Monday, 20 May 2013
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Emotional intelligence By Nosiku Mukumano
1.0. Introduction
The
concept of emotional intelligence has become the catch word of modern
management theory and thought. While greater emphasis had been placed on the
intelligence quotient by especially the trait theorists on its roles on
leadership and management, modern and contemporary management theory has placed
even greater emphasis on the emotional quotient. This emphasis has led to wide
range of studies and debates on the question of the role of the EQ in the
effectiveness and efficiency of leadership and management and it in essence
affects the entire management process.
It
is now more widely argued that emotional intelligence is the key for the
success of modern day organisations and that it is rated above the IQ. This
implies that a person with a higher EQ has better odds for success than one
with a high IQ. It is argued that since organisations are made up of people as
its building blocks, people determine the success or failure of organisation.
And since people are emotional, and their emotions affects their work moral,
attitudes and behaviours, emotional intelligence becomes key to driving
organisations to success. Emotional intelligence is seen as that ability to stir,
motivate and drive one’s self and others to success despite how they feel or
what they are going through. It relates to the ability of an individual to
understand and relate to emotions, be sensitive enough towards them and select
a set of them as may be deemed necessary for any given task.
The argument is that humans are emotional
beings and have their highs and lows, bests and worsts and tend to fluctuate
between success and failure in both small and great ways. And having a high EQ
helps an individual notice these in themselves and in others as well as how
best these can be dealt with, modified and utilised for success.
This
essay therefore aims at discussing how the EQ affects management. In an effort
to do so, this essay shall define and explain the EQ and other key concepts,
relate its usage in management as well as outlining its measures, merits,
demerits, and importance. Thereafter, the essay argues its effect on management
process, management behaviour and management systems and its emergence in
management, after which a summary and conclusion shall be drawn from the entire
essay.
2.0.Conceptual Definitions
2.1.Emotional intelligence
As
defined by Wikipedia (2012) Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to
identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, others and or groups. Goleman
defines emotional intelligence more broadly, including optimism,
conscientiousness, motivation, empathy, and social competence. Kendra (2010) defines it as the ability to
perceive, control and evaluate emotions. Salovey and Mayer (1990) define it as
“the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor ones’
own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and use this
information to guide one’s thinking and actions.”
2.2.Emotional quotient
Emotional
quotient (EQ) therefore refers to the measure of emotional intelligence (EI) in
a much similar way as the intelligence Quotient (IQ) is used to measure
cognitive intelligence. The theoretical crust is that success of a manager or
leader is a product of more than just the IQ but more so of the emotions of the
leader at work. The word “emotion” is derived from the Latin verb
"emoverse" meaning "to stir up" or "to move."
Emotions may arise from internal or external stimulants which enkindle some
needed actions to survive in the given circumstances. Riaz (2001:1) notes that
“The emotions have scientific elaboration. In the realm of memory, emotional
events are laid down differently by a parallel memory system involving a brain
area called the amygdala. Emotions appear to employ largely unconscious
machinery. For example, brain areas involved in emotion will respond to angry
faces that are briefly presented and then rapidly masked, even when subjects are
unaware of having seen the face.” Emotions being therefore a brain process have
objectivity to them and also dwelling in the realm of the unconscious, have a
sense of stability and are measurable. Emotional quotient is in this light a
measure of stability, control and manipulation of emotions to ensure
effectiveness and efficiency in work processes and systems.
2.3.Management process, behaviour and systems
Management
process is closely related to functions of management and refers to the entire
functional roles of the manager in ensuring that there is a systematic
utilisation of the human, financial and capital resources in the planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of organisational activities and work
processes (Daft R, L 2009). The process of management involves integrating the
functions of the manager in strategically ensuring that things are done.
Management
behaviour refers to the objective attitudes, actions and reactions of the
manager at work and emotions play a very critical role in the determination of
the manager’s behaviour at work and during work. Management behaviour goes
further to include the manager’s ability to understand, predict relate to the
behaviours of others. While management systems will be used to refer to the
management tools, interlinks (networks) and relations of management levels and
management processes. Put simply, management systems are the interrelationships
and interconnectivities and tools of the managers within a particular
organisation.
