration shows his inability to flourish in an era of mass communication. And Reagan would have been unsuited for the continual attention to detail that was required of oldstyle party politicians. Not only are particular kinds of knowledge and skill differentially critical across time and settings, but personal attributes also become more or less important, depending on the setting.
Can Charisma Be Transferred?
Charisma is perhaps the best illustration of the fit between situations and personal attributes. The concept of charisma came into social science from theology, where it means “endowment with the gift of divine grace.”18 Charismatic leaders often emerge in times of stress or crisis. They create an emotional (rather than purely instrumental) bond with others; they take on heroic proportions and appeal to the ideological values of followers.19 President John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi were all charismatic figures.
Some have asserted that charisma is a characteristic of the individual, based on the person’s need for power, achievement, and affiliation, as well as on his inhibitions in using power.20 Moreover, charisma and personality are said to explain the effectiveness of leaders—for instance, that of U.S. presidents.21 A careful longitudinal study of a school superintendent in Minnesota provides some interesting evidence on the interaction between charismatic properties and situational constraints.22
While serving in a large, suburban school district in Minnesota, the superintendent exhibited both charisma and ef fectiveness. Her work drew attention in the media and the legislature. She “gained wide acclaim for her massive grass-roots program to cut $2.4 million from the budget while at the same time successfully avoiding the ‘bloodletting’ of retrenchment.” 23 School personnel described her in interviews as “a mover, a shaker, a visionary . . . who had made a dramatic, unprecedented impact on the district. People believed that she had extraordinary talents.”24 She developed an extremely loyal following, unlike the superintendents who had preceded her. She involved many people in the process of change in the district, forming task forces to investigate district policy and budget problems, hiring consultants to conduct workshops to develop a vision of the future, and redesigning jobs and the administrative structure of the district office. Her effect on the district was striking:
Budget reductions were scheduled without acrimonious debate. The school board unanimously approved the superintendent’s budget reductions after only a brief discussion. Teachers awarded her a standing ovation, despite her recommendations to cut support jobs and program funding. Innovative ideas poured in from district personnel . . . At the end of her two years as superintendent, the district had catalogued over 300 suggestions for innovative ventures .25
Then she was appointed by the governor of Minnesota to be the head of the state Department of Education. She brought to this new position the same modus operandi she had used as district superintendent: “Begin with a mission and a vision that outline where one wants to go; generate enthusiasm and support for the vision at the grass-roots level; . . . create a structure for change at the Department of Education that will serve to channel the interest and energy into innovative programs.”26 During her first year in her new job, she personally visited almost every one of the 435 school districts in the state. She initiated town meetings held in 388 public school districts, which drew about 15,000 citizens. She sponsored public opinion polls. She replaced the top five assistant commissioners with her own team of nine people, all formerly outsiders to the Department of Education.27 And what were the results of all of these efforts?
As one might imagine, efforts to restaff and restructure the Department of Education were immediately opposed by those already well served by the existing structure. Five of the new assistants were either fired or resigned from office within the first year.28 The press soon heard of morale problems, departures of key middle managers, and confusion over routine tasks and job assignments. Instead of being able to focus on long-term change, she now found herself “embroiled in the day-to-day details of established bureaucratic order.”29 Charisma, so evident at the school district level, clearly did not transfer to her new position at the state level, nor could it be created at will.
The administrator had more success in her role as superintendent because it gave her more control and more autonomy over educational matters. She was also able to have closer, more personal relationships with those she wanted to influence when she operated at the local level. As the governor’s political appointee, she had to worry about what her actions would mean for him. As head of a large state department, she “was embedded in a much more complex web of relations among the legislature, state executive departments, constituents, interest groups and networks, and state and national educational communities.” 30 Her freedom of action was constrained, and her personal contacts were worth much less; in short, she needed to rely more on bureaucratic politics and less on emotional appeal than she had been accustomed to.
As situational factors change, the attributes required to be influential and effective change as well. That is why it is important not only to find positions with the political demands that match our skills and interests, but also to tailor our actions to the circumstances we confront. In any event, we can probably best understand the sources of power as deriving from individual characteristics, from advantages the situation provides, and from the match between ourselves and our settings.