In social science and politics, power is the
ability to influence or outright control the
behaviour of people. The term "authority"
is often used for power perceived as legitimate
by the social structure. Power can be seen
as evil or unjust, this sort of primitive
exercise of power is historically endemic
to humans, however as social beings the same
concept is seen as good and as something inherited
or given for exercising humanistic objectives
that will help, enable and move people. In
general, it is derived by the factors of interdependence
between two entities and the environment.
In business, the ethical instrumentality of
power is achievement, and as such it is a
zero-sum game. In simple terms it can be expressed
as being "upward" or "downward". With downward
power, a company's superior influences subordinates
for attaining organizational goals. When a
company exerts upward power, it is the subordinates
who influence the decisions of their leader
or leaders.The use of power need not involve
force or the threat of force (coercion). On
one side, it closely resembles what egalitarian
and consensual nations (Denmark, Netherlands,
Norway, Sweden) might term as "influence,"
contrasted with the extreme what some authors
identify as "intimidation" in capitalist nations,
a means by which power is used. An example
of using power without oppression is the concept
"soft power," as compared to hard power.
Much of the recent sociological debate about
power revolves around the issue of its means
to enable – in other words, power as a means
to make social actions possible as much as
it may constrain or prevent them. The philosopher
Michel Foucault saw power as a structural
expression of "a complex strategic situation
in a given social setting" that requires both
constraint and enablement.
== Theories ==
=== Five bases ===
Social psychologists John R. P. French and
Bertram Raven, in a now-classic study (1959),
developed a schema of sources of power by
which to analyse how power plays work (or
fail to work) in a specific relationship.
According to French and Raven, power must
be distinguished from influence in the following
way: power is that state of affairs which
holds in a given relationship, A-B, such that
a given influence attempt by A over B makes
A's desired change in B more likely. Conceived
this way, power is fundamentally relative
– it depends on the specific understandings
A and B each apply to their relationship,
and requires B's recognition of a quality
in A which would motivate B to change in the
way A intends. A must draw on the 'base' or
combination of bases of power appropriate
to the relationship, to effect the desired
outcome. Drawing on the wrong power base can
have unintended effects, including a reduction
in A's own power.
French and Raven argue that there are five
significant categories of such qualities,
while not excluding other minor categories.
Further bases have since been adduced – in
particular by Gareth Morgan in his 1986 book,
Images of Organization.
==== Legitimate power ====
Also called "positional power," it is the
power of an individual because of the relative
position and duties of the holder of the position
within an organization. Legitimate power is
formal authority delegated to the holder of
the position. It is usually accompanied by
various attributes of power such as a uniform,
a title, or an imposing physical office.
==== Referent power ====
Referent power is the power or ability of
individuals to attract others and build loyalty.
It is based on the charisma and interpersonal
skills of the power holder. A person may be
admired because of specific personal trait,
and this admiration creates the opportunity
for interpersonal influence. Here the person
under power desires to identify with these
personal qualities, and gains satisfaction
from being an accepted follower. Nationalism
and patriotism count towards an intangible
sort of referent power. For example, soldiers
fight in wars to defend the honor of the country.
This is the second least obvious power, but
the most effective. Advertisers have long
used the referent power of sports figures
for products endorsements, for example. The
charismatic appeal of the sports star supposedly
leads to an acceptance of the endorsement,
although the individual may have little real
credibility outside the sports arena. Abuse
is possible when someone that is likable,
yet lacks integrity and honesty, rises to
power, placing them in a situation to gain
personal advantage at the cost of the group's
position. Referent power is unstable alone,
and is not enough for a leader who wants longevity
and respect. When combined with other sources
of power, however, it can help a person achieve
great success.
==== Expert power ====
Expert power is an individual's power deriving
from the skills or expertise of the person
and the organization's needs for those skills
and expertise. Unlike the others, this type
of power is usually highly specific and limited
to the particular area in which the expert
is trained and qualified. When they have knowledge
and skills that enable them to understand
a situation, suggest solutions, use solid
judgment, and generally out perform others,
then people tend to listen to them. When individuals
demonstrate expertise, people tend to trust
them and respect what they say. As subject
matter experts, their ideas will have more
value, and others will look to them for leadership
in that area.
