These five words are intimately linked with organizational development.
They are possibly among the most cited words by different authors and experts in behavior and organizational development, and have also been subject to study by many notable researchers.
Also the executives, executives, managers and professionals and like the rest of the organizational participants have these 5 words many times on their lips during - and even after - their work days. And they are not left out the consultants and advisers of companies that must implement changes in organizations and companies; For them, these five words, as they are used and their effects and implications in practice, will have a lot to do with how much the organizations-Clients have to be improved and also have an influence on the fees they have to receive for the provision of their services. professional services.
Authority has been a matter of study and interest of people that even its sphere of action has gone beyond and has been outside the organization. That is to say, that not only those people linked to the organization and the company (micro-economy) have considered it as a relevant variable but also many of the scholars at the macro level, such as philosophers, sociologists, economists, anthropologists, among others.
The French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau ("A discourse on political economy" - 1755) points out "that if it is good to deal with people as they really are, it is even better to do them in relation to what they need to be. The most absolute authority is that which penetrates the deepest part of the being, and has not so much to do with his desires but rather with his actions ”. USA sociologist Robert A. Nisbet ("The Social Philosophers" - 1973) contrasts his vision of power in relation to that of Jean Jacques Rousseau, stating that he was the first to justify absolute power in the name of virtue, equality, and freedom.
For Nisbet “power is more than power itself; it is rather the refuge of the inequalities and uncertainties of all society ”.
Political science expert from the United States of America Charles E. Merriam ("Political Power" - 1934) stresses that power does not necessarily lie in weapons, ships, stone walls, or fortified lines built with steel no matter how important they are. The impulses are linked to what we can call an "impulse pattern" where it is possible for soldiers to disobey officers' orders and may even shoot them; where weapons can be used against the government, and where citizens can disobey the law to the point of being a virtue, and warns that under this situation "authority is powerless and can lead to disaster."
And Charles Merriam makes us see the complexity that exists on the road to achieving compliance from others within the limits of authority and, with great finesse, highlights the possible negative consequences even "under compliance" ("Systematic politics" - 1945). “The“ civil disobedience has not only to do with the public but also with the private one that different methods of neutralizing authority can be observed, both within the family, at school, in the church and in companies. Children from a very young age give us ingenious signs about how they try to evade the discipline of their parents, and even slaves develop ways of protesting, just like prisoners do when they go on strike,and staff always find new ways to challenge and obstruct authority-related policies and practices. Even more; sometimes it is not even necessary to disobey; simply executing an order or instruction received in the wrong way can turn out to be a successful model of protest ”.
Another notable political science student, the Italian Robert Michels who was born in Germany and became famous for the "iron law of the oligarchy in organizations" points out that the authority may have both a personal and an institutional origin but is still created and sustained by the opinion of others (public), which in turn is conditioned by feelings, affections, reverence and even fatalism. And he adds that although authority rests even on physical coercion, it is still accepted by those who are "commanded", even though this command is due to the fact that it is feared by the force it can exert.
British political science expert Harold Laski points out that authority in governments / states is strongly related to economic power and it is through it that instructions are obeyed ("The problem of administrative areas" - 1918).
It is also important to take into account the words of French Georges Sorel ("The ethics of socialism" - 1899) who makes us see that "authority does not remain vacant for long"; It must immediately be occupied by another, and what is absolutely valid for society as a whole is also valid for organizations. People when they become organizational participants are going to have a certain degree of authority over others from the moment they occupy a position and also have to be subject to the authority “of others”. The spaces that correspond to the organizational positions are not kept vacant.
The notable German sociologist and economist Max Weber born in 1864 and died in 1920 who coined and developed the term charismatic leadership in organizations ("Economy and society" - 1922) points out with respect to the leader that if "the existence of evidence of success disappears For a long time, if your God has abandoned you and lost your magical and heroic powers and above all if your leadership ceases to benefit your followers, it is very likely that your own charismatic leadership will disappear. "This is the real and genuine meaning of the divine right that kings have."
Max Weber highlights the limits of charismatic leadership to which we are all so prone within Latin American cultures. For Weber charismatic authority in its purest form has nothing to do with routine day-to-day structures. He suggests that charismatic leadership has more to do with the birth stage and is essentially naturally "nascent." That is why it cannot be sustained over time: "It cannot remain stable, but becomes Esther traditionalized or rationalized, or a combination of both" ("Economy and society" - 1922).
Let us now go on to learn something about the concept of "Power".
The German sociologist Ralph Dahrendorf refers to the debate that develops in relation to the concepts of "hegemony" versus "power" and points out that for the purposes of his interest the old distinction that was made between an "association contract" and a "Domination contract" would only have some analytical utility. In practice, it is very difficult for Dahrendorf to think about the existence of a human association where there is no element of domination: “Where there is society there is power” (“The modern social conflict” - 1988).
