The aim of our research is to present a critique on French and Raven’s (1959) scholarly dissertation on the bases of social power.
Bio: French and Raven (1959)
John French and Bertram Raven were psychologists whose research on the correlation between social influence and leadership has introduced a dedicated field of study on this topic. The authors introduce the concept of power as an everlasting function of leadership and consider it “pervasive, complex and often disguised” (French & Raven, 1959, p.150).
They hold that the power wielded by a source of leadership (P) can be explained on the basis of parameters (O) such as attitudes, values, opinions etc., or psychological and social influence (French & Raven, 1959, p.151). This brings into play the significance attached by subjects to the source of power that is represented by authorities, both in business organizations as well as other walks of life.
Article summary and critique: French and Raven (1959)
Essentially, the article written by French and Raven (1959) suggests a direct relationship between the bases of O’s power and the perception one may have of that source of power.
In view of this, French and Raven (1959) have identified five different forms of power to explain the social hierarchy in an organization: coercive power, legitimate power, reward power, referent power and expert power.
Coercive power can be defined as the ability of P to exert a punitive influence on O if the latter does not obey P’s order i.e. O is served some kind of punishment for non-conformity (French & Raven, 1959, p.152). Legitimate power is considered as a force of good where each individual sees the source of authority as a benevolent entity.
Upon recognizing the existence of such an entity, he/she feels the need to internalize the evident power structure as an unchallenged norm (French & Raven, 1959, p.152). The subject does not want to trifle with this perceived power structure in order to avoid conflict, and for the greater good of the organization.
Reward power, as name suggests, describes the basis for an entity P to reward the entity O in exchange of some valuable assistance provided by the latter (French & Raven, 1959, p.152). Referent power is a relative definition in which an individual refers certain power attributes to another to whom he/she has been attracted (French & Raven, 1959, p.153).
Finally, expert power is defined as a positive sign where the individual and its interdependent entities are empowered to use technical knowledge and subject expertise to assert their role in the organization (French & Raven, 1959, p.152).
To present our critique, we, at this point, establish that the art of leadership can be described as a complex function that consisting of several independent power sources.
However, French and Raven’s (1959) strict bifurcation of power into a bunch of independent leadership styles may not fully explain practical circumstances in a real world organization. For instance, the theory fails to take into account individual and organizational factors that help us study power equations in greater depth.
According to Robbins (2009), the individual factors of employees for corporate rewards such as promotions and salary increments consist of a choice of examples: perceived job alternatives, self-monitoring capability as a function of social compliance, negotiation skills represented by the presence/absence of a Machiavellian personality in an individual which allows him to manipulate his desire for power (Robbins, 2009, p.508) based on the prevailing scenario.
In contrast, organizational factors comprise of examples such as low trust by management, ambiguity of resource role, presence or absence of promotion opportunities, presence or absence of democratic decision-making, high performance pressure and more (Robbins, 2009, p.508).
A combination of individual and organizational factors have the authority to explain favorable outcomes such as promotions and salary hikes or punitive behavior.
If Robbins (2009) is used as a benchmark to understand the true relationship between power and leadership, we assume that organizations that fall under any of French & Raven’s (1959) power structure model, contain the example to emphasize the true relationship between P and O for different power bases: coercive power, legitimate power, reward power, referent power and expert power.
For instance, if an employee desires to negotiate a salary increase in opposition to limitations set by a predefined organizational policy, he can improve his chances by scoring well on individual and organizational factors. That could mean hunting for vital job alternatives or changing their job profile so that it is more strategically aligned with an organization’s core business focus.
To further critique the dynamics of power in a corporate environment, Thompson (2003) has discussed macro-organizational psychology. According to it, most organizations consist of CEOs and a top set of executives forming the “dominant coalition”, a depersonalized sociological entity (Thompson, 2003, p.16).
Thompson states that this dominant coalition has the last word on matters such as which executive should enjoy the perks of promotion or gain other reward attributes.
Any organization consists of a finite number of individuals who have an inordinate amount of voice in everyday business decisions. No decision that may directly apply for the benefit of the organization as a whole, can be succesffully transmitted witout the active support of such a sociological entity.
Without gaining their compliance, most organizations will suffer from handicaps in the long run, leading to stagnation and inadvertent compomises (Thompson, 2003, p.48).
According to Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson (2008), organizations encompass multi-functional and multi-disciplinarian roles that lead to rapid evolution in power relationships (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 2008, p.131).
To describe French and Raven’s (1959) bases of power, one has to appreciate the significance of this power evolution. Doing it would lead to a better culture of collaboration between organizations and their employees. The latter has been affirmed by Matteson and Ivancevich (1998) who strongly identify with the collaborative management ethos that faciliates complex and challenging requirements in everyday business activities.
Application: French and Raven (1959)
Based on analysis of French and Raven’s (1959) bases of power, and other academic literature which investigate miscellaneous facets of power in an organization, I have summarized the following learning lessons which facilitate power transmutability for the benefit of both employees as well as employers.
First of all, most organizations have to deal with direct as well as indirect influencers of power that affect their everyday business, a topic which has been covered in depth through a critique of the essay.
These power influences serve to govern the relationship between not only the employer and employee, but also a larger subset of organizational goals being shared as a collective responsibility, decisions that are crucially valued for their long-term business impact.
In effect, French and Raven’s (1959) bases of power have been instrumental in defining critical parameters which allow the organization’s leadership to pursue legitimate ways of growth.
At the same time, it empowers their employees to feel a part of the value system, ensuring their voice is being heard, and their welfare taken seriously by the management. This serves as a powerful motivation for resourceful employees who want to scale up the corporate ladder through effort, hard work and perseverance.
To illustrate the applicability of the key theme, we have discussed various organizational theories which complement French and Raven’s (1959) article relating to the bases of power: coercive power, legitimate power, reward power, referent power and expert power. For all practical purposes, if we must focus on the significance of these power parameters, these additional theories can serve as a suitable guidance toolkit.
These additional theories may be applied to describe each and every facet of the organization, serving as a helpful characteristic to illustrate the association of power between different entities. In lieu of this, Robbins (2009) has outlined a number of individual and organizational factors which hold the key to influence decision-making in a real world corporate set-up.
Both employees as well as employers can utlize their rational set of beliefs to periodically evaluate their scorecard on these parameters, in order to arrive at an appropriate bargaining position that will serve their best interests.
Additionally, according to Thompson (2003), both employees and employers significantly stand to benefit if they identify with the real power dynamics that influence decision-making in an organization. The task at hand is to zero in on the dominant coaltion, and investigate whether this entity is capable of enabling successful decisions, or posing a roadblock.
In conclusion, Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson (2008) put forward compelling suggestions on how organizations can create dynamic power balances through the mechanism of evolving roles and shifting responsibilities.
References
French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. Institute for Social Research, 150-167.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H. & Johnson, D.E. Management of Organizational Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Matteson, M.T. & Ivancevich, J.M. (1998). Management and Organizational Behavior Classics. New York: Irvin-Mc Graw Hill.
Robbins, E. (2009). Organizational Behavior. India: Pearson Education.
Thompson, L. (2003). The Social Psychology of Organizational Behavior: Key Readings. New York: Psychology Press.