power, visibility, and conformity in formal organizations · power, visibility, and conformity in...

POWER IN ORGANIZATIONS 951

cratic organization." Administrative Sd-ence Quarterly 12 (September):211-228.

Michels, Robert.1949 Political Parties, translated by E. Paul and

C. Paul. Glencoe: The Free Press.von Mises, Ludwig.

1944 Bureaucracy. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Parsons, Talcott.1947 "Introduction." Pp. 3-86 in Max Weber,

The Theory of Sodal and Economic Or-ganization. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Simon, Herbert A., Donald W. Smithburg and Vic-tor A. Thompson.

1950 Public Administration. New York: KLnopf.

Simon, Herbert A.1957 Administrative Behavior, 2nd edition. New

York: MacMillan.Thompson, Victor A.

1961 "Hierarchy, specialization, and organiza-tional conflict." Administrative SdenoeQuarterly 5 (March):489-521.

Weber, Max.1958 "Bureaucracy." Pp. 196-244 in Hans Gerth

and C. W. Mills (eds.). From Max Weber:Essays in Sodology. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Wilensky, Harold.1956 Intellectuals in Labor Unions. Glencoe:

The Free Press.

POWER, VISIBILITY, AND CONFORMITYIN FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS *

DONALD I. WARREN

University of Michigan

What kind of social control is generated by a particular form of power? How do the struc-tural conditions under which this power is exercised determine high or low effectiveness?The first question is dealt with by distinguishing attitudinal conformity from behavioralconformity using the Merton dichotomy. The second inquiry utilizes the organizationalcharacteristics of visibility of role performance vis k vis superiors, and the professionalismof staff personnel. The five power bases suggested by French and Raven—Coercive, Reward,Expert, Legitimate, and Referent—are specified and further developed. A hypothetical rankingof power bases predicts high correlations between behavioral conformity, high visibility, andCoercive power; relationships diminish down the ranking to high correlations betweenattitudinal conformity, low visibility, and Referent power. Data collected from 528 staffmembers in 18 city elementary schools are used for secondary analysis as a preliminary testof hypotheses.

I. THE PROBLEM OF POWERIN ORGANIZATIONS

SOCIAL control in formal organizationshas been a major object of sociologicalinquiry. From a structural standpoint

the originative work was done by MaxWeber (see Parsons, 1947:225-226; Gerthand Mills, 1946:196ff.; and Knight, 1950:95-96). More recent reformulations ofWeber's work are by Udy (1959) and Lit-wak (1961). A recent summary of conceptsdealing with rules in organizations was doneby Hickson (1966). Etzioni (1961a, 1964)has emphasized a broad comparative ap-proach within the Weberian tradition by

* This research was conducted under U.S. Officeof Education project number 1755.1 am particularlyindebted to Professors Henry Meyer and EugeneLitwak for their support as Project Directors.

employing a three-fold typology of controlbases. The social-psychological literature of"group dynamics," also inspired by Weber,is represented in selected articles in Cart-wright and Zander's Group Dynamics(1960). The analysis of leadership "climate"is most fully developed by White and Lippitt(1960) and is applied to work organizationsin a study by Coch and French (1960).Among the many social science issues raisedin these works is a common focus on twoproblems: Why do persons in given organiza-tional positions have power? What do suchpersons do to insure compliance with powerdemands?

The Nature of Organizational Control

Among the perplexities confronting theresearcher who seeks to examine the issues

952 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

of the "why" and "how" of power exerdsein organizations is that, both conceptuallyand eixq)irically, the two dimensions arenot independent. In Etzioni's discussion(1964:59) of a "classification of means ofcontrol," he defines physical, material, andS3nnboUc categories as bases of organiza-tional power. Material rewards are the con-trols for "Utilitarian" power, symbols thebasis of "Normative" power, and physicalforce the basis of "Coerdve" power. Bytreating power as derivable from disparatesources, one is then led to ask, "What, ifany, are the differential consequences foran organization using one or another of thesemeans?" Etzioni handles the problem bysuggesting a continuum from member aliena-tion to hig^ member commitment. Signifi-cantly, he treats the problem of power baseby considering the effects of power exerdse.This is an important point. Sodologically,any concem over consequences of individualconformity should have a stmctural and"contextual" emphasis. The works of Blau(1960), Kelman (1958), French and I^ven(I960), and more recently Julian (1966),all represent efforts to see individual con-formity on the part of organization mem-bers as contingent on different forms ofsodal power and, therefore, a structurally-determined process. Also of significance inthis literature is a common focus on differentlevels or kinds of conformity.

Social sdentists concemed with organiza-tional analysis have, impUdtly or explidtly,identified the form of power utilized withthe process by which conformity is achieved,rather than treating these as separate con-cepts. The most clear-cut instance of this isin the work of Etzioni: organizational struc-ture is synonymous with power base or con-formity base. We are not led to examineleadership attributes or personality factorsas generic sources of organizational behavior:"power" or "authority," by virtue of beinga relationship between the means of powerexercise and the redpient of infiuence, be-comes a term implying social interaction.

The question is, then, '*What kind of sodalinteraction occurs between holders of aparticular form of power and recipients ofthis infiuence?" Without a definition of boththe structural conditions under which poweris exerdsed and sodal-psychological reac-

tions that might be elidted, organizationalinteraction is framed only in artificial cate-gories. Rather, the problem of organizationalcontrol can be stated, "What kind of socialcontrol is generated by a particular form ofpower, and how do the structural conditionsunder which this power is exerdsed deter-mine high or low effectiveness?"

Defining the Bases of Power

As we have noted, a number of classifica-tions have been utilized in differentiatingbases of sodal control in organizations.^The scheme that seemed useful to illustratethe present theoretical problem was thatformulated by French and Raven (1960)who defined Coercive, Reward, Expert,Legitimate and Referent power bases. Thisfive-fold typology resembles the Etzionitrichotomy but focuses more extensively onthe sodal relationship—^the interaction—ofpower exerdse. Separating the question ofwhy individuals have power from the struc-tural conditions under which such power isexerdsed permits the examination of mul-tivariate interactions.

The French-Raven power forms are in-troduced with consideration of the "levelof observability" and the extent to whichpower is "dependent" or "independent" ofstructural conditions. Dependency refers tothe degree of intemalization that occursamong persons subject to social control.Using these considerations it is possible tolink interpersonal processes to structuralconditions.^ French and Raven, in effect.

1 Peabody (1961) identified four types of author-ity: authority of legitimacy, of position, of com-petence, and of person. The last is akin to Weber's"charismatic leadership." Kelman (1958) analyzedthree processes of attitude change that might occurand leEul to conformity in an organization: "Com-pliance can be seen to occtir when an individualaccepts infiuence from another person or from agroup because he hopes to achieve a favorable re-action from the other. . . . Identification can beseen to occur when an individual adopts behaviorderived from another person or group because thisbehavior is assodated with a satisfying self-definingrelationship to this person or group. . . . Intemal-ization can be seen to occur when an individualaccepts infiuence because the induced behavior iscongruent with his value system."

s This relationship is the basis of contextual anal-ysis offered by Lazarsfeld and Menzel (1961). Re-search in this tradition has generally focused on the


supply this link by introducing the conceptof "visibility," to which they give a quiteliteral definition: "the probability that rolepartners will observe the behavior of a roleincumbent." Employing the French-Raventypology as a starting line, we intend hereto specify the structural significance ofvisibility and individual conformity as theydifferentiate bases of sodal power exerciseand effectiveness. We also will make a pre-liminary test of the relationships hypothe-sized, using secondary analysis of empiricaldata.

Coercive Power. According to Frenchand Raven, Coercive power involves theconcept of infiuence based up>on "the ex-pectation of punishment for failure to con-form to an inffuence attempt." The strengthof Coercive power depends on the magnitudeof the "negative valence of the threatenedpunishment multiplied by the perceivedprobability that P [a power recipient] canavoid the punishment by conformity." Oneof the key elements is that people subjectto Coercive pwwer are either indifferent to,or opfK)sed to, the wielder of authority. Asa consequence, the wielder of authoritymust have some way of observing the ac-tions of the people being "coerced." At aminimum, Coercive power depends on thelikelihood of intervention and direct sur-veillance of behavior to be effective.

Reward Power. In a sense, this form ofsocial power is closely related to CoercivepK)wer—it is almost the obverse of it. Ifone conforms to gain acceptance. Rewardpower is at work. However, if conformitytakes place to forestall rejection. Coercivepower has been exercised. According toFrench and Raven, Reward power dependson the pwwer wielder (individual or group)administering "positive valences and reduc-ing or removing negative valences."