The British philosopher Thomas Hobbes born in 1588 and died in 1679 clarifies that there is an important general inclination of the human race towards the perpetuation without rest regarding the desire that power leads to power "that ends only with death" ("Leviathan" - 1651). Hobbes assures that "the power of the people is oriented to obtain some good in the future and can be either" of origin "or" instrumental ". The simple reputation for power is simply "power."
Many people are familiar with the story of the scorpion asking the frog to allow him to climb onto it to cross a small stream with it, where the frog initially tells her that this would be fatal to her. But the scorpion convinces him that this would be fatal for him, with which the frog finally agrees to transfer the scorpion onto its back. This, in the middle of the journey, injects it into the frog and the frog says: "But why do you do it: you don't see that we are both going to die", to which the scorpion says: "It doesn't matter; I have done it because that act is within my own nature ”. The English philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill born in 1806 and died in 1873 warns us that political power must be abused in order to satisfy the particular interests of the holder of power."This does not have to happen in all cases, but we can still speak of a natural tendency for this to happen" ("Considerations on representative government" - 1861.
The French philosopher Michel Foucault born in 1926 and died in 1984 highlights the practical and concrete implications of power. For Foucault ("The subject and power" - 1982) power is strongly rooted in social connections; it is not something that is reconstituted “above” society as a supplementary structure… “a society without power relations is a mere abstraction”.
Sometimes there is a tendency to point out "that it is because those who have power commit the abuse of showing off and displaying it", both with respect to the behavior exhibited by rulers and by business, union and organizational leaders. In this sense, it is good to go to a job by Thorstein Veblen - an economist and sociologist from the United States of America - who emphasizes that to possess and retain the esteem of people, the fact of possessing wealth or power is not enough. "Wealth and power must be exposed, since esteem is awarded only on the basis of evidence (" The theory of leisure class "- 1899). So the perception of important offices for the highest levels and the offering of benefits linked to "luxury" for the management of the organizations,Despite being "verbalized" by subordinates as "excess expenses", they still imprint on them the mark of a distinctive relationship where there is no doubt about who holds power.
Elizabeth Janeway in her dual capacity as a novelist and a "social critic" shares some words that should not be ignored by those interested in organizational behavior - its effectiveness and efficiency - and also organizational development by stressing that power is usually defined as a quality and attribute that is possessed only by those who are powerful when in reality the understanding of power requires that it includes considering the situation of those who are weak, who represent "second members of power" within which it exists and also is modified society ("Powers of the weak" - 1980). The incorporation of women in organizational spheres nowadays includes almost 50% of women. Women represent the weakest group in terms of size and seniority.Its incorporation within organizational spheres has produced profound changes in the functionality of organizations.
Eric Gaynor Butterfield ("Congress of Organizational Development", Argentina - 1997) argues that organizational development requires specific attributes that prevail within the cognitive universe of women (above that of men), as a particular methodology is found within them and a type of distinctive thinking with respect to that of men, which favors creativity and innovation within the business and organizational world.
The two facets - of the superior and of the subordinate - in relation to power must be taken into account as it is made known by the USA economist Frank Knight, who highlights the circular relationship that exists between authoritarianism “received” at an early age and that, although criticized in those moments, later on he is even adopted by the incumbent in his actions with respect to others.. Knight emphasizes that "power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts completely." But it must also be borne in mind that both a power-seeking attitude and a predisposition towards servility must both be condemned equally ("Intelligence and democratic action" - 1960).
The philosopher John Locke makes it quite clear that one of the questions that has concerned the human species throughout all time has not been related to "if there should be Power in the world" but rather with Who should have it ("Two treatises of government" - 1690).
No one doubts about the importance of knowledge and information and how they influence what happens within organizations, which is also true beyond the business sphere as the statesman and philosopher Francis Bacon ("De haeresibus" - 1597): "knowledge is power". And the USA sociologist Bernard Barber adds that knowledge is power that allows us to do both good and evil "but we cannot detach ourselves from power anyway" ("Science and the social order" - 1952).
Many people view organizations as a "conversation or dialogue" as is the case of those who belong to the "ontological coaching" school. Power is linked to going beyond the psychological contract that organizational participants maintain with their superiors; what belongs to the psychological contract between them falls within the range of "authority". Some authors call what happens outside the psychological contract and that is linked to power, under the name of "organizational politics" (J. Pfeffer: "Power in organizations"; Pitman Publishing - 1981). To which we should add that the language of politics is the language of power (Harold Lasswell: "The language of power" - 1949).
In the United States of America, a “best practice” has been adopted, known as empowerment, which has been based mainly on overcoming the problems of hierarchical pyramid organization. When the shareholders and stakeholders together with the managers realized that what they were really interested in were the results in concrete and financial terms regardless of the position they occupied, they were willing to turn the pyramid, so that those below were positioned in the top (Michel Foucault highlights that power "comes from below": "The history of sexuality" - 1976). And Arthur L. Stinchcombe - a sociologist from the USA - points out to us that "power is legitimate to the extent that, by virtue of the doctrines and norms by which it is justified,Whoever has the power can go to other power centers as reserves when they are needed, so that their own power is more effective. ” In other words, the power of one person is used in addition to the power of others.
