In 1918, he was only a library assistant . . .

By 1949, he was the undisputed leader of a Superpower …

Who is this powerful man ? How does he have to say about power ?

Power comes from the barrel of the gun ?

ContentsI Intro

II What is Power ?

III Power People : Inter-Personal Power 5 Bases of Power Case Examples Reflection/Application

IV People Power : Group Forces at Work Emergent Properties of Group Case Examples Lessons

V Q&A

VI Summing Up

Appendix

III. INTER-PERSONAL POWER 5 Bases of Power

Case Examples : World’s Most Powerful People Reflection/Application : How to be a Person of Power

CoercivePower(“power comes from the barrel of the gun”)

IV. “PEOPLE POWER” Use of Case Studies to illustrateoIll-effects from abuse or non-rational use of Coercive Powero“Emergent Properties of Group”Case Examples on Group PsychologyReflection/Application : Lessons

V. Closing Q&A

“Power comes from the barrel of the gun“

INTRO : WHO SAYS WHAT

II. WHAT IS POWER ?

I. Intro : Who says What ?

I. Intro : Who say What ?

The Man …

1 Clarification …

Mao-Tse Tung ?(many westerners call his name as if he’s name is “Mouse-y” Tung !)

Its’ actually

Mao Ze Dong, 毛泽东or Chairman Mao

I. Intro : Who say What ?

2 more clarifications . . . 1. Political power flows from

the barrel of the gun.

2. A rally call spoken in the context of the communist party’s armed struggle in Chinese civil war (1927-1937).

II. What is Power ?

Power

• Defined as the ability to control one’s own outcomes and those of others, and the freedom to act

• It is related to status, authority, and dominance

Power• Power as capability – having resources to

effect desired outcomes • Power as influence - ability to exercise

influence over others • Power as relationship – a 2-way street

III. People of Power

5 Bases of Power• Legitimate• Reward• Expert• Referent• Coercive Source : French and Raven's (1959)

Legitimate Power• Right to make demands, and expect compliance and

obedience from others• Social hierarchies, cultural norms, and organizational

structure all provide the basis for legitimate power Eg. Elected or authorised office-holder (President, PM,

CEO, teacher, policemen, etc)

Reward Power

• Result from ability to compensate another for compliance

eg. Raises, promotions, desirable assignments, training opportunities, and even simple compliments

• Using incentives to secure desired outcomes

Expert Power

• Derived from a person's superior skill and knowledge• Can apply to ANY field of expertise; hence top experts

in their respective fields wields expert power

Referent Power

• Derive from a person's perceived attractiveness, worthiness, and right to respect from others

• Charisma, charm, admiration, or appeal Eg. Celebrities, “heroes” that we admire an aspect of

their personal attractiveness

Coercive Power

• Comes from the belief that a person can punish others for noncompliance

• Necessary for law & order.• However open to abuse by autocrat or

dictator => weakens legitimate power

Case Examples : The world’s most powerful people Newsweek List of Top 50

Most Powerful People in the World (Dec 2008)1. Barack Obama2. Hu Jintao3. Nicolas Sarkozy4-5-6. Economic Triumvirate 7. Gordon Brown8. Angela Merkel9. Vladimir Putin10. Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-

Saud11. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei12. Kim Jong Il13-14. The Clintons 15. Timothy Geithner16. Gen. David Petraeus17. Sonia Gandhi18. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva19. Warren Buffett

20. Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani21. Nuri al-Maliki22-23: The Philanthropists 24. Nancy Pelosi25. Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan26.Mike Duke27. Rahm Emanuel28. Eric Schmidt29. Jamie Dimon30-31. Friends of Barack 32. Dominique Strauss-Kahn33. Rex Tillerson34. Steve Jobs

35. John Lasseter36. Michael Bloomberg37. Pope Benedict XVI38. Katsuaki Watanabe39. Rupert Murdoch40. Jeff Bezos41. Shahrukh Khan42. Osama bin Laden43. Hassan Nasrallah44. Dr. Margaret Chan45. Carlos Slim Helú46. The Dalai Lama47. Oprah Winfrey 48. Amr Khaled49: E. A. Adeboye50. Jim Rogers

Application : To be a person of Power

Most Powerful Person in the World ?

Most Powerful Person in your country?

Most Powerful Person in this Room ?

How can I grow my power at home, groups & workplace ?