Expert Power. Expert power is derivedfrom the extent of knowledge or perceivedknowledge possessed by a group or indi-vidual. It is the credibility of the expertand may be taken as synonymous with"professional expertise." The expression"Doctor's orders" is illustrative. Expert

methodological significance of using individual at-tributes to define sodal structure. Emphases onsubstantive typologies and social structures includeDavis et al. (1961) and Warren (1964).

power is restricted to particular areas; the"expert" tends to be specialized. The extentof Expert power is not dearly a functionof the face-to-face interaction or the per-sonal quality of that interaction betweenrole partners; it may be a fimction of theknowledge possessed by the power wielder,not of his presence. Because of the climateof "trust" implidt in the role of expert,his influence (in French and Raven's term)is not "dependent"—i.e., it may becomeinternalized by the power redpient. This ischaracteristic of supervisory personnel in-teracting with less experienced, newly-ar-rived organization members in such settingsas sodal work, medicine, teaching and otherprofessions.

Legitimate Power. Closely tied to theWeberian concept of "legitimate authority".Legitimate power is induced by norms orvalues of a group that individuals accept byvirtue of their sodalization into the group.By the French-Raven definition, this power"stems from internalized values which dic-tate that there is a legitimate right to in-fluence and an obligation to accept thisinfluence." They emphasize that Legitimacyis dependent upon relationships betweensocial positions, not on the personal qualitiesof role incumbents. Legitimate power does,however, involve the perceived right of theperson to hold office. This merging of f>er-son and office is not automatic; what maycharacterize authority is the "earning" ofthis right over an extended period of inter-action with subordinates, or the disabusingof Legitimate power in the same fashion.^

Referent Power. This involves the conceptof "identification," which French and Ravendefine as "a feeling of oneness . . . or adesire for such an identity." If referring toa group, then an individual seeks member-ship in such a group or has a desire to remainin an association already established.Referent power reflects the idea of "attrac-

»Blau (1956:71) discussed this aspect of legiti-macy: "The concept of authority . . . refers to arelationship between persons and not to an at-tribute of one individual. . . . The superior neednot coerce or persuade subordinates in order toinfluence them, because they have accepted aslegitimate the prindple that some of their actionsshould be governed by his decisions . . . authorityis an observable pattern of interaction and not anof&dal definition of a social relationship."


tiveness" for a sodal setting or the indi-viduals within it. Identification is expressedby the behavior, beliefs and perceptions ofthe power recipient and the power wielder.I t is "independent"—capable of being in-ternalized by the influence recipient.*

Structural Conditions of Power

In comparing the five power bases, it isimportant to note the differences in relation-ships between recipient and wielder, andthe structure within which power is exer-cised. The implication for the analysis oforganizations is that one should not assumea model of power and its effects in whichthese elements are not subject to independentvariation. The advantage of the French-Raven scheme over other power typologies(e.g., Etzioni's) is that it introduces directlythe intervening conditions imder whichpower is most or least effective.''

Consideration of the structure of powerexercise involves two dimensions: amountof control and the way control is supported.Merton (1959), Coser (1961), and Kelman(1958) have dealt with the question of whatform sodal conformity takes in differentsituations. While the problem is fundamen-tally one of the social psychology of learningand motivation, a simplification of the issuesuggests a continuum from purely extemalto purely intemal controls. Merton refers to"behavioral conformity" as compliance inovert behavior but without intemalizationof norms. He contrasts this with "attitudinalconformity," in which both the individual'sbeliefs and values fit with his overt behavior.Rose Coser discusses Merton's dichotomy interms of the role relations that functionally

* The lack of Referent power is caught in a dis-cussion by Crozier (1964:82): "Employees consis-tently complain about the existence of a gapbetween them and directors. They feel that no com-munication is possible. The directors cannot under-stand, and there is no way to have them under-stand, what it is really like." The predominance ofpersonality criteria over achievement criteria, whichis characteristic of worker attitudes toward direc-tors, is described by Crozder as an "ascriptivehierarchical order."

B Etzioni seems to treat "power" and "powerbase" as sjmonymous. He does not identify particu-lar ways in which organizations select means ofpower but characterizes the nature of the organiza-tion as Coercive, Utilitarian, or Normative.

require one type of conformity or another.The central point is that modes of con-formity can be differentiated and related tothe effectiveness of a given form of socialpower,

"Visibility" refers to the extent to whichthe carrying out of role requirements per-mits direct access to role performance. Thereappear to be two axes along which visibilitymay be conceived: one is the physical sur-veillance of role incumbents during theprocess of performing tasks; the other isthe implementation of rules and imiform pro-cedures. On the first axis is the shop foremanwho observes workers and the corporationexecutive who holds daily meetings or hasreports presented to him frequently by sub-ordinates. Rushing (1966:424) stated, "Sur-veillance refers to supervisory practices, thatis, efforts to influence the performance oforganization partidpants through direct ob-servation and face-to-face contact." Notehere that we avoid introducing the manner ofthis observation—formal or casual, scheduledor ad hoc. The fundamental question is howlikely, given past norms or the physicalsetting of work, is surveillance to be highor low?

The second axis of visibility covers admin-istrative procedures that are in lieu of directobservation. Rushing (1966) wrote, "Rulesinclude productivity norms and other objec-tive means for evaluating participant per-formance as well as explidt rules that pre-scribe spedfic performances." He suggeststhat as organizations grow, direct surveil-lance tends to be replaced by organizationalrules. A further point by Rushing is thatwe should not assume that each of the twoelements forms a continuum—^they performsimilar organizational functions but are notalways positively associated; mles may actas functional substitutes for surveillancewhere intemalization of norms does notoccur.

While the French-Raven scheme does notelaborate the "visibility" concept, it doessuggest some correlates of visibiUty condi-tions and power effectiveness. For example,one of the distinguishing features of Coer-dve power is that persons subject to it areeither indifferent to it (Etzioni's "aliena-tion") or opposed to the wielders of it; theexercise of Coerdve power, then, requires

POWER IN ORGANIZATIONS 9S$

TABUC 1. PUEXUDCTED R1XAXION8HIF8 BSTWEEK SOCIAL POWEK BASXS, T Y P E S 0?AND EXIINT OT VlSXBXtlXT

Conformity Power Base Visibility

Behavioral

x\\

High

Expert Power

Legitimate Power

• Coerdve Power-

'Reward Power'

Legitimate Power

Expert Power

Referent Pow«r<

7

Attitudinal Low

some structural condition other than indi-vidual motivation to achieve conformity.This calls for some means of observing theactions of the persons being "coerced."Wielders of several other forms of power—Referent, particularly, and Expert—achieveconformity without high visibility becausepower recipients are assumed to share socialgoals. Professionalism may be viewed as in-consistent with high visibility. Thus, thestructural conditions under which power iswielded—apart from the type of activity—influence how appropriate or effective aparticular form of social power is likely tobe.

n . HYPOTHESES CONCERNING POWER BASE,CONFORMITY, AND VISIBILITY

Drawing together the threads of this dis-cussion, Table 1 presents a number of func-tional relationships. The left side of thetable illustrates predicted linkages betweensocial power bases and the "behavioral-attitudinal conformity" dichotomy. Startingwith the outline of the French-Raven powertypology and extrapolating these reUtion-ships offers a ranking of the five power basesby types of conformity. In the right side ofTable 1, the "visibility" dimension is dicho-tomized and related to social power bases.

In the relationships of power bases tobehavioral conformity, Coerdve power rankshighest in view of the indifference or aliena-tion assodated with this form of sodal con-trol. While Reward power may producemore deep-seated commitment thsu Coerdvepower, the expectation of positive response

to proper behavior does not imply that in-temalization also occurs. Thus, both Coer-dve and Reward represent forms of sodalpower whose effectiveness rests primarily onovert compliance rather than on inner ac-ceptance. By contrast, Legitimate andReferent power imply a high level of inter-nalization. In the exercise of Legitimatepower, attitudinal conformity rests on thenormative acceptance of the position andprerogatives of the organization at large,induding its leadership. In the exercise ofReferent power, internalization derivesfrom the identification of the power redpi-ent with the wielder of Referent power—apersonalized commitment to the group or itsrepresentative.* Expert power may elidteither type of conformity: in an adminis-trative structure, the e39)ert benefits from anumbrella of authority which may go beyondhis spedalized skills. Since the power wielderis not equally knowledgeable in all areasover which his authority operates, con-formity may be behavioral in "non-expert"areas, and attitudinal in the knowledgespheres of his work. Thus Expert powerstands in the nuddle in the ranking in Table1.

Visibility as a structural condition ofpower exerdse is seen in Table 1 to berelated to the conformity dichotomy. Sinceboth Coercive and Reward power lack ef-fectiveness in creating attitudinal con-formity, they must rely on some form ofovert control such as rules or survdllance.

