Power comes in various ways, each of which has different effects on the targets of that power. Some derive from individual characteristics, others draw on aspects of organizational structure. Whether they are aware of it or not, professionals use their power to extend their influence to other members of the organization. This is done when they influence the organisational members to follow or not a certain pattern of life or standard operating procedures. Power is not a preserve of the leadership but can be wielded basically by anyone within an organization or functional structure. It could as such be distributed amongst all the hierarchical levels depending on the form that it takes. By and large, decisions within organizations, communities or even nations are affected to a considerable extent by the power in their leaders. Kurt Lewin (1941) revolutionized the study of leadership by introducing the concept of social power in terms of differentials between interpersonal force and resistance.
Following Lewin, French and Raven described leadership in terms of differential power relationships. In their classic research on the bases of social power, French and Raven (1996) described five bases of power: reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert power.
3.5.1 Reward Power
Reward power as noted by Lunenburg (2012), is a person’s ability to influence others’
behaviour by providing them with things they want to receive. Hence in harnessing this form of power, the individual needs to offer things that are appealing to the ones that he or she intends to exercise power over. Reward power according to Lunenburg (2012) is used by making an explicit or implicit promise to give a person something under the leader’s control for carrying out a request or performing a task. The reward may however take various forms, with the common form in an organizational setting being financial. In the colonial era, the
57
whites rewarded those people (kings) who were loyal to them by appointing them as village heads and chiefs though this move alienated the targets of reward from the people since the rewards were issued as inducement for political loyalty. Reward power is based on B’s perception that A has the ability to mediate rewards for him or her. If B has the ability to reward his/her team members with items like pay raises, bonuses and consolatory awards, he or she would be in a better position to influence the efforts of others in a manner that sees them attaining the desired outcome.
Hence A would more likely command the attention of his or her peers through those rewards, which would work as performance enhancers, as they will be carrying a motivational effect.
Reward power can lead to better performance, as long as the employee sees a clear link between performances and rewards (Nelson and Quick, 2012: 95). In the event that the team members like the reward that is being offered, they would work in greater harmony with the individual who is ushering it out so that they secure their chances of attaining that reward. So long as the reward being offered by the superior is appealing to the subordinate, they will be motivated to achieve, or even exceed the set target, be it quality or quantity.
However, Lunenburg (2012) advocates that prolonged use of reward power can lead to a dependent relationship in which subordinates feel manipulated and become dissatisfied thus making this form of power susceptible to abuse by certain individuals. They would use it to create a scenario that is against other colleagues so as to intimidate them or portray a bad image on them. An individual ‘A’ may resort to the use of this form of power to mobilize other people against his or her personal foe/competitor. In some instances, the individual may even make use of this form of power in a move to formulate an uprising against those at the top of the hierarchy. Such may be the case for subordinates who offer far more appealing rewards than their competitive superiors, thus posing them as a great threat to leadership authority. The greatest challenge arises when an individual is offering rewards that are not as appealing to the ones that he or she intends to control, (Mabey, 2001:38). Efficiency and effectiveness may as such be compromised as those members of the group would be less motivated to behave in a certain manner. Some individuals may also behave in a negative manner in order to convey their message of dissatisfaction in the reward to the one who is offering it. Thus it is advisable for one to ascertain a group’s preferences before trying to implement a reward system to wield power.
58
The reward system when being made use of by the top management or administrators provides proficiency mainly in the private sector. In the case of one being in a public setup, the reward system may face a variety of challenges that stem from mainly the bottleneck or red tape of the communication channels. It may take someone lengthy procedures and time to claim their dues as and when they will have earned them, and in the end they become disappointed. Also, in the non-governmental organizations, the system may be of less appeal as there would not be much resources to motivate people to act in the efficient manner.
Whilst reward power which is synonymous with transactional style of leadership can be used as motivatory, it can conversely have negative effects when used as a tool for patronage which is unfortunately a common practice in Africa. Patronage is used to buy support through abuse of access to and control of state resources and the practice creates intergroup and intragroup tensions between those perceived to be benefiting from illicit rewards and those alienated from the circle and not benefiting. Fierce contestations for public office, excessive bootlicking and deification of office bearers should all be seen as competition for rewards ans this culminates in a corrupt system of relationality.
3.5.2 Expert Power
As expressed by Lunenburg (2012:67), expert power involves a person’s ability to influence others’ behaviour because of recognized knowledge, skills, or abilities. In order to make use of this form of power, an individual needs to possess an unquestionable level of expertise that others may deem to be above theirs. Expertise acquired by an individual can confer a certain degree of power on him or her (Luthans, 2011:231). For instance, if one is working with other peers on a construction initiative, and that individual is in possession of expert knowledge in that very field, it would be more likely that the individual would be conferred with some level of authority and power over others. Fellow peers would be relying on his or her expertise to get things done in a professional manner, which would in turn arouse satisfaction on the part of clients, and simplify the task at hand. Knowledge is power in today’s high-tech workplaces (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2010).
Gaining power in your field of expertise often provides for long lasting benefits on your career as one would be unleashing expert knowledge and experience into action. One would be in possession of a wealth of knowledge on how to navigate the way, as well as the manner in which one would be expected to conduct him or herself. In so doing, there would be less flaws as compared to the initiative having to be presided over by a non-skilled individual. By and large, the expert will be well acquainted with approximately all hurdles that lie ahead of
59
any decision adhered to. Expert power as advocated by Luneburg (2012:67) is closely related to a climate of trust in which a leader’s influence can be internalized by subordinates. When a leader uses expert power, attitudinal conformity and internalized motivation on the part of subordinates will result. Hence, the subordinates will do their work in a manner that calls for less surveillance as they would have placed their trust on the leadership of an expert. One would have less worries about whether the subordinates are working ethically as they would have placed their trust in his/her expertise, thereby following one’s every order.