==== Reward power ====
Reward power depends on the ability of the
power wielder to confer valued material rewards,
it refers to the degree to which the individual
can give others a reward of some kind such
as benefits, time off, desired gifts, promotions
or increases in pay or responsibility. This
power is obvious but also ineffective if abused.
People who abuse reward power can become pushy
or be reprimanded for being too forthcoming
or 'moving things too quickly'. If others
expect to be rewarded for doing what someone
wants, there's a high probability that they'll
do it. The problem with this basis of power
is that the rewarder may not have as much
control over rewards as may be required. Supervisors
rarely have complete control over salary increases,
and managers often can't control promotions
all by themselves. And even a CEO needs permission
from the board of directors for some actions.
So when somebody uses up available rewards,
or the rewards don't have enough perceived
value to others, their power weakens. (One
of the frustrations of using rewards is that
they often need to be bigger each time if
they're to have the same motivational impact.
Even then, if rewards are given frequently,
people can become satiated by the reward,
such that it loses its effectiveness).
==== Coercive power ====
Coercive power is the application of negative
influences. It includes the ability to demote
or to withhold other rewards. The desire for
valued rewards or the fear of having them
withheld that ensures the obedience of those
under power. Coercive power tends to be the
most obvious but least effective form of power
as it builds resentment and resistance from
the people who experience it. Threats and
punishment are common tools of coercion. Implying
or threatening that someone will be fired,
demoted, denied privileges, or given undesirable
assignments – these are characteristics
of using coercive power. Extensive use of
coercive power is rarely appropriate in an
organizational setting, and relying on these
forms of power alone will result in a very
cold, impoverished style of leadership. This
is a type of power is commonly seen in fashion
industry by coupling with legitimate power,
it is referred in the industry specific literature's
as "glamorization of structural domination
and exploitation."
=== Principles in interpersonal relationships
===
According to Laura K. Guerrero and Peter A.
Andersen in "Close encounters: Communication
in Relationships":
Power as a Perception: Power is a perception
in a sense that some people can have objective
power, but still have trouble influencing
others. People who use power cues and act
powerfully and proactively tend to be perceived
as powerful by others. Some people become
influential even though they don't overtly
use powerful behavior.
Power as a Relational Concept: Power exists
in relationships. The issue here is often
how much relative power a person has in comparison
to one's partner. Partners in close and satisfying
relationships often influence each other at
different times in various arenas.
Power as Resource Based: Power usually represents
a struggle over resources. The more scarce
and valued resources are, the more intense
and protracted are power struggles. The scarcity
hypothesis indicates that people have the
most power when the resources they possess
are hard to come by or are in high demand.
However, scarce resource leads to power only
if it's valued within a relationship.
The Principle of Least Interest and Dependence
Power: The person with less to lose has greater
power in the relationship. Dependence power
indicates that those who are dependent on
their relationship or partner are less powerful,
especially if they know their partner is uncommitted
and might leave them. According to interdependence
theory, quality of alternatives refers to
the types of relationships and opportunities
people could have if they were not in their
current relationship. The principle of least
interest suggests that if a difference exists
in the intensity of positive feelings between
partners, the partner who feels the most positive
is at a power disadvantage. There's an inverse
relationship between interest in relationship
and the degree of relational power.
Power as Enabling or Disabling: Power can
be enabling or disabling. Research has been
shown that people are more likely to have
an enduring influence on others when they
engage in dominant behavior that reflects
social skill rather than intimidation. Personal
power is protective against pressure and excessive
influence by others and/or situational stress.
People who communicate through self-confidence
and expressive, composed behavior tend to
be successful in achieving their goals and
maintaining good relationships. Power can
be disabling when it leads to destructive
patterns of communication. This can lead to
the chilling effect where the less powerful
person often hesitates to communicate dissatisfaction,
and the demand withdrawal pattern which is
when one person makes demands and the other
becomes defensive and withdraws(mawasha, 2006).Both
effects have negative consequences for relational
satisfaction.