Thomas Hobbes (1651 - already quoted) highlights the importance of how power is distributed or centralized by pointing out that it is necessary for people to live under a “common power” while James Madison - statesman and philosopher of the USA - emphasizes that accumulation of all powers in the same hands (the legislative, judicial and executive) regardless of whether it was in one, in a few or in several hands, or that it had a hereditary character, self-appointed or through elections, can be defined like a tyranny ("Federalist No. 47 - 1788). Perhaps the limits of the abuses of power can occur under the conception of James Steuart Denham, who in his capacity as an expert in political economy, maintains that "arbitrary" power can never be delegated;since it can turn against both the monarch and the subject ("An inquiry into the principles of Political Economy" - 1767).
We must now penetrate deeper into the world of organizational behavior, change, and development.
Yesterday we made an extensive review of the most notable exponents in the field of organizational theories and there we have seen that linear organization presents a pyramid-like form where supervision (which is linear) is based on unity of command, typical of authority linear. This scheme contradicts the ideas of the scientific administration of Frederick Taylor (“Scientific Management”; Harper & Row - 1947) contrary to what many people believe. In addition to the line authority, Taylor's scheme includes functional supervision, which is criticized by many of the authors who followed him, as is the case of Henry Fayol. Fayol ("General and Industrial management"; Pitman - 1949) criticizes functional authority on the grounds that it contradicts the principle of unity of command.
Under the linear (and pyramidal) type of organization, the line bodies are exclusively dedicated to their previously determined and stipulated activities, while there are other bodies in charge of providing specialized services, which are called staff bodies that provide advice, suggestions, improvements., and recommendations regarding how to improve processes; These staff functions have no line authority and resemble the "organization and methods" or "methods and procedures" departments that exist within large organizations. Since these staff bodies do not have line authority, they cannot impose their ideas on line bodies. These staff organs do not have line authority nor do they have command authority.
And this is where I want to stop even if it is only a few minutes because we have evidence that shows that many professional graduates, and even many senior managers and managers, often do not have a clear understanding of the highly innovative conception of Frederick Taylor, whose conceptions are sometimes treated in pejorative and often out of context.
Only Taylor's extraordinary talent - especially if we take into account the time - has been able to anticipate the organizational conception of the notable German sociologist Max Weber, highlighting the importance of expertise within organizations. And for this Taylor created two different channels. In other words, Taylor foresaw “knowledge-based authority” and implemented “knowledge management” mechanisms when these two words were not mentioned yet!
For those familiar with matrix organization and its applications that began to be implemented on a larger scale in the 1970s and only during the last decade within the different Latin American cultures, you should note that to a certain extent Frederick Taylor has had the quality pioneer regarding this practice. The matrix organization aims to integrate the command or line authority (based on organizational silos) with the authority of "processes" which is very similar to the line authority of units linked to the action of Frederick Taylor with the knowledge authority regarding “how to improve processes”.
And not to mention Taylor's extraordinary work in relating strongly - as no one has ever been able to match him to this day - the rewards with the behaviors of the different organizational participants.
Formal organizations are characterized by the fact that it is the hierarchy that distributes authority and also responsibility among the different levels of the organizational pyramid, where the basic hypothesis is that those who are "higher" are those who have greater authority. The classical authors were very clear that authority is what allows responsibility to be assigned, and that through a hierarchy of authority some people can command others to take action, or stop taking action, in pursuit of goals. of the company. For Henry Fayol (1949 - already quoted) authority consists of power and the right to give orders and the power to demand obedience or compliance.
Until then those interested in efficient organizations and organizational development could choose between two basic options, which became a third possibility with the remarkable work of the German sociologist Max Weber (“The theory of social and economic organization”; Free Press - 1947). In the intermediate period between the classics and Max Weber we find the contributions of those who belong to the movement of human relations who based on some naive aspects regarding a single orientation of man that was towards the positive and always with a willingness to serve and towards compliance, they were harshly criticized.
It was necessary to add “rationality” to “a river that had run out of water”; the classics emphasized the discipline and the movement of human relations suggested other more flexible organizational options based on the good predisposition of people.
Max Weber's model fit perfectly since it imposes the development of an organization of a rational type where there is a chain between means and ends, and which was also applicable not only to industrial companies but also to any other type of industry or sector. Until now, the commercial and services sectors had a solution in their hands through the implementation of a bureaucracy.
Here it is also possible to make a second clarification in relation to what usually manifests itself within the teaching faculties (which many times have university students and professors) and in companies (which is the opinion of executives, executives and managers).). Bureaucracy for Max Weber is the most efficient organizational arrangement where two main dimensions are combined:
1. The formal;
2. the rational.
This makes it possible for there to be four possible options or arrangements. One of them is the one where we have rationality but we do not have the hierarchy, which could be represented by those who have the knowledge and knowledge within the organization but do not have the authority to impose their decisions. In other words, these are people who have a voice but do not have a vote.