3.0. Measuring and understanding the EQ
In
measuring the EQ, it is noted that many models have been adopted and designed
and these include the Boston EQ measure, Emotional Quotient Inventory, Work
Personality Index, and many others. All the EQ measures are however built
around theoretical models and frameworks which provide the criteria for
analysis and measurement.
Goleman
in 1998 produced a framework for measuring and understanding emotional
intelligence/identifying the EQ as consisting five key elements which include:
1. Self-awareness-understanding
one’s self, emotions, strengths, weaknesses and appearance to others
2. Self-regulation-the
ability to control one’s emotional impulses, actions and reactions and bring the
emotional side under subjection of the logic and analytical though process of
decision making.
3. Motivation-
the will and drive to move forward in the face of setbacks, negative emotions
and still remain focused for success.
4. Empathy-
the ability to not only read other people’s emotions but relate to those emotions,
understands them, and utilise them for success. Being able to put one’s self in
the shoes of others and see things from their own perspective or view point.
5. Social
skills – the ability of an individual to interact, communicate and relate with
others in much the same way every time despite their emotional state at that
particular time.
Higgs
and Dulewics identify seven elements of measuring emotional intelligence which
vester categorises into three broad categories which include:
1. Drives-motivation
and decisiveness- these refers to the committed focus, the energisers that
drive people to aim high and stir them to reach those high goals. Here,
emotional intelligence demands that one still remain energised, committed,
focused, and stirred to success and high goal setting and attainment dispite
their emotional state.
2. Constrainers-Conscientiousness
and integrity and emotional resilience- these acts as controllers of the drives
in their excesses especially when the drives are too high, undirected or
misdirected.
3. Enablers-
sensitivity, influence and self-awareness-these help the individuals to
succeed, they help in building performance, relations and networks. They are
seen as the process relevant traits which facilitate success.
4.0. Merits and Demerit of the EQ
The
use of EQ though modern has been saliently debated upon for years in management
theory. As also noted by Riaz (2000)The concept the EQ though old got
familiarity with the publication of book titled 'Emotional Intelligence' by
Daniel Goleman's in 1995. However, the first use of the term "Emotional
Intelligence" is usually attributed to Wayne Payne's doctoral thesis, A
study of emotion: Developing emotional intelligence from 1985.
She
argues that “If we go into the background history, we find that early Emotional
Intelligence theory was originally developed during the 1970's and 80's by the
work and writings of psychologists Howard Gardner, Peter Salovey and John
Mayer” (ibid p.1,2). Furthermore, she reveals that “Emotional Intelligence is
increasingly relevant to organizational development and developing people,
because the EQ principles provide a new way to understand and assess people's behaviours,
management styles, attitudes, interpersonal skills, and potentials. Emotional
Intelligence is an important consideration in human resources planning, job
profiling, recruitment interviewing and selection, management development,
customer relations, customer service, and much more” (opcit p. 2).
The
relevance and importance of EQs con therefore not be over emphasized as they
reflect the line between very successful and less successful managers. In
“Working with Emotional Intelligence,” Goleman (1998) suggests that the most
important factor that distinguishes effective leaders is not their IQ but their
EQ. Viriyavidhayavongs and Jiamsuchon (2006) state that the recognition of the
importance of EQ has grown as relationships and communication have come to be
seen as core components of organizations, along with intelligence and technical
skills. This has also led to an investigation of the nature of EQ. Viriyavidhayavongs
and Jiamsuchon (2006) further maintain that Goleman has demonstrated that emotional
intelligence is the single most important factor for personal adjustment,
success in relationships, and in job performance. They report that whereas IQ accounts
for 20 percent of success on the job, EQ was shown to account for 80%. With
emotional intelligence, a manager can restrain anger, self-doubt, and other
negative feelings and focus on positive emotions such as confidence and
congeniality. They emphasise that whereas IQ is relatively fixed, EQ can be learned,
improved, trained, and matured. As EQ grows, managers are transformed into
leaders and their efficiency is heightened. When this is accomplished managers
gain in interpersonal skills and develop as insightful persons. Vebsar (2012)
argues that emotional intelligence allows people to maintain relationships and
keep actions in control. Furthermore, they allow for motivation even amid
adverse situations and highly stressful times, reduces conflicts and enhanced
self-image.
