# data[].attributes.body
This article addresses the difference between management by exception versus exception management. Management by exception is one of the techniques we learned about in chapter 18.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Management by Exception Really Means

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Management by exception frees you to focus on strategic goals.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a picture showing an organization’s operations strategy. In chapter 18 we learned product strategy is an operational plan of action outlining which goods and services an organization will produce and market

# data[].attributes.headline
Information Systems vs Information Technology

# data[].attributes.subject
Information Systems vs Information Technology

# data[].attributes.body
This video explains the difference between IS and IT. In chapter 17 we learned about evaluating information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Information Systems vs Information Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Created using PowToon -- Free sign up at http://www.powtoon.com/youtube/ -- Create animated videos and animated presentations for free. PowToon is a free tool that allows you to develop cool animated clips and animated presentations for your website, office meeting, sales pitch, nonprofit fundraiser, product launch, video resume, or anything else you could use an animated explainer video.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an article that explaining how to be an effective manager. In Chapter 17 we learned about the steps for achieving total power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans have probably always been suspicious of power-the United States was born out of a rebellion against it, and our political processes seem to confirm that distrust. We have equated power with exploitation and corruption. But, the author of this article asserts, the negative aspects of power have blinded people to its positive points, to its uses, and to the fact that without it, people cannot accomplish very much anywhere. And that is especially true in management. The author maintains that, as organizations have grown more complex, it has become more difficult, if not impossible, for managers to achieve their ends either independently or through persuasion and formal authority alone. They increasingly need power to influence other people on whom they are dependent. Furthermore, he says, effective managers tend to be very successful at developing four different types of power, which they use along with persuasion to influence others. And they do so, the author concludes, with maturity, great skill, and a sensitivity to the obligations and risks involved.

Author's Note: This reading is based on data from a clinical study of a highly diverse group of 26 organizations including large and small, public and private, manufacturing and service organizations. The study was funded by the Division of Research at the Harvard Business School. As part of the study process, the author interviewed about 250 managers.

Americans, as a rule, are not very comfortable with power or with its dynamics. We often distrust and question the motives of people who we think actively seek power. We have a certain fear of being manipulated. Even those people who think the dynamics of power are inevitable and needed often feel somewhat guilty when they themselves mobilize and use power. Simply put, the overall attitude and feeling toward power, which can easily be traced to the nation's very birth, is negative. In his enormously popular Greening of America, Charles Reich reflects the views of many when he writes, "It is not the misuse of power that is evil; the very existence of power is evil." ¹

One of the many consequences of this attitude is that power as a topic for rational study and dialogue has not received much attention, even in managerial circles. If the reader doubts this, all he or she need do is flip through some textbooks, journals, or advanced management course descriptions. The word power rarely appears.

This lack of attention to the subject of power merely adds to the already enormous confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the topic of power and management. And this misunderstanding is becoming increasingly burdensome because in today's large and complex organizations the effective performance of most managerial jobs requires one to be skilled at the acquisition and use of power.

From my own observations, I suspect that a large number of managers-especially the young, well-educated ones-perform significantly below their potential because they do not understand the dynamics of power and because they have not nurtured and developed the instincts needed to effectively acquire and use power.

In this reading I hope to clear up some of the confusion regarding power and managerial work by providing tentative answers to three questions:

1. Why are the dynamics of power necessarily an important part of managerial processes?

2. How do effective managers acquire power?

3. How and for what purposes do effective managers use power?

I will not address questions related to the misuse of power, but not because I think they are unimportant. The fact that some managers, some of the time, acquire and use power mostly for their own aggrandizement is obviously a very important issue that deserves attention and careful study. But that is a complex topic unto itself and one that has already received more attention than the subject of this article.

Recognizing Dependence in the Manager's Job

One of the distinguishing characteristics of typical managers is how dependent they are on the activities of a variety of other people to perform their jobs effectively. ² Unlike doctors and mathematicians, whose performance is more directly dependent on their own talents and efforts, a manager can be dependent in varying degrees on superiors, subordinates, peers in other parts of the organization, the subordinates of peers, outside suppliers, customers, competitors, unions, regulating agencies, and many others.

These dependency relationships are an inherent part of managerial jobs because of two organizational facts of life: division of labor and limited resources. Because the work in organizations is divided into specialized divisions, departments, and jobs, managers are made directly or indirectly dependent on many others for information, staff services, and cooperation in general. Because of their organizations' limited resources, managers are also dependent on their external environments for support. Without some minimal cooperation from suppliers, competitors, unions, regulatory agencies, and customers, managers cannot help their organizations survive and achieve their objectives.

Dealing with these dependencies and the manager's subsequent vulnerability is an important and difficult part of a manager's job because, while it is theoretically possible that all of these people and organizations would automatically act in just the manner that a manager wants and needs, such is almost never the case in reality. All the people on whom a manager is dependent have limited time, energy, and talent, for which there are competing demands.

Some people may be uncooperative because they are too busy elsewhere, and some because they are not really capable of helping. Others may well have goals, values, and beliefs that are quite different and in conflict with the manager's and may therefore have no desire whatsoever to help or cooperate. This is obviously true of a competing company and some times of a union, but it can also apply to a boss who is feeling threatened by a manager's career progress or to a peer whose objectives clash with the manager's.

Indeed, managers often find themselves dependent on many people (and things) whom they do not directly control and who are not cooperating. This the key to one of the biggest frustrations managers feel in their jobs, even in the top ones, which the following example illustrates:

After nearly a year of rumors, it was finally announced that the president of ABC Corporation had been elected chairman of the board and that Jim Franklin, the vice president of finance, would replace him as president. While everyone at ABC was aware that a shift would take place soon, it was not at all clear before the announcement who would be the next president. Most people had guessed it would be Phil Cook, the marketing vice president.

Nine months into his job as chief executive officer, Franklin found that Phil Cook (still the marketing vice president) seemed to be fighting him in small and subtle ways. There was never anything blatant, but Cook just did not cooperate with Franklin as the other vice presidents did. Shortly after being elected, Franklin had tried to bypass what he saw as a potential conflict with Cook by telling him that he would understand if Cook would prefer to move somewhere else where he could be a CEO also. Franklin said that it would be a big loss to the company but that he would be willing to help Cook in a number of ways if he wanted to look for a presidential opportunity elsewhere. Cook had thanked him but had said that family and community commitments would prevent him from relocating and all CEO opportunities were bound to be in a different city.

Since the situation did not improve after the tenth and eleventh months, Franklin seriously considered forcing Cook out. When he thought about the consequences of such a move, Franklin became more and more aware of just how dependent he was on Cook. Marketing and sales were generally the keys to success in their industry, and the company's sales force was one of the best, if not the best, in the industry. Cook had been with the company for 25 years. He had built a strong personal relationship with many of the people in the sales force and was universally popular. A mass exodus just might occur if Cook were fired. The loss of a large number of salespeople, or even a lot of turmoil in the department, could have a serious effect on the company's performance.

After one year as chief executive officer, Franklin found that the situation between Cook and himself had not improved and had become a constant source of frustration.

As a person gains more formal authority in an organization, the areas in which he or she is vulnerable increase and become more complex rather than the reverse. As the previous example suggests, it is not at all unusual for the president of an organization to be in a highly dependent position, a fact often not apparent to either the outsider or to the lower-level manager who covets the president's job.

A considerable amount of the behavior of highly successful managers that seems inexplicable in light of what management texts usually tell us managers do becomes understandable when one considers a manager's need for, and efforts at, managing his or her relationships with others. ³ To be able to plan, organize, budget, staff, control, and evaluate, managers need some control over the many people on whom they are dependent. Trying to control others solely by directing them and on the basis of the power associated with one's position simply will not work-first, because managers are always dependent on some people over whom they have no formal authority, and second, because virtually no one in modern organizations will passively accept and completely obey a constant stream of orders from someone just because he or she is the "boss."

Trying to influence others by means of persuasion alone will not work either. Although it is very powerful and possibly the single most important method of influence, persuasion has some serious drawbacks too. To make it work requires time (often lots of it), skill, and information on the part of the persuader. And persuasion can fail simply because the other person chooses not to listen or does not listen carefully.

This is not to say that directing people on the basis of the formal power of one's position and persuasion are not important means by which successful managers cope. They obviously are. But, even taken together, they are not usually enough.

Successful managers cope with their dependence on others by being sensitive to it, by eliminating or avoiding unnecessary dependence and by establishing power over those others. Good managers then use that power to help them plan, organize, staff, budget, evaluate, and so on. In other words, it is primarily because of the dependence inherent in managerial jobs that the dynamics of power necessarily form an important part of a manager's processes.