« This is identical to Kelman's concept of 'iden-tification" defined in footoote 1.


Consequently, high visibility is predictedto enhance both Coerdve and Rewardpower; a condition of low visibility is poten-tially subverting.

In the case of Expert power, knowledgeas a basis of influence is tied to specializedtraining. When an organization utilizes Ex-pert power, there is a mutual loyalty to abody of information or highly developedskills. We would argue that superior knowl-edge as a basis of influence characterizesprofessionals. Role partners consult andcomp>are information within the commonframework of an intellectual commitment.Such a relationship is antithetical to sur-veillance and constant intervention by thesuperior in the activities of the subordinate.It is predsely this autonomy, derived fromthe respect for acquired knowledge, thatdistinguishes the truly "professional" lineof work. In line with this argument, wehave hypothesized that high visibility issomewhat inconsistent with the effective ex-erdse of Expert power, while low visibilityis, to some degree, a prerequisite to itsefficacy.

The ability to develop intemalized com-mitment ("attitudinal conformity") makesboth Legitimate and Referent power effec-tive under low visibility conditions. We havepresented Legitimate power as benefitingsomewhat from high visibility, however; thisis because effectiveness derives from inter-nalized commitments to the organization'snorms, or loyalty to organizational struc-ture." In such a situation, the enforcementof norms often requires the presence of, andintervention by, a representative of thestmcture. Consequently, Legitimate power

'This statement from Crozier is pertinent(1964:81): "Centralization of authority . . . seemsassodated with the whittling away of the contentof authority; everything seems to be in the handsof the director who is the only one whose poweris legitimate. . . . However, this right does not givethem much influence on their subordinates. . . .Directors may make dedsions but these are im-personal ones that must in all cases preserve allgroup and individual positions and privileges. Theircontent can be predicted, and the intentions of thededsion-makers do not have to be taken into ac-count. . . . Thus directors are rather helpless evenin this respect because of the very centralizationthat gives them such power. . . . They are some-what too far above to be able to influence indi-viduals by . . . daUy ^ve and take."

is hypothesized to function somewhat moreeffectively under high visibility.

We have hypothesized that Referentpower will not be enhanced by high visi-bility. The argument underlying this predic-tion is that the identification or reference-group basis for conformity operates in arather subtle and unrecognized manner.Loyalties may begin as utilitarian responses,but often they are shifted or reinforcedthrough identification processes not obviousto those involved. Referent power oftendepends on an implidt comparison withoutside groups or situations. Soldiers maycomplain overtly about the conditions ofarmy life and the futility or stupidity oforganizational demands. Often, however,this is counterbalanced by a sense of thegreater irrationality of the "other side," orthe greater imdesirability of another wartheatre. In any case, even if Referent powermay begin under conditions of high visibility,this need not persist to create identificationover an extended time period or socializa-tion interval.

Although the predictions in Table 1 areindependent for each power base, it is anoversimple distortion to treat power basesas isolated and/or mutually exclusive. Oneof the important research issues in or-ganizational studies is precisely the extentof interrelations and interchangeabilityamong forms of social power. Table 1 of-fers implications for such issues by com-parative analysis: the relationships shownargue for the optimization of sodal controlwith a combination of power bases. How-ever, interchangeability may be restrictedby such characteristics of organizationmembers as professionalism. We could alsoadd the variables of recmitment base andturnover. Clearly, some forms of socialpower require longer periods of socialization—^Referent and Legitimate, for example.Coerdve and Reward power may, undersome circumstances, provide more effectivecontrol given a short time span, or per-sonnel turnover. Thus, the predictions aremeant to describe relative levels of effective-ness and to sensitize the organizational an-alyst to the interaction effects of powerexerdse and social-structural conditions.Any task of making maximal or minimalpower utilization choices must inevitably

POWER IN ORGANIZATIONS 957recognize a non-linear relationship betweenany power base and the level of conformitythat may obtain in a situation. Moreover,even within the the same organization, dif-ferent tasks may be handled by differentlevels of visibility and role requirementsbroken down into different areas.*

m . RESEARCH SETTING ANDDATA COLLECTION

As a part of a larger effort to examineschool-community relations, a means of as-sessing administrative influence was de-veloped.® In undertaking this study, teachersin the 18 sample schools completed a ques-tionnaire with the purpose of broadly defin-ing their activities and the schools' ad-ministrative styles and organizationalcharacteristics.

Operational Measures

Teachers in the 18 elementary schoolscompleted an extensive questionnaire duringfaculty meetings held between semesters.Nearly 100 percent returns were obtained:only six teadiers out of the 534 staff mem-bers failed to be included in the study. Aspart of the data collection instmment,teachers were asked to rate their schoolprincipal on a number of attributes; to as-

^This raises a complex problem of theory build-ing in organizational analysis. In Litwak's threemodels of bureaucratic organization he defines a"professional" tjrpe in which different kinds of so-dal relations occur depending on the tasks carriedout by the organization. Litwak (1961:18O-1S3)then raises the issue of how the diverse elements ofthe organization are prevented from clashing withone another. This writer is presently working on atypology of organizational forms in which con-tradictions between modes of authority and taskhandling are dealt with.

*This study was carried out in a major centraldty school system. Data gathering involved inter-viewing mothers of elementary school children, andassessing the goals, teacher characteristics, and ad-ministrative styles of the 18 schools in the study.None of the sdiools was chosen on the basis of in-temal administrative structure but rather on thebasb of school-community relations. Thus, whilethe selected schools are not a ^'representative" or"random" sample, they do encompass significantlydifferent settings and a cross-section of the popula-tion of schools in the metropolitan system. Six wereinner-dty, eight were outer-dty, and four wereinner-dty project schools which had a 10 percenthigher funding allocation.

sess their school's approach to a nimiberof fundamental educational tasks; to evalu-ate colleague relationships; and to expressattitudes on satisfactions and problems inrole performance. In the construction ofindices and the operationalization of majorvariables, a ranking procedure was em-ployed. The unit of analysis in all cases wasthe teaching staff as a whole, rather thanthe individual teachers. The variations be-tween schools permitted the examinationof hypotheses conceming the use of sodalpower and the opportunity to relate thesedifferences to reports by teachers of theirteaching approaches.

Indices of Social Power

Although no data were collected ex-plidtly for defining the five power bases,a number of questionnaire items were ap-propriate to measure these variables. Inthe case of Coerdve power, responses tothe rating of school principals as "authori-tarian" were used by ranking schools onthe proportion of teachers who indicateda "very high" or "high" rating for theirschool's principal.

Reward pjower was measured by responsesto the question, "When there is a particu-larly desirable assignment to a few teacherswhich . . . is the principal likely to use?"Five possible approaches were defined in-cluding "permitting each teacher a chanceat desirable jobs" and "rewarding supportof constructive administration polides." *®By treating both items as aspects of posi-tive-reward approaches, the average ofranks on both offered an index of Rewardpower.

Expert power was based on the responsesof teachers to a rating of their prindpal as"logical-rational." This response was seento be a measure of the teachers' perceptionof the prindpal as knowledgeable rather

other three possibilities were "assigningteachers who have the most knowledge of jobs,""assignment on basis of seniority," teachers assigned"who are most congenial and friendly with theprindpal." The first two approaches do not involveprindpal-teacher relations, but are determined onother grounds. The third alternative implies rewardbut is heavily loaded with non-merit or nepotisticfavoritism and would contaminate the meaning ofReward power.


than charismatic; it involved perceptionsof the administrator as "expert," as opposedto employing techniques of reward or punish-ment.

To measure Legitimate power, teacher'sratings of the prindpal were again employed."Very high" or "high" designations wereassigned to descriptions of the prindpal as"fair" and "consdentious." These items im-ply that the prindpal held his position byvirtue of appropriate individual attributesand carried out his role in accordance withthe normative requirements of his occupa-tional and organizational role. The teachers,as key members of this nexus of relation-ships, accept and assent to prindpal au-thority.

