Societal views of household leadership are evolving with a rise in women returning to work after childbirth, and more diverse combinations of adults rearing children are being seen. But who really rules the roost? The power brokerage within the typical American household may not be as obvious as one may think.
Power; an ideal synonymous with leadership, is often regarded as being held exclusively by the leader, when in reality, it is simply the capacity (House, 1984) or potential to influence others (Bass, 1990). A function the leader, followers and situation (Williams, 2018). Upon close observation of an immediate family environment with children however, it can be determined that the most unexpected are the true power brokers. The tiny people who rely on us to strap them into their car seats, feed them their meals, and scold or reward their behavior are actually indirectly dictating every move we make. They seem to constantly answer to the demands and rule of their leaders (in our household, namely myself and my husband), however, our children unknowingly have an immense amount of power and influence over those demands. It’s a simply case of cause and effect.
As parents, we succumb to influential tactics and in turn are influenced sometimes without even realizing it. Williams discusses the difference between power and influence as power being the capacity to produce effects, while influence describes the actual change in the behavior or belief of a person being effected by an influential tactic (Williams, 2018). In this regard, human nature typically perceives that the leader always obtains the capacity to influence, but in the case of parenting, this cause and effect relationship is strongly driven by the child.
French and Raven (1959) suggested five different ways in which individuals can influence others: expert power, referent power, reward power, legitimate power, and coercive power. As you’ll see, all five of these power types are applicable and observable in the circumstance of household dynamics, but you may be surprised to find how much of each are held by the leaders in comparison to the subordinates.
Expert power can be related to as a primary function of a leader. It is one whom holds more knowledge pertaining to a subject than their followers (Williams, 2018). Pertaining to parenting, despite my lack of a more formal title, I think it is safe to say that my life experience, in comparison to my three and four-year old’s, makes me an expert (at least in the context of our immediate family’s daily function). Here, regardless of what my 4-year old may think, I have the expert power. I know from experience what the consequences of certain decisions will be, so the responsibility to make the correct one is on me. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. For instance, when naming each member of the My Little Pony Crew, my daughter does indeed hold the expertise. Therefore, in the event that we are in a life or death situation where we need to know whose friendship power is loyalty, my daughter, Bianca, will obviously hold the expert power.
Referent Power on the hand, is held by both leader and follower. It refers to the potential influence one has due to the relationship between the leader and follower (Williams, 2018). Upon surface evaluation, one would think that because children look up to their parents as sources of love, security, and experience, often viewing them as role models, this makes the adult the obvious power broker in terms of referent power. However, if examined more deeply, the subordinate child also holds a substantial amount of potential influence here. The motivation for a mother to maintain referent power for instance, sometimes means treading lightly on how she deals with each child. I think of the dynamic of good cop/bad cop which my husband and I sometimes employ. Because of the fact that I am home with my kids all day, every day, and my personality lends to love and nurturance more than conflict, I sometimes find it hard to discipline them. This avoidance tactic is rarely effective in setting boundaries and enforcing rules, but when my three-year-old cries and and runs to me to hold him, instead of following my direction to stand in a corner, it pulls my heart-strings, and I of course, pick him up. I realize that this manipulation is powerful, yet he still needs to be disciplined, thus, I do what any self-respecting mother does, employs her husband to carry out the punishment. Interestingly, this tiny little person, has inadvertently forced me to absolve my power, transferring it to his daddy. Which brings me to Legitimate power.
The title of Father suggests, in most cultures, the head of the household. It describes a formal authority related to the role of an individual in the group. Evolutionarily speaking, it was derived from the idea that the male was the strongest and therefore would protect the family. However, as Williams suggests, and we are discovering, holding a position, doesn’t necessarily mean being a leader. This point can be easily seen in the way that Bianca has her daddy “wrapped around her little finger” as they say. Her charisma and intellect inspire Jordan, and he often submits to her suggestion of changing his opinion. In this way, one’s legitimate power, can again be manipulated by more effective leadership.
Reward power is a medium that I have as a mother, applied on occasion as well, and to my surprise, it is not always as effective as one would hope. This function is a relationship established between leader, follower, and situation, involving one’s control over desired resources (Williams, 2018). In the case of potty training my son Cain, I allowed him choose a reward from a special treasure chest each time he effectively used the potty. It was filled with small toys, stickers and lollipops. This novelty was quite effective in the beginning, but the problem with reward power is that it can only be held for as long as the reward is desirable. Case in point, when all of the lollipops were gone from the treasure chest, I found that Cain seemed to hold utter pleasure in peeing the bed, as he would emerge from his room giddily pointing out that his underpants were wet. It was an indirect statement that he had disregarded my new policy and reward system. The instance here, exemplifies the idea that rewards can produce compliance, but not commitment (Williams, 2018). Cain was willing to use the potty when the reward was of worth to him, but absence of his desired reward yielded no regard for the positive long-term outcome of being potty trained.
Finally, referring back to my husband as the bad cop, we examine Coercive power. Coercive power is the function of both leader and situation and is the opposite of reward. It entails maintaining control via fear or loss of valued outcome (Williams, 2018). As the aforementioned bad cop, Jordan often verbally threatens our children with the possible punishments that might ensue if they do not adhere to family policy. They may lose media privileges, or have to spend time standing in a corner. This seems to be the most effective use of power in our home, because it appeals to the what the kid’s value most and the threat of losing those things, freedom and entertainment, are enough to keep them under my husband’s influence.
Although it is acknowledged that the situation dictates which type of power a leader should use, Williams (2018) also notes that there is no answer to the question of which type of power is effective most generally. A we’ve seen through a family dynamic, the youngest subordinates are often the power brokers, who inadvertently dictate which type of power is to be used in our household, and it is the most unassuming that exudes the influence.
Reference
Williams, J. (2018). Lesson 7: Power and Influence. Pennsylvania State University, PSYCH 485. Retrieved from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1923777/modules/items/23736210