The use of power in organizations

         Power plays a major role in organizations, either we recognize it or not. Power is “the potential ability to influence behavior, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance, and to get people to do things that they would not otherwise do”. (Pfeffer, 1994, p.30). According to Pfeffer (1994), it is common to consider the pursuit of power as something sinister, but his approach is less Machiavellian and more realistic: He recognizes that power is a necessary force that can serve different interests from the selfish individual to the whole organization or even society.  This means that the better we understand power the better we can achieve our goals.

In Pfeffer terms, there are several ways through which power may be used to achieve administration goals in higher education institutions. The first one is called framing. This strategy consists on using the contrast principle, psychological commitment and/or the scarcity principle as ways to re-dimension the focus of a problem. Problems are often perceived according to the context where they are presented, so this can be a powerful tool to achieve institutional goals. In a university setting, a president chooses to frame an issue by asking a pertinent question: Instead of emphasizing the risk of a decision or a new project he can emphasize the future benefits if the decision is taken.

The second strategy is interpersonal influence. Through the use of the principle of social proof, the use of ingratiation, and the role of emotions in interpersonal influence, universities’ authorities can influence the way things are done in their environment. Pfeffer proves that relaying on the opinions of others, using flattery to be liked, and controlling our emotions to influence others can be more effective than just using our cognitive persuasion. In a university setting, it always matters how polite you are with people around you, whom do you spend your time with, what are your connections in upper levels of authority, and how wide is your network of contacts.

The third tool is the use of time. Delaying or speeding actions according to one’s interests can lead to more successful exercise of power. Universities have always used this strategy. A good example is the call for more time to study before taking a decision; the result is that people get tired, or opponents may not be not around. University presidents use time as a powerful way to make people know who is in charge: they are difficult to reach, impossible to get an appointment with, and always under a limited schedule to be around. But probably the best example is the way Liz Coleman guided the process of reinvention of Bennington College: by waiting until the end of June to fire one third of the college faculty she knew it would be impossible for students to protest by transferring to other institutions.

The fourth strategy to use power is the use of information and analysis. Information is a source of power, and it is better used when it appears to be rational. If an authority want to justify his decision, he can use a consulting firm to legitimate the previously taken decision, a tactic often used in higher education. In the Bennington College example, the Trustees called for the Symposium a series of meetings where all the college actors were to participate. Their goal was to justify their decisions, and used that source of information to implement a previously conceived reorganization plan.

The fifth strategy is the manipulation of the structures to consolidate power. In this strategy, it is important to learn how to use department division, regrouping or breaking up independent units, controlling key resources or information, and use task forces or committees to diffuse your responsibility.

The last strategy is the use of symbolic action through language, ceremonies and settings. Pfeffer affirms that symbolic management operates fundamentally on the principle of illusion. The use of strong metaphors, poetic language or intentional adjectives can make people dream, and these emotions interfere rational analysis. Ceremonies are also important, especially when they are invested of rituals and mystery. The sending forth ceremony for Boston College students is a good example: at the beginning of each year, freshman students are invited to process at night with torches from Bapts library to Conte Forum to express the idea of Go forth and set the world on fire. The effects of this ceremony stay in students psyche forever.

Although the know-how of power is very important, it has some limitations. The first one is the shifting nature of the environment. New developments, new ideas, new skills always arise and there are some people always ready to take over. If we fall behind the new trends, we are unlikely to hold on to power for long time. The second one is the perception of one’s own performance. Over and over again, Pfeffer advises about the isolation of power: Presidents and CEOs are always told what they want to hear. The problem is that the longer you stay in a power position, the less you really know about your performance. The last one has to do with the psychology of letting go. Holding power positions for too long is a common temptation, but time passes inexorably. Nobody can avoid aging or illnesses, no matter how brilliant, how much fame or money people have, there is always an end to power.