Power and Influence in Politics

(photo source: Got Brief)

I usually avoid politics in classroom and professional settings, but the latest budget disaster presents an opportunity to analyze the generalized failures of our politicians using the concepts of leadership, specifically, power and influence.  After all, in our country, the most powerful and influential are politicians.  They are pros at using various types and levels of their power and influence to move their agendas along.  In recent years, there has been a change in how power and influence are being used by politicians, and it’s becoming apparent that their tactics are doing more harm than good.  I pondered how leadership interacts with power in our government and if this could provide a different perspective on our political issues.         

First we must understand forms of power and influence tactics, as well as motives for using them.  Power means one has the ability (or potential) to change or affect others.  Influence is the actual method of persuasion one uses to influence a change in attitude, belief, or behavior (PSU WC, Lesson 7, p3). Briefly:

 

Forms of Power

* Expert (power from knowledge) * Referent (power through respect or relationship) * Legitimate (power from an assigned role) * Reward (power from control of resources) * Coercive (power through punishment or force) *

 

Influence tactics

* Rational persuasion (using logical arguments and/or facts to influence)  * Inspirational appeal (using or provoking emotion to influence) * Consultation (asking for participation) * Ingratiation (tampering with one’s mood so they are agreeable) * Personal appeal (asking for favors out of friendship) * Exchange (exchange of favors) * Coalition tactic (group influence) * Pressure tactic (threats or reminders to influence) * Legitimized tactic (using position or authority to influence)*

(Source: PSU WC, Lesson 7, p5 & 7)

 

Picture yourself as a member of congress and imagine how these may come into play in your daily life and how you would use them to move bills along, settle disagreements, or even win elections and nominations.  The influence tactics one uses depend on the situation as well as the type of power one has in comparison to the other(s).  For instance, an individual with expert power would not have to use an inspirational appeal to ask for something from subordinates with less experience. Subordinates would simply comply with the request knowing the individual is an expert.  On the other hand, two experts needing something would have to utilize different influence tactics in order to get the other to give in, like pressure or exchange (PSU WC, Lesson 7, p7).

Social influence is another factor in the power relationship.  It plays on social principles that influence an automatic reaction from others.  For instance, Reciprocity states that as humans, we are programmed to reciprocate.  If you want something from someone, give them something first… they will feel compelled to return the favor (PSU WC, Lesson 7, p8).  The other principles are:

 

Social Influence

*Commitment and consistency (obtain verbal or written commitment, one is more likely to keep the commitment) * Social proof (monkey see-monkey do, social concept that people will follow what others are doing) * Authority (people will generally follow and do what authority figures tell them) * Liking (if you like someone, you’re more likely to listen to and believe what they are saying) * Scarcity (if it’s hard to get (or seems hard to get), it’s more attractive)

(Source: PSU WC, lesson 7, p8)

 

We cannot forget about motives to have and use power.  Leader motives can be deduced from their need for power, or their motivation to influence others.  The motivation can be for personalized or socialized power.  People with a desire for personalized power tend to be egotistical and are motivated by self-interests.  They really only use their power to push their personal agendas without much interest in the betterment of a group or organization.  Socialized power is the opposite.  People with a desire for socialized power tend to be motivated by serving a higher purpose or goal.  They are altruistic versus egotistical.  Service in government would indicate a leader is more motivated by socialized power; they feel they can use their power to serve public and national interests (at least you would hope) (PSU WC, Lesson 7, p6). 

 

Power in play

 

(Photo Source:  Unshackleupstate Blog)

After failing to amicably resolve the budget crisis in 2011 over the debt-ceiling, the only thing republicans and democrats could agree upon was to disagree and in an effort to avoid looking like buffoons and driving America into an economic downfall, they agreed to raise the debt ceiling with equal cuts in spending.  In fact, the cuts were just a way to buy more time and force the two political parties to come to an agreement on reasonable budget cuts.  How?  Quite simply, the cuts proposed in the debt ceiling deal were so extreme that they would force an agreement (coercion), because without that, the cuts would be devastating to both parties and American interests. A bipartisan super-committee was formed to hammer out a budget deal and avoid the drastic cuts.  When the super-committee failed to reach an agreement, sequestration took effect, despite promises and optimism on both sides that it would be avoided (Smith, 2013).