Power as a Prerogative: The prerogative principle
states that the partner with more power can
make and break the rules. Powerful people
can violate norms, break relational rules,
and manage interactions without as much penalty
as powerless people. These actions may reinforce
the powerful person's dependence power. In
addition, the more powerful person has the
prerogative to manage both verbal and nonverbal
interactions. They can initiate conversations,
change topics, interrupt others, initiate
touch, and end discussions more easily than
less powerful people. (See expressions of
dominance.)
=== Rational choice framework ===
Game theory, with its foundations in the Walrasian
theory of rational choice, is increasingly
used in various disciplines to help analyze
power relationships. One rational choice definition
of power is given by Keith Dowding in his
book Power.
In rational choice theory, human individuals
or groups can be modelled as 'actors' who
choose from a 'choice set' of possible actions
in order to try to achieve desired outcomes.
An actor's 'incentive structure' comprises
(its beliefs about) the costs associated with
different actions in the choice set, and the
likelihoods that different actions will lead
to desired outcomes.
In this setting we can differentiate between:
outcome power – the ability of an actor
to bring about or help bring about outcomes;
social power – the ability of an actor to
change the incentive structures of other actors
in order to bring about outcomes.This framework
can be used to model a wide range of social
interactions where actors have the ability
to exert power over others. For example, a
'powerful' actor can take options away from
another's choice set; can change the relative
costs of actions; can change the likelihood
that a given action will lead to a given outcome;
or might simply change the other's beliefs
about its incentive structure.
As with other models of power, this framework
is neutral as to the use of 'coercion'. For
example: a threat of violence can change the
likely costs and benefits of different actions;
so can a financial penalty in a 'voluntarily
agreed' contract, or indeed a friendly offer.
=== Cultural hegemony ===
In the Marxist tradition, the Italian writer
Antonio Gramsci elaborated the role of ideology
in creating a cultural hegemony, which becomes
a means of bolstering the power of capitalism
and of the nation-state. Drawing on Niccolò
Machiavelli in The Prince, and trying to understand
why there had been no Communist revolution
in Western Europe, while it was claimed there
had been one in Russia, Gramsci conceptualised
this hegemony as a centaur, consisting of
two halves. The back end, the beast, represented
the more classic, material image of power,
power through coercion, through brute force,
be it physical or economic. But the capitalist
hegemony, he argued, depended even more strongly
on the front end, the human face, which projected
power through 'consent'. In Russia, this power
was lacking, allowing for a revolution. However,
in Western Europe, specifically in Italy,
capitalism had succeeded in exercising consensual
power, convincing the working classes that
their interests were the same as those of
capitalists. In this way revolution had been
avoided.
While Gramsci stresses the significance of
ideology in power structures, Marxist-feminist
writers such as Michele Barrett stress the
role of ideologies in extolling the virtues
of family life. The classic argument to illustrate
this point of view is the use of women as
a 'reserve army of labour'. In wartime it
is accepted that women perform masculine tasks,
while after the war the roles are easily reversed.
Therefore, according to Barrett, the destruction
of capitalist economic relations is necessary
but not sufficient for the liberation of women.
=== Tarnow ===
Tarnow considers what power hijackers have
over air plane passengers and draws similarities
with power in the military. He shows that
power over an individual can be amplified
by the presence of a group. If the group conforms
to the leader's commands, the leader's power
over an individual is greatly enhanced while
if the group does not conform the leader's
power over an individual is nil.
=== Foucault ===
For Michel Foucault, the real power will always
rely on the ignorance of its agents. No single
human, group nor single actor runs the dispositif
(machine or apparatus) but power is dispersed
through the apparatus as efficiently and silently
as possible, ensuring its agents to do whatever
is necessary. It is because of this action
that power is unlikely to be detected that
it remains elusive to 'rational' investigation.
Foucault quotes a text reputedly written by
political economist Jean Baptiste Antoine
Auget de Montyon, entitled Recherches et considérations
sur la population de la France (1778), but
turns out to be written by his secretary Jean-Baptise
Moheau (1745–1794) and by emphasizing Biologist
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who constantly refers
to Milieus as a plural adjective and sees
into the milieu as an expression as nothing
more than water air and light confirming the
genus within the milieu, in this case the
human species, relates to a function of the
population and its social and political interaction
in which both form an artificial and natural
milieu. This milieu(both artificial and natural)
appears as a target of intervention for power
according to Foucault which is radically different
from the previous notions on sovereignty,
territory and disciplinary space inter woven
into from a social and political relations
which function as a species (biological species).Foucault
originated and developed the concept of "docile
bodies" in his book Discipline and Punish.
