In response to Leading through Partnership, Greg raised an interesting point about Paul's use of power in his relationship with the Philippian church.
Paul did have power in the sense that he originally founded the church through preaching the gospel and then organizing those who believed. This organization involved both teaching (or disciplining) the new believers but also the appointing of elders. At that point the "power" he exhibited seems to have been more as a teacher from a distance, mainly commenting if he saw that things were moving in the wrong direction. He didn't seem to have any positional power after the church had been established. They generally appeared to be locally governing and locally responsible for discipline (Read Greg's full comments here).
Yukl (2001) creates taxonomy of sources of power with two broad categories: (a) positional power and (b) personal power each of these categories has sub-types of power. Positional power is derived from a person's position in the organization. Personal power is derived from the quality of interpersonal relationships a person has within an organization.
Positional power includes:
- Legitimate power - formal authority
- Reward power - control of resources and reward
- Coercive power - control of punishment
- Information power - control of distribution of information
- Ecological power - control of physical environment, technology and organization of work.
Personal Power includes
- Referent power - derived from the desire of others to please a person toward whom they have strong feelings of affection, admiration, and loyalty.
- Expert power - derived being perceived by others as a reliable source of task relevant knowledge and skill.
Paul certainly seems to rely primarily on personal power in his relationship with the churches he started (both referent and expert). However, I'm wondering if the following passage may indicate that Paul sometimes exercised some form of positional power.
For even if I boast somewhat further about our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be put to shame, for I do not wish to seem as if I would terrify you by my letters. For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible." Let such a person consider this, that what we are in word by letters when absent, such persons we are also in deed when present (2 Corinthians 10:8-11 NASB).
What do you think?
- Is it ever appropriate for a Kenosis leader to use positional power?
- Are any of the forms of positional power inappropriate for a Kenosis leader?
- What New Testament examples illustrate the positive use of the various forms of positional power?
Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4 comments:
Even though Yukl (2001), French and Raven (as cited in Furnham, 1997), and Raven, Schwarzwald, and Koslowsky (1998) explain their typologies with clear cut lines of demarcation, they fail to present evidence that these typologies or their theoretical underpinnings apply to any culture other than what one finds in late 20th century Western Civilization. Conversely, Malina (1996) and de Silva (2004) suggest the existence of a different typology in the 1st century Roman world, when they imply familial and patron-client relationships formed ideological foundations for the use of power. This further suggests that the lines between positional and personal power were not as clear-cut or as well defined as one might find in a typical organization today. Consequently, Paul might have possessed what Yukl describes as legitimate, reward, coercive, and information power within churches he was absent from, even though they might not have necessarily elected him to any formal position as we understand formal positions. Additionally, even if Yukl's typology applies, Paul's previously held position of authority within the religious community might have later afforded him similar esteem among church members. They knew him before in his functional position as a Pharisee. Could it be that these churches afforded him (or that he assumed) a type of ex-officio position within their hierarchy based on his great levels of religious-political stature and institutional knowledge?
People distribute power and they develop and maintain power distribution conduits within relationships through a priori processes of social construction (or by God's plan, if one ascribes to predestination). What one might consider authentic construction and use of positional power, others might consider inauthentic (e.g. NAZI fascism, Stalinist Socialism, Paul at the stoning of Stephen). Additionally, popular rhetoric implies that those in functional positions of authority control power. However, the results demonstrated by the experiences of trade unions, civil rights activism, and political and social revolutions suggest that those with functional authority only maintain that authority by the will of the submissive parties to the relationship and only so long as those submissive parties continue to tolerate their dominance. To the first point, no one conquered Israel in the beginning; the submissives there asked the Lord to create kingship. To the second point, the US Revolution and Nicolae Ceauşescu provide examples of what happens when submissives tire of tyrannies and posses the technology to rebel. Masada provides an example of what happens when submissives tire of tyrannies and they do not posses the technology to rebel. This further suggests that churches, as submissives, could have afforded Paul a positional power base, perhaps in light of his apostleship or institutional knowledge, regardless of what their local constitution and by-laws might have required.