An argument that took place during a middle-management training seminar I participated in a few years ago helps illustrate further this important relationship between a manager's need for power and the degree of his or her dependence on others:

Two participants, both managers in their thirties, got into a heated disagreement regarding the acquisition and use of power by managers. One took the position that power was absolutely central to managerial work, while the other argued that it was virtually irrelevant. In support of their positions, each described a very "successful" manager with whom he worked. In one of these examples, the manager seemed to be constantly developing and using power, while in the other, such behavior was rare. Subsequently, both seminar participants were asked to describe their successful managers' jobs in terms of the dependence inherent in those jobs.

The young manager who felt power was unimportant described a staff vice president in a small company who was dependent only on his immediate subordinates, his peers, and his boss. This person, Joe Phillips, had to depend on his subordinates to do their jobs appropriately, but, if necessary, he could fill in for any of them or secure replacement for them rather easily. He also had considerable formal authority over them; that is, he could give them raises and new assignments, recommend promotions, and fire them. He was moderately dependent on the other four vice presidents in the company for information and cooperation. They were likewise dependent on him. The president had considerable formal authority over Phillips but was also moderately dependent on him for help, expert advice, the service his staff performed, other information, and general cooperation.

The second young manager-the one who felt power was very important-described a service department manager, Sam Weller, in a large, complex, and growing company who was in quite a different position. Weller was dependent not only on his boss for rewards and information, but also on 30 other individuals who made up the divisional and corporate top management. And while his boss, like Phillips's, was moderately dependent on him too, most of the top managers were not. Because Weller's subordinates, unlike Phillips's, had people reporting to them, Weller was dependent not only on his subordinates but also on his subordinates' subordinates. Because he could not himself easily replace or do most of their technical jobs, unlike Phillips, he was very dependent on all these people.

In addition, for critical supplies, Weller was dependent on two other department managers in the division. Without their timely help, it was impossible for his department to do its job. These departments, however, did not have similar needs for Weller's help and cooperation. Weller was also dependent on local labor union officials and on a federal agency that regulated the division's industry. Both could shut his division down if they wanted.

Finally, Weller was dependent on two outside suppliers of key materials. Because of the volume of his department's purchase relative to the size of these two companies, he had little power over them.

Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Sam Weller had to spend considerable time and effort acquiring and using power to manage his many dependencies, while Joe Phillips did not.

As this example also illustrates, not all management jobs require an incumbent to be able to provide the same amount of successful power-oriented behavior. But most management jobs today are more like Weller's than Phillips's. And, perhaps more important, the trend over the past two or three decades is away from jobs like Phillips's and toward jobs like Weller's. So long as our technologies continue to become more complex, the average organization continues to grow larger, and the average industry continues to become more competitive and regulated, that trend will continue; as it does so, the effective acquisition and use of power by managers will become even more important.

Establishing Power in Relationships

To help cope with the dependency relationships inherent in their jobs, effective managers create, increase, or maintain four different types of power over others. ⁴ Having power based in these areas puts the manager in a position both to influence those people on whom he or she is dependent when necessary and to avoid being hurt by any of them.

Sense of Obligation

One of the ways that successful managers generate power in their relationships with others is to create a sense of obligation in those others. When the manager is successful, the others feel that they should-rightly-allow the manager to influence them within certain limits.

Successful managers often go out of their way to do favors for people who they expect will feel an obligation to return those favors. As can be seen in the following description of a manager by one of his subordinates, some people are very skilled at identifying opportunities for doing favors that cost them very little but that others appreciate very much:

"Most of the people here would walk over hot coals in their bare feet if my boss asked them to. He has an incredible capacity to do little things that mean a lot to people. Today, for example, in his junk mail he came across an advertisement for something that one of my subordinates had in passing once mentioned that he was shopping for. So my boss routed it to him. That probably took 15 seconds of his time, and yet my subordinate really appreciated it. To give you another example, two weeks ago he somehow learned that the purchasing manager's mother had died. On his way home that night, he stopped off at the funeral parlor. Our purchasing manager was, of course, there at the time. I bet he'll remember that brief visit for quite a while."

Recognizing that most people believe that friendship carries with it certain obligations ("A friend in need..."), successful managers often try to develop true friendships with those on whom they are dependent. They will also make formal and informal deals in which they give something up in exchange for certain future obligations.

Belief in a Manager's Expertise

A second way successful managers gain power is by building reputations as "experts" in certain matters. Believing in the manager's expertise, others will often defer to the manager on those matters. Managers usually establish this type of power through visible achievement. The larger the achievement and the more visible it is, the more power the manager tends to develop.

One of the reasons that managers display concern about their "professional reputations" and their track records is that these have an impact on others' beliefs about their expertise. These factors become particularly important in large settings, where most people have only secondhand information about most other people's professional competence, as the following shows:

Herb Randley and Bert Kline were both 35-year-old vice presidents in a large research and development organization. According to their closest associates, they were equally bright and competent in their technical fields and as managers. Yet Randley had a much stronger professional reputation in most parts of the company, and his ideas generally carried much more weight. Close friends and associates claim the reason that Randley is so much more powerful is related to a number of tactics that he has used more than Kline has.

Randley has published more scientific papers and managerial articles than Kline. Randley has been more selective in the assignments he has worked on, choosing those that are visible and that require his strong suits. He has given more speeches and presentations on projects that are his own achievements. And in meetings in general, he is allegedly forceful in areas where he has expertise and silent in those where he does not.

Identification with a Manager

A third method by which managers gain power is by fostering others' unconscious identification with them or with ideas they stand for. Sigmund Freud was the first to describe this phenomenon, which is most clearly seen in the way people look up to charismatic leaders. Generally, the more a person finds a manager both consciously and (more important) unconsciously an ideal person, the more he or she will defer to that manager.

Managers develop power based on others' idealized views of them in a number of ways. They try to look and behave in ways that others respect. They go out of their way to be visible to their employees and to give speeches about their organizational goals, values, and ideals. They even consider, while making hiring and promotion decisions, whether they will be able to develop this type of power over the candidates:

One vice president of sales in a moderate-sized manufacturing company was reputed to be so much in control of his sales force that he could get them to respond to new and different marketing programs in a third of the time taken by the company's best competitors. His power over his employees was based primarily on their strong identification with him and what he stood for. Emigrating to the United States at age 17, this person worked his way up "from nothing." When made a sales manager in 1965, he began recruiting other young immigrants and sons of immigrants from his former country. When made vice president of sales in 1970, he continued to do so. In 1975, 85% of his sales force was made up of people whom he hired directly or who were hired by others he brought in.

Perceived Dependence on a Manager

The final way that an effective manager often gains power is by feeding others' beliefs that they are dependent on the manager either for help or for not being hurt. The more they perceive they are dependent, the more most people will be inclined to cooperate with such a manager.

There are two methods that successful managers often use to create perceived dependence.

Finding and Acquiring Resources In the first, the manager identifies and secures (if necessary) resources that another person requires to perform the job, resources that he or she does not possess, and that are not readily available elsewhere. These resources include such things as authority to make certain decisions; control of money, equipment, and office space; access to important people; information and control of information channels; and subordinates. Then the manager takes action so that the other person correctly perceives that the manager has such resources and is willing and ready to use them to help (or hinder) the other person. Consider the following extreme-but true-example.

When young Tim Babcock was put in charge of a division of a large manufacturing company and told to "turn it around," he spent the first few weeks studying it from afar. He decided that the division was in disastrous shape and that he would need to take many large steps quickly to save it. To be able to do that, he realized he needed to develop considerable power fast over most of the division's management and staff. He did the following:

1. He gave the division's management two hours' notice of his arrival.

2. He arrived in a limousine with six assistants.

3. He immediately called a meeting of the 40 top managers.

4. He outlined briefly his assessment of the situation, his commitment to turn things around, and the basic direction he wanted things to move in.

5. He then fired the four top managers in the room and told them that they had to be out of the building in two hours.

6. He then said he would personally dedicate himself to sabotaging the career of anyone who tried to block his efforts to save the division.

7. He ended the 60-minute meeting by announcing that his assistants would set up appointments for him with each of them starting at 7:00 the next morning.

Throughout the critical six-month period that followed, those who remained at the division generally cooperated energetically with Mr. Babcock.

Affecting Perceptions of Resources A second way effective managers gain these types of power is by influencing other persons' perceptions of the manager's resources. ⁵ In settings where many people are involved and where the manager does not interact continuously with those he or she is dependent on, those people will seldom possess hard facts regarding what relevant resources the manager commands directly or indirectly (through others), what resources he or she will command in the future, or how prepared he or she is to use those resources to help or hinder them. They will be forced to make their own judgments.

Insofar as managers can influence people's judgments, they can generate much more power than one would generally ascribe to them in light of the reality of their resources.

