Is Authority more Effective than Power in Contemporary Organizations?

AUTHORITY VS POWER IN MODERN ORGANIZATION
Student's Name
Course
Professor's Name
University
City (State)
Date
Is Authority more Effective than Power in Contemporary Organizations?
Problem Statement
The debate of Authority vs. Power is prolonged and still prevalent in modern times. Authority is considered an accepted and subtle form of influence, while power s more autocratic and direct (Cialdini 2013). This question is interesting from the standpoint of modern organizations as it helps in understanding the evolution of this concept. Its answer can impact the strategic decision-making process of modern organizations. To provide insights from the sociological perspective as to how societies have shaped power dynamics. The debate is both theoretical and practical. From an academic standpoint, the impact of societal forces and socio-economic changes such as the transition from traditional economies to more capitalist systems can explain these concepts' evolution (Hickson et al. 1971). With modern societies' development, the power has diminished in its traditional sense of dominance and is replaced by the more subtle authority. The modern organization examples are used for the analysis, indicating both types of structures in the modern organization. This analysis will help understand both forces' positive and negative sides and their relevance in the modern organization. The practical examples will help demonstrate the modern forms of authority and power and their impact on people.
Argument Outline
While previous power was considered the dominant force, contemporary practices are more in favor of authority. As human beings have evolved, the nature of work has become more complex and collaborative. The notion of dominance and control is no longer valid in many circumstances (Middleton 2007). Authority, however, is still prevalent in more than one way. It can be observed in the form of a charismatic personality's subtle influence or because of some legal-rational position where it is not linked with the person rather than his place (Havar-Simonovich & Simonovich 2016). Societies have moved from control and domination and have inclined towards collaboration and shared power.
Theoretical analysis and evidence and examples support. The theoretical analysis is done with academic journals' help, representing the research direction on this topic. In contrast, practical evidence is taken from modern organizational structures and examples of the modern organization. Both types of arguments support the authority, although it does not establish that power is no longer present in the organizational structure. It is present but not in the dominant form instead of as a hierarchical structure to maintain control. In the decision-making process, authority seems more prevalent
Theory and Evidence
Theoretical Understanding
Earlier parts of the discussion shed light on how authority begins to take precedence over power with time. These parts highlight the theoretical underpinning of this transition. To dive deep, it is essential to carefully dissect the concept of authority compared to power while referring to basic definitions. For example, authority is pillared on legitimacy, while power is the extent to which an individual or group can exercise its will regardless of others’ consent (Clegg 2013). This very contrast offers an insight into the superiority of authority in the contemporary context.
For instance, awareness has seen exponential growth in the past several decades. A few examples of display of awareness include consumer backlash to the organization showing disregard to the principles of sustainability or CSR. Simultaneously, the organizations engaged in unfair labor practices have been faced with critical reputational declines (Kim & Lee 2018). It shows that the importance of ‘legitimacy’ is growing in line with the literacy rate and awareness at different levels. This change paves the path towards smoother implementation of an authority-based management system compared to the exercise of power.
Simultaneously, there is a greater emphasis on the importance of teamwork than the traditional hierarchal model of decision making. Flatter organizational structures increase popularity to create a harmonious work environment where values like shared skills and shared experience foster (Barley & Weickum 2017). As alternatives to traditional hierarchies, the popularity of team-based structures is another factor in underpinning the rise of authority and downfall of power. Authority can be more systematically distributed across different components of an organization. It enables people to collaborate effectively and harmoniously (Barley & Weickum 2017). In this way, authority promotes complementarity, which is essential to an environment characterized by teamwork. Individuals can effectively collaborate and complement each other as long as the unrestrained use of power does not restrict their abilities. Complex reporting structures and other obligations stemming from the influence of a powerful individual or group of individuals may not allow for such seamless interaction as required for the effective flow of teamwork.