The most difficult power base to opera-tionalize was Referent power. Three ques-tionnaire items were used. One measuredthe extent of satisfaction with their presentschool—the "teaching assignment." Schoolswere ranked on the proportion of the staffin each who were "Very satisfied." Secondly,schools were ranked by the proportion ofteachers who indicated that they exp)ect toteach in a different elementary school "fiveor so years from now." Both items reflectjob satisfaction, which implies the attrac-tiveness of that setting versus other occupa-tional niches, and willingness to identifywith the present school. The third itemwas used to tie such feelings more directlyto the role of the school administration:teachers were asked to check various sourcesof staff disunity. Among the altemativeswas "disagreement with the administrationin the building." The implication is thatif teachers chose this altemative, they didnot identify with administrative leadership.Referent power was based on the averageranking of schools on the three measures.^^

Conformity: Level and Form

The teacher questionnaire contained aparadigm of questions pertaining to fourareas of teacher performance: (1) handling

promotions and failures, (2) parent-teachercontacts, (3) dassroom method—experimen-tation versus experience, and (4) child-centered versus teacher-centered teachingapproach. For each of these areas, teacherswere asked to check which approach (a)"you now use," (b) which you "now preferto use in your present situation," (c) theapproach "you first preferred when youcame to this school," (d) the approach"preferred by the majority of teachers inthe school," and (e) the approach "theprindpal in your school prefers you to use."In addition, prindpals themselves wereasked what they preferred their teachers touse. In each school, the level of conformityto the principal was obtained by comparingthe prindpal's response in each of the fourareas to the proportion of his staff who ac-tually now use ihe same approach. In sub-sequent analysis we have referred to thispercentage as "total conformity."

To measure "behavioral coBfonnity," therelationship between responses to "a" and"b"—"now use" and "now prefer"—wasanalyzed. If the teacher shows the use ofan approach that the prindpal prefers, butwhich the teacher does not prefer, attitudinalsupport for conforming behavior is absent.If both "a" and "b" are in the same cate-gory and also agree with the prindpal'spreferences, "attitudinal conformity" hasoccurred. "Attitude socialization" was meas-ured by the extent of apparent shift reportedin "b"—"now preferred"—compared to "c"—"first preferred," We can assume thatpreference shift is, in part, the result ofprincipal influence if the attitude has movedcloser to that held by the principal.^

A VisibiUty Measure

To operationalize the stmctural variableof visibility, a series of perception questions

11 The Referent power measure is far more am-biguous and indirect than the writer would desire.A more satisfactory measvire would involve indi-vidual identification with one's school, the senseof commitment to the administration as an exten-sion of one's own approach to education, etc.

1 The question here is the source of the shift inteacher preferences from the time of arrival on thestaff to the present time. Whether or not this isdue to the prindpal's influen(» must be answeredonly in a comparative sense by the data. It is dearthat peers, pupils, and other factors create andchange attitudes of teachers. We would argue thatadministrator influence shares a slice of this pieand that the segment so divided is not greatly dif-ferent from school to school; however we had nodirect test of this assumption.


were employed. For a number of functions,teachers were asked the amount of "respon-sibility" held by themselves and their prin-cipal. Given the question, schools could havehigh teacher responsibility and low prindpalresponsibility for a given teaching activityor vice versa. In addition, teachers indicatedfor each fimction whether "administrativerules," "a general policy," or "teacher deter-mination of their own policy" prevailed.Modal responses and the distribution pat-tem were used to differentiate schools.Operationally, then, visibility was a measureof administrative intervention in taskhandling and the use of rules versusautonomy. Combined, these two elementsprovided a basis for dichotomizing schoolsinto "high" or "low" visibility structures.

IV. EVALUATION OF FINDINGS

The Character of Principal Social Power

In Tables 2 through 4, the relationshipsbetween forms of sodal power are explored.

Table 2 shows that "high" ratings on powerbases—^using a median cutting point—arewidely distributed among schools and tendnot to be mutually exclusive. Setting asideconsiderations concerning the adequacy ofmeasures, it is important to note differencesbetween schools; modes of control or com-pliance can be combined.^^ While no schoolranks "high" on all five power bases, one-halfof the sample shows three or more "high"designations. Only two schools failed to

IS This is the point that seems to divide the pres-ent approach from the theoretical formulation pre-sented by Etzioni. He points out that there is atendency for organizations to emphasize only onemeans of power because a neutralizing effect mayoccur when two or more types of power are reliedon. The findings obtained may not be at odds withthis prindple but only emphasize the fact that theschools are some variant of the Litwak "profes-sional" model. In such an analysis, the main focusbecomes the definition of modes of insulation be-tween divergent forms of power exertion. Lackingmechanisms for such separation, Etzioni's argu-ment may well be supported.

TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF "HIGH" RATINGS AMONG SCHOOLS ON THEFIVE FRENCH-RAVEN SOCIAL POWER BASES

School

GOSC

CATRCLLGFOPILN

HLCNMA

ONWENECU

BUFR

CoerdvePower*

HH

HHH

.

HH

•

RewardPower'

.

HHHH

H

H

H•

•

ExpertPower*

HH

HHH

HH

•

•

LegitimatePower*

HH

,

HHHHH,HH

.

•

•

ReferentPower*

HH

HH

HHH

H

•

H

••

^Deagnation is based on teacher evaluation of prindpal as "authoritarian."" Based on two questions pertaining to prindpal "permitting each teacher a chance at desirable jobs'

and "rewarding of support of constructive administration polides."• Based on teacher evaluation of prindpal as "logical-rational."* Based on teacher evaluation of prindpal as "fair" and "consdentious."•Based on three questionnaire items: (1) proportion of staff "very satisfied" with their present school,

(2) proportion of staff who expect to teach in a different elementary school "five or so years from now," and(3) proportion of staff indicating that lack of unity is produced by disagreement with tiie administration mthe building."


TABLE 3. RELATIONSHIP OF AVERAGE LEVEL or STAFFCoNFOuirrv BY FREQUENCY OF "HIGH" SOCZAX.

POWER BASE DESIGNATIONS

Designation Frequendes

Schoob with "high" ratingon four (4) power bases

Schools with "high" ratingon three (3) power bases

Schools with "high" ratingon two (2) power bases

Schools with "high" ratingon one (1) power base

Schools with no "high"rating

AverageConformity

GOSC

BUFR

56%46

X=51%

TRPICLCALNFOLG

55%514843393535

X=44%

MA 40%HL 37CN 35

X=37%

CU 39%NE 39WE 37ON 33

X=37%

32%25

X=28%

• "Conformity" is seen to occur when a teacherindicate that the approach she now uses corre-sponds to the approach preferred by her prindpalin four areas of teacher performance:

(1) handling promotions and failures,(2) parent-teacher contacts,(3) classroom method—experimentalism versus

eq}erience, and(4) child-centered versus teacher-centered teach-

ing approach.Percentages in the Table represent the number ofresponses over the four areas; school "N's" aretherefore four times the number of teachers on thestaff (average sUff is 28 teachers).

have at legist one "high" rating. In subse-quent analysis, the coinddence of powerbase utilization necessitates hypothesistesting without "pure" cases."

In Table 3, the level of conformity isrelated to the frequency of "high" ratingson power bases. We note a general increasein conformity with the number of powerbases utilized, thus confirming the validityof the op>erational measures of power. Table3 therefore suggests that the scope of poweris tied to the effectiveness of social controlirrespective of the nature of that power.However, such gross findings do not provide,at this p>oint in analysis, any suggestion ofoptimal combinations.

Table 4 contains the rank order correla-tions between power bases. Values tend tobe positive, as we would expect from thefindings shown in Tables 2 and 3. How-ever, impK)rtant variations occur in the extentof independence between given forms of so-dal power. The most dosely related powerbases are Expert and Referent—1-.821. Theleast related are Coerdve and Legitimate——.098. Referent power is positively cor-related to all measures. (For Coercive Power,-f-.298 is not statistically significant.)

Two further points are in order: First,Referent power. Expert power and to somedegree Reward power bases do not standalone—they are found in assodation withother forms of sodal power; second. Coer-cive power is the least correlated with otherpower bases—^it most often stands alone.If any clusters can be identified, they willinvolve Coerdve with Reward power andthen Legitimate, Referent, and Expert power.Given the differences in types of conformity(see Table 1) there is a theoretical rationalefor such clustering.^*

' * Power bases developing more than one kindof conformity, or operating effectively under differ-ent visibility conditions, or for divergent organiza-tional tasks are thus wider in scope than are formsof power not effective under such a variety ofstructural conditions.

^''Different power bases may occur together orseparately depending on the sodal dass composi-tion of the sdiool clientek or other significant dif-ferences. An analysis was done of the "high" ratings<m sodal iK>wer bases in terms of the characteristicsof the 18 sample schools. High ratings on Coerdve,Reward and Referent power bases occurred in fourout ol six outer-dty schools, E:q>ert in onty two


TABLE 4. SPEARMAN RANK ORDER CORRELATIONS OV THE FIVE SOCIALPOWER BASES rent THE 18

Coerdve RewardPower Power

ExpertPower

+ .329- . 3 3 7 *

. . . .

. . . .

LegitimatePower

—.098+ .493*+ .424*

. . . .

ReferentPower

+ .298+ .668*+.821*+.697*

Coerdve Power . . . . + .348*Reward Power . . . . . . . .Expert Power . . . . . . . .L^timate Power . . . . . . . .Referent Power . . . . . . . .

