Leadership, power and influence 1

Leadership, power and influence: some notes on people’s

How much power is perceived, can be located, used and felt depends on how it is conceived
(Lorenzi, 2006). At its simplest conceptualization, power is the recognition and intentional use
(Scott, 2007) of the ability to make things happen or prevent from happening (Hoffmann, 2010).
Preventing the occurrence of decision – shaping grievance through preemptive parody of
perceptions, cognitions and preferences – is admittedly a highly abstracted form of power play
awkward for empirical scrutiny but provides insight to observed, perceived or potential conflict
and influential leadership behavior (Lorenzi, 2006). In practice, the actual exercise of allowing
or precluding control does not happen in a vacuum; it is systemic and plethora of administrative
and bureaucratic mechanisms is laid to sustain the willingness to command and obey. Induced
ideological blindness, false consciousness (Beland, 2006) or marred identity (Myers, 1999;
Christian, 1999) is thus never a distant possibility, but at the same time, power is a collective
property of cooperating or conflicting actors inherent in and constantly shaped and affected by
the cultural, institutional and structural systems of entities (Scott, 2007).

Leaders, keenly calculating the power resources of entities, may win and wield power using a
strand of Machiavellian imitation comprising any combination of suggestions, manipulations,
control, deceit, coercion, fear or torture (Paul, 1982) becoming extractive or transactional
(Stewart, 2006). Alternatively, or more probably at the other end of a continuum, a highly
developed social awareness and political sophistication that exudes the superiority of mutually
fulfilling ideals (Burns, 1978) may help leaders reverse the precedence of expedience over
morality, to raise all entities to higher levels of motivation and integrity, making them
transformational (Stewart, 2006). Notwithstanding conviction at either ends, leadership and
power are relational objects and relationships have a tendency to influence (Paul, 1982;
Hoffmann, 2010). The extent of influence may depend on the extent of trust – both ways (Paul,
1982); and somewhat paradoxically for leaders, giving away power may be gain (Chilcote &

Kuka, S. H. (June 2011).Leadership, Power and Influence: Some notes on people’s relationship to power. Paper presented to
1

Professor Peter Hoffmann in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Doctor of Business Administration Degree; Strategic
Leadership Course; Swiss Management Center University.
 Leadership, power and influence 2

Reece, 2009). Therefore a conscious and intentional deployment of power distinguishes strategic
leaders (Hoffmann, 2010). Indeed, with some optimism, it may be said that the ugly
characterization of power shrouded in domination – submission, win – lose, master – slave
relationships may just be facing a losing battle to more pluralistic understanding of shared yet
growing power (Kanter, 2000).

Negative behaviors have hard time being held in high esteem as research indicates that followers
despise aversive leadership (Thoroughgood, Hunter & Sawyer, 2010). For Burns (1978) leading
humans is an exercise in mobilizing, cooperating, competing, or even conflicting in the realms of
the political, psychological and institutional motives of entities subject to resources afforded. The
optimal outcome of this (cooperation – cum – conflict) interaction is reaching mutually
satisfying ends for both leaders and followers. Yet, power play is real in most social, political
and organizational contexts; manifested in various forms of resistance, denial, pushing and
shoving in the present world that is inherently broken. Ambivalence may drain leaders to
pockets of powerlessness (Kanter, 1979) as power and the lack of it may just be two sides of a
single coin. As such, leaders are forced to resort to a hardnosed thinking, even if outside of logic;
a level of self awareness that can objectively pitch the esteem to win with that of being accepted;
an astute skepticism that injects a dose of realism to both wishing rational behavior by all people
and the responsibility of a leader for authenticity, concern, modesty and truthfulness; and in
general, the willingness to accept and learn from the inevitable incapacity of the broken corollary
of doing good leading to reaping commensurate rewards always. This in short is power play, a
strategy of acquiring real clout, and ignoring that perils influence (Pfeffer, 2010).

Power may come from formal hierarchic authority, personal charismatic attraction to command
loyalty, the leadership or technical skills and expertise regarded in high esteem, the ability to
confer or withhold cherished rewards or compensation and, rather obviously, the situational
application of negative influence (Hoffmann, 2010). Each of these five power bases interact
differently with and have varying effect on followers.

Diverging arguments highlight various aspects of the power base – resources, information,
reward and at times coercion as the source of influence. Leaders locked in power play
judiciously mete out resources; seek to shape behaviors through rewards and punishments;
advance the fight in multiple fronts; stun the opponent by making the first move; co-opt
 Leadership, power and influence 3

antagonists; remove rivals; fend of unnecessary fire; use their personal touch of perfecting the
rivalry; persist in getting through their ideas and strategies; manipulate key relationships towards
their own effectiveness and issue compelling visions that coax followers (Pfeffer, 2010). In short,
influence requires hands – on strategies. Nevertheless, research suggests that the top three most
frequently leveraged sources of power are those related to of expertise, information and
relationships. The power of punishment or sanction is the least-leveraged source of power. If
organizations learn, they may have taken cues from how each behavior or use of power
influenced followers (Bal, Campbell, Steed & Meddings, 2008).

