Metamorphosis
of Power, Influence, and Marriage
For
me, this week’s module provided numerous opportunities for both consideration
of thought provoking prompts, and reflection to consider how new considerations
interact and parallel with other observations. Last week, I was asked to
consider if introverts could lead; and, today, I am to ponder the source and
nature of the power I personally bring to my family, how that power is utilized
or not utilized, how the power impacts my ability to lead or follow, and if I
have experienced a high-quality leader-member exchange, herein referred to as
LMX, relationship that was dysfunctional as described by Othman, Ee, and Shi
(2010).
In
the video, "The Role
of Tomorrow's Leaders", Barbara Kellerman discusses the evolution and
revolution that has taken place and is occurring in the field of leadership
with respects to changes in follower behavior and the ability of the leader to “neatly
and carefully” chart a course and expect followers to passively stick to the
course (Harvard Business Review, 2010). The many reasons she cites for the loss
of control leaders experience today, as opposed to control once held, include:
messages, challenges, more resistant followers, and technological changes and
challenges, could also be applied for the evolution of marriage observed
throughout the last five decades (Harvard Business Review, 2010). Having read
the research by Othman et al., (2010), their observations, which conclude “under
certain conditions high quality LMX can be dysfunctional”, are also seen with
the marital relationship (p. 337). Before expanding on these opinions, an
understanding how marriage was once perceived and how it is perceived today,
along with the power and influence of my own marriage, is required.
My
mother and father represent how marriage was once perceived. They were married
in the 1950s. This was the third marriage for my father; but, that is a topic
for another paper, probably from a psychological standpoint. The “Path-goal
theory”, explained by Hollander and Offermann (1990) marries well with the
leader-follower, husband-wife relationship of this era (p. 181). Most men
established a career, dated, married the right girl, bought a house, became
fathers, and provided for the family. Women worked, although they did not
establish careers, dated, married “Mr. Right”, decorated the house, became
mothers, and cared for the husband and the children. This was the relationship
that existed with my parents. “Low role ambiguity for subordinates”, in this
case the housewife, allowed for this marital template to be effective and
remain almost unchanged for centuries (Hollander & Offermann, 1990, p.
181). The type of power most often observed with this relationship was that of “power
over”, described by Hollander and Offermann (1990) as “explicit or implicit
dominance” (p. 179).
According to Yukl (2013), my father had legitimate power through the legal recognition of the marriage by the courts. He had reward power, as he controlled “important resources and rewards desired by the target person”, my mother (Yukl, 2013, p. 189). Referent, expert, information, ecological, position, and personal power were also held by my father, and I suspect many men from that era. My mother had a strong desire to please my father and she worked at it daily. My father paid all of the bills. My mother did not know how to write a check or where my father kept the household records. My father had access to all information important to our family. Some information was not shared with my mother. The perception at the time was she would not understand. It was my dad who decided when we moved and where we lived. He purchased the homes. Quite honestly, I do not know to this day if my mother was ever listed on either a mortgage or deed. Finally, because of the love he had for my mother, he held personal power.
Yukl (2013) describes an LMX relationship as one wherein the leader and the follower “mutually define the subordinate’s role” (p. 222). Kellerman notes the many “rights revolutions” that took place in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the presentation titled Barbara Kellerman on "The End of Leadership" (Harvard CPL, 2012). One of these was the Women’s Liberation Movement and it had a profound effect on marriage today. There was a change in the patterns of dominance and deference in not only leadership; but, in marriage, too (Harvard CPL, 2012). Although goals were similar: date, marriage, house, children, and financial security, the course began to change, as women wanted a career and a family. The concept of “Mr. Mom” was not only acceptable, it provided the basis for a movie with the same name. Women did not have to marry and have children by the time they were thirty. For that matter, marriage itself was fast becoming known as a “piece of paper” to many and not as required as before. I lived through this transformational time of our society’s history and the change that has taken place is fascinating, to say the least. LMX rely on “personal compatibility and subordinate competence and dependability” (Yukl, 2013, p. 222). “These relationships are formed gradually over a period of time, through reciprocal reinforcement of behavior as the exchange cycle is repeated over and over again” (Yukl, 2013, p. 222). Similarly, Othman et al., (2010) identify characteristics such as “mutual trust, liking, respect, and reciprocal influence” found in high quality leader-member exchange relationships (p. 338). Doesn’t this sound like advice Dr. Phil would present as the keys to a successful marriage?
