Competency and Commitment: Power in Management vs Leadership

By: Susan Hicks

I think that we have all worked under those management types that have authority over their followers to get tasks completed efficiently and accurately. They have competent followers who perform the tasks assigned to them because the ‘leader’ had the authority to assign these tasks with an exercise of power. This power is the capacity or potential to influence others which has an effect on another’s attitudes, beliefs or behaviors (PSU, 2014).  There is a difference between those followers who exude competency and with those with competency and commitment. Additionally, there is a difference in power wielded by managers versus leaders. For the managers who strive to the role of having the power to assign tasks to followers and take great pride in the belief that they can lead a group, are those followers performing the competent tasks that stem from the power of an authority – manager type figure, or are they the competent, committed followers who are willing to go beyond basic direction to finish the task without constant direction or guidance.  Can a manager influence these individuals to competently complete a task while influencing these individuals to be committed to the task as well?

Management – Personalized Power

Wielding power over followers from management perspective that exerts authoritative power with rewards or punishment, cannot necessarily make one committed. Utilizing legitimate power- formal authority assigned by the organization (PSU, 2013) to stand over a group of followers like an employment judge and jury that under their own personalized power, mandates individuals to obey or be punished may sound somewhat extreme, however, there are management individuals who see leadership as this almighty power force that automatically gives them the potential to influence. Influence is the effect of change in the follower’s “attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors” as a result of the power exerted on the individual by the leader/manager (PSU, 2013).This potential to influence followers in the ‘do as I say’ power struggle of threats and promises of resources (employment) that can be given (employment retention) or taken away (employment termination) for non-compliance can cause resentment in followers as they comply with the task assignment but do not personally or individually commit (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2009). These followers are managed through the motions of the task but are not lead to commitment of the task. There are those individuals who can by mere heartfelt commitment to the organization, read their manager’s intent and make small decisions that can influence the outcome of the task assignment without bringing every little iota of discrepancy in problem resolution to the attention of the task assigner. These followers also have power that may not be seen from the manager’s perspective. Whereas some followers may identify commitment to the organization under the manager’s watchful eye, however, these followers’ commitment is objectified on the task and based solely on fear, Therefore, we can’t lose sight of the committed employee who goes above and beyond mandated direction to achieve goals for the organization who does so under leadership direction, not under management directive. To achieve this, managers must understand that they are not the only one with power in the relationship of leader and follower.

Leadership – Socialized power

There is also a power in leadership that is different from our management power example. Leadership defined as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” and does not sound all that different from what a manager attempts to achieve (Northouse, 2013). However, let us take this one step further to acknowledge that albeit the manager possesses legitimate power, the leader possesses a personal socialized power that is “derived from being seen by followers as likable and knowledgeable” (Northouse, 2013). It was identified as being a referent power from “The Bases of Social Power” in the Group Dynamics: Research and Theory of J.R French Jr, and B. Raven’s study in 1962 (Northouse, 2013). This study recognized that the ability to influence stemmed from the individual’s power base from either Referent – identification and likeability, Expert – perceptions of competence, Legitimate – as we mentioned above in assigned formal authority, – Reward – capacity to provide awards (such as in keeping employment), and Coercion – capacity to discipline (as in employment termination) (Northouse, 2013). In the relationship of leader to follower, we must acknowledge that to ascertain this power, it is deemed by the follower in the fluidity of the interaction between leaders and followers in a power teeter totter that allows followers to identify with the leader, the goal, and their own interpersonal importance in the completion of the task. This allows the commitment of the followers to interject personal achievement and subject objectification with the leader in accurate and efficient task completion not seen with the managed individual. Leaders can elicit from their followers a willingness, perceived enjoyment, and satisfaction to enhance the organization as they share power resources in the give and take exchange that is not judged under the watchful scrutiny of power rewards or punishment. The reward or punishment for the committed followers is self-based in their sole judgment of the levels of commitment and their effort to strive toward competency in completing the task. Committed and competent followers also form committed alliances with team goals instead of maintaining an individual goal under fear of resource seizure or elimination.

It is possible for the manager to elicit commitment in addition to competency from their followers as long as they understand the relational power give and take teeter totter that occurs in situations under their guidance. Followers also maintain power that is given to the leader in acceptance of their likeability (Referent Power), their knowledge (Expert Power), respect for their formal authority (Legitimate Power), and their ability to identify with the perceived capacity to assign rewards/punishment (Reward or Coercive Power). While managers strive to influence change in their followers by direction, they must also accept that followers maintain power to allow that change (in the identification of commitment) to occur. Therefore influence as a degree of actual change is smaller with those individuals who change the follower less by only effecting competency rather than competency and commitment (PSU, 2013).

References:

Folger, J.P., Poole, M.S., & Stutman, R.K. (2009). Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations. (4^th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University. (2014). PSYCH 485 Lesson 7: Power and Influence. Retrieved February 27, 2014 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/07_lesson/03_page.html