• Significant at the .05 level for values of ± J08 using 18 ranks. Where direction is predicted signifi-cance occurs with a lower value. In suhsequent tables an asterisk will indicate significance without direc-tion predicted.

Level of Conformity of conformity is offered by the data pre-

A means of evaluating whether or not rented in Table 5 We note that the levelgiven power bases are linked to given types f conformity i tself-the degree to whichZ 1 I teachers use an approach preferred by theof the six, and Legitimate in three of the six. By principal—îs significantly correlated withcontrast, power bases were rather evenly distributed four of the five power bases The figure ofin the eight inner-dty non-project sdiools But in +.703 at the extreme right in the Tablethe four project schools, where supplementary per- a x .v x --Z 7 .sonnel and funds were utilized, the sharpest differ- ^^^^ ts the percentage differences noted inences appeared. Project schools show very few Table 3: the more power bases Utilized, the"high" ratings on any power bases; Expert power higher the level of conformity. We note,made the best showing, with two "highs" in the however, that Referent power shows an evenfour project schools. Given the speaal character of Vi;«v./» <.«,,«i«4.,v 1 'ta v l.project schools and the fact that innovation is l"gher correlation—+.753—which suggestspromoted, these differences make sense. Project "^^ ""S form of soaal power is particularlyschools emphasize the use of resource teachers, spe- decisive in achieving social control, regard-dal education programs, and non-traditional com- less of its combination with other powermumty contact. Outer-dty schools, by contrast, âses. The fact that this figure exceeds thatselectively draw teachers with less specialized tram- r « n i. » v-ccvio mating but with more years of experience and seniority. ÔT all power bases" could suggest thatIn the outer dty, teachers and administrators tend not all power bases are consistently additive,to place less emphasis on the j'ob as one of instilling as appeared to be the case in Table 3: someacademic skills and more on the soaal control func- u> ' ^ . 1 .tion of sdiooling. For an analysis of this pattern combinations may somewhat undermme ef-see Warren (1966). fective sodal control. This seems to be the

TABLE 5. RANK ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIAL POWER BASES ANDTYPES OV CoNTORMmr: 18 SCHOOL AVERAGES

Type ofConformity

TotalConformity

BehavioralConformity

AtdtudinalConformity

AttitudeSocialization

CoerdvePower

+ .337*

+ .661*

+ .151

+ .113

RewardPower

+ .362*

+ .335*

+ .306

+ .256

ExpertPower

+ .255

- . 1 4 7

+ .395*

+.015

LegitimatePower

+ .368

+ .015

+ .509*

+.216

ReferentPower

+ .753*

+ .136

+.718*

+ .636

AD Bases

+.703*

+ .488*

+ .654*

+ .480

In total conformity, teachers use approach preferred by the prindpal.Behavioral conformity represents teacher use of approach preferred by the prindpal but would pre-

fer another approach.Attitudinal conformity represents teacher use of approach preferred by the prindpal which is also

preferred by teacher.Attitude sodalization represents a shift in teacher attitude doser to the prindpal's approach.


case for Coerdve power when it is com-bined with Legitimate or Expert power."

Type of Conformity

Table 5 presents rank order correlationsbetweea the sodal power bases foimd inthe sample and types of conformity. "Totalconformity" is induded in Table 5 as abase line for comparing the type of con-formity that occurs—^"behavioral" or "atti-tudinal"—^with the level or extent of con-formity that can be expected to occur in agiven situation of power exerdse.

Correlations between "behavioral con-formity" and power bases tend to upholdthe relationships predicted in Table 1: Co-erdve power is the most highly correlatedwith "behavioral conformity," and Rewardpower is next. The remaining three powerbases show insignificant correlations with"behavioral conformity."

In the relationships of "attitudinal con-formity" and power bases. Table 5 indicatesa ranking of power bases identical to thepredictions of Table 1: Referent power isthe most highly correlated with "attitudinalconformity" and Coerdve power is leastcorrelated. Significant correlations occur forReferent, Legitimate, and Expert power

In measuring the amotmt of reported shiftin teacher attitudes toward the prindpal'sattitude, we find that Referent power ishighly correlated with "attitude socializa-tion," while other power bases fail to attainany significant correlations.

The most important findings from thedata reported in Table 5 are that effectivesodal control is the result of diverse pro-cesses of individual conformity, and that

* Because power forms often occur together thecorrelations shown in the top line of Table 5 mustbe viewed in comparative terms, not as valid zero-order correlations. Referent power, since it is themost highly correlated with other power forms,attains an inordinately high correlation with totalO)nfonnity which may not reflecet its actual con-tribution to social control. At the same time, thecorrelation for Coerdve power is possibty a con-servative reflection of actual influence, since thisform of power tends to be the least correlated withthe other power bases. No substantiation of thisargument is offered in this paper. Partial-correlationanalysis would be difficult to apply to these data.

there are systematic linkages of thoseprocesses to different bases of social power.

Administrative Structure: Task Visibility

Table 6 presents the summarized ratingsof schools on "visibility," determined froma total of positions for each school on eachof the two components of the "visibility"axis, "mles" and "surveillance." While weargued at the outset that the use of rulesand surveillance were similar in their con-

TABLE 6. DESIGNATION OF VraiBiLnT BASED ON

R AND PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITY, BYINDIVIDTTAL SCHOOLS

School

CACLLGFRCNGOWE

CUPIFOLNTRBUMANEONSCHL

Numberof Highson Rules

4433132

31222101100

Numberof Highson Sur-veillance

3343422

02000010010

Totals

7776554

33222111110

X=3.2

VisibiUtyDesig-nation

HighHighHighHighHighHighHigh

LowLowLowLowLowLowLowLowLowLowLow

For a number of situations teachers were asked,"Generally speaking, in your building is each ofthe following determined on the basis of

a) a spedfic administrative nUe for the build-ing,

b) a general administration policy with inter-pretation by the teacher, or

c) by individual teachers determining thdr ownpolides?"

Where a "rule" response appeared, a weight of2 was given; where a "policy" response appeared,a wdght of 1 was given, and a zero weight wasgiven to the "teacher autonomy" response (alter-native c) . The figure in the "Rules" column is themodel response of teachers in each schooL

Surveillance was determined from teacher re-sponses to a question of who has responsibility in^ven areas of teaching: the prindpal or assistantprindpal, or the teacher. Schools were ranked bythe proportion of responses indicating h i ^ admin-istrative responsibility.


sequences for an organization, we did notconsider whether or not they were inter-changeable. The patterns in Table 6 sug-gest that, instead of being functional sub-stitutes for one another, the two componentsof "visibility" tend to occur together in agiven school; when the use of rules islimited, so is the use of surveillance. Theobverse is also evident. Thus the "visibility"variable is neatly dichotomized into seven"high" and 11 "low" designations.

Relationships between the conditions of"high" and "low visibility" and social powerbases are reported in Table 7. In a func-tional sense, we would expect that sodalpower bases enhanced by either "high" or"low visibility" would empirically be fre-quently combined with that enhancing con-dition. This expectation is supported bythe findings. High visibility is more oftenfound in Coercive and Reward settings thanit is in Expert or Referent settings. Evenmore pronounced is the absence of Coerciveand Reward power where visibility is low.Expert power is frequently fovmd underconditions of low visibility. Legitimate poweris found with equal frequency in high or low-visibility conditions. Referent power isclearly associated with low visibility andappears antithetical to high-visibility con-ditions. All of these patterns closely parallelthe theoretically optimal combinations hy-pothesized in Table 1.

Table 1 predicted that Coerdve andReward power, relative to other power forms,would be enhanced most by high visibilityand weakened by low visibility because oftheir reliance on behavioral conformity. Itwas also hypothesized that Expert powerwould be enhanced by low visibility, becauseof the interaction of the role partners inthe exerdse of Expert power, and the likeli-hood that conformity would be either "be-havioral" or "attitudinal" in a specific situa-tion. High visibility was predicted to enhanceeffective Legitimate power because of thegreater attitudinal conformity to normswhich are defined and enforced by thepresence of a representative of the powerstructure. Referent power, because of itsbasis in attitudinal conformity, was viewedas incompatible with high visibility. Onediscrepancy from the hypothesis occurs inTable 7: Coerdve and Reward power oc-

TABLE 7. RIXATIOKSHIPS BETWEENCONDmONS AND SOCIAL PoWER

Schools

7 Highs onCoercive Power

11 Lows onCoercive Power

7 Highs onReward Power

11 Lows onReward Power

7 Highs onExpert Power

11 Lows onExpert Power

9 Highs onLegitimate Power

9 Lows onLegitimate Power

9 Highs onReferent Power

9 Lows onReferent Power

HighVisibility

Occurs

4 of the 7

3 of the 11

3 of the 7

4 of the 11

2 of the 7

5 of t h e n

4 of the 9

5 of the 9

3 of the 9

6 of the 9

VISIBILITY

BASES

LowVisibility

Occurs

3 of the 7

8 of the 11

4 of the 7

7 of the 11

5 of the 7

6 of the 11

5 of tiie 9

4ofthe9

6 of the 9

3 of the 9

cur more often in conditions of low visibilitythan was predicted, although this frequencyis still less than the f requendes of the otherpower bases in low-visibility conditions. Thismight be explained by the fact that none ofthe schools in the sample op)erated on amodel of "progressive" educational philoso-phy. The bureaucratic structure of the schoolsystem imposes a standardization that re-stricts the range of administrative settings.Comparing suburban with city schools andusing a sample larger than 18 schools mightproduce greater variations.