He writes, "A body is docile that may be subjected,
used, transformed and improved. " Foucault
claims that there is a shift, during the 18th
century, in which political power changed.
Instead of using corporeal punishment in order
to convince people to adhere to the laws of
the day, Foucault says power becomes internalized
during this period. Instead of watching someone
be drawn and quartered in a public space,
political power is exerted on individuals
in a way that compels them to obey laws and
rules on their own - without this show of
force. He builds on the ideas of Jeremy Bentham
regarding the Panopticon in which prison inmates
are compelled to behave and control themselves
because they might be in the view of the prison
guard. The physical shape of the Panopticon
creates a situation in which the prison guard
need not be present for this to happen, because
the mere possibility of the presence of the
guard compels the prisoners to behave. Foucault
takes this theory and makes it generalize
to everyday life. He claims that this kind
of surveillance is constant in modern society,
and the populous at large enacts it. Therefore,
everyone begins to control themselves and
behave according to society's rules and norms.
Feminist philosophers took up Foucault's ideas
regarding docile bodies and applied them to
the different ways men and women are socialized
to use their bodies. For one example, philosopher
Sandra Bartky says in her essay, ""Foucault,
Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal
Power" that “The disciplinary techniques
through which the ‘docile bodies’ of women
are constructed aim at a regulation that is
perpetual and exhaustive - a regulation of
the body’s size and contours, its appetite,
posture, gestures and general comportment
in space, and the appearance of each of its
visible parts." Bartky theorizes that there
is a specific and relentless pressure on women
when it comes to bodily movements and comportment;
this "docility" manifests as women make themselves
smaller, groom themselves in ways that make
them appear more feminine, and control their
bodily movements in order to be as minimally
obtrusive as possible. She also cites diet,
exercise, and skin care, among other processes,
as sites in which the feminine body is made
docile.
=== Clegg ===
Stewart Clegg proposes another three-dimensional
model with his "circuits of power" theory.
This model likens the production and organizing
of power to an electric circuit board consisting
of three distinct interacting circuits: episodic,
dispositional, and facilitative. These circuits
operate at three levels, two are macro and
one is micro. The episodic circuit is the
micro level and is constituted of irregular
exercise of power as agents address feelings,
communication, conflict, and resistance in
day-to-day interrelations. The outcomes of
the episodic circuit are both positive and
negative. The dispositional circuit is constituted
of macro level rules of practice and socially
constructed meanings that inform member relations
and legitimate authority. The facilitative
circuit is constituted of macro level technology,
environmental contingencies, job design, and
networks, which empower or disempower and
thus punish or reward, agency in the episodic
circuit. All three independent circuits interact
at "obligatory passage points" which are channels
for empowerment or disempowerment.
=== Galbraith ===
JK Galbraith summarizes the types of power
as being "condign" (based on force), "compensatory"
(through the use of various resources) or
"conditioned" (the result of persuasion),
and their sources as "personality" (individuals),
"property" (their material resources) and
"organizational" (whoever sits at the top
of an organisational power structure).
=== Gene Sharp ===
Gene Sharp, an American professor of political
science, believes that power depends ultimately
on its bases. Thus a political regime maintains
power because people accept and obey its dictates,
laws and policies. Sharp cites the insight
of Étienne de La Boétie.
Sharp's key theme is that power is not monolithic;
that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic
quality of those who are in power. For Sharp,
political power, the power of any state – regardless
of its particular structural organization
– ultimately derives from the subjects of
the state. His fundamental belief is that
any power structure relies upon the subjects'
obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). If
subjects do not obey, leaders have no power.His
work is thought to have been influential in
the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic, in the
2011 Arab Spring, and other nonviolent revolutions.
=== Björn Kraus ===
Björn Kraus deals with the epistemological
perspective upon power regarding the question
about possibilities of interpersonal influence
by developing a special form of constructivism
(named relational constructivism). Instead
of focussing on the valuation and distribution
of power, he asks first and foremost what
the term can describe at all. Coming from
Max Weber's definition of power, he realizes
that the term of power has to be split into
"instructive power" and "destructive power".
