Understanding the Power, Responsibility, Leadership and Learning Links:

Power
But what is power?
"If we are to understand organizations we must understand the nature of power and influence for they are the means by which the people of the organization are linked to its purpose"(1).
And "The study of influence and power has proved to be for social scientists 'a bottomless swamp"(2).
"Power is 'the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out their own will despite resistance ..."(3).
"A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do."(4).
How often do we find quotes such as:
"He seems to be in love with power. Not just political power for the sake of getting things done or for promoting private interests, but power as status."(5).
"....they will say anything and do almost anything to hang on to power."(6)
"Power is a powerful narcotic -- animating, life-sustaining, addictive. The people who have it generally worked hard to obtain it and are not overkeen to let it go. This addiction poses a completely different set of power-related problems for the individual and the organization." ... "For leaders, the relinquishing of power is especially difficult."(7)
The issues associated with giving up power are discussed in more detail later.
These definitions and comments on power are typical of the management literature and they reinforce prevailing concept of power as illegitimate behaviour designed to benefit self-interest rather than organizational goals.
Occasionally it is recognised that: "The responsible use of power is a concern to all sectors of society. Somehow we need to marry the understanding and use of power with an appreciation of its consequences on those on the receiving end of it .... to find new ways to understand and act on the power structures of which we are all an inevitable part."(8)
It is not surprising that power has been, and still is, a highly negative force in many organisations. Employees feel intimidated because they have little recourse to what they consider to be essentially arbitrary and potentially painful decisions.
Whether power takes a constructive, or destructive, course depends primarily on whether it occurs in a cooperative or competitive situation. When people feel united in a common effort and that they are in this together, they build up each other's power and use it to help them achieve their common goals. When they feel competitive, they try to undermine each other's confidence and power. Unfortunately, it is often assumed that power inevitably involves a win-lose struggle. It should not be surprising to find that severe alienation can easily lead to the generation of conditions for radical or revolutionary, ways redistributing power, in an attempt to minimise what is considered to be its abuse.
This analysis can lead us to the initial conclusion that power has traditionally been pre-occupied with the ability to make things happen, which is essentially self focused, or ego driven; it is usually has a short term focus and it will almost inevitably be abused, corrupt, corrupting, or corrupted. On the other hand power that is concerned with accepting a wider sense of responsibility (ie: it is essentially others focused) is more likely to have a longer term focus and to incorporate a broader consideration of stakeholder interests in any decision making process. In the end power is about the ability to make choices, and that requires a stakeholder analysis of the potential impact of decisions on all those involved.
Responsibility
A responsibility approach has as its starting point: 'in whose interests are the changes being made.' How often is power defined as "the opportunity to exercise responsibility"? The effective exercise of power requires an answer to the question:What is in the long term interests of the organisation for whom I am acting? (Or society, if broader issues are involved?) As opposed to just: "What is in my own short term interest?"
How rare it is to find:
"The price of greatness is responsibility". (9)
As a result to be effective, particularly over the longer term, leadership needs to be more concerned with issues associated with responsibility, rather than power, and this link will be discussed later in this paper. However, before that point is reached it is useful to consider some of the issues associated with the concept of responsibility.
But there are those who argue: "The flight from personal responsibility is probably the central moral phenomenon of the late-20th century."(10)
However, a considerable amount of management literature has a strong responsibility focus:
"Corporate responsibility continues to mean many things to us. It is the fair and equitable treatment of all our stakeholders including associates, shareholders, customers and suppliers. It is our sense of concern for all the well-being of the public at large and for our environment. And it is the time and money that we contribute toward strengthening the communities where we do business." (11)
And the link between power and responsibility is reflected in:
"The boards of public corporations have less power than many external commentators attribute to them, but more than most board members themselves realize. They have, therefore, a special responsibility to understand the real impact of their decisions on those most affected by them, particularly as they will nearly always involve people. In reality, boards only have two effective levers of power available to them. They are: first, about people (ie: their recruitment, training, promotion, motivation and dismissal) and second, about the allocation of corporate resources (ie capital or revenue)." (12)
A relatively rare example of a mission, or values, statement that is specifically responsibility driven is that of Johnson & Johnson (13):
• We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services
• We are responsible to our employees, the men and women who work with us throughout the world. Everyone must be considered as an individual
• We are responsible to the communities in which we live and work, and to the world community as well...
