Organizational Power Building Using Power Organization Start

Organizational Power Building Using Power Organization Start reading Harvard Business Review (HBR) article: Pfeffer J. (2010). Power Play. Harvard Business Review, July-August, Vol 88 Issue 7/8, p. 85-92. Based HBR article Jeffry Pfeffer (2010), write a paper answer questions: Why gaining power organization important? Does author gaining power workplace a good bad thing? Please support answer evidence article. Power in the organization: The Pfeffer model Power has long been viewed as a synonym for something negative in the workplace. Today, the rhetoric of 'teamwork' tends to be favored more than the rhetoric of power.

But according to Jeffery Pfeffer, power is a necessary component of doing business. The question is: is the manager using power for the right reasons? Managers may use power with many different motivations, including the need for affiliation (to be liked); for personal satisfaction, or the desire to influence others in a positive way to achieve an objective. Managers who focus upon the uses of power for these reasons -- to have influence -- tend to be the most successful, versus managers who use power for more self-interested purposes (Pfeffer 2010: 86).

But the need for power cannot be ignored. Both business knowledge and political skills are necessary to 'get things done' in a meaningful fashion -- an organization can only be as effective as its people, and a unified objective must be the focus of all organizational participants. An organization cannot be efficient if even talented people all 'go their own way,' according to Pfeffer. "Yes, we have flatter organizations and more cross-functional teams than we had in the past.

But getting things done in a less-hierarchical system actually requires more influence" (Pfeffer 2010: 87). Pfeffer defines power as having things done 'your' (the leader's way), rather than allowing other organizational members to control the agenda. People who use power efficiently know how to use resources wisely to motivate employees, both in terms of concrete rewards (such as salary) and withholding or dispensing information. Although Pfeffer presents his point-of-view as a fundamentally new way of looking at power, these notions reflect many traditional conceptions of power.

Power is something done 'to' others, rather than is something that is a negotiation between leaders and followers, and followers are not seen as integral to the leadership process. Pfeffer says that the world is not a 'just' place and that leaders must accept this fact. Power by its very nature implies a certain imbalance between the person wielding the power and the individual accepting the power. Pfeffer assumes that the person who is in charge has and should have more power than subordinates.

Democracy and participatory approaches do not make for an effective organization, contrary to what current leadership literature may lead people to believe. They "reflect how people wish those in positions of power behaved. There is no doubt that the world would be a much better place if people were always authentic, modest, truthful, and concerned about others, instead of simply pursuing their own aims," but that is not the case (Pfeffer 2010: 88).

Don't let your idealism or your egotistical desire about wanting to be liked get in the way of your ability to be an effective leader, he warns. The greatest obstacles to effective progress can often be found within the character of the leader him or herself, although certain organizations' lack of hierarchy, unclear sources of power, and focus on democratic leadership can also thwart leaders, according to the Pfeffer model.

Gaining power in the workplace is thus not a 'good' or a 'bad' thing but a necessary thing, otherwise organizations cannot be functional. Leaders must win advocates, get rid of rivals (or win them over) and make sure that every tactical move is a step forward in reaching the goal. This does not mean that leaders should exercise power for ego's sake and ruffle unnecessary feathers, but they should not avoid confrontation.

The advice to "use the personal touch" as well as take a rather hierarchical and autocratic approach to leadership seems important, given it softens what could be seen as otherwise harsh advice (Pfeffer 2010: 91). Leaders should be human and a sense of humor can work wonders to convince subordinates that the leader is acting out of genuine concern for the organization, rather than purely out of ego or spite.

Subordinate will be more willing to follow if they believe in the leader and if the leader's demands seem reasonable and focused upon a goal that is mutually advantageous. Another important component of organizational leadership, according to Pfeffer, is persistence. Given that change resistance, even to positive changes, is almost inevitable within most organizations, it is important that the leader not be deterred when the road to change meets with roadblocks. To some extent, however, this is why I disagree with Pfeffer's analysis about the directorial nature of leadership.

One of the weaknesses.