On the other hand we have those who have the hierarchy but do not have the necessary rationality and we could say that they are those who have the vote to decide independently of what sense it makes what they decide. Of course, in any organization there can be positions, roles and people where there is neither rationality nor hierarchy of importance; In this case, organizational efficiency is hard hit.
For Max Weber, organizational efficiency - which he has given the name of bureaucracy - is one where hierarchy is effectively combined with rationality. Details of these different options and their consequences at the organizational level can be found in the book by Eric Gaynor Butterfield: "Executive Development and Organizational Development"; published by The Organization Development Institute International, Latin America - 2005).
Under the bureaucracy, authority is clearly delimited and the different people occupy roles where exactly what is expected of them in their daily activities and tasks is predetermined. Instructions are given in an exact, detailed and meticulous manner regarding what is expected in terms of people's behavior, which is called “roles” and these roles give an impersonal character - paradoxically - to the people themselves. Henceforth, efficient organizations based on rationality that adopt the name and the form of bureaucratic organization must leave no place for the existence of emotions, affects and feelings. In different ways, many other notable scholars of the organizations were part of the bureaucratic movement,some more convinced and others less making their criticisms known: Reinhardt Bendix ("Max Weber: An intellectual portrait"; Doubleday - 1962); Robert K. Merton ("Social theory and social structure"; Glencoe - 1957); Peter Blau ("Social Exchange" - 1968); Philip Selznick ("TVA and the grass roots"; 1949); Alvin Gouldner ("Patterns in industrial bureaucracy"; Routledge & Kegan - 1955); Robert Michels (“Political parties”; - Dover - 1959).
An interesting distinction of Max Weber's work has to do with the different types of authority to which he refers, who points out that each type of society in particular has a primary type of authority, which is defined as “the probability that a specific order be obeyed ”(Idalberto Chiavenato:“ Introduction to the general theory of administration ”; McGraw - Hill; 1995).
Max Weber makes a distinction between power and authority since power for Weber is the probability of imposing orders through the will even under any kind of difficulty or resistance and regardless of the degree of foundation that probability had. In this way, power is defined as the possibility of obtaining compliance from others by giving direction to their behaviors through impositions that could even become arbitrary.
Authority is related to the concept of legitimacy which makes what is required be accepted by the other and in this way we can say that there is a particular type of relationship between power and authority. Authority implies having power; But power cannot always come to mean that you have authority. The authority to be legitimate implies the ability to exercise and also justify its exercise; and when that power is accepted, we talk that it is legitimate.
For the exercise of power the beliefs that are in the minds of the superior and the subordinate are important. Max Weber does not develop a typology of "power" but a typology of authority - remember that authority is the probability that a specific order is obeyed and fulfilled - which is based on the different sources and types of legitimacy existing and put into practice by leader. Weber highlights the existence of three main types of legitimate authority:
traditional authority;
charismatic authority;
rational, legal or bureaucratic authority.
The traditional type of authority has the characteristics that prevail in traditional societies; They are conservative, patriarchal and with an important weight in the patrimonial. Weber cites clans, tribes, family, and medieval society as examples of this type of authority. Traditional authority has no rational basis and is based on power that is inherited or delegated. The "lord" is a good image of this type of power that finds its legitimacy through habits, traditions, uses and customs. The administrative apparatus that is adopted for this type of traditional authority is based on a patrimonial / feudal form.
The type of charismatic authority has characteristics of a “personalist” type, a strong mystical connotation and an arbitrary type. Examples of this type of power are found - according to Max Weber - in revolutionary groups, countries that are in a revolutionary phase and political parties. Authority is based on charisma and does not respond to the rational, nor is it inherited, nor is it delegable. It is legitimized through the personal characteristics of the leader in relation to heroism, magic, and mental power. The implementation of the administrative apparatus shows characteristics of a fickle and unstable nature. The people belonging to the organization are selected based on their loyalty and taking into account their devotion to the leader; the candidate's technical conditions and qualifications are not taken into account.
D. Nadler and M. Tushman (“Beyond thye charismatic leader: leadership and organizational change”; California management review - 1990) highlights that there are three stages through which charismatic leaders mobilize and that have to do with the processes of:
to. visualization, which is linked with articulating a vision, setting really high goals, and modeling consistent behaviors;
b. energizing, which includes demonstrating a type of personal arousal and activation, expressing confidence in a personal capacity, and seeking, finding, and making use of success;
c. enabling, which is achieved through the provision of support in a personal capacity, acting, generating and achieving empathy, and expressing trust in people.
Gregory Moorhead & Ricky Griffin (“Organizational Behavior: Managing people and organizations”; Houghton Mifflin Co - 1995) include a list of charismatic leaders: Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Mary Kay Ash, Lee Iacocca, and also a John De Lorean and Adolf Hitler.
