POWER TO THE PRACTITIONER

H. B. Karp

Of all the constructs used in the practice of human resource development (HRD) and organization development (OD), none is more controversial or misunderstood than power.

The inability or unwillingness on the part of many HRD practitioners and managers to deal with "power" as valid HRD construct paradoxically renders that practitioner or manager powerless. Practitioners must come to grips not only with the issue of the use of power in organizations but also with the issue of individual comfort with the use of power. Unless practitioners are comfortable with their own power, they will not be able to deal effectively with issues of power in organizations. It is time that practitioners and managers begin to deal with the issue of power freely and with confidence in order to build stronger individuals and organizations and, where needed, to effect positive change in systems.

THE DEFINITION OF POWER

A universal definition of the word "power" implies agreement about the word that does not change according to varying values, theories, or personal philosophies. To that end, this author defines power as: "the ability to get all you want from the environment, given what is available." This definition can be applied to power in any context (e.g., military, organizational, political, personal, intimate, etc.). The definition is composed of three parts, each of which requires a brief explanation.

First, power is cast in terms of a single human dimension, the individual’s ability. This places total responsibility for obtaining what is wanted on the shoulders of the person who wants it. To the extent that you have gained an objective, you will be regarded as having been powerful. If, however, you have been less than successful in your attempt, rather than asking, "Why won't these people cooperate?," it is far more appropriate to ask, "How did I stop myself from getting what I wanted?" For example, if all members of a group suddenly become unresponsive in the middle of a team-building session, it is much more productive for the facilitator to look for clues that he or she may have missed, rather than to castigate the group members for being low risk-takers or "betrayers" of the intervention.

Second, the object of power is not focused on other people, but on obtaining something of value to you. This could be a personal desire such as being successful or being attractive, or it could be a successful outcome for a client or an organizational problem to be solved. Power is not an end in itself, but a process that has relevance only in terms of gaining results or achieving objectives. It is the outcome that is important. In this light, power can be measured objectively in terms of "track records,", i.e., number of things attempted against number of things gained.

Power is an intrapersonal phenomenon. You cannot empower or disempower someoneelse; nor can anyone else empower or disempower you.

Although power can be viewed as the ability to gain compliance or support from other people, this is not a necessary element. The pursuit of power for its own sake has little to recommend it as a healthy or productive pastime. Without a clear objective in mind, the pursuit of power for its own sake makes as much sense as the pursuit of oats when one owns neither a horse nor an oatmeal factory.

The third element in the definition of power relates to the last phrase: "given what is available." One of the most important premises underlying the effective use of power is that each individual has responsibility for, and control of, himself or herself. To exercise power effectively, you must first ascertain what you want. Next, you must be willing to take full responsibility for getting it. However, you must also be able to determine whether what vou want is available from the environment. Although you are totally responsible for the desire for something and for its pursuit, you have no responsibility for its availability. This is a very Important distinction.

For example, suppose that you want a particular expert to work with your group. You call this person and find out that he simply is not available. From that point on, any further pursuit of this particular objective is not an exercise in power but a venture in futility. That is, the limiting factor is not an overestimation of your power but, rather, an inaccurate assessment of what is available at this time.

This point has a great deal of relevance for the HRD practitioner or manager, particularly in working with interpersonal relationships in an organization. For example, although it is almost always worth exploring, sometimes people are not going to like or trust others any more than they do at any given time. It usually is far more productive to honor such feelings as they are and to work with them, rather than to attempt to better the relationship.

Finally, although attempting something and not achieving it reflects a lack of power in that situation, to want something and not to attempt to achieve it is the ultimate in powerlessness.

Power has several identifying characteristics. They are as follows.

One of the major problems in working comfortably with power is that power is frequently confused with, or mistaken for, other concepts. These concepts are: authority, leadership, manipulation, intimidation, and domination. It is important that HRD practitioners and managers distinguish between these concepts and power.

