Power and Influence in the Workplace Essay

This case study is establish upon the conceptual article by Glenys M. Drew titled Enabling or Real might and turn in leading, in which aims to waken thought about magnate and influence in leadership. Simply stated, magnate is our desire to have influence upon others, placing us within a concomitant social status. According to Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders (2010, p. 199), great deal have office stafffulness when they have the tycoon to do work about outcomes they desire or the ability to get things through with(p) the way they want them to be done.Influence is the actual strategies and messages that individuals deploy to bring about desired attitudinal or behavioral change, (Lewicki et al 2010, p. 220). In to the highest degree relationships there is violence imbalances, including an organization structured to flow in a top-down direction. This is known as formal government agency and influence much(prenominal) as between a boss and his or her subordinate. The baron imbalance in these relationships stems from the asymmetry in dependence between the parties, which contributes to an asymmetry in influence between the parties, (Emerson, 1962, p. 37).Problems Specified in the CaseWhat constitutes genuinely power and influence in leadership is addressed and whether coercive tactics of wielding power over others is even necessary. It is contended that the opposite is true in that demonstrating solid power and influence in leadership holds back usurping power to work with and  change others to achieve worth man ends, (Drew, 2010, p. 1).Possible antecedents presented by the AuthorsThe author explores three suggested solutions of modify or real power and influence in leadership, each solution is accompanied by an element of paradox. The first suggests that enabling or real power and influence does not usurp but serves. The second is that an instinctual notion of self- am single-valued function is diverted into a more socially acceptable intere st for others and the intended goal. The third is that it fosters true engagement in leadership maculation positioning for growth for the self and others, (Drew, 2010).SWOT Analysis_Strengths_In divers(prenominal) coalitions, power and influence can be used to build a consensus.Real power is the power to empower._Weaknesses_In diverse coalitions, power without influence can bring about negative results.Usurping power and self-concern tends to stultify and deny useful result, (p. 7)._Opportunities_Opportunities exist for leaders to use power to influence guided thinking, not so much to solve problems for people but to engage people in solving problems._Threats_Nothing is more important to building vital trust the prevalent state of leadership than that of credibility. A leader can lose credibility when power is employ and when strong professional will and humility are not anchor to be so effectual.Authors recommended solutionI scoff with the authors recommended solution that ge nuine power and influence reverses the power paradigm, where the leader focuses primarily on the vision ahead more than (demonstrably) on self and partners with and enables others to reach shared goals, (Drew, 2010, p. 2). Paradoxically, by enabling and empowering others with altruistic use of power and influence is a sign of strength, rigor, and potentially rich outcomes bandage wielding power just because one can, or for selfish reasons whitethorn on the surface seem powerful but could be displayed as weakness, stultification, and getting compromised outcomes.The paradox that the only power is no power assists an argument that may be inferred that self aggrandizing power, in its bid to grab power, ultimately reduces the self, while resisting the exercise of usurping power expands the self and increases ones potential for robust influence and authority, (Drew, 2010, p. 3). Self-interest for the interests of the goal are sublimated by real power and influence within the paradoxi cal proposition that genuine power results from giving rather than taking, (Drew, 2010, p. 5). Real power and influence displays strength, not weakness within the paradox proposed is that real power and influence eschews soft, uncritical approaches in favor of rigor, building a culture of discipline, (Drew, 2010, p. 8).ReferencesEmerson, R. M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations, American Sociological Review 27, 31-40.Drew, G. M. (2010). Enabling or real power and influence in leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(1), 47-58. doi10.1002/jls.20154.Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D.M. (2010). Negotiation (6th ed.). Boston, MA McGraw-Hill.