Table 8 ties the structural conditions ofconformity and visibility to the five sodalpower bases to summarize the interrela-tionships of these conditions as they occurin the empirical data. The top segment ofTable 8 indicates that high visibility is gen-erally associated with relatively higher totalconformity regardless of the type of powerbase. Coercive and Reward power correlatepositively with high visibility only, whileLegitimate and Referent power obtain sig-nificant positive correlations with total con-formity in high- and low-visibility schools.


TABLX 8. RANX OKISR C(»KXZATXOKS BETWEEN SOOAX. POWEE BASES AITD TYTESOF CONFORMITY: HIGH-VEISX7S LOW-VISIBILITY SCHOOLS

Total ConformityTTjgh VisibiUty Schools

I^wVmbiUtySdiools

Behavioral ConformityHigh VisibiUty Schools

Low \^biUty Schools

Attitudinal ConformityTTigh ^^aluUty Schools

Low >nsibiHty Schools

CoerdvePower

Pot.*

Pot.

Pot.*

Pot.

Pot.

- 0 -

RewardPower

Pot.*

- 0 -

Pot.

- 0 -

Pos.*Neg.

ExpertPower

Pot.

Pot.*

Pot.

Neg.

- 0 -

Pot.*

Power

Pot.*

Pot.*

- 0 -

Pot.

Pot.*

Pot.*

RefermtPower

Pot.*

Pot.*

P CPot.

Pot.*

Pot.*

This refert to a Spearman R corrdation. Values between +.09 and —.09 are treated at "no corrda-tion" ( - 0 - ) . Values in a -}- or — direction of .10 up to a point of agnificance are designated as "poti-tive" or "negative."

Also as predicted. Expert power is morelikely to achieve total conformity in lowvisibility; it is the only power base thatfailed to obtain a significant correlationwith high visibility on any of the threetypes of conformity in Table 8.

The center segment of Table 8 showsthat Coerdve power is the only power basesignificantly correlated with behavioral con-formity under high-visibility conditions.Under low visibility, none of the powerbases shows a significant correlation withbehavioral conformity. In the case of Expertpower, low visibility app)ears antithetical tobehavioral conformity.

The bottom segment of Table 8 recon-firms the finding that attitudinal conformityis not significantly correlated with Coerdvep>ower regardless of visibility condition.Reward, Legitimate, and Referent porwer,if exerdsed in high-visibility conditions,correlate positively with attitudinal con-formity; Reward power obtained a negativecorrelation with attitudinal conformity underlow visibility. This finding for Reward powerimplies that when control is direct, rewardsinduce intemalization of norms. Withoutsuch a stmctural aid as high visibility, Re-ward pwwer app)ears to be undermined. Lowvisibility produces significant p>ositive cor-rdations between attitudinal conformity andExpert, Legitimate, and Referent pxrnerwhich are dose to the prediction of Table1.

The interrelationshipK of Table 8 not only

offer support to the predicted relation-ships between conformity and visibilitywithin a given px)wer base, but also offersome rough measure of combinations ofvariables which were not dealt with intheory. Again, the need to consider theinteraction of power bases and stmcturalconditions is obvious. The findings supportthe predicted reliance of Reward and Coer-dve p)ower on high visibility because of therelationships of these power bases to be-havioral conformity. By contrast. Expertpx)wer p)erfonns effectively in low-visibilityconditions because of its link with attitudinalconformity. Referent and Legitimate p>owerare significantly correlated with attitudinalconformity regardless of visibility condi-tions; in this respect. Referent and Legiti-mate px)wer bases are more alike than wehad predicted.

Staff Professionalism: Its Intervening Effects

Although we have not introduced staffcharacteristics into our analysis, earlier dis-cussion suggests that this stmctural condi-tion may alter the effect of pxjwer baseutilization. Professionalism involves therole orientations brought to an organizationby individual members. School ranks weredevised from three teacher questionnaireitems used to constmct a "professionalismindex." "^ By means of this index, shown in

T The three items were, (a) proportion of teach-ing staffs having above-the-median number of


Table 9, it is possible to determine if staffswith high professionalism are reacting dif-ferently to particular power attempts byprincipals than low-professionalism staffs. Ifthe current literature on variations in teacherprofessionalism is valid, then we can an-ticipate that teachers will respond moreto Referent, Expert, and Legitimate powerif they are highly professional themselves.We can attribute this to the assodationof these three power bases with attitudinalconformity: professionalism involves theintemalization of norms. At the same time,the lower the professionalism, the betterthe compliance to Coercive and Reward

graduate hours beyond the teaching degree (15 ormore) ; (b) the mean number of profes^onal jour-nals that teachers in each school reported they readper month; and (c) the proportion of teaching staffsgiving a positive response to the question, "Shouldteachers be required to take extra courses in orderto obtain pay increments after they have beenteaching 10 years?" Schools were averaged withthe result that six were above, and 12 were belowthe median.

power, which have been seen to correlatewith behavioral conformity. In sum, we askif two independently-varying conditionsmay determine the effectiveness of sodalcontrol: the kind of power found in theorganization, and the character of the powerrecipients.

In Table 10, professionalism is correlatedwith the five power bases and with t 5 ^ s ofconformity and attitude sodalization. Theright half of Table 10 shows the relation-ships for an additional measure: "perceptionof principal influence." The argument is thatwhere "professionalism" is high, prindpalinfluence may tend to be low; "profession-alism" implies a normative desire forautonomy and a rejection of intrusive con-trol.

Table 10 shows that "professionalism"is negatively related to all but one powerbase: Referent. In general, it was foundthat professional teaching staffs exist whereprincipals do not exert great power of anykind. In the correlations of "professionalism"

TABLE 9. INDEX OF STAFF PROFESSIONALISM EMPLOYING AVERAGE OF RANKSON THREE TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS

School

CUFR*FOONMABU

CL*CN*PICA*NETRLNLG*WE*GO*HLSC

Proportion of TeachingStaff with 15 orMore GraduateCredit Hours

3.56.06.06.03.5

10.0

1.510.012.51.5

12.514.514.58.0

16.017.510.017.5

Average Numberof ProfessionalJournals Read

per Month*

4.57.51.04.5

11.53.0

7.511.57.5

15.07.52.0

17.511.511.515.015.017.5

Proportion of StaffSupporting Extra

Course Hoursfor Promotion*

4.01.0

10.06.52.09.0

17.05.08.0

12.013.018.03.0

16.011.06.5

15.014.0

Averageof Ranks

4.OH4.8H5.7H5.7H5.7H7.3H

8.78.89.39.5

11.011.511.711.812.813.013.316.3

*This cutting point is the median for the population of teachers in the study. It refers to graduatecredit beyond what is required to obtain a teaching certificate under state law.

'Teachers were asked, "On the average, about how many professional journals do you read in amonth?" The ranking is based on the mean for the staff of eadi school.

•Teachers were asked, "Do you think that teachers should be required to take extra courses in orderto obtain pay increments after they have been teaching ten years?" Ranks are based on the proportionof **Yes" re^Mnses.

* Identified in Table 6 as a high visibility school.


TABLX 10. RELATIONSHIPS aw PROFESSIONAUSM

INDEX AND PERC3SPTION OP PRINCIPAL INIXVENCZTO SOCIAL POWER BASES AND

Coercive PowerReward PowerExpert PowerLegitimate PowerReferent PowerTotal Conformity

Behavioral Con-formity

Attitudinal Con-formity

Attitude Social-ization

Profession-alism Index

— .268— .320*— .251— .151+ .037— .698*

— .268

— .129

+ .069

Perceptionof PrindpalInfluence*

+ .088+ .221+ .601*+ .397*+ .366*+ .306*

— .081

+ .332*

+ .191

^ Based on the proportion of staff indicating thatthe prindpal "played an important role in anychanges in your views on teaching."

with types of conformity shown in thelower half of Table 10, we find that just asa negative relationship obtains in the powerbase of the principal vis d vis "profession-alism," so does a negative correlation obtainbetween "total conformity" and "profes-sionalism." However, the argument mightwell be put forward that even if profession-alism implies indep>endence from administra-tive control, whatever control does occurrepresents internalized commitment—"atti-tudinal conformity." Table 10, however, doesnot support this argument except in a rela-tive way: "behavioral conformity" shows a—.268 correlation, while "attitudinal con-formity" shows a —.129 correlation; "at-titude sodalization" shows a slight positiverelationship: 4--069.