• Our final responsibility is to our stockholders
The link between rights and responsibilities are emphasised by some writers for example:
"When we speak of human rights, we should also speak of human responsibilities ... It is no use clamouring for human rights if we are not prepared to accept our human duties."(14)
These arguments can be extended to cover the key area on how we learn about responsibility.
"Chinese contract: In my culture a good agreement is self-enforcing because both parties go away smiling and are happy to see that each of us is smiling. If one smiles and the other scowls, the agreement will not stick, lawyers or no lawyers." And ... "we must accept our responsibilities to our fellows and earn the confidence which will allow the freedoms. That is the kind of thing one learns from parents as much as from teachers, but, then, the messages implicit in subsidiarity are a good guide to parenthood. Give a child as much responsibility as she or he can handle and then help them to live up to it. (15)
Companies cannot expect to operate a responsibility driven policy unless top management pursues, sets an example, and is seen to set an example, (reflecting two key elements of leadership: good practice and the ability to effectively communicate that good practice ) that is responsibility driven: "Companies are part of society and have to behave responsibly. They have to take account of the views and contributions of their employees and customers."(16)
There are, however, those who argue that a market economy is essentially a power (and self) driven vehicle. In this context, it is important to remember that Adam Smith, its initial exponent, was a Professor of moral philosophy not of economics, and he built his theories on the basis of a moral community. Before he wrote A Theory of the Wealth of Nations he had written his definitive work - A Theory of Moral Sentiments - arguing that a stable society was based on 'sympathy', a moral duty to have regard for your fellow human beings. The market was, and is, a mechanism for sorting the efficient from the inefficient, it was not a substitute for responsibility.
The key point about a market economy is not that the market economy and the profit motive is of itself a 'good' or 'bad' thing; it can be, and is, a very valuable resource allocation technique (essentially one that is decentralised on the grounds that minimises the opportunities for the abuse of power) but, in the long term, the success of any system that operates these techniques will be critically dependent on both how these profits are made, and what they are used for. If a long term view is taken, it implies the full and effective consideration of, and some responsibility for, the interests of all the stakeholders. Any short term pursuit of the interests of one stakeholders interests, at the expense of the others, is likely to result in instability over the longer term.
Despite the strength of the arguments there are still skeptics who argue that corporate management should be responsible to shareholders alone(17). Those who put forward this argument miss the critical point. It is entirely reasonable to argue that the ultimate responsibility of management is to the shareholders at the same time as argue that a responsible attitude to relationships with all the stakeholders is in the long term interests of the shareholders. In parallel with that conclusion it needs to be emphasised that structural changes of themselves, such as the existence of supervisory boards, will make little difference to the performance of the organisation if they are simply another vehicle within which to conduct underlying power struggles.
However, in major Royal Society of Arts report on Tomorrow's Company (18), one leading industrialist maintained: "Increasingly, business people are recognising that their prosperity is directly linked to the prosperity of the whole community. The community is the source of their customers, employees, their suppliers and, with the wider spread of share ownership, their investors." George Bull, Group Chief Executive of Grand Metropolitan. The report itself emphasised the importance of a stakeholder approach. The central idea of the 'inclusive' company which values all its stakeholders. The report concluded: "There is clear evidence that companies which put shareholders first do less well for them in the long run than those that recognise the claims of all their stakeholders." In fact it can be argued that: "A failure to give due weight to important stakeholder relationships could thus constitute a failure by the directors to discharge their duty properly."(19)
Many of these issues concerning responsibility are not new to the management literature: "A society driven by responsibilities is oriented toward service, acknowledging other points of view, compromise, and progress -- whereas a society driven by rights is orientated toward acquisition, confrontation, and advocacy.