The type of bureaucratic authority is based on two main dimensions: the legal (formal) and the rational. Under this type of authority a rationality is assumed between the means and the objectives and Max Weber considers that modern states, the armed forces and large corporations operate under this proposal. It is characterized by the fact that the positions of the organizational participants are based on "meritocracy". The law is what “does justice” and the legitimation is set in motion as a result of previously defined legal norms being promulgated and regulated for all incumbents. The administrative apparatus that supports this type of authority is called bureaucracy.
Bureaucratic authority has been subject to much criticism by many authors. James March and Herbert Simon in their monumental work “Organizations” (Wiley & Sons - 1958) point out that Max Weber perceives the bureaucracy as an adaptive mechanism that allows the use of specialized skills, and that “he is not extremely attentive regarding of the very character of the human organism ”. Some of its critics do not deny the general proposition that bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organization, but devote efforts to showing some of the important dysfunctional consequences of the type of bureaucratic organization. Robert Merton (“Bureaucratic structure and personality”;Social Forces - 1940) mentions the dysfunctional consequences related to learning where different organizational participants have to apply unique responses to different situations.
In turn, Philip Selznick (“TVA and the grass roots”; Berkeley - 1949) instead of emphasizing the importance of norms and rules as a way to obtain appropriate control, focuses on the delegation of authority and, at the same time, Like Merton, Selznick shows how a control technique (linked to delegation) can have a series of negative consequences.
Alvin Gouldner ("Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy"; Routledge & Kegan - 1955) presents a more simplified model than that adopted by Selznick and Merton. Like Merton and Selznick, Gouldner shows how the orientation to increase control to maintain the balance of a system within the organization can break the balance of the organization as a whole, with its subsequent negative return on the original subsystem itself..
It is noteworthy that among the classics (Taylor and Farol for example) and Max Weber is the remarkable contribution of the President of the number 1 steel company in the world who overturns his ideas and experiences in his work entitled “The functions of the executive ”(Chester Barnard; Harvard University Press - 1938). And who better than James March and Herbert Simon to build on the foundations of Chester Barnard's conceptions that some conceptualize as a theory of organizational balance that has a strong cognitive influence.
The organization under this concept is a complicated network of interactions between people, people and groups, people within groups, groups with other groups, and these with the organization as a whole where each of these possible combinations must take into account two main aspects:
the incentives (inducements) that represent what the organization gives to the organizational participants that can be represented by wages, salaries, bonuses, bonuses, special prizes, praise, claps, training, coaching, recognition, promotion possibilities, among others. The seasoned reader should keep in mind that Barnard - and her followers March & Simon - refer to incentives or incentives that can be "hard and concrete" or soft rewards.
the contributions that organizational members would make that have to do with productivity, effort, performance, attendance, punctuality, loyalty, confidentiality and discretion, among others.
Incentives have different uses for different organizational members and have to do with the different personal needs of each of them, while the contributions are related to the energies that the organizational participant dedicates to achieve the organizational objectives.
The subtlety of Chester Barnard and also of March & Simon has confused many experts who initially “placed” Chester Barnard within the movement known as human relations when in reality Barnard's perspective was concrete enough - and not stated - so that the contributions were measurable rather in terms of real value compared to the incentives that could be hard and also soft.
Barnard departed completely from classical theory and demonstrated how traditional authority can often be ineffective, and that orders can be disobeyed, how they can be obeyed when they are wrong, and the consequences of these different possibilities. Hence, Barnard maintains that authority rests on the acceptance (or not) of the consent and approval of subordinates. For Barnard, the concept of legitimation of authority does not really exist, but it is very simple: subordinate people simply choose between different alternatives regarding obeying or not obeying.
Based on this Chester Barnard shows that the process of acceptance of an order and the execution of its fulfillment is not naturally the rule but rather it can be an exception since several conditions must be met, in this case, four. For Barnard there are four conditions that must be met simultaneously for subordinates to accept an order and comply with it; They are:
when the subordinate can understand or understand the order;
when it does not consider it incompatible with the organization;
when you do not judge it incompatible with your personal goals;
when he is mentally and physically able to fulfill it.
Hence, Chester Barnard, with his genius and vast practical experience, concludes that authority does not basically depend on the superior, but has to do with the decision to be taken by the subordinate to accept or reject it.
Much work has been done on Leadership with the interest of achieving compliance from subordinates, and we must recognize that one of the fundamental pieces to take into account is related to the processes of “influence”. One of the main jobs that every leader has is to increase their degree of influence with respect to their subordinates: Eric Gaynor Butterfield: “Leadership Workshop for a leading Oil company in the world” - July 2005). We can infer that regardless of the characteristics, behaviors and attributes that a leader may have, what ultimately matters is that the influence is really present, and within this line we can conclude that a leader is one who is in a position to influence - in the direction appropriate - regarding attitudes,beliefs and behaviors of subordinates (RW Allen & Lyman W. Porter: "Organizational Influence Process"; Scott, Foresman - 1983). On the other hand G. Yukl & J. Tracey ("Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss"; Journal of applied psychology - 1992) show us that the process of influence can be carried out so much to get benefits as to eventually reach negative consequences.Journal of applied psychology - 1992) show us that the influence process can be carried out both to obtain benefits and eventually to reach negative consequences.Journal of applied psychology - 1992) show us that the influence process can be carried out both to obtain benefits and eventually to reach negative consequences.
