Power

 

A balance of power can be constructed as unilateral, logistical and diplomatic. William Torbert presents philosophical and ethical bases for each form (Torbert, 1944). Unilateral power is ethically justified through the principle of utilitarianism. It is a Hobbesian world view emphasizing the physical, monarchical and executive functions.  Diplomatic power is held by the power yielder rather than the power wielder. In the sense of Rousseau, it involves the emotional, democratic and legislative function. Logistical power is Kantian in nature and is focused upon judicial potency, the ability to do something rational as opposed to acting on the basis of internal desire or external pressure.

 

Moving to an integral and transdisciplinary power – that which identifies a ‘pattern that connects.’ This is a transforming power that invites mutuality (Bateson, 2002; Torbert, 1944). Partnership models for culture become possible in the context of a cross-disciplinary, cross-professional and cross-cultural set of communication. “Partnership is not a utopia. It is simply applying our creativity to human interaction” (Montuori & Conti, 2007).

 

The difficulties in the partnership-dominator continuum lies not so much in the fact that the communicating parties use different vocabularies or languages to talk about the same thing, but rather in the fact that they use different structures of reasoning ( Eisler, 1994; Maruyama, 1974). Lately I have been very concerned with use of value laden terms such as ‘transparency.’ This can easily become a moral certainty for dividing the world into the forces of good and the forces of evil, or in this case, the behaviors of certain individuals. Humans often use different structures for reasoning and this can easily lead to misperception. Because the way we know truth varies based upon gender, social system and history, each and every one of us lacks transparency at some point from some perspective.

 

Either-or grows out of thinking which Bernstein classifies as ‘Cartesian Anxiety’ where there are either ‘solid foundations and indubitable knowledge’ or ‘a swamp of unfounded and ungrounded opinion.’ This "quest for some fixed ground, some stable rock upon which we can secure our lives against the vicissitudes that constantly threaten us" is part of  the claim that “religious or moral certainty for dividing the world into the forces of good and the forces of evil are shaped by this Cartesian Anxiety" (2005 pp28). Pragmatic fallibilism provides a counter to these totalizing solutions. This form of pragmatism is rooted in the thinking of Dewey, Peirce, James, Holmes and others. The “pragmatists critically attacked absolutism, when they sought to expose the quest for certainty, when they argued for an open universe in  which chance and contingency are irreducible…” (2005 pp23). Bernstein discusses Menand's thesis that the “pragmatic thinkers undertook to develop a more flexible, open, experimental and fallible way of thinking that would avoid all forms of stark binary oppositions, and violent extremism" (2005 pp23).

 

This section expands upon French and Raven’s taxonomy of power and places the model on a table against the stages of power per Janet Hagberg (2002).

The most common description of power is French and Raven (1960). This divides power into five different forms. (French & Raven)

Coercive power is used to force someone to do something against their will. It can be physical although other threats may be used. It is the power of dictators, despots and bullies. Coercion can result in physical harm, although its principal goal is compliance. Demonstrations of harm are often used to illustrate what will happen if compliance is not gained.

Reward power is the ability to give other people what they want, and therefore ask them to perform tasks in exchange for the reward. Withholding rewards is also part of the equation in terms of punishment.

Legitimate power is positional. Kings, presidents and managers all have legitimate power. The legitimacy may come from a higher power, often one with coercive power. Legitimate power can often thus be the acceptable face of raw power. This type of power is an official social position that is not necessarily based upon the attributes of the person but rather the position to which they are assigned.

Referent power is charismatic and comes with fame. All celebrities have it by definition as well as more local social leaders. It is anyone who has influence and currency through features that others seek. Referent power can also be used for coercion. Cult gurus have this power. One feature of this is the ability to excommunicate. Elizabethan England was rife with this.

Expert power is common in high level professional domains such as surgery, military rocket labs and other highly specialized endeavors. Expert power is used by specialists such as R&D engineers who threaten to leave unless they get an exorbitant pay rise or a seat by the window.

 

The power of question

 

Hierarchical vs heterarchical leadership

 

Knowledge, skill, willingness and environment

 

French and Raven In summary

French and Raven’s taxonomy of power:
Coercive - fear-based; the ability to punish, sanction, force
Expert - acknowledged expertise, skills
Legitimate - positional power and authority
Referent - personal traits, charisma, influence
Reward - perceived ability to provide valued rewards

French and Raven’s taxonomy of power may be considered in the following contexts:

And then there is:
Connection - networks, connections, who knows whom....
Information - access to information, gatekeeper (/opener)

Janet Hagberg’s Six Stages of Power

Janet Hagberg describes a six stage model of personal development in relationship to power. These six stages are organized into two sets of three, internal and external (Hagberg, 2002). The external three stages of power range from powerlessness to power by association to power by achievement. This domain of the leadership journey is represented by confidence, competence, expertise, titles, success, degrees, stature, money, self-esteem and recognition. People in the first three stages of power are able to marshal resources, meet goals, manage people, make things happen and make a living.                                                         

The internal set moves from power by reflection to power by purpose, and finally to power through wisdom. Hagberg constructs the notion of a ‘wall’ between stages four and five that requires a breakthrough. In this second half of the journey, there is integration of the capacity to act with the capacity to reflect. Internal power emerges out of our inner self, our souls, our deepest values, and is more related to whom we really are and what our life purposes are. When these stages are active we find meaning and a sense of calling within our work, we explore our inner passions thus creating long-lasting effects that are rooted in spirituality, community and connectedness.

