AUTHORITY AND POWER

10

AUTHORITY AND POWER

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1.       Define authority

2.       Describe two contrasting views on the source of authority

3.       Differentiate between line and staff authority

4.       Explain the advantages and disadvantages of functional authority

5.       Outline the delegation process

6.       Identify key factor that determine the degree to which authority should be delegated

7.       Explain obstacles to effective delegation

8.       Summarize ways in which these obstacles can be overcome

9.       Differentiate between authority and power

10.   Explain the five sources of power

Translated by Marjaya Sutan Batuah, S.S

Assume you have a part-time job while going to college as an assistant purchasing agent for a supermarket chain. You issue purchase orders, follow up with suppliers, and do assorted tasks assigned to you by your boss. One afternoon, your boss gives you the following instructions: "Here's a half dozen orders that appear to be only partly filled. Go out to the warehouse and double-check the paperwork to see if the remainders of the orders have been received. If not, get on the phone to each vendor and find out when we can expect the rest of their shipments." Would you comply with your boss's request? What if your boss had said, "I want you to come over to my house on Sunday. The carpets need vacuuming. You'll need to mop the floors, too. After that, you can wash the outside windows and mow the lawn." Would you comply with this request? I would expect that you would comply with the first because you see it as u-within your boss's authority. The second request, however, is not likely to be accepted. Why? Asking employees to do their boss's household chores is not seen by many workers? to be a legitimate right that goes with a superior's job.

The illustration above is meant to make m-o points. First, management positions come with authority. Little can be accomplished in an organization if subordinates do not willingly comply with their managers' directives. Second, this authority is not boundless. There are limits to what employees will accept as legitimate requests made upon them by their boss.

We've used the term authority a number of limes in previous chapters. We now need to look more closely at the term. In this chapter, we define authority and its limits; consider its source; review various types of authority; relate authority to the process of delegation; and conclude by comparing authority with the concept of power.

What Is Authority?

Authority refers to the rights inherent in a managerial position to give orders and expect the orders to be obeyed. Each management position has specific inherent rights that incumbents acquire from the position's rank or title. Authority relates, therefore, to one's position within the organization and ignores the personal characteristics of the individual manager. It has nothing directly to do with the individual. The expression "The king is dead; long live the king" illustrates the concept. Whomever is king acquires the rights inherent in the king's position. When a position of authority is vacated, the person who has left the position no longer has any authority. The authority remains with the position and its new incumbent.

When authority is exercised, we should expect compliance. By that we mean that subordinates acquiesce without question. The;/ suspend judgment about the appropriateness of a directive. They obey it even if it is to their personal dislike. But where do managers get their authority from, or, as a subordinate might ask of a manager, "What gives you the right to tell me what to do?"

Sources of Authority

You walk into a class on the first day of the new semester. You sit down. In comes some complete stranger who introduces herself. She tells you she is your instructor for the term. She then proceeds to hand out a course syllabus and to describe what she will expect from you during the course. You probably accept her authority. But what is the source of her authority?

The traditional view of authority was that a superior's right to exact compliance from subordinates developed at the top and moved down through the organization. The top, in the case of the classroom instructor, would not necessarily mean the college's president or governing board. The ultimate source is the society that allows the creation of social institutions. Officers of the U.S. Army obtain their authority from the U.S. Constitution, which provides for national defense. The president of the Coca-Cola Company acquires his rights from the state of Delaware, where Coca-Cola is incorporated and which allows business firms to incorporate, and ultimately from the U.S. Constitution, which creates the concept of private property.

A contrasting position on authority argues that it comes from below The college instructor's authority, for instance, comes from the willingness of her students to accept it. Originally proposed by Chester Barnard, we call this position an acceptance view of authority.

Following the acceptance view, there can be no such thing as persons of authority, but only persons to whom authority is addressed. Should an employee disobey his or her superior's directive, the disobedience is a denial of that directive's authority for him or her. If the college instructor tells all members of the class that they are required to turn in a sixty-page term paper at the end of the course and they all refuse, the students are denying the existence of the instructor's authority. So where authority appears to exist but is not accepted by subordinates, Barnard would say that, in reality, there exists no authority. Of course, if the students refuse the instructor's directive to write a term paper, the instructor probably has the right to assign them a failing grade in the course. The point is that superiors may be able to punish subordinates who don't comply, but the superior's directive, nevertheless, has not been complied with.

Barnard elaborated on his acceptance view by describing four requirements that are necessary before authority can be accepted. First, subordinates must be able to understand the communication. Second, at the time of his decision, the subordinate must believe that what is asked of him is not inconsistent with the purposes of the organization. Third, at the time of his decision, the subordinate must believe that what is being asked of him is compatible with his personal interests as a whole: consequently, immoral or unethical requests, if the}' arc viewed as such by the subordinate, may be disobeyed. Finally, Barnard argue that the subordinate must be able mentally and physically to comply with the request. A demand that is only “a little impossible" is still impossible and is, therefore, beyond the capability and compliance of the subordinate.

During the war in Southeast Asia in the 1960s, the story was told of "Charlie" Company, a U.S. Army unit that had a remarkably low fatality rate. After it had been together for a number of months, a new commanding officer was placed in charge of the unit. The members of "Charlie" Company believed that the major reason for their low fatality rate was the prior commanding officer's insistence that all traveling be done off designated roads, which was an unusual practice, since the standard method for travel was along marked roads. The new commanding officer, believing that the more traditional approach of moving his men along designated paths was to be preferred, ordered his company to move out along the marked trails. To his surprise, the company, in total, disobeyed his orders and refused to move unless the}' could travel away from the marked paths. Even after considerable discussion, the officer was unable to get compliance from his men. The problem was not resolved until higher-ranking officers were brought in to help reconcile the conflict.