The
use of the EQ is however not as flawless as may be seen at face value as it is
argued to luck the kind of objectivity which the IQ has. There has been a tendency
of the same individual scoring two slightly different EQs within a short period
of time. And the fact that it measures emotional intelligence which has in it
aspects of subjectivity makes many firms shun its use. The stability of the EQ
is still a matter of great concern amid many scholar and practitioners as many
argue that it is inborn hence cannot be changed while many more argue that it
can be changed, improved and developed and that it matures with age and
experience.
The
EQ is also argued as a mere replication of the intelligence quotient as it
labours to give and measure the emotional quotient like the intelligence
quotient.
5.0. The EQ and its Effects on management
5.1. Why the EQ in Management?
Many reasons have been forwarded on the EQ’s
importance to management and the need of this in management and these include,
as summed up by Chapman:
1. Changing
nature of work: flatter structures, fewer tiers of management, greater
responsibility. The greater responsibilities may tend to be emotional, greater
levels of supervision may demand for more realistic expectations and greater
empathy as well as emotional management, and understanding
2. The
increasing complexity of work, work processes and their management: impact of
technology and reshaping of jobs.
3. Rise
in competition: shorter product life-cycles and more demanding customers
4. Globalisation
of markets: organisations now need to think global, yet act local
5. Rapid
pace of change: change is now a constant feature of organisational life
6. Rising
stress levels
7. Emergence of the self-managed career: no more
jobs for life
8. Recognition of the need to maximise individual
performance: not just know how and the ability to do, but know how you feel
about what you know and do
5.2. The EQ and the management function
The
functions of management include, planning, coordinating, organising, leading
and stuffing. These functions demand for great objectivity in their execution
implying less and less of subjective emotions in the work process and in the
workplace hence the need for a higher EQ.
If
in the process of planning, organising, leading, staffing and coordinating
negative emotions are given room which may include frustrations, fear of
failure, anger and general demotivation then the efficiency and effectiveness
of the plans, leadership, organising, staffing, leading and coordinating will
be compromised,. The need thus for emotional maturity, stability and
objectivity is an essential imperative which is attainable by developing a high
EQ score. It is also not only what the manager does (functions of management),
but the way he/she does it (the process) and how he does it(the means) and why
he does it(the motive). While function of management requires the IQ the how it
is done, why it is done, and the ways of doing it requires the EQ since the
manager, and all his subordinates, are emotional beings whose emotions may
easily interfere with their work and functions and the manager must be aware of
that fact.
5.3. The EQ and the management process
In
practice, managers accomplish organizational goals through the process of
defining goals, organizing structures, motivating employees, and monitoring
performance and outcomes. These are called management processes. These processes
are very important if effectiveness is to be attained hence the value of the EQ.
The management process requires a complete cycle of every activity in terms of
its planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Every stage and step
has its requirements and demands and often times tend to be rather stressful
and emotional. The success or failure of one management activity at any point
of the process determines the emotional responses of the next stage, attitudes
towards it behaviour in relation to it and actions towards it.
5.4. The EQ and management behaviour
In
performing the management processes a manager often takes on several different
roles which relate to behaviour. These roles were described by Henry Mintzberg
and include interpersonal roles, informational roles, and decisional roles.
