https://www.iapss.

org/2014/09/28/three-dimensions-of-powe

28 S EP Three dimensions of power

  Written by Michael Valdivieso

  Categorised A Different View

The most sought and valued end of politics is power. This is true from a realist perspective, which is the
one used to explain this fascinating capability. There are two ideas that should be stated before
continuing and that will be explained throughout this article. First, power varies depending on the level of
analysis; it is different at the individual level, national and international level. And second, power is
exercised rather than held. The simplest and most effective way to understand power is explained by
Dahl as the ability of A to make B do something that otherwise would not do. In this definition it is implied
the fact that A does not hold power as a material possession but instead preforms an action over B.

Power can be classified in two, ‘power over’ and ‘power to’. ‘Power over’ focuses on the exercise of
control through behavior and interactions from one actor to another. On the other hand, ‘power to’ is
related to how social relations define the actions and capabilities of an actor. At the individual level, the
most predominant form of power is ‘power over’. In this sense, if the definition provided by Dahl is
considered, according to Barnett and Duvall, the result will be a type of compulsory power. Where A has
the means to exercise power over B, B does not have the same wants as those of A and that power does
not have to be intentionally exercised. One interesting example of ‘power over’ is that of micro-physics
suggested by Foucault, in which he argues that power is exercised by creating micro-physics over the
body (or person). Instead of believing that the other actor is a material property, it can be seen as a body
that has to respond to very small and subtle dispositions. Additionally, the effectiveness of power is
negatively correlated to how evident it is. In other words, the less evident the exercise of power is the
more effective it becomes, because this way it generates a smaller reaction.

At the national level, power occurs and is exercised more evenly between ‘power over’ and ‘power to’. In
a democracy, the power is granted consciously from the people to the government (or institution).
Moreover, the institution has the capabilities and performs the actions based on the nature of the social
relations that have established how the power should be executed. The national government is an
institution created by society that exercises power to delimit another actor’s actions. In this
sense, Neale argues that institutions “imply ‘you may’ as well as ‘thou shall not,’ thus creating as well as
limiting choices”. However, in contrast with compulsory power presented at the individual level, at the
national level, power does not require a direct relation among the actors but only the participation of those
specific actors to the capability and action at discussion. For instance, there is not a direct relation
between the legislative power and a random citizen, yet when a law is promulgated both specific actors
are subject to the capabilities one has over the other to legislate. Additionally, one particular case in which
an institution can be categorized as exercising compulsory power would be if it was controlled or
possessed by A and shaped the actions done by B. This could be the case of a totalitarian regime.

The international level represents a particular situation for the exercise of power because of its anarchic
nature and the predominance of states as the main actors. Kenneth Waltz argues that the international
system is organized in a structure that focuses on the arrangement of its units (States) depending on the
different capabilities. In the international system, each unit is equal to others because of sovereignty and
given the anarchy under which it works no “unit is entitled to command; none is required to obey”.
Nevertheless, the moment when equal units begin to interact between each other capabilities arise and
locate them in a specific place. Moreover, in the international level, if A has large military capabilities it
means it is able to exercise power over B that has fewer military capabilities. B’s interests and actions are
shaped by the structure in which more capabilities are allocated to A. Additionally the ultimate objective of
every actor is its survival. Furthermore, compulsory power can be exercised if military capabilities are
regarded as the sole source of power, in spite of the sovereignty that each State has. On the contrary,
when a Permanent Member of the Security Council of the United Nations vetoes a resolution, this practice
falls within institutional power, particularly the ‘power to’ forbid an action.

Regardless of the level of analysis, the quest for power is a never ending game that actors involved in it,
are always looking to play in their favor. States, more often than not, will act as if the only thing that
mattered would be to have the necessary capabilities to “have” power over another State. Sometimes the
actions used to achieve that objective can be cooperation or the formation of alliances and some other
times the use of force will be preferred. Whereas institutions are limited by the ‘power to’ do something
that is provided by its very own constitution, based on its practices and costumes. In addition, individuals
can exercise power through a large array of practices. Finally, irrespective of the level, the techniques,
methods, actions used to exercise power will be relative to the expected outcome, the cost involved, the
time available and most of all the capabilities.

https://www.slideshare.net/WalterColega1/shs-powerpoint-powerpolitics

HS Powerpoint Power(POLITICS)
1. 1. POWER: PHILIPPINE POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE GROUP II
2. 2. • The ability to influence or outright control the behaviour of people. • Power can be seen
as evil or unjust, but the exercise of power is accepted as endemic to humans as social
beings. • Power as a means to make social actions possible as much as it may contain or
prevent them.
3. 3. • POWER OVER ― The ability to dominate another person or a group. ―Usually comes
from force and threat. • POWER TO ―The ability to do something on one’s own (sources:
intellect, resources, knowledge, stamina and etc.)
4. 4. • POWER WITH ― is similar also to “power to” in that it reflects ability ―The ability to
work with others to get something done by cooperation.
5. 5. • Steven Lukes defines the concept of power by saying that “A exercise power over B
when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s Interests.” • He describes power as having
three dimensions and has divided power into three distinct ‘ faces’, each focusing on a
specific aspect of power.
6. 6. • ‘open face of power’ • The ability to control or influence in an open and direct way. • In
the classical idea of political power, meaning the government has the power to make
decisions on behalf of the people.
7. 7. • “power is exercised behind closed doors” • This is because you can decide or limit what
will be discussed and more importantly what cannot be discussed, effectively controlling the
situation. • Power is not just about decision making, it is about preventing decisions being
made or reducing the choices which can be made.
8. 8. • Power to shape desires • It seeks to identify “ the means though which power influences,
shapes and determines conceptions of necessities, possibilities and strategies of challenge
in situation of conflict.”
 9. 9. Power has been an important aspect of human civilization since time immemorial. Power
might be physical, political or social. In the context of business as well, power dynamics tend
to influence decisions and people transactions heavily.
10. 10. • Involves the usage of threat to make people do what one desires. In the organizational
set up, it translates into threatening someone to transfer, firing, demotions etc. it basically
forces people to submit to one’s demand for the fear of losing something.
11. 11. • Uses rewards, perks, new projects or training opportunities, better roles and monetary
benefits to influence people. • However an interesting aspect of this type of power is that, it is
not powerful enough in itself, as decisions related to rewards do not rest solely with the
person promising them, because in organizations, a lot of other people come into play like
senior managers and board.
12. 12. • This power emanates from an official position held by someone, be it an organization,
bureaucracy or government and etc. The duration of this power is short lived as a person
can use it only till the time he/she holds the position, as well as, the scope of the power is
small as it is strictly defined by the position held.
13. 13. • This is a personal kind of power which owes its genesis to the skills and expertise
possessed by an individual, which is higher quality and not easily available.
14. 14. • Wielded by celebrities and film stars as they have huge following amongst masses who
like them, identify with them and follow them. hence they exert lasting influence on a large
number of people for a large number of decisions; like what car to buy to which candidate to
choose for a higher office in the country.

Power and Consequence

 
Explanations > Power > Power and Consequence
Punishment | Prevention | Power loss | So what?
 

Power and consequence are often closely related. The basic principle is that a person with
power has the ability to create consequences for the target person, who takes these
consequences into account when they are deciding whether to comply with a request or refuse
it.

Punishment
A very common attribute of power is that the wielder of power has the ability to coerce the
target into compliance through the threat of some kind of punishment. The basic transaction is
hence 'Do as I say or else I will harm you in some way'. The person is then faced with the
choice of obedience or suffering the consequences that the powerful person can create.
Punishment can take many forms. In a business setting it can be as direct as being sacked or
less obvious in the way that the target person may be given work that is less desirable than that
they might get if they complied with the request.
Prevention
Some people do not have the power to directly punish, though they may have the ability to
withhold something or prevent the target person getting what they want. The transaction here
is 'Do as I say or else you will not get what you want'.
Prevention in business situations could be loss of cooperation or stopping the person from
getting promoted. It is also seen in 'gateway' roles, for example a personal assistant who has
the power to allow others to speak with their manager or turning the target person away.

