Sources of Power in Education
Power may be regarded as the ability to determine the
behavior of others or to decide the outcomes of conflict. Where there is
disagreement, it is likely to be resolved according to the relative resources
of power available to the participants.
There are many sources of power, but in broad terms a
distinction can be made between authority and influence. Authority is
legitimate power which is vested in leaders within formal organizations.
Authority involves a legal right to make decisions which may be supported by
sanctions. ?Authorities are defined essentially as the people who are entitled
to make binding decisions? (Bolman and Deal, 1991: 193). School heads and
principals typically have substantial authority by virtue of their formal
leadership positions.
Influence represents an ability to affect outcomes and
depends on personal characteristics and expertise. Bacharach and Lawler (1980:
44) identify seven distinctions between authority and influence:
? Authority is the static, structural aspect of power in
organizations; influence is the dynamic, tactical element.
? Authority is the formal aspect of power; influence is
the informal aspect.
? Authority refers to the formally sanctioned right to
make final decisions; influence is not sanctioned by the organization and is,
therefore, not a matter of organizational rights.
? Authority implies involuntary submission by
subordinates; influence implies voluntary submission and does not necessarily
entail a
superior-subordinate relationship.
? Authority flows downward, and it is unidirectional;
influence is multidirectional and can flow upward, downward, or horizontally.
? The source of authority is solely structural; the
source of influence may be personal characteristics, expertise, or opportunity.
? Authority is circumscribed, that is, the domain, scope,
and legitimacy of the power are specifically and clearly delimited; influence
is
uncircumscribed, that is, its domain, scope, and
legitimacy are typically ambiguous.
As we noted in Chapter 1, formal authority is often
associated with management while influence is the key dimension of leadership.
Heads and principals possess positional authority and have the formal power to
impose their views. Leadership may arise in any part of the organization and
relies on personal qualities and attributes.
Hoyle (1982) points to the ways in which these two
aspects of power operate within educational institutions:
Influence differs from authority in having a number of
sources in the organization, in being embedded in the actual relationship
between groups rather than located in an abstract legal source, and is not
fixed but is variable and operates through bargaining, manipulation, exchange
and so forth. The head teacher in Britain has a high degree of authority; but
[the] exercise of that authority is increasingly modified as teachers? sources
of influence?increase and thus involves the head in a greater degree of
exchange and bargaining behavior. (Ibid.:90)
There are six significant forms of power relevant to
schools and colleges:
? Positional power. A major source of power in any
organization is that accruing to individuals who have an official position in
the institution. Formal positions confer authority on their holders, who have a
recognized right to make decisions or to play a key role in the policy-making
process. Handy (1993:128) says that positional power is ?legal? or ?legitimate?
power. In schools, the head is regarded as the legitimate leader and possesses
legal authority which is inevitably a key determinant of school policy. Other
staff who are in senior posts may also exercise positional power. These may
include deputy or associate principles, heads of department and pastoral
leaders. Chairs of governing bodies or school boards may also exert positional
power within self-managing schools and colleges. Cameron (2010) also points to
the power exercised by external partners, for example the Secondary National
Strategy (SNS) consultant in London: ?The SNS consultant has reinforced the
influe
nce or power that
secondary school hierarchies have over teachers and departments (ibid.:356). In
a hierarchy, the more highly placed individuals exert greater authority:
The first and most obvious source of power in an
organization is formal authority, a form of legitimized power that is respected
and acknowledged by those with whom one interacts?legitimacy is a form of
social approval that is essential for stabilizing power relations. It arises
when people recognize that a person has a right to rule some area of human life
and that it is their duty to obey. (Morgan, 1997:172)
? Authority of expertise. In professional organizations
there is significant reservoir of power available to those who possess
appropriate expertise. Handy (1993: 130) says that ?expert power is the power
that is vested in someone because of their acknowledged expertise?In a
meritocratic tradition people do not resent being influenced by those whom they
regard as the experts?. Schools and colleges employ many staff who have specialist
knowledge of aspects of the curriculum. The music specialist, for example, is
regarded as the expert in their field, and principals may be cautious in
substituting their own judgments for those of their heads of department in
curricular matters. In certain circumstances, there may be a conflict between
formal leaders and experts but the outcome is by no means certain:
Expert power relates to the use of knowledge and
expertise as a means of legitimizing what one wishes to do. ?The expert? often
carries an aura of authority and power that can add considerable weight to a
decision that rests in the balance. (Morgan, 1997: 181)
? Personal power. Individuals who are charismatic or
possess verbal skills or certain other characteristics may be able to exercise
personal power. Staff who are able to influence behavior or decisions by virtue
of personal abilities or qualities are often thought to possess the attributes
of charismatic leadership. These personal skills are independent of the power
accruing to individuals by virtue of their position in the organization. In
school staff rooms, for example, there are often individuals who command the
respect of colleagues because of their perceived wisdom or insight. These
teachers may become alternative leaders whose views are sought on the key
issues. ?Individuals with charisma, political skills, verbal facility, or the
capacity to articulate vision are powerful by virtue of their personal
characteristics, in addition to whatever other power they may have? (Bolman and
Deal, 1991: 19).
