Management: Real Power vs. Authority

Real Power vs. Title of Authority:

Many managers / teachers / leaders feel that they have power simply due to a title or position of authority. Authority is the position of leadership; however, power is actually “the ability to influence various outcomes” (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2008, p. 209).  There are many people who are managers or who are in the position of leadership (those who have authority over others), though to have power is to be able to influence the environment and make changes where changes need to be made.  Power is a tool that is earned, not granted due to a position or a title given.  

I have personally witnessed managers who are promoted to a greater title but they have absolutely no control or power over subordinates due to a lack of relationship-building techniques.  It almost seems as though many people equate positions with power and feel that just because they have a title that they should automatically have power and respect.  One particular manager I encountered had been hired from outside the company directly as a manager because she had her 4-year degree with a major in accounting.  None of the employees knew her and even though we tried to get to know her, she was often short, rude, and holier than thou.  She had the feeling, because she was hired directly to a position of authority that employees had to automatically give her respect.  She truly believed due to her title that she had power over the employees under her and she was not shy in sharing her sense of entitlement with employees.  She was an appointed leader, but was not a true leader in the sense that she did not have any influence or power over employees; nor did she have the authority to carry out many organizational tasks as she thought she did.  As Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart (2008) state, “although an individual may be granted a formal leadership position, this does not mean that the person will necessarily be effective in ‘leading’ others or exerting influence on them” (p. 209).  I agree with this very much - I found from observing my manager that in order to be a true leader, one that can influence changes and one who has real power, a person needs to network and to build social relationships, to have the trust of others, but to also give trust to others, and in order to gain respect of employees a manager must first respect the employees. 

 Expanding the thought:

The insight that I gained when researching this topic was the difference between real power and title of authority; how real power is obtained through relationships and how to use the power once it is obtained.   Power is gained through relationship-building, trust, commitment, and knowing what to do with the power once it is in your grasp.   It is important to note how to get power, but as the Pfeffer article points out, it is also very important to understand something about power and that is the identity of power itself.  Pfeffer (1992) stated that some people choose to remain powerless because it is easier to simply do nothing at all rather than to be saddled with the label of the person who may have done a bad thing or who may have made a mistake.  “In many domains of activity we have become so obsessed with not upsetting anybody, and with not making mistakes, that we settle for doing nothing. Rather than rebuild San Francisco's highways, possibly in the wrong place, maybe even in the wrong way, we do nothing, and the city erodes economically without adequate transportation” (p. 48).  This says a lot to me because contrasted with the over-zealous boss I had, who had a seriously flawed sense of entitlement, I have also witnessed a very close friend of mine and noticed that he will never take the lead in any situation because he is afraid of making a mistake; he is also afraid of being responsible for his own actions/decisions.  Is that simply being lazy?  Or is that insecurity?

“Obtaining power is not always an attractive process, nor is its use” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 48).   Being a leader and obtaining power may have a tainted name due to some leaders in history; it is important, however, not to allow a few bad apples to ruin the entire bushel.  Power is a good thing in the right hands, and power makes things happen - it is with power that things get done and it is necessary in today’s workplace.  If no one ever wanted to step up and take a risk or make a change, then not much would ever get accomplished.  We would have an entire group of people just sitting around analyzing situations instead of getting up and taking action.  Reading the sources for this week, I have noticed that people shy away from responsibility in organizations because they do not want to take the risk of making bad decisions, but at the same time people want that large salary with a nice title.   Perhaps that is the issue with some managers is that they rush to get the title without first working on gaining real power?  Or perhaps those who have real power have no clue how to apply it to real-life situations?  What does anyone else think about this?      

References:

Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). Chapter 7: Leadership. Power, and the Manager. A Primer on Organizational Behavior (7th ed., p. 155). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding Power in Organizations. [i]Columbia University. [/i]Retrieved November 27, 2012, fromhttp://columbiauniversity.us/itc/hs/pubhealth/isett/Session%2003/Pfeffer%201992%20Power.pdf

Expectancy Theory: Self-Fulfilling Prophecy & Selective Perception

The Theory

           I became interested in this theory because human perception is as individual as individuals are themselves and with each perception being unique, the outcomes of situations are often a product of subjective inference more so than being a solid reality. The expectancy theory occurs when a person sees only what they expect to see through a variety of different means such as the self-fulfilling prophecy, selective perceptions, projection, and perceptual defense mechanisms; however I have chosen to discuss two of these sub-theories: the self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perception. These expectancy factors deeply influence how we, as humans, perceive situations around us, how we interpret information, and how we see other peoples’ behaviors.

            According to Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart (2008), our expectations influence behaviors and attitudes toward other people, situations, and can even distort reality based on what we expect and choose to see (p. 48).  A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a person anticipates a particular behavior from another person and due to that expectation the other person actually behaves in accordance to the expectation. Vroom (1995) reinforces and expands the Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart text, stating: the “expectancy theory asserts that human choice is subjectively rational” (p. xviii).   This means that people expect certain outcomes and they view these expectations with their own perceptions and prejudices; also that these viewpoints are deemed as completely rational by the perceiver, even if the human choice, behavior, or perception is not considered rational by other people.   This subjectivity often leads to a distortion of reality and often alters the behaviors of others, usually unbeknownst to the person who perceives the situation.  Specifically so considering the self-fulfilling prophecy wherein an individual actually makes the outcome of a situation occur simply due to their own expectations and actions.  The selective perception exacerbates the subjectivity of the situation and sets the framework for a self-fulfilling prophecy because an individual is only looking for attributes which he/she expects to find and ignores other attributes that are not expected (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2008, p. 48).  It is important to note that the expectancy theory can work for or against organizations and individuals; it is exclusively dependent upon the individual who is making choices in situations and ultimately who guides the direction of the organization with their perceptions (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002).