Power is the ability to obtain what you want, whereas authority can be defined as the organizational right to attempt to obtain what you want. Power and authority differ in several ways. The function of power is to obtain specific objectives, whereas the function of authority is to protect the integrity of the organization. For example, authority determines who reports to whom, areas of accountability, rules and regulations that are responsive to the needs of the organization, and so on. Authority is used only as a last resort to get things done. Whenever a manager relies on authority rather than power (e.g., "Do it because I’m the boss and I said to do it!"), that manager has disempowered himself or herself even if he or she attains a shortterm objective.

Power originates in the individual; authority originates in the charter of the organization. Thus, there is no such thing as "position power." Power can be exerted anywhere, whereas authority is limited by position. (I can tell my subordinate what to do, but I cannot tell your subordinate what to do.) Finally, although one's power cannot be affected by anyone else, one's authority can be increased or decreased by someone who holds a position of higher authority.

Leadership ca n be defined as the art of getting people to perform a task willingly. It differs from power in that it focuses solely on compliance from others, requires an organizational identity of some kind (e.g., production department, scout troop, or military unit), and is in service to task completion for the common good. Power is not dependent on others, requires no special identity, and is in service to one's own wants or objectives.

Manipulation simply means "to handle"; however, in regard to power it usually connotes the secret use of power—the implication being that another person is being used without that person's full awareness of what is happening. It implies such things as ulterior motive, withheld information, and/or using another person without any regard for that person’s views or welfare. Power, in contrast, is open, does not necessarily involve another person, and implies no ill will or disregard for others.

Intimidation is an extreme case of disempowerment because it is self-generated. Regardless of how aggressive or invasive someone else is, if you think or say, "That person intimidates me," you have made the other person dominant and have rendered yourself powerless. Once you have done this, vou are generaliv incapable of doing anything to change the situation. On the other hand, if your initial response to the other person's aggressiveness is, "I am feeling intimidated bv this person. How am I doing that to myself?," you are taking responsibilirv for your own feelings. Having done that, you can begin to generate some options.

Domination is the concept most frequently confused with, or mistaken for, power. First, the objective of power is to gain an end; the objective of domination is to bend someone else to your will. Second, power is an attribute of one person, whereas domination, like the other concepts, requires a minimum of two people: the "bender" and at least one "bendee." Third, the function of power is to strengthen or better oneself; the function of domination is to weaken others. Fourth, power is measured against one’s past performance; domination requires only that one be stronger than another person. Finally, the end result of power is freedom—one obtains what one wants and then moves on. The end result of domination is slavery. The dominator continually must expend effort and energy making sure that the subordinates are still subordinate.

With a clear understanding of what power is and what it is not, an HRD practitioner can help a client to use power more comfortably and appropriately in a number of ways.

1. Assist the Client in Clarifying "Wants." The HRD practitioner’s greatest contribution to the empowerment of the client is to help the client to clarify what is wanted and what risks and costs are associated with each option. For example, a client might be clear about a want but unaware of what the cost might be; or the client might have a general sense of what is wanted, e.g., "better communications," but might not be able to translate that into specific behaviors or objectives. In some cases, a choice may have to be made between cost savings and programs. Some programs are more relevant than others; some have higher costs than others; some are more readily available than others; and some are mutually exclusive at any given moment.

   The more the practitioner can help the client to be clear about what is wanted and the costs/risks involved, the more likely the client is to feel powerful in achieving a successful outcome, that is, "getting what he or she wants."

2. Take No Responsibility for the Client’s Choices. I t is important to remember that in every HRD intervention there are two experts. The first is the practitioner, who has expertise in HRD. The second is the client, who is the expert about what is in the best interests of his or her organization. As long as there is no violation of personal values or professional ethics, it is not essential that the practitioner approve of the client’s choices, only that he or she assist the client in attaining them.

   While conducting a needs analysis for a small, independent, sales organization, a consultant came to the inescapable conclusion that this highly effective and very profitable organization operated in a way that only could be described as a cult! The leader controlled the subordinates solely by giving or withholding his personal approval. The subordinates— managers and salespeople alike—were totally dependent on the leader, and this dependency was reinforced by the leader and appeared to be on the increase.

