Power base theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A power base theory is a relational theory of power , according to which an actor A (who is superior in power) can exercise power over actor B (who is inferior in power) because certain bases of power or bases of power are available to him. So power is not understood as an absolute ability of A, but is dependent on B's need for the respective power base. Basically, it is assumed that A has certain resources that give him power over B. As the resource becomes scarce, so does its value in power. Both in business administration and in behavioral social research, power base models, especially that of John RP French and Bertram H. Raven , are the most widespread theory of power.

History of ideas

A power base theory was first published in 1957 by the American political scientist Robert Alan Dahl . Also in 1957, Herbert A. Simon published a power base theory very similar to that published by French and Raven in 1959.

The power base theory has enjoyed great popularity since its publication. Various other power base theories with partly additional, partly deviating Mach bases have been published. None could achieve the popularity of French and Raven's theory.

French and Raven power bases

French had already worked at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with Kurt Lewin at the Research Center for Group Dynamics (RCGD) and after Lewin's death moved with the institute to Ann Arbor at the University of Michigan . Together with Bertram Raven, he researched group dynamic processes, especially power in social relationships. In their study, which is now known as classic, they identified five so-called bases of power (resources, bases of power ) on which the rulers rely:

Legitimacy
One can be influenced if one is of the opinion that the influencer has a right to influence decisions or behavior. The legitimate power relates e.g. B. on the power of superiors based on their relative position in an organizational structure. Legitimate power is identical to authority and is dependent on the convictions of individuals, the right of a superior to hold his position, and the acceptance of the job holder . Legitimation can also be created through election, jurisdiction or other procedures. Legitimate power corresponds to Max Weber's concept of legitimate rule .
Power through Reward
Rewarding power depends on the exerter's ability to give rewards . In addition to material or financial rewards, attention, praise and affection can also be used. The power through reward relates e.g. B. on the possibility of superiors to provide employees with advantages, prosperity or promotion or to increase their wages or areas of responsibility.
Power through coercion
Power through coercion means exercising negative influences e.g. B. by demotion or dismissal or withholding of rewards. Obedience of addicts is achieved through the desire for valued rewards or the fear of their failure.
Power through identification (speaker)
This form of power refers to the ability of the person exercising power to evoke a feeling of connectedness in the caregiver . The person exercising power influences attitudes of the reference person towards the power person (to himself) and thus the emotions as well as goals and intentions of the reference person. It is based on the power holder's charisma . The people to be influenced want to identify with the personal characteristics and qualities of the power holder and gain satisfaction from their acceptance as followers and successors.
Power through Knowledge (Informational)
Here power arises through situation-related, valuable knowledge of the person exercising power. This power of experts is based on their skills or experience. Unlike the other bases of power, this one is highly specific and restricted to the special area in which the expert is experienced and qualified (see also: knowledge of domination ; power / knowledge according to Michel Foucault ).

More theorists

Although French and Raven published by far the most frequently cited Mach-based theory, in the years that followed, various scholars attempted such theories with more or less similar power bases.

In 1957 Herbert A. Simon names four bases of power, rewards and punishments, legitimation, the trust of the inferior in the expertise of the superior and social recognition. The similarity with the French and Raven system is striking.

At around the same time as French and Raven, Herbert C. Kelman drafts a framework in which he describes the requirements and consequences of influencing processes. He differentiates subordination, identification and internalization, which in turn are based on the power bases of control of means, attractiveness and credibility. His related publications date from 1961 and 1974.

Amitai Etzioni also investigated in 1961 the reasons why people in organizations subordinate themselves to others ( compliance ). In his opinion, two factors affect subordination:

  • Type of means of power used and
  • Type of involvement of the organization members

Etzioni comes up with three “means of power”: physical, material and symbolic means of power. According to him, this leads to three types of power in organizations:

Power and organizational
typology according to Etzioni 		Attitude of those led
Morally Calculating Alienated
Leadership
behavior 		force
Use
Norms
  • force
  • utilitarian power (e.g. economic sanctions)
  • Power of persuasion

This analysis, according to Etzioni, concerns only the means of power. In addition, there are three types of involvement of organization members, which he describes as moral (obligation to the organization), calculating (balancing attitude towards membership) and alienated (negative orientation towards the organization). Etzioni derives nine subordination patterns from this, which he also regards as a typology for organizations.

Investigations into Etzioni's scheme come to mixed results. The possible misunderstandings were not cleared up satisfactorily and could not be resolved.