Is it ever appropriate for a Kenosis leader to use positional power? Power is neither good nor bad and the mere fact that one initiates or fails to initiate behaviors constitutes acts of power (Terry, 1993). To use power within organizations is inescapable, regardless of one's political ideology or position. Therefore, if a kenotic leader surrenders to assume a position in an organization, he or she surrenders to having to use positional power, de facto. Additionally, this happens regardless of whether he or she perceives the depth of power or the authority associated with the position. Moreover, when functioning in the position, he or she exercises power even in his or her failure to act.
Are any of the forms of positional power inappropriate for a Kenosis leader? As long as love (agapao) is the end, trust abounds, and situational demands constrain their use, all forms of positional power are appropriate for kenotic leadership. However, one needs to consider at least two important points. Point 1: Laying down one's life for those who follow does not mean rolling over and playing dead when an emergent situation demands a tough response. This behavior may reflect some pathological form of "emptying" one's self; however, it arguably has little to do with leadership. Point 2: In many modern definitions, other terms supplant the term leadership. Some writers go so far as to use the words leader and leadership interchangeably with words like manager and management, lord and lordship, and ruler and ruler-ship. Some others go on to attach leadership only to hierarchical positions and to imply that only those "above" possess the wherewithal to apply leadership in any given situation and that one can identify anyone in the hierarchy below that level as a follower de facto. Conversely, Mescon (1958) suggests that leadership is a situational construct where “authority is granted to an individual by a group or an enterprise in proportion to the ability of the individual to satisfy the needs of the group or enterprise.” He goes on to add that “Leadership… is not a permanent possession of a particular individual…” and that the authority given by the group to the individual “is withdrawn and transferred to other individuals…” when there is no “… observable progress toward goals attainment” (p. 13). Note that authority relates to the legitimate (authentic) use of power. Also, notice that one finds the source of this power in some form of relationship where those led cede their will to the leader or lord. This corresponds closely with Malina's (1996) observation that there exists no permanency in leadership. Rather, crises present opportunities for the creation of leadership roles based on group need and other variables. When needs no longer present, there remains no further requirement for continued leadership. People obviously got it right when they named functional, hierarchical positions in terms of management (manager, director, president, etc.) or lordship (king, prince, duke, earl, etc.), rather than in terms of leadership.
What New Testament examples illustrate the positive use of the various forms of positional power? How are we to measure "positive?" The Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 apparently owned slaves and routinely conducted business through authoritative and coercive means, but Jesus failed to rebuke him in any regard. Some of the Pharisees kept the whole law, but Jesus criticized them routinely for failing to keep the spirit of the law. Therefore, does not the fundamental question become one of motive or behavioral intent rather than use of power alone?
References.
deSilva, D. A. (2004). An introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, methods, and ministry formation. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity.
Furnham, A. (1997). The psychology of behavior at work: The individual in the organization. Hove East Sussex, UK: Psychology.
Malina, B. J. (1996). The social world of Jesus and the Gospels. London: Routledge.
Mescon, M. H. (1958). The dynamics of industrial leadership. The Journal of the Academy of Management, 1(2), 13-20.
Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(4), 307-332.
Terry, R. W. (1993). Authentic leadership: Courage in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bud thank you for your insightful and well supported comments. I am intrigued by your statement "Moreover, when functioning in the position, he or she exercises power even in his or her failure to act." I'd like to hear more from you and others about how the failure to act is an exercise of power.
In contemporary Western Civilization, power and responsibility go hand in glove. Actually, three words work together as a catalyst for all the outcomes people accomplish intentionally, and arguably, for most of what they accomplish unintentionally or accidentally, as well. These three constructs include authority, accountability, and responsibility. Authority is the power given or taken to direct the accomplishment of outcomes; accountability is the rewards provided, usually from outside of the individual or system, for the accomplishment of those outcomes; and responsibility is the ownership assumed by the individual or system for the accomplishment of those outcomes.