From 2011 to present day one can comb through the news and read about the struggles each side claims to encounter and armed with the knowledge of how power and influence is used by leaders, can begin to see the various tactics being used.  For the sake of keeping this post on point, here are just a few examples:

The debt-ceiling deal was only made because it was influenced by an exchange and the promise of consultation (super-committee).  Also, by getting each side to vote on the bill it instituted the social principle of commitment (it’s in writing so they are more likely to stick to the resolution of working together on more responsible budget reform) (PSU WC, Lesson 7). Both sides were able to preserve their stakes in the budget through an exchange (democrats got their protection of entitlements and republicans got defense, democrats got the debt-ceiling raised, republicans held onto to no tax increases), while assuring they will have equal say in the budget debates to come. Overall, it was a coercion move to force congress into working out a deal (Klein, 2011). 

Later, after the super-committee had failed, each side began to use pressure tactics (threatening doom and gloom, constant emphasis on the impending sequester deadline) in an effort to influence decision on budget issues.  As the deadline neared, they turned to inspirational appeals to the public to influence decisions and create a coalition of support.  Boehner claims that the democrats are unwilling to compromise on tax increases, democrats claim that republicans are too rigid and wont compromise… (Barrett, Bolduan & Walsh, 2011)… what the whole situation really highlights is the patter of behavior.    

There is a pattern to the power and influence being wielded; pressure, exchange, coercion, legitimatized tactics and not a lot of referent power, ingratiation, or even rational appeals.  The issues have progressively worsened over time, and you can’t help but wonder what exactly has gone wrong?  In my opinion it comes down to leadership, on all sides and levels and I feel that somehow the equilibrium of power and influence has been disrupted and has become counterproductive.  Consider the following… Are too many people in power?  Is the equal power and influence within congress so great that we are destined to deadlock on everything?  Could placing more experts in legitimate power positions, or even individuals with referent power that are liked by both sides solve this?  Is the President not using his legitimate, reward or coercive power enough to influence movement from both parties?  What would happen if he made promotions or pay dependent on the percentage of bills successfully passed?   Have leader motives changed for the worse? It’s all food for thought…  (PSU WC, Lesson 7)

The main goal of this interpretation on power and influence in politics was to demonstrate that at any time we could use the valuable knowledge of leadership theories and approaches as a tool to analyze complex issues not only in our personal and professional lives, but also larger national and global issues we face as a society.  I hope it also highlighted the importance and delicateness of power and influence in leadership and offered a different perspective on our political issues.

 

Thanks for reading… 

 

References:

 

Barrett, T., Bolduan, K., & Walsh, D. (November 2011). ‘Super committee’ fails to reach agreement. Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. retrieved 05 March 2013 from http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-21/politics/politics_super-committee_1_deficit-reduction-republicans-committee?_s=PM:POLITICS

Got Brief. (n.d.). Power hungry photo: retrieved 05 March 2013 from http://gotbrief.com/sites/default/files/styles/project-main-image/public/power-hungry-lstacey.jpg

Klein, E. (2011). Who got what? A look at what the Democrats and Republicans wanted and what they got in the deal. The Washington Post.  retrieved 05 March 2013 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/debt-ceiling/highlights-of-the-deal/index.html

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2013). PSYCH 485 Lesson 7: Power and Influence. retrieved 06 March 2013 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp13/psych485/001/content/07_lesson/01_page.html

Smith, M. (February 19, 2013). CNN Explains: Sequestration. Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. retrieved 05 March 2013 from http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/06/politics/cnn-explains-sequestration

Unshackleupstate Blog. (n.d.).  Bill photo: retrieved 05 March 2013 from http://blog.unshackleupstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/schoolhouse-rock-bill2.jpg