A B S T R A C T

Introduction

More and more leaders are embracing the concepts of total quality management, teamwork, and shared decision-making as a way of empowering employees. Burns (1994) discusses this concept of empowerment and claims that it is a "buzzword" and that often employees are not really empowered. He maintains that leaders should create conditions where employees are able to empower themselves. In other words, an organizational culture has to be created where "empowerment can come to life" (p. 48).

This problem of how to empower employees is further exacerbated if the leader’s style does not lend itself to shared decision-making. Many leaders have a directive style with a high need to control. Leaders with this style tend to resort to position, reward, and coercion power to control employees. Dilenschneider (1994) stated that when authority and power are practiced by directive they will not continue to work. Further, he stated that if power is the ability to get things done it must be done through others. A key word here is the word "through" as opposed to the word "with." Directive leaders tend use employees to get their work done "with" their help through the use of position power. This is the way some leaders maintain control of their organization.

DeBruyn (1986) maintained that the only way to keep the power you have is to share it. He believed that many people abuse power and in the end they lose it. The key is to share power and allow employees to have some control over the decision-making process. According to Bennis (1958) and Knight (1967) power is defined as control. He who controls has power, and if employees are given some control of the decision-making process, they are being empowered. Not only are they being empowered, but as stated by Haskin (1995) involving employees in the decision will cause them to take more responsibility for the outcome of the decisions. This increased responsibility tends to boost the power of the leader (Lammers, 1967). One such organizational plan for implementing a shared decision-making process and empowering employees was described by Bulach (1978).

Some employees, however, are immature and do not want to be involved in the decision-making process. Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson’s (1996) theory of situational leadership requires that a leader must consider the maturity or immaturity level of employees in selecting a style of leadership. Basically, a person with low motivation and little expertise, is classified by Hersey et al. as immature and the appropriate leadership style is to be directive. According to Hersey et al., when employees become more motivated and experienced, a leaders style should be modified. If employees are very immature, a directive style of leadership will work and a collaborative style will not work. This is not to say that you should not try to empower them, only that you have to be more creative to move them from a low maturity level to a higher level. Modifying a leader’s style requires the use of differing forms of power. For example, position, reward, and coercion power are normally used with immature employees, while information power may be all that is necessary with mature employees.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how nine forms of power can be used to motivate and empower employees depending on their maturity level. Leaders must be able to influence and motivate employees both intrinsically and extrinsically. Nine forms of power will be described and categorized according to the extent to which they foster dependence or independence. The use and misuse of these forms of power will also be described.

power = the ability to influence others

dependence = the subordinate is controlled (depowered) by the leader and the motivation is extrinsic.

independence = the subordinate is in control (empowered) and the motivation is intrinsic.

empowerment = giving employees control of the decision-making process and allowing them to be independent of the leader

depowerment = the employees do not have control of the decision-making process and they are dependent on the leader

Some would say that a leader who sustains a behavior is a manager, and I would agree with that. For example, a leader who enforces a policy that all employees will report to work at 7:00 a.m. is sustaining a behavior and this is a management function. A leader who involves all employees in developing a new policy governing work hours is changing a behavior and this is a leadership function. The nine forms of power described here can be used to motivate employees to sustain (manage) or change (leadership) behavior. I believe that all leaders must be managers or they will not be able to continue as leaders. The reverse, however, is not true. All managers do not have to be leaders.

The original typology of power was developed by French and Raven (1959) and included five forms of power as follows: expertise, referent, position, reward, and coercion. These forms of power are included in the nine forms of power. Information, connection, moral, and ego power have been added. Information power was first described by by Raven and Kruglanski (1975). Connection power was described by Hersey and Goldsmith (1980) Moral power was described by Sergiovanni and Starratt (1998). Ego power is this author’s contribution and will be described later in this manuscript.

The first form of power to be described is information power. Dilenschneider (1994) maintained that knowledge is power. Knowledge is information and it is used daily by the news media to influence their audience. Information can be used by a leader to involve the employee in the decision-making process and empower them. For example, if the leader wants the employee to change the way they were doing something, the leader could explain the benefits of the change. Handouts, videos, or other information extolling the advantages of the change could also be made available. The employee on analyzing the information would have to make a decision. If the employee decided to change, the employee would be empowered, the motivation for the change would be intrinsic, and the decision would be made independent of the leader.

Information power, if used improperly, has a downside. Some leaders are so control oriented that they withhold information from employees. The employee is dependent on the leader for information and is kept in a subservient state. Employees in this type of organization tend to hate the leader and morale is low. Fiore (1999) found that leaders in organizations with negative cultures communicate with employees only when there are problems, i.e., they withhold communication. Leaders in organizations with positive cultures were excellent communicators.