Another theoretical factor behind the strength of authority as a superior alternative is the growing popularity of democratic workplace culture and the gradual decline of bureaucracy. As democratic values prevailed, the stress shifted from obedience to the value of allowing individuals to have their say in decision-making processes (Child 2015). Sticking to this concept, the practitioners emphasize that leaders have to create space for subordinates. Taking inputs from multiple stakeholders can help reach optimal decisions in complex situations (Child 2015). This fresh understanding brought into question the legitimacy of forced decisions as a source of immediate transformations. Evolved managerial doctrine emphasizes the need for allowing each party, including employees at all levels, to have their representation in important matters. The leaders are authorized to make decisions but no longer entitled to impose the same on their subordinates (Havar-Simonovich & Simonovich 2016). In cases where changes are forced rather than consensus, leaders have to face serious dents on their reputation while grappling with severe controversies. This factor sufficiently explains the growing importance of authoritative managerial style as opposed to bureaucratic one.
Besides, a shift in the theoretical approach to leadership is also largely behind the changed perception of power and authority. For example, in the classical literature of leadership, trait leadership or born leaders have been indisputable. People had no reluctance to the power distance as established by the perception of certain individuals as born leaders if they are recognized to have the combination of certain characteristics (Havar-Simonovich & Simonovich 2016). However, as time passed by, theorists began to question the authenticity of the idea of ‘born leader’ and put forth their anti-thesis of ‘made leader.’ One of the modern adaptions of this idea is the situational leader, where leaders have to respond to an emerging set of circumstances based on their ability to improvise (Child 2015). It is argued that improvisation can be attained through practice and continuous learning rather than necessarily being the gift of nature. It rules out the entitlement of power based on the perception of a leader as a born leader.
Another revolutionary product of the contemporary frame of thought is the increased stress on intrinsic motivation. The word ‘forced’ does not resonate with modern organizational culture as it involves requiring people to do something against their will (Child 2015). The leaders have to come to terms with solutions that resonate with people who are part of the decision-making and implementation process. For this purpose, intrinsic motivation holds significant value (Havar-Simonovich & Simonovich, 2016). People who are intrinsically motivated would show their willingness to carry out managerial decisions. It creates momentum allowing the management to expedite the implementation and ensure the success of its plans (Child, 2015). Intrinsic motivation and the use of power are mutually exclusive, as it involves having people willing to do what the management wants them to do. Therefore, it involves taking people into confidence, showing that the decision is in the mutual interest. The authority to make decisions needs to be used wisely, and it does not cross the line that makes it enter the realm of unrestrained use of power.
The theoretical understanding shows that the management style has undergone a massive shift from bureaucracy to authority-based decision-making. Authority is better suited to contemporary values and thereby remains a more desirable alternative.
Evidence in Contemporary Organizations
The traditional organizational structure is beaurucratic and hierarchal. However, in modern organizations, power's classical concepts are often challenged, although the formal structure still represents a hierarchy. It can be argued that in contemporary organizations, the concept of authority is more linked with performance factors rather than the conventional paradigm of personal Power (Bourgoin et al. 2020). People cannot exercise power or a commanding influence on their subordinates. Instead, they exercise authority either because of their legal-rational position or the aspects of personality like charisma.
Modern organizations also exercise the concept of shared power and leadership. This collaborative concept is linked with the notion of subordinates' development and empowering them to perform their duties well rather than being dictated by an authority. The empowering leadership style is attributed to high peer leadership quality in new organizations (Edelmann et al. 2020). The concept of power was traditionally considered top-down and beaurucratic in nature. The evolving complexity of work has made it challenging to control different business dimensions from a traditional standpoint (Edelmann et al. 2020). It has introduced the concepts of empowerment and delegation. The person's role at the top is not to command or run a business in an autocratic manner but to influence subordinates subtly to achieve a shared goal.
In the context of modern organizations, the concept of power is often linked with leadership. The leaders exercise the organization's formal power, although the concept is more inclined towards authority and complete acceptance from the subordinates. The power in the organization is mainly intertwined with the hierarchical structure of the company. Those who rank on the top of the hierarchy are considered more powerful and vice versa. This type of power is linked with the formal position of the person rather than the personality. Contrary to that humble leadership concept advocates that humble leaders exercise authority over people regardless of their hierarchical position (Sousa and van Dierendonck 2015). The hierarchy, in that case, became less important in comparison with the authority. It relates to the earlier parts of the discussion where the importance of flat organizational structure is brought to light. An example is the rise of teamwork in the IT sector, where a decentralized workplace environment deters the exercise of power (). Complementation, interaction, and collaboration hold greater significance than obedience to preset instructions as in top-down hierarchical structure.
There are fewer hierarchal and more flat organizational structures that promote self-management ins...