Interpersonal roles are ways in which a manager works and communicates with
others. In order to fill these roles effectively managers use skills that allow
them to translate knowledge into action. Robert Katz describes three different
sets of skills that managers use, including technical, human, and conceptual
skills. These skills require having a good understanding of the organization as
a whole and understanding how its interrelated parts work together which further
demands for emotional intelligence undoubtedly. Since management behaviour
influences work behaviour and determines work responses and moral the manager’s
success is largely dependent on his relations at work and his behaviours at
work. In relation to behaviour therefore, the manager must apply emotional
intelligence in: Explaining personal, individual and group behaviour; Predicting
emotional and behavioural responses; Controlling behaviour at personal, group, individual
or organisational level
6.0.Summary
The
emotional quotient essentially measures emotional intelligence which is now a
fast emerging field of study on organisational and management studies as more
and more studies link emotional intelligence greater quality of life,
individual accomplishments and organisational success and well-being. The age
of the reign of the stable IQ is fast fading as the adjustable EQ begins to
take root. The EQ conceptually, as also noted by Chapman can be seen the
measure to a learned ability to perceive, understand and express our feelings
accurately and to control our emotions so that they work for us, not against
us. In other words it is about:
·
Knowing how you and others feel and what
to do about it
·
Knowing what feels good and what feels
bad and how to get from bad to good
·
Possessing emotional awareness,
sensitivity and the management skills that will help us to maximise our
long-term happiness and survival
Though
a seemingly new concept, EQ/EI is vital in modern day organisations in relation
to management to the extent that:
·
Management processes and functions
require proper people management who are at the core of these activities and
since they are emotional beings, a high EQ helps the manager, assess,
understand, manage and relate properly his or her own emotions as well as that
of others
·
Management and organisation behaviour
calls for a thorough understanding of the individual and group dynamics of
attitudes, personalities and characters as well as general behaviour all of
which call for emotion intelligence.
·
Factors of organisational climate and environment
call for greater care of people and a new kind of people management and these
includes ;Changing nature of work, increasing complexity of work, work
processes and their management, impact of technology and reshaping of jobs, Rise
in competition, Globalisation of markets, Rapid pace of change, Rising stress
levels, Emergence of the self-managed career, need to maximise individual
performance.
Though
so widely celebrated, EQ measure has met its own critiques and these argue that
why it is anchored upon a sound theoretical model, it has no clear measurement
criteria yet and may never really have due to the splitting opinions scholars
and theorists on the same. The EQ is demerited further by the argument that it
aims to merely replicate the IQ but give different results based on different
IQ tests available. The EQ, though highly rated cannot really substitute the
use of the IQ which basically gives a person great professional qualifications
which goes beyond people management to resource, financial and general
organisation management. Knowing thus how to handle people is one thing,
knowing what to do in undertaking the management function, process and behaviour
is another. While the former call for a high EQ the latter calls for a high IQ
hence the need of both.
While
there are many EQ measures available, the most prominent include the BarOn
Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On EQi), the Boston EQ measure, Emotional
Quotient Inventory and Work Personality Index. Of these the most widely used is
said to be the boston EQ measure which is rather simplistic and easy to use.
The most credited of the all is said to be The Bar-On EQ-I which has fifteen
scales that can be divided into five larger groupings. The areas assessed are
emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, self-regard, self-actualization,
independence, empathy, interpersonal relationship, social responsibility,
problem solving, reality testing, flexibility, stress tolerance, impulse
control, happiness, and optimism. The Bar-On EQ-i is said to have the greatest
body of scientific data suggesting it to be an accurate and reliable means of
assessing emotional intelligence (Centre for Creative Leadership 2001). The
emotional quotient inventory however is the most popular EQ test measure as it
is a more comprehensive measure of EQ. other measures include: The Emotional
Competence Inventory (ECI), The Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (EIQ), The
Emotional Intelligence Individual Diagnostic Questionnaire, and Simmons EQ
Profile.
7.0. Conclusion
Much
has been written and argued with regards to the EQ and its impact on management
and one fact that cannot be ignored is the value of the EQ measure on
management’s effectiveness and success.
Research indicates that there is a very strong correlation between
1. successful
management and high EQ( Goleman 1995)
3. Stress
levels and EQ scores such that those
high on EI experienced less stress, enjoyed better health, demonstrated higher
levels of morale and performance, and reported a better quality of life (UMIST,
2001)
4. High
EQ scores and promotions at work(Fenman 2005)
5. High
EQ and low law suits such that managers and professionals with higher EQs get
lesser law suits (Fenman 2005)
Though
the correlation exists, there is currently no universal consensus with regards
to the measure of emotional intelligence hence the need to create one precise
measure of emotional intelligence to have a precise and universal EQ.
The
importance of the EQ given the above research results and discussions cannot be
underscored as it draws the line between success and failure at every level.