The main point to note in this incident is that, although the commanding officer had the authority to command these subordinates, the subordinates had the right to disobey those orders. So, to generalize from this example, superiors have no authority if their subordinates do not accept that authority. In other words, subordinates have the ultimate right to negate what we have traditionally thought of as the legitimate authority of positions in organizations.

Barnard further presented a concept he called the zone of indifference, which, in addition to his four requirements noted previously, explains the unquestioning acceptance of authority. Within this zone, subordinates do not care what is specifically asked of them. Outside the zone are requests which for one reason or another subordinate finds unacceptable. Whether a manager's zone is interpreted as wide or narrow depends on the degree to which the subordinate perceives that the inducements outweigh the costs or sacrifices involved. A police officer may be indifferent to whether he or she is assigned to traffic patrol or to the vice detail, but he or she may absolutely refuse to accept a walking patrol assignment without a partner in the city’s high crime zone.

The ideal state for a manager is to have his or her subordinates maintain a broad view of their zone of indifference to his or her directives. When this state exists, along with Barnard's four requirements, the manager finds that his or her requests are complied with. Generally, we find that people who are upward mobile, particularly subordinates of middle- and upper-level managers, tend to interpret their zone more widely. At the other extreme is the plumber who refuses his or her foreman's order to move some wires, since the plumber views this to be the work of an electrician and has defined his or her zone in narrow terms, in relation to the foreman.

Types of Authority

Early writers in management made a distinction between two forms of authority relationships: line authority and staff authority. In this section we want to define each, introduce a third type called functional authority, and consider how relevant the line-staff distinction is to contemporary managers.

Line Authority

            Line authority is the authority that entitles a manager to direct the work of a subordinate. It is the superior-subordinate authority relationship that extends from the top of the organization to the lowest echelon, following of command what is called the chain of command. This is shown in Figure 10-1. As a link in the chain of command, a manager with line authority has the right to direct the work of subordinates and make certain decisions without consulting others. Of course, in the chain of command, every manager is also subject to the direction of his or her superior.

Sometimes the term line is used to differentiate line managers from staff managers.  In this context, line emphasizes those managers whose

FIGURE 10-1

The Chain of Command

Organizational function contributes directly to the achievement of organizational objectives. In a manufacturing firm, line managers are typically in the production and sales function, whereas executives in personnel or accounting arc considered staff managers. Inn whether a manager's function is classified as line or staff depends on the organization's objectives. At a firm like Snelling and Snelling, which if a personnel placement organization, personnel interviewers have a line function. Similarly, at accounting firm of Price, Waterhouse, accounting is a line function.

The definitions given above are not contradictory but rather, represent two ways of looking at the term line. Every manager has line authority over his or her subordinates, but not every manager is in a line function or position. This latter determination depends on whether or not a function directly contributes to the organization's objectives.

Staff Authority

As organizations get larger and more complex, line managers find that the)' do not have the time, expertise, or resources to effectively get their jobs done. In response, they create staff authority functions to support, assist, advice, and in general reduce some of the informational burdens they have. The hospital administrator can't effectively handle all the purchasing of supplies that the hospital needs, so she creates a purchasing department. The purchasing department is a staff department. Of course, the head of the purchasing department has line authority over her subordinate purchasing agents. The hospital administrator may also find that she is overburdened and needs an assistant. In creating the position of assistant to the hospital administrator, she has created a staff position. Staff positions can be broken down into two types: personal and specialized.

Personal staff. The assistant to the hospital administrator mentioned above is an example of personal staff. So, too, would be the assistant to the vice-president of finance or the secretary who works for an individual manager. The common characteristics of these positions are that they exist to assist a manager carry out his or her duties and those they carry no authority in the position, per se.

Personal staff typically has no specified or assigned duties. They report to a given manager and assist him or her as needed. If the vice-president of finance's work load becomes over burdensome he or she will turn to his or her personal staff assistant for help. Additionally, personal staffs are also frequently used to carry out special assignments for their bosses. If the financial vice-president needs a set of projected pro forma financial statements, on one of the organization's acquisition candidates, the task may be assigned to the personal staff assistant.

In contrast to the line manager, the personal staff assistant's position has no authority. When the aide acts, he or she acts under the authority of his or her boss. So when tasks are assigned to an assistant, the manager typically assigns that assistant a limited amount of authority. But any decisions or directives are made in the name of the manager. A letter from an executive's assistant might be signed "John F. Dixon for William R. Spaulding." In this example, Dixon is Spaulding's personal staff assistant.

Specialized staff. The specialized staff advises, services, or evaluates for line managers by providing a skill or an objective perspective that the line managers do not have. When managers, for example, have employees who require career counseling or skill updating, they may turn to the organization's human resource development staff. Similarly, if managers need legal advice, they can turn to the organization's legal staff. Inspection or auditing are evaluation activities performed by staff specialists. These specialized staffs are there to support individual managers or departments by providing expertise in a given area.

What kind of authority does specialized staff have? When it advises, its authority is usually little or none. Its suggestions need not be obeyed. Some organizations, however, have established relationships where line managers are required to check with specialized staff when their expertise is affected, but the managers are not required to follow the staffs’ advice. Such compulsory advice maintains line's authority but ensures that the specialized staff’s expertise is at least heard. However, specialized staff may have the authority to provide a specific service for line managers or to evaluate a line activity. The former is done regularly by personnel departments when they recruit and screen job applicants for the organization or coordinate the organization's annual employee performance review. The latter describes a company's auditing staff that regularly reviews and reports on the full range of organizational activities. So, specialized staff may be assigned the authority to complete certain activities without having to work through a line manager. That is, they are given line authority

Functional Authority

In addition to line and staff, there is a third form of authority-functional authority. It is the authority one has over individuals or units outside one's own direct areas of command. The three forms of authority are illustrated in Figure 10-2.