Expertise is the next form of power to be described and it is from French and Raven’s (1959) original typology. The use of this form of power also allows employees to choose a course of action. A leader who has expertise can demonstrate how to perform a task. The employee who watches the demonstration decides whether they are able to perform that task. Dilenschneider (1994) maintained that competence or expertise was the root of power and that leaders without competence can not maintain power. I would tend to agree with him, but I would also state that in today’s complicated world, a leader can not be expert in all things. Consequently, leaders must use the expertise of others to motivate employees to change. For example, if a new technique will benefit an organization, the leader needs to send key employees to another organization where that technique is being successfully utilized. The employees observe the new process and decide whether it is beneficial and if it will work in their organization. Employees who are exposed to this form of power frequently choose to imitate what they have observed. It is their choice, the motivation is intrinsic, they are independent of the person with the expertise, and they have been empowered.

It is easy to confuse information power with expertise power because a person who is an expert in their field usually has lots of information about that profession. Information power, however, always deals with written or verbal language. For example, a teacher mught implement integrated thematic instruction after reading a repot on how it improves student achievement. .Expertise power, however, occurs when someone physically demonstrates something or sees it happening..For example, if the same teacher observed a teacher who was an expert on this type of instruction, that would be expertise power. These two forms of power are often combined. For example, when an expert shares information, it is more powerful or carries more weight than if the information came from a less expert source. It is for this reason that experts tend to be used by advertisers when products are being promoted, e.g., basketball shoes and Michael Jordan.

A leader who has personality or referent power is described by Hersey et al. (1996) as a person who "is generally liked and admired by others because of personality. It is this liking for, admiration for, and identification with . . . that influences others" (p. 238). When this form of power is used by a leader it usually comes in the form of a request (verbal) or a signal (non-verbal). The subordinate hears the request or sees the signal and changes their behavior to comply with the leader’s wishes. The change in behavior is done willingly, is intrinsically motivated, and the employee remains independent of the leader. The employee has made a conscious decision to grant the leader’s wishes.

A form of power not previously mentioned in the literature is "ego" power. This form of power is used when the leader goes to a subordinate and says: "You did a beautiful job organizing that last project–would you be willing to take responsibility for this one?" Another example might be "If anybody here can handle this, I am confident you can!" When ego power is used, the employee’s self esteem needs are filled and the employee is open for the new experience. The employee willingly chooses to follow the leader’s wishes. The employee remains independent of the leader, the motivation is intrinsic, and the employee has been empowered.

This form of power can be used in its negative form as well. For example, the leader says: "I don’t know–this might be too difficult for you–what do you think?" Another example might be: "The employees over at Plant B or School A are able to produce a better product than us–are they better than we are?" The use of the negative ego stroke is perceived by the employee as a challenge. A real live example is Mohammed Ali who is quoted in a Bottom Line Personal pamphlet (9-1-2002 issue) as saying that his teacher told him when he was 12 years old that he would never amount to anything. After winning the Golden Glove for boxing at the 1960 Rome Olympics, the first thing he did was go to that teacher and show her his medal and tell her the "he was the greatest." This is a powerful leadership technique because employees who rise to this challenge tend to be very motivated. The employees set out to prove to the leader, as Mohammed Ali did to his teacher, that they do have the ability that has been challenged. Again, the employee remains independent of the leader, the motivation is intrinsic, and the employee has been empowered.

Moral power is another form of power that empowers employees. It allows them to remain independent, and is an intrinsic motivator. Sergiovanni and Starratt (1998) described moral as "the form of obligations, and duties derived from widely shared values, ideas, and ideals" (p 37). Leaders who use this form of power would have vision and mission statements that convey expectations and a handbook that contains rules and regulation. Additionally, they might involve employees in a "we agree" discussion to arrive at consensus regarding a set of expectations that all employees agree are good for the employees and the company. Everyone, if they abide by these expectations, is under the influence of moral power because it is the right thing to do. This form of power once it is in place requires very little effort from the leader other than to remind employees, who are not living up to expectations, of the "right thing to do."

Moral power is the last of the leadership techniques that empower employees. The next four techniques depower employees because the employee is dependent on the leader and the motivation is extrinsic. These four techniques are the following: position, reward, coercion, and connection power. Position power is employed when the leader tells or orders an employee to do something.

The next form of power is "connection" power. Hersey and Goldsmith (1980) described this form of power as the perceived association a leader has with other influential people. If an employee perceives that a leader is well connected with superiors higher up the hierarchy, their position power is enhanced. The employee knows that the leader has greater ability to reward or punish than someone who is not so well connected. When this form of power is combined with position power, it gives the leader greater status and increases the likelihood that compliance/control will occur.