Power base comparison
French and Raven Etzioni
Power through reward positive part of utilitarian power
Power through punishment negative part of utilitarian power and coercion
Power through identification normative power
Power through information Would correspond to the power of persuasion
remains unclear.
Power through legitimation no suitable category available

The power bases mentioned by Etzioni can be mapped quite well on the typology of French and Raven. The conclusion, however, is not that there are nine different configurations, but that management staff should adapt their style to the type of subordination of the employees and thus ensure an optimum.

In 1965 Dorwin Cartwright also came up with a scheme that differs only slightly from the French Raven scheme. Cartwright himself only partially establishes the connection, but he mentions:

  • physical means of violence
  • information
  • authority
  • Reward and punishment options

Cartwright adds to these resources:

  • ecological control

Gerald Marwell and David R. Schmitt tried to find an empirical approach to the phenomenon of power. They asked sociology students to choose solutions for four given problems from sixteen variants and then evaluated the results according to factors. They identified five main groups:

  • rewarding activity
  • punitive activity
  • Expert judgment
  • Activation of impersonal participation
  • Activation of personal participation

A second order factor analysis should uncover the power bases behind the methods. Two tendencies were covered:

  • Tendency to use socially accepted methods
    • reward
    • Expertise
    • legitimation
  • Tendency to use methods that are not socially accepted
    • Coercion and
    • attractiveness

In this typology, too, the deviation from French Raven is not essential.

William A. Gameson dealt with the further development of Talcott Parson's typology of social control, which he reduced to three sources of influence: compulsion, incentive and conviction. The typology is thus similar to that of Etzioni. Consequentially, Edward W. Lehmann combined the two typologies in 1969 and describes them as utilitarian, compulsive and normative power bases.

In 1974, when examining purchasing decisions using the French-Raven structure, Martin Patchen came to a somewhat different structure. He comes to the power bases of expertise, disposal of rewards, disposal of punishments, recognition, legitimacy and procedural involvement. However, patching calls for the cooperation of those inferior in power in the process, thus expanding the framework that French and Raven have set for their typology.

In 1976 James T. Tedeschi and Svenn Lindskold named expertise, status, resource control, trustworthiness and attractiveness as power bases after several research projects with different casts. One can equate Tedeschi's expertise with French / Raven expertise and status with legitimation. It is noticeable that they reveal interactions between the resources and, for example, create trustworthiness with the effect of promises, threats and expertise. In 1976, Wilfried Krüger examined the French-Raven typology and other power base theories. Krüger's conclusion limits the typology for business use to sanctions (reward or punishment) as well as information including expertise. Legitimacy, on the other hand, does not see Krüger as an independent power base, but as a variable of other bases.

In 1978, Hans-Dieter Schneider did not recognize any of the typologies as completely defensible. According to his interpretation, French and Raven come closest to the solution, although he does not forego adding a "situational control" to the list.

1980 Samuel B. Bacharach and Edward J. Lawler take up the Etzioni typology again. In their opinion, knowledge is underrepresented in the typology, they also introduce knowledge as a fourth power base based on French / Raven. In the same year Rolf Wunderer and Wolfgang Grunwald take on the French Raven typology and modify it according to their needs. They summarize coercion and reward in one category, as they equate coercion with punishment and neglect actual coercion.

In 1982 Charles Lattmann took over the French Raven typology and added the category “power of idea” without further explanation.

Canada's management guru Henry Mintzberg developed his own power resource theory in 1983. Its structure names five general bases of power: control of a material resource, technical skills (e.g. repairs), knowledge, formal legitimacy and, as a fifth resource, access to people with at least one of the first four bases. His work thus connects the power resources with the coalition theory . Also in 1983, John Kenneth Galbraith took up Etzioni's structure again, but changed little apart from the terminology.

Criticism of the power bases

According to Karl Sandner, conceptual criticism makes it appear questionable whether the power bases according to French and Raven even offer a complete analysis. The inner logic of the construct appears questionable to him. The complexity of an organization could not be included in the social-psychological laboratory tests, so that the model is subject to a “ behavioristic reductionism ”. According to Sandner, the spread of the model is explained by the “simple” and “striking” message: There are n bases of power and whoever has them has the power.