A large corporation frequently has operating facilities in dozens of locations. A manufacturing firm, for instance, may have production plants in many locations. How does the corporation ensure consistent and uniform practices across these various plants? How, for example, does the corporate personnel office ensure that the various plant personnel offices are following corporate personnel policies? The answer is that the head of the corporate personnel office is given functional authority over the plant personnel manager regarding certain personnel activities.

Functional authority complements the line or staff authority already possessed. It's a limited form of authority—it covers only specific task areas—and it's kept limited because its use breaks the unit' of command. Those who find themselves under the influence of functional authority have two bosses: one using functional authority and the other line. So the plant personnel manager previously described is under the direction of the corporate personnel manager and his or her plant manager.

Why create confusion by using functional authority? because there are occasions when managers need to exercise some control over organizational members who are not in their direct line of command. This is a regular

FIGURE 10-2

An Organization Chart Depicting Line. Staff, and Functional Authority

Problem between head office and satellite offices or plants, so functional executives at head offices are given limited authority over their counterpart at the satellite locations. A plant purchasing manager may be directed by head office to secure three price bids on all purchases that exceed $500. Such a directive is the use of functional authority. Of course, the plant managers retains line authority to hire, fire, reward, and punish all employees in his or her plant, including the plant purchasing manager.

A last point on functional authority: It does not require geographical separation. In some organizations, for instance, the personnel department assigned responsibility for the employment termination process. This usually done to allow personnel specialists to handle this delicate task and to minimize legal redress, when the personnel department, therefore, acting on another department's recommendation, calls in an employee and informs him   that   his  employment  has been   terminated,  it   is  using functional authority.

Is the Line-Staff Designation Obsolete?

Some management theorists have argued that the line-staff separation is obsolete in modern complex organizations. They note that it is hard t separate direct and supportive activities. Also, staff specialists frequently have a great deal of influence or clout, even though they may not have formal authority. The counterargument to this opinion may be best summed up by the following statement made by a staff assistant being promoted to his boss's line position: "I never realized there was such a difference between making a decision and making a suggestion."

In a manufacturing firm, production people are clearly line. Engineering and marketing are also generally considered line in manufacturing concerns, but experts are not always in agreement on these two. In a university, teachers are line. But what about people who solely engage in research? In a hospital, do nurses have line or staff authority? These questions are not introduced to create confusion but rather to point out that there is not always a clear demarcation between line and staff. As organizations have become more complex and have developed more elaborate structures, the line-staff distinctions have tended to become blurred.

There is substantial evidence to support that line and staff personnel have different individual characteristics. Staff personnel, in contrast to line, are generally younger, better educated, and more articulate, have greater technical competence in specific areas, often possess high-level organizational contacts, and are less loyal to the organization. Although they may not have formal authority, staff specialists can use their superior articulation, technical competence, status, and ability to apply sanctions in ways that can give them influence equal to or maybe even greater than those with line authority. Of course, this influence does not come through direct authority, so there is a formal and distinct difference between line and staff authority.

A final point cannot be overlooked: Line and staff designations are regularly used by practitioners. Regardless of whether the terms are meaningful, managers differentiate staff from line and frequently make references to each. So we can argue that, whether or not the line-staff designation is obsolete, you should understand the difference between them because managers make the distinction in practice.

Delegation

Managers get things done through other people. Since top managers cannot personally oversee all the activities of an organization, they delegate authority to lower-level managers. It is this delegation of authority that gives subordinate managers the means with which to act.

What is delegation? It is the assignment to another person of authority and responsibility to carry out specific activities. At the extreme, if there is no delegation of authority, one person has to do everything. If organizations are to achieve their objectives, authority must be delegated.

The Delegation Process

Delegation can be conceived of as the following four-step process (see Figure 10-3):

1.  The allocation of duties

2.  The delegation of authority

3.  The assignment of responsibility

4.  The creation of accountability

FIGURE 10-3 Delegation Process

The allocation of duties; Duties are the tasks and activities that a superior desires to have someone else do. The manager wants a letter typed; so he or she allocates this assignment to his or her secretary. Before authority can be delegated, therefore, the duties over which the authority relates must be allocated to a subordinate.

The delegation of authority; The essence of the delegation process is empowering another person to act for the manager. This is a passing of formal rights to act on behalf of another. The President of the United States has authority for conducting foreign affairs. He delegates that authority to his Secretary of State. The vice-president of marketing requests his or her director of marketing research to conduct a test market study for a product the company is considering introducing. By assigning the study to the director, the vice-president allocates duties. He or she must then delegate a commensurate amount of authority to the director so that the study can be effectively undertaken.

The assignment of responsibility; When authority is delegated, we must assign responsibility. That is, when one is given "rights," one must also be assigned a corresponding "obligation" to perform. To allocate authority without responsibility creates opportunities for abuse, and, of course, no one should be held responsible for what he or she has no authority over.

Early management writers recognized the importance of equating authority and responsibility. Additionally, they stated that responsibility could never be delegated away. They supported this contention by noting that the delegator was held responsible for the actions of his or her delegates. If the head of the legal department in a corporation delegates the filing of a court deposition to a young attorney in the department, and that attorney forgets to file the deposition or does it incorrectly, the head of the department will still be held responsible.

