Power – It Takes Two at least!

Power – It Takes Two (at least!)

by Jenny Clarke, www.sfwork.com

What do we mean by power? In physics, the definition is unambiguous: it's the rate at which work is done or energy is converted. It's about getting things done and it has a time dimension. In ordinary parlance, it has something to do with how much we can affect or influence our environment, including how other people behave towards us. Seen in this light, there is nothing intrinsically negative about the concept: on the contrary, to be able to influence our environment is an essential survival mechanism.

Nevertheless, there's a lot of negative talk about power: power dynamics; power structures; power politics; how power corrupts … And most of this talk carries the assumption that power is the exclusive property of a particular individual or group. As people talk about power, I sometimes detect a feeling of helplessness leading to paralysis. “There's nothing we can do. They have the power and we have none.”

Of course, power is unevenly distributed. However, I question the notion that power resides in individuals, proposing instead that it is an interactional product, emerging from the ways that two or more individuals interact. (When we talk of having power over ourselves, we hold the belief that there are different, competing parts of ourselves. So even in this case, the concept is an interactional one – for example, exercising power over our own emotions and desires.)

Let's look first at Power as we have thought about it historically. Who has it? How did they get it? How (and to what extent) is it legitimised? How is it wielded?

Where does power come from?

• Status/class – historically and culturally important. Often transferred through heredity
• Role (authority) – for example arising from military or organisational hierarchies, legitimised to greater or lesser extents
• Gender – sufficient to include or exclude in many societies and contexts
• Tradition – the way it has always been
• Force – (a) physical (b) moral (c) intellectual. ((a) Chairman Mao's “all power comes from the barrel of a gun.” (b)Religion. (c) Edward Bulwer-Lytton's “The pen is mightier than the sword.”)
• Money – especially in the world of politics, money can buy power
• Sex (and drugs and rock n roll) or the supply of other desirable things
• Consensus
• Knowledge
• Connection/influence
• Behaviour

This list shows why power is unevenly distributed – and that this is not simply a feature of the political and social systems in place. But just as we recognise the possibility of social mobility, so we can see that power is not static either. Indeed it can change in the course of one conversation. In today's fast-changing world, the last four items on the list above are becoming increasingly important sources of power. We can change our attitude to consensus, add to our stock of knowledge, become better connected and alter our behaviour. This adaptability enables us to change our ability to influence our environment – our power. The Facebook and Twitter generation didn't take long to discover the importance of connection. The idea of 6 degrees of separation must surely be due for a recalculation – and Facebook has an experiment to do just that, testing their hypothesis that 4 degrees may be enough for people to be connected today.

There are many questions worth exploring when thinking about Power in the 21st century. More than ever, we realise that we live in a complex, interdependent world. Earlier assumptions that the world is predictable and controllable, and hence that power can be wielded in a heroic “control and command” way are becoming untenable. Models of collective and distributive power, democratic processes and different models of leadership are being generated to fit the world we live in.

Old power structures are vulnerable (we saw this when the Berlin Wall came down and in the unfolding events in the Arab world) and new ways of acquiring and using power are being discovered. Coercion is an effective way of getting one's way – for a while. But consider instead the power of invitation as a way of influencing one's environment. How much more willingly will you work for a boss who invites you to become part of a project? How much more pleasure will you take in an event that you have been invited to (giving an element of choice) rather than ordered to?

Consider also the difference between a heroic leader engaging people to join him (usually) or her on a mission and a Host Leader inviting people to create a common project.

Nobody is powerless: a change in our demeanour evokes a change in the behaviour of others. Anyone can say something or do something which alters previous patterns. This is how knowledge and connections - what and who we know - can help us be more powerful. Whatever the organisational chart may say about who is in charge, we all know who actually wields power and influence in a company – it can be a receptionist, a secretary …. I had a boss once whose first task when taking over a new plant was to find out who these people were and work with them to ease his introduction into the new role.

How then do we become more powerful when it seems that the odds are against us? The Solutions Focus Approach offers a way.

First, be quite clear, in concrete, observable terms, what you want to achieve. This isn't always as easy as it sounds: when times are tough and we don't know what to do, we're more likely to focus on what's wrong – what we don't want – than on what we want to have happen instead. And even when we do start to focus on that, it may be in vague generalisations: “I want to be happy” “I want to be respected” “I want to be able to trust my colleagues” .... Working out what your world would be like when you get what you want, in the kind of detail a film cameraman could observe, can take time. Nevertheless, this is time well spent because it helps you think about times when you have got what you wanted, or something like it, and to build on that knowledge. It also helps you recognise signs that things are going in the right direction, and build on that. To read more about this approach and how it is used in organisational contexts, go to www.sfwork.com

March 2011