After all, Sandner recognizes the shift from the absolutist claim to power of Max Weber ("Power means every chance within a social relationship to enforce one's own will against resistance, regardless of what this chance is based on.") He praises:

  • Clarity
  • Everyday plausibility
  • Instrumentality

The weaknesses he uncovered, however, weigh more heavily:

  • unclear selection criteria for the important bases of power
  • the lack of demarcation between the bases of power
  • the extensive confusion of the foundations of power with its prerequisites
  • the lack of inclusion of prerequisites for power bases in the power model
  • the weak integration of the B (inferior) in the process and thus a distortion of the situation
  • Lack of empirical evidence for subordination behavior based on power bases, with Sandner adding, weakening, that methodological inadequacies in the experimental setup could have led to these deficiencies.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Karl Sandner (1992) Processes of Power - for the emergence, stabilization and change of the power of actors in the company , Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg , ISBN 3-7908-0647-1
  2. ^ Robert Alan Dahl (1957) The Concept of Power ; in Behavioral Science, 2nd year 1957, 3, pp. 201-215
  3. ↑ a b Herbert A. Simon (1957) Authority ; in: CM Arensberg, S. Barkin, W. Chalmers, HL Wilensky, JC Worthy and BD Dennis (eds.): Research in Industrial Relations ; New York 1957, pp. 103-115.
  4. ^ Carin J Klein: French and Raven's Bases of Social Power in a Not-for-Profit Health Care Facility: Perceptions and Satisfaction. Dissertation abstracts. 59, no. 07A, 1998, 2605, OCLC 42614130 .
  5. ↑ JPR French Jr., B. Raven: The bases of social power. In: D. Cartwright, A. Zander (Eds.): Group dynamics . Harper and Row, New York 1960, pp. 607-623.
  6. ^ A b Herbert C. Kelman: Processes of Opinion Change . In: Public Opinion Quarterly . tape 25 , 1961, pp. 57–78 (cited in Karl Sandner, (1992) Processes of Power - on the emergence, stabilization and change of the power of actors in companies , Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg).
  7. ^ Herbert C. Kelman: Further Thoughts on the Process of Compliance, Identification, and Ialization . In: JT Tedeschi (Ed.): Perspectives on Social Power . Chicago 1974, p. 125–171 (English, quoted in Karl Sandner, (1992) Processes of Power - for the emergence, stabilization and change of the power of actors in companies , Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg).
  8. ↑ a b c d e f Amitai Etzioni: The active society . Opladen 1975 (English: The Active Society . New York 1968. cited in Karl Sandner, (1992) Processes of Power - for the emergence, stabilization and change of the power of actors in companies , Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg).
  9. ^ A b c Dorwin Cartwright: Influence, Leadership, Control . In: James G. March (Ed.): Handbook of Organization . Chicago 1965, p. 1-47 (English, quoted in Karl Sandner, (1992) Processes of Power - for the emergence, stabilization and change of the power of actors in companies , Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg).
  10. ↑ a b c d Gerald Marwell and David R. Schmitt: Dimensions of Compliance-Gaining Behavior: An Empirical Analysis . In: Sociometry . tape 30 , no. 4 , 1967, p. 350-364 .
  11. ↑ William A. Gameson: Power and Discontent . Homewood, 1968.
  12. ^ Edward W. Lehmann: Toward A Macrosociology of Power . In: American Sociological Review . tape 34 , no. 4 , 1969, p. 453-465 , doi : 10.2307 / 2091956 .
  13. ↑ a b Martin Patch: The Locus and Basis of Influence on Organizational Decisions . In: Organizational Behavior and Human Performance . tape 11 , 1974, p. 195-221 .
  14. ↑ James T. Tedeschi and Svenn Lindskold: Social Psychology: Interdependence, Interaction and Influence . New York 1976.
  15. ↑ a b c Wilfried Krüger: Power in the company . Stuttgart 1976.
  16. ^ A b Hans-Dieter Schneider: Social psychology of power relations . Stuttgart 1978.
  17. ^ A b Samuel B. Bacharach and Edward J. Lawler: Power and Politics in Organizations . San Francisco 1980.
  18. ^ A b Rolf Wunderer and Wolfgang Grunwald: Leadership apprenticeship . Vol. I: Basics of leadership. Berlin / New York 1980.
  19. ^ Charles Lattmann: The behavioral principles of leadership . Bern and Stuttgart 1982.
  20. ^ A b Henry Mintzberg: Power In and Around Organizations . Englewood Cliffs 1983.
  21. ↑ John Kenneth Galbraith: The Anatomy of Power (German: Anatomie der Macht. Munich 1987) . Boston 1983.