Power in Perspective
Splits
Insiders and outsiders often split management structures and organizations into two sections. Due to an implicit or explicit focus on power and control, the two parts are perceived as in conflict. That is why I refer below to the group of levels above the split versus the group below the split. Taxonomically, the various splits validate both the sharp discontinuities between levels and their close relationships. Taken together, they indirectly suggest just 7 levels.
Summary Matrix
| Split | Issue | Power | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1+6 | Leadership | Personal | |
| 2+5 | Values | Group | |
| 3+4 | Implementation | Logical | |
| 4+3 | Function | Functional | |
| 5+2 | Focus | Professional | |
| 6+1 | Politics | Class |
1 + 6 = Leadership Split : Personal Power
The CEO v The Organization
This is about personal power: the CEO as hero, as a Captain of Industry. It emphasizes the significance of the single top person, the CEO, whose personality and values commonly infiltrate the organization. In practice, leadership energies still need to be widely distributed in accord with a properly designed managerial hierarchy.
- Usefulness: Focus on this division is commonly required for a «turnaround» where there is pervasive demoralization and a history of failed strategies or failed leaders. Emphasis on a single hero battling with the organization may then become historical fact—Example: Steve Jobs on his return to Apple Computer.
- Danger: A preoccupation with power often means devaluation of the leadership role of a governing body stacked with yes-men; as well as devaluation of subordinate leadership within the organization. Staff have to adapt to egotistic self-aggrandizing CEOs, which may include joining in a rape of the organization.
2 + 5 = Values Split : Group Power
HQ v Operations
Strategic management v Operational Management
Brain (of the firm) v Heart (of enterprise) cf. Stafford Beer's terms
This is about group power developed communally and more or less rationally within a Headquarters structure. Staff at HQ do collegial work on values—often labeled as mission development, social responsibility, corporate citizenship, policy—and the conclusions inevitably require assertion. HQ value judgements about the future may be perceived as more socio-political than sensible by those in operations.
- Usefulness: This division emphasizes that every organization needs a «brain» that is value-drenched. It sits above and outside everything that currently exists and enables reasoned thinking about imagined futures. It should restrain testosterone-fuelled CEOs and ensure that money is not wasted on foolish acquisitions.
- Danger: Value issues are intrinsically sensitive. Those in HQ live in a world of numbers and financials, and many think they are cleverer than those in operations. But HQ strategies can be flawed; and choices and rules that seem rather trivial may cause major distress in operations or even wreak havoc.
3 + 4 = Implementation Split : Logical Power
Policy-makers v Decision-makers; Thinkers v Doers
Context v Content : Stabilizers vs Dynamizers
This division corresponds to the framework's origins in the «use of language».
The fundamental power-split should revolve around the hardest thing: implementation. The shaping of operations to handle a future 5-10 years out depends on the -CEO identifying with HQ's values and goals while developing and pursuing strategies that implement HQ conceptions. But that depends on execution at lower levels, or it is all pie-in-the-sky.
- Usefulness: This split comes into its own when the focus is on the implementation of ideas for change in the face of staff resistance and possible turmoil. A unified leadership with clear values and objectives is inherently stabilizing, especially if it respects feedback.
- Danger: Conceptual thinking is difficult and often does not occur in a coherent or grounded fashion. Strategic plans may proliferate disconnected from realities at the sharp end. Difficulties can go both ways: local information from operations may be ignored, just as policies and rules from above may be rejected.
4 + 3 = Functional Split : Practical Power
General v Specialist
Organisation v Service
Management v Practice
Practical power counts and it is specialized. Quality is a practical matter inherent within the design and delivery of functions (disciplines). Here is the boundary where the management outlook changes from a specific function or just one department to a concern for organizational achievement. While obvious for those in general manager roles (), it also applies to specialist roles at (e.g. marketing director, financial manager) whenever they develop programs or innovations.
- Usefulness: Each service is viewed as offering unique possibilities for efficiency, quality and innovation in relation to practice. However, the enterprise requires all inputs to be properly coordinated and integrated. Maintaining a general concern is essential for all staff working at and above.
- Danger: Specialist activities may attract cause-centred individuals who dislike taking a broader perspective. But optimizing just one element of a system usually leads to suboptimal results for the whole. Even at higher levels, staff may focus on their function and resist integration and achieving for the organization.
5 + 2 = Focus Split : Professional Power
Desk Job v Hands On
Managerial v Professional
System v Case
Choosing to understand an issue is a matter of power, and managers () cannot be expert in everything. Professionals (), however, have to be expert in their area. Their work includes diagnosing complex issues and then delegating or taking appropriate action. Managing the professional service (), by contrast, is a desk job, with a focus on workload, standards and budgets, plus a duty to implement -programs that may impact on practice in ways professionals dislike.
- Usefulness: Professionals commonly work in teams and build team spirit as case after case is handled. Being the reservoir of practical hands-on expertise on which every organization depends, -managers must ensure that practice and methods are up to date, and systems exist to handle work-flow demands.
- Danger: Crossing this division can be experienced as a betrayal by the group. So when professionals- move up to service management-, they often tend to over-assert their professional commitments and loyalties, and strive to keep up to date. Promotion to is another matter because it necessarily represents a full identification with management.
6 + 1 = Political Split : Class Power
Bosses v Workers
Managerial Class v Labour Force
The Officers v The Troops (military)
Political power relates to class-consciousness, the size of the group, and an ability to coerce. staff often have a weak identification with the organization and it is notoriously difficult to get strong management across the boundary. So they form a class. Even if not numerous, they usually can bring everything to a stop. Correspondingly, management has power to exploit and forms a countervailing class.
- Usefulness: This division emphasizes the need for constructive representative structures and negotiation procedures. There is a responsibility intrinsic to both the management class and blue-collar unions to perceive the mutual nature of their interests.
- Danger: The relationship can become exploitative from either side. Enduring opposition and conflict can waste inordinate amounts of time, energy and money; and eventually the organization may destroy itself. Employers who seek to ban unions are liable to misuse power.
- Return to the list of additional perspectives.
Originally posted: 8-Feb-2014