I came across this great article, written by Andrew Thiele a South Australian Police Officer, that discusses the use of power within the South Australian Police Force. The article (original source available here) discusses the 5 sources of power within the context of policing and then goes on to analyse the consequences of using each type of power. I’ve recreated the relevant parts of the article below.

Sources of power

The threat of punishment might not motivate an employee to abide by the Equity and Diversity Employee Management Manual. Much academic research has gone into the sources of power within organizations. The French and Raven Power Typography is taught in business schools the world over.

It asserts that five sources of power exist within any organization. The first three emanate from the position. Legitimate Power is the power – through the exercise of formal authority – to influence others. It is power that comes from formal positions of authority, such as the rank one holds within an organization.

Reward Power comes from a person’s ability to distribute rewards that are highly valued by others and/or remove negative sanctions. Coercive Power comes from the capacity to apply punishment. Managers and supervisors have coercive power in their authority to reprimand and demote employees. An inspector, for example, can punish people who breach general orders.

The other two sources of power emanate from the person. Expert Power comes from special knowledge or skill held by one particular person but required by another person or group. It is an individual’s capacity to influence others through their need for the specialist skills or knowledge he or she possesses. Referent Power is largely a function of one’s interdependent skills, and usually develops slowly. People have referent power when others identify with them, like them or otherwise respect them.

Consequences of power

Some might ask how these power sources apply to them within SAPOL. The power source upon which one relies, and the way in which one acquires it, determines whether one is met with resistance, compliance or commitment. It determines one’s effectiveness and ability to contribute to continuous improvement within SAPOL.

Coercive Power is generally the least desirable source of power because it generates resistance. Those targeted tend to oppose the attempt at influence and resent undertaking a task. The more vigorous the attempt, the harder others push in opposition. The application of coercive power reduces trust between the parties, and increases employee dissatisfaction. Resistance and distrust occur when coercive power is used manipulatively.

Reward and Legitimate Power tend to engender compliance. People are motivated to implement the power-holder’s request purely for instrumental reasons. They will only ever do enough to satisfy the person who makes the request, or whatever it takes to get the reward. Relying on this form of power will only ever achieve mediocrity, and never foster excellence.

Commitment is the most common consequence of Expert and Referent Power. Commitment is the strongest form of influence: people identify with the power-holder’s request and strive to accede to it, even when there are no extrinsic benefits for doing so.

Why, to ensure the completion of a task, would a leader threaten a subordinate with punishment? Such a leader would only be setting himself or herself up to face resistance. Why, to get a job done, would a leader simply rely on the insignia of rank that lies impressively on his or her epaulettes?

Subordinates would no doubt comply with the orders of such leaders – in their presence. But who knows how they might respond in these leaders’ absence?

Benefits

The benefits of Expert and Referent power are immense, and include:

• Increased productivity.
• Reduced absenteeism.
• Improved morale and commitment.
• Lower staff turnover.
• Fewer WorkCover claims.
• Increased creativity and innovation.
• An interesting and dynamic workplace.

Source: http://www.policejournalsa.org.au/0404/24a.php

Came across this great article in TIME magazine that talks about how Cathay Pacific (one of Qantas’ main competitors) is using team work to increase productivity. This is a great way to show one of the key concepts of Behavioural Theory (i.e. teamwork increases morale and therefore increases productivity) in action.

Thursday, Oct. 18, 2007

Flight School

By Krista Mahr

Running a multinational airline, says Cathay Pacific CEO Tony Tyler, is a little like playing rugby. It might look like a group of “large and rather ugly men running around a muddy field,” he says, but when they work together, it’s a thing of beauty. “For the team to win, every player has to do their job well.”

That team ethic has helped the Hong Kong-based airline please both passengers and shareholders. Cathay’s profit so far this year has surged 55%, built largely on a reputation for excellent service on international long-haul flights. Cathay isn’t immune, however, from high fuel costs and competitive pricing. “All airlines are under pressure to reduce their cost base,” Tyler says. But rather than relying on slashing amenities, as many airlines have done, Cathay has focused on “increasing the productivity of our people,” he says. That means embracing the unabashedly corny team-building exercises that have fallen far out of fashion in the rest of the corporate world.

It’s the only way to get Cathay’s 25,000 employees working in harmony. The cabin crew, ground staff, gate agents and customer-service reps for any given flight are always different, so “every time you a have a flight that takes off, you have a new group thrown together for a project,” says Jeremy Perks, a director in Beijing for IWNC, a corporate-team-building firm that has worked with Cathay. When those teams break down, Cathay is vulnerable to the same problems facing every other airline. For example, in June a mechanical problem delayed a Cathay flight in San Francisco, forcing 400 passengers to sit on the runway for seven hours and hitting the airline with a rare round of negative publicity.

