Problem-Solving in Groups and Teams

Power in Teams and Groups

Given the complexity of group interaction, it is short-sighted to try to understand group communication without considering power. Power influences how we interpret others' messages and shapes the extent to which we feel entitled to speak up and voice our concerns and opinions. Power and status are key ways people exercise influence within groups. In the storming phase of group development, members are likely to engage in more obvious power struggles, but power is constantly at work in our interactions—inside and outside our group—whether we are fully conscious of it or not. This chapter defines power and discusses its relationship to systems of privilege and oppression and to status within groups. It also covers the bases and tactics of power in groups and teams, as well as the ethical use of power.

Defining Power

Take a moment to reflect on the different ways you think about power. What images come to mind? Are there different kinds of power? Are some people inherently more powerful than others? Do you consider yourself a powerful person? We highlight three ways to understand power as it relates to group and team communication. The word "power" literally means "to be able," and it carries many implications.

If you associate power with control or dominance, this refers to the notion of power-over. According to Starhawk (1987), power-over "enables one individual or group to make the decisions that affect others, and to enforce control." Control takes many forms in society. Starhawk explains that:

This power is wielded from the workplace, in the schools, in the courts, in the doctor's office. It may rule with weapons that are physical or by controlling the resources we need to live: money, food, medical care; or by controlling more subtle resources: information, approval, love. We are so accustomed to power-over, so steeped in its language and its implicit threats, that we often become aware of its functioning only when we see its extreme manifestations.

When someone in a group dominates the conversation, makes all the decisions, or controls the group's resources such as money or equipment, that is power-over.

Power-from-within refers to a more personal sense of strength or agency. It manifests itself when we can stand, walk, and speak "words that convey our needs and thoughts." In groups, this type of power "arises from our sense of connection, our bonding with other human beings, and with the environment." As Heider explains in The Tao of Leadership, "Since all creation is a whole, separateness is an illusion. Like it or not, we are team players. Power comes through cooperation, independence through service, and a greater self through selflessness." If you think about your role in groups, how have you influenced other members? Your strategies reflect your sense of power-from-within.

Finally, groups manifest power-with, which is "the power of a strong individual in a group of equals, the power not to command, but to suggest and be listened to, to begin something and see it happen." For this to be effective, at least two qualities must be present among members: (1) all members must communicate respect and equality toward one another, and (2) the leader must not abuse power-with by turning it into power-over. Have you ever been in a group where people did not treat each other as equals or with respect? How did you feel about it? What was the outcome? Could you have done anything to change that dynamic?

Understanding Power and Oppression

Power and oppression can be seen as mirror reflections of one another—two sides of the same coin. Where you see power that causes harm, you will likely see oppression. Oppression is defined in Merriam-Webster as "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power, especially by the imposition of burdens; the condition of being weighed down; an act of pressing down; a sense of heaviness or obstruction in the body or mind." This definition conveys the intensity of oppression and shows how difficult it is to address or eradicate. The word itself comes from the Latin root primere, meaning "pressed down." We can conclude that oppression is the social act of placing severe restrictions on an individual, group, or institution.

Oppression emerges as a result of power, with roots in global colonialism and conquest. As an action, oppression can deny certain groups jobs that pay a living wage, establish unequal education (for example, through inadequate capital per student for resources), deny affordable housing, and so on. You may wonder why some groups live in poverty, reside in substandard housing, or do not "measure up" to the dominant society in some respect. As discussed at a seminar at the Leaven Center (2003), groups that lack "power-over" are those society classifies or labels as disenfranchised; they are exploited and victimized in various ways by agents of oppression and by systems and institutions. They are subjected to restrictions and seen as expendable and replaceable, which minimizes the roles certain populations play in society. Sadly, agents of oppression often deny that this injustice occurs and blame oppressive conditions on the behaviors and actions of the oppressed group.

Oppression then becomes a system, with patterns adopted and perpetuated. Systems of privilege and oppression discriminate or advantage based on perceived or real differences among people. Privilege here refers to the benefits, advantages, and power gained from perceived status or membership in a dominant group. For example, Thai and Lien (2019) discuss diversity and highlight the impact of white privilege as a major contributor to systems and patterns of oppression for non-privileged individuals and groups.