The successful manager therefore must develop keen interest in the
understanding, development and use of emotional intelligence for themselves and
their subordinates. Given therefore the dependence of organisation behaviour,
management processes, functions and systems, on the EQ it still remains
imperative that the EQ of managers and there subordinates is highly developed.
8.0. Bibliography
Bar-On,
R. (1999). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: A measure of emotional
intelligence (Technical manual). Toronto, Canada: Multi- Health Systems.
Casper
van Zyl et al, (2010) Work
Personality Index and the Emotional Quotient Inventory Jopie van Rooyen
& Partners SA (Pty) Ltd. All rights reserved.
Centre
for Creative Leadership(CCL), (2001) Emotional intelligence,
Ensboro NC: CCL.
Chapman
M (2012) The Emotional Intelligence Pocket Hand Book, Management
Pocketbooks Ltd Laurel House, Station Approach, Alresford, Hampshire So24 9jh
UK
Daft
R. L (1999) Leadership theory and practice, The Dryden Press
Daft
R, L (2009) Organisation theory and design, South Thomson, England
Fineman,
S. (1994) Emotion in Organization, London: SAGE
Gardner,
H. (1983). Frames of mind, New York: Basic Books.
Goleman,
D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. NY:
Bantam Books.
Goleman,
D. (1998) Working with emotional intelligence, New York, NY: Bantam
Books.
Mayer,
J.D. & Salovey, P. (1997), What is emotional intelligence? NY: Basic
Books.
Payne,
W.L. (1983/1986). A study of emotion: developing emotional intelligence;
self-integration; relating to fear, pain and desire. Dissertation Abstracts
International,
Ruderman,
M.N., et al (2001). Leadership skills and emotional intelligence
(Unpublished manuscript)
Riaz
K (2001) Emotional Quotient (EQ), (unpublished manuscript article)
Viriyavidhayavongs
V, and S Jiamsuchon (2006) The Relationship between Emotional Quotient (EQ) and
Leadership Effectiveness in Life Insurance Business Organizations.
Power, Authority and Legitimacy
Introduction
Authority,
power and legitimacy are seen as an integral part of the human society for the
simple reason that these are the defining features of a social being with
social and political institutions and hierarchies. Many scholars have sort to
propound these concepts but not has so extensively influenced the concept as
max Weber who sums the three to culminate into one, ‘authority’. Authority
since then has grown into a catch word in many social sciences especially those
related to administration and politics. Max Weber’s dissection of authority
exposes three typologies of authority which he calls traditional authority,
charismatic authority and legal rational authority from which he elevated the
legal rational authority as the best form of authority.
This
essay therefore labors at discussing the assertion that legal rational
authority is the most rational type of authority amid the three noted types of
authority. In laboring to do so therefore, the essay begins with an effort at
defining authority and differentiating as well as relating it from and to other
concepts such as power, influence and legitimacy often mistaken as its
synonyms. The term “rational” shall also be defined so as to conceptualize our
understanding of it in its usage in the discussion of Weber’s argument of legal
rational authority being the more rational type of authority. This will be
followed by a brief discussion of the three types of authority as propounded by Weber where a clear distinction of them will be drawn as well as their levels
of rationality discussed and latter narrowed to legal rational authority in a
comparative analysis to the others, a conclusion will then follow.
Definitions of key concepts
Most
often as revealed by Bower (1971) power is used by many scholars as a synonym
for authority and this has led to a confused understanding of the entire
concept of authority especially with the idea that legitimacy is also another
form of authority. The questions which emerge therefore include: what then is
authority? Is it synonymous to power, influence and legitimacy? How do these
concepts relate and apply to society and its institutions?
Power
as defined by cline (2012) is “the ability, whether personal or social, to get
things done — either to enforce one’s own will or to enforce the collective
will of some group over others.” Power is therefore an ability or potential of
an individual or groups of individuals to influence and compel action. Power
can therefore be force or influence of action whether accepted/recognized or
no. this differs from authority in that authority comes with recognition of the
right to exercise power hence authority also encompasses the legitimacy defined
as “a socially constructed and psychologically accepted right to exercise
power”. Authority therefore refers to the ability (power) and right(legitimacy)
to influence and compel action. Max Weber therefore as noted above identifies
three ways in which people gain and exercise authority but argues that one of
them, the legal rational type, is the most rational form of authority. What
then did he mean by rational?
