Power and Influence in the Workplace Essay

This case study is based upon the conceptual article by Glenys M. Drew titled Enabling or Real power and influence in leadershiphip, in which aims to provoke thought active power and influence in leadership. Simply stated, power is our desire to have influence upon others, placing us within a particular social status. According to Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders (2010, p. 199), people have power when they have the ability to bring about outcomes they desire or the ability to get things d ace the way they want them to be done.Influence is the actual strategies and messages that individuals deploy to bring about desired attitudinal or behavioral change, (Lewicki et al 2010, p. 220). In most relationships there is power imbalances, including an organization structured to flow in a top-down direction. This is known as clump power and influence such as surrounded by a boss and his or her subordinate. The power imbalance in these relationships stems from the asymmetry in dependence betwe en the parties, which contributes to an asymmetry in influence between the parties, (Emerson, 1962, p. 37).Problems Specified in the CaseWhat constitutes real power and influence in leadership is addressed and whether coercive simulated military operation of wielding power over others is even necessary. It is contended that the opposite is true in that demonstrating real power and influence in leadership holds back usurping power to work with andenable others to achieve worthwhile ends, (Drew, 2010, p. 1).Possible solutions presented by the AuthorsThe spring explores three suggested solutions of enabling or real power and influence in leadership, each solution is accompanied by an element of paradox. The first suggests that enabling or real power and influence does not usurp but serves. The second is that an instinctual impulse of ego-interest is entertained into a more socially acceptable interest for others and the intended goal. The third is that it fosters true engagement in leadership while positioning for growth for the self and others, (Drew, 2010).SWOT Analysis_Strengths_In diverse coalitions, power and influence can be used to build a consensus.Real power is the power to authorise._Weaknesses_In diverse coalitions, power without influence can bring about negative results.Usurping power and self-interest tends to stultify and deny useful result, (p. 7)._Opportunities_Opportunities exist for leaders to use power to influence guided thinking, not so much to solve problems for people but to engage people in solving problems._Threats_ null is more important to building vital trust the prevalent state of leadership than that of credibility. A leader can lose credibility when power is employ and when strong professional will and humility are not found to be so effectual.Authors recommended solutionI agree with the authors recommended solution that old(prenominal) power and influence reverses the power paradigm, where the leader focuses primarily on th e vision ahead more than (demonstrably) on self and partners with and enables others to constitute shared goals, (Drew, 2010, p. 2). Paradoxically, by enabling and empowering others with altruistic use of power and influence is a sign of strength, rigor, and potentially rich outcomes while wielding power just because one can, or for selfish reasons may on the surface seem powerful but could be displayed as weakness, stultification, and acquiring compromised outcomes.The paradox that the only power is no power assists an argument that may be inferred that self aggrandizing power, in its bid to grab power, ultimately reduces the self, while resisting the exercise of usurping power expands the self and increases ones potential for productive influence and authority, (Drew, 2010, p. 3). Self-interest for the interests of the goal are sublimated by real power and influence within the paradoxical proposition that genuine power results from giving rather than taking, (Drew, 2010, p. 5). R eal power and influence displays strength, not weakness within the paradox proposed is that real power and influence eschews soft, noncritical approaches in favor of rigor, building a culture of discipline, (Drew, 2010, p. 8).ReferencesEmerson, R. M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations, American Sociological Review 27, 31-40.Drew, G. M. (2010). Enabling or real power and influence in leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(1), 47-58. doi10.1002/jls.20154.Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D.M. (2010). Negotiation (6th ed.). Boston, MA McGraw-Hill.