Like my father, I have been married three times. Thankfully, this is my last time. My husband and I will celebrate our twenty-first anniversary this October. I have legitimate power as I am my husband’s wife, legally recognized by the State of Florida. Although the reward power discussed by Yukl (2013) focuses on the control of “resources and rewards” by the agent, I would argue I do control resources such as grocery shopping, assistance in accessing online bank accounts and bill pay, and a certain reward women have controlled since the beginning, sex, although I have never used that power in a coercive manner (p. 189). I know I have referent power. The explanation from Yukl (2013), “the target person may do things the agent is perceived to want, even without being asked”, reminds me of a comedy routine b Jeff Foxworthy. He describes an evening where he and his wife are in bed and are reading. His wife places a throw over her legs, and without saying anything, Foxworthy finds himself getting up out of bed and turning off the ceiling fan. He returns to bed and realizes what he has just done without his wife having asked. My hubby has done this on numerous occasions. Whether it’s adjusting the thermostat, or bringing me a sandwich while I am engulfed in a school project, those little things have only strengthened the bond we have. I have expert power, especially when it comes to the children, information power, as it relates to the “how to” of the computer world and honesty within the relationship, and ecological power, as I decorate the house, keep it clean, and provide a routine for the family. Since we have been married for as long as we have, I have personal power, too. As with any marriage, it is how this power is used that determines not only subsequent outcomes; but, whether or not one’s ability to influence increases or decreases as power is used.
Whereas my father’s marriage demonstrated “power over”, my marriage and my power showcases “power to”, defined as giving “individuals the opportunity to act more freely within some realms of organizational operations, through power sharing” (Hollander & Offermann, 1990, p. 179). Kellerman notes this change from dictatorial power to that of power sharing, too (Harvard CPL, 2012). Unlike my mother, I not only know how to write a check, I have a complete understanding of the family financial situation and am able to have a dialogue with my husband about major and minor decisions for the family. I have the freedom to make a purchase without obtaining his permission. We view money as our money, not his or mine. Very rarely are either of us put in the position to make a final decision alone. Our high quality LMX relationship has provided the benefits outlined by Yukl (2013) including: interesting and attractive jobs, no secrets, we share information, dual involvement with making decisions, personal support, helping with each other’s careers and goals, strong loyalty, and a willingness to work hard and help each other. It took both work and influence to achieve the power I enjoy with my husband. Many of the tactics listed by Yukl (2013): rational persuasion, apprising, inspiring pleas, consulting, praise, flattery, personal favors, rewards, help from others, and providing legitimacy have helped me to use my power is a respectful and considerate manner (p. 202). A simple rule I have come to embrace is one can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. However, I can understand why Othman et al., (2010) reached their conclusion and I can see its applicability to marriage.
Othman et al., (2010) note two conditions whereby a high quality LMX becomes dysfunctional. One is when a leader reaches a “flawed assessment” and the other occurs when subordinates use “upward influence tactics to create a favourable impression of themselves” (Othman et al., 2010, p. 341). This leads to negative behavior by followers, which includes: “disrespect, restrained communication, misunderstanding, non-supportiveness and low commitment to the leader” (Othman et al., 2010, p. 341). Again, doesn’t this take place in marriage? The leader makes a wrong assessment about the right girl; or, the girl makes herself appear to be more favorable; and, if they marry, do not the negative behaviors then follow? I have seen this, both with my own parents and twice myself. My husband has also witnessed it with his previous marriages.
Just as the field of leadership is experiencing changes in long-held beliefs and viewpoints; so, too has marriage. Each has gone through its own metamorphosis. Power and influence are important concepts for marriage and leadership and an understanding of one’s own power and how it is used is key for either a successful marriage or a leader
References
Harvard Business Review. (2010, Sept. 15). The Role of Tomorrow’s Leaders. [Video file].
According to Yukl (2013), my father had legitimate power through the legal recognition of the marriage by the courts. He had reward power, as he controlled “important resources and rewards desired by the target person”, my mother (Yukl, 2013, p. 189). Referent, expert, information, ecological, position, and personal power were also held by my father, and I suspect many men from that era. My mother had a strong desire to please my father and she worked at it daily. My father paid all of the bills. My mother did not know how to write a check or where my father kept the household records. My father had access to all information important to our family. Some information was not shared with my mother. The perception at the time was she would not understand. It was my dad who decided when we moved and where we lived. He purchased the homes. Quite honestly, I do not know to this day if my mother was ever listed on either a mortgage or deed. Finally, because of the love he had for my mother, he held personal power.
Yukl (2013) describes an LMX relationship as one wherein the leader and the follower “mutually define the subordinate’s role” (p. 222). Kellerman notes the many “rights revolutions” that took place in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the presentation titled Barbara Kellerman on "The End of Leadership" (Harvard CPL, 2012). One of these was the Women’s Liberation Movement and it had a profound effect on marriage today. There was a change in the patterns of dominance and deference in not only leadership; but, in marriage, too (Harvard CPL, 2012). Although goals were similar: date, marriage, house, children, and financial security, the course began to change, as women wanted a career and a family. The concept of “Mr. Mom” was not only acceptable, it provided the basis for a movie with the same name. Women did not have to marry and have children by the time they were thirty. For that matter, marriage itself was fast becoming known as a “piece of paper” to many and not as required as before. I lived through this transformational time of our society’s history and the change that has taken place is fascinating, to say the least. LMX rely on “personal compatibility and subordinate competence and dependability” (Yukl, 2013, p. 222). “These relationships are formed gradually over a period of time, through reciprocal reinforcement of behavior as the exchange cycle is repeated over and over again” (Yukl, 2013, p. 222). Similarly, Othman et al., (2010) identify characteristics such as “mutual trust, liking, respect, and reciprocal influence” found in high quality leader-member exchange relationships (p. 338). Doesn’t this sound like advice Dr. Phil would present as the keys to a successful marriage?
