Etzioni's different kinds of power

¶ … standards of behavior and the requirements of the organization. Amitai Etzioni identified a number of different kinds of power that exist within organizations that are designed to ensure that people in the organizations comply with organization needs. To Etzioni, compliance "refers to both a relation in which an actor behaves in accordance with a directive supported by another actor's power, and to the orientation of the subordinated actor to the power applied" (p. 3). He defines power as "an actor's ability to induce or influence another actor to carry out his directives or any other norms he supports" (p. 5).Systems of control or power can be exerted by management and other organizational members, and is dependent on organizational structure, including hierarchies of authority, specified procedures and policies, and supervision.

Etzioni argued that organizational power falls into three main categories: coercive, calculative and normative systems. Coercive systems occur when non-compliance with organizational objectives can result in restraint and force. For example, coercive power includes the ability to demote, transfer, or fire individuals who do not meet organizational objectives. A number of dysfunctional group dynamics can result from coercive power, including anger, dislike, conspiracies, coalitions, and reduced intrinsic motivation (Brunel University).

In contrast, calculative (remunerative) power provides material and non-material rewards for complying with the organization. People within the organization tend to strike bargains with the organization over loyalty and compliance. Employees are often motivated primarily by pay, promotion, and future prospects (Brunel University).

Normative systems within an organization are based upon shared values. The organization's members tend to "internalize organizational values which become their own and guide their behavior naturally" (Brunel University). Normative power is also sometimes called manipulative, persuasive, or suggestive power. There are two types of normative power: social and pure normative. Pure normative power is based on manipulating prestige and esteem, while social power is based on manipulating acceptance and positive responses (Etzioni).

Power can play an important role in successfully effecting organizational change. The organizations that are the most effective in creating successful organizational changes tend to rely on the normative system of power, and crate a " cooperative effort in the service of the organization's purpose and its values" (Villanova University). Less successful is organizational change that is based on coercive power, where "an efficacious and infallible organizational change plan, especially one that will leave the people in organizations with the sense that the organization is an artificial person where some nameless and faceless Nobody in an organizational role promulgates impersonal decisions for which no one bears responsibility" (Villanova University)

Recently, American foreign policy decisions and actions have been based more and more upon the use of on normative power. Write Gleb and Roesnethal (2004), "Something quite important has happened in American foreign policymaking with little notice or digestion of its meaning. Morality, values, ethics, universal principles -- the whole panoply of ideals in international affairs that were once almost the exclusive domain of preachers and scholars -- have taken root in the hearts, or at least the minds, of the American foreign policy community." We see this manifestation of normative power in foreign policy in examples like Madeline Albright testifying at a Bosnian war crimes tribunal, and the Bush government's interest in China's human rights record with its Muslim citizens (Gleb and Rosenthal, 2004).

The American government's use of these normative values reflects not only their internal beliefs, but the beliefs of a larger community. Write Gleb and Roesnethal (2004), "These values are now widely shared around the world by different religions and cultures. Movements for democracy or justice for war crimes are no longer merely American or Western idiosyncrasies."

The widespread nature of the normative beliefs that guide American foreign policy make the use of normative power in the American foreign policy organization highly effective. This use of normative power that is already highly accepted within the worldwide community only aids members of the American government's foreign policy division to successfully "internalize organizational values which become their own and guide their behavior naturally" (Brunel University).

Microsoft demonstrates a strong and effective use of normative power within the organization. Writes Thielen (2000), "All Microsoft employees know in their gut what their primary goal is. And that is to win 100% of whatever market they are going after" (p. 10). Within Microsoft, both social and pure normative power are used to control employee behavior. The use of normative power in Microsoft is largely successful in creating cooperation within the company. Writes Thielen (2000), Microsoft managers know that "only by helping other groups as needed can the company achieve total domination"