Topic 3.4: Power and communication
One of the elements of communication that can have a significant effect on messages ‘getting through’ versus simply being pushed out – particularly in organisational settings – is power. It’s interesting that power is a constant reality of our workplaces but something we rarely discuss or consciously consider. Most people in positions of formal power – e.g., supervisors, managers, directors – quickly become comfortable with the power they have to make decisions and give direction. This is a positive thing in many ways as often setting direction and giving instructions is a core part of the manager’s role.
On the other hand, it’s easy to forget the effect that power can have on others; particularly in environments where hierarchy and role clarity is enshrined in the organisation. As Marshall Goldsmith, one of the world’s leading executive coaches, has observed about his work with admirals in the US Navy: ‘Admirals don’t give suggestions’. Even when they may simply want to make a suggestion, it’s natural for those reporting to the admirals to hear ‘orders’. Goldsmith is making the point that the ‘natural order of things’ in the hierarchical world of the US Navy means people will defer to those of a higher rank!
As we have already highlighted, strong leadership is underpinned by the ability to influence others and set clear direction. When presenting our ideas to others, we are ultimately trying to influence their view or perception of an issue; an idea or of a way forward. Many researchers have studied the notion of power and influence and how this plays out within the work setting. As leaders, we are continually seeking to influence others so understanding how to approach this is critical.
A model of Leadership, Influence and Power
A seminal work was completed by French and Raven (1959)[1], who described how social power and social influence emerge from studies of psychology, sociology, and political science and can be witnessed in all social interactions. French and Raven state that ‘the phenomena of power and influence involve relationships between two or more parties which may be viewed from two points of view: (a) What determines the behaviour of the person who exerts power? (b) What determines the reactions of the recipient(s) of this behaviour?’
The first theory that French and Raven talk about is Psychological Change. They define change to include changes in behaviour, opinions, attitudes, goals, needs, and values. In this program, we are interested in exploring how good leaders and managers can understand the forces at play in social situations and can use this knowledge to positively influence outcomes or change in complex work environments. For example, a change in someone’s opinion may be the effect of someone else persuading that person to accept an alternative point of view. This can have both positive and negative effects in groups, and we can often use or overuse one style of influencing in particular situations. French and Raven categorise power in five different forms or bases…
| Base | Description |
| Coercive power | This is the power to force someone to do something against their will. It is often physical although other threats may be used. Coercion can result in harm, although its principal goal is compliance. Demonstrations of harm (or consequence) are often used to illustrate what will happen if compliance is not gained. Coercion is also the ultimate power of all governments. Although it is often seen as negative, it is also used to keep the peace. Parents coerce young children who know no better. A person holds back their friend who is about to step out in front of a car. Other forms of power can also be used in coercive ways, such as when a reward or expertise is withheld or referent; power is used to threaten social exclusion (discussed below). |
| Reward Power | One of the main reasons we work is to earn the money we need to live our lives. There are many more forms of reward; in fact, anything we find desirable can be a reward, from a million dollar yacht to a pat on the back. Reward power is thus the ability to give other people what they want, and hence ask them to do things for you in exchange. Rewards can also be used to punish, such as when they are withheld. The promise is essentially the same: do this and you will get that. |
| Legitimate Power | Legitimate power is that which is invested in a role. Officers, policemen and managers all have legitimate power. The legitimacy may come from a higher power, often one with coercive power. Legitimate power can often thus be the acceptable face of raw power. A common trap that people in such roles can fall into is to forget that people are obeying the position, not them. When they either fall from power or move onto other things, it can be a puzzling surprise that people who used to fawn at their feet no longer do so. Ultimately, legitimate power is returned by compliance behaviour – we just do what we’re told. There are ways to avoid legitimate power, such as through passive-aggressive behaviour and avoidance. |
| Referent Power | This is the power from another person liking you or wanting to be like you. It is the power of charisma and is wielded by celebrities (by definition) as well as more local social leaders. In wanting to be like these people, we stand near them, hoping some of the charisma will rub off onto us. Those with referent power can also use it for coercion. One of the things we fear most is social exclusion, and all it takes is a word from a social leader for us to be shunned by others in the group. |
| Expert Power | When I have knowledge and skill that someone else requires, then I have Expert power. This is a very common form of power and is very common in large organisations where the principle of specialisation sees many highly skilled workers in different ‘streams’. This is often the mode of influence in complex environments where expertise in a particular body of knowledge is used to influence decisions or directions taken. People sometimes horde knowledge as a way to exert expert power and bureaucracies are noted for it. Be cautious of an over-reliance on this approach. |
Required Reflection
10 min
By looking at the bases of power as expressed by French and Raven,
- Which one/s do you most rely on within your leadership role?
- What are the strengths of those approaches and what may be weaknesses or ‘blind spots’?
Power and empathy – Beware!
“Research confirms that people in power have lower levels of empathy compared to those who lack power. Those in power are simply not that interested in those below them. They view themselves as different and above others. The way people with power view their surroundings is different too. High-powered people attend less to their surroundings and those around them; they are more narrowly focused, typically on what they are most concerned with accomplishing, the task at hand. Overall, power diminishes perspective-taking. Perspective-taking, which is viewing the world through the eyes of others, is critical to empathy” (Segal, 2019).[2]
While few of us would wish this to be true of us, it is something to be aware of. And to “beware” of in those in more formally powerful roles than us. Just because we feel a certain way or have a certain perspective doesn’t mean the more powerful person will feel or see it the same way. And they may have little interest in doing so. It reminds us of the “ignorance tax” that leaders and organisations too readily pay when they (we) lose touch with others’ experiences and perspectives. It takes active effort to do so, which is what the Solomon article below advises.
10 min
- French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Univer. Michigan. ↵
- Segal, E.A. (2019). Power blocks empathy, Psychology Today (Sept 23). Retrieved: www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/social-empathy/201909/power-blocks-empathy ↵
- Solomon, L. (2015). Becoming Powerful Makes You Less Empathetic. In Review, Harvard Business, et al. Harvard Business Review Emotional Intelligence Collection (2017), Harvard Business Review Press ↵