Like my father, I have been married three times. Thankfully, this is my last time. My husband and I will celebrate our twenty-first anniversary this October. I have legitimate power as I am my husband’s wife, legally recognized by the State of Florida. Although the reward power discussed by Yukl (2013) focuses on the control of “resources and rewards” by the agent, I would argue I do control resources such as grocery shopping, assistance in accessing online bank accounts and bill pay, and a certain reward women have controlled since the beginning, sex, although I have never used that power in a coercive manner (p. 189). I know I have referent power. The explanation from Yukl (2013), “the target person may do things the agent is perceived to want, even without being asked”, reminds me of a comedy routine b Jeff Foxworthy. He describes an evening where he and his wife are in bed and are reading. His wife places a throw over her legs, and without saying anything, Foxworthy finds himself getting up out of bed and turning off the ceiling fan. He returns to bed and realizes what he has just done without his wife having asked. My hubby has done this on numerous occasions. Whether it’s adjusting the thermostat, or bringing me a sandwich while I am engulfed in a school project, those little things have only strengthened the bond we have. I have expert power, especially when it comes to the children, information power, as it relates to the “how to” of the computer world and honesty within the relationship, and ecological power, as I decorate the house, keep it clean, and provide a routine for the family. Since we have been married for as long as we have, I have personal power, too. As with any marriage, it is how this power is used that determines not only subsequent outcomes; but, whether or not one’s ability to influence increases or decreases as power is used.
Whereas my father’s marriage demonstrated “power over”, my marriage and my power showcases “power to”, defined as giving “individuals the opportunity to act more freely within some realms of organizational operations, through power sharing” (Hollander & Offermann, 1990, p. 179). Kellerman notes this change from dictatorial power to that of power sharing, too (Harvard CPL, 2012). Unlike my mother, I not only know how to write a check, I have a complete understanding of the family financial situation and am able to have a dialogue with my husband about major and minor decisions for the family. I have the freedom to make a purchase without obtaining his permission. We view money as our money, not his or mine. Very rarely are either of us put in the position to make a final decision alone. Our high quality LMX relationship has provided the benefits outlined by Yukl (2013) including: interesting and attractive jobs, no secrets, we share information, dual involvement with making decisions, personal support, helping with each other’s careers and goals, strong loyalty, and a willingness to work hard and help each other. It took both work and influence to achieve the power I enjoy with my husband. Many of the tactics listed by Yukl (2013): rational persuasion, apprising, inspiring pleas, consulting, praise, flattery, personal favors, rewards, help from others, and providing legitimacy have helped me to use my power is a respectful and considerate manner (p. 202). A simple rule I have come to embrace is one can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. However, I can understand why Othman et al., (2010) reached their conclusion and I can see its applicability to marriage.
Othman et al., (2010) note two conditions whereby a high quality LMX becomes dysfunctional. One is when a leader reaches a “flawed assessment” and the other occurs when subordinates use “upward influence tactics to create a favourable impression of themselves” (Othman et al., 2010, p. 341). This leads to negative behavior by followers, which includes: “disrespect, restrained communication, misunderstanding, non-supportiveness and low commitment to the leader” (Othman et al., 2010, p. 341). Again, doesn’t this take place in marriage? The leader makes a wrong assessment about the right girl; or, the girl makes herself appear to be more favorable; and, if they marry, do not the negative behaviors then follow? I have seen this, both with my own parents and twice myself. My husband has also witnessed it with his previous marriages.
Just as the field of leadership is experiencing changes in long-held beliefs and viewpoints; so, too has marriage. Each has gone through its own metamorphosis. Power and influence are important concepts for marriage and leadership and an understanding of one’s own power and how it is used is key for either a successful marriage or a leader
References
Harvard Business Review. (2010, Sept. 15). The Role of Tomorrow’s Leaders. [Video file].
Harvard CPL. (2012, Aug. 22). Barbara Kellerman on “The End of
Leadership”. [Video file].
Hollander, E.P., & Offermann, L.R. (1990, Feb.). Power and
Leadership in Organizations
Relationships in Transition. American Psychologist, 45 (2), 179-189.
Othman, R., Ee, F. F., & Shi, N. L. (2010). Understanding dysfunctional leader-
member exchange: antecedents and outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal , 31 (4), 337-350.
Relationships in Transition. American Psychologist, 45 (2), 179-189.
Othman, R., Ee, F. F., & Shi, N. L. (2010). Understanding dysfunctional leader-
member exchange: antecedents and outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal , 31 (4), 337-350.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment