Sources And Bases of Power1
The concept of power as a basis for understanding human behaviour has been
around for a long time. However, formal analysis by social, political and
psychological sciences began only around 1940. The analysis by the social
scientists has, in turn, been adopted by the Management Science for
understanding behaviour in and around organisations. This note aims at
examining the concept of power in the context of management and
organisations. It also distinguishes power from leadership and presents the
current understanding of the sources and bases of power. In this, it aims to
examine two questions:
a) Where does an individual get his power from?
b) What are the instruments available to him for using power?
The Concept
Weber propounded the classical definition of power. He defined power, as “the
probability that a person can carry out his/her own will despite resistance”.
Viewed this way, power can be conceived as a characteristic or an ability of the
individual somewhat akin to a force whether latent or manifest. The implied
aspect of Weber’s definition is the resistance of another actor symbolising
resistance, distinct from the individual holding power. This aspect has been spelt
more clearly by Dahl. To him “A has power over B to the extent that he can
get B to do something that B would not otherwise do”. Further clarification
about this concept comes from the analysis that power to be effective, need not
be used. Mere existence of the potential is enough for influencing behaviour of
the target individual. Together these three ways of looking at power indicate
three major aspects of power. These are: (a) Relational Aspect (b)
Dependence Aspect (c) Sanctioning Aspect.
According to Bacharach and Lawler (1980) there are three dimensions of power:-
The Relational Aspect of Power: Some theorists view power as a mode of
interaction rather than as structural characteristic, which is independent of and in
opposition to the actors engaged in the interaction.
Dependence Aspect of Power: Dependence is what makes exchange an
integral part of any social relationship. The power of an actor is the result of the
other person’s dependence on the actor. The greater the other’s dependence on
the actor, the greater the actor’s power in the relationship. The dimension of
dependence determines whether parties stay in a given relationship, attempt to
change it or simply abandon it. Thus power derives from having something that
someone else needs, and being in control of the resource so that there are few
1
Copyright © Technical Note prepared by Nina Muncherji, Nirma Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.
1
alternative sources, or no alternative source, for obtaining what us needed or
required.
Sanctioning Aspect of Power: The sanctioning aspect of power is manifested
in the interaction of parties. It refers to direct manipulations of the other’s
outcomes and thus is the active component of the power relationship. Sanctions
can be rewards, punishments or both.
Bases And Sources of Power
Where does power come from? What is it that gives individual or a group
influence over others? A distinction must be made between ‘bases’ of power
and ‘sources’ of power.
Bases of power refer to what the power holder controls, that enables him/her, to
manipulate the behaviour of others; sources of power refers to how the power
holder gets his/her power base. Sources are the means. Individuals can use
their position in the structure, rely on personal characteristics, develop expertise
or get access and control of certain information; all these sources will help him to
manipulate the behaviour of others. Thus source is ‘where’ you get power and
base is ‘what’ you manipulate. Only after one develops a source of power can
he acquire a power base.
A visual depiction of the relationship between ‘bases’ and ‘sources’ of power
follows
Where do I get power? What tools do I have to influence
others?
SOURCES: BASES:
Position Coercion
Personal Characteristics Reward
Expertise Persuasion
Opportunity to Control Knowledge
Information
Source: Robbins (1988)
A five-category, classification was given by French & Raven. The power and
influence relationship between two agents may be viewed from two points of
view: (a) What determines the behaviour of the agent who exerts power? (b)
What determines the reactions of the recipient of this behaviour?
2
French & Raven’s analysis is limited to the influence on the person, P, produced
by a social agent, O, where O can be, another person, a role, a norm, or a group.
They do not take into account social influence exerted on a group.
They have defined power as a ‘potential influence’. Influence takes place by an
act on the part of O, done intentionally. However, it is not necessary that ‘act’
refer only to conscious behaviour. Influence may result from the passive
presence of ‘O’ also. Also influence exerted by an ‘act’ need not be in the
direction intended by O.
If O produces intended change, he has exerted positive control, but if he
produces a change in the opposite direction, he has exerted negative control.
The strength of power of O/P is the maximum potential ability of O to influence P.
Thus influence is kinetic power, just as power is potential influence. O’s
power is measured by his maximum possible influence, though he may exert
less than his full power. French and Raven defined basis of power as the
relationship between O & P, which is the source of that power. They have
identified five major Bases of Power.
(i) Reward Power: is defined as power whose basis is the ability to reward.
It depends on O’s perception that he has the ability to provide positive
valences and to remove or decrease negative valences. The
administration of actual reward (instead of promises) by O will in time,
increase the attraction of P. This will help to induce changes. As long as P
considers it legitimate for O to offer rewards, there will be no resistance.
(ii) Coercive Power: The coercive power of O/P stems from the expectation
of P that he will be punished by O if he fails to conform to the influence
attempt. The strength of coercive power depends on the degree of the
threatened punishment and the perception of P that he can avoid the
punishment by conformity.
Kipnis (1976) wrote: “Of 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, or deny love to others.
3
(iii) Legitimate Power: Legitimate power of O/P is defined as that power
which stems from internalised values in P which dictate that O has a
legitimate right to influence P and that P has an obligation to accept his
influence. There is some sort of code or standard accepted by the
individual, involved, enabling the external agent to assert his power. It,
however, requires that the person being influenced willingly accept the
legitimacy of the influence attempt.
There are certain bases for legitimate power:
(a) Cultural values are the most common basis for legitimate power; these
bases include age, intelligence, and caste.
(b) Acceptance of the social structure by the members of a group or
organisation is another basis for legitimate power. Hence, legitimate
power in formal organisation is largely a relationship between offices
rather than between persons. “And the acceptance of an office as
‘right’ is a basis for legitimate power -- a judge has a right to levy fines,
a foreman should assign work, a priest is justified in prescribing
religious beliefs and it is the management’s prerogative to make
certain decisions”.
(c) Designation by a legitimising agent is a third basis for legitimate
power. O may be seen as legitimate in prescribing behaviour for P,
because a legitimising agent whom P accepts has given him such
power.
The range of legitimate power is generally specified with the designation
of that power. The use of legitimate power, which is outside the range of
legitimate power, will decrease the legitimate power of the authority figure.
(iv) Referent Power: The referent power of O/P has its basis in identification
of P with O. If P is highly attracted to O, then P will have a desire to
become closely associated with O. P’s identification with O is established
and maintained if P behaves, believes and perceives as O does. The
stronger the identification, the greater the referent power of O/P, though P
may sometimes be unaware of this power. The concept of ‘reference
group’ and ‘prestige suggestions’ is examples of referent power.
(v) Expert Power: The expert power is derived from recognition of an
individual’s knowledge, skill or experience in relation to his own
knowledge as well as against absolute standards, and the extent of
knowledge P attributes to O within given area, determines the strength of
expert power.
4
However, for expert power to be administered it is necessary that P thinks
that O has the knowledge and to trust O to tell the truth.
(vi) Information Power: Knowledge or access to information is an important
base of power. According to Raven (1965) ‘information’ is an
independent influence and is the result of a basic change in cognitive
elements, and its basis is information communicated by the agent.
Informational influence is more effective when the object of change is
ambiguous and subject to cognitive reorganisation. The informational
power may not be feasible until the influencee has acquired an
appropriate body of knowledge. It is independent of the influencing agent
but depends upon cognitive changes in the influencee.
When an individual in an organisation controls unique information and
when that information is needed to make a decision, the individual has
power (Pettigrew, 1973). Bacharach & Lawler (1980) have defined it as
‘Knowledge Power’.
While French & Raven provide an extensive repertoire of possible bases of
power, they do not present a convincing theoretical framework. There is an
overlap between some of the categories (for instance, legitimacy and expertise;
information and expertise). Much of the ambiguity is a result of their confusion of
the bases of power with the sources of power.
Etzioni (1961) maintains a consistent focus on the bases of power. He identifies
three forms of power, each relying on a different type of sanction. Coercive
power rests on the ability to apply the threat of physical sanctions;
remunerative power is based on the control of material resources and rewards;
normative power is based on the control of symbolic rewards.
Mintzberg (1983) emphasises three prime bases of power these are control of
(1) a resource, (2) a technical skill, or (3) a body of knowledge, any one
critical to the organisation.
5
To serve as a basis of power a resource, skill or a body of knowledge must first
of all be ‘essential’ to the functioning of the organisation. Secondly, it should be
available in short supply or concentrated in the hands of one person or a small
number of people. And thirdly, it must be ‘nonsubstitutable’ or ‘irreplaceable’. A
fourth, general basis of power stems from legal rights - exclusive rights or
privileges to impose choices for example, the judicial system that provides formal
power to various influences. The fifth, general basis of power derives from
access to those who can rely on the other four, for example, spouses or friends
of government regulators. Sometimes access stems from favours traded.