Socialization patterns also help maintain systems of privilege and oppression. Through formal and informal educational environments that advance the ideologies of the dominant group, members of society learn how they should act and what their role and place are. Power is exercised here, but in ways that are both psychologically and physically harmful. This process of constructing knowledge serves those who seek to control and oppress: physical coercion may not last, but psychological ramifications can be perpetual, particularly without intervention. Because shared knowledge is sustained through social processes—and what we come to know and believe is socially constructed—it becomes ever more important to examine the dominant narratives of our society and the meaning they lend to our culture, including in our interactions in groups and teams.

So what do systems of privilege and oppression mean for groups? Members do not leave their identities or social and cultural contexts at the door. Power and status within a group are still shaped by these broader external systems. This requires members to reflect on how those systems shape the group's dynamics and their own perceptions and behaviors.

Relationship Between Power and Status

In a group, members with higher status are apt to command greater respect and possess more prestige and power than those with lower status. Status can be defined as a person's perceived level of importance or significance within a particular context.

Our status is often tied to our identities and their perceived value within our social and cultural context. Groups may confer status on members based on age, wealth, gender, race or ethnicity, ability, physical stature, perceived intelligence, and other attributes. Status can also be granted through title or position. In professional circles, earning a "terminal" degree such as a Ph.D. or M.D. usually generates status, as do documented credentials in legal, engineering, or other professional fields. People honored for achievements may bring status to a group if the recognition relates to the group's nature and purpose. Once a group forms and begins to sort out its norms, it builds on the status members bring by allocating further status according to its own internal processes—for instance, choosing a member to serve as an officer generally conveys status.

Suppose you have entered a group with high status, or been granted it by the other members. What does this mean, and how are you apt to behave? Here are some predictions based on research from several sources.

First, the volume and direction of your speech will differ from others'. You'll talk more than low-status members, communicate more with other high-status members than with lower-status individuals, and be more likely to address the whole group.

Second, some indicators of your participation will be particularly positive. Your activity level, self-regard, and satisfaction with your position will surpass those of lower-status members. The rest of the group is also less likely to ignore your statements and proposals than those of lower-status individuals.

Finally, the content of your communication will likely differ. Because you may have access to special information about the group's activities and may be expected to shoulder specific responsibilities, you're apt to discuss topics relevant to the group's central purposes and direction. Lower-status members, by contrast, tend to communicate more about other matters.

Those with higher status may communicate differently from those with lower status in group contexts such as meetings.

There is no such thing as a "status-neutral" group—one in which everyone always has equal status. Differences in status are inevitable and can be dangerous if not recognized and managed. Someone who gains status without the skills or attributes to use it well may cause real damage to other members or to the group as a whole. A high-status, low-ability person may develop an inflated self-image, begin to abuse power, or both. One of the authors worked for a new college president who acted as though his position entitled him to do whatever he wanted. Interacting primarily with other high-status individuals who shared his viewpoints and goals, he overlooked or rejected concerns from people elsewhere in the organization. Turmoil and dissension broke out, morale plummeted, and the president eventually suffered votes of no confidence from faculty, staff, and students and was forced to resign.

Bases of Power in Groups

Within groups, power can operate in a number of ways. French and Raven (1968) identified five primary ways power can be exerted in social situations, including groups and teams. These are considered the different bases of power.

Referent Power

In some cases, person B looks up to or admires person A and, as a result, follows A largely because of A's personal qualities, characteristics, or reputation. Here, A can use referent power to influence B. Referent power has also been called charismatic power, because allegiance is based on interpersonal attraction. Examples appear in advertising, where companies use celebrities to recommend products in the hope that the star's appeal will rub off. In workplaces, junior managers often emulate senior managers and assume unnecessarily subservient roles more out of personal admiration than respect for authority.

Expert Power

Expert power is demonstrated when person A gains power because A has knowledge or expertise relevant to B. Professors, for instance, presumably have power in the classroom because of their mastery of a subject. Other examples include staff specialists in organizations (accountants, labor relations managers, management consultants, corporate attorneys). In each case, the individual has credibility in a particular—and narrow—area as a result of experience and expertise, and this grants power in that domain.

Legitimate Power

Legitimate power exists when person B submits to person A because B feels A has a right to exert power in a certain domain. Legitimate power is really another name for authority. A supervisor has the right, for instance, to assign work. It differs from reward and coercive power in that it depends on the official position a person holds, not on their relationship with others.