Power loss
There is also consequence for the person wielding the power. Sometimes use power of power
leads to gaining more power as the dominated person becomes cowed and hence easier to
persuade in future. Sometimes the use of power has no effect on the balance of power in the
future. And sometimes there is negative consequences for the person using the power, in that
in using power it is spent, like money, and may not be easy to regain.
An example of losing power when it is used is where you have helped a person in the past and
they feel obliged to comply when you ask something of them in return. When they agree to
your request, they then feel the obligation has been discharged and hence you have less power
over them.

So what?
Understand what ability you have when attempting to wield power, particularly in terms of
how you can punish or prevent the other person from getting what they want. When we forget
this, we may not have in practice the full power we could have. When we can create
consequences and the other person does not, then there may need to be a learning cycle for
them.
Also understand how your power is increased or decreased when you use it. This may depend on your
attitude and that of the other person, and is not always clear.

oogle.com/search?q=consequences+of+power
https://study.com/academy/lesson/legitimate-power-in-leadership-
Legitimate power is power you derive from your formal position or office held in the organization's
hierarchy of authority. For example, the president of a corporation has certain powers because of the
office he holds in the corporation.
Like most power, legitimate power is based upon perception and reality. It is based on the reality that
a person holds a particular position in an organization. It's also based on the perception of an
employee that someone holding that position has authority to exert control over her. Legitimate
power as a source of authority has one distinct advantage over many other sources of authority,
which is that it is usually based upon some objective rule or law of the organization.
The 5 Types of
Power in Leadership
Power means many different things to different people. For some, power is
seen as corrupt. For others, the more power they have, the more successful
they feel. For even others, power is of no interest at all. The five bases of
power were identified by John French and Bertram Raven in the early 1960’s
through a study they had conducted on power in leadership roles. The study
showed how different types of power affected one’s leadership ability
and success in a leadership role.

The five bases of power are divided in two categories:

Formal Power
Coercive

Coercive power is conveyed through fear of losing one’s job, being demoted,
receiving a poor performance review, having prime projects taken away, etc.
This power is gotten through threatening others. For example, the VP of Sales
who threatens sales folks to meet their goals or get replaced.

Reward

Reward power is conveyed through rewarding individuals for compliance with

one’s wishes. This may be done through giving bonuses, raises, a promotion,
extra time off from work, etc. For example, the supervisor who provides
employees comp time when they meet an objective she sets for a project.

Legitimate

Legitimate power comes from having a position of power in an organization,

such as being the boss or a key member of a leadership team. This power
comes when employees in the organization recognize the authority of the
individual. For example, the CEO who determines the overall direction of the
company and the resource needs of the company.

Personal Power
Expert

Expert power comes from one’s experiences, skills or knowledge. As we gain

experience in particular areas, and become thought leaders in those areas,
we begin to gather expert power that can be utilized to get others to help us
meet our goals. For example, the Project Manager who is an expert at solving
particularly challenging problems to ensure a project stays on track.

Referent

Referent power comes from being trusted and respected.  We can gain
referent power when others trust what we do and respect us for how we
handle situations. For example, the Human Resource Associate who is known
for ensuring employees are treated fairly and coming to the rescue of those
who are not.

The execution of coercive and legitimate power by an authority assures

cooperation and prohibits free-riding. While coercive power can be
comprised of severe punishment and strict monitoring, legitimate
power covers expert, and informative procedures. The perception of
these powers wielded by authorities stimulates specific cognitions:
trust, relational climates, and motives. With four experiments, the
single and combined impact of coercive and legitimate power on these
processes and on intended cooperation of n1 = 120, n2 = 130, n3 = 368,
and n4 = 102 student participants is investigated within two exemplary
contexts (tax contributions, insurance claims). Findings reveal that
coercive power increases an antagonistic climate and enforced
compliance, whereas legitimate power increases reason-based trust, a
service climate, and voluntary cooperation. Unexpectedly, legitimate
power is additionally having a negative effect on an antagonistic
climate and a positive effect on enforced compliance; these findings
lead to a modification of theoretical assumptions. However, solely
reason-based trust, but not climate perceptions and motives, mediates
the relationship between power and intended cooperation.
Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
Introduction
In a community, contributions to public goods are often obligatory (e.g.,
paying taxes in order to finance health services), but some individuals exploit
the vulnerable system, refraining from participation, and consequently free
ride (Marwell and Ames, 1979). Paying taxes and filing insurance claims are
classic real world examples of the free-rider problem. Thus, communities
employ regulating formal authorities (e.g., tax administration, insurance
companies) with legal measures to persuade free-riders to follow their
obligations and to contribute for the benefit of the community. Thereby, we
define authorities as processes or individuals which organize the cooperation
in a community by an assigned social position that allows to create and
maintain environments and thereby influence the behavior of individuals
(cf. Andringa et al., 2013). In the current article, we focus on formal
authorities. Such authorities have different mechanisms to foster cooperation:
the coercive power and the legitimate power (Andreoni et al.,
1998; Braithwaite, 2009; Gangl et al., 2013). Employing coercive power, an
authority manages behavior with strict monitoring and heavy punishment
whereas by using the legitimate power approach, an authority operates
through legitimacy of its position, expertise, a policy to disseminate relevant
information, and its ability to make others identify with it (Andreoni et al.,
1998; Braithwaite, 2009; Gangl et al., 2013, 2015). The slippery slope
framework (Kirchler et al., 2008; Gangl et al., 2015) postulates that the
perception of both kinds of power stimulate cooperative behavior, but that the
underlying cognitions differ.
We shed light on the cognitions that are elicited via coercive and legitimate
power of authorities and in turn impact the intention to cooperate. Earlier
research shows that coercive power and legitimate power both enhance
cooperation in public good dilemmas, where individual interests collide with
collective ones (Masclet et al., 2003; Tyler, 2006; Van Lange et al., 2013; Hartl
et al., 2015). However, the actual underlying cognitions responsible for the
increase in cooperation are not well-understood.

According to the slippery slope framework the perception of authorities' power

is assumed to impact individuals' cognitions, such as trust in authorities
(implicit and reason-based trust), the relational climate (antagonistic and
service climate), and motives for contribution (enforced compliance, voluntary
cooperation; Gangl et al., 2015). Implicit trust is diminished when authorities
apply coercive power; in contrast, reason-based trust is strengthened by
legitimate power. Coercive power induces an antagonistic climate between
authorities and individuals. Legitimate power stimulates a service climate.
Finally, coercive power leads to enforced compliance, and legitimate power
results in voluntarily cooperation.

In this paper, we investigate the cognitions that operate when coercive and
legitimate power are wielded to prohibit free-riding (e.g., tax evasion and
insurance fraud). The study investigates how coercive power and legitimate
power solely or in combination over perceptions of power influence trust in
authorities, the climate between authorities and individuals, and the motives
of cooperation. Additionally, it analyzes whether the cognitions such as trust,
perceived relational climates or motives, mediate the relationship between
power and intention to cooperate.

In the remainder of this article, the impact of coercive power and legitimate
power on cooperation, trust, relational climates, and motives are defined.
Three laboratory experiments in the tax context and one online experiment in
the insurance context are described, each assessing the impact of power.
Finally, we discuss the results and identify their theoretical and practical
implications for legislation and law enforcement.

