In 1918, he was only a library

assistant . . .
By 1949, he was the undisputed
leader of a Superpower …
Who is this powerful man ?
How does he have to say about
power ?
Power comes from the
barrel of the gun ?
 Contents
I Intro

II What is Power ?

III Power People : Inter-Personal Power

 5 Bases of Power
 Case Examples
 Reflection/Application

IV People Power : Group Forces at Work

 Emergent Properties of Group
 Case Examples
 Lessons

V Q&A

VI Summing Up

Appendix
 “Power comes from the barrel of the gun“

INTRO : WHO SAYS WHAT

II. WHAT IS POWER ?

III. INTER-PERSONAL POWER

5 Bases of Power
Case Examples : World’s Most Powerful People
Reflection/Application : How to be a Person of Power

IV. “PEOPLE POWER”

Use of Case Studies to illustrate
Coercive oIll-effects from abuse or non-rational use of
Power Coercive Power
(“power comes o“Emergent Properties of Group”
from the barrel Case Examples on Group Psychology
of the gun”) Reflection/Application : Lessons

V. Closing
Q&A
I. Intro : Who says What ?
 I. Intro : Who say What ?
The Man …
1 Clarification …

Mao-Tse Tung ?
(many westerners call his name as if
he’s name is “Mouse-y” Tung !)

Its’ actually

Mao Ze Dong, 毛泽东

or Chairman Mao
 I. Intro : Who say What ?
2 more clarifications . . .

1. Political power flows from

the barrel of the gun.

2. A rally call spoken in the

context of the
communist party’s armed
struggle in Chinese civil
war
(1927-1937).
II. What is Power ?
 Power
• Defined as the ability to control one’s own
outcomes and those of others, and the
freedom to act
• It is related to status, authority, and
dominance
 Power
• Power as capability – having resources to
effect desired outcomes
• Power as influence - ability to exercise
influence over others
• Power as relationship – a 2-way street
III. People of Power
 5 Bases of Power
• Legitimate
• Reward
• Expert
• Referent
• Coercive
Source : French and Raven's (1959)
 Legitimate Power
• Right to make demands, and expect compliance and
obedience from others
• Social hierarchies, cultural norms, and organizational
structure all provide the basis for legitimate power
Eg. Elected or authorised office-holder (President, PM,
CEO, teacher, policemen, etc)
 Reward Power
• Result from ability to compensate another for
compliance
eg. Raises, promotions, desirable assignments,
training opportunities, and even simple
compliments
• Using incentives to secure desired outcomes
 Expert Power
• Derived from a person's superior skill and knowledge
• Can apply to ANY field of expertise; hence top experts
in their respective fields wields expert power
 Referent Power
• Derive from a person's perceived attractiveness,
worthiness, and right to respect from others
• Charisma, charm, admiration, or appeal
Eg. Celebrities, “heroes” that we admire an aspect of
their personal attractiveness
 Coercive Power
• Comes from the belief that a person can
punish others for noncompliance
• Necessary for law & order.
• However open to abuse by autocrat or
dictator => weakens legitimate power
 Case Examples : The world’s most powerful people
Newsweek List of Top 50
Most Powerful People in the World (Dec 2008)
20. Gen. Ashfaq Parvez 35. John Lasseter
1. Barack Obama Kayani
2. Hu Jintao 21. Nuri al-Maliki 36. Michael Bloomberg
3. Nicolas Sarkozy 22-23: The 37. Pope Benedict XVI
Philanthropists 38. Katsuaki Watanabe
4-5-6. Economic Triumvirate
24. Nancy Pelosi 39. Rupert Murdoch
7. Gordon Brown 25. Khalifa bin Zayed Al 40. Jeff Bezos
8. Angela Merkel Nahyan 41. Shahrukh Khan
9. Vladimir Putin 26.Mike Duke 42. Osama bin Laden
10. Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al- 27. Rahm Emanuel 43. Hassan Nasrallah
Saud 28. Eric Schmidt 44. Dr. Margaret Chan
11. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 29. Jamie Dimon 45. Carlos Slim Helú
12. Kim Jong Il 30-31. Friends of Barack 46. The Dalai Lama
13-14. The Clintons 47. Oprah Winfrey
32. Dominique Strauss-
15. Timothy Geithner 48. Amr Khaled
Kahn 49: E. A. Adeboye
16. Gen. David Petraeus 33. Rex Tillerson 50. Jim Rogers
17. Sonia Gandhi 34. Steve Jobs
18. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
19. Warren Buffett
Application : To be a person of Power

