Reflection 1: Reflect on the relevance for management practice of Lukes’ three dimensional model of power. Illustrate your points with suitable examples.
According to Lukes, there are three fundamental faces of power. Each face of power offer something different to the individual who is trying to attain that power, and people in different positions use the different faces of power differently to ensure that they retain control within their own personal sphere. The first face of power is what happens when someone wins an argument. For instance, if a parent wins an argument against their child, they have the power, as they have won the argument. According to Lukes, this is the classical description of power that is commonly accepted by political theorists, and so on. However, Lukes goes on to describe two other types of power. The second type of power comes from the agenda-setting method. If the individual can set the agenda of the discussion, they can avoid being challenged by other members of the discussion. This precludes the first type of power, because there can be no real argument; the people involved in the discussion are guided by the will of the individual holding or hosting the discussion. A good example for this type of power is the power of a boss over an employee; the employee is afraid of speaking up against the agenda that the boss has set because he or she could lose his or her job.
The final facet of power is somewhat different from the first two. Lukes suggests that the third face of power is about forcing people to do things that they do not want to do through manipulation. This is different from the first two facets of power, because in those two facets of power the individual is overtly and blatantly forced to act in a certain way, even if they do not wish to; in the third facet of power, the individual is manipulated into acting a certain way, even if that action is contrary to their desires, belief system, etc. This has also been described as “ideological” power, and it is more subtle than the first two types of power; however, Lukes suggests that ideological power, unlike agenda-setting power or decision-making power is a more subtle form of action and mind control.
Obviously, the ability to influence someone ideologically is incredibly powerful. Those individuals who can control the thoughts or feelings of others insofar as political or social issues are concerned can do much to control the actions of a small group. Perhaps it is just my personal cynicism coming out, but hearing about this type of ideological power reminds me of stories of cult leaders who were able to meld together agenda-setting power with ideological power and convince their followers to do things that were completely out of the ordinary. For instance, at Jonestown, Jim Jones convinced his followers to participate in mass suicide; Charles Manson convinced his followers to commit murder. The combination of agenda-setting power-- an overt act of power and control-- and ideological power is a scary one. It effectively takes away the individual’s ability to think critically about a situation. Although ideological power is a somewhat subtle form of influence, it is very impactful and important because it influences the individual so deeply.
Reflection 2: Reflect critically on Niccolo Machiavelli’s formulations on power. What lessons can managers learn from it, taking into account that Machiavelli’s ideas have positive and negative aspects?
Machiavelli has some of the most famous (and problematic) formulations on power of all the political thinkers. To understand how to properly apply his theoretical framework and to avoid any potential pitfalls associated with Machiavellian power, it is important to understand the basis of Machiavellian power. Machiavelli wrote that there were two ways for the individual to create and maintain power: first, that the individual ruler could be loved, and second, that the ruler can be feared. Machiavelli writes, ““it is much safer to be feared than loved because love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails” (Machiavelli). In short, Machiavelli-- who may or may not have truly believed this political theory-- wrote that a ruler should be responsible for the love or the fear of the people under their control.
Influencing a manager to ensure that their underlings love them as a leader is a positive thing that can be taken away from Machiavelli’s theory on power and influence. Machiavellian theory is a thing of extremes: the individual leader must be either loved or feared, and the individual must be either “caressed” or crushed completely by the leader. Machiavelli notes that the individual who is merely wounded may come back with a vengeance after they have healed, but the individual who is crushed completely has no drive to come back vengefully against the individual or individuals responsible for his downfall. Managers should take into account Machiavelli’s notes on treating people gently, however, as this form of pre-emptive containment can be extremely effective for managers. Individuals who feel as though they are valued in the working environment are much more pliable, and much more willing to participate in activities that the manager wants them to do.
I would not want to be part of a working environment where the manager was an adherent to Machiavelli’s political theories on power, however. The type of power that is espoused by Machiavelli is too manipulative and too extreme; the power that Machiavelli supported was absolute power, and I feel that a working environment is often best served by a more cooperative, communicative form of power, rather than the extreme authoritarianism that Machiavelli seemed to support. However, using a kinder, softer form of Machiavellian power theory-- one in which, for instance, the manager focuses on having his or her underlings love and respect him or her-- may not be as negative of an experience as a Machiavellian workplace that focuses on crushing any opposition to existing power. Still, on a personal level, I would not like to be a part of an environment where the threat of punishment and manipulation is constantly hanging over my head; this is not something that I personally respond well to, and I feel that it breeds a working environment that values impersonal interactions and an imbalance of power.
Reflection 3: Reflect on the notion of persuasion. Why is it considered as one of the most effective influence tactics in organisations? What are its pitfalls? Use examples to illustrate your points.
It is commonly said that the ability to persuade an individual or a group of individuals is what gives someone power. However, whether or not the ability to persuade is a good thing or a bad thing is certainly still up in the air. People can be persuaded to do good-- sometimes it is easy, and sometimes it is difficult; however, when people are persuaded to do bad things, the results can be horrendous. Persuasive people in positions of power can be dangerous. One needs only to look at the multitudes of examples in recent history to recognize that this is true: Mao killed millions of people by convincing all of China that it needed a Cultural Revolution. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were similarly successful in their propaganda campaigns, and in each case, millions of innocent lives were lost as a result of the ability of these charismatic leaders to persuade people to join their cause.
This does not mean that persuasive people are always dangerous, or that persuasive people are always rife with ulterior motives; however, the silver-tongued snake trope does have some basis in reality. Even if people in power are trying to persuade others to act in positive ways, there are usually ulterior motives for this that should be considered carefully. If an action is genuinely a good action, then it should be enough to just present all options and allow those involved to choose the best one; however, when persuasion is involved, that means that someone has an objection, and to overcome this objection, another individual is trying to change his or her mind about what he or she believes.
I have a very personal distaste for manipulation and manipulative practices, because I feel that they can be overused and misused. I do not like the idea of someone persuading me to do something I feel uncomfortable with, but I do recognize that in business, persuading people to do things they are uncomfortable with (like parting with their money) is part of the business process. Persuading investors to invest in certain projects, for instance, is a fundamentally-important process for business people of all types. Persuasion, as a tactic, is generally extremely effective, but when it fails to work, sometimes individuals revert to other, more heavy-handed tactics.
Persuasion is considered one of the most important tactics in business or other organizations because it allows the individual to convince others to do what they want them to do, without provoking any kind of bad feeling. If a boss exerts overt power over an employee, for instance, this may provoke bad feelings in the employee; however, if someone is persuaded to do something, then they are choosing to do whatever it is without any kind of negative feelings or feeling as though they have been unfairly or unduly influenced.
References
Griffin, G. R. and Griffin Gerald, R. 1991. Machiavelli on management: Playing and winning the corporate power game. Praeger New York.
Howell, W. G. 2003. Power without persuasion. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Ledeen, M. A. 2000. Machiavelli on modern leadership. New York: Truman Talley Books.
Lukes, S. 2005. Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Swartz, D. L. 2007. Recasting power in its third dimension. Theory and society, 36 (1), pp. 103--109.
West, L. 2013. Power and Persuasion. PS: Political Science \& Politics, 46 (03), pp. 677--678.