More precisely, instructive power means the
chance to determine the actions and thoughts
of another person, whereas destructive power
means the chance to diminish the opportunities
of another person. How significant this distinction
really is, becomes evident by looking at the
possibilities of rejecting power attempts:
Rejecting instructive power is possible – rejecting
destructive power is not. By using this distinction,
proportions of power can be analyzed in a
more sophisticated way, helping to sufficiently
reflect on matters of responsibility. This
perspective permits to get over an "either-or-position"
(either there is power, or there isn't), which
is common especially in epistemological discourses
about power theories, and to introduce the
possibility of an "as well as-position".
=== 
Unmarked categories ===
The idea of unmarked categories originated
in feminism. The theory analyzes the culture
of the powerful. The powerful comprise those
people in society with easy access to resources,
those who can exercise power without considering
their actions. For the powerful, their culture
seems obvious; for the powerless, on the other
hand, it remains out of reach, élite and
expensive.
The unmarked category can form the identifying
mark of the powerful. The unmarked category
becomes the standard against which to measure
everything else. For most Western readers,
it is posited that if a protagonist's race
is not indicated, it will be assumed by the
reader that the protagonist is Caucasian;
if a sexual identity is not indicated, it
will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist
is heterosexual; if the gender of a body is
not indicated, will be assumed by the reader
that it is male; if a disability is not indicated,
it will be assumed by the reader that the
protagonist is able bodied, just as a set
of examples.
One can often overlook unmarked categories.
Whiteness forms an unmarked category not commonly
visible to the powerful, as they often fall
within this category. The unmarked category
becomes the norm, with the other categories
relegated to deviant status. Social groups
can apply this view of power to race, gender,
and disability without modification: the able
body is the neutral body.
=== Counterpower ===
The term 'counter-power' (sometimes written
'counterpower') is used in a range of situations
to describe the countervailing force that
can be utilised by the oppressed to counterbalance
or erode the power of elites. A general definition
has been provided by the anthropologist David
Graeber as 'a collection of social institutions
set in opposition to the state and capital:
from self-governing communities to radical
labor unions to popular militias'. Graeber
also notes that counter-power can also be
referred to as 'anti-power' and 'when institutions
[of counter-power] maintain themselves in
the face of the state, this is usually referred
to as a 'dual power' situation'. Tim Gee,
in his 2011 book Counterpower: Making Change
Happen, put forward a theory that those disempowered
by governments' and elite groups' power can
use counterpower to counter this. In Gee's
model, counterpower is split into three categories:
idea counterpower, economic counterpower,
and physical counterpower.Although the term
has come to prominence through its use by
participants in the global justice/anti-globalization
movement of the 1990s onwards, the word has
been used for at least 60 years; for instance
Martin Buber's 1949 book 'Paths in Utopia'
includes the line 'Power abdicates only under
the stress of counter-power'.
=== Other theories ===
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) defined power
as a man's "present means, to obtain some
future apparent good" (Leviathan, Ch. 10).
The thought of Friedrich Nietzsche underlies
much 20th century analysis of power. Nietzsche
disseminated ideas on the "will to power,"
which he saw as the domination of other humans
as much as the exercise of control over one's
environment.
Some schools of psychology, notably that associated
with Alfred Adler, place power dynamics at
the core of their theory (where orthodox Freudians
might place sexuality).
== Psychological research ==
Recent experimental psychology suggests that
the more power one has, the less one takes
on the perspective of others, implying that
the powerful have less empathy. Adam Galinsky,
along with several coauthors, found that when
those who are reminded of their powerlessness
are instructed to draw Es on their forehead,
they are 3 times more likely to draw them
such that they are legible to others than
those who are reminded of their power. Powerful
people are also more likely to take action.
In one example, powerful people turned off
an irritatingly close fan twice as much as
less powerful people. Researchers have documented
the bystander effect: they found that powerful
people are three times as likely to first
offer help to a "stranger in distress".A study
involving over 50 college students suggested
that those primed to feel powerful through
stating 'power words' were less susceptible
to external pressure, more willing to give
honest feedback, and more creative.