This form of power is different from all of the other forms of power. The other forms of power are gained because of something the leader does. This form is acquired through the eyes of the beholder. If they perceive that the leader has power, then the leader has power whether he has it or not. The motivation is extrinsic because the employee makes a decision to follow the leader based on the employee’s perception that the leader’s connections could result in some future benefit. The employee does what the leader asks or tells them to based on the belief that the leader can follow through with a future reward or punishment based on compliance or non-compliance.

Position power refers to the authority and responsibility that has been assigned to a person holding an office. If a leader is liked, trusted, and respected by those superiors to whom the leader reports, position power will be great. If the reverse is true, position power will be weak. Whenever, a leader uses his/her position to make an employee do something, the motivation is extrinsic and the employee is dependent on the leader.

When a leader has position power, that person also gets reward. coercion, and often connection power. Employees can do what the employer tells them to do or suffer the consequences (coercion). Many leaders who rely on position power use rewards to motivate employees to do what they are told. When rewards do not work, they use coercion. If necessary, they use their connections to increase their ability to reward and/or punish.

In the final analysis, leaders who use these forms of power rely on fear as the major motivator. This is not to say that these forms of power should not be used. If a leader has very immature employees, these forms of power must be used. With position power come obligations and responsibilities to meet organizational needs. When employees fail to meet organizational needs, position, reward, and coercion power must be used.

The error that many leaders make is to use these three depowering leadership techniques immediately without allowing employees to respond to one or more of the five empowering techniques. The object of leadership is to create situations where employees can make decisions independent of the leader. This empowers employees and fulfills some of their needs while at the same time meeting the needs of the organization. Use of the five freeing forms of power also requires less effort than use of the three binding forms of power. The ability to use the binding forms of power can also be exhausted where the freeing forms are almost inexhaustible.

Information = too much information can be a twofold problem. The more information that is shared, the greater the chance that some information will be misinterpreted. The second problem can occur if an employee gets information overload. They have too much information and are unable to make a decision. Withholding information is another misuse of this form of power. Some leaders withhold information from employees as a way of controlling them. Since the leader has the information, the subordinate remains dependent on the leader. Determining how much and what kind of information will bring about the desired change is a key leadership decision.

Expertise = demonstrating your expertise when it is not necessary or too often can be viewed as "showing off." A leader has to communicate altruistic tendencies (concern for others over concern for self) if trust is to develop. Employees have to believe that the leader cares about their welfare. Being a "show-off" is a definite message to the contrary.

Personality = most leaders would readily admit that they frequently use this form of power to influence employees. However, leaders need to be cautioned that this form of power can be overused. A leader can go to key personnel with requests too often and can cause employees to grumble with comments like "Here he comes again–I wonder what he wants this time?"

Ego = knowing who and when to stroke an ego is a judgment call. Negatively or positively stroking egos too often can be viewed as manipulative. Employees can perceive that they are being used. Negatively stroking an ego can also bring about the opposite result. For example, if you tell an employee that a task might be too hard for them, they might agree that it is too hard. The negative ego stroke is a powerful motivator, but it must be done with employees who have strong egos.

Moral = attempting to use moral power when there is not an agreement on the expectations, values, and ideals that are to govern behavior is a mistake. If agreement does not exist, the leader is imposing his/her set of values on the employees. This can lead to a reputation as a self-righteous person. In my opinion, this is one of the first things a leader should do as the new leader of an organization. The leader and employees must have a common understanding and agreement of the expectations that are going to be enforced and the values that are going to be rewarded.

Position = the overuse of position power will quickly exhaust it as source of influence. Employees will rebel and undermine the authority of the leader to the point where organizational needs are no longer being met. The leader’s superior(s) will transfer or fire a leader who is unable to meet the needs of the organization. The underuse of position power can lead to the same consequence. If a leader has position power, they must use it when employees and superiors expect it to be used, or they will lose it. Once employees determine that a leader is reluctant to use position power, they will begin challenging decisions, thereby weakening the leader’s position power, until finally the leader loses his/her position.

Reward = failure to reward people when they are deserving of a reward can cause some severe morale problems. Leaders who have favorites who receive greater rewards than those who are less favored are misusing reward power. Another mistake is to overuse reward power to the point where the reward loses meaning. Overuse of reward power can create a "what’s in it for me mentality?" where employees will not work unless they know they will be rewarded.