The Impact of Power on Cooperation

Power is conceptualized as the capacity of an organization or person to
influence another parties' behavior (e.g., Freiberg, 2010; Gangl et al., 2015).
Following theory on power (cf. harsh vs. soft power in Raven et al., 1998;
coercion vs. persuasion and authority in Turner, 2005; instrumental vs.
normative in Tyler et al., 2010) we distinguish between two primary concepts
of power, coercive power based on deterrence and legitimate power based on
persuasion (Gangl et al., 2015). Coercive power is defined as “harsh” power, as
the capacity to detect and sanction unlawful behavior (Raven et al.,
1998; Turner, 2005). Legitimate power is defined as “soft” power and refers to
the power of position, expertise, dissemination of relevant information, and
identification (Raven et al., 1998, cf. Tyler, 2006). Thus, legitimate power is
defined by formal and informal rules established by a rightfully elected
government (power of position), and by their knowledge about skillful
procedures (power of expertise). In addition, information power and power of
identification are seen as means of legitimate power, whereby information, for
example, is given on how to behave in accordance with the law, and
identification with the authority means that individuals identify with the ideas
of the authority such as a specific political party.

Coercive power and legitimate power are two independent forms, which can
be wielded exclusively or in combination (cf. French and Raven, 1959; Raven,
1992, 1993; Raven et al., 1998). For instance, wielding coercive power by
threatening severe sanctions for unwanted behavior alone is not enough to
explain compliant and cooperative behavior (Fehr and Falk, 2002);
underlying cognitions such as expectations (Copeland and Cuccia, 2002),
reciprocity (Feld and Frey, 2007), and fairness (e.g., Hartner-Tiefenthaler et
al., 2012) additionally encourage cooperation. In line with these aspects, we
argue that legitimate power, such as distributing information about what the
“morally” desired behavior is and the expertly handling of members'
contributions to the communal good, becomes important. Empirical evidence
shows that coercive power, as well as legitimate power, has a positive impact
on cooperative behavior (e.g., Tyler et al., 2010; Hofmann et al., 2014; Hartl et
al., 2015). An interaction effect of coercive and legitimate power on
cooperation has not been found (e.g., Hofmann et al., 2014; Hartl et al., 2015).
Nevertheless, theoretically we would expect that the combination of coercive
power and legitimate power is affecting the cognitions underlying cooperative
behavior via perception of power (Gangl et al., 2015). Thus, although
cooperation might be the same, the underlying cognitions are supposed to be
different.

Power and Trust

The application of power is strongly related to trust, whereby trust means “to
be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the
other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of
the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712).
However, the exact nature of the dynamics and relationship between power
and trust is not clear. Power was shown to decrease but also to increase trust
in authorities (Bachmann, 2001; Bijlsma-Frankema and Costa, 2005; Mulder
et al., 2006; Weibel, 2007; Chenhall et al., 2010; Fu et al., 2013). One reason
for the divergent results might be that the decision to trust can be either based
on reasons or taken implicitly (Castelfranchi and Falcone, 2010), resulting in
two forms of trust: implicit trust (system 1 trust) and reason-based trust
(system 2 trust). Implicit trust is defined as an automatic and unintentional
reaction to stimuli that are associated with positive past experiences or a
shared identity. For instance, a taxpayer trusts implicitly in a tax authority, if
s/he feels trust immediately without any considerations; this automatic
reaction can stem from past positive experiences that ended in a learning
process that the tax authority can be trusted. Reason-based trust is defined as
a deliberate decision to trust another party based on the evaluation of the
other parties' good intentions and internal and external fostering and
hindering circumstances to comply with the good intentions (Castelfranchi
and Falcone, 2010). Such as a taxpayer weighs whether a tax authority is to be
trusted by considering whether the tax authority is pursuing a goal that is
valuable to the taxpayer, whether the tax authority is acting motivated,
benevolently, and competently, and whether there are external factors
fostering or hindering the tax authority's actions.

The slippery slope framework argues that coercive power damages implicit
trust (Gangl et al., 2015); as coercion signals authorities' distrust, it may
weaken affective and social bonds with authorities, thereby interrupting
habitual and implicit cooperation (Kramer, 1999; Das and Teng, 2001).
Legitimate power, on the other hand, strengthens trust (Fu et al., 2013); when
authorities are perceived as knowledgeable and legitimate in their position,
reason-based trust increases. Perceived assistance by experts who work on a
transparent legal basis provides many reasons to trust in the competence,
motivation, and benevolence of authorities (Bijlsma-Frankema and Van de
Bunt, 2002; Malhotra and Murnighan, 2002). For reason-based trust, a strong
relationship with legitimate power is assumed because authorities with high
levels of legitimate power are perceived as being competent to provide
assistance and support (Gangl et al., 2015).

The direct impact of power on trust might in turn also impact cooperation.
Thus, trust might be a mediator for the relationship between power and
cooperation. However, up to now, most empirical research treats trust as a
moderator of the impact of power on cooperation. A meta-analysis shows that
power in a trusted environment leads to more cooperation than does power
that is exerted in a low-trust environment (Balliet and Van Lange, 2013).
Furthermore, experiments show that sanctions exerted by trusted authorities,
compared to non-trusted authorities, evoke stronger moral judgments about
free-riders (Mulder et al., 2009). There is empirical evidence that power also
directly impacts trust (Kramer, 1999; Bijlsma-Frankema and Costa, 2005; Fu
et al., 2013). Thus, we assume that trust is not only a moderator but also a
mediator between power and cooperation. Coercive and legitimate power
impact trust and might consequently influence cooperation with the
authorities.

Power and Relational Climates

The slippery slope framework postulates that exerting power establishes
specific relational climates, whereby climate is defined as the perceived quality
of interaction between authorities and individuals (Victor and Cullen,
1988; Martin and Cullen, 2006). This is a “psychological climate that
characterizes climate as an individual-level and personal perception” (Ehrhart
et al., 2013, p. 70). Two climates can be distinguished in relation to power, the
antagonistic climate and the service climate (Kirchler et al., 2008; Gangl et al.,
2015). Coercive power and negative experiences with authority trigger an
aversive antagonistic climate in which distrust prevails. In such a climate, the
authority convicts members of misconduct and suspects others as criminals.
In turn, individuals hide from the authority, which justifies stricter controls
and sanctions that intensify the vicious circle of distrust (Kirchler et al.,
2008).

In contrast, legitimate power and positive impressions of the authorities'

intents and work lead to a friendly relational climate in which the authority
acts client-oriented. In such a service climate, the authority presents all
necessary information for the community members to behave in accordance
with the rules. It applies services to support members' cooperation (e.g.,
preprinted tax forms) to make cooperation easier and non-cooperation more
difficult (Gangl et al., 2015).

Empirical research on the impact of power on climates is rare (Alm and

Torgler, 2006; Hofmann et al., 2014). Derived from a study on the
relationship commitment of business partners (Fu et al., 2013), connections
between power and the service climate can be assumed. Legitimate power
relates positively to a service climate (i.e., relationship commitment), whereas
coercive power relates negatively to it. Based on these results, we predict that
in general, coercive power stimulates an antagonistic climate, whereas
legitimate power stimulates a service climate. However, the effects on climate
when coercive power and legitimate power are exerted simultaneously are not
clear as empirical studies are lacking.

Power and Motives for Cooperation

Forms of power also encourage different motives for cooperation (Kirchler et
al., 2008; Gangl et al., 2015). The punishment aspect of coercive power
prompts enforced compliance as threat of severe punishment. Thus, enforced
compliance is defined as motive to cooperate because of the deterrent effect of
monitoring and punishment (Kirchler et al., 2008). Enforced motivation only
leads to cooperation when individuals fear monitoring and punishment and
therefore think there is no alternative to comply with the rules (van Meegeren,
2001; Kirchler et al., 2008). Coercive power is effective as long as there are
sufficient resources to detect breaches of rules and to undertake subsequent
punishment (Becker, 1968; Mulder et al., 2009). In cases in which violations
are not discovered or not avenged, coercive power is perceived as weak and,
therefore, enforced motives, as well as cooperation decline.

Legitimate power, on the other hand, increases voluntary cooperation.