Also: "Their religion (in Victorian Britain) emphasised the responsibilities associated with wealth and success. Many of these responsibilities were personal: prudence, thrift, enterprise and abstinence." Or in the context of managing the Corporate Responsibility Function: "Part of the contract between the manager, the corporation and the community is an acceptance that neither office nor position give immunity from responsibility ... The global nature of the business environment means that these responsibilities exist in those regions where businesses operate or seek to operate. This is a global responsibility which lies at the heart of the business contract. The economic function of business and its wider responsibilities are integral features of this contract."(20).
This position is reinforced by: "I believe the time has come for us to recognise that the only sustainable form of good management is that which takes into account the full range of responsibilities that underpin organisational success. These responsibilities can be broadly divided into four categories:
• personal responsibility
• responsibility to co-workers
• responsibility to financial stakeholders
• community responsibility"
Personal responsibility begins with self understanding, which is necessary if we are really to manage our weaknesses and develop our strengths. We all need to recognise and accept our obligations which go with our organisational roles, and learn to resist any temptation to abuse our positions of trust or power"(21). This quotation could also add a responsibility to customers and suppliers and hence provide the basis of the stakeholder analysis mentioned earlier.
Yet, as Firestone CEO John Nevin put it: 'If you want to drive a person crazy, the easiest way to do it is to give them a deep sense of responsibility and no authority.' (22)
The conclusion at this stage is that the most effective concept of power over the longer term is that which is responsibility driven, and the connection between the two can be made by ensuring that a thorough stakeholder analysis is undertaken within the decision-making process. The next step is to integrate these arguments on power and responsibility into: "What do we mean by leadership?"
Leadership
Some power driven individuals (and organisations) can, perhaps, be defined as successful in the short term, but experience suggests to be the case that power driven individuals 'contain the seeds of their own destruction' (and this is usually includes any organisations they are associated with) -- based on an apparently infinite need to prove themselves (or feed their ego?). Robert Maxwell being a classic example of this approach. Both leadership and power are best seen as a form of trusteeship -- and unless those who have power use it responsibly (and are seen to use it responsibly) they will find that it is taken away from them in one way or another, sooner or later. Unfortunately: "The capacity to be ruthless, driving and immoral, if also combined with intelligence and imagination can be a winning combination in politics as well as commerce ... Sociopathic and paranoid personality traits that are most dangerous in people in power are precisely those characteristics most suitable for the attainment of power in a competitive culture such as ours"(23). That comment provides a firm warning that the path outlined is far from easy.
Many of the traditional leadership views of power are revealed in: "The concept of power is a preoccupation for many leaders. For some it is a drug and of others it is a source of fascination. In earlier chapters I examined the sources of a leader's power and so it may seem strange that the central focus of this chapter is 'giving it away'. However, the concept of giving away one's power is both a demand made on us if we are leaders in the work situation and a choice that is a open to us. We invent most of the constraints ... So it is with leadership. The leader who clings to power, who is afraid to give it to others, will in fact cease to be a leader. In business, this person will increasingly become ineffective and in the end will be ousted, while in politics it is the leader's relationship to power that makes the difference between a legitimate leader and a tyrant."(24)
In essence the servant-leadership approach defines leadership as: "The use of gifts and talents on behalf of all of us in a way that models what we can be and empowers us to try." It is an echo of Robert Greenleaf's statement: "Do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants."(25)
And the link with power is made in: "Those leaders who are able to combine action with reflection, who have sufficient self-knowledge to recognize the vicissitudes of power, and who will not be tempted away when the psychological sirens that accompany power are beckoning will in the end be the most powerful. They will be the ones who are remembered with respect and affection. They will also be the ones truly able to manage the ambiguities of power and lead a creative and productive life."(26)
From these views it is not difficult to see the link with Learning Organisation concepts: "Effective organizations hold leaders accountable for the development of all subordinates." With: "Empowerment is defined as the process of enabling and motivating subordinates by increasing their personal efficacy ... Thus it becomes the leader's responsibility to help each other subordinate reach his or her full potential."(27)
However, it is valuable to recognise that: "The ultimate judgment of leaders is often not about how they acquire and use power, but they relinquish it."(28) Which is one reason we find: "We are all aware of Enoch Powell's dismal view, at the end of his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, that all political lives end in failure"(29). Ultimately this issue reflects how politicians have interpreted their view of power.