Even earlier thinking as reflected in the seminal work of Kanter (1979) tends to ascribe power
and hence influence being essentially positional with a pointed recommendation to use
organizational redesign to gain control over supply lines, information and support as these
resources associated to positions exert the most influence as in getting things done. But the air of
manipulation loaded in this assertion cannot be shrugged off bringing more light to the struggle
of Lukes (2005; 2006; Dowding, 2006) as to how willing compliance to domination is secured
(Swartz, 2007). Positional power, while legitimate and upholds hierarchy to get things done, has
obvious limitations in today’s changing world where information asymmetry or constrictive
supply chain are increasingly less of a concern as compared to the conditions that created these
predicament in the first place.

Influence depends on the manner power is used rather than just the source (Green, 1999). Thus,
for Michelson (2002), in the current diversified and interdependent world of organizations, the
centrality, criticality, relevance, flexibility and visibility of positional power interacting with
personal attributes of the leader’s knowledge and information, effort and competence, and
charisma or attraction provide the prime sources of influence. The derivative can be positive as
in enhancing inventive thinking, creative problem solving or developing new prototypes; or
detrimental as in instigating self aggrandizement, tunnel vision, power struggles and personal or
organizational conflicts. The key argument here is that power used detrimentally can boomerang
(Michelson, 2002). That is why, for example, Christian ethics has accolades for referent power
(Thomas, 2002). Some people may still find it hard to stomach the obvious conclusion of this
line of argument that leaders aiming organizational effectiveness have increasingly little
incentive to abuse the process of acquiring, building and using their power base.
 Leadership, power and influence 4

Theorists (Myerson, 2010) showed that using resources and incentives essentially calls for
differential treatments and is therefore less effective, in fact, a moral hazard. Others (Gergen,
2006) had clear struggles, particularly with the raising the individual to such lofty standards
because there already are imbalance in power, oppressive conditions and injustice. The
characterization of benevolence, rationality and intentionality of individual minds fails to subdue
self centered motives of individuals and therefore too inimical to far-reaching and universal
positive influence. People consolidate in families, communities, systems and clubs; some open,
some exclusionary. With the capacity to self – organize comes the awareness for interests, values
and perception of how much power groups possess. Relatedness therefore defines this
perception; the awareness, giving and taking of power and the exercise thereof. The same goes
with intra – group or inter – group relations. However, consolidation brings with it both harmony
and tension, simultaneously. Once again, the incentive for mutually annihilating conflict is
removed as essentially, the tendency to group essentially dampens the dissemination of a single
reality system. Influence therefore becomes a matter of coordinated interdependence and
successful power; in addition, influence requires constant organizing and disorganizing to reach
out as well as level the power bases of groups and their members (Gergen, 2006).

Good luck, would say the present day vociferous critique of inequity and exploitation. But
Gergen’s (2006) admission of the shortcoming wrestles the stings out and challenges for a
fresher look at the urge for joint perspectives – inequity is inadmissible but should violence
solely be the way to reign in righteousness? The implication, on the other hand, for strategic
leaders is even more powerful as insights that highlight the value of increased self awareness and
the inalienable, constantly evolving relatedness consciousness of people as being the basis for
sustainable organizational effectiveness (Peck, 2009) can be viewed in newer lights. To influence
with or without formal authority, leaders are well advised to rationally consider the power and
positions of relevant others – i.e., related and inter – related groups – and seek to both trust and
generate trust. Coercion is a far cry, in this case, as compared to embracing adoptability and
flexibility in even more grandeur effort of unifying ever increasing groups of people in perpetual
path of success (Chilcote & Reece, 2009).
 Leadership, power and influence 5

Reference
Bal, V., Campbell, M., Steed, J. & Meddings, K. (2008). The role of power in effective leadership. A CCL
Research White Paper. Center for Creative Leadership. Downloaded on June 26, 2011 from
http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/roleOfPower.pdf

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row. New York.

Chilcote A. & Reece, S. (2009). Power Paradox. Leadership Excellence. June 2009. Downloaded on June
27, 2011 from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&hid=8&sid=5be1a7bd-acbb-48d0-
b999-bd22b3bc4961%40sessionmgr14

Christian, J. (1999). God of the empty handed: poverty, power and the Kingdom of God. Barnes and
Noble; World Vision International.