Table 10 also provides an interestingvalidity check on the influence of the prin-dpal. Total conformity and perceivedprindp>al infiuence correlate +'306. More-over, since the question used to measureprindpal infiuence really asks about "viewson teaching" (i.e., attitudes) it is consistentto find the correlation with "attitudinalconformity" is +.332 while that for "be-havioral conformity" is —.081. We note alsothat those forms of sodal power least con-sistent with "professionalism"—Coerdve andReward—^are also not highly related to"perception of prindpal infiuence." Thus,predsely those forms of sodal power that

permit or facilitate a high level of atti-tudinal influence, although not associatedwith the professionalism of the staff, arenevertheless least likely to be antithetical toit.

How effective, then, is any power base ina high-professionalism setting? To deal withthis question we have presented a compari-son of the level of conformity—"total con-formity"—for "high" and moderate-low"professionalism sdiools. Table 11 shows cor-relations that indicate differences in the ef-tiveness of social control under theseopposite conditions of professionalism. Cor-relations indicate that Coercive power ina high-professionalism setting is weak,whereas low professionalism enhances Co-erdve power. For Reward power, the in-troduction of professionalism reduces thecorrelation for both high- and low-profes-sionalism schools. This suggests that a highlyprofessional staff does not function wellunder the infiuence of a Reward power base(a patronage system), nor does a low-pro-fessionalism staff respond when work incen-tives are relatively Ineffective. It may implyalso the lack of effective control when Re-ward power stands alone.

Table 11 also bears out a linkage betweenthe remaining three power bases and pro-fessionalism: Legitimate power is mostclosely linked with high professionalism,while Expert and Referent power also cor-relate positively (and equally) with highprofessionalism. Conversely, moderate-or-low professionalism restricts the efficacy ofLegitimate and Expert power bases. Referentpower appears to operate fairly effectivelyregardless of the professionalism of the staff.

A final step in the analysis of profession-

TABLE 11. RELATIOITSHIP BETWEEN TOTAL

CONPOMITY AND SOCIAL POWER BASE

BY PROFESSIONALISM

Total Conformity

High Moderate-LowProfession- Profession-

alism Schools Rljs|ini Schools

Coerdve PowerReward PowerExpert PowerLegitimate PowerReferent Power

+ .086— .086+ .315+ .657*+ .315

+ .517*- . 2 0 9— .023+ .157+.748*


alism revealed that low visibility occursmore often with high professionalism, and,conversely, high visibility occurs with lowprofessionalism. Only one of the six high-professionalism schools was high on visibil-ity, while 6 out of 12 moderate-low profes-sionalism schools were high on visibility(see Table 9).

While the index of professionalism usedcannot put into full perspective the relation-ships between professionalism, conformity,visibility, and power bases, the findings tendto suggest that consideration of a staffcharacteristic (such as professionalism) canalter the effectiveness of power in formalorganizations. In terms of optimal powerutilization situations, we have been able, byintroducing professionalism, to further refineour predictions. The interaction betweenstaff characteristics, power bases, and struc-tural conditions are vital considerations inany equation of sodal control. The prelimi-nary test conducted here by means of sec-ondary analysis has restricted any completedelineation of such an equation.

V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our purpose in the testing of several hy-potheses conceming social control in organi-zations has been to define the conditions ofpower exerdse as inextricable componentsof power itself. By employing the French-Raven scheme of five power bases, data wereexamined on elementary schools, in whichtwo conditions were specified: (1) the kindof conformity elidted by a given "powerbase," using Merton's distinction between"attitudinal conformity" and "behavioralconformity," and (2) the structure of roleperformance—task visibility—measured bythe extent of administrator interventionthrough surveillance and the use of rules.The effect of professionalism as a character-istic of pK>wer redpients was additionallyconsidered by superimposing a profession-alism index for each staff on the measuresof conformity and visibility. For each powerbase, a ranking was defined for the basis ofconformity—either overt behavior supportedby internalized attitudes (attitudinal con-formity), or conformity in overt behaviorwithout such psychological "commitment"(behavioral conformity); and another rank-

ing for the level of social control achievedin a high and a low-visibility condition.

1. In the exerdse of Coerdve power, inwhich the "authoritarianism" of the prind-pal was the operational measure, conformitywas foimd to rest primarily on "behavioralconformity" and not on "attitudinal con-formity." Moreover, power exercise wasmore effective when tasks were h i ^ y visi-ble to the prindpal of each school. Withregard to Reward power, conformity wassomewhat more dependent on "behavioralconformity" than on "attitudinal," withhigh visibility more condudve to effective-ness than low visibility. Expert power, basedon the rating of the principal as "logicaland rational," was more closely assodatedwith "attitudinal conformity" than with"behavioral conformity"; low visibility max-imized social control. Legitimate power,measured by the faimess and conscientious-ness of the prindpal, was strongly orientedto "attitudinal conformity," with either highor low visibility conditions equally suppor-tive. Finally, Referent power was positivelycorrelated with both "behavioral" and "at-titudinal conformity," although much moreso in the latter case; this pK)wer base alsoappeared antithetical to high-visibility* con-ditions. In general, the order of correlationvalues obtained closely corresponded to thepredictions made for visibility and type ofconformity in our predictive scheme.

2. Intercorrelations among the five powerbases were moderately or highly positive.The result is that schools with multiplepower bases were characterized by higherlevels of conformity to the teaching ap-proaches of the prindpal than schools withfew power bases. Coerdve and RewardpHDwer tended to occur together. At the sametime, however. Coercive pjower tended to bethe least correlated witi all other powerbases, while Referent power was most highlycorrelated with other power bases.

3. When the role of staff professionalismis considered, a further spedfication of therelation of power bases to conformity is re-vealed. In general, staff professiondism isnegatively related to conformity to the ap-proach of the prindpal. However, whereschools have high professionalism. Expert,Referent, and particularly Legitimate powerare positively correlated with conformity.


When schools are in the moderate-low pro-fessionalism category, Coerdve and Refer-ent power are much more positively relatedto conformity than when staffs are in thehigh-professionalism category. High visibil-ity proved, as expected, to be antitheticalto professionalism. Only one out of six high-professionalism schools was also high in rolevisibility vis d vis administrators.

4. Both Coerdve and Referent powerwere the most significantly correlated withthe total level of conformity and emerge inour data as the most effective power bases.Given high visibility, Coerdve, Reward,Legitimate and Referent power bases havesignificant positive correlations with totalconformity. Expert power failed to obtain asignificant correlation with any type of con-formity under high-visibility conditions, justas Coerdve and Reward power failed toachieve significant correlations with any typeof conformity under low visibility.

5. Coerdve power is the only power basesignificantly correlated with behavioral con-formity under high-visibility conditions.None of the power bases shows a significantcorrelation with behavioral conformity underlow-visibility conditions. Expert power andbehavioral conformity correlated negativelyunder low visibility. As for attitudinal con-formity. Reward, Legitimate, and Referentpower correlate positively if exerdsed underhigh-visibility conditions, but Expert powerattains a significant positive correlationwith attitudinal conformity only if exerdsedin low-visibility conditions. Legitimate andReferent power also achieve attitudinalconformity under low visibility. Setting asideconsiderations of visibility conditions, Co-erdve power appears most likely to elicitbehavioral conformity without achieving at-titudinal conformity; whereas the otherpower bases can elicit attitudinal conform-ity, given an enhancing visibility condition.

6. Another finding, one which points upan important hiatus in organizational re-search, concems the relationship of profes-sionalism to different sodal power bases.It was found that the highly professionalschool staffs were less subject to the controlof the principal. This is quite consistent withdiscussion in the occupational literature ofthe nature of the professional. However,whether an individual perceives a profes-

sional organization as a reference group oronly as a group of which he is a memberhas not been investigated in the extantliterature to any significant degree. Referentpower in high-professionalism schools wasless correlated with conformity to prindpalthan it was in moderate-low-professionalismschools. This seems to imply that conflict isoccurring between two significant referencegroups: the occupation at large, and thegiven organization in which one is located.^^Where the particular work setting is not apositive reference group—only a membershipgroup—the profession at large may effec-tively define work norms. Schools with highprofessionalism show almost no correlationbetween total conformity and Coerdvepower. I t can be argued that the referencegroup of professionals defines this meansof control as antithetical to occupationalprerequisites. However, when the occupationis a weak reference group—^moderate-lowprofessionalism—then such norms may haveless meaning. The correlation of total con-formity and Coerdve power is +.517 forschools with moderate-low professionalism.