In trying to influence people's judgments, managers pay considerable attention to the "trappings" of power and to their own reputations and images. Among other actions, they sometimes carefully select, decorate, and arrange their offices in ways that give signs of power. They associate with people or organizations that are known to be powerful or that others perceive as powerful. Managers selectively foster rumors concerning their own power. Indeed, those who are particularly skilled at creating power in this way tend to be very sensitive to the impressions that all their actions might have on others.

Formal Authority

Before discussing how managers use their power to influence others, it is useful to see how formal authority relates to power. By formal authority, I mean those elements that automatically come with a managerial job-perhaps a title, an office, a budget, the right to make certain decisions, a set of subordinates, a reporting relationship, and so on.

Effective managers use the elements of formal authority as resources to help them develop any or all of the four types of power previously discussed, just as they use other resources (such as their education). Two managers with the same formal authority can have very different amounts of power entirely because of the way they have used that authority. For example:

1. By sitting down with employees who are new or with people who are starting new projects and clearly specifying who has the formal authority to do what, one manager creates a strong sense of obligation in others to defer to her authority later.

2. By selectively withholding or giving the high-quality service his department can provide other departments, one manager makes other managers clearly perceive that they are dependent on him.

On its own, then, formal authority does not guarantee a certain amount of power; it is only a resource that managers can use to generate power in their relationships.

Exercising Power to Influence Others

Successful managers use the power they develop in their relationships, along with persuasion, to influence people on whom they are dependent to behave in ways that make it possible for the managers to get their jobs done effectively. They use their power to influence others directly, face to face, and in more indirect ways. (See the Exhibit below.)

Exhibit: Methods of Influence

Face-to-face Influence

The chief advantage of influencing others directly by exercising any of the types of power is speed. If the power exists and the manager correctly understands the nature and strength of it, he or she can influence the other person with nothing more than a brief request or command:

Jones thinks Smith feels obliged to him for past favors. Furthermore, Jones thinks that his request to speed up a project by two days probably falls within a zone that Smith would consider legitimate in light of his own definition of his obligation to Jones. So Jones simply calls Smith and makes his request. Smith pauses for only a second and says yes, he'll do it.

Manager Johnson has some power based on perceived dependence over manager Baker. When Johnson tells Baker that he wants a report done in 24 hours, Baker grudgingly considers the costs of compliance, of noncompliance, and of complaining to higher authorities. He decides that doing the report is the least costly action and tells Johnson he will do it.

Porter identifies strongly with Marquette, an older manager who is not her boss. Porter thinks Marquette is the epitome of a great manager and tries to model herself after her. When Marquette asks Porter to work on a special project "that could be very valuable in improving the company's ability to meet new competitive products," Porter agrees without hesitation and works 15 hours per week above and beyond her normal hours to get the project done and done well.

When used to influence others, each of the four types of power has different advantages and drawbacks. For example, power based on perceived expertise or on identification with a manager can often be used to influence attitudes as well as someone's immediate behavior and thus can have a lasting impact. It is very difficult to influence attitudes by using power based on perceived dependence, but if it can be done, it usually has the advantage of being able to influence a much broader range of behavior than the other methods do. When exercising power based on perceived expertise, for example, one can only influence attitudes and behavior within that narrow zone defined by the expertise.

The drawbacks associated with the use of power based on perceived dependence are particularly important to recognize. A person who feels dependent on a manager for rewards (or lack of punishments) might quickly agree to a request from the manager but then not follow through-especially if the manager cannot easily find out if the person has obeyed or not. Repeated influence attempts based on perceived dependence also seem to encourage the other person to try to gain some power to balance the manager's. And perhaps most important, using power based on perceived dependence in a coercive way is very risky. Coercion invites retaliation.

For instance, in the example in which Tim Babcock took such extreme steps to save the division he was assigned to "turn around," his development and use of power based on perceived dependence could have led to mass resignation and the collapse of the division. Babcock fully recognized this risk, however, and behaved as he did because he felt there was simply no other way that he could gain the very large amount of quick cooperation needed to save the division.

Effective managers will often draw on more than one form of power to influence someone, or they will combine power with persuasion. In general, they do so because a combination can be more potent and less risky than any single method, as the following description shows:

"One of the best managers we have in the company has lots of power based on one thing or another over most people. But he seldom if ever just tells or asks someone to do something. He almost always takes a few minutes to try to persuade them. The power he has over people generally induces them to listen carefully and certainly disposes them to be influenced. That, of course, makes the persuasion process go quickly and easily. And he never risks getting the other person mad or upset by making what that person thinks is an unfair request or command."

It is also common for managers not to coercively exercise power based on perceived dependence by itself, but to combine it with other methods to reduce the risk of retaliation. In this way, managers are able to have a large impact without leaving the bitter aftertaste of punishment alone.

Indirect Influence Methods

Effective managers also rely on two types of less direct methods to influence those on whom they are dependent. In the first way, they use any or all of the face-to-face methods to influence other people, who in turn have some specific impact on a desired person.

Product manager Stein needed plant manager Billings to "sign off" on a new product idea (Product X) which Billings thought was terrible. Stein decided that there was no way he could logically persuade Billings because Billings just would not listen to him. With time, Stein felt, he could have broken through that barrier. But he did not have that time. Stein also realized that Billings would never, just because of some deal or favor, sign off on a product he did not believe in. Stein also felt it not worth the risk of trying to force Billings to sign off, so here is what he did:

On Monday, Stein got Reynolds, a person Billings respected, to send Billings two market research studies that were very favorable to Product X, with a note attached saying, "Have you seen this? I found them rather surprising. I am not sure if I entirely believe them, but still..."

On Tuesday, Stein got a representative of one of the company's biggest customers to mention casually to Billings on the phone that he had heard a rumor about Product X being introduced soon and was "glad to see you guys are on your toes as usual."

On Wednesday, Stein had two industrial engineers stand about three feet away from Billings as they were waiting for a meeting to begin and talk about the favorable test results on Product X.

On Thursday, Stein set up a meeting to talk about Product X with Billings and invited only people whom Billings liked or respected and who also felt favorably about Product X.

On Friday, Stein went to see Billings and asked him if he was willing to sign off on Product X. He was.

This type of manipulation of the environments of others can influence both behavior and attitudes and can often succeed when other influence methods fail. But it has a number of serious drawbacks. It takes considerable time and energy, and it is quite risky. Many people think it is wrong to try to influence others in this way, even people who, without consciously recognizing it, use this technique themselves. If they think someone is trying, or has tried, to manipulate them, they may retaliate. Furthermore, people who gain the reputation of being manipulators seriously undermine their own capacities for developing power and for influencing others. Almost no one, for example, will want to identify with a manipulator. And virtually no one accepts, at face value, a manipulator's sincere attempts at persuasion. In extreme cases, a reputation as a manipulator can completely ruin a manager's career.

A second way in which managers indirectly influence others is by making permanent changes in an individual's or a group's environment. They change job descriptions, the formal systems that measure performance, the extrinsic incentives available, the tools, people, and other resources that the people or groups work with, the architecture, the norms or values of work groups, and so on. If the manager is successful in making the changes, and the changes have the desired effect on the individual or group, that effect will be sustained over time.

Effective managers recognize that changes in the forces that surround a person can have great impact on that person's behavior. Unlike many of the other influence methods, this one doesn't require a large expenditure of limited resources or effort on the part of the manager on an ongoing basis. Once such a change has been successfully made, it works independently of the manager.

This method of influence is used by all managers to some degree. Many, however, use it sparingly simply because they do not have the power to change the forces acting on the person they wish to influence. In many organizations, only the top managers have the power to change the formal measurement systems, the extrinsic incentives available, the architecture, and so on.

Generating and Using Power Successfully

Managers who are successful at acquiring considerable power and using it to manage their dependence on others tend to share a number of common characteristics:

1. They are sensitive to what others consider to be legitimate behavior in acquiring and using power. They recognize that the four types of power carry with them certain "obligations" regarding their acquisition and use. A person who gains a considerable amount of power based on his perceived expertise is generally expected to be an expert in certain areas. If it ever becomes publicly known that the person is clearly not an expert in those areas, such a person will probably be labeled a "fraud" and will not only lose his power but will suffer other reprimands too.

A person with whom a number of people identify is expected to act like an ideal leader. If he clearly lets people down, he will not only lose that power, he will also suffer the righteous anger of his ex-followers. Many managers who have created or used power based on perceived dependence in ways that their employees have felt unfair, such as in requesting overtime work, have ended up with unions.

2. They have good intuitive understanding of the various types of power and methods of influence. They are sensitive to what types of power are easiest to develop with different types of people. They recognize, for example, that professionals tend to be more influenced by perceived expertise than by other forms of power. They also have a grasp of all the various methods of influence and what each can accomplish, at what costs, and with what risks. (See the Exhibit.) They are good at recognizing the specific conditions in any situation and then at selecting an influence method that is compatible with those conditions.