Voluntary cooperation is defined as a motivation to cooperate with the
authorities because one wants to reciprocate the positive experience gained
through applied legitimate power (Kelman, 2006). Legitimate power activates
a felt urge to reciprocate the legitimate treatment (Feld and Frey, 2007). Thus,
individuals voluntarily accept their obligation to cooperate. Authorities
support customers and clients (e.g., tax authorities offer pre-printed forms
that can be submitted without the need for the taxpayer to fill in the form) so
that cooperation is perceived as easy and a natural reciprocal act. Although,
coercive power and legitimate power are assumed to increase cooperation, the
rationale behind cooperation differs fundamentally 1.
When coercive and legitimate power are applied together, the resulting
motives to comply are unclear. Although, results indicate cooperative behavior
based on coercive and legitimate power, the underlying cognitions are still
unexplored (Hofmann et al., 2014; Hartl et al., 2015). First, empirical evidence
indicates that people cooperate voluntarily when legitimate power is high, but
only under the condition that rule-breakers can be punished (Kroll et al.,
2007). Thus, the combination of coercive and legitimate power seems to
increase voluntary cooperation and enforced compliance. In general we
assume that the combination of coercive power and legitimate has the same
impact as if coercive power and legitimate power were applied solely.

Overview of Studies
We examine the cognitions underlying the intentions to cooperate in different
social dilemma situations. In order to investigate differences in cognitions
induced by extremely low or high levels of coercive and/or extremely low or
high levels of legitimate power an experimental design is opted for. The
experiments allow for controlling other possible influences and showing the
pure influence of coercive and legitimate power.

The current studies were embedded in a broader research program testing the
impact of the two forms of power—solely and combined. Hartl et al.
(2015) examined the impact of beliefs of coercive and legitimate power on tax
behavior and found a significant effect of both on experimental cooperative
behavior. However, so far, the underlying and probably mediating cognitions
of why people intent to cooperate with authority have not been analyzed.
Hence, this study investigates the underlying cognitions of this behavior. As
such, we analyze intended tax compliance but not behavior (partial correlation
controlling for conditions between tax honesty intention and tax payments
is r = 0.58, p < 0.001 in Study 1, r = 0.60, p < 0.001 in Study 2, and r =
0.64, p < 0.001 in Study 3). We examine the following three hypotheses:
 Hypothesis 1a: Coercive power leads to low levels of implicit trust, an
antagonistic climate, and enforced compliance.
Hypothesis 1b: Coercive power leads to low levels of implicit trust, an
antagonistic climate, and enforced compliance, when at the same time
legitimate power is wielded.
Hypothesis 2a: Legitimate power leads to reason-based trust, a service
climate, and voluntary cooperation.
Hypothesis 2b: Legitimate power leads to reason-based trust, a service
climate, and voluntary cooperation, when at the same time coercive power
is wielded.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between coercive power and/or legitimate
power and intended cooperation is mediated by implicit trust, reason-
based trust, the antagonistic climate, the service climate, enforced
compliance and voluntary cooperation.

To test these hypotheses, following standard procedures (cf. Kirchler et al.,

2009) we conducted laboratory experiments and an online experiment. In the
laboratory experiments, participants imagined being a taxpayer in a fictitious
country (Chomland) in which tax authorities wield coercive power (Study 1) or
legitimate power (Study 2) exclusively or in combination (Study 3). In the
online experiment, coercive and legitimate power were manipulated in
combination, but rather than investigating tax compliance, the decision
concerned an insurance claim (Study 4).

To measure the level of cooperation, participants had to decide how much of

their income they declare honestly to pay taxes and how much they claim at
the insurance for compensation, respectively. For reasons of comparison, the
designs of the four studies and the procedures are similar, facilitating
conclusions on the effects of the different forms of power across various
contexts. A between-subjects design of the laboratory experiments assured
that participants were confronted with low or high forms of power.
https://www.frontiersin.org/

Study 1: Coercive Power in the Tax Context

Methods

Participants

In all, 120 students (64% men, Mage = 24.48, SD = 5.85) majoring in several

different disciplines participated on a voluntary basis and were paid according
to their behavior in the experiment. As student populations are specifically
naïve regarding experiences with tax authorities and our hypotheses, they
specifically suit hypotheses testing in this context (Mittone, 2006).

Experimental Design and Procedure

The study was conducted by randomly assigning participants to one of two

conditions. All participants were asked to imagine being self-employed
taxpayers in the fictitious country Chomland with a hypothetical tax authority
(for similar tax experiments see, e.g., Kirchler et al., 2009; Andrighetto et al.,
2016). Specifically participants learnt “In each period a certain income is
allocated to you, of which you have to pay taxes. The tax rate is 40% of your
income. In each period your final income is the result of the allocated income
minus the taxes paid. At the end of the experiment one period will be selected
randomly. The income that you have gained in this period will be paid to you
by the experimenter. Additionally, for each period there exists a tax audit
probability of 15%. In case you are audited and you have evaded taxes, you
have to pay back the evaded amount plus a fine of 1 time the evaded amount.”
The final income was paid out by the experimenter.

In the two conditions, the tax authority held either low or high levels of
coercive power. A tax authority with low/high levels of coercive power was, for
example, described as “… well-known for its lenient/hard sanctions.” After
participants were introduced to the experimental set-up, a taxpayer's life was
simulated using the software z-Tree (Fischbacher, 2007). Participants were
asked to answer two items about their intention to pay taxes honestly in this
situation (tax honesty intention, two items; e.g., “How likely is it that you, as a
citizen of Chomland, state your income and expenses totally correctly?”). After
that, participants paid their taxes, whereby at the end of the experiment
participants were remunerated based on their behavior [participants received
on average 5.99 EUR (SD = 1.22) or 7.66 USD (SD = 1.56), respectively].

Material

In all treatment conditions, participants had to fill out a questionnaire. The

questionnaire assessed implicit trust (three items; e.g., “I trust the tax
authority in Chomland without thinking about it.”), reason-based trust (seven
items; e.g., “I trust the tax authority in Chomland because it gives me
competent advice.”), the antagonistic climate (three items; e.g., “Between the
tax authority in Chomland and taxpayers there exists a climate of
ruthlessness.”), the service climate (three items; e.g., “Between the tax
authority in Chomland and taxpayers there exists a climate that is
characterized by its service-oriented nature.”), enforced compliance (three
items; e.g., “When I pay taxes according to the law in Chomland, I do so
because the tax authority often carries out audits.”), and voluntary
cooperation (three items; e.g., “When I pay taxes according to the law in
Chomland, I do so because the tax authority supports taxpayers who make
unintentional mistakes.”). As a manipulation check, we asked participants'
perceptions of the tax authority's coercive power (four items; e.g., “I believe
that the tax authority persecutes taxpayers with audits and fines.”) and
legitimate power (22 items; e.g., “I believe that the tax authority knows how to
give good advice to taxpayers.”) by adapting published scales from the
organizational context (Hinkin and Schriesheim, 1989; Raven et al., 1998) to
the tax context (all items are listed in Supplementary Material). The scale of
legitimate power compounded four sub-scales (legitimacy, expertise,
information, identification), but for the sake of simplicity and due to the tested
measurement models, the sub-scales were combined into one scale. Responses
were indicated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“I totally
disagree”) to 7 (“I totally agree”). Cronbach's α for the eight scales were
excellent and can be found in Table 1.

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article

In 1959, French and Raven described five bases of power:

1. Legitimate – This comes from the belief that a person has the formal
right to make demands, and to expect others to be compliant and obedient.
2. Reward – This results from one person's ability to compensate another
for compliance.
3. Expert – This is based on a person's high levels of skill and knowledge.
4. Referent – This is the result of a person's perceived attractiveness,
worthiness and right to others' respect.
5. Coercive – This comes from the belief that a person can punish others
for noncompliance.
Six years later, Raven added an extra power base:

6. Informational – This results from a person's ability to control the

information that others need to accomplish something.
By understanding these different forms of power, you can learn to use the
positive ones to full effect, while avoiding the negative power bases that
managers can instinctively rely on.
The Bases of Power
Let's explore French and Raven's bases of power in two groups – positional
and personal.

