Work, Design and Team process: Power-dependence

Power-dependence

The power-dependence relation

We shall speak of relations among actors, where an actor can be either a person or a group. Unless otherwise indicated, any relation discussed might be a person-person, group-person, group-group relation.

Social relations commonly entail ties of mutual dependence between the parties. A depends on B if he aspires to goals or gratifications whose achievement is facilitated by appropriate actions on B’s part. By virtue of mutual dependency, it is more or less imperative to each party that he be able to control or influence the other’s conduct. At the same time, these ties of mutual dependence imply that each party is in a position, to some degree, to grant or deny, facilitate or hinder, the other’s gratification. Thus, it would appear that the power to control or influence the other resides in control over the things he values. In short, power resides implicitly in the other’s dependency. When this is recognized, the analysis will of necessity resolve largely around the concept of dependence.

Two variables appear to function jointly in fixing the dependence of one actor upon another. Since the precise nature of this joint function is an empirical question, or proposition can do no more than specify the directional relationships involved:

The dependence of actor A upon actor B is (1) directly proportional to A’s motivational investment in goals mediated by B, and (2) inversely proportional to the availability of those goals to A outside of the A-B relation.

So, the importance dependency relation is determined by:

-the extent that A is motivated to invest in goals mediated by B

-availability of goals to a outside the A-B relation.

If the dependence of one party provides the basis for the power of the other, that power must be defined as a potential influence:

The power actor A has over actor B is the amount of resistance on the part of B which can be potentially overcome by A.

There are two important points to mention about this definition:

-the power defined here will not be, of necessity, observable in every interactive episode between A and B. It manifest only if A makes some demand, and only if this demand runs counter to B’s desires.

-we define power as the resistance which can be overcome, without restricting it to any domain of action.

We can now state that the power of A over B is equal to, and based upon, the dependence of B upon A.

In general it appears that an unbalanced relation is unstable for it encourages the use of power which in turn sets in motion processes which we will call: (a) cost reduction and (b) balancing operations.

Handling power when not in control through:

1.Cost reduction. With cost we refer to the amounts of the resistance to be overcome of power – the cost involved for one party in meeting the demands made by the other. In general, cost reduction is a process involving change in values ( personal, social, economic) which diminishes the pains incurred in meeting the demands of a powerful other.

2.Balancing operations Remember that dependence is a joint function of two variables, thanthe following alterations will move the relation toward a state of balance:

- Reduce motivational investment A in B (balance through motivational withdrawal by B, the weaker members)

- Cultivate alternative resources than just B (the cultivation of alternative social relations by B)

- Increase motivation investment B in A (giving status to A)

- Deny alternative resources to B (coalition and group formation).

Operation number 1: withdrawal

We now have the power A making demands of the dependent B. The tensions in the unbalanced A-B relations can be reduced by the process of motivational withdrawal on the part of B, for this will reduce the dependence of B on A and the power of A over B.

Operation number 2: extension of power network

For instance, A and B form a balanced relation. Suppose now that a third child C, moves into the neighborhood and makes the acquaintance of A, but not B. The A-B relation will be thrown out of balance by virtue of A’s decreased dependence upon B. A is given a power advantage. So, in this case the power of the stronger actor is reduced.

Operation number 3: increase motivation investment B in A

Give status recognition to A. Ego rewards. This increases the weaker member’s power to control the formerly more powerful member through increasing the latter’s motivational investment in the relation. This is normally accomplished by giving him status recognition in one or more of its many forms, from ego-gratifications to monetary differentials. The ego rewards such as prestige, loom large in this process because they are highly valued by many recipients and while given at low cost to the giver.

Operation number 4: Coalition formation

The forming of coalitions or collective actions (strikes) increases the power of weaker actors through collectivization.