Occasionally the pressures for basic survival can result in there being no alternative but to take the risk of apparently pursuing the interests of one stakeholder at the expense of others in the short term. For example: "Mr Lou Gerstner, IBM's new chairman, is undoubtedly right to be wielding his hatchet. But this is not a sustainable way to run a company over time. Academic research has shown consistently that, while fear may motivate in the short term, prolonged uncertainty creates a fall in employee morale and productivity which is hard to halt, let alone reverse. Many of the best employees leave, while the rest are inclined to put their heads down and cease to give their all."(30)
Unfortunately some still believe that: "The highest form of political leadership is persuading people that you are really going to change something."(31) The alternative approach, argued here, is to view the highest form of political leadership as: 'The ability to pursue policies that are genuinely in the long term interests of all their constituents.' Not all change is progress and until this critical point is recognised and combined with the use of effective criteria to measure what is meant by progress, there will be little cause for optimism in our fragile world.
In the end leadership is concerned with the effective and efficient management of all the stakeholder interests and interfaces in the long term interests of the organisation as a whole. Or it can be defined as the ability to act effectively and responsibly in the interests of those who are being lead. Essentially this reflects the Servant/Trusteeship approach.
Learning
Within this context it is necessary to recognise the importance of learning and to emphasise the increasing role of the 'Learning Organisation' approach: "Learning is the new form of labour. It is no longer a separate activity that occurs either before one enters the workplace or in remote classroom settings ... learning is the heart of productive activity."(32) The more change that is going on, the greater the need to get learning attitudes and structures right. And, if the rate of change is greater than the rate of effective learning there is little chance of progress. With the amount of change going on in the world today, getting the learning process right is a critical challenge for us all, individually and organisationally.
It is now widely recognised that continuous improvement means recognising the need for new ideas, identifying those that are relevant to the future organisation, taking them on board and implementing them effectively. In order to do this an organisation must be able to learn. The great advantage of humility is that it is the most effective foundation for learning and complacency is the most powerful barrier to learning. ("If you asked me what was the biggest problem in modern thinking, I would say, complacency ..."(33)) One, perhaps paradoxical, challenge for today's wise leader is how to avoid being complacent about one's humility.
Organisational knowledge being defined as: "The capability of a company as a whole to create new knowledge, disseminate it throughout the organization, and embody it in products, services, and systems."(34)
This emphasises the importance of the view that: "The organizations that will truly excel in the future will be the organizations that discover how to tap people's commitment and capacity to learn at all levels in an organization."(35)
This view reinforces: "In the long term, the only sustainable competitive advantage over the long term is the ability to learn faster and more effectively than your competitors -- and that applies to both organisations and nations, as well as individuals."(36)
The Learning Company goes beyond the idea of excellence to make learning the central process. Peters and Waterman(37), among others, were very concerned with adaptability, responsibility and learning: "The excellent companies are learning organizations" ... experimenting and learning from mistakes are at the heart of the Peters &Waterman vision; but, the structures and strategies of a learning organisation were not articulated until later.(38)
It therefore follows that: "If managers see their responsibility in terms of the improvement of subordinates' work, if they are capable of managing this key role, and if they achieve it, many of the elements of the learning organization will be achieved. This view supports that of Mumford: "The learning organization depends absolutely on the skills, approaches and commitment of individuals, to their own learning."(39)
If there is a responsibility and learning focus there is a natural sympathy for processes such as upward appraisal; in contrast a power culture which usually applies the traditional appraisal systems bureaucratically in the context of attempting to exert more control.