3. They tend to develop all the types of power, to some degree, and they use all the influence methods mentioned in the Exhibit. Unlike managers who are not very good at influencing people, effective managers usually do not think that only some of the methods are useful or that only some of the methods are moral. They recognize that any of the methods, used under the right circumstances, can help contribute to organizational effectiveness with few dysfunctional consequences. At the same time, they generally try to avoid those methods that are more risky than others and those that may have dysfunctional consequences. For example, they manipulate the environment of others only when absolutely necessary.

4. They establish career goals and seek out managerial positions that allow them to successfully develop and use power. They look for jobs, for example, that use their backgrounds and skills to control or manage some critically important problem or environmental contingency that an organization faces. They recognize that success in that type of job makes others dependent on them and increases their own perceived expertise. They also seek jobs that do not demand a type or a volume of power that is inconsistent with their own skills.

5. They use all of their resources, formal authority, and power to develop still more power. To borrow Edward Banfield's metaphor, they actually look for ways to "invest" their power where they might secure a high positive return. ⁶ For example, by asking a person to do him two important favors, a manager might be able to finish his construction program one day ahead of schedule. That request may cost him most of the obligation-based power he has over that person, but in return he may significantly increase his perceived expertise as a manager of construction projects in the eyes of everyone in his organization.

Just as in investing money, there is always some risk involved in using power this way; it is possible to get a zero return for a sizable investment, even for the most powerful manager. Effective managers do not try to avoid risks. Instead, they look for prudent risks, just as they do when investing capital.

6. Effective managers engage in power-oriented behavior in ways that are tempered by maturity and self-control. ⁷ They seldom, if ever, develop and use power in impulsive ways or for their own aggrandizement.

7. Finally, they also recognize and accept as legitimate that, in using these methods, they clearly influence other people's behavior and lives. Unlike many less effective managers, they are reasonably comfortable in using power to influence people. They recognize, often only intuitively, what this article is all about-that their attempts to establish power and use it are an absolutely necessary part of the successful fulfillment of their difficult managerial role.

You can't learn to acquire power by rules: it has to come from inside. But by following certain rules, you can develop an awareness of it. We all have a power potential, but few of us use it, or even know it's there.

In more "primitive" cultures, youths are initiated into the rites of power, sometimes in very complicated ways. The rules are absolute and clear-cut, and must be followed exactly, but they are intended to increase the initiate's awareness of himself-simply carrying out the rituals isn't enough. If in certain American Indian tribes young men bury themselves in pits up to the neck on lonely hills in the desert, it is to learn patience, concentration, and the ability to stay motionless when necessary, however uncomfortable it may be. There's nothing mysterious about the process-a hunter who is fidgety or has to scratch himself when bitten by flies is unlikely to trap much in the way of game. Survival lies in the ability to control one's body and one's mind.

Our world is not so very different, noisy and complex as it seems, but we are less fortunate than the Indians. We are educated, at considerable expense and effort, but no wise teacher prepares us for the world we will face as adults. If we are lucky, we learn how to do a job, but for most people the price of survival is surrender. There is a place for almost everyone in our world, but usually on other people's terms rather than our own. Some of us learn how to succeed and may even become rich and famous; few learn how to use the world, instead of being used by it.

From: Power! How to Get It, How to Use It, by Michael Korda. Copyright (c) 1975 by Michael Korda and Paul Gitlin, Trustee for the Benefit of Christopher Korda. Reprinted by permission of Random House, Inc.

A version of this article appeared in the July 1977 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Power, Dependence, and Effective Management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans have probably always been suspicious of power-the United States was born out of a rebellion against it, and our political processes seem to confirm that distrust. We have equated power with exploitation and corruption. But, the author of this article asserts, the negative aspects of power have blinded people to its positive points, to [...]

# data[].attributes.body
This is an image I thought was funny regarding monetary incentives. Bonuses!

# data[].attributes.body
This is an article describing the difference between the X and Y theories. Two motivational strategy's we leaned about in Chapter 14.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Theory X and Theory Y was an idea devised by Douglas McGregor (see article) in his 1960 book "The Human Side of Enterprise". It encapsulated a fundamental distinction between management styles and has formed the basis for much subsequent writing on the subject.
Get our daily newsletter
Theory X is an authoritarian style where the emphasis is on "productivity, on the concept of a fair day's work, on the evils of feather-bedding and restriction of output, on rewards for performance ... [it] reflects an underlying belief that management must counteract an inherent human tendency to avoid work". Theory X is the style that predominated in business after the mechanistic system of scientific management had swept everything before it in the first few decades of the 20th century.

Theory Y is a participative style of management which "assumes that people will exercise self-direction and self-control in the achievement of organisational objectives to the degree that they are committed to those objectives". It is management's main task in such a system to maximise that commitment.

Theory X assumes that individuals are base, work-shy and constantly in need of a good prod. It always has a ready-made excuse for failure-the innate limitations of all human resources. Theory Y, however, assumes that individuals go to work of their own accord, because work is the only way in which they have a chance of satisfying their (high-level) need for achievement and self-respect. People will work without prodding; it has been their fate since Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden.

Theory Y gives management no easy excuses for failure. It challenges them "to innovate, to discover new ways of organising and directing human effort, even though we recognise that the perfect organisation, like the perfect vacuum, is practically out of reach". McGregor urged companies to adopt Theory Y. Only it, he believed, could motivate human beings to the highest levels of achievement. Theory X merely satisfied their lower-level physical needs and could not hope to be as productive. "Man is a wanting animal," wrote McGregor, "as soon as one of his needs is satisfied another appears in its place."

There are parallels with Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and Maslow was indeed greatly influenced by McGregor. So much so that he tried to introduce Theory Y into a Californian electronics business, but found that the idea in its extreme form did not work well. All individuals, he concluded, however independent and mature, need some form of structure around them and some direction from others. Maslow also criticised Theory Y for its "inhumanity" to the weak, and to those not capable of a high level of self-motivation.

In his comic classic "Up the Organisation", Robert Townsend wrote powerfully in support of Theory Y:

People don't hate work. It's as natural as rest or play. They don't have to be forced or threatened. If they commit themselves to mutual objectives, they'll drive themselves more effectively than you can drive them. But they'll commit themselves only to the extent they can see ways of satisfying their ego and development needs.

Further reading

Lorsch, J. and Morse, J., " Beyond Theory Y", Harvard Business Review, May-June 1970

McGregor, D., " Leadership and Motivation: Essays ", MIT Press, 1966; 1969

McGregor, D., " The Human Side of Enterprise ", McGraw-Hill, 1960; annotated edn, McGraw-Hill, 2006

Townsend, R., " Up the Organisation", Michael Joseph, 1970; reprinted as " Further Up the Organisation ", Coronet, 1985

More management ideas

This article is adapted from "The Economist Guide to Management Ideas and Gurus", by Tim Hindle (Profile Books; 322 pages; £20). The guide has the low-down on over 100 of the most influential business-management ideas and more than 50 of the world's most influential management thinkers. To buy this book, please visit our online shop.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Theory X and Theory Y was an idea devised by Douglas McGregor (see article) in his 1960 book "The Human Side of Enterprise". It encapsulated a fundamental distinction between management styles and has formed the basis for much subsequent writing on the subject.

# data[].attributes.body
An article explaining the pros and cons of participative behavior in the business world. Which is one of the leadership behaviors we learned about in chapter 13.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An extroverted, sensitive leader who openly shares decisions and authority with subordinates-this is the profile that emerged when 318 executives were asked their opinions on the characteristics of participative leadership. While there is much discussion-and controversy-among educators and theorists about the concept of participative leadership, managers themselves have not yet been heard. In this study, the author found a surprising consensus among managers regarding the operational characteristics and effectiveness of participative leadership. But he also found some specific and noteworthy differences of opinion between younger and older managers concerning which managerial actions get results. After discussing the findings, he draws their implications for companies, individual managers, and management educators.

During the past decade, vast numbers of executives have been schooled in the virtues of participative leadership. Perhaps no other management concept has received so much recent attention in management literature, in company training programs, and in the general press. Educators, in particular, have consistently admonished managers to open up their decision-making activities to their subordinates. Youthful critics of big business have also added fuel to the fire, contending that industrial organizations are too closed and undemocratic.

At the same time, however, there has been considerable confusion and diversity of viewpoint among management educators and social theorists over just what is meant by such a vague concept as participative leadership. To some, it means group decision making; to others, it is mutual goal setting; and to still others, it implies listening more and talking less.

These differing interpretations are further clouded by such abstract labels as 9, 9 management, Theory Y, and management by objectives. In addition, scholarly critics in the wings confuse the issue by arguing that managerial styles are idiosyncratic and are determined more by an executive's personality and early background experiences than by "charm schools" in participative leadership.