=== Empathy gap ===
"Power is defined as a possibility to influence
others."The use of power has evolved from
centuries. Gaining prestige, honor and reputation
is one of the central motives for gaining
power in human nature. Power also relates
with empathy gaps because it limits the interpersonal
relationship and compares the power differences.
Having power or not having power can cause
a number of psychological consequences. It
leads to strategic versus social responsibilities.
Research experiments were done as early as
1968 to explore power conflict.
==== Past research ====
Earlier, research proposed that increased
power relates to increased rewards and leads
one to approach things more frequently. In
contrast, decreased power relates to more
constraint, threat and punishment which leads
to inhibitions. It was concluded that being
powerful leads one to successful outcomes,
to develop negotiation strategies and to make
more self-serving offers.Later, research proposed
that differences in power lead to strategic
considerations. Being strategic can also mean
to defend when one is opposed or to hurt the
decision-maker. It was concluded that facing
one with more power leads to strategic consideration
whereas facing one with less power leads to
a social responsibility.
==== Bargaining games ====
Bargaining games were explored in 2003 and
2004. These studies compared behavior done
in different power given situations.In an
ultimatum game, the person in given power
offers an ultimatum and the recipient would
have to accept that offer or else both the
proposer and the recipient will receive no
reward.In a dictator game, the person in given
power offers a proposal and the recipient
would have to accept that offer. The recipient
has no choice of rejecting the offer.
===== Conclusion =====
The dictator game gives no power to the recipient
whereas the ultimatum game gives some power
to the recipient. The behavior observed was
that the person offering the proposal would
act less strategically than would the one
offering in the ultimatum game. Self-serving
also occurred and a lot of pro-social behavior
was observed.When the counterpart recipient
is completely powerless, lack of strategy,
social responsibility and moral consideration
is often observed from the behavior of the
proposal given (the one with the power).
=== Abusive power and control ===
Abusive power and control (or controlling
behaviour or coercive control) involve the
ways in which abusers gain and maintain power
and control over victims for abusive purposes
such as psychological, physical, sexual, or
financial abuse. Such abuse can have various
causes - such as personal gain, personal gratification,
psychological projection, devaluation, envy
or just for the sake of it - as the abuser
may simply enjoy exercising power and control.
Controlling abusers may use multiple tactics
to exert power and control over their victims.
The tactics themselves are psychologically
and sometimes physically abusive. Control
may be helped through economic abuse, thus
limiting the victim's actions as they may
then lack the necessary resources to resist
the abuse. Abusers aim to control and intimidate
victims or to influence them to feel that
they do not have an equal voice in the relationship.Manipulators
and abusers may control their victims with
a range of tactics, including:
positive reinforcement (such as praise, superficial
charm, flattery, ingratiation, love bombing,
smiling, gifts, attention)
negative reinforcement
intermittent or partial reinforcement
psychological punishment (such as nagging,
silent treatment, swearing, threats, intimidation,
emotional blackmail, guilt trips, inattention)
traumatic tactics (such as verbal abuse or
explosive anger)The vulnerabilities of the
victim are exploited, with those who are particularly
vulnerable being most often selected as targets.
Traumatic bonding can occur between the abuser
and victim as the result of ongoing cycles
of abuse in which the intermittent reinforcement
of reward and punishment fosters powerful
emotional bonds that are resistant to change,
as well as a climate of fear. An attempt may
be made to normalise, legitimise, rationalise,
deny, or minimise the abusive behaviour, or
to blame the victim for it.Other often-used
strategies include isolation, gaslighting,
mind games, lying, disinformation, propaganda,
destabilisation and divide-and-rule. Manipulators
may ply victims with alcohol or drugs to help
disorientate them.
Certain personality-types feel particularly
compelled to control other people.