Stage one

In this stage the individual may feel trapped. They can feel secure and dependent with low self-esteem. The individual may be uninformed with feelings of helpless but not hopelessness. Spiritually these people identify and recognize a higher power. On the shadow side, they can play a victim role or may have addictions. It is necessary to overcome fear and develop self-esteem in order to generate a transformation out of this stage; this can occur by facing addictions, developing skills, and developing devotional life and faith in a higher power. Other ways to move from this stage are to find allies, get support, share oneself, take responsibility, confront oneself, and get treatment or counseling.

Stage two

Characteristics of stage two involve learning the culture and apprenticeship. In this stage, there is a relationship with a mentor and new levels of self-awareness occur. During this cycle it is important to get feedback, develop competence that is reflected in credentials, become involved, take risks, develop networks, and develop independence. In spiritual life, it is the process of learning about the journey. The shadow of this stage can be expressed as naivety and chameleon-like behavior. Obstructions to moving out of this stage are lack of confidence and the need for security.

Stage Three

Stage three is the direct expression of our gifts, it is an area of competence that is recognized with the badges of our culture such as degrees and licenses. It is also the attitude of competency that experts exude. The expression can be dynamic and competitive due to the ambitious nature of the individual. In the spiritual life, the individual is mature and contributes to the chosen path. People at this stage can be mindful of the shadow as it expresses with egotism, greed and bravado. Integrity is a catalyst for transforming the shadow. If one is stuck or confused there are ways to generate transformation such as (a) accept the potential change that crisis can bring (b) learn to be alone and to seriously reflect on oneself (c) try new things that cause different thinking processes (d) design rituals (e) create a crisis (f) reflect upon next stages (g) build a network (h) do long-term leadership planning. 

Stage four

Stage four is related to insight, people in this stage have influence yet they are potentially confused and misunderstood. However, in the transitional stage there can be a substantial amount of influence. The individual at this stage provides skilled mentorship, has a well-developed personal style and displays true leadership with strength. In spirituality, there is a rediscovery of that which is holy.

In the shadow of Stage Four individuals may find themselves playacting, stuck in confusion and misunderstood. Under these circumstances it is important to let go of one’s ego, face fear and clearly identify the mission and destiny of one’s life.  Other factors that can assist the transformation that occurs at this stage includes a willingness to ‘hit the wall’ as well as willingness to release control to God and go beyond intellect to connect with wisdom. To do this one must face ones own shadow. This is the fulfillment of Dharma or right livelihood; it is the union of the personal will with that of heaven. This takes deep transformation and courage, courage to move beyond potential losses. It requires finding grace within the darkness. However, one must be cautious of willfulness such that the personal will overrides that of heaven. Movement out of this stage occurs when staying accountable to someone who knows your story. In addition, the movement is assisted by belief in the healing before it happens

Stage five

This is truly the expression of the deepest heart's desire. Here, one accepts self as that with calmness, courage, and awareness of the needs of the group. There is humility and a deep sense of clarity about one’s mission in life. This is the arena of practicing mystics, they have elusive qualities, and are generous in empowering others. In the spirituality of this stage there is surrender to the Holy.                                                                                       

The shadow of stage five includes pseudo-innocence, which I would suggest is a sign that person is at an earlier stage. It also includes a perception b others that one is impractical or undeveloped. The catalyst for movement is universal understanding. Failure to understand the universe will hold people at this stage back as will faithlessness and fear of loss. 

Stage six

The essential question here is how close are we willing to come to the flame? This is the deeper spiritual life when our lives are consumed by the fire of the Holy Spirit. We engage in self –sacrifice we identify as souls of the earth.

 

People in this stage have integrated the shadow, they are unafraid of death, and they demonstrate compassion for the world. People in this category would include Moses, Christ, Mother Teresa and Buddha. There are living examples of such individuals and they include the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela. They have all been powerless, providing quiet service. They have holy qualities and yet are in touch with their own humanity.                 

 

The shadow of Stage Six is that these people can be out of touch with danger and appear too sacrificial. And – it is their own humanity that prevents them from achieving the vision they hold for humanity within their own spiritual framework.

 

Bateson, G. (2002). Mind and nature, a necessary unity (6 ed.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Bernstein, R. J. (2005). The abuse of evil. The corruption of politics and religion since 9/11. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Eisler, R. (1994). From domination to partnership: The hidden subtext for sustainable change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(4), pg32.

French, & Raven. (February 6, 2007). French and raven's five forms of power. from http://changingminds.org/explanations/power/french_and_raven.htm

Hagberg, J. O. (2002). Real power: Stages of personal power in organizations (Third ed.): Sheffield Publishing Company.

Maruyama, M. (1974). Paradigmatology and its application to cross-disciplinary, cross-professional and cross cultural communication. Dialectica, 28(3-4), 135-196.

Montuori, A., & Conti, I. (2007). The meaning of partnership.Unpublished manuscript.

Torbert, W. R. (1944). The power of balance, transforming self, socirty and scientific inquiry. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage.

 

 

 

 

 

© 2007 Center for Conscisousness Research and Transformation