Most Most Most How can I grow

Powerful Powerful Powerful my power at
Person in Person in Person in home, groups &
the World ? your country? this Room ? workplace ?
Application : To be a person of Power
 Objectively score yourself on each of the 5 power
bases
 Understand on which of the bases are you
influenced by another person
 Build leadership skills thro’ developing your sources
of power
 Effective leaders focus on referent & expert power
primarily
 Do not rely on legitimate power nor coercive power
only
Personal Power Sources
• Expert Power
• Referent Power
Positional Power Sources
• Legitimate Power
• Reward Power
• Coercive Power
IV PEOPLE POWER
 Abuse of Coercive Power : Ill-effects
• Coercive power necessary for law & order
• However abuse weakens legitimate power
• Abuse over long-term erodes power of coercive
force
• Power relationship is a 2-way street

2 Case Examples
 People Power Revolution (1986) , Philippines
 Myanmar Crackdown (2007 – continuing), Myanmar
 Case 1
People Power Revolution (1986), Philippines
• Marcos’ rule was corrupt, draconian & abused
coercive force to persecute political opponents
• Marcos’ legitimate authority, referent power
dissipated over the year as a result
• Corazon Aquino, wife of asassinated Opposition
Leader, Benigno Aquino, led millions in bloodless
overthrow of Marcos’ regime with support of
Catholic Church, and Military
• Irony : Quiet housewife vs powerful coercive military
ruler
Balik-Tanaw 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution.flv
 Case 1
People Power Revolution (1986), Philippines

Corazon Aquino Ferdinand Marcos

VS
 Case 2
Myanmar Protests (2007), Myanmar
• Aung San Su Kyii led political party won
landslide 82% votes in 1990 elections
• Instead of assuming power she remains under house
arrest (till after 2010 elections)
• Irony : Meek-looking but highly-principled lady vs
dictatorial & corrupt junta ruling thro’ abusive
coercive force
• Protests started on fuel price increase issue and
escalated into general uprising as protestors’ hardened
stance & even monks joined in
• What will happen in 2010 & down the road ?
 Case 2
Myanmar Protests (2007), Myanmar

Aung San Su Kyii Myanmar’Military Junta

VS
 Emergent Properties of Group

Deindividuation & Group -Think

Group Polarisation

 On part of Protestor Crowds  On part of Autocratic regime

VS

Case Example 3

Tiananmen Square June 4th Incident (1989), China

 Deindividuation
Antecedent Conditions Internal state Behavioural Effects
• Anonymity (Deindividuation) • Impulsivity
• Lessened self- • Irrationality
• Diffusion of
observation & self- • Emotionality
responsibility
evaluation
• Energizing effect of • Antisocial activity
• Lessened concern
others
with the evaluations
• Stimulus overload of others
• Weakening of
internal controls
(lessened concern
with shame, guilt,
fear, commitment)

Source: Zimbardo, 1970

 Group Polarisation

• Group decisions tend to be more extreme

than those made by individuals
• Whatever way the individuals are leaning,
group discussion tends to make them lean
further in that direction
 
Source : Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969)
 Groupthink
Antecedent Conditions
1. High cohesiveness
2. Insulation of group
3. Lack of procedures
for information
Motivation
search and appraisal
Concurrence-
4. Directive leadership seeking
5. High stress with a tendency
low degree of hope
for finding a better
solution than the
one favoured by the
leader or other
influrntial people
Source: Janis & Mann(1977)
Symptoms of Groupthink
1. Illusion of invulnerability
2. Collective rationalization
3. Belief in inherent morality
of the group
4. Stereostypes of outgroups
5. Direct pressure on
dissenters
6. Self-censorship
7. Illusion of unanimity
8. Self-appointed mind
guards
Symptoms of
defective decision
making
1. Incomplete survey of
objectives
2. Incomplete survey
of alternatives
3. Poor information
search
4. Failure to examine
risks of preferred
choice
5. Selective bias in
processing
information at hand
6. Failure to reappraise
alternatives
7. Failure to work out
contingency plans
 Case 3
Tiananmen Incident (1989), China
• Tiananmen Incident started with students with differing
agenda gathering to honor death of “pro-democracy”
politician
• On the students’ end, group polarisation set in as students’
stance on issues hardened (and more so when negotiating
with CCP leaders later on), and deinviduation set in.
• On leaders’ end, group think set in insular cohesive CCP
leadership came under enormous stress of handling a never-
seen-before challenge under full glare of international
publicity
 Case 3
Tiananmen Incident (1989), China
 Lessons
• Cultivate different bases of power, do not rely on
Coercive power (power of the gun’s barrel) singly to
achieve desired outcomes.
• Never abuse coercive power especially for sustained
period; coercion alone will ultimately fail.
• Power is a 2-way street, never a one-way street.
• There is energy in crowds & masses; do not ignore it
– whether u are in the crowd or u are dealing with
one.
• Beware of Group Think – its more real than you think
Thanks for attention
…