But where have the managers themselves-the targets of these participative pleas, conflicts, and slogans-been all this time? While there has been considerable talk from educators and Sunday morning quarterbacks, very little is known about how the participative message has been absorbed at the managerial level. This is the age-old problem of hearing more from the teachers than from the learners. Consider these important questions in need of new answers:

What concrete behavioral characteristics do managers actually associate with the vague abstraction called participative leadership?

Do managers differ widely in their specific interpretations of participative leadership, or is there a relatively uniform understanding? (For example, do younger managers subscribe more to participative methods than do older executives?)

Most critical, even if managers understand and agree on the practical aspects of participative leadership, do they believe that participation will lead to more effective results?

The purpose of this article is to shed light on these questions by reporting the responses of 318 executives to a questionnaire that was administered while they were attending management education programs at the Harvard Business School. (A profile of these executives appears in the sidebar.)

Of the 318 managers in this study, over 50% are in general management positions; the remainder are in more functional jobs, such as finance (17%) and marketing (11%). More than 50% of these managers are over age 35, with 18% having more than 20 years of experience in business and 15% having less than 5 years of experience. Their educational backgrounds include 83% with bachelors degrees and 30% with advanced degrees. All of these managers were attending management education programs at the Harvard Business School when they took part in the study.

The reader will be able to compare his own understanding of participation with those reported by this sample of executives. Just as important, knowing more about managerial perceptions of leadership style can help educators assess the extent to which their participative message has found its mark.

Theories in Conflict

Before I report the study findings, let me briefly review two basic and often opposing schools of thought about leadership style. In doing so, I shall define leadership style quite simply as a pattern of interacting with subordinates.

Previous research has identified a variety of leadership patterns, such as participative, authoritarian, laissez-faire, task-oriented, and so forth. The most discussed and popular of these has been participative leadership.

Advocates of the participative style fall into what I call the "actor" school of thinking. ¹ Their key assumption is that managers are like sensitive players in a drama, relatively flexible and able to alter their behavioral styles, even in the later years of life. They see managers as able to exercise conscious, rational control over their own behavior and to adapt continuously to new cues and role demands placed on them by their organizations.

With this model of a highly receptive leader in mind, members of the actor school emphasize the use of management education to convert executives to a participative style. As a result of their influence, thousands of managers have been exposed to company and university programs stressing both the humane and the productive aspects of participative leadership. These programs, however, have varied in their particular brand of participative leadership-some have focused on team decision making; others have placed emphasis on joint goal setting; and still others have taught listening skills for two-way communication.

Opposed to the actor school is what might be called the "born-leader" school. ² Its members take the position that a leader's style is deeply rooted in his or her personality, which in turn is a complex product of genetic inheritance and the maturation process. They see each manager's style as representing a highly individualistic, often unconscious, pattern of acting out ingrained values, conflicts, and attitudes acquired over many years. And they express strong doubts that managers can easily adopt new forms of behavior as they become older.

Stated simply, the conflict between the two groups is this:

The actor (participative) school holds that leadership behavior can be taught and is largely determined by external cues from the environment.

The born-leader school holds that leadership behavior is individually developed and that it is largely determined by internal personality characteristics.

Both groups, of course, cite research evidence to support their own position and refute that of the other. The born-leader proponents, for example, point to the fact that people who choose professional careers tend, in greater numbers than could be expected by chance, to be first born children in their families. ³ The participative enthusiasts, however, often refer to numerous studies of company training programs showing how managers have altered their behavior in a participative direction. ⁴

Yet both groups would agree that knowing more about a manager's assumptions concerning leadership style is vitally important. Every manager carries around in his head certain "rules of thumb" that guide his behavior in leadership situations. It is these mental guidelines that I shall attempt to uncover in this article.

Interestingly enough, the findings reported here lend credence to both the actor and born-leader schools. While managers have definitely been attracted to participative leadership, they also have made some unique and personalized translations of it to fit their particular career situations.

The Managerial Viewpoint

As mentioned earlier, two objectives of this study were (1) to discover what managers consider to be the concrete characteristics of participative leadership and (2) to determine whether they think such a style leads to effective results. Accordingly, the 318 managers in the study were given a questionnaire containing 39 leadership characteristics. Then they were divided into two groups:

The first group of 157 managers was told to rate each characteristic on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 equal to low participation and 7 equal to high participation. They were asked to base their ratings on their own past experiences as managers.

The second group of 161 managers was told to check (a) the 5 characteristics that they found to be most effective in handling managerial situations, and (b) the 5 characteristics that they found to be least effective. They also were asked to base their judgments on past experience.

Let us now turn to an in-depth look at the responses of these two groups. (Before proceeding, however, I should note that while the questionnaire was based on extensive past research and included a wide span of behavior, the findings of this study are necessarily limited to the 39 questionnaire items.)

What is participation?

Despite the fact that participative leadership is an abstract concept, the managers in the study reached a high level of agreement in rating specific characteristics on the 1-to-7 participation scale. Among the managers in the first group who rated the 39 items only for extent of participation, the average correlation of agreement is .74 out of a perfect 1.00. Even higher is their agreement in rating items at the extreme ends of the scale. No significant differences appear between younger and older managers, among types of educational background, or among current job positions.

This high level of agreement suggests that the study managers hold a reasonably clear and uniform understanding in their concrete interpretation of participative leadership. Such unanimity is quite remarkable considering the different interpretations that educators have given the concept of participation. Even the questionnaire items, because of their limited wording, are subject to divergent interpretation. Yet the managers in this study apparently were not misled.

A more complete picture of participative leadership emerges from the listing of the 10 highest-ranked characteristics of participative behavior in Exhibit I. The ultimate participative act, for example, is viewed as including one's subordinates in the decision-making process. Here the respondents move significantly away from the classical notion of the manager acting as a sole decision maker.

Exhibit I. The 10 Highest Participation Characteristics

At the same time, however, a variety of other characteristics combine to define a prototype participative leader. It is doubtful that a manager can open up the decision-making process without including some of these other participative actions. According to the respondents, the participative leader also-

...maintains free-flowing and honest communication;

...remains easily accessible;

...stresses development for his subordinates;

...expresses consideration and support;

...is willing to change.

Here is a picture of a sensitive, extroverted, and emotive leader who actively stays in close contact with his subordinates and is attuned to their needs.

Moreover, these findings indicate that education and training in participative leadership have, indeed, had an effect. Managers in the study, lending support to advocates of the actor (participative) school, are in relative agreement about the specific actions they would rate as being highly participative. A prototype participative style emerges (from the 10 highest items) which encompasses much of what has been conveyed in the literature on this subject.

But is participative leadership also viewed by these managers as the most effective style? Or are certain low participation characteristics also deemed effective? These are important questions, because the actor-school advocates have long portrayed the participative leader as the man who not only is more humane but also gets the best results.

Let us now look at the leadership characteristics selected by the managers in the second group; this is the group that rated the 39 questionnaire items for effectiveness but not for participation.

What gets results?

The executives in the second group generally picked characteristics that were rated high on participation by those in the first group. Exhibit II presents the 10 items that received the most votes for being highly effective. These same items, when rated on the 7-point participation scale by the first group of executives, received an average rating of 5.03, which is decidedly toward the high-participation end of the scale. Put another way, 7 of the 10 top effective actions listed in Exhibit II also appear among the highest participation items in Exhibit I.

Exhibit II. The 10 Most Effective Leadership Characteristics

Of the entire list of leadership characteristics, the item with the highest effectiveness rating is concerned with training and developing subordinates (which challenges a common stereotype that managers are preoccupied only with daily decision making). These managers place considerably more value on the role of manager as teacher than as decision maker. One explanation for this pedagogical concern of the study managers is that they completed the questionnaire while they were involved in a management development and training program. More likely, however, is the pragmatic explanation that they realize it is in their self-interest to develop a job replacement for themselves, thus making their own promotion possible.

Once again it appears that the advocates of participative leadership can take comfort in the findings-i.e., participation is seen by the respondents as being related to more effective performance. Whether these same managers actually behave as participative leaders on the job, however, is a question for other studies to answer. Also, since the questionnaire was completed by separate groups, we cannot be sure if the managers do, in fact, make a conscious link between participation and effectiveness. Nevertheless, the link is indirectly evident in the findings, so whether the managers in the study know it or not, they place themselves in the participative camp.

Some Significant Exceptions

On closer examination, the study findings reveal some distinct and important exceptions to an "across the board" consensus on participative leadership. The study managers are clearly less in agreement about the meaning of effective behavior than they are about participative behavior. In Exhibit I, there was a very high correlation of agreement in rating each item for high and low participation. Yet, in Exhibit II, only the first-ranked effectiveness item-"Counsels, trains, and develops subordinates"-was checked by more than 50% of the respondents. Of the remaining top 10 items, 6 were checked by less than one third of the respondents.