You may be thinking; how is it possible to have authority and responsibility equal, if you can delegate authority but not responsibility. The answer   is   that   we   recognize   two   forms   of responsibility:   operating responsibility and ultimate responsibility. Managers pass on operating responsibility, which in turn maybe passed on further, but there is an aspect of responsibility—its   ultimate   component—that   must   be retained. A manager is ultimately responsible for the actions of his or her subordinates to whom he or she has passed on operating responsibility. Therefore, a Manager should delegate operating responsibility equal to the delegated authority; however, ultimate responsibility can never be delegated.

The   creation   of accountability; to complete the delegation process, the manager must create accountability; this is, subordinates must be held answerable to properly carry out their duties. They must accept the credit or blame for their actions. So while responsibility represents a subordinate's obligation to carry out what is assigned, accountability is the obligation to his or her superior to carry out the assignment in a satisfactory manner. Subordinates are responsible for the completion of tasks assigned them and are accountable to their superiors for the satisfactory performance of that work. Former U.S. President Richard Nixon, for example, was guilty of confusing ultimate responsibility and accountability when he stated about the Watergate break-in, "I accept the responsibility, but not the blame." Such a comment suggests that responsibility can somehow exist apart from accountability. This is not true. In Nixon's case, he was ultimately responsible and accountable to the American public, not only for his own actions but for the actions of his subordinates to whom he had delegated authority.

Contingency Factors in Delegation

How much authority should a manager delegate? Should he or she keep authority centralized, delegating only the least number of duties? If not, what contingency factors should be considered in determining the degree to which authority is delegated? The following discussion provides some guidance.

Organization's size. The larger the organization, the more decisions that have to be made. Since the top managers in an organization have only so much time and can obtain only so much information, as organizations get larger they become increasingly dependent on lower-level managers to make decisions. Hence, they resort to increased delegation.

Importance of duty or decision. The more important a duty or decision is, as expressed in terms of cost and impact on the future of the organization, the less likely it is to be delegated. For instance, a department head may be delegated authority to make expenditures up to $ 1000, and division heads and vice-presidents up to $ 5000 and $ 25000, respectively.

Task complexity. The greater the complexity, of the task to be done, the more difficult it is for the top management to possess current and sufficient technical information to make effective decisions. As tasks become more complex, they require greater expertise, and decisions about these tasks should be delegated to the individuals who possess the necessary technical expertise.

Organizational culture. If management has confidence and trust in subordinates. The culture will support a greater degree of delegation. However, if top management does not have confidence in the abilities of lower-level managers, authority will be delegated begrudgingly. You can, expect, in such instances, to find only the last amount of delegation.

Qualities of subordinates. A final contingency consideration is the qualities of subordinates. Delegation requires subordinates with the skills, abilities, and motivation to accept authority and act on it. If this is lacking, top management will be reluctant to relinquish authority.

Obstacles to Effective Delegation

It takes two parties for delegation to be effective—a manager willing to delegate and a subordinate willing to accept operating responsibility. Either part can be an obstacle to effective delegation.

Management obstacles. Delegation is one of the most difficult activities for managers to practice. Many managers believe that if you want something done right, do it yourself! Of course, if managers lack trust in others, it will be very easy to rationalize doing things themselves rather than delegating them. As noted earlier in our discussion of contingency factors, successful delegation requires confidence in a subordinate's abilities and in his or her conscientiousness in completing tasks.

Since managers recognize that they are ultimately responsible for their subordinates, many are just unwilling to let go and to allow others to make mistakes. Additionally, some managers are fearful of having subordinates gain power through learning particular tasks and becoming expert in them. Other managers just enjoy doing detail work that can be done better by a subordinate. Finally, some managers either naively equate delegation with abdication or believe that there is an absence of selective controls by which subordinates can be monitored. Delegation is not abdicating one's responsibility. In fact, not to delegate is not to manage. But there must be adequate controls to supply the manager with feedback on subordinates' performance. Without such controls, a manager would have good cause to avoid delegating authority.

Subordinate obstacles. Subordinates may have fears about assuming greater responsibilities. In some cases, those fears are real. They lack the information and resources to complete their delegated duties successfully. Management may have a history of doling out verbal criticisms, negative performance evaluations, or even termination notices for those who make mistakes. In such an organizational culture, it shouldn't be surprising that subordinates want to avoid the risks that go with added responsibilities. Fears needn't be real, of course, to be obstacles. If subordinates perceive negative repercussions from assuming greater responsibilities, even if there are none, the effect is the same as if they were real.

Even without   negative sanctions, subordinates are typically still reluctant to assume added responsibilities. They may already have a full workload. why take on more work? A major obstacle, therefore, may be a lack of rewards for accepting extra responsibility. Without positive incentives for subordinates, efforts to delegate authority are likely to fail.

Overcoming the Obstacles

The obstacles we have identified are not insurmountable. The following suggestions should significantly reduce the barriers to effective delegation.

Positive organizational culture. Top management must create a culture supportive of trust and risk taking. When authority is delegated, errors will be made. Managers must not feel threatened by subordinates making errors. The culture should encourage managers to allow their subordinates to learn through mistakes. Similarly, subordinates will be more willing to accept and seek responsibility if they believe that doing so will not make them vulnerable to punitive actions.

Clarity of communication. The subordinate needs to know what responsibilities he or she is assuming. When managers assign duties, they should ensure that subordinates understand the range of authority being delegated and the level of performance expected. Managers and subordinates are usually busy, and achieving clear communication is time consuming, but it should result in more successful delegation.

Equate authority with responsibility? For delegation to be effective, a subordinate must be given sufficient authority to accomplish the duties for which he or she has assumed responsibility. As noted earlier in the chapter, inequity causes problems. If authority is too great, managers should not expect to hear about it. Subordinates are unlikely to complain about having too much authority. Subordinates will be concerned, and rightly so, when authority is less than responsibility. When this occurs, either authority needs to be increased or performance expectations need to be reduced.

Reward the acceptance of responsibility. Acceptance of authority is significantly enhanced if the subordinate receives a commensurate increase in rewards to go with the increased responsibility. This may take the form of increased pay, but need not be limited to money. Promotions, more challenging job assignments, more attractive working conditions, praise, or even a more prestigious title can be incentives to take on greater responsibility.

Establish adequate controls. If managers are provided with adequate controls, their concern that subordinates will fail to perform adequately should be reduced. The controls will provide them with feedback on how well the subordinate is performing. The plant superintendent should feel. more comfortable delegating the preparation of the daily scheduling report to an assistant if the former knows that when he comes in every morning, on his desk will be a computer printout identifying any delays in the previous day's production schedule. If a problem develops, the superintendent can act on it promptly. He can delegate the duty of preparing the report, yet protect his ultimate responsibility through adequate controls.

Power: The Neglected Source of Influence

The classical writers in management were enamored with authority. They naively assumed that the right inherent in one's formal position in an organization were the sole source of influence. They conceived of managers as being all powerful.

In the early years of this century, such a position may have been accurate. Organizations were simpler. Staff was less important. Managers were only minimally dependent on technical specialists. Under such conditions, influence the same as authority; and the higher a manager's position in the organization, the more influence he or she had. However, this is not true today!

The last fifteen years have seen a distinct shift of interest by management scholars, from authority to power. Why? It has become increasingly obvious to both researchers and practitioners in management that you don't have to be a manager to have power nor is power perfectly correlated to one's level in the organization. Authority is an important concept in organizations, but if attention is only given to authority, the result is a narrow and unrealistic view of influence in organizations. Today we recognize that authority is but one element in the larger concept of power.

Authority versus Power

The terms authority and power are frequently confused. Authority is a right whose legitimacy is based on the authority figure's position in the organization. Authority goes with the job. Power, on the other hand, refers to an individual's capacity to influence decisions. As such, authority is part of the larger concept of power; that is. The ability to influence based on an individual's legitimate position can affect decisions, but there doesn't have to be authority to have such influence.

Figure 10-4 visually depicts the difference between authority and power. The two-dimensional arrangement of boxes in "A" portrays authority. The area in which the authority applies is defined by the horizontal dimension. Each horizontal grouping represents a functional area. The influence one holds in the organization is defined by the vertical dimension in the structure. The higher one is in the organization, the greater one's authority.

Power is a three-dimensional concept—depicted as a cone in Figure 10-4. It includes the functional and hierarchical dimensions, plus a third dimension we call centrality. While authority is essentially defined by one's vertical position in the hierarchy, power is made up of both one's vertical position and one's distance from the organization's power core or center.

Think of the cone in Figure 10-4 as being an organization. The center of the cone is the power core. The closer you are to the power core, the more influence you have to affect decisions. The existence of a power core is, in fact, the only difference between "A" and "B" in Figure 10-4. The vertical

FIGURE 10-4

AUTHORITY VERSUS POWER

Hierarchy dimension in "A" is merely one's level on the outer edge of the cone. The top of the cone equate? With the top of the hierarchy, the middle of the cone with middle of the hierarchy, and so on. Similarly, the functional groups in “A” become wedges in the cone. Each wedge represents a functional area.

The cone analogy explicitly acknowledges two facts:

1.       The higher one moves vertically in an organization (an increase in authority), the closer one automatically moves toward the power core

2.       It is not necessary to have authority in order to wield power, because one can move horizontally inward toward the power core without moving up.

Ever notice that secretaries of high-ranking executives usually have a great deal of power, even though they have little authority? As gatekeepers for their boss, they have considerable say over who he or she sees and when, additionally, because they are regularly relied upon to pass information on to their bosses, they have some control over what their bosses hear. It's not unusual for $75,000 a year middle-managers to tread very carefully in order not to upset their boss's $20,000 a year secretary. Why? Because the secretary has power! He or she may be low in the authority hierarchy, but close to the power core. Low-ranking employees who have relatives, friends, or associates in high places may also be close to the power core. The lowly production engineer with twenty years of experience in a company may be the only one in the firm who knows the inner workings of all the old production machinery. When pieces of this old equipment break down, no one but this engineer understands how to fix them. Suddenly, this influence is much greater than would ever be construed from assessing his level in the vertical hierarchy.

Milo: A Case Study in Power

Melville Dalton has written one of the classic studies on how power works in one organization, the Milo Fractionating Center, a fictional name given to a Midwestern industrial firm with 8,000 employees. The study represents Dalton's perceptions as an employee of the firm. It is comprehensive beyond our needs-, but we will present his findings regarding the effect of power on altering the idealized state of where decisions are supposed to be made.

Figure 10-5 is a simplified formal organization chart of Milo. Figure 10-6 represents the structure as it was actually functioning as perceived by Dalton. A close look at Figure 10-6—the power structure—finds instances of assistant managers who have influence equivalent to that of their superiors, and equivalently positioned managers on the formal chart being viewed somewhat differently in terms of their influence. Let us look particularly at the differences as they affected the plant manager (Stevens), assistant plant manager (Hardy), superintendent of industrial relations (Rees), and superintendent of Divison C (Springer).

