Download
1 / 16
160 likes | 355 Views
POWER. Dozentin: Alina S. Hernandez Bark Referentin: Ronja Oschkinat. Overview. No clear definition Most embrace the view that power is embedded in a social relationship where one party has the ability to impose its will on other by virtue of the resources at its disposal.
E N D
POWER • Dozentin: Alina S. Hernandez Bark • Referentin: Ronja Oschkinat
Overview • No clear definition • Most embrace the view that power is embedded in a social relationship where one party has the ability to impose its will on other by virtue of the resources at its disposal. • We have power if we are able to make others do what we want and the extent of our power can be gauged. • Two issues: • There are various means • by which power can be achieved • This concept overlap with others • in the organizational arena
Overview • Power is all around us, we all want it, but if we acquire it we will lose our sense of judgment and decency in the process, along with all our friends. • A great deal of power-related activity • is motivated not by employees personal • self-interest but, rather by their collective • self-interest as member of particular • organizational and social groups.
Group work 4 groups → 4 approaches 9.25- 10.00: read and summarize 10.00- 10.15: present the results
Perception of referent, expert, and legitimate power vary as a function of self-categorization • No matter if people define themselves either as individuals or members of social groups • -> in both cases they will be motivated to engage in self-enhancing behaviour and where appropriate use power to that end. • The forms of power available to people and the uses to which they seek to put them will vary as a function of: • the self-categorization of power user and • his/her self-categorical relationship with those on whom power is used. • Power is not a property of an individual or group • -> its form and extent are an outcome of self-categorization processes.
Perception of referent, expert, and legitimate power vary as a function of self-categorization • Prototypical ingoup members have more Referent power than non-representative members or group members. • Expert power: e. g. attributions of expertise made by sporting fans • Experts have power because we assign them that role in recognition of their capacity to reflect the things that we hold dear.
Perception of referent, expert, and legitimate power vary as a function of self-categorization • Legitimate power as a product of social identity -> Milgrim experiment
Coercive power is ascribed to outgroups not ingroups • Forms of power that are not influence-based also vary as a function of the users self-categorical status. • Ingroup and outgroup members can control the behavior of another person by means of forced compliance and submission. • The groups to which we belong are • seen as fair, just, honest and decent. • Outgroups are seen as unfair, unjust, • dishonest and treacherous. • People find it less threatening to their self-image to explain their adherence to group norms as a product of free will rather than as a response to threat. • People are less charitable in explaining the behavior of others.
Coercive power is ascribed to outgroups not ingroups • People perceive themselves to be unaffected by influence attempts while believing that third parties will be easily swayed. • -> ingroup members identified strongly -> behave right • -> outgroup members act for instrumental • reasons because they were forced (were paid)
Coercive power is ascribed to outgroups not ingroups • In organizations there will be a range of situations in which its members are inclined to downplay both: a)Their self-power and b)The extent to which their dealings with other members of a salient ingroup are affected by power. • They will be expected to emphasize both: a)The power of non-self others (outgroup, other ingroup members) b)The extent to which dealings involving those others are affected by power.
Social power is used strategically to advance ingroup interests • Group members believe that they are more likely to be the victims of an outgroup´s power than an ingroup´s. • Is it right?
Social power is used strategically to advance ingroup interests • The more power the ingroup had, the more likely they were to use their power to harm the outgroup. • -> The extent that it was available, power was used differentially to disadvantage the outgroup. • -> Intergroup discrimination is confined to situations where power relations between groups allow discrimination to occur. • When a person/group has access to power its use will vary as a function of self-categorical relation between the parties involved. • -> Conclusion: Influence increases to the extent that the parties are perceived to be members of the same self-category, while the use of coercive power is expected to decrease.
Power use reflects the context-specific character of outgoup relations, not cognitive deficiency
Power use reflects the context-specific character of outgoup relations, not cognitive deficiency • Power doesn´t only have a dark side • -> power is a basic feature of intergroup and interpersonal relations. • If they do not share identity with non-self-category members, their dealings with them will necessarily involve • the use of power rather than the exercise • of influence and vice versa.
Power use reflects the context-specific character of outgoup relations, not cognitive deficiency
Social identity provides the basis for power sharing and mutual empowerment • Power increases by sharing power. • -> Only when shared social identity is given, otherwise impossible. • Because when there is no shared social identity there is a lack of communication, coordination and trust. • Empowerment has the basis in the • recategorization of self (not redistribution of power)