Positional Power Sources

Legitimate Power
A president, prime minister or monarch has legitimate power. So does a CEO,
a religious minister, or a fire chief. Electoral mandates, social hierarchies,
cultural norms, and organizational structure all provide the basis for legitimate
power.

This type of power, however, can be unpredictable and unstable. If you lose
the title or position, your legitimate power can instantly disappear, because
people were influenced by the position you held rather than by you.

Also, the scope of your power is limited to situations that others believe you
have a right to control. If a fire chief tells people to stay away from a burning
building, for example, they'll likely listen. But if he tries to make two people act
more courteously toward one another, they'll likely ignore the instruction.

Reward Power
People in power are often able to give out rewards . Raises, promotions,
desirable assignments, training opportunities, and simple compliments – these
are all examples of rewards controlled by people "in power." If others expect
that you'll reward them for doing what you want, there's a high probability that
they'll do it.
The problem with this power base is that it may not be as strong as it first
seems. Supervisors rarely have complete control over salary increases,
managers often can't control promotions by themselves, and even CEOs need
permission from their boards of directors  for some actions. Also, when you
use up rewards, or when the rewards don't have enough perceived value,
your power weakens.
Tip:
The exceptions to this are praise  and thanks . We love to receive them and,
best of all, they're free to give!
Coercive Power
This source of power is also problematic, and can be abused. What's more, it
can cause dissatisfaction or resentment among the people it's applied to.

Threats and punishment are common coercive tools. You use coercive power
when you imply or threaten that someone will be fired, demoted or denied
privileges. While your position may allow you to do this, though, it doesn't
mean that you have the will or the justification to do so. You may sometimes
need to punish people  as a last resort but if you use coercive power too much,
people will leave. (You might also risk being accused of bullying them.)
Informational Power
Having control over information  that others need or want puts you in a
powerful position. Having access to confidential financial reports, being aware
of who's due to be laid off, and knowing where your team is going for its
annual “away day” are all examples of informational power.
In the modern economy, information is a particularly potent form of power.
The power derives not from the information itself but from having access to it,
and from being in a position to share, withhold, manipulate, distort, or conceal
it. With this type of power, you can use information to help others, or as a
weapon or a bargaining tool against them.

Personal Power Sources

Relying on these positional forms of power alone can result in a cold,
technocratic, impoverished style of leadership. To be a true leader, you need
a more robust source of power than a title, an ability to reward or punish, or
access to information.

Expert Power
When you have knowledge and skills that enable you to understand a
situation, suggest solutions, use solid judgment, and generally outperform
others, people will listen to you, trust you, and respect what you say. As a
subject matter expert , your ideas will have value, and others will look to you
for leadership in that area.
What's more, you can expand your confidence , decisiveness and reputation
for rational thinking  into other subjects and issues. This is a good way to
build and maintain expert power, and to improve your leadership skills.
You can read more about building expert power, and using it as an effective
foundation for leadership, here .
Referent Power
Referent power comes from one person liking and respecting another, and
identifying with her in some way. Celebrities have referent power, which is
why they can influence everything from what people buy to which politician
they elect. In a workplace, a person with referent power often makes everyone
feel good, so he tends to have a lot of influence.

Referent power can be a big responsibility, because you don't necessarily

have to do anything to earn it. So, it can be abused quite easily. Someone
who is likeable, but who lacks integrity  and honesty, may rise to power – and
use that power to hurt and alienate people as well as to gain personal
advantage.
Relying on referent power alone is not a good strategy for a leader who wants
longevity and respect. When it is combined with expert power, however, it can
help you to be very successful.

pply This to Your Life

1. Go through each power base and write down when and how you've
used it.
2. Ask yourself if you used the power appropriately. Consider the
expected and unexpected consequences, and decide what you'll do
differently next time.
3. Think about the people who have power and influence over you. What
sources of power do they use? Do they use their power appropriately?
Where necessary, develop a strategy to reduce someone else's illegitimate
use of power over you.
4. When you feel powerless or overly influenced, think about how you
could regain your own power and control. After all, you're never without
power. Aim to be more aware of the power you have, and use it to get
what you need – humanely.
This site teaches you the skills you need for a happy and successful career;
and this is just one of many tools and resources that you'll find here at Mind
Tools. Subscribe to our free newsletter, or join the Mind Tools Club and
really supercharge your career!
Add this article to My Learning Plan
Hide Ratings
 Ratings
Rate this resource
Free login needed. Login / Create Log in.
martinintha 2020-08-30 18:38:48
OlgaKeliy 2020-04-07 19:58:04

Very interesting overview of different kinds of power and their applicability in the workplace
Akshayjoshi 2020-02-02 03:39:57
Architect00 2019-11-22 07:26:09
noadna11 2019-10-24 10:00:11

A great reminder of power bases, how they can be used and who holds the power


 1

 2

 3

 …

 30

Join the Mind Tools Club and Get 4 FREE
Workbooks!
The Mind Tools Club gives you training, help and ideas to boost your career,
including 4 free workbooks.
Find Out More

Join the Mind Tools ClubSign up for our FREE newsletter

225

Comments (46)
 Post Comment

 Over a month agoMichele wrote

Hi StephanieDeschenes,

The questionnaire is no longer available. We update the article to include an

infographic on the topic.

Michele
Mind Tools Team
 Over a month agoStephanieDeschenes wrote
Where can I find the French and Raven Questionnaire?
 Over a month agoMichele wrote
Hi huidatrandomboi,

Although Raven and French developed their theory on the Five Forms of Power in
1959, the concepts are still taught in management classes today. More recent theories
often build upon those developed in the past.

Michele
Mind Tools Team
View All Comments

Previous ArticleNext Article

Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Receive new career skills every week, plus get our latest offers and a free downloadable Personal
Development Plan workbook.
Read our Privacy Policy

Subscribe

YOUR VIEWS
 Provide Your Feedback

What Bugs You

Let us know your suggestions or any bugs on the site, and you could win a
$50 Amazon voucher!

Click here to tell us.

SPONSORED LINKS

Toolkit
 Leadership Skills (60)
 Team Management (310)
 Strategy Tools (144)
 Problem Solving (47)
 Decision Making (57)
 Project Management (65)
 Time Management (64)
 Stress Management (76)
 Communication Skills (150)
 Creativity Tools (29)
 Learning Skills (56)
 Career Skills (212)

My Learning Plan

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Receive new career skills every week, plus get our latest offers and a free downloadable Personal
Development Plan workbook.

Read our Privacy Policy

Subscribe
 About Mind Tools

 About Mind Tools

 Join the Club for $1
 Mind Tools Content
 Club Member Stories
 FAQs
 Contact Us
 Careers
Newsletter

 Newsletter Sign Up
 Email Preferences

Store

 Mind Tools Store

Corporate Solutions

 Corporate Solutions
 Emerald Works
Legal

 Privacy Policy
 Terms of Use
 Acceptable Use Policy
 Cookies
 Permissions
 Accessibility
© Emerald Works Limited 2020. All rights reserved. "Mind Tools" is a registered trademark of
Emerald Works Limited.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006

The resolution of this case turns on whether it is the COA or the RTC which has primary jurisdiction
to pass upon petitioner’s money claim against the Province of Batangas. We rule that it is the COA
which does. Therefore, we deny the petition.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained
in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter may well be
within their proper jurisdiction. 10 It applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and
comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a
regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative agency. In
such a case, the court in which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial process
pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view 11 or, if the parties would not be
unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice. 12

This case is one over which the doctrine of primary jurisdiction clearly held sway for although petit

dn.ymaws.com/www.uuma.org/resource/collection

https://www.politicalscienceview.com/concept-of-power-in-political-science/

niversity of Political Science

The Encyclopedia of Political Science

 Home

 Political Thought

 Political Systems

 International Politics & Relations

 Best Political Science Book

 Scholars

 Articles
 Concept of Power in Political Science
Power is the crux of politics local, national and international. Since the
beginning of humanity power has been occupying the central position in
human relations. In order to comprehend international politics and
relations the study of the concept of power in political science  is a must.
“The relation between the state and power is very close. In the words of
Hartman, power lurks in the background of all relations between sovereign
states.” In this way, all inter state relations are ultimately relations of power
politics.