Several key points are brought out by thefindings summarized. First, it is clear thatany p>ower equation must take into accountboth the structural conditions of social con-trol exerdse—^in this case, task visibility—and the sodal-psychological foundation onwhich compliance rests—either attitudinalor behavioral conformity. Second, the find-ings imply that the relationships between

8 This is not, of course, a problem left un-touched by social researchers. Among the pertinentanalyses of reference and professional commitmentsversus organizational commitments are Reissman(1949), Marviek (1954) and Wilensky (1956, 1964).While these analyses have in common a recogni-tion of the potential conflict between referenceand membership groups, they aU stress the al-legedly "free" occupation as it meets the problem ofbureaucratization. No adequate studies exist con-ceming the variations between organizational unitsas reference orientations in occupations traditionallyfound in an organizational setting, such as teaching,sodal work, and a number of other fields. This gapin the research literature is not greatly reduced bythe recent important summary of the profession-alism literature of Vollmer and Mills (1966: seeChapter 8) . The paper by Frddson (1964) containsa valuable discussion of visibility and professionalcontrol, ^^bility rests with immediate work col-leagues, thus explaining the wide variation in "pro-fesaonal** standaxds.


power base, conformity, and visibility candefine optimal combinations for any formof sodal power. Third, the data suggest thatit is possible to rearrange or alter socialsettings in which sodal control can be mademore effective. In simi, our findings do notsupport a linear relationship between a givenform of power and effective social control.Instead, we are required to examine an in-teraction model of organizational functioningwhere such concepts as "democratic versusauthoritarian," "hierarchical versus col-league," and "formal versus informal" mustgive way to multivariate analysis.

Power bases may not be mutually exdu-sive, yet this is a tenet of Etzioni's tripartiteanalysis of organizational forms. Whetherdifferent measures or more diversified or-ganizational units may or may not upholda more imitary concept of organizationalpower does not alter the need to conceptual-ize conditions and create theoretical modelsin which power is multi-faceted. Further-more, where multiple power bases occur, wehave an additional problem in theory of howdiverse power bases are insulated from oneanother within an organization. ® The se-quendng of power base development, thecompatibility and inconsistency of powerbases, and the further elaboration of formsof power itself offer a challenging agenda fororganizational study.

Finally, there are undefined and unre-solved issues concerning the effects of poweron its redpients. We have dealt with thisproblem in part by considering differingtypes of conformity. For example, we hadexpected that Coerdve power would be in-compatible with professionalism. This tendedto be true. We also implied that attitudinalconformity was antithetical to Coerdvepower—persons could not be coerced intodeep-seated acceptance of organizational re-quirements. Yet such a prediction ignoresthe literature on "brainwashing" and concen-tration-camp behavior (e.g., Bettelheim,1943; Schein, 1954). However, even in theabsence of such extreme forms of coerdon,there may be counterpart coerdon mecha-

" S e e Litwak (1961), in which an effort is madeto focus on the crucial problem of insulatingTwyhjtTiisms between unlike elements in an organ-ization.

nisms in the system of work roles and or-ganizational demands that produce com-parable psychological results.

From the outset, we have indicated thatours was a preliminary test of hypothesesdone with secondary analysis, rather than agathering of data spedfically to test tightly-defined hypotheses. Nor would we supposeour findings would be more condusive evenif the latter were the case. However, it seemsdear that the analysis of organizations bymeans of comparative survey data can pro-vide valuable dues to the interplay of struc-tural forms and interpersonal processes.There is a continuing need for anal3rsis thatgoes beyond single dimensions or organiza-tional t3^1ogies, that avoids cul de sacssuch as "formal" versus "informal" sodalprocesses. The present effort has been in-tended as a contribution to that goal.

REFERENCES

Bettelheim, Bruno.1943 ''Individual and mass behavior in extreme

situations." Journal of Abnormal and So-dal Psychology 38 (October) :417-4S2.

Blau, Peter M.1956 Bureaucracy in Modem Sodety. New

York: Random House.1960 "Structural effects." American Sodological

Review 25 (April): 178-193.Cartwright, D. and A. Zander (eds.).

1960 Group Dynamics. Evanston: Row, Peter-son.

Coch, L. and J. R. P. French.1960 "Overcoming resistance to change." Pages

309-341 in Cartwright and Zander (eds.),1960, Group Dynamics. Evanston: Row,Peterson.

Coser, Rose L.1961 "Insulation from observability and types

of sodal conformity." American Sodologi-cal Review 26 (February):28-38.

Crozier, Michel.1964 The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Davis, James A., J . L. Spaeth and C. Huson.

1961 "A technique for analyzing the effects ofgroup composition." American SodologicalReview 26 (April) :215-22S.

Etzioni, Amitai.1961a A Comparative Analysis of Complex Or-

ganizations. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.1961b Complex Organizations: A Sodological

Reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

1964 Modem Organizations. Englewood CUffs,New Jersey: Prentice-HalL See Chapter 6,"Organizational control and leadership,"pages 58-64.


Freidson, EHot1964 ''The organization of professional be-

havior.*' Paper read at the 1964 AnnualMeeting of the American Sodolo^cal As-sociation.

French, J. R. P. and Bertram Raven.1960 "The bases of social power." Pages 607-

623 in D. Cartwdght and A. Zander (eds.).Group Dynamics, Evanston: Row, Peter-son.

Gerth, H. H. and C. W. MiBs (eds. and translators).1946 From Max Weber: Essays in Sodology.

New York: Oxford.Sckson, D. J.

1966 "A convergence in organization theory."Administrative Sdence Quarterly 11:2(September) :224-237.

Julian, Joseph.1966 ''CompHance patterns and communication

blocks in complex organizations." Ameri-can Sodological Review 31 (June):382-389.

Kelman, Herbert C.1958 "Compliance, identification, and intemal-

isition: three processes of attitude change."Journal of Conflict Resolution 2 (March):51-60.

Knight, F. (translator).1950 Max Weber. General Economic History.

Glencoe: Free Press.Lazarsfeld, Paul and Herbert Menzel.

1961 "On the relation between individual andcollective properties," Pages 214-249 inAmitai Etzioni (ed.). Complex Organiza-tions: A Sodological Reader. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Litwak, Eugene.1961 "Models of bureaucracy which permit

conflict." American Journal of Sodology67 (July): 177-188.

Marviek, D.1954 Career Perspectives in a Bureaucratic Set-

ting. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress.

Merton, Robert K.1959 "Social conformity, deviation, and op-

portunity-structures: a comment on thecontributions of Dubin and Cloward."American Sodological Review 24 (April):177-189.

Parsons, T. (ed.).1947 Max Weber: The Theory of Sodal and

Economic Organization. Translated by A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons. New York:Oxford.

Peabody, Robert L.1961 "Perceptions of organizational authority:

a comparative analysis." AdministrativeSdence Quarterly 6:4 (March) :463-482.

Reissman, L.1949 "A study of role conceptions in bu-

reaucraqr." Sodal Forces 27 (March) :3O5-310.

Rushing, W. A.1966 "Organizational rules and surveillance:

propositions in comparative organizationalanalyas." Administrative Sdence Quarterly10:4 (March) :423-443.

Schein, E. H.1956 "The Chinese indoctrination program for

prisoners of war." Psychiatry 19:149-172.Udy, Stanley H., Jr.

1959 " 'Bureaucracy' and 'rationality' in Weber'sorganization theory: an empirical study."American Sodological Review 24 (Decem-ber): 791-795.

Vollmer, J. M. and D. L. Mills.1966 Professionalization. Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Warren, Donald I.

1964 "Modes of conformity and the characterof formal and informal organizationalstructure." Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-tion, University of Michigan. Microfilm.

1966 "Processes of consensus creation in schoolstaffs: socialization and selection in ametropolitan school system." Unpublishedpaper, Wajme State University, Detroit.

White, R. and R. Lippitt.1960 Autocracy and Democracy: An Experi-

mental Inquiry. New York: Harper.WUensky, H. L.

1956 Intellectuals in Labor Unions: Organiza-tional Pressures on Professional Roles.Glencoe: Free Press.

1964 "The professionalization of everyone?"American Journal of Sodology 70 (Sep-tember): 137-158.

power, visibility, and conformity in formal organizations · power, visibility, and conformity in...

Documents