Reward Power

Reward power exists when person A has power over person B because A controls rewards that B wants. These can include pay raises, promotions, desirable job assignments, more responsibility, new equipment, and so on. Research indicates reward power often increases job performance as employees perceive a strong performance–reward link. However, in many organizations supervisors and managers control few rewards. Among most blue-collar workers, for example, salary and promotion are based on a labor contract rather than a performance appraisal.

Coercive Power

Coercive power is based primarily on fear. Here, person A has power over person B because A can administer some form of punishment to B—so it is also called punishment power. As Kipnis points out, coercive power need not rest on the threat of violence: "Individuals exercise coercive power through a reliance upon physical strength, verbal facility, or the ability to grant or withhold emotional support from others. These bases provide the individual with the means to physically harm, bully, humiliate, or deny love to others." Examples in organizations include the ability (actual or implied) to fire or demote people, transfer them to undesirable jobs or locations, or strip them of valued perquisites. Indeed, much organizational behavior (prompt attendance, looking busy, avoiding whistle-blowing) can be attributed to coercive, not reward, power. As Kipnis (1976) explains, "Of all the bases of power available to man, the power to hurt others is possibly the most often used, most often condemned, and most difficult to control."

Consequences of Power

We have seen that at least five bases of power can be identified. In each case, the power of the individual rests on a particular attribute of the power holder, the follower, or their relationship. In some cases (e.g., reward power), power rests in the superior; in others (e.g., referent power), power is given to the superior by the subordinate. In all cases, exercising power involves subtle—and sometimes threatening—interpersonal consequences. When power is exercised, individuals have several ways to respond, as shown in Figure 1.

If the subordinate accepts and identifies with the leader, the behavioral response is likely commitment—the subordinate is motivated to follow the leader's wishes. This is most likely when the leader uses referent or expert power; the follower believes in the leader's cause and exerts considerable energy to help them succeed.

A second possible response is compliance, which occurs most often when the subordinate feels the leader has legitimate or reward power. The follower complies either out of duty or because a reward is expected, but commitment and enthusiasm are lacking. Finally, under coercive power, subordinates will more than likely respond with resistance: seeing little reason—altruistic or material—to cooperate, they often use a series of tactics to defeat the leader's efforts.

Power Dependencies

In any situation involving power, at least two parties can be identified: (1) the person attempting to influence others and (2) the target(s) of that influence. Attention once focused almost exclusively on how people try to influence others; more recently, attention has turned to how people try to nullify or moderate such attempts. We now recognize that the success of an influence attempt is determined largely by the power dependencies of those on the receiving end. Not everyone is subject to (or dependent upon) the same bases of power. What makes some people vulnerable to power attempts? At least three factors have been identified.

Subordinate's Values

Person B's values can influence their susceptibility to influence. If the outcomes A can affect are important to B, then B is more open to influence than if those outcomes were unimportant. If an employee places a high value on money and believes the supervisor controls pay raises, we would expect the employee to be highly susceptible to the supervisor's influence. We sometimes hear that young people don't want to work hard anymore; perhaps the reason is that some young people don't place a high value on the things (such as money) traditionally used to influence behavior. In other words, such complaints may really be saying that young people are harder to influence than they used to be.

Nature of Relationship

The nature of the relationship between A and B also matters. Are they peers, or superior and subordinate? Is the job permanent or temporary? Someone in a temporary job may feel less need to acquiesce, since they won't hold the position for long. And if A and B are peers or good friends, the influence process is likely more delicate than between a superior and subordinate.

Counterpower

A third factor in power dependencies is counterpower—the extent to which B has other sources of power that buffer the effects of A's power. If B is unionized, for example, the union's power may negate A's influence attempts. Counterpower is clearly visible wherever coalitions bargain with one another and check the power of their opponents.

Figure 2 presents a rudimentary model combining the bases of power with the notion of power dependencies. As shown, A's bases of power interact with B's extent of power dependency to determine B's response to A's influence attempt. If A has significant power and B is highly dependent, we would expect B to comply with A's wishes.

If A has more modest power over B, but B is still largely power-dependent, B may try to bargain with A. Although bargaining from a weaker position, this may protect B's interests better than outright compliance. If your boss asked you to work overtime, for instance, you might strike a deal for compensatory time off later; if successful, you would not have decreased your hours, but at least you would not have increased them. Where power is more evenly divided, B may try to develop a cooperative working relationship in which both parties gain—as in a labor contract negotiation characterized by a balance of power and good relations.