This wider variance in choice of effective behavior suggests a rather loose link between perceptions of effectiveness and of participative leadership. A manager guided exclusively by effectiveness criteria will apparently favor actions that are not included in a strict interpretation of participative leadership.

Advocates of participation, of course, might claim that this divergent view of effectiveness is caused by some uninformed managers who have not yet realized the full merits of behaving solely within a participative style.

But a more positive and pragmatic explanation emerges when the 10 top participation items in Exhibit I are matched with the 10 top effectiveness items in Exhibit II. Significantly, the first 4 items on the effectiveness list are completely different from the first 4 items on the participation list. Moreover, the 4 highest-rated effectiveness characteristics in Exhibit II ranked only 5, 6, 20, and 26, respectively, in a complete ranking of the participation items by the first group of managers.

Special attention should be given to the effectiveness characteristics ranked 3 and 4 in Exhibit II. These two items, which are concerned with high performance expectations, ranked only 20 and 26 on extent of participation. Such a strong emphasis on performance reflects a noticeable exception to our earlier prototype of the participative leader who is warm, emotive, and open.

In short, keeping subordinates aware of high performance expectations seems quite important to the managers in the study, even if this means using directive action within an overall participative style. Perhaps they feel that subordinates can misread an orthodox participative leader as being more concerned for their psyches than for the fruits of their labor.

Career influences

Further analysis of the effectiveness ratings provides support for the born-leader advocates. While the main thrust toward a meshing of participation and effectiveness remains essentially unchanged, different age groups display important variances on a few of the effectiveness ratings.

Exhibit III highlights 7 of the 39 characteristics for which a statistical test revealed substantial differences according to age. These results suggest that a manager's career stage may influence his specific leadership orientation, even when he operates within a broader participative framework. Consider the influence on these three managerial groups:

Exhibit III. Age Differences in Effectiveness Ratings

1. Younger managers in the study tend to take what Abraham Zaleznik calls a "proactive" stance; they stress (a) work priorities, (b) proving their technical competence, and (c) backing up subordinates. ⁵ This more aggressive orientation is understandable if one views younger managers as full of energy and enthusiasm, yet possessing self-doubts about their own competence. In addition, these managers are usually in lower-level or specialist positions, where they must visibly demonstrate their talents while also coping with heavy workloads and intense pressure for results.

2. Managers between 30 and 40 years of age emphasize a more "mediative" approach. Most of these executives are in middle-management jobs where they must deal with eager subordinates as well as complex tasks that require numerous trade-offs. Hence, they are exceptionally favorable to (a) taking a more personalized approach to others, (b) relating to subordinates, and (c) making group decisions. Psychologically, this is a time when the middle manager is often exploring his ability to handle heavier responsibility while taking greater risks, so he understandably turns to others for consultation and support.

3. Managers in the over-40 group display a shift toward "homeostatic" or fatherly and maintenance concerns. These older executives, who are usually in top management, seem strongly preoccupied with counseling, developing, and training subordinates; partly, I surmise, because they wish to leave behind some of their own personal attributes and wisdom, as well as to keep the organization in good health. They are also concerned with the broad issue of communications; top managers frequently feel guilty and lonely in their insulated positions, where responsibility is high for maintaining a clear flow of communications throughout a complex organization.

All the foregoing exceptions suggest that one should be cautious in prescribing a uniform participative style for leaders at all levels of an organization. The born-leader theorists would agree, contending that legitimate behavioral variations occur naturally because managers seek to satisfy different personal needs as they mature in a hierarchy of upward job moves.

Moreover, a company without several older managers worrying about the development of future managers would be seriously handicapped. It is probably too much to expect this teaching responsibility to be filled primarily by middle managers who are consumed mainly by task demands, or by younger managers who are worried about their own development. Their respective uses of participative leadership will likely be slanted to fit different psychological and organizational concerns.

These results also lead me to further question the current fad toward early retirement for older managers in order to give younger managers more responsibility sooner. Companies should learn that all three age groups contribute differently to the organization, and that this variance in contribution should be more sensitively accounted for in manpower planning and performance-assessment decisions. One cannot measure all managers on a common set of standards.

In addition, individual managers should learn to be more aware of their own developmental needs as they make the transition from one job level to the next in organizations. Younger managers, for example, will probably have to master the skills of group decision making to perform effectively at middle levels. As they become ready for senior positions, they will have to develop talents in training subordinates. Company educational programs and personnel counseling services can also aid in solving these transitional problems.

Conclusion

The implied message from managers in this study is: "Let's stop beating our chests over the abstract virtues of participative leadership and settle down to defining its more specific uses and limitations in actual practice." For these managers, the choice of leadership style is not between participation and directiveness, nor is it between the actor and born-leader theories. Their reaction to the organizational and psychological reality that faces them in actual practice is to include aspects of all these pulls and tugs. ⁶

If executives in this study are representative, one can state that the managerial population at large has already absorbed well the message of participative leadership. There is not only consensus on the specific characteristics that comprise a participative style, but also general agreement that certain participative leadership characteristics produce more effective results. This connection between participation and effectiveness is significant because managers are more likely to act in a participative manner if they believe their actions lead to better results.

Thus the managers in the study are decidedly ahead of those social critics who claim that business executives are a bunch of authoritarians concerned only with manipulating their "puppet" subordinates. ⁷ They are also beyond those participative educators who assume that businessmen are still waiting to be convinced that participation is a good thing.

Yet these managers do not accept participation on the basis of blind ideology. Instead, they seem to be saying that participative advocates should doff their doctrinaire hats and apply themselves to the application of participative leadership in more pragmatic and more flexible terms. They are quite willing, for example, to use a few directive actions to keep high performance goals in front of subordinates. They are also willing to translate participation to fit their current career and job situations. Thus a young manager on the firing line is likely to employ participative actions differently from an older manager in a senior position.

Such personalized leadership adaptations seem to make good practical sense, for the benefit of both organization performance and a manager's mental health. For the managers whose opinions are represented here, participative leadership appears to be a sound concept, but only if presented as a general model within which individual leaders can exhibit a variety of actions to satisfy different personal and career needs.

1. For articles appearing in past issues of HBR that represent this point of view, see Warren G. Bennis and Philip E. Slater, "Democracy Is Inevitable," March-April 1964, p. 51; Herbert H. Meyer, Emanuel Kay, and John R.P. French, Jr., "Split Roles in Performance Appraisal," January-February 1965, p. 123; and Alva F. Kindall and James Gatza, "Positive Program for Performance Appraisal," November-December 1963, p. 153.

2. For articles appearing in past issues of HBR that reflect this point of view, see Harry Levinson, "On Being a Middle-Aged Manager," July-August 1969, p. 51; Abraham Zaleznik, "Management of Disappointment," November-December 1967, p. 59; and C. Wilson Randle, "How to Identify Promotable Executives," May-June 1956, p. 122.

3. See, for example, William D. Altus, "Birth Order and Its Sequelae," Science, January 1, 1966, p. 44.

4. For examples of this research, see Robert R. Blake, Jane S. Mouton, Louis B. Barnes, and Larry E. Greiner, "Breakthrough in Organization Development," HBR November-December 1964, p. 133; and Rensis Likert, The Human Organization (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967).

5. See "Managerial Behavior and Interpersonal Competence," Behavioral Science, April 1964, p. 156.

6. For HBR articles that take this point of view, see Jay W. Lorsch, "Beyond Theory Y," May-June 1970, p. 61; and Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt, "How to Choose a Leadership Pattern," March-April 1958, p. 95.

7. See, for example, William Irwin Thompson, At the Edge of History: Speculations on the Transformation of Culture (New York, Harper & Row, 1971).

A version of this article appeared in the March 1973 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Managers Think of Participative Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An extroverted, sensitive leader who openly shares decisions and authority with subordinates-this is the profile that emerged when 318 executives were asked their opinions on the characteristics of participative leadership. While there is much discussion-and controversy-among educators and theorists about the concept of participative leadership, managers themselves have not yet been heard.

# data[].attributes.body
A four step video explaining how to be a transformational leader. Which is one of the leadership roles we learned about in chapter 13.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Stakeholder Management and Power Interest Grid Example

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To learn more about Transformational Leadership, see the article at www.mindtools.com/transformationalleadership. Have you ever wondered just what is it about your leadership style that brings out the best in your people? And have you ever thought about the aspects that might need improvement? What are you going to do about it?

# data[].attributes.body
This is a funny and insightful video explaining 7 barriers to effective communication. In chapter 12 we learned about macro and micro barriers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Head on over to the blog and share your thoughts! http://www.emeroy.com/blog. Get your free ebooks! http://www.emeroy.com/free_resource Liked the video? Subscribe to our channel and subscribe to our free newsletter on http://www.emeroy.com/blog. Thanks for watching!