However, having a basis of power is not enough, the individual must use the
basis of power and use it cleverly with political skills. A political skill is the ability
to use the bases of power effectively. To be able to convince others, to be able
to use one’s resources and skills to the maximum, to exercise power with
sensitivity to the feelings of others. Along with the political skills one requires
certain leadership qualities - charm, physical strength, attractiveness. ‘Charisma’
is the label for that mystical quality that attracts followers to an individual.
Thus power derives from some basis for it, coupled with the efforts and abilities
to use the basis.
Source of Power: An understanding of the sources of power helps to establish
the explanatory utility of the concept, and also helps to develop strategies for the
acquisition and use of power in organisations. It also helps in understanding the
influence distribution in the organisation. As mentioned earlier, two things
determine the power of an individual in the organisation, the importance of what
he does in the organisation and the skill in doing it.
In most organisations today, emphasis is on task specialisation, this leads to the
achievement of expertise and at the same time creation power differences
causing conflict in the organisation.
The amount of power one possesses depends on, first, the importance of the
activity performed. In this sense, power is structurally determined. Power also
derives from the skill of the individual and his ability to perform the task and to
convince others that his task s and abilities are substantial and important.
Pfeffer (1981) has given the following classification of the sources of power:
I. Power from providing resources: Organisations require a
continuing provision of resources for survival. Those individuals or
subunits within the organisation that can provide the most critical and
difficult to obtain resources come to have power in the organisation.
6
There are numerous resources, which include money, prestige,
legitimacy, rewards and sanctions, and expertise or the ability to deal with
uncertainty.
(a) Power through the provision of monetary resources: Money is an
important source of power because it is readily convertible into other
resources such as manpower, material and information. Further, it can
be stored and is divisible in terms of its use.
(b) The importance of slack resources: Slack Resources play an important
role in the acquisition of power in organisations. “These are resources
which at a given point in time are in excess of what has already been
committed or promised to other organisational participants in the
organisation”. These slack resources have two properties. First, these
slack resources make change and additional activities more feasible.
Second, slack becomes a necessary part of the organisation’s operation
and thus no longer remains slack. Thus individuals who can provide such
slack or discretionary resources come to have tremendous power.
(c) Creating resource dependence: In order to derive power, it is not
enough to provide valued monetary resources to the organisation, it is
also necessary to control the flow of money i.e. to be able to exercise
discretionary increases or decreases in such flows of funds. However, it
is essential that the organisation be dependent on the resources before
one attempt to exercise control.
II. Power from coping with uncertainty: Some people argue that power of
an individual comes from his ability to cope with uncertainty in the
organisation. It is a critical resource in the organisation. Hickson et.al.
(1971) noted, “organisations are conceived of as interdepartmental
systems in which a major task is coping with uncertainty”.
Uncertainty is seen as a critical task or activity within organisations in part,
because, organisations are viewed as social entities in which uncertainty
is reduced through the use of standard operating procedures, forecasting,
buffering, and other activities that permit the rationalisation of
organisational activity, while at the same time keeping the organisation
adaptive to external constraints.
The critical factor affecting subunit/individual’s power given centrality and
nonsubstitutability is the ability to cope with uncertainty in the
organisation.
7
III Being irreplaceable: Individuals who provide a critical resource for the
organisation and who cannot be readily replaced in that function acquire
tremendous power. This power is increased when a monopoly is held over
the knowledge necessary to deal with the uncertainty. The individual with
power adopts various strategies like nondisclosure and secrecy so that
others cannot find out what or how he is doing. The power deriving from
the ability to solve critical organisational problems will disappear if others
acquire the capability to cope with these problems. Yet another method
adopted for being irreplaceable is to ensure that individuals with
knowledge that can substitute are not brought into the organisation or
even to the organisation’s attention.
IV Affecting the decision process: Decisions are made in a sequential
process and thus an individual within the organisation may have the
power to affect some part of the decision process. Choices can be
affected if the individual can affect the basic values and objectives used
in making the decision, or it can also be affected if he/she can control the
alternatives considered in the choice process.
V The power of consensus: Subunits are comprised of many individuals,
who at one time or another, may be in a position to affect decisions
relevant to the subunit. Hence, if they share a common perspective, set of
values, or definition of the situation they can act and speak in a consistent
manner. It is easier to affect any decision to bring about changes if there
is consensus and the position is clear.
VI Structural determinants of individual power: Just as power is derived
from the ability to resolve uncertainty or affecting a decision process
similarly one’s position in the communication network is an important
source of one’s power. From the earliest communication network
experiments (Leavitt, 1951) it is seen that in a structure of communication,
power is determined by the position in that structure. The power that
comes from information control emanates largely from one’s position in
the formal and informal communication networks.
A second structural determinant of power is the power of the subunit in
which one is located. Executives from powerful subunits are more often
able to get their way as compared to their colleagues in less powerful
subunits. Structural position has an impact on the amount of formal
authority one possesses, as well as access to decision processes and
the ability to cope with uncertainty.
VII Personal characteristics: Within the structural constraints, there are
individual differences in ability, political skill and willingness to use those
8
skills. The most marked personal characteristic that is a source of power
is ‘Charisma’. Personal characteristics might also include verbal skills,
ability to argue effectively, or even physical attributes.
Individuals may also use emotions as a source of power by bringing them
into play. Moral and ethical standards of an individual can also be a
source of power, or the very general cognitive power like knowledge,
intelligence etc.
Drawing on the Etzioni, and the French and Rave schemes Bacharach and
Lawler have also talked about the four basic sources of power, similar to the
classification given above. These are: -
(a) Position Power - The office or structural position might provide access to
various bases of power
(b) Personal Power - Power derived from personal characteristics of the
individual.
(c) Expert Power - Expertise refers to the specialised information an
individual brings to organisation, and is generally based on activities
outside the organisation, e.g. education.
(d) Opportunity Power - Being in the right place at the right time can give the
opportunity to exert power. This source of power is embedded in the
informal structure of the organisation.
Flow of Power: Authority is essentially unidirectional. It typically flows from the
top or higher levels downwards, that is, it applies solely to superior-subordinate
relationships and deals with the power of superiors over subordinates. However,
power implies that subordinates can also exercise power, thus power is actually
multidirectional. Influence is the multidirectional aspect of power. Influence is
two-directional in hierarchical relations, but it also applies to horizontal relations
not a part of the authority structure.
However, the organisational literature emphasises the authority aspect of power.
From this point of view, power flows from top of the organisation. It is something
allocated by a higher echelon to a lower echelon. The major drawback in this
approach is a failure to consider that power may also be ‘taken’ by the lower
echelon. The organisational literature initially neglected the possibility that the
subordinates will take power beyond that given to them in the organisational
structure.
Lots of studies have been carried out on Middle Managers, Lower Participants,
Unions, etc. which show that even subordinates can exercise power. If the
subordinate is unable to take power and is faced with power deficiency, then in
that case he may adopt certain strategies to deal with this problem.
9
Izraeli (1975) noted, that formal organisations generate resources which
managers use to enhance their influence over subordinates. However, for a
middle manager the access to these resources depends on the backing of his
formal superior. When he fails to get this backing, he faces the dilemma of
power deficiency.
There could be several reasons why a middle manager may fail to get support of
his boss. A young man better trained professionally than his superior, or
perceived to be too ambitious and eager for promotion, is a threat to the interest
of others. If a superior feels that his subordinate is attempting to encroach on his
field of influence he will see to it that the latter’s attempts to avail himself of
organisational prerogatives is curtailed.
Modes of Adaptation: This typical problem (mentioned above) leads to several
typical reactions. They may be considered `modes of adaptation’ to the dilemma
of power deficiency. Three major types of adaptation are distinguished.
(1) The Bureaucratic Mode: The middle manager adopts a style that
consists of applying rules and procedures inflexibly and treating
compliance as an end in itself. The demand of strict adherence to the
rules is one solution for the manager without power. This becomes an
excuse not to take initiative for which he lacks structural and situational
prerequisites. By narrowing his responsibility to the implementation of
rules and regulations, he denies accountability for the outcome of this
implementation. It is a form of withdrawal aimed at protecting the middle
manager.
The bureaucratic rules perform a screening function for the middle
manager, concealing the narrow and shaky foundations of his power.
However, this mode can be operational only where the work patterns are
well established, where turnover and absentee rates are low, in other
words where everything is smooth sailing and where minimum control of
the manager is required.
(2) The Feudal Mode: A second typical reaction to the problem of power
deficiency is to act only upon specific orders from the boss and to rely on
the latter’s power as well as his directions for getting things done. He
accepts the domination of a more powerful superior and thus relieves
himself of responsibility and avoids taking the initiative.
This mode would work well if (a) the superior refuses to delegate authority
and wishes to retain control, and (b) the middle manager is not or has
ceased to be ambitious.
(3) The Expansionist Mode: Here the tactics used are aimed at gaining
control over organisational resources be establishing social relationships
10
with other participants in the organisation. The middle manager tries to
develop a network of social relations with others in strategic positions and
to befriend individuals who can supply him with resources such as
information as well as to conceal his shortcomings from his opponents.
