Power and People: How to get it Right

By Chad Bailey

Leaders can make or break an organization by their approach to, and style of, managing people. In this article, I will discuss some of the concepts of power and

influence and the impact those concepts have on members in the group. Managing

people is complicated, because it involves people, and what may work for one group

dynamic may not be the best solution in a different group. Based on what I have

learned, I will make suggestions to leaders at the end of this article.

Group Norms and Conformity

Every organization has a set of norms. Papa, Daniels, and Spiker (2008)

define norms as “shared expectations for

behavior, thought, and feeling” (p. 249).

These are further broken down into

explicit norms, such as written policies,

and implicit norms, which can be

observed but are not otherwise communicated to a group member. While explicit norms

within an organization are typically monitored and enforced using a formal system, such

as coaching and corrective action, implicit norms are enforced through pressure to

conform. I will focus the discussion on these.

Some of the “less serious” methods to force conformity to norms, as discussed in the

text, are delaying action to allow the member to self-correct, joke about the lack of

conformity, and have a serious discussion to persuade conformity (Papa, Daniels, &

Spiker p. 250). These methods seem logical. They start with giving the member time to

1

observe and adapt before moving on to a lighthearted approach to get them to conform.

If these fail, then the member is compelled to conform through serious discussion.

◊◊◊ There are more harmful methods to force conformity to group norms as well.

These include ridicule, argument, and rejection

and isolation of the non-conforming member.

These methods may be effective in forcing

conformity but may come at the detriment to the

group dynamic if used frequently. One could

imagine how these types of behaviors towards a

group member could create a hostile

environment which does not promote positive

growth. While norms are important to an organization and conformity of members to

these norms is critical to stability, the way in which conformity is reached is just as

important. Grenny, Patterson, Maxfield, McMillan, and Switzler (2013) advise to “rely on

personal and social motivators as your first line of attack. Let the value of the behavior

itself, along with social motivators, carry the bulk of the motivational load” (p. 245).

People like to feel like they belong in the organization they are a part of. Simple

methods of polite social motivation can bring about compliance to norms.

Leader-Member Exchange Theory

The leader-member exchange theory was proposed by George Graen. At its core, it

contends that leaders do not treat the members of a group the same, so there is

discrimination of members within the group. Further study involved classifying members

in three groups: the in-group, the middle-group, and the out-group. The in-group is

made up of those the leaders trust more explicitly than those in the out-group. The in-

group members are more highly regarded and enjoy more open communication with the

2

leaders. The out-group member does not gain a lot of trust or regard for the leaders and

may experience hostility from them. The middle-group is marked by some aspects of

both. It is reasonable to suspect that this has a negative effect on group morale and

leadership effectiveness. More recent studies into leader-member exchange (LMX)

differentiate between high quality, or good, LMX, and low quality, or bad, LMX.

One interesting finding in the

study was the self-perpetuating of

member’s expectations within a

group: “Members in high-quality

conditions expected positive

communication with leaders and

motivated themselves to fulfill

these expectations” (Papa,

Daniels & Spiker p.270). Those in low-quality groups had a similar self-perpetuating

experience with poor communication. While it is important to see differentiation within

groups, leaders need to pay close attention to the effects it has on the member, group,

and organization.

Transactional vs. Transformational Leadership

Transactional leadership is more traditional leadership concerned with processes

and compliance. An employee is given expectations (goals) and is rewarded or

punished based on their performance. This is also known as exchange model.

Transactional leaders seek to work within the defined guidelines of the organization.

This can be demonstrated in an organization in the form of performance improvement

processes (corrective action) and stringent, unchanging policies.

Transformational leadership is concerned with the individual and their values,

motivations, and desires. Papa, Daniels, and Spiker (2008) point out “Transformational

leaders actually change members’ values. . .they motivate members to perform beyond

3

expectations” (p. 265). Transformational leadership, like the name implies, seeks to

transform the organization, starting with its members. In this type of leadership

individual members feel empowered and “buy in” to new expectations and change. The

feedback provided with transformational leadership is tantamount to reward. Kaye and

Jordan-Evans (2002) point out “regardless of

individual differences, virtually all employees want

to hear how valuable they are to the team, how

important their work is, and what great work

they have done. And they are happy to hear it

again and again” (p. 163). It is this people-

centric approach to transformational leadership

that makes it so effective.