Q &A
 References
Avolio, B.J., Sosik, J.J., Jung, D., Berson, Y. (2003), "Leadership models, methods, and applications", in Borman, W.C., Ilgen,
D.R., Klimoski, R.J. (Eds),Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol.
Vol. 12 pp.277-307
Back, K.W. (1951), "Influence through social communication", Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 46 pp.9-23.
Baron, J.N., Pfeffer, J. (1994), "The social psychology of organizations and inequality", Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 57
pp.190-209
Batson, C.D., Powell, A.A. (2003), "Altruism and prosocial behavior", in Millon, T., Lerner, M.J. (Eds),Handbook of
Psychology: Personality and Social Psychology, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. Vol. 5 pp.463-84
Bowers, D.G., Seashore, S.E. (1966), "Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership",
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 11 pp.238-63
Bruins, J. (1999), "Social power and influence tactics: a theoretical introduction", Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 55 pp.7-14
Bryman, A.S. (1996), "The importance of context: qualitative research and the study of leadership", Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 7 pp.353-70
Cartwright, D. (1959a), "A field theoretical conception of power", in Cartwright, D. (Eds),Studies in Social Power, University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp.183-220
Cartwright, D. (1959b), "Power: a neglected variable in social psychology", in Cartwright, D. (Eds),Studies in Social Power,
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp.1-14
Cartwright, D. (1965), "Influence, leadership, control", in March, J.G. (Eds),Handbook of Organizations, Rand McNally,
Chicago, IL, pp.1-47
Elias, S.M. (2004), "Means of assessing ordinal interactions in social psychology: the case of sexism in judgments of social
power", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34 pp.1857-77
Elias, S.M. (2007), "Influence in the ivory tower: examining the appropriate use of social power in the university classroom",
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37 pp.2532-48
Farmer, S.M., Aguinis, H. (2005), "Accounting for subordinate perceptions of supervisor power: an identity-dependence
model", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 pp.1069-83
Fiol, C.M., O'Connor, E.J., Aguinis, H. (2001), "All for one and one for all? The development and transfer of power across
organization levels", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 pp.224-42
French, J.R.P. (1956), "A formal theory of social power", Psychological Review, Vol. 63 pp.181-94
French, J.R.P., Raven, B. (1959), "The basis of social power", in Cartwright, D. (Eds),Studies in Social Power, University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp.529-69
Frieze, I.H., Boneva, B.S. (2001), "Power motivation and motivation to help others", in Lee-Chai, A.Y., Bargh, J.A.
(Eds),The Use and Abuse of Power: Multiple Perspectives on the Causes of Corruption, Psychology Press,
Philadelphia, PA, pp.75-89
Gilman, G. (1962), "An inquiry into the nature and use of authority", in Haire, M. (Eds),Organization Theory in Industrial
Practice, Wiley, New York, NY, pp.105-42
Hogg, M.A., Reid, S.A. (2001), "Social identity, leadership, and power", in Lee-Chai, A.Y., Bargh, J.A. (Eds), The Use and
Abuse of Power: Multiple Perspectives on the Causes of Corruption, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp.159-80
Hurwitz, J.I., Zander, A.F., Hymovitch, B. (1953), "Some effects of power on the relations among group members", in
Cartwright, D., Zander, A. (Eds),Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, Row-Peterson & Co, Evanston, IL, pp.483-92
Moore, H.T. (1921), "The comparative influence of majority and expert opinion", American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 32
pp.16-20
Pelz, D.C. (1952), "Influence: a key to effective leadership in the first line supervisor", Personnel, Vol. 29 pp.209-17
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., Fetter, R. (1990), "Transformational leaders behavior and their effects
on follower's trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors", Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1
pp.107-42
Raven, B.H. (1993), "The bases of power: origins and recent developments", Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 49 pp.227-51
Salancik, G.R., Pfeffer, J. (1977), "Who gets power – and how they hold on to it: a strategic-contingency model of
power", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 5 pp.2-21
Yukl, G., Falbe, C.M. (1990), "Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts",
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 pp.132-40
Zaleznik, A. (1998), "Managers and leaders: are they different?", Harvard Business Review on Leadership, Harvard
Business School Publishing, Boston, MA, pp.61-88
THE END