Application of Theory

Appling the Theory to the Workplace:

            Expectancy theory and the theory sub-sets are used quite frequently in organizations to study human behaviors and the effect of these behaviors on particular organizational settings fundamentally in order to enhance motivation in employees; as Lawler and Suttle (1973) stated, “expectancy theory has evolved in recent years as a basic paradigm for the study of human attitudes and behavior in work and organizational settings” (p. 482).  The self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perception are often prevalent in organizations, specifically to entrepreneurs/small business owners (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002).  I understand this as true because I owned a small business between the years of 1998 and 2009 and personally enacted expectancy theory through the self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perceptions on employees.  For instance, I hired a friend as an employee and expected that as a friend she would do the duties assigned to her correctly and efficiently.  I did not watch her work and failed to have accurate performance appraisals on her mainly because she was a great friend and I expected she would also be a great worker.  I failed to notice that she was causing issues with other employees, slacking on the job, and ignoring her duties, even in the face of facts from other employees.  I enacted the expectancy theory and especially the selective perception factor in this instance.  Also, at work, I often expected employees to do well when we had large shipments come in.  I expected it so much that I worked overtime; I helped employees meet quotas, and gave employees drive by continuously telling them we could get the job done.  I did not simply think we would get the job done, I knew we would.  However the main reason that we did get the job done was due to my actions and positively reinforcing my employees, as well as motivating them to work harder and longer hours in order to get the job done.  We never missed a deadline using this technique and after each time, I would say, “See? I knew we could do this.”  This is not the only instance where I have enacted the self-fulfilling prophecy with my employees.  In the year 2005, at the request of a female friend employee, I hired a young man to work in the shipping department.  I immediately felt as though, because of his age, that I would have to watch him carefully and stay on him to ensure that he was doing his job correctly.  I felt that he would not do the job I needed him to do and verbally made that clear to him on a few occasions.  I would say things such as, “just leave that for Emily, she has been here longer and will do it right.”   My forecast was that he would not do the job right and that he would quit soon, and again I felt this way simply due to his age.  It was because of my own negative actions and behaviors toward this young man, that I was ultimately correct.  He quit because of my failure to note any of his good qualities, my lack of confidence in him which was ever so evident in my actions, and my bad managerial practices; thus I enacted the expectancy theory and both sub-sets of the theory (a self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perceptions) in this instance.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Application:

            The expectancy theory and the theory sub-sets have great strengths when used positively in organizational settings for the purpose of motivating employees.  Primarily when a manager expects positive outcomes from employees and that manager expresses their expectations and standards in the form of praise, recognition, and rewards.  Using the expectancy theory in this way gives confidence to employees and influences their behaviors in a productive way.   This is evident with the Pygmalion effect (a.k.a., the Rosenthal effect) which is a situation where a manager, educator, or other leader holds positive expectations for their students, employees, or followers.  It is the simple fact that there are positive expectations held that feed the students’, employees’, or followers’ inner beliefs that they can accomplish what the authority figure expects from them.  According to Dr. Ronald Riggio, “Research has clearly shown the power of holding positive expectations of others; we get the outcomes that we expect” (2009).

            Unfortunately, the expectancy theory and the sub-sets can also create a negative effect in organizational settings.  As seen in my personal application of the theories, a poor manager may use the expectancy theory with negative intent and expect bad things from employees, only look for the negative attributes of employees, and enact a self-fulfilling prophecy based on his/her own negative actions and behaviors.  If a manager holds negative expectations, it follows that the Pygmalion effect with also apply with an equal but opposite effect.  Also, it is important to note that organizational decline due to expectancy theory and sub-theories can occur with little or no awareness; “organizational decline through the self-fulfilling prophecy is particularly important because it is a subtle process, and it tends to unfold without the awareness of the managers or external constituencies that are its agents” (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002).  Therefore, it is imperative that managers are self-aware and make sure they are expecting only positive outcomes with their employees, as to not influence employee behaviors inadvertently negatively.    

References:

Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). Chapter 2: Perceptions, Attitudes, and   Individual Differences. A Primer on Organizational Behavior (7th ed., p. 48-49). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

John, C. E., McKinley, W., & Moon, G. (2002). The enactment of organizational decline: The self-fulfilling prophecy.International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(1), 55-75. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198626894?accountid=38003

Lawler, E. E., & Suttle, J. l. (1973). Expectancy Theory and Job Behavior. ORGANIZATIONAL   BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 9, p. 482-503. Retrieved November 27,   2012, from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/33872/1/0000133.pdf

Riggio, R. (2009, April 18). Pygmalion Leadership: The Power of Positive Expectations | Psychology Today. Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist.     Retrieved December 1, 2012, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge- leadership/200904/pygmalion-leadership-the-power-positive-expectations

Vroom, V. H. (1995). Introduction to the Classic Edition. Work and Motivation (p. xviii). San       Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. (Original work published 1964)