# data[].attributes.body
We learned in chapter 15 groupthink is the mode of thinking that group members engage in when the desire for agreement so dominates the group that it overrides the need to realistically appraise alternative solutions. This is an article with advice on how to avoid groupthink.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Avoiding Fatal Flaws in Group Decision Making

Have you ever thought about speaking up in a meeting and then decided against it because you did not want to appear unsupportive of the group's efforts?

Or led a team in which the team members were reluctant to express their own opinions?

If so, you have probably been a victim of "Groupthink".

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when the desire for group consensus overrides people's common sense desire to present alternatives, critique a position, or express an unpopular opinion. Here, the desire for group cohesion effectively drives out good decision-making and problem solving.

Two well-known examples of Groupthink in action are the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster and the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Engineers of the space shuttle knew about some faulty parts months before takeoff, but they did not want negative press so they pushed ahead with the launch anyway.

With the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy made a decision and the people around him supported it despite their own concerns.

Irving L. Janis coined the term "Groupthink," and published his research in the 1972 book, " Groupthink." His findings came from research into why a team reaches an excellent decision one time, and a disastrous one the next. What he found was that a lack of conflict or opposing viewpoints led to poor decisions, because alternatives were not fully analyzed, and because groups did not gather enough information to make an informed decision.

How to Spot Groupthink

Janis suggested that Groupthink happens when there is:

A strong, persuasive group leader.

A high level of group cohesion.

Intense pressure from the outside to make a good decision.

In fact, it is now widely recognized that Groupthink-like behavior is found in many situations and across many types of groups and team settings. So it's important to look out for the key symptoms.

Symptoms of Groupthink

Information that is gathered is censored so that it also conforms to, or supports the chosen decision or alternative.
"Don't listen to that nonsense, they don't have a clue about what is really going on."

How to Avoid Groupthink

The challenge for any team or group leader is to create a working environment in which Groupthink is unlikely to happen. It is important also to understand the risks of Groupthink - if the stakes are high, you need to make a real effort to ensure that you're making good decisions.

To avoid Groupthink, it is important to have a process in place for checking the fundamental assumptions behind important decisions, for validating the decision-making process, and for evaluating the risks involved. For significant decisions, make sure your team does the following in their decision-making process:

Explores objectives.

Explores alternatives.

Encourages ideas to be challenged without reprisal.

Examines the risks if the preferred choice is chosen.

Tests assumptions.

If necessary, goes back and re-examines initial alternatives that were rejected.

Gathers relevant information from outside sources.

Processes this information objectively.

Has at least one contingency plan.

There are many group techniques that can help with this, including the "Mind Tools" listed below. By using one or more of these techniques to accomplish aspects of the group's work, you will vary the group's ways of working, and so guard against Groupthink and help make better decisions.

Tools That Help You Avoid Groupthink

Decision Support Tools: The Ladder of
Inference
Helps people check and validate the individual steps of a decision-making process.

How to Overcome Groupthink

However, if Groupthink does set in, it's important that you recognize and acknowledge it quickly, so that you can overcome it and quickly get back to functioning effectively.

Follow these steps to do this:

1. Even with good group decision-making processes in place, be on the look out for signs of Groupthink, so you can deal with them swiftly.

2. If there are signs of Groupthink, discuss these in the group. Once acknowledged, the group as a whole can consciously free up its decision making.

3. Assess the immediate risks of any decision, and the consequences for the group and its customers. If risks are high (for example risk of personal safety), make sure you take steps to fully validate any decision before it is ratified.

4. If appropriate, seek external validation, get more information from outside, and test assumptions. Use the bullets above as a starting point in diagnosing things that needs to change.

5. Introduce formal group techniques and decision-making tools, such as the ones listed above, to avoid Groupthink in the future.

Key Points

Groupthink can severely undermine the value of a group's work and, at its worst, it can cost people their lives.

On a lesser scale, it can stifle teamwork, and leave all but the most vocal team members disillusioned and dissatisfied. If you're on a team that makes a decision you don't really support but you feel you can't say or do anything about it, your enthusiasm will quickly fade.

Teams are capable of being much more effective than individuals but, when Groupthink sets in, the opposite can be true. By creating a healthy group-working environment, you can help ensure that the group makes good decisions, and manages any associated risks appropriately.

Group techniques such as Brainstorming, the Modified Borda Count and Six Thinking Hats can help with this, as can other decision making and thinking tools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Avoiding Groupthink: Avoiding Sometimes-Fatal Flaws in Group Decision Making

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Avoiding Fatal Flaws in Group Decision Making Have you ever thought about speaking up in a meeting and then decided against it because you did not want to appear unsupportive of the group's efforts? Or led a team in which the team members were reluctant to express their own opinions?

# data[].attributes.body
I was amazed to learn the amount of money companies and applicants pay external recruiting companies. I thought surely these were a thing of the past. However, I found quite a few here in Jacksonville,FL. This is a link to a staffing agency in Jacksonville, FL.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Staffing Agencies Jacksonville FL | Recruitment Intelligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seeking the best of the best prospects in Jacksonville FL? We will present you with an alternative recruiting method which is affordable and provides quick results.

# data[].attributes.body
The expressions on this group of people show the impact our nonverbal communications can have. In chapter 12 we learned about the differences of verbal and nonverbal communications.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an image illustrating how things like support and service associate with value. Value was a definition we learned about at the end of chapter 16.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a short video explaining what an Organizational Culture is. We learned in chapter 16 about the four different types of organizational cultures

# data[].attributes.body
This is a blog entry giving advice on how to make accountability work in a group environment. In chapter nine we read about managements philosophy on holding individuals liable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Salespeople are often viewed as individuals who hold themselves accountable. Accountable to getting up and out every day and pushing themselves to get to the next level. They are most often seen as doing things that others don't want to do. They hold themselves accountable.

What's the reality? It's not always that easy. Many salespeople would say (my educated guess) that holding themselves accountable is one of the toughest things they face.

For years I've looked at ways to stay focused and on point with my business. There are several things I do that work, for example, my cookbook: 1.) tracking my results daily and have them roll up to measure against my goals, 2.) sharing goals with my family, and 3.) having my family share their goals. These are all things that work well.

One addition really changed the momentum - An Accountability Group. I found a group of business owners, in my "space" that share similar goals. They want to get better, work smarter, grow their business and learn best practices, and at the same time they want a place to go where they are held accountable.

Let's face it, as business owners, we can do what we want when we want. We call the shots, and that can be dangerous. We need someone to say - How's it really going?

So how do we make an accountability group work?

1. Find individuals that want more - don't find a group of "wimps", they'll bring you down. Surround yourself with winners! Bonus: Find one partner that's hitting it out of the park.

2. Establish a preset meeting time - lock it in now and keep it sacred.

3. Meet weekly - this is not a long meeting & it can be done by phone.

4. Decide on at least 3 metrics that you'll report on each meeting. My group shares a simple red, yellow & green format and we track new appointments added, new sales and lessons learned/journaling.

5. Stay on point - you can talk about other things, AFTER you've readout your results.

6. How can I help you? - When someone gets "stuck" ask how you can help them.

7. The time is non-negotiable. This should be treated as the most important meeting of the week. In rare cases you may have to miss it - but don't make it a habit.

8. End on time - that's part of being accountable to each other! Get back to building your business.

I don't think there's much rocket science here. Once you've identified a couple of accountability partners and get this rolling you'll wonder why you didn't do it before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 8 Tips for an Accountability Group that Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Salespeople are often viewed as individuals who hold themselves accountable. Accountable to getting up and out every day and pushing themselves to get to the next level. They are most often seen as doing things that others don't want to do. They hold themselves accountable. What's the reality?

# data[].attributes.body
This article from forbes gives five key elements to an effective management plan. Chapter 8 discusses designing a span of management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ask 5 people for their opinions on optimizing "span of control" and you'll likely receive 5 different opinions. These well meaning opinions will often cite a few different rules of thumb on size and composition, and will undoubtedly refer you to someone's version of best practices. Here's the problem - they'll all lead you astray.
What Should Be Obvious To All - But Isn't
Nothing is more important for a leader to understand than knowing how to move the needle across the entire enterprise (strategically, culturally, organizationally, and operationally). Where many leaders become disoriented is by confusing platform with people, and position with responsibility. Here's the thing - it's not about the platform, it's about the people. Without the people there is no platform, and ultimately nothing to lead. It's not about you (the leader), but what you can create and influence through those you lead.