Application : To be a person of Power Objectively score yourself on each of the 5 power

bases Understand on which of the bases are you

influenced by another person Build leadership skills thro’ developing your sources

of powerEffective leaders focus on referent & expert power

primarily Do not rely on legitimate power nor coercive power

only

Personal Power Sources• Expert Power • Referent Power

Positional Power Sources• Legitimate Power• Reward Power • Coercive Power

IV PEOPLE POWER

Abuse of Coercive Power : Ill-effects• Coercive power necessary for law & order• However abuse weakens legitimate power • Abuse over long-term erodes power of coercive

force• Power relationship is a 2-way street

2 Case Examples People Power Revolution (1986) , Philippines Myanmar Crackdown (2007 – continuing), Myanmar

Case 1 People Power Revolution (1986), Philippines

• Marcos’ rule was corrupt, draconian & abused coercive force to persecute political opponents

• Marcos’ legitimate authority, referent power dissipated over the year as a result

• Corazon Aquino, wife of asassinated Opposition Leader, Benigno Aquino, led millions in bloodless overthrow of Marcos’ regime with support of Catholic Church, and Military

• Irony : Quiet housewife vs powerful coercive military ruler

Balik-Tanaw 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution.flv

Case 1 People Power Revolution (1986), Philippines

Corazon Aquino Ferdinand Marcos

VS

Case 2 Myanmar Protests (2007), Myanmar

• Aung San Su Kyii led political party won landslide 82% votes in 1990 elections

• Instead of assuming power she remains under house arrest (till after 2010 elections)

• Irony : Meek-looking but highly-principled lady vs dictatorial & corrupt junta ruling thro’ abusive coercive force

• Protests started on fuel price increase issue and escalated into general uprising as protestors’ hardened stance & even monks joined in

• What will happen in 2010 & down the road ?

Case 2 Myanmar Protests (2007), Myanmar

Aung San Su Kyii Myanmar’Military Junta

VS

Emergent Properties of Group

Deindividuation & Group Polarisation

On part of Protestor Crowds

Group -Think

On part of Autocratic regime

Case Example 3 Tiananmen Square June 4th Incident (1989), China

VS

DeindividuationAntecedent Conditions• Anonymity• Diffusion of

responsibility• Energizing effect of

others• Stimulus overload

Internal state (Deindividuation)

• Lessened self-observation & self-evaluation

• Lessened concern with the evaluations of others

• Weakening of internal controls (lessened concern with shame, guilt, fear, commitment)

Behavioural Effects• Impulsivity• Irrationality• Emotionality• Antisocial activity

Source: Zimbardo, 1970

Group Polarisation

• Group decisions tend to be more extreme than those made by individuals

• Whatever way the individuals are leaning, group discussion tends to make them lean further in that direction

Source : Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969)

GroupthinkAntecedent Conditions1. High cohesiveness2. Insulation of group3. Lack of procedures

for information search and appraisal

4. Directive leadership5. High stress with a

low degree of hope for finding a better solution than the one favoured by the leader or other influrntial people

MotivationConcurrence-

seeking tendency

Symptoms of Groupthink1. Illusion of invulnerability2. Collective rationalization3. Belief in inherent morality

of the group4. Stereostypes of outgroups5. Direct pressure on

dissenters6. Self-censorship7. Illusion of unanimity8. Self-appointed mind

guards

Symptoms of defective decision making

1. Incomplete survey of objectives

2. Incomplete survey of alternatives

3. Poor information search

4. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice

5. Selective bias in processing information at hand

6. Failure to reappraise alternatives

7. Failure to work out contingency plans

Source: Janis & Mann(1977)

Case 3 Tiananmen Incident (1989), China

• Tiananmen Incident started with students with differing agenda gathering to honor death of “pro-democracy” politician

• On the students’ end, group polarisation set in as students’ stance on issues hardened (and more so when negotiating with CCP leaders later on), and deinviduation set in.

• On leaders’ end, group think set in insular cohesive CCP leadership came under enormous stress of handling a never-seen-before challenge under full glare of international publicity

Case 3 Tiananmen Incident (1989), China

Lessons • Cultivate different bases of power, do not rely on

Coercive power (power of the gun’s barrel) singly to achieve desired outcomes.

• Never abuse coercive power especially for sustained period; coercion alone will ultimately fail.