Writers have variously termed such liaisons as cliques (Dalton),
coalitions (Gamon & Caplow), cabals (Burns), and factions (Bujra). This
coalition process reshapes the role structure and distorts the relationship
between formal status and power.
With the help of allies, the middle manager is able to expand his influence
and thus overcome the structural limitations of his role. Forming alliances
depends on resources (technical expertise, or even the ability to get hold
of football tickets in great demand) the manager brings with him to the
organisation and the ability to use them to his advantage.
Dubin (1957) talked about ‘Power Relations’ as being systematic and involving
contests over who performs what functions, when and how. Power relations are
crucial in situations of functional interdependence. The situation between a
superior and subordinate is also of functional interdependence. As illustrated in
the analysis of union-management relations, power struggles do not typically
result in social havoc. They are institutionalised social relations and therefore
orderly, even though full of conflict. Dubin measured power in the terms of the
essentiality of the function performed and in the terms of the exclusiveness with
which it is performed.
Etzioni (1961) first came up with the term ‘lower participants’. He used it to
designate persons in positions of lower rank, employees, rank-and-file,
members, clients, customers and inmates.
According to Mechanic (1962) lower participants in complex organisations
acquire and wield considerable power and influence not associated with their
formally defined positions within the organisations. In sociological terms, they
have considerable personal power but not authority. Within the organisations
the distribution of authority is closely correlated with the prestige of positions and
the extent to which they offer access to information, persons and
instrumentalities.
‘Information’ includes knowledge of the organisation, knowledge about person,
knowledge of the norms, procedures, techniques etc.
‘Persons’ include anyone within or outside the organisation upon whom the
organisation is in one way dependent.
‘Instrumentalities’ include any aspect of the physical plant of organisation or its
resources (equipment, machines, money etc.).
11
Sources of Power of Lower Participants: The most effective way for lower
participants to achieve power, according to Mechanic, is to obtain, maintain and
control access to persons, information and instrumentalities. If this can be
achieved they can make higher-ranking participants dependent upon them.
Thus, “dependency together with the manipulation of the dependency
relationship is the key to power of lower participants”.
Factors Affecting Power of Lower Participants: Increasing specialisation and
organisational growth has made the expert or staff person important. The expert
maintains power because the high-ranking persons in the organisation ate
dependent on him for his special skills and access to certain kinds of information.
As the complexity of organisational tasks increases, and as organisations grow in
size, there is a limit to the responsibility that can be shouldered and exercised by
one person. Delegation of responsibility occurs, experts and specialists are
brought in to provide information and research and higher participants become
dependent upon them.
Efforts and Interests: The extent to which lower participants may exercise
power depends in part on their willingness to exert effort in areas where higher-
ranking participants are reluctant to participate. The effort exerted is directly
related to the degree of interest one has in an area. Thus the lesser the effort
and interest exerted by higher-ranking participant to a task, the more likely are
lower participants to obtain power relevant to this task.
Attractiveness: Another important factor associated with power of low-ranking
participants in an organisation is attractiveness or personality. People who are
viewed as attractive are more likely to obtain access to persons, and, once such
access is gained they may be likely to succeed in promoting a cause or changing
a decision.
Location and Position: In any organisation the person’s location in physical
space and position in social space are important factors influencing access to
persons’, information and instrumentalities. Propinquity affects the opportunities
for interaction, as well as one’s position within a communication network. This is
called ‘Centrality’.
Coalition: In complex organisations different occupational groups attend to
different function, each group maintaining its power. It is common for coalitions
to form among lower participants in these multiple structures, so that a secretary
may know the man who manages the supply of stores and is thus in a position to
handle informally certain needs that would otherwise be more time consuming
and difficult. This makes higher-ranking participants dependent on her, thereby
giving her power.
12
Rules: Lower participants can use their knowledge of norms of the organisation
to thwart attempted change. Their familiarity with rules can often help them to
find rules to not do what they have been asked to do, and, rules in fact, are often
rationalisation for inclusion on their part. However, it appears that ways of
acquiring power be it by the lower participants or higher participants are very
similar.
Power is a word with ideological tinge. Power and position are often part of the
organisation and need to be understood as fundamental and important
processes. The literature on power is not particularly large, but on the basis of
above information we can say that power is a consequence of constraints and
resource contingencies facing the organisation, the ability of those in the
organization, to advocate their skills and capacities for handling those problems,
as well as to shape the definition of the situation.
13