Dalton considered Hardy and Stevens as equivalent. For example, although Stevens opened staff meetings, Hardy quickly took charge and dominated. Hardy's approval was viewed as indispensable for important promotions; when breakdowns or emergency stops occurred, it was Hardy

FIGURE 10-5 Simplified Formal Organization Chart of Milo

Who supervisors feared. Further, many staff personnel viewed Hardy as the man to convince in order to get projects accepted.

Rees occupied a position that had previously been uninfluential. The prior incumbent had been promoted to an unimportant position as assistant to Stevens. Rees, however, had considerable power, which was apparently derived from his close association with corporate headquarters. These power alignments outside the plant differentiated him. He was in a different relationship to Stevens and Hardy. Dalton concluded that Hardy exceeded his authority in every field of plant activity except those that Rees had broadly described as being within his industrial-relations sphere.

Although Springer was formally equal to the other two superintendents, he carried influence considerably greater than that of his peers. In fact, the other two superintendents consistently conferred with Springer before asking Hardy for favors. This power was apparently derived from Hardy, with whom Springer had worked for four years at corporate headquarters and with whom he shared a close relationship.

This study dramatizes the difference between authority and the realities and complexities of power patterns. Most important, the Milo study

FIGURE 10-6 Power Structure of Milo

Should not be viewed as an unusual or exceptional case. It is a picture of only one organization, but, generally speaking, complex power derivations exist in all but the smallest organizations.

Sources of Power

Jane Cahill Pfeiffer was chairman of NBC. She had been in her job two years and was, in July 1980, probably the nation's highest-paid female executive. One Tuesday morning, while scanning the newspaper, she saw an article claiming that she had been asked to resign. Extremely upset, she immediately gave a formal statement to the press: "It is apparent that there are some who are trying to use the media to get me to quit. I won't quit!"

Two hours later, Pfeiffer had been relieved of her duties. Under pressure from the RCA Corporation, NEC's parent, network president and chief executive officer Fred Silverman, fired his long-time friend, Ms. Pfeiffer. Hours later, Pfeiffer again issued a formal statement to the press. "Yesterday, Fred Silverman told me that there was no way we both could stay. He didn't ask for my resignation then or ever. He simply stated that the RCA people play hardball and that he would probably follow me out the door in six months." Two days later, Pfeiffer agreed to go quietly and accepted a termination-of-contract settlement for more than $700,000. Six months later, interestingly, Fred Silverman followed Jane Pfeiffer out the door.

The incident above suggests neither Pfeiffer nor Silverman had enough power to keep their jobs. Is there any way they might have better protected themselves by having developed a stronger power base?

It's impossible to say whether Pfeiffer or Silver-man could have increased their power, but certainly if they had had the power they would have been able to defeat those at RCA who sought to oust them. How do people in organizations get power? John French and Bertram Raven have identified five sources or bases from which power emanates: coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent.

Coercive power. The coercive base is defined by French and Raven as depending on fear. One reacts to this power out of fear of the negative ramifications that might result if one fails to comply. It rests on the application, or the threat of application, of physical sanctions such as infliction of pain, deformity, or death; the generation of frustration through restriction of movement, or the controlling through force of basic physiological or safety needs.

In the 1930s, when John Dillinger went into a bank, held a gun to the teller's head, and asked for money, he was incredibly successful at getting compliance with his request. His power base? Coercive. A loaded gun gives its holder power, because others are fearful that they will lose something which they hold dear—-their life.

Of all the bases of power available to man, the power to hurt others is possibly most often used, most often condemned, and most difficult to control…..the state relies on its military and legal resources to intimidate nations, or even its own citizens. Businesses rely upon the control of economic resources. Schools and universities rely upon their right to deny students formal education, while the church threatens individuals with loss of grace. At the personal level, individuals exercise coercive power through reliance upon physical strength, verbal facility, or the ability to grant or withhold emotional support from others. These bases provide the individual with the means to physically harm, bully, humiliate, or deny love to others.

If you are a manager, you typically have some coercive power. You may be able to suspend or demote employees. You may be able to assign them work activities they find unpleasant. You may even have the option of dismissing employees. These all represent coercive actions. But you don't have to be a manager to hold coercive power. A subordinate, for instance, who is in a position to embarrass his or her boss in public and who successfully uses this power to gain advantage with the boss, is using coercion.

Reward power

The opposite of coercive power is the power to reward. People comply with the wishes of another because it results in positive benefits; therefore, one who can distribute rewards that others view as valuable will have power over them. These rewards can be anything that another may value. In an organizational context, we think of money, favorable performance appraisals, interesting work assignments colleagues, and preferred work shifts or sales territories.

Coercive and reward power are actually counterparts of each other. If you can   remove   something of positive value   from   another something of negative value upon him or her, you have coercive that person. If you can give someone something of positive value something of negative value, you have reward power over that pers as with coercive power; you don't need to be a manager to be able influence through rewards. Rewards such as friendliness, acceptance or praise are available to everyone in the organization. To the degree that an individual seeks such rewards, your ability to give or withhold them gives you power over that individual.

Legitimate power. Legitimate power is one and the same authority. It represents the power one receives as a result of his or her position in the formal hierarchy.

Positions of authority include coercive and reward power, but legitimate power is broader than the power to coerce and specifically, it includes acceptance by members of the organization of the authority of a position. When school principals, bank presidents, or army captains speak—assuming that their directives are viewed to be within the authority of their positions—teachers, tellers, and first lieutenants and usually obey.