Politics is nothing other than the pursuit and exercise of power and that
political relations are mainly power relations. Study of international relations
reveals that power has been the most crucial means for achieving national
interests. That is why every nation wants to attain, maintain and utilize
power. It is both an end as well as means of international politics. The
position of a state in the comity of nations is determined not by
its civilization or culture or literary contribution, but by its power. Every state
possesses power though in different amount and kind. Thus, one cannot
ignore power while studying international relations.

Meaning Nature And Concept Of Power In Political Science:

Power, Force, Influence and Authority

Power, influence, authority and capability are related terms , and often used
interchangeably and loosely. Such a use creates a conceptual confusion. An
attempt has been made to remove this contusion by defining each term
separately in the following Paragraph

The master of statecraft in ancient India Kautilya wrote about power in the

fourth century B.C. as the possession of strength (an attribute) derived from
three elements: knowledge, military and valor. Twenty three centuries later,
Hans Morgenthau following Kautilya’s realistic line preferred to define
power as relationship between two political actors in which actor A has the
ability to control the mind and actions of actor.

Thus, power, in the words of Morgenthau “may comprise anything that

establishes and maintains control of man over man (and it) covers all social
relationship which serve that end, from physical violence to the most subtle
psychological ties by which one mind controls another.” Power is viewed
both as a set of attributes of a given actor as well as a relationship between
two actors The simple way to understand the concept of power is to see it as a
relationship of independent entities. Similarly, the best way to Operationalize
and measure a state’s capacity to exercise power is to look on its Specific
attributes and elements which can be easily measured.
Schwarzenberger defines it as the capacity to impose one’s will on others by
reliance on effective sanctions in case of non compliance. He distinguished it
from both influence and force by regarding it as containing a threat not
present in influence and yet stopping short of the actual use of force.

While defining power, Schleicher also makes a distinction between power

and influence. Power is the ability to make others do what they otherwise
would not do by rewarding or promising to reward or by depriving or
threatening to deprive them of something they value. But influence means to
change the behavior of others through their consent by persuasion rather than
through the exercise of coercion. In his own words, Power relationship is
marked clearly by the occurrence of threats, influence relationship is
manifested without the presence of threatened sanctions.

To Dahl power is ability to shift the probability of outcomes. According to

him, A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that
B would not otherwise do. Hartmann observes that power ma infests itself
along the line of influence beginning with latent or unintended use of power
(that is to say, persuasion) through conscious but regulated power (that is to
say, pressure) and reaching up to its final gradation (that is to say, use of
farce). In brief, Duchacek defines it as the capacity to produce intended
effects to realize one’s will. Thus power is the ability to control the behavior
of others in accordance with one’s own intentions and interests.

Couloumbis and Wolfe define power as an umbrella concept that denotes

anything that establishes and maintains the control of Actor A over Actor B.
Power, in turn, can be seen as having three important ingredients. The first
ingredient is force, which can be defined as the explicit threat or the use of
military, economic, and other instruments, of coercion by Actor A against
Actor B in pursuit of A political objectives. The second ingredient is
influence, which we define as the use of instruments of persuasion short of
force by Actor A in order to maintain or alter the behavior of Actor B in a
fashion, suitable to the preferences of Actor A.

The third ingredient of power is authority, which we will define as Actor B

voluntary compliance with directives (prescriptions, orders) issued by Actor
A, nurtured by B perceptions regarding A-a such as respect, solidarity,
affection, affinity, leadership, knowledge, expertise. hey thus clarify the
meaning not only of power but also of influence, force and authority. They
also depict umbrella concept of power as follows:

Capability:

Some scholars like Lerche and Said have used the term capability instead of
power because the latter lays over emphasis on coercion which they don’t
like. According to them, capability is always the ability to do something, to
act purposefully in an actual situation.Power also implies this and popularly
power often becomes a status to which states aspire and which a few achieve.
Scholars sometimes think of a powerful state in the abstract, without
considering how much that state can actually do in immediate action
situation. Capability preserves the necessary nexus with policy and action
that a careless use of power often overlooks. For these reasons they use the
former term to refer to the overall action competent of states. On the other
hand, Couloumbis and Wolfe prefer to interpret capability as the tangible and
intangible attributes of nation states that permit these actors to exercise
various degrees of power in their contacts with other actors. Technically the
term power is distinct from the term capability. Most of the scholars prefer to
use the term power. Respecting this preference we will adhere to the term
power in subsequent paragraphs.

National Power
Power possessed by a nation state is known as national power. In the words
of Padelford and Lincoln, National power is the sum total of the strength and
capabilities of state harnessed and applied to the advancement of its national
interests and the attainment of its national objectives. In a formal sense,
national power has been defined by agrarian, as the strength or capacity that a
sovereign state can use to achieve its national interests. This power alone
enables a state to defend its interests in the long run and to produce desired
results. It is an indicator to the ability to influence opinion, human behavior,
and course of events outside its own frontiers.

National power, according to Anam Jaitly is a  capacity to influence people

domestically and other nations externally, toward certain desired national
preferences and induce a favorable response from these sectors for
accomplishing these preferences. It has an instrumental value for
understanding higher national objectives in a competitive world. In the
Opinion of another Indian scholar Jangarn, “national power is the
wherewithal or means of conducting nations foreign policies or the pursuit of
national goals.” He defined it as the capacity of nations for the pursuit of
different stakes territorial, political, economic, social, cultural and those
relating to prestige and goodwill.

National power taken in this sense is constituted by a number of elements,

constituents or factors. Ebenstein also defines national power in terms of its
attributes and elements. According to him, National power is more than the
sum total of population, raw material and quantitative factors. The alliance
potential of a nation, its civic devotion, the flexibility of its institutions, its
technical know how, its capacity to endure privation these are but a few
quantitative elements that determine the total strength of a nation. These
elements and attributes of national power will be discussed in detail in the
next.

Discussion on the nature and importance of power can be summed up in the

words of Organski, Power, then, is the ability to influence the behavior of
others in accordance with one own ends. Unless a nation can do this she may
be large, she may be wealthy, she may even be great but she is not powerful.

Kinds Of Power:
There are three types of power which are explained below:

1. Physical Power:

Military strength of a state is known as physical power. Both USA and USSR
are top ranking power owing to their military might. Government of a state
enjoys political power because of the subordination of the military to the
political authority. Whenever this subordination is disturbed military
leadership or commander snatch political power. It is exactly in this way that
various coup detach take place in the world and political power changes
hands. As a result of the rapid technological development, the physical power
of the state is divided among its different wings such as the armed force, the
air force, the navy and of late, the nuclear force with its missiles.

Separation of military power among different wings has provided some

safeguard to political authority from Usurpation of power by military
leadership. It is also the cause of not providing any unified command of the
three wings in India. There is no harm in increasing and consolidating
military strength as it further enhances a nation’s power. But at the same time
concrete steps must be taken to make military subordinate to political
authority. Military should not be allowed to indulge in political affairs and
activities.

2. Psychological Power:

It is a power over public opinion. It consists of symbolic devices that are

utilized to appeal to the emotions of men. This power is identical with that of
propaganda. It is an endeavor to regulate thoughts and actions of others
through propaganda. Propaganda is motivated and could be for good or evil.
Power over opinion is essential for boosting the morale of the people at
home, carrying on the psychological warfare abroad, and for acquiring moral
leadership everywhere.

