Let’s face it; most of us have had to deal with a power hungry leader that loved to throw their weight around by demeaning and threatening workers. This is an illustration where power and influence can be abusive resulting in negative stimuli within the workplace and makes workers feel bullied, but can there be a balance or situations where these tactics are beneficial and even necessary? The power of coercion usually implies negative connotations in regards to leadership as it is associated to punishment whether it is appropriately or inappropriately applied (Hughes, Richard et al., 1993, p. 119).
There is an only Army adage, “We can’t make you do anything, but sure can make you wish you had”. The same logic holds true in organizations as some leaders choose to use the power of coercion and pressure tactics or hard tactics as the means to force subordinates to succumb to their agenda. By definition, the phenomenon of power is considered to be the ability at which a leader can cause change and their influence is the measurement of such change and how it affects one’s attitude, values, beliefs and or behaviors (Hughes, Richard et al., 1993, p. 107). This basis of this Power and Influence perspective does not imply that all changes are positive nor does it imply that power is constructively and effectively applied by all leaders, but rather indicates the obvious that power results in influence which translates to change. Good or bad this change is a result of the leaders use of power, their type of power and the medium used to motivate followers to perform a specific task, act a particular way, adhere to certain rules and the tactics utilized should be carefully selected based on the situation as well as the audience (PSU WC L7, 2017, p. 6).
The Power and Influence perspective of leadership works to explain the types of power, influence tactics and the reasoning behind each. It is through this perception that one might better understand the circumstances where coercive power and associated tactics can be effective and may also be the only option (Hughes, Richard et al., 1993, p. 128). The downfall associated to this viewpoint is that coercion when wrongly applied can be disruptive and negatively impact productivity, job satisfaction and increase employee turnaround (The Ken Blanchard Companies, 2016). A very common and bad example is a leader who often throws tirades and creates a dysfunctional relationship between the leader and follower (Hughes, Richard et al., 1993, pp. 119, 120). In addition, these types of tactics should not be employed to the degree that they are demeaning or threatening people such that employment invokes legal actions and creates a hostile work environment, but occasional use for discipline may be warranted under certain circumstances. Therefore, it is of the upmost importance that leaders understand both the limitations and application of coercion in the most beneficial way possible and comprehend the functions of the leader, follower and situation (Hughes, Richard et al., 1993, p. 113).
Pressure tactics or hard tactics are usually employed by leaders with legitimate or coercive power and are rarely used by those with high referent power as they rely on good working relationships, but that is not to say that pressure tactics should not be considered as a valuable asset to any leader type’s arsenal (PSU WC L7, 2017, p. 6). The power of coercion should be applied only when necessary and consistently throughout the group with all followers treated equally. It is also important to understand that using coercive tactics early to correct behaviors may result in an overall experience that is less painful and threatening. An example from my personal experience involved a long time employee who after nearly 30 years of service began to come in late, leave early and sometimes just come and go as he pleased. His poor attendance and tardiness was ignored by his boss for close to 10 years until this leader finally realized that her department could no longer afford to ignore his attendance as the workload was picking up and his actions were causing a rift in the morale of the group. Finally, one Friday afternoon he was written-up for his poor attendance and warned that any infractions would result in further disciplinary actions. Monday arrived and this individual went straight to Human Resources and filled out the paperwork for early retirement.
This leader erred as she did not handle the problem at its inception and had this toxic behavior been addressed when it first started it is most likely that this person would not have retired or at least not as early and unexpected (Dezube, n.d.). The moral to this example is that leaders need to apply these types of threats or persistent reminders otherwise known as pressure tactics as soon as unacceptable behaviors are identified and not allow poor performance or undesirable conduct to become commonplace (Hughes, Richard et al., 1993, p. 124). Furthermore, unaddressed poor behaviors also erode the morale of fellow workers as they witness these unacceptable acts of conduct and feel as though there is not an equal application of rules and expectations (Dezube, n.d.).
Considerable amounts of research suggest that those utilizing referent and expert powers tend to lead a group that is both satisfied and motivated. Furthermore, these workers are considered to be more productive and rarely miss work (Hughes, Richard et al., 1993, p. 120). Even those who exemplify these two types of power or any others (legitimate and reward) can benefit from the use of coercive power in certain situations. Supplementary studies have attributed toward education in the workplace aimed toward improving the political skills of leadership in addition to social intelligence and sincerity and thus making it easier for leaders to understand the association between their leadership, the followers and circumstances to result in the application of power and influence (The Ken Blanchard Companies, 2016). It is through such education that organizations can improve their organizational leadership and both realize and recognize the benefits associated to the power of coercion rather than dwelling on its drawbacks and historically negative reputation.