The influence exists when two people interact with each other and both depend on each other, that is, A's actions influence B and B's actions also influence A.
The dependency that occurs between two people can have different motivational bases. Amitai Etzioni (“Modern organizations”; Prentice-Hall - 1964) developed a very interesting work where it shows that people can achieve compliance based on different types of power, involvement / commitment and control. And these different types of power, commitment and control must be differentiated according to the type of organization in question. Efficient organizations are those where there is consistency between the type of organization and the type of control, commitment and way of obtaining compliance.
For example, when a person wants to join a political or union type organization, what prevails for their appreciation and evaluation has to do with their values. In general, the entry of people takes a long time until it is finally accepted, unlike other organizations such as coercive organizations where people enter almost immediately, even when they do not want to, as in the case of prisons and concentration camps. Compliance in this type of political and union organization has to do with aspects that Amitai Etzioni calls “normative” or principles, and the type of control to be exercised over its members is linked to normative values. The commitment in turn is of a moral nature.According to Amitai Etzioni, if this type of political or union organization exercised control through coercion or by economic means, organizational efficiency would be reduced.
On the other hand, organizations where people enter without evaluation and do so immediately, such as prisons and concentration camps, the type of control that is exercised over the organizational member is based on force and coercion and through This coercion is that compliance is obtained. Of course here the organizational participant does not have to show a degree of "moral" commitment as described above but rather their commitment and involvement is of the "alienating" type. Organizational efficiency in this type of institution is achieved - according to Amitai Etzioni - only and when a type of control based on force is exercised.
There is also a third type of organization according to Etzioni that he calls utilitarians within which all private for-profit companies would be located. Organizational efficiency in this type of private organization or company, as it is usually called, is obtained through economic incentives to the organizational members, which achieves a type of involvement and commitment that is called “calculator”. Exerting pressure and coercion on organizational participants, or paying attention to values, should not be sufficient to achieve organizational efficiency in organizations that fall into the utilitarian category.
It should be noted that no type of organization uses a single type of commitment and a single type of control to achieve compliance by part of its components. In general, the types of commitment and control that the different organizations put into practice have to do with a “main orientation” but also other orientations that are secondary coexist. For example, in utilitarian organizations, special emphasis is placed on economic rewards, but although these are vital, many of their members, such as professionals, prefer that moral aspects are also taken into account, where certain values that are linked to learning and subsequent development and growth in the profession.
The implications are varied and subtle and it is unfortunate that the Amitai Etzioni conceptual framework has often been oversimplified. For example, we have pointed out that in coercive organizations where participants do not undergo any special process to enter, but are inserted even against their wishes, as is the case in prisons and concentration camps, the behavior expected the components is of the alienating type as mentioned. Many parents and teachers wonder why many of their children and students do not have or show any interest in studies, and they are struck by the fact that this is an abnormal phenomenon; However,From the interesting perspective of Etzioni, it seems reasonable that they act in an alienating way, since many times "these children and students are pushed into educational institutions without having the slightest option to choose."
Zaleznick in “Power and politics in organizational life” (Harvard University Press - 1971) highlights something that is extremely important due to its practical implications and that some managers and executives usually do not take into account: a manager should not confuse the concept of compliance with that of commitment. They are two different concepts. Compliance can be achieved for different reasons, and not simply because of the degree of commitment.
Tom Burns (“Industry in a new age”; New society - 1963) has made it clear that there is no single and best way to organize. The most efficient organizational arrangement has to do with the organizational type in which the company is inserted and for this it refers to two different models:
the mechanic, the organic.
Henry Tosi ("The environment / organization / person contingency model: a meso approach to the study of organizations"; JAI Press - 1992) highlights that in mechanistic organizations authority and also power as decision-making must be highly centralized. He also notes that legitimate authority has to be quite possibly relatively stable for long periods of time since there are fewer external forces that are driving for change. But on the other hand, organic organizations have to have a legitimate authority structure that is less stable and has to change more frequently as a result of the multiple changes in the context to which the organization has to adapt to survive..In organic organizations the authority should not be so concentrated and the most common thing is that it is very possibly dispersed, this dispersion has to be "close" to the projects that the firm has to be facing.
Nowadays, and as a result of technological, financial and communications globalization, companies have rather “mixed” forms where mechanistic units are combined with organic units, all within the same organization. This means that organizations adopt a matrix form with the consequent advantages and disadvantages of working in them.
The consequences of the implementation of the matrix organization have been quite serious for organizational participants who "begin to live within an organization where they no longer have to report a single person." To a large extent, it has been the difficulties in implementing the matrix organization model that have created and greatly strengthened the discipline and profession of Organizational Development (Dr. Donald W. Cole: Organizational Development Congress - 1997).