== Tactics ==
In everyday situations people use a variety
of power tactics to push or prompt people
into particular action. There are plenty of
examples of power tactics that are quite common
and employed every day. Some of these tactics
include bullying, collaboration, complaining,
criticizing, demanding, disengaging, evading,
humor, inspiring, manipulating, negotiating,
socializing, and supplicating. These power
tactics can be classified along three different
dimensions:
Soft and hard: Soft tactics take advantage
of the relationship between person and the
target. They are more indirect and interpersonal
(e.g., collaboration, socializing). Conversely,
hard tactics are harsh, forceful, direct,
and rely on concrete outcomes. However, they
are not more powerful than soft tactics. In
many circumstances, fear of social exclusion
can be a much stronger motivator than some
kind of physical punishment.
Rational and nonrational: Rational tactics
of influence make use of reasoning, logic,
and sound judgment, whereas nonrational tactics
rely on emotionality and misinformation. Examples
of each include bargaining and persuasion,
and evasion and put downs, respectively.
Unilateral and bilateral: Bilateral tactics,
such as collaboration and negotiation, involve
reciprocity on the part of both the person
influencing and their target. Unilateral tactics,
on the other hand, are enacted without any
participation on the part of the target. These
tactics include disengagement and fait accompli.People
tend to vary in their use of power tactics,
with different types of people opting for
different tactics. For instance, interpersonally
oriented people tend to use soft and rational
tactics. Machiavellians, however, tend to
use nonrational tactics. Moreover, extroverts
use a greater variety of power tactics than
do introverts. People will also choose different
tactics based on the group situation, and
based on whom they are trying to influence.
People also tend to shift from soft to hard
tactics when they face resistance.
=== Balance of power ===
Because power operates both relationally and
reciprocally, sociologists speak of the balance
of power between parties to a relationship:
all parties to all relationships have some
power: the sociological examination of power
concerns itself with discovering and describing
the relative strengths: equal or unequal,
stable or subject to periodic change. Sociologists
usually analyse relationships in which the
parties have relatively equal or nearly equal
power in terms of constraint rather than of
power. Thus 'power' has a connotation of unilateralism.
If this were not so, then all relationships
could be described in terms of 'power', and
its meaning would be lost. Given that power
is not innate and can be granted to others,
to acquire power you must possess or control
a form of power currency.
== Effects ==
Power changes those in the position of power
and those who are targets of that power.
=== Approach/inhibition theory ===
Developed by D. Keltner and colleagues, approach/inhibition
theory assumes that having power and using
power alters psychological states of individuals.
The theory is based on the notion that most
organisms react to environmental events in
two common ways. The reaction of approach
is associated with action, self-promotion,
seeking rewards, increased energy and movement.
Inhibition, on the contrary, is associated
with self-protection, avoiding threats or
danger, vigilance, loss of motivation and
an overall reduction in activity.
Overall, approach/inhibition theory holds
that power promotes approach tendencies, while
reduction in power promotes inhibition tendencies.
=== Positive ===
Power prompts people to take action
Makes individuals more responsive to changes
within a group and its environment
Powerful people are more proactive, more likely
to speak up, make the first move, and lead
negotiation
Powerful people are more focused on the goals
appropriate in a given situation and tend
to plan more task-related activities in a
work setting
Powerful people tend to experience more positive
emotions, such as happiness and satisfaction,
and they smile more than low-power individuals
Power is associated with optimism about the
future because more powerful individuals focus
their attention on more positive aspects of
the environment
People with more power tend to carry out executive
cognitive functions more rapidly and successfully,
including internal control mechanisms that
coordinate attention, decision-making, planning,
and goal-selection
=== Negative ===
Powerful people are prone to take risky, inappropriate,
or unethical decisions and often overstep
their boundaries
They tend to generate negative emotional reactions
in their subordinates, particularly when there
is a conflict in the group
When individuals gain power, their self-evaluation
become more positive, while their evaluations
of others become more negative
Power tends to weaken one’s social attentiveness,
which leads to difficulty understanding other
people’s point of view
Powerful people also spend less time collecting
and processing information about their subordinates
and often perceive them in a stereotypical
fashion
People with power tend to use more coercive
tactics, increase social distance between
themselves and subordinates, believe that
non-powerful individuals are untrustworthy,
and devalue work and ability of less powerful
individuals
== Reactions ==
=== 
Tactics ===
A number of studies demonstrate that harsh
power tactics (e.g. punishment (both personal
and impersonal), rule-based sanctions, and
non-personal rewards) are less effective than
soft tactics (expert power, referent power,
and personal rewards). It is probably because
harsh tactics generate hostility, depression,
fear, and anger, while soft tactics are often
reciprocated with cooperation. Coercive and
reward power can also lead group members to
lose interest in their work, while instilling
a feeling of autonomy in one’s subordinates
can sustain their interest in work and maintain
high productivity even in the absence of monitoring.Coercive
influence creates conflict that can disrupt
entire group functioning. When disobedient
group members are severely reprimanded, the
rest of the group may become more disruptive
and uninterested in their work, leading to
negative and inappropriate activities spreading
from one troubled member to the rest of the
group. This effect is called Disruptive contagion
or ripple effect and it is strongly manifested
when reprimanded member has a high status
within a group, and authority’s requests
are vague and ambiguous.