If B has more power than A, B will likely reject A's influence attempt and may even become the aggressor, attempting to influence A. Finally, when B is uncertain of the power relationship, they may simply ignore A's efforts—discovering either that A does have more power or that A cannot muster enough power to succeed. A good illustration is some companies' response to early governmental efforts to secure equal opportunities for minorities and women: they simply ignored those efforts until new regulations forced compliance.

Uses of Power

Looking at our groups, teams, and organizations, manifestations of power are easy to spot almost anywhere, and a wide variety of power-based methods are used to influence others. Here we examine two aspects: commonly used power tactics and the ethical use of power.

Common Power Tactics in Organizations

Many power tactics are available, and some are more ethical than others. Below are some of the more common tactics found in business and public organizations that also apply to groups.

Controlling Access to Information

Most decisions rest on the availability of relevant information, so those controlling access to information play a major role in the decisions made. A good example is the corporate practice of pay secrecy: typically only the personnel department and senior managers have salary information—and the power that comes with it—for personnel decisions.

Controlling Access to Persons

A related tactic is controlling access to persons. A well-known factor in President Nixon's downfall was his isolation from others; his two senior advisers had complete control over who saw the president. Similar criticisms were leveled at President Reagan.

Selective Use of Objective Criteria

Few questions have one correct answer; decisions must be made about the most appropriate criteria for evaluating results. Significant power can be exercised by those who can make selective use of objective criteria that lead to a favorable decision. According to Herbert Simon, if an individual is permitted to select the decision criteria, then that person needn't care who actually makes the decision. Attempts to control criteria are visible in faculty debates over hiring or promotion: one group emphasizes teaching and sets criteria around teaching competence and interpersonal relations, while another emphasizes research and sets criteria around number of publications and reputation in the field.

Controlling the Agenda

One of the simplest ways to influence a decision is to ensure it never comes up at all. Strategies for controlling the agenda include ordering meeting topics so the undesired one is last. Failing that, opponents may raise numerous objections or points of information that cannot be easily answered, thereby tabling the topic until another day.

Using Outside Experts

Another route to advantage is using outside experts. A unit wishing to exercise power may bring in experts known to sympathize with its cause. When a dispute arises over spending more on research versus production, we would expect different answers from outside research consultants than from outside production consultants. Most consultants have experienced situations in which clients fed them information and biases they hoped the consultant would repeat in a meeting.

Bureaucratic Gamesmanship

Sometimes an organization's own policies and procedures provide ammunition for power plays, or bureaucratic gamesmanship. A group may drag its feet on workplace changes by creating red tape, work slowdowns, or "work to rule." (Working to rule occurs when employees diligently follow every work rule and policy statement to the letter, which typically grinds the organization to a halt because the rules are so many and often conflicting.) In this way, the group signals that the workflow will keep slowing until they get their way.

Coalitions and Alliances

The final tactic discussed here is coalitions and alliances. A unit can increase its power by allying with other groups that share its interests. This is common when multiple labor unions in the same corporation join forces to win contract concessions, and when corporations in an industry form trade associations to lobby for their position. Coalition members need not agree on everything—indeed, they may be competitors—but sufficient agreement on the problem at hand is necessary as a basis for action.

Ethical Use of Power

Several guidelines for the ethical use of power can be identified, arranged according to the five bases of power, as shown in Table 1. Several techniques accomplish their aims without compromising ethical standards. For example, a person using reward power can verify compliance with work directives, ensure that requests are feasible and reasonable, make only ethical and proper requests, offer rewards that are valued, and ensure that all rewards for good performance are credible and reasonably attainable.

Even coercive power can be used without jeopardizing personal integrity. A manager can ensure that all employees know the rules and penalties for infractions, provide warnings before punishing, administer punishment fairly and uniformly, and so on. The point is that people have numerous tactics at their disposal that they can employ without abusing their power.

Review & Reflection Questions

• Before reading this chapter, how did you define power? How might power-over, power-from-within, and power-with make us think about power differently?
• What is the relationship between power and oppression?
• When you first joined your group, what assumptions did you make about the status of different members? Where did those assumptions come from?
• Identify the five bases of power and give an example of each. Which base (or bases) do you think are most commonly found in groups?
• How can we exercise power ethically? What might be some best practices in the context of your group?

Source: OpenStax. View original source.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.