What's the Topic? Power in groups

Power is exercised by people in all manner of different ways: on a one-to-one basis, within groups, remotely, across distance, via broadcast media. Within groups power frequently resides in role. Who does what, what are their roles, in what structure do they function, are all important features of behaviour in groups. Before we move to look at the exercise of power and leadership within more formal work groups it is instructive to take a look at Peter Hartley’s account of how power is exercised in less formal groups. The groups might be less formal but there is no doubting the very real character of the power being exercised. Power, Status and Authority

One of the most challenging exercises which is sometimes used in group training is to ask the members of the group to line themselves up in a way which represents their relative power or status in the group. Imagine doing this exercise with a group which you are a member of: what would be the result? How would members react?

This exercise cannot be recommended as a ‘fun game’ to while away some idle group time. The fact is that it will almost inevitably stir up very strong emotions and reactions in group members and this reinforces one main point of this chapter: groups do develop status hierarchies, and these hierarchies can be very important and sometimes very destructive.

Different power structures

One line of research has been to identify different types of power which we can exert over one another. The typical list distinguishes five types:

reward, whereby I have power over you because I can give you certain rewards.

coercive, whereby I have power over you because I can punish you or threaten you in certain ways.

legitimate, whereby I have power over you because you recognise that this is fair or legitimate. This is really the notion of authority which we discuss separately alter on.

referent, whereby I have power over you because you identify with me or wish to be like me in certain ways. Fan worship or adulation is a common example of referent power.

expert, whereby I have power over you because you recognise that I am an expert in specific areas.

These different types have very different implications. For example, if I obey you because of coercive power then I will be unlikely to continue to obey you if you do not keep me under fairly strict surveillance. If I obey you because of expert power, then you will not need to monitor me as I accept that what you say is right. These two examples also highlight the importance of perceptions. I must recognise the power that you have in order to respond to it, and there must be enough inducement to make me give up other alternatives. If you are trying to coerce me to change my beliefs then you may not succeed if these beliefs are very fundamental.

Another related issue is the tactics which people can use to realise these power bases and the effects that they have. Tactics can vary in terms of a number of dimensions:

strength: tactics can be strong, as in a direct threat, or weak, as in dropping hints.

rationality: for example, tactics can rely on rationality as in logical persuasion or can rely on emotional demands.

laterality: tactics can be unilateral and have no concern for the other party or be more reciprocal as in discussion.

These dimensions are important both in terms of the effectiveness of the tactic and the way that the person using it is seen by other members of the group. For example, Falbo observed people in discussion groups who had been primed to use different tactics. Members who used weak/rational tactics were seen much more positively than members who used strong/non-rational tactics.

How power and status are demonstrated

Some of the most interesting examples of the realities of power and status in everyday groups were published by W.F. Whyte over half a century ago. He risked life and limb (or at least limb) by joining a street corner gang as a participant observer. He interviewed all the gang members and made extensive notes on interaction and communication. One specific event which highlighted the importance of the status hierarchy was the bowling match where Doc, the gang leader, showed an uncharacteristic loss of form. His score was overtaken by Alec, who had very low status. After some barracking from the other members, it came as no surprise that Alec’s accuracy went on a downward spiral and Doc came through as winner.

Whyte observed another illustration of status pressures in his restaurant study where there was a conflict between the formal and informal systems. The cooks, who regarded themselves as high status, resented taking orders direct from the waitresses, who were regarded as low status. The solution to this was the invention of the spike, which became a standard feature of the fast food restaurant. The waitress wrote the customers’ orders and then placed them on the metal spike by the cooking area. The cooks took the orders from the spike and dealt with them in the appropriate order. This re-established the cooks’ sense of autonomy and high status as they did not have to react directly to instructions from waitresses. Having to develop this intermediate step may seem trivial or even insulating from an outsider’s viewpoint but many issues of status are based around symbolic features of the situation.

(Hartley 1997: 112–14) What's Next?

Undertake Hartley’s activity on paper for yourself. Mark members of your group according to their status and influence.

Identify the forms that power takes in the groups that you are familiar with.