How does power affect a person's life? Four to five paragraphs explaining.

Information:

Power

Metamorphic Model of Power

Powerthe ability to influence other people--can also be a problem, and is sometimes related to the issue of difficult colleagues (and bosses in particular). Kipnis, Castell, Gergen, and Mauch's (1976) Metamorphic Model of Power states that having power changes people, and many of these changes are not desirable. Research conducted in laboratories and in field settings has confirmed two basic effects of power.

1. having power increases powerholders' positive attitudes and beliefs about themselves. They come to believe they have power because they deserve it and that they are superior to others.
2. powerholders come to devalue other people. They view others as being inferior, incompetent, and deserving of their low status.

These changes in the powerholder's attitudes and beliefs reflect the fundamental attribution error, in which internal, personal causes of behavior are overemphasized and external, situational causes of behavior are ignored. The powerholder comes to believe that he or she is special when in fact it is the position of power and other features of the situation, such as worker obedience and technology, that make the exercise of power possible. The powerholder who gets carried away can make life for other members of an organization miserable, for example, by not considering others' input or by issuing orders that are justified by statements like, "Because I say so." Unfortunately, because powerholders control organizations, interventions would be resisted by the powerholders themselves. "Going to the top," namely, targeting the problematic boss's boss, would be one possible route for conveying the concern that a powerholder is a problem and a threat to the well-being of the organization. In this instance, though, interventions may be met with a "circle the wagons" defensive strategy, where people gang up on a "whistle blower" to protect the current system of power.

The Five Bases of Power

You are probably already familiar with French and Raven's (1959) five bases of power, so we will review them only briefly here.

1. Reward - the ability to influence by providing a pleasant outcome
2. Coercive - the ability to influence by punishment
3. Expert - the ability to influence through skilled knowledge and/or experience with a subject
4. Referent - the ability to influence through admiration
5. Legitimate - the ability to influence through official position in an organization

While these five types of power are often discussed as if they were separate, they often go hand in hand with each other. For instance, a manager (legitimate power based on position in the organization) often has the ability to reward and punish workers (reward and coercive power) and usually has more experience in the organization and is knowledgeable about its functioning (expert power) and can quite often be someone that others look up to (referent power). The basic idea behind power from French and Raven's perspective is that one wants to acquire as many of the bases as possible to use as tools to get others to do things that are desirable for the organization.

Need for Power

Power has been studied by many social scientists but the last major one that we will touch on is McClelland's (1975; McClelland & Burnham, 1976) notion of power as a motivator. The idea actually stems from McClelland's need theory which supposes that people have three needs in the workplace: need for achievement (nAch), need for affiliation (nAff) and a need for power (nPow).

The need for achievement becomes apparent in office stories of accomplishment. These stories often revolve around a person overcoming obstacles or succeeding on a difficult task. People with a high need for achievement will often prefer jobs where they have control over their own situation such as a drug researcher where their success depends solely on their own behaviors.

The need for affiliation is about establishing, maintaining and repairing relationships. A person with a high need for affiliation makes a good mediator or human resources individual who fixes broken lines of communication in an organization.

Finally, the need for power. This need is about a desire to influence others. Those with a high need for power who are successful typically display confidence in their abilities to influence others. This need is broken down into two distinct types; personalized and social. Personalized power is when a person has a need to acquire power for him or herself. Desire for power in this way can (but not always) come at the expense of others in the organization. Socialized power on the other hand is about gaining power for the group. Socialized power is the type most associated with effective leadership as it ends up with positive relationships between members of the group and promotes long term success. Think of it as a link to the need for affiliation. Similar to French and Raven's (1959) ideas the more bases one can acquire, the more influence one can have. In contrast, personalized power relates more to Suttons' (2007) "no jerk rule" - those who are willing to sacrifice others for success.

All three needs are actually needed for success in organizations, but depending on the type of organization rank in a different order according to McClelland. In large organizations a strong need for power tops out first, then a moderate need for achievement, and finally a moderate need for affiliation. In small organizations (such as entrepreneurial start-ups) a high need for achievement ranks first, followed by a moderate level of need for power and a low level of need for affiliation. Thinking about those different organizations is it apparent as to why the differences in needs? A need for power for instance comes first in large organizations as leaders needs to have to have the desire for themselves and their group to be influential and apparent to others. While in a small organization the need for achievement is more important as the small number of people necessitates a focus on getting the tasks done.