Expert power. Expert power is that influence one wields as a result of one's expertise, special skill, or knowledge. The case Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan administration, illustrates how expertise can become power. On paper, Stockman's position was equal to the other cabinet secretaries. But Stockman's power was far greater than his authority. The source of this power was generally conceded   to be   the expertise he held about Washington bureaucracy. Time Magazine called him "the greatest repository of information on the U.S.  Government" in Washington. His position gave-him access to information. The fact that he carefully read and studied the data available to him made Stockman the only true expert in the Reagan administration on what was going on within the various federal agencies. As evidence of Stockman's power, he gave a candid interview, published in early 1982 in The Atlantic Monthly, in which he openly ad great personal apprehension with his administration's economic which he was actively supporting in public. The interview almost completely undermined his credibility as a spokesperson for the administration, you would normally have expected Stockman to have been fired indiscretion, and Reagan chose not to seek Stockman's resignation. One argues that the President was loyal and chose to stand behind his director; however, a more realistic appraisal would be that Reagan simply not replace Stockman. In spite of the liability he had become be of his candid remarks, the reality was that Stockman's expertise was to the Reagan administration.

Valid knowledge is one of the most powerful sources of influence example, the accountant with twenty years' experience in the organization and who is the only one who understands the general accounting system, has expert power. Just such a case existed in a manufacturing firm a few years ago. It caused considerable concern for the controller, since he was solely dependent on this long-standing employee (let us call him RJ.) in areas pertaining to general accounting. The supervisor for general accounting was a young college graduate with little experience in how the system worked. In addition, no other employee except R.J. had performed all the general accounting functions. By reason of his expertise, R.J. had made himself almost irreplaceable and powerful.

In recent years, as a result of the explosion in technical knowledge. Expert power has become an increasingly potent power source in organizations. As jobs have become more specialized, management has increasingly become dependent on staff "experts" to achieve the organization's goals. As an employee increases his or her knowledge of information that is critical to the operation of a work group and to the degree that that knowledge is not possessed by others, expert power is enhanced. To illustrate the point, if a computer system is critical to a unit's work, and if one employee, say Jim. Knows how to repair it and no one else within 200 miles does, and then the unit is dependent on Jim. If the system breaks down, Jim can use his expertise to obtain ends that he could never achieve by his position's authority alone. In such a situation, you should expect the unit's manager to try to have others trained in the workings of the computer system or to hire someone with this knowledge in order to reduce Jim's power. As others become capable of duplicating Jim's specialized activities, his expert power diminishes.

Referent power. The last category of influence that French and Raven identified was referent power. Its base is identification with a person who has the resources or personal traits one believes are desirable. If I admire and identify with you, you can exercise power over me because I want to please you.

Referent power develops out of admiration of another and a desire to be like that person. You might consider the person you identify with as having charisma. If you admire someone to the point of modeling your behavior and attitudes after him or her, he or she possesses referent power over you. Referent power explains, incidentally, why celebrities are paid millions of dollars to endorse products in commercials. Marketing research shows that people like Bob Hope, Jacqueline Smith, John Houseman, and Julius Erving have power in influencing your buying behavior for petroleum products, perfume, financial services, and athletic shoes. With a little practice, you or I could probably deliver as smooth a sales pitch as these celebrities, but the buying public does not identify with you and me. In organizations, the charismatic individual—manager or otherwise—can influence superiors, peers, and subordinates.

Power Is a Two-Way Street

From our discussion of power sources, it is evident that power can exist at any level in the organization, from lowest-level operatives to chief executive officers. It is certainly not the sole property of managers. Power is a two-wav street, possessed by both managers and their subordinates.

Managers have the legitimate power that accompanies their job. Managers also have some degree of influence to reward subordinates with money, privileges, promotions, and desirable work assignments. With this reward power typically also goes the power to punish subordinates by withholding or removing these same rewards. Whether a manager holds expert or referent power depends on the individual manager. These are personal qualities that a manager may or may not bring to the job.

Subordinates may not have legitimate power, but they are far from powerless. As we noted previously, no managers can allocate rewards and deal out punishments. The degree to which any individual has such powers depends on (he resources that he or she controls and their value to others. Many subordinates develop information or skills upon which the organization becomes dependent and, as such, develop a strong expert power base. Similarly, referent power is a personal quality over which managers have no monopoly. Popular, articulate, charismatic individuals are likely to develop a following in an organization. They may have a sizeable constituency who look to them for guidance on important issues. Such individuals can exert considerable power in the organization, regardless of whether or not they hold a hierarchical position of authority.

Authority and Power in Practice

Authority has taken a lot of abuse in recent years. It has become fashionable to argue that acceptance of authority is on the decline and may, in fact, have become altogether obsolete. In practice, however, we find that the use of authority by managers and its acceptance by subordinates are alive and well. Managers covet the rights inherent in their positions and rely heavily on these rights when decisions need to be made.

Management theory argues for parity between authority and responsibility. This is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in practice. Managers typically have more responsibility than they do authority. This explains why they may seek to pass responsibility on to others and absolve themselves from accountability for decision outcomes. In large mechanistic organizations, it is often difficult to attribute a particular decision outcome to a specific manager. If a decision proves poor, the "system" usually provides opportunities to place the blame on another individual, group, or level in the organization. In organic organizations, decisions are frequently of the group variety, so it is difficult to identify who is accountable. The result, therefore, is that responsibility is clouded by managers' efforts to protect themselves against the risk of being held accountable for faulty decisions.

Management theory also emphasizes the differences between line and staff authority. In practice, as noted in the chapter, the differences are not as great as the classical writers intended. The reason is that staff personnel have developed expertise upon which line managers have become dependent. Staff experts can and do use this power to exert considerable influence on decisions. When, for instance, a staff department is requested to study a problem and make recommendations, it exerts considerable influence. Though it typically submits the report to a line manager, who will make the final decision, the fact that staff defines the problem, attributes causes, develops alternatives, and provides an analysis of the alternatives means that staff is essentially defining the parameters and creating the constrains within which the actual line decision maker must work.