Psychological power is used very tactfully. In India, the Republic Day Parade
of the local made tanks and weapons is meant to impress upon the other
nations its growing military power. The Krernlin’s display of rockets and
tanks on the occasion of the anniversary of the October Revolution was also a
use of psychological power. The governments use propaganda techniques
expand psychological power among the population of the rival states, many
of which have their Special broadcasting services for overseas people. For
example, All India Radio has external services in Russian, Chinese, Hindi,
Bengali, Urdu, Pushtu, Nepali, English etc. The BBC, Voice of America and
Tashkent Radio have an extensive overseas service in foreign languages.
Psychological power is usually employed to weaken the opponent countries
by spreading disloyalty among their people and instigating t2hem against
their governments.

3. Economic Power:

Economic power is the ability to control the behavior of other nations by

having greater control over economic goods and services. A highly
industrialized and economically sound country can influence the behavior of
the needy nations by giving them economic aid and rewards and offering
them capital and technical assistance. Economic development enhances the
capacity of a nation to influence others through persuasion and also enables it
to resist persuasion and punishment by others and both of them are the
important methods of power.

 Economically prosperous state possesses the ability to buy and the ability to
sell and both are used to increase a nation’s power through international
trade. A state’s foreign trade is meant to increase, economic dependence of
another country upon ones own. Nepal and Bhutan are dependent upon India
for their trade. The US multinational companies control the economies of the
Latin American countries and nearly two thirds of their foreign trade is with
United States. A large share of the foreign trade of Western Europe and Japan
has been with the US and thus the economy of these countries has been made
dependent upon smooth political ties with the US. The developed countries
follow what has been propagated as economic aid policy towards the
developing countries. This aid policy has created a large stock pile of credit
of the developed Western countries among the developing countries but is
proving to be of dubious political advantage.

Methods Of Exercising Power:

The question arises how can Nation A influence Nation B? How can it
exercise power? There are four means and methods by which one nation can
influence or control other as per its own desire. These are:

1. Persuasion:

It is the most common and widely used way of exercising power. In this
method what Nation A does is to influence Nation B by way of arguments or
superior logic or to redefine the whole situation so that Nation B changes its
mind about what it ought to do. Most of the delegates of international
organizations employ this method and persuade . Each other Small nations
largely rely on this less expensive method because they lack power and
means to coerce.

2. Rewards:

Nation A can regulate Nation B for doing what Nation A wants by offering
its various rewards. Rewards for compliance  may include psychological
manipulation, material support, economic aid, military assistance and
political support. A diplomat may alter his stand to win the appreciation of
his fellow diplomats from other nations. The rewards can be material in the
shape of territory, military aid, weapons, troops and training facilities. The
rewards may, be economic in the form of aid, loans, grants, capital supply,
technical assistance etc. Political rewards consist of support for another
nation’s viewpoint in international conferences and forums. 

3. Punishment:

Reward and punishment have close relationship. The most effective

punishment is to with old reward. Punishment may also include hostile
activities like unfriendly propaganda, diplomatic opposition and aid to the
enemy of the state concerned. It, however, should be threatened in advance
and  not actually carried out. The most effective punishment is rarely meted
out because the very threat of it succeeds in preventing the action which the
punishes disapproves. As a last resort if it is to be carried out, it should be
given in such a way that it can be withdrawn at once when the offending
party changes and subscribes to the way shown by the punishing Party

4. Force:

Punishment is Usually threatened as a preventive measure but when it is

actually carried out, it becomes the use of force Thus, punishment and force
are not strictly separated from each other through some distinction from the
viewpoint of prevention and actuality and the intensity of hostility, between
these two is made for the purpose of analysis. The most extreme form of the
use of force is war. Force is always used as the last resort when the above
three methods prove futile.

It can be said again for the sake of clarification that the first two methods
persuasion and reward constitute influence while the last two punishment and
force form power. The  analysis of these four means reveals that what
distinguishes power from influence is Coercion or force.

Dimensions Of Power:
Deutsch gives three dimensions of power that can be easily measured and
that allow analysis to quantify and rank the actual and projected capabilities
of nation states. In brief these dimensions are as follows:

1. Domain of Power:

Domain answers the question, over whom power is exercised. Power is often
exercised over people, territory and wealth. Domain can be divided into
internal domain and external domain. In the context of international relations
only the external domain is relevant. It means the ability of nation states to
exercise their power outside their territorial limits. For instance, the external
domain of the US would comprise all other members of the NATO, ANZUS
Treaty  and OAS, and some other states which have entered into bilateral
defense pacts or understanding with the US.

Like the concept of external domain, Rosenau has propounded the concept of
penetration which he defines as a process in which members of one polity
serve as participants in the political process of another Some of the pointers
to penetration are the number of basis and facilities a country maintains in
other states, the size of military missions in other states and the quantity of
foreign aid given etc. Penetration manifests itself in colonialism, Neo-
colonialism, imperialism and dependency.
2. Range of Power:

Deutsch defines range as the difference between the highest  reward (or
indulgence) and the worst punishment (or deprivation) which a power holder
can bestow (or inflict) upon some person in his domain. Range has also
internal and external components. Within its territory a state may control its
people by benign and tyrannical measures. Governments can exercise power
over their subjects both  through rewards as well as punishment. The rewards
include welfare measures, democratic rights, facilities etc. Punishment can be
given to those who disobey the government. In thee external range,
colonialism and Neo-colonialism could be regarded as the external analogue
of tyranny.

On the other hand,a mutually beneficial alliance or an equitable structure for

economic cooperation among nation states is more akin to a just and benign
national government. A powerful state can punish directly or indirectly a
weak country if the latter does not follow the former’s line. Such punishment
may stretch from hostile propaganda to military intervention. On the other
hand, the reward can be in the form of economic, military and diplomatic
help.

3. Scope of Power:

The scope of power, in the words of  Deutsch,is the set or collection of all the
particular kinds of classes of behavior, relations and affairs that are
effectively subjected to governmental power. This set of collection embraces
all the types of activities a government seeks to control, domestic as well as
foreign. Technological revolution has substantially increased the internal and
external scope of power. In the present times the external control has taken
various forms and become subtle and complex. A powerful state can now
exercise power over the other state without firing a single shot.

For example most of the Latin American countries are economically and
politically controlled by the US albeit they are not its formal colonies.
Multinational corporations play a role in this machination of dependency and
interdependence.

Today, countries are dependent on one another for such important things as
technologies energy materials such as oil, uranium, and natural gas,
investment capital, managerial personnel, unskilled labor, military
equipment, and information processing systems.

Role And Use Of Power:

Power in international relations may be used by a nation for various purposes,
the chief among them are:

National security:

Defense of its territory and sovereignty is the main purpose of any modern
state. National security is the vital national interest as well as major
determinant of foreign policy of every nation. Power plays a significant role
in achieving this purpose and vital interest. Every nation has a department or
ministry in charge of the defense of the country. This shows how all states
feel that military or physical power must be possessed in the interest of
national security. Many nations have fought defensive wars.

A defensive war may be pre-emptive or preventive. A pre-emptive war is one

initiated by a defensive power in order to forestall an attack believed to be
imminent. Military might and preparedness is essential to deter the
interference of opponents, or, if they do occur to stop them. During cold war
days the USA justified her large nuclear stock pile on the ground that it is
necessary as a deterrent power. The US sought to deter the Soviet Union by
making it known that her nuclear striking, force is capable of surviving a
surprise attack and capable of taking equally destructive retaliatory step.
During Gulf War (1991) the US not only protected its vital interests but also
compelled Iraq forces to vacate Kuwait With the help of its superior and
sophisticated defense forces.

Preserving Status Quo:

The policy of status quo aims at preserving the distribution of power

prevalent at any time in history. The moment in history taken as a reference
for pursuing the status quo policy is, often, the termination of war. After the
end of a war peace-treaty is signed indicating the new shift in power. Nations
following the policy of status quo utilize power to preserve the new shift in
the balance of power. For example from 1815 to 1848, certain European
governments pursued a policy of status quo, using their power to defend the
Peace Settlement of 1815. U.S.A. Monroe Doctrine (1823) and Truman
Doctrine (1946) are other examples of using power for maintaining the status
quo in the American hemisphere and West Europe respectively. The policy of
status quo permits minor changes. But a major change altering the supreme
position of the nation Pursuing the policy will not be tolerated by it.