• Power is a 2-way street, never a one-way street. • There is energy in crowds & masses; do not ignore it

– whether u are in the crowd or u are dealing with one.

• Beware of Group Think – its more real than you think

Thanks for attention …

Q &A

ReferencesAvolio, B.J., Sosik, J.J., Jung, D., Berson, Y. (2003), "Leadership models, methods, and applications", in Borman, W.C., Ilgen,

D.R., Klimoski, R.J. (Eds),Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. Vol. 12 pp.277-307

Back, K.W. (1951), "Influence through social communication", Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 46 pp.9-23. Baron, J.N., Pfeffer, J. (1994), "The social psychology of organizations and inequality", Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 57

pp.190-209Batson, C.D., Powell, A.A. (2003), "Altruism and prosocial behavior", in Millon, T., Lerner, M.J. (Eds),Handbook of

Psychology: Personality and Social Psychology, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. Vol. 5 pp.463-84 Bowers, D.G., Seashore, S.E. (1966), "Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership",

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 11 pp.238-63Bruins, J. (1999), "Social power and influence tactics: a theoretical introduction", Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 55 pp.7-14Bryman, A.S. (1996), "The importance of context: qualitative research and the study of leadership", Leadership Quarterly,

Vol. 7 pp.353-70 Cartwright, D. (1959a), "A field theoretical conception of power", in Cartwright, D. (Eds),Studies in Social Power, University

of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp.183-220 Cartwright, D. (1959b), "Power: a neglected variable in social psychology", in Cartwright, D. (Eds),Studies in Social Power,

University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp.1-14 Cartwright, D. (1965), "Influence, leadership, control", in March, J.G. (Eds),Handbook of Organizations, Rand McNally,

Chicago, IL, pp.1-47Elias, S.M. (2004), "Means of assessing ordinal interactions in social psychology: the case of sexism in judgments of social

power", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34 pp.1857-77Elias, S.M. (2007), "Influence in the ivory tower: examining the appropriate use of social power in the university classroom",

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37 pp.2532-48Farmer, S.M., Aguinis, H. (2005), "Accounting for subordinate perceptions of supervisor power: an identity-dependence

model", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 pp.1069-83

Fiol, C.M., O'Connor, E.J., Aguinis, H. (2001), "All for one and one for all? The development and transfer of power across organization levels", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 pp.224-42

French, J.R.P. (1956), "A formal theory of social power", Psychological Review, Vol. 63 pp.181-94French, J.R.P., Raven, B. (1959), "The basis of social power", in Cartwright, D. (Eds),Studies in Social Power, University of

Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp.529-69Frieze, I.H., Boneva, B.S. (2001), "Power motivation and motivation to help others", in Lee-Chai, A.Y., Bargh, J.A.

(Eds),The Use and Abuse of Power: Multiple Perspectives on the Causes of Corruption , Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp.75-89

Gilman, G. (1962), "An inquiry into the nature and use of authority", in Haire, M. (Eds),Organization Theory in Industrial Practice, Wiley, New York, NY, pp.105-42

Hogg, M.A., Reid, S.A. (2001), "Social identity, leadership, and power", in Lee-Chai, A.Y., Bargh, J.A. (Eds),The Use and Abuse of Power: Multiple Perspectives on the Causes of Corruption, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp.159-80

Hurwitz, J.I., Zander, A.F., Hymovitch, B. (1953), "Some effects of power on the relations among group members", in Cartwright, D., Zander, A. (Eds),Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, Row-Peterson & Co, Evanston, IL, pp.483-92

Moore, H.T. (1921), "The comparative influence of majority and expert opinion", American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 32 pp.16-20

Pelz, D.C. (1952), "Influence: a key to effective leadership in the first line supervisor", Personnel, Vol. 29 pp.209-17Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., Fetter, R. (1990), "Transformational leaders behavior and their effects

on follower's trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors", Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 pp.107-42

Raven, B.H. (1993), "The bases of power: origins and recent developments", Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 49 pp.227-51Salancik, G.R., Pfeffer, J. (1977), "Who gets power – and how they hold on to it: a strategic-contingency model of

power", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 5 pp.2-21Yukl, G., Falbe, C.M. (1990), "Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts",

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 pp.132-40Zaleznik, A. (1998), "Managers and leaders: are they different?", Harvard Business Review on Leadership, Harvard

Business School Publishing, Boston, MA, pp.61-88

THE END