NATURE
OF POWER
Power
is the ability to direct other behavior to get what you want. The driving for force moving the resources from
institution A to institution B or the influence
of a parent to his child. The authority
of a politician to change policies for his interest. The circumstance may
amount to coercion or the practice
of persuading someone to do something by using force of threats. According to
Dalberg an English historian, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. He warned that power is inherently evil and those who
poses it cannot be trusted.
DIMENSIONS
OF POWER
Power as Decision-Making
This face of power consists of conscious actions that in some way influence the content of decisions. Identifying who has power is done by analyzing decisions in the light of the known preferences of the actors involved. The implication of this view of power is that the most powerful actors in society are those whose opinion are considered and upheld in the decision making. The powerful are able to get what they want and make others behave the way they wanted them to. Decisions can be influenced in a variety of ways. Keith Boulding distinguished between the use of force or intimidation (the stick), productive exchanges involving mutual gain (the deal), and the creation of obligations, loyalty and commitment (the kiss).
Power as Agenda Setting
The second face of power is the ability to prevent decisions being made: that is, in effect, ‘non-decision-making’. This involves the ability to set or control the political agenda, thereby preventing issues or proposals from being aired in the first place.
Power as Thought Control
This face of power consists of conscious actions that in some way influence the content of decisions. Identifying who has power is done by analyzing decisions in the light of the known preferences of the actors involved. The implication of this view of power is that the most powerful actors in society are those whose opinion are considered and upheld in the decision making. The powerful are able to get what they want and make others behave the way they wanted them to. Decisions can be influenced in a variety of ways. Keith Boulding distinguished between the use of force or intimidation (the stick), productive exchanges involving mutual gain (the deal), and the creation of obligations, loyalty and commitment (the kiss).
The second face of power is the ability to prevent decisions being made: that is, in effect, ‘non-decision-making’. This involves the ability to set or control the political agenda, thereby preventing issues or proposals from being aired in the first place.
The
third face of power is the ability to influence another by shaping what he or
she thinks, wants, or needs. This is power expressed as ideological
indoctrination or psychological control.
TAXONOMY
OF POWER
In 1959, John French and Bertram Raven created the six (6) bases of power to understand the
influence of a leader.
A formal right to make demands based
on his/her authority is known as legitimate
power. Example, the President of the Republic of the Philippines, elected
by the people, making him a legitimate leader of the Philippines with an
authority to direct other servants of the government to help him to accomplish
his goals.
The reward power is the capability to compensate other person for
compliance. Example, A manager's authority to promote an employee.
The coercive power is the ability to punish a person in case of
noncompliance. Example, if an employer forces or threats his employee to do an
act whether lawful or unlawful,
If a leader is charismatic the
people automatically follow him this is known as referent power. Examples of charismatic people are Pope John Paul
II and President Duterte.
The expert power, under this circumstance education or experience is
the essential ingredient. Example, everybody, listen to a lawyer, if there is a
controversy in law.
When a person holds information that
may significantly affects the decision of a person is known informational power.
There are three consequences of power: compliance, commitment and resistance. Employing certain types of power in particular ways may result into these consequences.
Compliance
refers to the readiness or act of agreeing to do something.
The
two types of power most likely to cause compliance are legitimate or position
power and reward power.
1.Compliance with the order
may occur if it is perceived to be within the leader’s scope of authority.
2.Compliance is most likely
to happen if the reward is something valued by the target person.
Commitment is an
even more desirable outcome because of the trust and emotional pledge that it
causes. It is perceived as loyalty or a sense of dedication or devotion.
Commitment is most likely to be the consequence when the powers used are
referent and expert.
The common way to exercise referent
power is merely to ask someone with whom one has a friendship to do
something.
Expert power may result to commitment if
the leader presents logical arguments and supporting evidence for a particular
proposal, order or policy. It will depend on the leader’s credibility and
persuasive communication skills in addition to technical knowledge and logical
or analytical ability.
Commitment is a very unlikely
consequence if coercive power is employed.
Resistance means
to refuse or to oppose. It is the most likely outcome when coercive power is
used in a hostile or manipulative way. It is best to use coercion power in
preventing behavior that is harmful to the society and well-being of the people
such as illegal and violent activities. (Heywood 2007)
CONFORMITY
Power is abused by
compliance with the standards set by the society. People are often quick to
conform just to please others.
Sometime on 1960, Stanley
Milgram studied conformity to the
authority. The participant were paid by the researcher to take a certain
role. The participant (as teacher) was told to shock the participant (as
learner) whenever an incorrect answer were given. In the study the participant
(learner) were confederate who pretend to be hurt by the electric shock. He
told the participant (teachers) that they will not be held liable to whatever
happen to the participant (learners) and that he needed their help to complete
his experiment. The result ended up that all participant are willing to
administer up to 300 volts, and 65% were willing to go up 450 volts.
References
Pawilen R. & Pawilen R., Philippine Politics and Governance. Manila, Philippines: Rex Book Store, 2002Retrieved from: https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_56.htmRetrieved from: https://study.com/academy/lesson/political-power-definition-types-sources.htmlRetrieved from: https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s17-power-and-politics.html