The link between power and learning is well summarised by: "The distribution of power and the way in which it is used provide very important boundaries around the group learning process from which new strategic directions emerge. The application of power in particular forms has fairly predictable consequences for group dynamics. Where power is applied as force and consented to out of fear, the group dynamic will be one of submission, or where such power is not consented to, the group dynamic will be one of rebellion, either covert or overt. Power may be applied as authority and the predictable group dynamic here is one in which members of the group suspend their critical faculties and accept instructions from those above them. Groups in states of submission, rebellion or conformity are incapable of complex learning; that is, the development of new perspectives and new mental models."(40)
The importance of early learning cannot be over-emphasised: "We have given children no framework within which to learn civic virtue and responsibility. We must devise ways by which service to the community becomes part of every child's experience of the growth to adulthood. Morality is taught by being lived. It is learned by doing."(41)
A power driven approach tends to be pre-occupied with the short term, while a responsibility approach is more concerned with long term issues. As a result a responsibility driven approach is likely to produce a more effective balance of the respective interests of all the various stakeholders so essential for the long-term success of any organisation. Responsibilities should not be seen as a burden; they are the umbilical cord that gives life meaning and purpose. It also helps to provide a climate where innovation is encouraged and failure is an opportunity for learning, rather than an excuse for punishment. In fact responsibilities will only be rewarding and positive if they are supported by an overall learning approach to all aspects of life and work. Unfortunately, taking responsibility, being able to live with it, and knowing how to use and develop it in others, is much rarer than it ought to be.
Power cultures may well stem directly from the encouragement of competition, externally with competitors, and internally with colleagues; with information seen as power and people in these organisations tending to focus on building up themselves as unique marketable resources by keeping information to themselves, rather than sharing it through building a team approach that is committed to serving their internal and external customers.
"Power in organizations is based on what and who people know. Access to information is vital to those responsible for managing business operations. Electronic systems make it possible to distribute that information widely, cheaply and quickly"(42). This reflects a theme taken form Francis Bacon a few centuries ago that: "Knowledge itself is Power". Hence what is done with knowledge, whether it is kept or spread, can be a valuable indicator of whether the organisation or individual is power or responsibility driven. "An individual without information cannot take responsibility; an individual who is given information cannot help but take responsibility."(43). Both new technology, and more effective management approaches, will require attitudes to power and responsibility to change radically in future.
The conclusion here is that the ability to change is directly related to its ability to learn, and the ability to learn, both individually or organisationally, is directly related to the ability to operate a responsibility driven culture. The final link with knowledge management is simply that an effective learning culture assumes effective knowledge management as the vehicle for ensuring that the right things are being learned in the first place.
A responsible approach to learning, combined with learning to manage responsibility, are essential prerequisites for any effective learning organisation or learning environment. A learning environment is about passing on what you know; it is about empowering others, rather than being possessive about knowledge on the grounds that 'knowledge is power'. A Learning Organisation approach cannot be expected to work without a genuine concern for others. Hence neither effective 'Learning Organisations' or "Knowledge Management' can be expected to operate effectively within a power driven culture. Similar points can be made about effort to introduce many other management techniques.
Finally if we want to improve the quality of life in the 21st century, one thing that we have to do NOW.... TODAY, is improve the quality of our learning, together with emphasising its importance.
How we Learn? Why we Learn? What we Learn? and then What do we do with that Learning? The final point should not be too much of a problem if the first three are right. Also the whole question of 'What we Learn?' is critically dependent on effective Knowledge Management. This conclusion, and the inter-relationship of the issues discussed, should also be a particular focus for policy issues related to the learning development of the next generation. If we wish to make real progress in this critical area, it is essential that we move away from the traditional pre-occupation with power; towards an approach to decision-making and change that is much more responsibility driven. Such changes should be of enormous benefit organisations, individuals and society as a whole. In fact, unless the relationship between Power, Responsibility, Leadership, Learning and Knowledge Management, is understood and effectively managed, it will be very unlikely that we will be able to see any meaningful relationship between change and progress.