Encarta
student dictionary (2009) defines rational as something reasonable and sensible
and is governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and
judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice. Rational authority
is one therefore that is no arbitrary but is objectively reasonable based on
sensible thinking and clearly reasonable judgements.It is also defines
rationality as being based on logic. If authority a type of authority is
therefore to be deemed more rational, it must be logical, sensible, objective
and reasonable enough relative to the others.
The three types of authority in
perspective
Weber
presented three types of authority in his analysis of authority namely
traditional, charismatic and legal-rational. Weber presented them in the light
of historical evolution of authority and related them implicitly to his ideas
of class formation which he presents also in three forms(Collins 1986).
Traditional
authority is seen as the legitimate power driven from sanctity of traditional
norms, values and culture. This implies that the ability and right to rule is
determined by traditions and culture, authority is often hereditary or
inherited. Here therefore is the luck of rationality of the traditional form in
that qualification of the holder of authority is not logical or sensible in
that it is not the most qualified but the heir that gains the authority.
Further,
traditional authority maintains the status quo as even the heir operates in
line with the established culture,norms and customs to maintain the legitimacy
hence does not facilitate social change, political, and other forms of change.
The holder of traditional authority therefore exercises limited rationality in
his exercise of the authority which makes the traditional form less rational
relative to other however his authority remains stable and unchanged
overtime.Put in Weber’s words “The creation of new law opposite traditional
norms is deemed impossible in principle” (Weber 1958, 4).
Charismatic
authority on the other hand is driven from the concept of charisma or charm or
personality magnetism of the holder of authority (Blau, 1963). This form of
authority therefore is defined as the right and ability to exercise power as
driven from the charismatic influence of the individual or groups of
individuals. It is therefore seen as a non-formal type of authority driven from
personal attribution and neither law nor tradition yet might overlap into these
forms. As an overlap therefore a leader i.e. Shaka of the Nguni’s Zulu in south
Africa, can have traditional authority but hold it with charismatic
authority. Charismatic authority is
often change driven and as argued by Riesebrodt (1999) Weber argues that
charisma played a strong - if not integral - role in traditional authority
systems. He argues that charismatic authority is necessary in the transition
from traditional authority to legal rational authority.The irrationality of
charismatic authority is often in its power structure legitimatized not within
the limits of tradition or law but and its stability is dependent on the
increasing or decreasing charisma of the authority figure. It can be seen therefore
as blind attribution and exercise of authority as it is an authority devoid of
power boundaries.
The
Legal-rational type of authority is power legitimatized by two key aspects, the
‘legal’ and the ‘rational’ which in other ways are the content (legal) or
process (rational). The legal rational
authority is therefore a result of procedural and substantial consensus in its
establishment. It is therefore impersonal but institutional/office based.
Bower
identifies five distinguishing features of the legal and rational aspects of
the legal rational authority and these are; basis of legitimacy, grounds for
legitimacy, source of legitimacy, nature of power and source of power. The
legal/formal aspect of legal rational authority has is basis of power from
belief in the "right" of person to hold authority and the ground for
this belief(ground of legitimacy) is the legal structure (established laws) and
the source of the legal structure or legal framework is organization/formalization which springs from consensus building. In terms of
power, the legal/formal aspect‘s nature of power is based on the
organizational constraints and prerogatives granted and the source of power is
not traditional nor charismatic but is derived from the legal structure or the
legal framework of the organization. The rational aspect however is the
determinant of the legal structure/framework. The rational aspect in terms of
legitimacy has belief in effective utility of person's actions and commands as
the basis of its legitimacy implying that the authority’s command is believed
to be of general greater benefit having the basis of this belief of legitimacy
from the identified qualification of the individual before acquiring the
authority which is also the basis of the acquiring the authority, they are
qualified for it. The source of legitimacy therefore is the social and societal
acceptance of the individual’s qualification for the authority. The nature of
the power here is in the technical competence of the authority figure and the
source of the rational authority’s legitimacy is in the exposed and intrinsic
skills and competencies.