Works Cited
Dezube, D. (n.d.). Monster. Retrieved from Mastering Management Skills: No More Yelling Or Pouting: https://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/workforce-management/hr-management-skills/mastering-management-skills.aspx
Hughes, Richard et al. (1993). Power and Influence. Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. Homewood, IL.: Irwin.
PSU WC L7. (2017). Power and Influence. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1834745/modules
The Ken Blanchard Companies. (2016). Blanchard International. Retrieved from Leader Power and Its Impact: https://www.blanchardnederland.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Leadership-and-Power-Perspectives-MK0820.pdf
Kerrie Ann Caison Bagg says
Hello Ronald. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog post that provided me with greater insight on the effect that powers of coercion and influence have on the workplace. I would imagine that in order to achieve a widespread goal, a leader must work with their followers to meet that goal. Was the situation that you presented of the worker that was employed for over thirty years, preventable? Was coercion and influence the cause of this workers tardiness, absence and lack of overall respect for the team and the leader? Additionally, you stated, “ basis of this power and influence perspective does not imply that all changes are positive”, does this idea relate to this particular situation?
Assuming that it does, was the leader aware of what was happening? I would imagine that the leaders in this situation were aware of their leadership tactics and used these negative behaviors for an individual gain. This employee would have benefited from a leader who exemplified self-confidence, determination, and integrity. Northouse (2106) states “People who adhere to a strong set of principles and take responsibility for their actions are exhibiting integrity” (p.25). If the worker had had a stronger leader that took initiative and sought answers for the circumstances behind why the negative work behaviors were occurring, this small gesture would have made the situation better and most likely would have retained the employee. Northouse suggests (2016) “integrity makes a leader believable and worthy of our trust” (p. 25). Through the leaders perception, they may have been able to provide direction to the employee and successfully manage the conflict.
Too often the word coercion is used when considering leaders or leadership and the traits of deceitfulness, selfishness and manipulation come to mind. Northouse (2016) suggest that “To coerce means to influence others to do something against their will and may include manipulation penalties and rewards in their work environment” (p. 12). Although these behaviors may regularly exist within a work environment, they are not ideal for leadership or goal achievement. In addition, Northouse (2016) states “Leaders who use coercion are interested in their own goals and seldom are interested in the wants and needs of the followers (p.13).
As you point out it is important for leaders to “understand both the limitations and application of coercion in the most beneficial way possible and comprehend the functions of the leader”. Adding more examples of how the leader used coercion and influence to change the workers behaviors would be more helpful in understanding and providing insight to the situation. Northouse (2016) states, “ When leaders act in ways that are important to followers, it gives the leader power” (p. 12). It may be possible that coercion was not an influence in this situational, but maybe the employee and the leader did not a have a strong, respectful, and trusting relationship and therefore the employees felt that it was appropriate to retire early.
In conclusion, the post was helpful in recognizing the traits of coercion and influence. The ideas that you discussed were ideal for this situation. Northouse states (2016) “ Leadership stresses using influence to bring individuals toward a common goal, while coercion involves the use of threats and punishment to induce change in followers for the sake of the leaders” (p.17). The ability to lead highlights functioning together as a unit to achieve a common goal and all leaders should include this in their leadership style to maintain a cohesive group.
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
clw280 says
Dear Ronald,
I have had some similar experiences as you did, with bosses that used coercive power and influence tactics. I agree with the Ken Blanchard Companies citation stating how there can be a downfall to an organization when this is applied wrong. I have seen it first hand, the negatively impact on productivity and increase employee turnaround from assistant managers down to temps. A previous boss of mine pulled certain tactics like write ups for everything, such as being late, shortage or overage, and insubordination which could be something as to not completing a task right. People would come to me complaining of the unfairness of these write ups, especially when she played favoritism with some people which was more like the LMX theory but in a bad way. I tried to talk to her but she would look down on me as if we weren’t on the same team. That’s when I had to bring corporate into play, people were unhappy, the store morale and productivity was way down, people were leaving left and right. Corporate had to step in, for our store was going downhill quickly. They try sending her to leadership classes, which did help a little, but after showing her true colors people still felt the same about her. She still made power moves but passed the duty of writing people up to the assistant manager who portrayed more of an Authentic Leadership style, that helped extremely. It seemed that my boss did take into account social intelligence and started forming better bonds with her employees, and that’s when we started having fun around the work place. There was a boost in morale and productivity, and we actual had people in leadership roles that didn’t want to leave our store and actual inspired people to stay. Needless to say, Coercive power used in the right way, can turn a business around and keep the motivation and productivity up