People are used to reporting one for a long time and - with the implementation of the matrix organization, the organizational participants find themselves in a situation where they must satisfy demands that come from different sources and that sometimes even conflict with each other. If we add to this the biblical phrase adopted by the former President of the United States of America (Abraham Lincoln), in the sense that: “Every house divided inside does not hold up”, we find that organizations are beginning to have difficulties related to the concepts and practices of "authority", "who is the boss", "who decides"; How long do I have to finish this job and comply with an instruction (which may contradict another one that I receive from another person); "power";"Compliance" and "commitment", among others.
This difficult task that organizations began to confront from the second half of the last century has been faced by the profession of organizational development with the support of the behavioral sciences.
In the book by Dr. Donald W. Cole and Eric Gaynor Butterfield (“Professional Suicide or Organizational Murder”; The Organization Development Institute International, Latin America - 2005) it is shown that compliance within an organization is not something that superiors should assume which happens naturally. Organizational participants can do some things that are not directly related to the interests of the organization and can go even further, doing things that are also against their own interests. In this treatise it is shown how after a "honeymoon" that happens when the person enters the company, events are triggered many times from the difference between what the participant has "in their head" (metaphorically,since it is in his mind) regarding what the organization is and what the participant himself "lives" during his stay. These differences, not being resolved by himself, tend to try to resolve with his superior who - probably - does not have much interest in solving them or perhaps not listening to them either. From there, the participant can go to their peers who, in general, can “compete” with it, leaving the subordinates as a last option. A manager who suffered this situation stated that this last option is similar to that lived by Christians in Rome before being thrown into the sand to the lions when in the last hours they could speak with others.they tend to try to work out with their superior who - probably - is not very interested in working out them or perhaps not even listening to them. From there, the participant can go to their peers who, in general, can “compete” with it, leaving the subordinates as a last option. A manager who suffered this situation stated that this last option is similar to the one lived by Christians in Rome before being thrown into the sand to the lions when in the last hours they could speak with others.they tend to try to work out with their superior who - probably - is not very interested in working out them or perhaps not even listening to them. From there, the participant can go to their peers who, in general, can “compete” with it, leaving the subordinates as a last option. A manager who suffered this situation stated that this last option is similar to the one lived by Christians in Rome before being thrown into the sand to the lions when in the last hours they could speak with others.A manager who suffered this situation stated that this last option is similar to the one lived by Christians in Rome before being thrown into the sand to the lions when in the last hours they could speak with others.A manager who suffered this situation stated that this last option is similar to the one lived by Christians in Rome before being thrown into the sand to the lions when in the last hours they could speak with others.
Gregory Moorhead & Ricky Griffin (“Organizational Behavior: Managing people and organizations”; Houghton Mifflin Co - 1995) attempt a definition of power out of the many that exist, noting that there is no single definition that is accepted by all. They define "power" as "a potential ability that a person or group has to exercise control over another person or another group" and suggest that regarding reviews related to the meaning of power, they can go to the following treatises:
- Henry Mintzberg: "Power in and around organizations"; Prentice-Hall - 1983, Jeffrey Pfeffer: "Power in organizations"; Pitman Publishing - 1981; John Kenneth Galbraith; "The anatomy of power"; Houghton-Mifflin - 1983, Gary A. Yukl: “Leadership in organizations”; Prentice Hall - 1994.
Possibly the most common different types of power found in the literature have to do with the work of John French and Bertram Raven (“The bases of social power”; in Studies of social power - University of Michigan Press - 1959).