So Cathay has tried to turn its global training headquarters near Hong Kong International Airport into a temple of team spirit. Employees can wander into classes for yoga and belly-dancing and get a drink at Dhakota’s, the company bar. “It’s like a big playground,” says Steve Lawrence, one of Cathay’s training and development managers. The rooftop patio hosts just about every hokey team-building exercise ever invented. Trainees regularly participate in 100-person lap sits, in which each person sits on the next one’s knees, forming a circle while trying mightily to stay balanced. There are blindfolded “trust walks” and, until recently, group-dancing first thing in the morning. Sadly, Morning Boogie was phased out after the speaker system got blown away in a typhoon.

These exercises can do only so much. “Team-building events just create a shared experience for people,” says Lawrence, “nothing more, nothing less.” So managers help employees make a clear connection between the exercises and their daily responsibilities. At a recent session in which the trainees played the game red/black (teams score higher by coordinating their strategies), a supervisor from Indonesia linked the exercise to dealing with lost luggage without passing blame.

Cathay’s team-building isn’t just for the rank and file. At a recent event in Bangkok, top managers, including former CEO Philip Chen, were sent into local Thai grocery stores with 500 baht and the task of planning and cooking new economy- and business-class meals.

The next team challenge? Cathay acquired the Chinese domestic airline Dragonair last year, but integrating its new partner could be tricky. “Chinese carriers do not have a good reputation for customer service,” says Richard Aboulafia, an airline analyst with the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va. Tyler says he wants “to make sure Dragonair staff feel they belong–to make sure nobody was having lunch alone.” Perhaps it’s time to bring back Morning Boogie.

• Find this article at:
• http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673253,00.html

For some further reading on one of Australia’s premier business theorists, Elton Mayo, have a look at this link and this link

Here are some questions on Behavioural Management taken from the 2004 paper. Try answering these and put your answers in the comments of this post so that other people can add to your answer or provide alternative suggestions.

Question 22 (10 marks)

(a) Identify TWO distinctive features of behavioural management theory.

(b) Describe ONE strength and ONE weakness of the behavioural approach to management.

(c) Identify TWO changing work patterns and explain how business responses to management theories have catered for these changes.

• Attached to this post are the notes on Behavioural Management (original source of information is here – note that this site has been down for the last few days and you may not be able to access it).

Behavioural Theory – management as leading, motivating and communication – overhead notes

• Attached to this post are the overhead notes on the Classical and Scientific Thoerists (Fayol, Weber & Taylor)

Classical and Scientific Management Theorists – Fayol, Weber and Taylor

• The second document attached contains the overhead notes on Classical and Scientific Management as Planning, Organising & Controlling.

Classical and Scientific management overhead notes (Planning, Organising & Controlling)

The Classical Scientific Approach to Management can be summarised as follows;

Approach
The overall approach of companies who utilise this management theory is to create specialised efficiency-oriented systems of management. The point being that tasks are specialised (think of Adam Smith’s “division of labour”) and that management is focused on efficiency. Remembering that efficiency is concerned with the relationship between achieving the businesses goals with the minimum amount of resources necessary.

Timing
This system of management dates from the late 1800’s well into the 1930s. It is considered a legacy of the Industrial Revolution and the social structure of the times. That is to say that at this point in time there was a large workforce of relatively uneducated, dis-empowered people. That is not to say that Classical/Scientific Management theory is not used by today’s businesses. It certainly is, but most businesses have also adopted ideas from theories developed later on such as Behavioural, Contingency and Political Management Theories.

Management principles

• Hierarchical systems based on principles of specialisation, centralisation and formality.
• Specialised tasks exist in specialised departments, with responsibility formally designated.
• Span of control is narrow and a unitary line of command is in place (i.e.each person has one clear”boss” rather than several)

Relevance
Great benefits from a consumer viewpoint, with the availability of a wide range of consumer goods. Henry Ford (of Ford Motor cars) was a strong proponent of the theory and his success in using production lines and specialisation of labour have been copied by many since he first introduced them.

Criticisms of the theory include the dehumanising, autocratic nature of the efficiency-driven system and the assumption that the needs of workers matched those of management.

See the following article from the Triangle Business Journal from 1997 that presents a solid argument against the hierarchical nature of management that many business still use. Even though this article is 10 years old this does not distract from the arguments being made, if anything the increasing prevalence of IT throughout our society makes a demanding case for businesses to develop alternatives to the traditional hierarchical structures.

Henry Ford Video

Production Line Video

The following video (see below) is interesting as it shows how the production line method of manufacturing perfected by Henry Ford (which he based on the Scientific Management theories of Frederick Taylor) is still being used today. In this particular case it’s a factory manufacturing hairdryers in Shenzen in China.

1. Outline ONE strength and ONE weakness of classical/scientific management theory.
2. Explain why classical/scientific management theory is less widely used by businesses now than in the first half of the 20th century.

The original material that this post has been based on can be found at http://hsc.csu.edu.au/business_studies/mgt_change/mgt_theories/Managementtheories.html