Changing Status Quo:

Nations also use power to change status quo in their favor or pursue a policy
of imperialism. Any effort to change  the existing distribution of power in its
favor means that state is following a policy of imperialism. The most open
and crude type of imperialism is military imperialism. Today, it is replaced
by other more covert forms of imperial policy, such as economic and cultural
imperialism. Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler and more recently Saddam Hussain
used military power for their expansion. At times even nations claiming to
fight defensive wars, as the allies in World Wars, may be tempted to have a
treaty which not merely restores the pre-war balance but a new balance in its
favor for instance, the Treaty of Versailles which endeavored to keep
Germany permanently weak. At times, existence of power vacuum or weak
neighbors may tempt powerful states to take interest in those areas. Military
adventure as a method of using power is a gamble.

It may succeed or may be lost. Economic imperialism or neocolonialism is

less obtrusive. Economic expansion may be in the form of controlling foreign
markets, exporting capital, providing economic aid and loans and operating
multinational corporations. Another Subtle way of changing status quo is
cultural imperialism. It does not indulge in the conquest of territory and its
forcible retention, nor in economic penetration, instead it endeavors o change
the existing balance of power by conquering the minds of people.

This is achieved through propaganda. Just as nations find it necessary to be

armed and ready to meet any military aggression, so also do they make use of
their power to counter economic and cultural expansion.

Use in Diplomacy:

Power is also utilized by a nation’s diplomats. Diplomats of a powerful

country act more confidently in their diplomatic activities than diplomats of
the less powerful states. Power helps nations at the negotiation table. It
enable a nation to advance its particular claims or to resist the claims of other
nations. The Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung once wrote: “Political power
grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Likewise it can be said that diplomatic
strength come out of political power. If a country is powerful its diplomats
can effectively employ the means of persuasion and reward and their threat of
punishment and use of force will carry more weight during diplomatic
negotiations and maneuvering.

Enhancing Prestige:

Power is used by various states to enhance their prestige in the world.

Enhancement is related with the show and demonstration of power. For this
reason nations occasionally display power and strength before the other
nations of the world in various ways. Military demonstrations on such
occasions as the Independence Day or Republic Day, where dignitaries and
diplomats are watching, serve to impress on them the military preparedness
of the inviting country.When the USA tested the atom bombs in the Pacific in
1946 she invited a large number of foreign dignitaries to see the fact that the
USA was bombing a group of ships larger than many of the world’s navies.

Another frequently employed method of demonstrating power and at the

same time solidarity or friendship with another nation is the exchange of
fleets or visits of armed ships to the harbors of friendly countries. The timing
of such visits or exchanges is also significant. If just before the outbreak of
hostilities or when a country is being threatened, the visits are meant to show
to the potential enemy that he will have to face the combined force of two
nations. On all other occasions such exchanges serve to show the world that
the country is interested in the affairs of the region and has power which it
will use when necessary.
Finally a nation may exhibit its power and will to use it by calling for partial
or total mobilization. A nation when it feels threatened by an enemy seeks to
do this in order to convince the enemy and the rest of the world that it means
to defend itself and that it has adequate man-power for this purpose. Thus, the
prestige or reputation for military might and preparedness is used by
countries to their advantage. But at the sometime there should not be wide
gap between the apparent prestige and real power. To follow a policy of
falsehood is perilous while to neglect prestige is to lose the Opportunity to
put to full use the power at one’s disposal.

 Serving National Interests:

Power is used not only to fulfill vital national interests such as national
security and independence, preserving status quo and prestige etc. but also to
accomplish other national interests. These may be geographical, political,
economic, social, educational, scientific, technical, strategic, cultural and so
on. Each country may have its own national interests according to its specific
needs and conditions. Power alone can help achieve all these interests. More
powerful a country is more easy will it be for it to achieve them than the
other nations. Power is thus the main tool used by nations to fulfill their
various national interests.

REFERENCES:

1. RH. Hartmann, ed. Readings in International Relations (New York 1967,

3rd edn.), p. 41.

2. Kautilya Arthasastm: Part II, trans. RP. Kangle, 2nd ed. (University of
Bombay, 1972), p. 319.
3. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle .for Power and
Peace, 5th ed. (New York, 1973), p. 9.

4. George Schwarzenberger, Power Politics (New York.1951), P14.

5.Charles P. Schleicher, International Relations: Cooperation and Conflict

(New Delhi, 1963), p. 252-53.

6.Robert Dahl, The Concept of Power, Behavioral Science

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_organizational-behavior-v1.1/s17-power-
and-politics.html

In 2007, Fortune named Steve Jobs the “Most Powerful Person in Business.” In 2009, the magazine

named him “CEO of the Decade.” Jobs, CEO of Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL), has transformed no

fewer than five different industries: computers, Hollywood movies, music, retailing, and wireless

phones. His Apple II ushered in the personal computer era in 1977, and the graphical interface of the

Macintosh in 1984 set the standard that all other PCs emulated. His company Pixar defined the

computer-animated feature film. The iPod, iTunes, and iPhone revolutionized how we listen to

music, how we pay for and receive all types of digital content, and what we expect of a mobile phone.

How has Jobs done it? Jobs draws on all six types of power: legitimate, expert, reward, information,

coercive, and referent. His vision and sheer force of will helped him succeed as a young unknown.

But the same determination that helps him succeed has a darker side—an autocracy and drive for

perfection that can make him tyrannical. Let’s take each of these in turn.

1. Legitimate power. As CEO of Apple, Jobs enjoys unquestioned legitimate power.

 2. Expert power. His success has built a tremendous amount of expert power. Jobs is renowned

for being able to think of markets and products for needs that people didn’t even know they

had.

3. Reward power. As one of the richest individuals in the United States, Jobs has reward power

both within and outside Apple. He also can reward individuals with his time and attention.

4. Information power. Jobs has been able to leverage information in each industry he has

transformed.

5. Coercive power. Forcefulness is helpful when tackling large, intractable problems, says

Stanford social psychologist Roderick Kramer, who calls Jobs one of the “great intimidators.”

Robert Sutton notes that “the degree to which people in Silicon Valley are afraid of Jobs is

unbelievable.” Jobs is known to berate people to the point of tears.

6. Referent power. But at the same time, “He inspires astounding effort and creativity from his

people.” Employee Andy Herzfeld, the lead designer of the original Mac operating system,

says Jobs imbues employees with a “messianic zeal” and can make them feel that they’re

working on the greatest product in the world.

Those who work with him say Jobs is very hard to please. However, they also say that this means that

Apple employees work hard to win his approval. “He has the ability to pull the best out of people,”

says Cordell Ratzlaff, who worked closely with Jobs on OS X for 18 months. “I learned a tremendous

amount from him.” Jobs’s ability to persuade and influence has come to be called a “reality distortion

field.” As Bud Tribble put it, “In his presence, reality is malleable. He can convince anyone of

practically anything.” Hertzfeld describes his style as “a confounding mélange of a charismatic

rhetorical style, an indomitable will, and an eagerness to bend any fact to fit the purpose at hand.”

The influence works even when you’re aware of it, and it works even on “enemies”: “No other high-

tech impresario could walk into the annual sales meeting of one of his fiercest rivals and get a

standing ovation,” which is what Jobs got in 2002 from Intel Corporation (the ally of Apple archrival

Microsoft in the partnership known as Wintel: Windows + Intel).

Jobs’s power is not infallible—he was ousted from his own company in 1987 by the man he hired to

help him run it. But he returned in 1997 and brought the company back from the brink of failure. The
only years that Apple was unprofitable were the years during Jobs’s absence. Many are watching to

see how Apple and Jobs succeed with the iPad in 2010.