These authors distinguish 5 different power bases:
- Legitimate power, which is basically authority, since it is fundamentally based on the position and role that one occupies within the organization, where every manager has power over his subordinates and that is based on some mechanism that the organization emits making it known. As we have previously mentioned the advent of matrix organization, organization by projects, re-engineering and implementation of ISO standards that often operate transversely and horizontally, present conflict situations and make this type of legitimate power somewhat diffuse as well as authority. The power "of rewards" that exists when a person is in a position to control another or others as a consequence of rewards that are available to them and that are valued by the third party.It should be noted that rewards do not necessarily have to be material, since recognition of a job well done, training proposals, and an interest in the career of subordinates may also fall into this category. However, Eric Gaynor Butterfield (“Organizational Development Congress; 1999 - Argentina) mentions that within Latin American cultures a great majority of managers feel that they have no power over their subordinates and that this weakens their authority, since they are based in the almost exclusive conception that "they do not manage the resources that their subordinates need".The coercive power that arises in those situations where a person has the capacity and possibility of punishing both physically and psychologically another person in order to have control over them. It is common for many managers to consider that they do not use this option and are greatly surprised when one manifests certain managerial behaviors that correspond to this category, such as a manager who draws attention in a bad way to one of his subordinates in the presence of their peers. The options within this category are many and varied and not only do the departmental managers themselves make use of this option, but it is also used by many “Human Resources” Managers.A common practice of the latter has to do with "the subtle and underlying threat of transferring an organizational participant to a region or branch far from where his family is." It is surprising how superiors, on the one hand, consider that they do not use this option and, on the other hand, in daily activities it is one of the most common practices in companies. So when managers manifest the hostility and resentment of some of their subordinates, they must appreciate if they themselves are not using means of coercive power; And if this is indeed the case, you should not be surprised by the reactions of your own subordinates. Power based on expertise is the fourth type of power and has to do with the information that the incumbent possesses.For example, sellers have power based on expertise when they reserve information related to the sale of products and services to Customers in their company. The more important the information that is possessed, and the fewer alternative sources that can obtain it, the greater the power. Expertise-based power is widely dispersed throughout the organization and is not always directly related to the hierarchy of organizational members. We can say that, in general, legitimate power, reward-based power and coercive power are not always directly related to formal power, but on the other hand, this is often the case. In contrast, power based on expertise bears little relation to formal authority.Power based on expertise is what greatly increases the power of those who work in the Research and Development department. Many managers realize that their position of power is partially reduced when they have assistants who perform many of their jobs, participate in many of their important projects, and therefore monopolize much of the superior's information. In summary, we can say that power based on expertise occurs when a person controls information that is valuable to other people (s). "Referential" power occurs when a person wants to imitate or resemble another and is manifested through of the identification phenomenon. When a person is highly respected by another who wants to take her as a model, she becomes a person with "referent" power.This type of power closely resembles the power of expertise in that it bears little relation to formal authority within the organization. Some authors tend to link the “referring” power to the charism since it involves concepts such as emotional commitment and effective acceptance, the desire to follow the referent or leader and the trust they place in him.
Another way to consider power within organizations can be through the distinction between:
The power derived from the position has to do with the position that the participant occupies as a consequence of the role or position that he occupies within the company. Gregory Moorhead & Ricky Griffin (“Organizational Behavior: Managing people and organizations”; Houghton Mifflin Co - 1995) highlight that legitimate power, which is based on rewards and to some extent coercive power and the power of expertise contribute greatly measure to the power "of the position".
On the other hand, personal power basically resides in the person regardless of the position they occupy within the organization, and therefore we can say that it is strongly related to the referring power and with some aspects of the power of expertise, coercive power, and power of rewards. Personal power is carried out by the incumbent using persuasion (Chester Barnard: "The Functions of the executive" - 1938) or by getting others to identify with you, which often influences not only a higher performance but also about the level of commitment, loyalty and involvement.
If we combine the two types of power (personal and positional) based on two different dimensions, we find four possible situations where the person who does have personal power and also has positional power is the person with the greatest possible power, and therefore on the contrary, the one who has no positional power or personal power has the least degree of power. In intermediate positions are those who have one of the other two powers, who must then have a degree of "moderate" power.
Gary Jukl: “Leadership in organizations”, has made a very interesting, vigorous and practical distinction in relation to power within the organizational field where he relates the “power bases”, the requirements of people who possess power, and the possible results to be obtained.
For each of the five different types of influence, the author discriminates regarding their impacts on three variables:
commitment
compliance
resistance
Referring power is likely to reach a level of commitment to the extent that the request made may be important to the leader; while the level of compliance is possible if the requirement is perceived as not important for the leader; and resistance is possible if the request is related to something that can hurt the leader.
In the power of expertise, commitment is possible if the request is carried out persuasively and also when subordinates share the leader's work objectives; At the same time, compliance is possible if the request has been made in a persuasive way but the subordinates respond apathetically in order to achieve the objectives in the leader's task; and finally resistance is possible if the leader is arrogant and insulting, or when subordinates oppose goals at work.
Legitimate power is possible in terms of compromise if the request is made in a courteous and appropriate manner; compliance is likely if the request is seen as legitimate; and resistance is possible if arrogant demands exist or when the requirement does not appear to be appropriate.
Reward-based power makes compromise possible when used surreptitiously, and with personal factors in mind; compliance is likely if it is used in a mechanical and impersonal way and resistance is possible if it is used in a manipulative and arrogant way.
And finally coercive power in terms of commitment is highly unlikely; compliance is possible if it is done in a non-punitive manner and on the contrary giving and providing assistance; and resistance is likely if it is used in a hostile or manipulative manner.
We still have to analyze a series of additional proposals related to the processes that are linked to authority, persuasion, power and commitment. But we are going to leave these tasks for tomorrow and we have to meet in groups of about 5 people to make a dynamic related to what we have seen. During the morning, and in the first hours, we have to complete conceptual aspects and other theories and abstractions related to the issues of authority and power; We cannot in any way leave out the monumental works of Arnold Tannenbaum (distribution of power and control in the organization) and Carl Frost (level of participation and its impact on organizational results).I ask that you also remind me of an interesting experiment that shows how people can - based on following the orders of "other" - end up causing a lot of pain in other participants. In this experiment it was shown how many people were willing to continue inflicting pain on “subordinates” through electro-shocks (of course simulated) that exceeded even the expected limits.
Thanks for sharing.