Authority: The granting or seizing of authority empowers positions, individuals, or systems (teams, groups, organizations, cultures, societies, civilizations, or other levels of analysis) to proceed toward accomplishing given outcomes. The amount of authority ceded to (or seized by) a person or system contributes to the determination of the size and shape of the associated organizational structure and the resources brought to bear to reach toward their goals. Therefore, power ideally mediates the relationship between the structural elements (including formal and informal arrangements, rules, regulations, procedures, processes, etc.) and the mission or other outcome. In this way, resources or the lack thereof provide the only legitimate (authentic) limitations to the achievement of outcomes, accomplishment of goals and missions, and realization of the organization's vision.
Conversely, in Western organizations that consist of mechanistic functional divisions, structure typically moderates the relationship between power and mission. Using the mission as a guide, a hierarchy assigns and prescribes given amounts of power to particular positions (e.g. Yukl's, 2001, positional power) within their organization, based on what they conceive as necessary for the person filling that position to accomplish his or her required contribution. Several fallacies exist within this arrangement. Fallacy 1: Regardless of the amount of testing and interviewing conducted, a hierarchy can never truly ensure that one selected for a position meets the required qualifications. Fallacy 2: The person capable of providing more (e.g. Yukl's personal power) than what a hierarchy prescribes in their positional requirements possesses no legitimate avenue to contribute that excess. The excess is wasted or they channel it into subversive activities that work against the organization's desired outcomes. Fallacy 3: The mission is a moving target in any organization. Therefore, yesterday's requirements for any given position are moot tomorrow.
Accountability: The root word for accountability is account. At the end of any endeavor and usually at periodic intervals during the process, someone requires an accounting of the recipient of authority. At those points, the "someone" provides rewards in the form of punishment and prescribed corrective action; kudos, bonuses, and accolades; or both. In this regard, when people say that they hold someone accountable, they use the correct vernacular. The right to reward, either positively or negatively, attaches to the accounting related to the performance activities toward organizational outcomes. Moreover, someone can only provide legitimate rewards commensurate with the authority ceded to (or seized by) the recipient.
Responsibility: The root word for responsibility is response or respond. The hierarchy, the environment, or the individual or system may identify a requirement or an opportunity based on the ethical difference between what exists and what should exist, summum bonum. Then, the individual or system must perceive his, her, or their response as of primary or tertiary benefit (to someone, somewhere, at some time), as well. Because responsibility involves response only, one cannot assign or prescribe responsibility; one can only assume it. To say, "I hold you responsible," is therefore a misnomer in practical application. To hold an individual or system responsible means to assure a response. However, it does include an accounting for the quality of the response. Therefore, any response, by definition (including that of an informed "no response"), meets the criteria for fulfilling the requirements of "holding one responsible."
Therefore, when one possesses power based on positional authority and he or she identifies (or has a hierarchical superior identify) the existence of a germane concern or an existent ethical dilemma that requires his or her response, the informed decision of "no response" constitutes an act of power. This is true because the lack of response directly affects structural engagement (and possibly the violation or upholding of policies and procedures), the priority of resource use, and the ultimate contribution of the individual or system to organizational outcomes. In example, Jesus had the positional authority of God that He had set aside, even when He died upon the cross. Because of His positional authority, He could have called forth (based on existing or ad hoc structural configurations) a legion of angels (resources) in response to His situation, to preserve His own life. From His followers' immediate desires and from a nationalistic perspective, His act constituted one of no response. By choosing the "no response" option, He clearly exercised power -- the power to choose, to apply structure, and to direct the use of resources. (We understand His lack of response was truly a response to His calling. It accomplished the desired outcome of reestablishing the relationship between God the Father and the fallen lives of all humanity.) Ultimately, His accountability consisted in taking upon Himself the sins of us all.
Thanks for writing this.
Post a Comment