   In discussing the survey findings, the consultant was very frank with the leader about the potentially damaging effects of his strategy. He acknowledged the information, which rein forced his views, and the consultant disengaged from the organization.

   Had the consultant attempted to design an intervention or change the values of the organization, he would have failed and damaged the system in the attempt. Both the leader and the subordinates clearly were aware of what was going on and actually embraced it. It was their choice to structure the organization in any way they wanted, and the consultant’s function simply was to help them to be clear about that choice.

3. Say All That You Think. OD practitioners frequently become caught up in the values of process and refuse to offer a personal opinion, for fear of unduly influencing the client. As a case in point, some years ago the author was the last consultant of six who was interviewed by a particular client. During the interview, the client said, "If I ask you for an opinion, will you give it to me?" The author hesitated and then said, "Sure." The client said, "Great, you have the contract. Nobody else would do that for me."

   The author realized during that incident that a consultant does not have the power to "unduly influence" a client. When a consultant intentionally withholds an opinion, whether it deals with content or process, he or she robs the client of another option to consider. Although one’s tendency may be to stay out of content areas, if one has an opinion and it is appropriate to state it, one should do so. The best that happens is that the consultant’s view brings a new perspective. The worst that happens is that he or she is not particularly helpful, but at least he or she learns something. The trick is to state your opinions clearly, but only as opinions, not as the best choices.

4. Stay Focused on the Result; Any Process That Gets You There Is a Good One. Sometimes, practitioners become so involved with the process, they lose sight of the intended result. The primary objective of any HRD effort is to attain a specific result. If the practitioner keeps the focus primarily on the result, a choice of processes becomes more available.

   For example, a practitioner who is committed to a collaborative approach may discover that collaboration is not available in a particular situation. By focusing the group on the desirability of the result and the costs of not achieving it, the practitioner may be able to obtain temporary collaboration. Failing that, other processes may emerge that would be more appropriate to the existing conditions, e.g., a delay or a situational compromise.

5. Make Change a Conscious Choice. One of the characteristics of power is that it can be expressed only in the present. The practitioner fosters the empowerment of the client most by assisting the client in staying responsive to what is occurring. Given the infinite number of things that could happen, there is always a range of potentially effective responses.

   By periodically asking the client, "Are you getting what you want nght now?," the practitioner helps to make the choices clearer. If the answer is "No," then change is appropriate. If the answer is "I’m not sure," putting things on hold and exploring the situation is most appropriate. If the answer is "Yes," there is no need to attempt change to meet the client’s needs.

   By seeing the role of "practitioner" only as "change agent," the practitioner risks encouraging the client to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Probably no word in the lexicon of HRD conjures up more myth and fervor than does the word "power." In reality, there is nothing awesome or evil about power. It is just one of the essential forces in maintaining and developing strong, productive organizations and positive working relationships. Power is the foundation of organizational effectiveness and HRD practice, regardless of the specialty in which an HRD practitioner or manager works. It is part of the everyday life in the work setting, and nothing can be accomplished without it. The problem lies in its ownership; many managers who are powerful deny their power or disavow it for fear of being seen as "not people oriented." The solution is for HRD professionals to start asking the question, for themselves and for their clients, "How am I stopping myself from doing what I have the ability to do?"

Back to Table of Contents

Home  Site Index   Search  Feedback  Guestbook

Syllabus  Written Assignments  Outside Lab Assignments  What is Leadership?  Self Concept   Parliamentary Procedure  Leadership Ideas  Win/Lose   Power  What is an Advisor?  What is a Program of Activities?  Effective Youth Organizations  Selecting/Electing Officers  Officer Guidelines

Send questions about this website to Denise Davies at ddavies@ag.arizona.edu.   For course information or questions not included in these pages contact Dr. James Knight. Copyright (c) 1998 Department of Agricultural Education, The University of Arizona.  Website version 1.2, last updated on Thursday, August 16, 2001.