Dowding, K. (2006). Three-Dimensional Power: A Discussion of Steven Lukes’ Power: A Radical View.
Political Studies Review: 2006 Vol 4, 136–145. Downloaded on June 27, 2011 from
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sociology/notes06/Level4/SO4530/Assigned-
Readings/Lecture%205.2.pdf

Green, R. D. (1999). Leadership as a Function of Power. Proposal Management Fall 1999. Downloaded
on June 27, 2011 from http://www.uthscsa.edu/gme/documents/LspasaFunctionofPower.pdf

Gergen, K. J. (2006). Relational theory and the discourse of power. Downloaded on June 27, 2011 from
http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/faculty/gergen/relational_theory.pdf

Glanz, J. (2010). Justice and Caring: Power, Politics and Ethics in Strategic Leadership. ISEA Volume 38.
Number 1, 2010. Downloaded on June 26, 2011 from
http://www.coe.uga.edu/sil/files/2010/11/Glanz-2010-Justice-and-Caring.pdf

Hoffmann, P. H. (2010). Leadership& Power. Lecture Notes for DBA Strategic Leadership Course.
SMCU. Downloaded on June 26, 2011 from
http://swissmc.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/courses/5512S1641/35%20Power.pdf

Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management. Harvard Business Review. July – August 1979.
Downloaded on June 26, 2011 from
http://swissmc.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/courses/5512S1641/Kanter_PowerFailure_HBR.pdf

Lorenzi, M. (2006). Power: A Radical View by Steven Lukes. Crossroads, Vol. 6. No. 2. Pp 87 – 95.
Downloaded on June 27, 2011 from http://www.webasa.org/Pubblicazioni/Lorenzi_2006_2.pdf

Lukes, S. (2006). Reply to comments. Political Studies Review: New York University. 2006 Vol 4, 164–
173 downloaded on June 28, 2011 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1478-
9299.2006.000103.x/full

Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
 Leadership, power and influence 6

Michelson, B. J. (2002). Leadership and Power Base Development: Using Power Effectively to Manage
Diversity and Job-Related Interdependence in Complex Organizations. Paper prepared for AU – 24;
Concept for Air Force Leadership. Air War College of Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base,
Alabama. Downloaded on June 26, 2011 from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-
24/michelson.pdf

Myers, B. L. (1999). Walking with the poor: principles and practices of transformational development.
Mary Knoll. World Vision International.

Myerson, R. B. (2010). Moral Hazard in High Office and the Dynamics of Aristocracy. Economics
Department Working Papers. University of Chicago. Downloaded on June 27, 2011 from
http://home.uchicago.edu/rmyerson/research/power.pdf

Paul, M. F. (1982). Power, leadership and trust: implications for counselors in terms of organizational
change. The personnel and Guidance Journal, May 1982. Downloaded on June 26, 2011 from
http://swissmc.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/courses/5512S1641/Power%20Leadership%20Trust
.pdf

Peck, D. (2009). Self – Aware Leadership. Leadership Excellence. June 2009. Downloaded on June 27,
2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&hid=8&sid=5be1a7bd-
acbb-48d0-b999-bd22b3bc4961%40sessionmgr14

Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power Play. Spotlight on Effective Organization. Harvard Business Review. July –
August 2010. Downloaded on June 26, 2011 from http://www.jeffreypfeffer.com/pdf/articles/HBR-
JulAug2010-PowerPlay.pdfThomas, J. C. (2002) Leadership Effectiveness of Referent Power as a
Distinction of Personal Power. Downloaded on June 28, 2011 from
http://www.jctnet.us/Professional/MOL/LEAD605/ThomasJMicroBP$2.pdf

Scott, J. (2007). Power, domination and stratification. Sociologia, Problemas E Practicas, No 55. Pp 25-
39. Downloaded on June 27, 2011 from http://www.scielo.oces.mctes.pt/pdf/spp/n55/n55a03.pdf

Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational Leadership: An Evolving Concept Examined through the Works of
Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue
#54, June 26, 2006. Downloaded on June 26, 2011 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ843441.pdf

Swartz, D. L. (2007). Recasting power in its third dimension. Book Review. Springer Science and
Business Media. Boston University. Downloaded on June 26, 2011 from
http://www.bu.edu/av/core/swartz/recasting-power-in-its-third-dimension.pdf

Thoroughgood, C. N., Hunter, s. T. & Sawyer, K. B. (2010). Bad Apples, Bad Barrels, and Broken
Followers? An Empirical Examination of Contextual Influences on Follower Perceptions and Reactions
to Aversive Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics (2011) 100:647–672 Springer 2010 downloaded on
June 26, 2011 from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&hid=8&sid=5be1a7bd-acbb-48d0-
b999-bd22b3bc4961%40sessionmgr14