It doesn't matter whether it's the CEO, or a leader several levels down, knowing how to create the right team dynamics is paramount in determining success or failure. Want to know if a leader will be successful? Just look at the talent they attract, and the team they build - look at how they value and treat people. Any leader's ability (or lack thereof) to effectively attract, deploy and retain talent will tell you everything you need to know about said leader. I have little patience for leaders who complain about talent. Leaders deserve the talent they attract and the teams they build.
Span of Control - Defined and Redefined
The commonly accepted definition of span of control is as follows: "the number of subordinates directly reporting to a leader/manager." For what it's worth, I really dislike the term and find it to be outdated at best, and destructive at worst. I prefer the more inclusive term constituency management. I want leaders to think span of influence and awareness, to shift thinking from rigid structures to loose collaborative networks, and to think open source not proprietary.

The goal is not to see how far you can stretch - this shouldn't be a contest of he/she with the most direct reports wins. The days of corporate power plays and land grabs to gain control don't serve anyone well. Smart leaders use elasticity in the most fluid and flexible fashion to extend their engagement, increase their knowledge, and to create scale for those they lead. Smart leaders strive to achieve the proper levels of influence and awareness by increasing the right activities in order to attain the right outputs - this happens better through collaboration than by control. Great leaders don't control people they align them around a vision, and they inspire people by setting them free to achieve great outcomes.
A Slippery Slope
Far too many executives fall into the trap of filling their plate with overly aggressive commitments to direct reports while not planning for the other inevitabilities of the job. By leaving little or no room for white space, much less other constituencies like customers, board members, capital markets, public policy, vendors, media, etc., inevitable conflicts and chaos occur. Again, I prefer to think of direct reports as just one subset of constituency management.

Operating within the narrow confines of traditional definition does nothing more than narrow leadership effectiveness. The myopia of viewing the world through the traditional lens of span of control not only affords leaders little room to maneuver, but it always has them out of balance and playing catch-up.

Following a 5 things every leader should work into the design of their constituency management plan:

1. Context Every leader is different, and as a result, has different needs with regard to numbers, skills, cultural dynamics, etc. If you don't have the skills to lead or manage a broad span, yet attempt to do so, it will be your undoing. If your focus is too narrow, you'll find yourself with blind spots and operational gaps. The average number of direct reports for Fortune 500 CEOs is 7.44, but some CEOs have more than 20, while others have less than 5. It's not the number that's important, but whether you're getting what you need out of whatever number you have. Additionally, how a leader structures their span sends a very strong message (internally and externally) as to who and what they value, along with their capabilities, interests, and passions. Make sure you're sending the correct message.

2. Understanding: Don't focus on the team you inherit, focus on the team you need - if they happen to be one and the same consider yourself lucky. Are you looking for doers, thinkers, or teachers? Do you want to build a team of tactical geniuses, or brilliant strategists, or sage mentors? Compromise has its place, but not where matters of talent are concerned. When it comes to team construct, never settle for less than what you need. You will be held accountable for your decisions in this regard - choose wisely.

3. The Missing Link: The most commonly overlooked aspect of team dynamics is for leaders to understand learning and development are best when they occur bi-directionally. Smart leaders seek to be challenged and to encourage diversity of thought and dissenting opinion. One of the primary drivers of composition should be to find a group of talented individuals who will challenge you, stretch you, and develop you. Part of getting the job done is ensuring a certainty of execution, while always taking your leadership ability to new heights. Remember - leaders who don't develop themselves professionally will be replaced by those who do.

4. Time Is Your Most Valuable Commodity: Time; it's the only thing we all have in common, yet it's how we choose to spend it that defines and differentiates us as individuals. Time can either be your best friend or your worst nightmare. Time doesn't slow, nor can it be accelerated or recovered. You can waste time or invest time, but the best leaders scale time. Good constituency management allows you to scale time by creating time leverage across the enterprise and throughout a leaders entire sphere of influence. I often hear people espouse the axiom "don't work hard, work smart." I have a bit of a different take on the subject - I encourage people to work very hard at working intelligently. Remember, time is a finite commodity, and once a moment in time has passed it is gone forever.

5. Trust Is Your Most Valuable Asset: A leadership team built on anything other than a foundation of trust is destined to fail. Leaders who choose to operate without trust do so at great risk. Know this - leaders not accountable their people will eventually be held accountable their people. One of a leader's most important functions is to create an environment where trust and loyalty are the rule and not the exception. When it comes to trust and loyalty, the simple rule is you will not freely receive what you will not freely give. Here's a question every leader must answer: If you don't trust a member of your team, should they really be on your team?

There is a reason we can't point to more "it" companies. There's a reason we can find more examples of failed teams than great teams. Fact: it takes rigor, discipline, skill, and an unyielding focus on quality to create the right team. Team building is not a check the box exercise and leaders who treat it as such will reap what they have sowed. Thoughts?

Follow me on Twitter @mikemyatt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Span Of Control - 5 Things Every Leader Should Know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ask 5 people for their opinions on optimizing "span of control" and you'll likely receive 5 different opinions. These well meaning opinions will often cite a few different rules of thumb on size and composition, and will undoubtedly refer you to someone's version of best practices. Here's the problem - [...]

# data[].attributes.body
This was a cute meme I found. All three chapters encompass decision making and planning in the management field. Planning when you're the "boss"

# data[].attributes.body
This is an image of the flow of the strategic management process. This process ensures the organization possesses and benefits from the use of an appropriate organization strategy.

# data[].attributes.body
This article describe one of the group decision making technique. This technique is the most effective in my opinion, giving each group member equal participation .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Use of the Nominal Group Technique in Decision-Making

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Prioritize issues and projects with a group consensus nominal group. The nominal group technique allows for all voices of a group to be heard multiple times. They are allowed to speak specifically about why they have chosen the way they have initially. They are then given more choices when it comes to numerical rating.

# data[].attributes.body
This video focuses on the maturity stage of the product stage method. The video uses McDonalds as an example

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
New-Product Development and Product Life-Cycle Strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Beyond Free Principles of Marketing Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Maturity stage of the Product Life Cycle - The case of McDonalds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Uploaded by Introducción al Marketing on 2016-02-16.

# data[].attributes.body
Nike is a multinational company. One of the top 20 companies in the world, with it's headquarters based out of Oregon.

# data[].attributes.body
I found a short article explaining what an ethnocentric attitude is and how to handle working with a cultural that may have this attitude.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ethnocentrism comes with doing business domestically and internationally. As a small business owner, you must understand how the ethnocentric views of consumers can affect your operations. Although failing to understand ethnocentrism can alienate your company from consumers, if you recognize the reality of ...

# data[].attributes.body
Most of the cars we drive in America are actually imported from other countries. I thought this meme was funny and refers to how some American's think American muscle cars are better than imported cars.

# data[].attributes.body
This video explains simply what a multinational company is, how it is run and even some of the pros and cons of being a multi-international company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Information Statistics advantages Disadvantages of Globalization & Multinational Companies Check

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Institute for Global Labor and Human Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Multinational Corporations Cl XI Bussiness Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Globalization & Multinational Companies GCE AS/As Business studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GCE AS/As Business studies Information Statistics advantages Disadvantages of Globalization & Multinational Companies Check out my other channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy501w4maqzxbY7HSy_DqWw

# data[].attributes.body
This video goes over all the key points we learned about diversity in the work place. I watched a few videos and I found this one to be the closest to the facts we read about in Chapter 3.

# data[].attributes.body
This meme pretty much sums up how society views gender roles for men and women. We learned in Chapter 3 how these stereotypes can effect the work place.

# data[].attributes.body
In Chapter 2 we learned that some companies use the golden rule from the bible in their code of ethics. It is very interesting that a bible verse is the standard in ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
We learned that most companies have a code of ethics they follow. My company has a code of ethics, the company I am contracted to has a code of ethics and we all follow the Ophthalmology code of ethics attached.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ethics in Ophthalmology Providing Ophthalmological Services Competence of the Ophthalmologist Communication with the Patient Fees for Ophthalmological Services Corrective Action An Ophthalmologist's Responsibility Professional Integrity in Research Community Responsibility Competence Informed Consent Research and Innovation Other Opinions The Impaired Ophthalmologist Pretreatment Assessment Delegation and Services Postoperative Care Medical and Surgical

# data[].attributes.body
I learned in this module the importance of the different levels of managers. I thought this meme was funny.

# data[].attributes.body
Conceptual, human and technical skills were all key terms in this module. This is a short article that get to the point on the differences and facts about the three skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are the differences between conceptual skills, human skills, and technical skills? | eNotes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get an answer for 'What are the differences between conceptual skills, human skills, and technical skills? ' and find homework help for other Business questions at eNotes

# data[].attributes.body
In this chapter we learned the importance of organizational resources and what they are exactly. I like how this picture put it so simply.

# data[].attributes.body
I learned facts and opinion I had never known about this man. I found it interesting that there was doubt that such a successful CEO could be viewed as a poor manager. This video proves otherwise, in my opinion!