As appealing as transformational leadership sounds,

studies have found that it actually has a measurable impact. Papa, Daniels, and Spiker

(2008) conclude “transformational leadership correlates more highly than transactional

leadership with leadership effectiveness” (p. 266). It should come as no surprise that

individuals like to feel empowered and engaged in the organization’s direction.

Personal Experience with Types of Power

I had a manager once who, on top of having an in-group and out-group, used

coercive power to keep her team members in line. The threat of demotion and

termination were ever-present and created an environment of mistrust and hostility

towards other members. On more than one occasion she “made an example” out of a

non-conforming employee by terminating their employment. It created a very hostile

work environment.

With my current manager I

have experienced the reward type

4

“I love my job and my employees. [I give] daily and weekly awards and incentives…”

of power. Throughout my career in this organization she has used rewards as a way to

motivate me to work harder and achieve more. The fact that she delivered on these

promises of reward only reinforce her power status with me. At quarterly reviews she

will discuss what I need to accomplish in order to achieve the high performance rating

and merit increase I desire. These goals are always much more lofty than I would have

set myself.

In an earlier interview with Heather Tillman, who is a trusted leader within my

organization, she notes that she prescribes to the reward type of power: “I love my job

and my employees. [I give] daily and weekly awards and incentives, verbal thanks,

thank you notes, gift cards, and other prizes and kudos to drive performance via

recognition.” This has resulted in her contact center being the top performing center in

sales and customer satisfaction indexes in the country. She has seen the opposite,

coercive power used to the detriment of the morale of a center. You simple cannot

motivate someone to perform by writing them up and threatening them with termination.

◊◊◊ In my first professional position I experienced the expert type of power. My

manager, the head of the HR department, was young but had already achieved some

impressive education and business acumen. I saw him as a

mentor and his status as something to respect. He always

seemed to have the correct answer to any question I asked

and provided clear and concise direction and instruction to

the team. His competence and confidence kept morale and

productivity high within this group the entire time I was

there.

Suggestions to Leaders

5

I would suggest to leaders at all levels in an organization to always consider the

individual and their feelings and motivation. An organization is only as good as the parts

that make it: the people. If you have a large portion of unhappy or dissatisfied members

the organization will not be completely successful. This can

be achieved by looking at some of the concepts above.

First, adopt a transformational leadership style that

takes into account the individual motivations and goals of

the organization’s members. Knowing what those are will

help to solicit their buy-in on the direction of the

organization. People need to feel needed and part of the

organization rather than just being a “cog in the machine,” which transactional

leadership can lead to. Transformational leadership can also result in many more

possibilities since it is concerned with many aspects of the organization and its

members. It is not fixated on processes and exchanges. Transformation leadership is a

commitment to the future of the organization.

Second, avoid leader-member exchange issues by avoiding the pitfalls of in-

groups, middle-groups, and out-groups. The text states that there certainly should be

differentiation within a group; not everyone performs at the same level (p. 270).

However, a more logical and transformative approach would be to group your members

by high performing, performing, and needs improvement. That way a leader knows how

to approach communication with the three groups, all in a positive light. Just because

someone needs improvement does not mean they can’t be valuable to the group. It

could be they just don’t have the tools and training they need to be successful. If a

leader places them in an out-group and ostracizes them, how will they ever improve? To

me this is a logical approach. As a leader, one would focus skills development on those

in the needs improvement group and focus commitment and growth on those in the

other two groups.

◊◊◊

6

Power in organizations takes many forms and there are many types of relationships

occurring within the organization and its groups. Although more traditional transactional

leadership is effective, it seems that transformational leadership truly wins out as it

motivates people using their emotions, desires, and drive. Organization leaders who

realize the value of their members and treat them in a respectful manner will be much

more successful that those who take more traditional approaches. People want a feeling that they belong – that their work within an organization has some purpose – and transformational leadership does just that.

Works Cited

7

Grenny, J., Patterson, K., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., Switzler, A. (2013). Influencer.

New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Kaye, B., Jordan-Evans, S. (2002). Love ‘Em or Lose ‘Em: Getting Good People to

Stay. San Fransico, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Papa, M. J., Daniels, T. D., & Spiker, B.K. (2008). Organizational communication:

Perspectives and trends. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Interviewee Information

Heather Tillman

Manager, Center Sales & Care

CenturyLink, Inc.

8