However, this form of power often emanates from informal means rather than official.
Without occupying any formal leadership position, one would find him or herself commanding more attention during meetings, with their opinion and ideas having to receive more weight than that of other individuals, (Lunenburg, 2012:67). For instance, in a staff meeting focusing on efficient acquisition and use of information and technology equipment in an organization, the individual with information and technology expertise would be expected to contribute constructive and credible information on the best way forward, even though his/her formal authority is non-existent. They may be placed in a decision making scenario with regards to that initiative, without having to be conferred with a leadership position.
Expert power can make the followers to co-operate with the expert leader and this helps in building relationships, fostering teamwork and forging solidarity between and among the leaders and the followers as well as between the followers themselves.
3.5.3 Coercive Power
Coercive power is an individual’s ability to influence others’ behavior by taking away some privileges as and when they perform in an undesirable manner (Lunenburg, 2012:70).
Coercive power is a person’s ability to influence others’ behavior by punishing them or by creating a perceived threat to do so (ibid). Shaka the Zulu relied on coercive power to run his empire. Coercion and brutal force was used against his opponents, and some of the punishments that he gave to his warriors were brutal, for instance a soldier who returned from the battle with a wound at the back was punished by death as he was regarded as a coward who might have sustained those injuries whilst trying to flee from their opponents (Mbilishaka n.d). Unlike Shaka the Zulu leaders such as Mutapa and Moshoeshoe relied on soft power and persuasion. According to Chibairo (2015) the Mutapa King had a soft way of engaging and influencing followers, gaining loyalty not through brutal force (as was the case with Shaka, Mzilikazi) but by inspiration, and showing trust and mutual respect to the provincial leaders and general populace.
60
At organisational level, the superiors with coercive power therefore need to be in possession of some enforcement tools like demotion and contract termination when one performs below a set standard. However, it can be noted that the enforcement tools can be irrationally used to settle inter personal scores which are in no way related to organizational outcomes.
Lunenburg (2012) advocates that although coercive power may lead to temporary compliance by subordinates, it produces the undesirable side effects of frustration, fear, revenge, and alienation which in turn may lead to poor performance, dissatisfaction and turnover. Coercive leaders are thus more likely to get the bare minimum from their team, who are simply hoping to stay away from trouble, (Daugherty and Williams 2009). It is also believed that dictatorial leaders like Idi Amin, Mobutu Sese Seko among others relied on coercion where they intimidated their followers and the followers out of fear of victimization just accepted everything without questioning (Chidza 2017). The members of the organization who are being coerced by the management within an organization will resort to methods that sees them having to attain a given target, and are as such not motivated to exceed, or inject their personal skills and abilities in doing their work. In the end, employees would shy away from excellence, creativeness and innovativeness.
Most organizations according to Lunenburg (2012:71) have clearly defined policies on employee treatment. This came into being as it was noted that management was abusing this form of power to further their personal agendas. It thus witnessed the rise of unions also, which in turn weakens the operational effectiveness of coercive power considerably as they thrive for healthy working environment both physically and psychologically. Therefore, coercive power ought to be used with caution to avoid future costs on the part of the organization through the ignorance of the management. It is through unions that various forms of coercion are fast becoming obsolete as they are considered to be more inhuman.
Coercion is a bad practice which ignores the will of the people and forces people to do what they would not have done willingly.
3.5.4 Referent Power
As put forward by Jones and York (2016: 23) referent power is an individual person’s ability to influence others’ behaviour because they like, admire, or respect the individual. King Moshoeshoe for example, possessed a likeable character, he was greatly admired and respected for his tactfulness and diplomatic strategies. One therefore requires some form of personal charm or charisma among other things that he or she could make use of. Referent power involves the feeling of oneness between the powerful and the subject or a desire for
61
such an identity. Those who have power under this instance do not necessarily have any logical reason for having come to power, yet they still hold sway over many people for some reason, (Lunenburg, 2012:73). An example is in the colonial era in Zimbabwe, when spirit mediums and leaders such as Mbuya Nehanda, Sekuru Kaguvi, Lobengula, Chamunika among others led the people against the white colonial settlers on the basis of the charisma that was embedded in their divine capabilities as they connected with the ancestral spirits (midzimu) and the Creator (Musikavanhu). Referent power is based, in part, upon the subject’s attraction to a powerful personality, (Craig and Douglas, 2006). A charismatic leader can also be a source of referent power. Accordingly, Tosi et al. (2004:320), connote that a referent leader can ignite an entire nation. The greater the attraction, the greater the identification, and consequently the greater the referent power.
Everyone would be affiliated to, and would want to be associated with the charismatic leader.
For example, Mahatma Ghandhi was a great charismatic leader of his time who commanded great respect from his Indian followers when he advocated for non-violent civil disobedience against the colonial masters (Logan 2008). Because of his firm commitment to the principle of non violence against the oppressors, Ghandhi had a strong influence over the followers.
They in turn were loyal and respectful of their leader. Jones and York (2016:32) argue that since referent power emanates from an individual’s admiration for another, it could lead to enthusiastic and unquestionable trust, compliance, loyalty and commitment. This is really amenable to Ubuntu which requires people to be committed and honesty to each other and to their leaders. Therefore, the leaders would not have to give much surveillance on their subordinates as they would be acting in good faith. However, the leader may develop so much trust in a subordinate to the extent of not crosschecking their work for any flaws as required of them. The followers themselves will also, in some instances, not question the authority or orders by their leader, regardless of the fact that they may be asked to act outside their jurisdiction. Hence, it should be exercized with greater caution.