The
legal rational authority is therefore a combined form of authority whose basis of legitimacy, source of legitimacy,
nature of legitimacy, nature and sources of power are both legal(based on the
legal and institutional frame work) as well as rational(based on the
individual’s competence, skills and qualification to exercise the authority)
the authority here therefore is not only rationally based as one with the
qualification but not legally mandated cannot exercise it and in the same vain,
one cannot be legally mandated to exercise the authority without being
qualified to exercise it as the legal framework is rationally determined.
Comparative analysis
Using
bower’s five distinguishing features, the reasons of the argument that the
legal rational authority is more rational(reasonable, logical or sensible) than
the other types of authority can be upheld. Legal rational authority is thus
more logical or reasonable firstly because of its basis of legitimacy which is
the belief of right of the office bearer to hold the authority impersonality as
a qualified individual acting on the basis of utility benefit for all. This is
unlike traditional authority whose basis of legitimacy is birth/heredity or
patrimonialism hence arbitrary and not rational. The aspect of organizational
utility is not sort for in the traditional authority but the maintenance of the
status quo. Charismatic authority is not impersonal hence has continuity
problems with the demise of the charismatic leader. Further, it looks at the
charm or appeal of the leader without consideration of institutional and
personal qualifications for exercise of authority which may lead to abuse of
power or luck of ability perform despite the great charismatic appeal.
In
terms of ground of legitimacy, legal rational authority is grounded in the
legal structure/framework as well as the individual’s ability to interpret it
understand it and effectively execute it with the consideration of either
qualification or experience or both. Its legitimacy is therefore grounded into
the institutional structure and the institutional legal framework as well as
the fitting of the individual into that structure and legal framework. The
traditional and charismatic typologies however has no formal institutional and
legal frame work to guide actions, limit power and determine qualifications and
the holder of authority is has not been therefore subjected to a pragmatic test
or assessment of competence in a legally based manner. This makes both the
traditional and charismatic authority less rational forms of authority relative
to the legal rational forms of authority.
The
source of legitimacy too sets legal rational authority apart from the rest in
that its source is an organization with both procedural and substantial
consensus with both a job description and a job specification. The job
description determines the duties and authority of the office while the job
specification determines the qualifications and needed personality attributes
and technical and professional competences. Charismatic authority however does
not have organizational form of consensus as there may be no need of an organization for charismatic authority to emerge. Traditional authority though
having some aspects consensus does not formalise specific enough to ensure that
the formal qualifications of office bearers are well taken into account. The
rationality therefore of both the traditional and charismatic authorities is
underscored relative to the legal rational one.
In
terms of power however, it is almost unlimited in the non-formal types which
include charismatic and traditional types of authority. The luck of formal
boundaries and limits of authority leads to abuse of authority with no formal
channels of accountability. The legal rational authority’s nature and source of
power is driven from the legal prerogatives and constraints of the authority
given to the structures of the organizations hence the individuals in those
structures. Legal rational authority gives authority and constraints as well as
accountability to the exercise of the power hence the power has limits.
Conclusion
It
is clear therefore that the most rational (reasonable, logical or objective)
form of the three types of authority is as argued by Weber to be the legal
rational authority. Legal rational authority ensures the authority its
structure, nature and basis as well as source and ground is impersonal, formal,
rational, and accountable and combines both individual qualifications to
exercise authority and laws based on both procedural and substantial consensus
of the organization with established structures and offices.
Bibliography
Blau,
P. M. (1963), Critical remarks on Weber’s theory of authority, The
American Political Science Review, 57 (2): 305-316.
Bower
T (1971),Formal and Rational Authority Some Notes, Hypotheses and
Applications, Kansas Journal of Sociology Winter 1971
Cline,
A., (2012)What is Authority? Differentiating Authority, Power, and Legitimacy, www.about.com/
(10/02/13)
Collins,
R. (1986), Weberian Sociological Theory, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Dana,
W. (2012) Traditional, Legal-Rational, and Charismatic Authority
Weber,
M., (1947),The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, A. M.
Henderson and Talcott Parsons (trans.) and Talcott Parsons (ed.). New York: The
Free Press.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)