Sergiovanni and Starratt (1998) stated that there are three ways to motivate employees as follows:

The objective of reward power should be to move employees from what gets rewarded to what is rewarding and good. What gets rewarded is an extrinsic motivator and what is rewarding and good are intrinsic motivators. However, this form of power is the one controlling form of power that can be used for all employees at any level of maturity. Even mature employees like rewards. Consequently, leaders should not think of this as a form of power to use only with immature employees. The objective of leadership is to the judicious use of reward power along with the five freeing forms of power.

Coercion = leaders who quickly resort to coercion as a way to induce follower compliance will soon lose their position for the same reasons as described under misuse of position power. There is one other misuse of coercion power in the workforce. Leaders who tolerate "bullies in the workforce" are equally guilty. There are bullies in many organizations who coerce their colleagues. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution featured an article (Joyner, 1999) on bullying behavior. A quote from that article was as follows: "Bullying–one of the most insidious and fastest-growing forms of workplace violence–is on the rise worldwide..." (p. 1—Section R-1). Leaders must act to curb bullies who are coercing their colleagues.

Connection = misuse of this power is often associated with the use of threats regarding what to do if the subordinate does not comply with a request or demand, e.g., "I am going to tell my boss if you don’t get to work!" Another misuse is the leader who tries to create the illusion of connection power by dropping names. Leaders who drop names are trying to gain power through others. This practice tends to decrease the leader’s power because employees often see through this ruse.

Five forms of power can be used to motivate employees by empowering them. This also helpw to move them from one level of maturity to higher levels of maturity. Those five forms are information, expertise, personality, ego, and moral power. When these forms of power are used, the employee decides the course of action. If they decide to follow their leader, the form of motivation is intrinsic because they see that course of action as a good thing to do. Further, they are allowed the independence of choice and they are empowered in the process. As employees become more mature, the leadership style can become more collaborative and less directive.

Four forms of power should be used with immature employees or when the above five forms of power do not work. These four controlling forms of power must be used when employees do not meet organizational needs. The four controlling forms of power are connection, position, reward, and coercion. When these forms of power are used, the subordinate complies because they have to. There is no choice! The subordinate must comply or face the displeasure/position power of the leader or forego the reward or receive a punishment/coercion. The subordinate is in a dependent position and is being controlled by the leader. Connection power enhances a leader’s position power and increases his/her ability to reward or punish.

The goal of leadership should be to move away from the old forms of bureaucracy that rely on position, reward. and coercion power towards an organizational culture that relies on information, expertise, personality, ego and moral power. One fosters dependency and relies on extrinsic motivation and the other empowers and relies on intrinsic motivation. In a bureaucracy leaders control employees to make sure they do things right. The objective for leaders, however, should be to create an organizational culture where the employees are actively involved in the decision-making process. In order for this to happen, the leader has to be less controlling The five freeing forms of power are leadership techniques that allow this objective to be accomplished. The word "freeing" is used here because the employee is independent and "free" to make their own decision. When employees do not do the right thing, the controlling forms of power must be used to make the subordinate comply. The word "controlling" is used here because the employee is dependent and did have "control" of the decision. Knowing when and how to free employees and give them control (empower) and when to take control (depower) is the sine qua non of effective leadership and knowing how to motivate employees.

Bennis, W. G.

1958 Authority, power, and the ability to influence. Human Relations, II, 143-155.

Bulach, C. R.

1978 An organizational plan for curriculum development. Educational Leadership, 35(4), 308-314.

Burns, G.

1994 The trouble with empowerment. Quality Digest, 14(2), 47-49.

DeBryun, R. L.

1986 The only way to keep power. The Master Teacher, 18,(6), 1-2.

Dilenschneider, R. L.

1994 On power. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Fiore, D. J.

1999 The relationship between principal effectiveness and school culture in elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University.

1959 The bases of social power. In Studies in Social Power, ed. D. Cartwright. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

1995 A process of learning: The principal’s role in participatory management. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association at San Francisco, CA in April.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E.

1996 Management of organazional resources, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Hersey P., & Goldsmith, M.

(April, 1980). The changing role of performance management. Training and Development Journal.

Joyner, T.

(8-29-1999). Bullies on the rise. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Section R-1, p.1.

1967 Power and participation in decision-making in formal organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 73(9), 201-216.

Raven, B. H., & Kruglanski, W.

1975 Conflict and power. In The Structure of Conflict, Ed. P.G. Swingle, New York, NY: Academic Press, 177-219.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starrat R. J.

1998 Supervision: A redefinition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Toffler, A, (1990). Powershift. New York, NY:Bantam Books

AUTHOR'S STATEMENT

The attached manuscript has not been submitted to another journal, and no part of it has been published elsewhere.