Finally, real-world managers recognize the need to extend their power sources beyond legitimacy. Those who become enthralled with authority to the exclusion of other power sources, quickly find that outcomes they prefer are overridden. Managers, therefore, seek to expand their power in order to exert greater influence on decisions that are made above them in the hierarchy and that affect them or their unit, as well as to counter the power of subordinates, who also are seeking ways to expand their influence at the expense of those above them.

SUMMARY

            Authority refers to the rights inherent in a managerial position to give orders and expect the orders to be obeyed. The traditional view argues that this authority comes from society. The acceptance view of authority argues that it comes from one's subordinates.

There are three types of authority—line, staff, and functional.

·         Line is the superior-subordinate authority relationship that extends from the top of the organization to the lowest echelon.

·         Staff authority is supportive—it advises rather than directly commands.

·         Functional authority is the limited right to direct individuals or units in a specific area outside of one's own area of command.

Top management passes authority down to lower-level managers through delegation. The delegation process is comprised of allocating duties, delegating authority, assigning responsibility, and creating accountability.

Authority is only one source of influence within the larger subject of power. One need not have authority to have powers that is, one can influence decision making without holding a managerial position. Sources of power beyond the legitimate authority one acquires through a position include coercive, reward, expert, and referent

KEY TERMS

Acceptance view of authority

Accountability

Authority

Chain of command

Coercive power

Delegation

Expert power

Functional authority

Legitimate power

Line authority

Operating responsibility

Personal staff

Referent power

Responsibility

Reward power

Specialized staff

Staff authority

Traditional view of authority

Ultimate responsibility

Zone of indifference

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1.         What is authority?     .      :

2.         Contrast two divergent views on the source of authority.

3.         Compare (a) line and staff authority: (b) line and staff functions.

4.         What's the difference between specialized and personal staff?

5.         What's the difference between authority, responsibility, and accountability?

6.         Why do managers find it difficult to delegate authority?

7.         What can top management do to encourage managers to delegate?

8          Why is an understanding of power important?

9.         Contrast authority and power.

10.       Identify and define five sources of power. State whether each is derived primarily from the organization or from the individual.

Discussion Questions

1. Do managers have line or staff authority?

2. How are authority and organization structure interlocked?

3. "You need authority to make decisions." Build an argument to support this statement. Then build an argument against this statement.

4. "Acceptance of authority is on the decline." Build an argument to support this statement. Then build an argument against this statement.

5. As a new employee in an organization holding the position as a first-line supervisor, what specific tactics could you pursue to develop a power base?

Case Incident

Who’s in charge here?

            Diane Fitzgerald has just submitted her two week notice to Dr. Davis; the administrative director of the Toronto General Hospital. She explains her decision to resign.

I can take it any longer here, Dr. Davis, Diane began I’ve been a nursing supervisor in the maternity wing for four months, but I can't get the job done. How can I do job when I've got two or three bosses, each with different demands and priorities? Listen, I’m only human. Let me give you an example, but believe me, this is no atypical case. Things like this are happening every day.

            I came into my office at 7:45 yesterday morning. I find a message on my desk from Dana Jackson (the hospital head nurse). She tells that she need the bed utilization report by 10:0 am. That day, so that she could make her presentation to Board in the afternoon. I knew the report would take at least an hour and a half to prepare. Thirty minutes later Joyce (the nursing floor supervisor and Diane's immediate supervisor) come in and ask me why two of my nurses aren't on duty. I told her that Dr. Reynolds (head of surgery) had taken them of my floor and was using them to handle an overload in the emergency surgical wing. I told her I had objected, but Reynolds said there were no other options. So what does Joyce say? She tells me to get those nurses back in the maternity section immediately. What’s more, she would be back in an hour to ensure that I got things straightened out! I ask you, Dr. Davis. Is this any way to run a hospital?

QUESTIONS

1. What is the formal chain of command?

2. Does Dr. Reynolds have functional authority? 

3. Has anyone acted outside their authority?

4. What can Dr. Davis do to improve conditions?     

5. Could Ms. Fitzgerald have developed any ‘power sources that might have allowed her to better deal with the competing demands on her?

Chester Barnard,  The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press, 1936).   .     '      '        ,            .

Francis D. Tuggle, Organizational Processes (Arlington Heights, III.: AHM Publishing Corp., 1978). p. 178.

Gerald G. Fisch, "Line-Staff Is Obsolete." Harvard Business Review. September-

October 1961. pp. 67-79.           '                                .

Melville Dalton, "Conflicts Between Staff and Line Managerial Officers," American

Sociological Review. June 1950, pp. 342-51.    • .  .         ;•;•..

See. for instance, Abraham Zaleznik, "Politics and Power in Organizational Life.'

Harvard Business  Review,  May-June   1970.  pp.. 47-60;  David  Kipnis,   The

Powerho/ders (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,. 1976); and Jeffrey Pfeffer.

Power in Organizations (Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman Publishing. 1981).

Melville Dalton, Men Who Manage'(New York: John Wiley. 1959).

"Hell, No. I Won't Go!" Time, July 21. 1980. p. 55.

John R.P. French, Jr., and Bertram Raven, "The Bases of Social Power." in Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, ed. Dorwin Cartwright and A.F. Zander (New York: Harper & Row. Pubs.. 1960). pp. 607-23. Kipnis. Powerholders. pp. 77-73.

David Mechanic. "Sources of Power of Lower Participants in Comoie* Organiza¬tions." Administrative Science Quarterly. December 1962. pp  3-J9-6-J