=== Resistance to coercive influence ===
Coercive influence can be tolerated when the
group is successful, the leader is trusted,
and the use of coercive tactics is justified
by group norms. Furthermore, coercive methods
are more effective when applied frequently
and consistently to punish prohibited actions.However,
in some cases, group members chose to resist
the authority’s influence. When low-power
group members have a feeling of shared identity,
they are more likely to form a Revolutionary
Coalition, a subgroup formed within a larger
group that seeks to disrupt and oppose the
group’s authority structure. Group members
are more likely to form a revolutionary coalition
and resist an authority when authority lacks
referent power, uses coercive methods, and
asks group members to carry out unpleasant
assignments. It is because these conditions
create reactance, a complex emotional and
cognitive reaction that occurs when individuals
feel that their freedom to make choices has
been threatened or eliminated. When reactance
occurs, individuals strive to reassert their
sense of freedom by affirming their authority.
=== Kelman's compliance-identification-internalization
theory of conversion ===
Herbert Kelman identified three basic, step-like
reactions that people display in response
to coercive influence: compliance, identification,
and internalization. This theory explains
how groups convert hesitant recruits into
zealous followers over time.
At the stage of compliance, group members
comply with authority’s demands, but personally
do not agree with them. If authority does
not monitor the members, they will probably
not obey.
Identification occurs when the target of the
influence admires and therefore imitates the
authority, mimics authority’s actions, values,
characteristics, and takes on behaviours of
the person with power. If prolonged and continuous,
identification can lead to the final stage
– internalization.
When internalization occurs, individual adopts
the induced behaviour because it is congruent
with his/her value system. At this stage,
group members no longer carry out authority
orders but perform actions that are congruent
with their personal beliefs and opinions.
Extreme obedience often requires internalization.
== Power literacy ==
Power literacy refers to how one perceives
power, how it is formed and accumulates, and
the structures that support it and who is
in control of it. Education can be helpful
for heightening power literacy. In a 2014
TED talk Eric Liu notes that "we don't like
to talk about power" as "we find it scary"
and "somehow evil" with it having a "negative
moral valence" and states that the pervasiveness
of power illiteracy causes a concentration
of knowledge, understanding and clout. Joe
L. Kincheloe describes a "cyber-literacy of
power" that is concerned with the forces that
shape knowledge production and the construction
and transmission of meaning, being more about
engaging knowledge than "mastering" information,
and a "cyber-power literacy" that is focused
on transformative knowledge production and
new modes of accountability.
== See also ==
== References ==
== 
External links ==
Forbes: World's Most Powerful Women Define
Power on YouTube
Dolata, Ulrich; Schrape, Jan-Felix (2018).
Collectivity and Power on the Internet. A
Sociological Perspective. London Cham: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78414-4. ISBN 9783319784137.
Vatiero M. (2009), Understanding Power. A
'Law and Economics' Approach, VDM Verlag.
ISBN 978-3-639-20265-6
Michael Eldred, Social Ontology: Recasting
Political Philosophy Through a Phenomenology
of Whoness ontos, Frankfurt 2008 xiv + 688
pp. ISBN 978-3-938793-78-7
Simmel, Georg Superiority and Subordination
as Subject-Matter of Sociology
Simmel, Georg Superiority and Subordination
as Subject-Matter of Sociology II
Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failures in management
circuits. Harvard Business Review.
