Power (communication)
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2008) |
Power can be described as the capacity of an individual or a group (which may lie dormant) to exert their will over another or others (French and Raven, 2001) or influence the goals of a relationship. Power is not a characteristic of any one individual, rather, it is defined in terms of relationships and transactions between people. Power is crucial to the achievement of individual goals, the resolution of conflicts, and to communication competency within a group. Power can be understood within two basic dimensions, a content dimension and a relational dimension. The content dimension lends the understanding of what is being said and the relational dimension shows the meaning behind the words and how power is transmitted throughout. Power is not dichotomous. No one person is entirely powerless or powerful in any relationship or position. Power is constantly switching hands within a conversation or relationship. Different ways that people give up their power, whether intentionally or unintentionally, are by being overly polite, backing down from an argument, using a title (such as Doctor or Professor) when addressing another, allowing interruptions when speaking, and clothing choice.[1]
Contents |
[edit] Power in Interpersonal Communication
Based on work originally proposed by the social psychologists French and Raven, there are six different breakdowns of power in interpersonal communication: referent, legitimate, reward, coercive, persuasive, and expert.[citation needed]
- Referent power - The desire and ability to emulate others.[2]
- Legitimate power - based on institutional norms and practices and from historical-legal traditions.[2]
- Expert power - based on one person perceiving that the other person has expert knowledge of a given subject and is a recognised authority in a given situation.
- Coercive power - based on the ability to reward or punish.[2]
- Information Power - derived from possession of important information at a critical time when such information is necessary to organizational functions.
- Value power - influence based on the basis of attraction to values.[2]
[edit] Forms
- Dominance - the exercise of power over others that is typically associated with a negative view of power and is competitive and hierarchical. Dominance is a competitive, win-lose transaction. This form of power results from dichotomous, either-or thinking. Those who try to dominate see power as an active effort to advance personal goals at the expense of others.
- Prevention - competitive and hierarchical power used to thwart the influence of others. This is the flip of dominance. Prevention power is competitive. Preventive power is self-protective.
- Empowerment - power derived from enhancing the capabilities and the influences of individuals and groups. It is power used positively and constructively; it's a cooperative form of power. Empowerment is proactive.
[edit] Power Distance Dimension
Power-distance dimensions are cultural variations in the acceptibility of unequal distribution of power in relationships, institutions, and organizations.
Within the power-distance dimension are two general levels: low power distance and high power distance.
- low-PD culture - Culture whose people value relatively equal power sharing and discourage attention to status differences and ranking in society. Challenging authority, flattening organizational hierarchies to reduce status differences between management and employees, and using power legitimately are encouraged in a low-PD culture.
- high-PD culture - Cultures with a relatively strong emphasis on maintaining power differences. Authorities are rarely challenged, the most powerful are thought to have a legitimate right to exercise their power, and organizational hierarchies are nurtured in a high-PD culture.
A ranking of countries from those with a high-PD culture toward those with a low-PD culture: Malaysia, Guatemala, Panama, Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela, Arab countries, Equador, Indonesia, India, West Africa, Yugoslavia, Singapore, Brazil, France, Hong Kong, Columbia, El Salvador, Turkey, Belgium, East Africa, Peru, Thailand, Chile, Portugal, Uruguay, Greece, South Korea, Iran, Taiwan, Spain, Pakistan, Japan, Italy, Argentina, South Africa, Jamaica, United States, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, Costa Rica, Germany, Great Britain, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark, Israel, Austria.[3]
[edit] Indicators
By observing several indicators it can be determined who holds the power in a situation.
Defining People - the person who can assign a label to another person is the one who has the power.
Principle of least interest - the power lies in the hands of the person who cares the least about the relationship.
Leader - the person who ultimately determines what is done has power.
Verbal Indicators of Power - powerful speaking involves definite declarative statements while non-powerful speaking shows a lack of self-confidence.
Nonverbal Indicators of Power - include clothing, touch, eye contact, and spacing
[edit] Competent Communication and Balancing Power
Balancing power as much as possible between the person or persons within a relationship can become a struggle to prevent another person from dominating. There are several methods to combat this:
- Coalitions- temporary alliances to increase relative power and control a decision or take action
- Defiance- purposeful noncompliance
- Resistance- ambiguous noncompliance
Coalitions can balance the power in a group when the relatively powerless form a coalition and increase their strength, but they can create power imbalances when the more powerful group members move to consolidate their strength by banding together against he weaker members. They create a "them-versus-us" mentality with a family situation, but creates a cohesion within political situations.
Defiance is a last resort to counteract a greater power within a group or relationship and can accrue a sense of unity within the group between the defiant members. However defiance can risk the relationship in the group and put strains
Resistance is often more advantageous than defiance due to its more subtle nature. More covert actions against a dominant power could result in a less radical shift in status quo. There are many strategies for successful resistance, some of which are when members purposefully act uneducated in the field of interest, lose interest in the subject, and fake forgetfulness.
All of these techniques provide ways to competently balance power within a group equally among members.
[edit] Politics
'Politics' is the way that power is embodied in influence tactics to achieve desired outcomes - power in action.[4] Empirical studies of power focus on macro/structural bases of power, and by contrast studies of politics focus on the micro processes of individual behaviour.[5]
Dawson [6] divides politics into external and internal political activity, both of which involve decision making and agenda shaping. External political activity includes the lobbying of politicians, strategic alliances, market positioning, and stakeholder and competitor discussions. Internal political activity includes consultation, negotiation, conflicts and resistance within and between groups (such as Trade Unions and staff associations) and individuals. Buchanan [7] argues that political behaviour is about more than coping with contexts of conflict and resistance.
Buchanan [5] provided a candidate list of political behaviours. The more common political behaviours identified included: building a network of useful contacts, using key players to support initiatives, making friends with power brokers, bending the rules to fit the situation and self-promotion. Similarly, it was suggested that less common behaviours included: finding someone else to blame, claiming credit for the work of others, using social settings to discover opinions, using others to deliver bad news, deliberately withholding information, highlighting others errors and flaws, using delaying tactics, breaking the rules and compromising now to win later.
Political behaviour is more than merely self-interested and can be employed to achieve organisational as well as individual purposes [5] although the former receives less attention in the literature.
[edit] See also
[edit] Further reading
- Castells, Manuel (2009,). Communication power. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 608. ISBN 9780199567041.
[edit] References
- ^ Rothwell, J. Dan (2010). In the company of others : an introduction to communication (3rd ed. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-533630-6.
- ^ a b c d Bennis,Warren.(1997) Managing People Is Like Herding Cats (pgs 169-170)
- ^ Rothwell, J. Dan (2010). In the company of others : an introduction to communication (3rd ed. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-533630-6.
- ^ Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. 2008. Power, Politics and Organizational Change. London: Sage.
- ^ a b c Buchanan, D. 2008. You stab my back, I'll stab yours: Management experience and perceptions of organization political behaviour. British Journal of Management, 19: 49-64.
- ^ Dawson, P. 1996. Teaching and Quality: Change in the Workplace. London: International Thompson Business Press.
- ^ Buchanan, D. 1999. The logic of political action: an experiment with the epistemology of the particular. British Journal of management, 10(Special): S73-S88.