? Control of rewards. Power is likely to be possessed to
a significant degree by individuals who have control of rewards. They are
inevitably perceived as powerful by those who value such returns. In education,
rewards may include promotion, good references and allocation to favored
classes or groups. Individuals who control or influence the allocation of these
benefits may be able to determine the behavior of teachers who seek one or more
rewards. Typically, the head or principal is the major arbiter of promotion and
references, although advice may be sought from heads of departments or others
who possess relevant knowledge or information. Classes may be allocated by
heads of department. This form of power represents a means of control over
aspiring teachers but may have little influence on those staff who choose to
spurn these rewards. Control of rewards may be regarded as authority rather
than influence where it emanates from the leader acting in an official
capacity.
? Coercive power. The mirror image of the control of
rewards may be coercive power. This implies the ability to enforce compliance
with a request or requirement. Coercion is backed by the threat of sanctions.
?Coercive power rests on the ability to constrain, to block, to interfere, or
to punish? (Bolman and Deal, 1991: 196).
? Heads and principals may exercise coercive power by
threatening not to supply a good reference for external applications or warning
about the prospects for internal promotion. In certain circumstances, coercion
may be used in conjunction with the control of rewards to manipulate the
behavior of others. This ?carrot and stick? combination may have a powerful
double effect on staff and may be a latent factor in all schools and colleges.
Wallace and Hall (1994: 33) question the legitimacy of such manipulative
actions: ?We suggest that action?is manipulative either where it is a conscious
attempt, covertly, to influence events through means or ends which are not made
explicit; or where it is illegitimate, whether overt or not.?
? Control of resources. Control of the distributions of
resources may be an important source of power in educational institutions,
particularly in self-managing school and colleges. Decisions about the
allocation of resources are likely to be among the most significant aspects of
policy process in such organizations. Resources include revenue and capital
finance, but also human and material resources such as staff and equipment.
Control of these resources may give power over those people who wish to acquire
them. There is often competition between interest groups for additional
resources and success or failure in acquiring extra finance, staff and other
resources is an indicator of the relative power of individuals and groups:
Resource management is?a micropolitical process,
providing an arena within which participants compete for the resources which
will enable them to develop programs of activity which embody their values,
further their interests and help to provide legitimation for the activities in
which they are engaged. (Simkins, 1998: 110)
While these six forms of power might be regarded as the
most significant, Bolman and Deal (1991), Handy (1993) and Morgan (1997)
identify several other sources, including:
? physical power
? developing alliances and networks
? access to and control of agendas
? control of meanings and symbols
? control of boundaries
? gender and the management of gender relations.
Consideration of all these sources of power leads to the
conclusion that heads and principals possess substantial resources of authority
and influence. They have the capacity to determine many institutional decisions
and to affect the behavior of their colleagues. However, they do not have
absolute power. Other leaders and staff also have power, arising principally
from their personal qualities and expertise, although, Young and Brooks (2004)
show that part-time teachers, for example, are often marginalized. Lay
governors may also be powerful, particularly if they chair the governing board
or one of its important committees. These other sources of power may act as a
counterbalance to the head?s positional authority and control of rewards.
References
Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (1991) Reframing Organizations:
Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cameron, D. (2010) ?Working with secondary school leaders
in a large-scale reform in London: consultants? perspective of their role as
agents of school change and improvement?, Educational Management,
Administration and Leadership, 38(3): 341-59
Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organizations, London:
Penguin.
Hoyle, E. (1982) ?Micropolitics of educational
organizations?, Educational Management and Administration, 10(2): 87-98.
Morgan, G. (1997) Images of Organization, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Wallace, M. and Hall, V. (1994) Inside the SMT. Teamwork
in Secondary School Management, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Young, B. and Brooks, M. (2004) ?Part-time politics: the
micropolitical world of part-time teaching?, Educational Management,
Administration and Leadership, 32(2): 129-48.
Tomorrow's Professor: Sources of Power in Education