POWER and AUTHORITY

• Reward power: (eg. the power of a manager to promote a subordinate.)

• Coercive power: (eg. the power of an employer to sack a worker.)

• Referent power: (eg. the power of a pop star to influence fashion.)

• Expert power: (eg. the power of a doctor to persuade a person to undergo surgery.)

• Legitimate power: (eg. the power of a policeman to halt traffic.)

Sat X RB said:

This post is intended to link with ICMag member Chi13’s Conspiracy thread. I ‘ve looked thru my books and can do no better than transcribe the following, word for word:​

​

“Power is the ability to influence others to change their thoughts, feelings or behaviour in some way. While power is a potential, influencing is a process of affecting the behaviour of others. The relevant action verbs connected with influence include persuade, encourage, inspire, reward, direct, control, manipulate, distract, convert, mould, bribe, deceive, hinder, threaten, punish.​

​

Control is an extreme form of influence in which one member or group influences another’s behaviour and enforces limits to that behaviour.​

​

Authority is the right to influence others, and is legitimate power vested in a person by virtue of his or her position or rank in an organisation, or by tradition.​

​

Compliance (or conformity) refers to the yielding of one person or group to another’s influence, a ‘going along with’ the other’s wishes or pressures.​

​

All members of a group are in relationship with each other, and therefore exercise some degree of influence and are themselves open to being influenced. The degree of power that members possess varies greatly, as does the degree to which different ones [members] may value or seek power. It is this pattern, and the ratio of high-power to low-power members that is the power structure of the group.​

​

In their classic study, French and Raven (1959) described five types of power:​

​

• Reward power: (eg. the power of a manager to promote a subordinate.)

• Coercive power: (eg. the power of an employer to sack a worker.)

• Referent power: (eg. the power of a pop star to influence fashion.)

• Expert power: (eg. the power of a doctor to persuade a person to undergo surgery.)

• Legitimate power: (eg. the power of a policeman to halt traffic.)

​

The above types of power are not mutually exclusive, and a person may possess several [at the same time]. Of all the five types, coercive power is the least likely to lead to group effectiveness, and the most likely to produce fear, alienation, frustration or desire for revenge. Expert and referent power are most positively correlated with effective performance.” (Tyson, 1995, pp 39-40)​

​

So for example it would seem from the recent impeachment proceedings that D. J. Trump has significant coercive power over most Republican Party politicians... or on the other side of the coin … most politicians allied with the Republican Party are content to refer power to Donald J. Trump. So obviously D. J. Trump also has legitimate power and reward power.​

​

Peace out ...​

Click to expand...

Maybe. But it is my observation of both mainstream parties, as a long-time activist and writer, that the real priorities (mostly unspoken, because they reveal the shallowness of the average politician) are, #1) Maintenance of position for sake of ego, esteem, or what ever, #2) Party supremacy; team sports to the extent of groupthink, even when conclusions are glaringly shallow or dishonest, 3.) Catering to the demands or desires of the (less publicly obvious) sources of their campaign and party finances, and last, 4.) everything else, such as providing public service to their constituents, who put them in their leather seats, behind their leather desks.

They can claim fear of Trump, but the partisan mind-set or groupthink is a primary source of toxicity in the proverbial water.

That, and egos and other reasons for them being in their positions, that are not the same as the reasons their voters supported them.

Thanks Moose! Don't forget the Author of the above was adopting a Scientific, objective viewpoint, not a political one.


I had the thought that the unconscionable behaviour of Republican members acquitting Trump had the benefit for them that they do not have to change their illogicality or militance toward other points of view.

Had the Republicans voted with the Dems they would have behaved in a bipartisan way ... and thus set a 'bad' precedent!

moose eater said:

Maybe. But it is my observation of both mainstream parties, as a long-time activist and writer, that the real priorities (mostly unspoken, because they reveal the shallowness of the average politician) are, #1) Maintenance of position for sake of ego, esteem, or what ever, #2) Party supremacy; team sports to the extent of groupthink, even when conclusions are glaringly shallow or dishonest, 3.) Catering to the demands or desires of the (less publicly obvious) sources of their campaign and party finances, and last, 4.) everything else, such as providing public service to their constituents, who put them in their leather seats, behind their leather desks.

They can claim fear of Trump, but the partisan mind-set or groupthink is a primary source of toxicity in the proverbial water.

That, and egos and other reasons for them being in their positions, that are not the same as the reasons their voters supported them.

Click to expand...

Sat X RB said:

Thanks Moose! Don't forget the Author of the above was adopting a Scientific, objective viewpoint, not a political one.


I had the thought that the unconscionable behaviour of Republican members acquitting Trump had the benefit for them that they do not have to change their illogicality or militance toward other points of view.

Had the Republicans voted with the Dems they would have behaved in a bipartisan way ... and thus set a 'bad' precedent!

Click to expand...

Had they purely voted on the facts, and decided to convict, they would have been abandoning their nearly universal #2 priority, which is Party Supremacy (formal groupthink, enforced in the caucuses by rewarding folks with committee assignments/seats, and taking those seats back, when someone is not compliant with the caucus demands or direction; one of the insidious ways in which The Peoples' representation is negated, and reps end up instead serving their party's political, often less honest, agenda rather than what they sometimes KNOW to be right. AND this applies to BOTH major parties).

The R's have already censured at least one republican who voted to convict Trump.

Separating science and politics can only be done to a limited degree, as the character of politicians (and others in positions of authority), tend to present with some specific traits per MMPI test results, whether cops, judges, lawyers, or politicians (the list is longer than that) reveals certain generalized personality traits.

Edit: Additionally, national and state party orgs (RNC, DNC, etc.) can decide who gets how much campaign money from their more generous and less restricted funds, as well as funding alternates to run against incumbents when there's sufficient lack of 'cooperation' and obedience toward the caucus demands. There's all sorts of less formal controls in each of the 2 primary parties, causing members to abandon acting upon constituents' desires, and instead adhering to what are clearly and plainly partisan and/or personal objectives instead.