Topic 6 Power and Politics in Schools
LEARNING OUTCOMES
By the end of this topic, you should be able to:
1. Identify the source of authority and power in organisations;
2. Explain the use of administrative power, especially in the school setting;
3. Describe Mintzbergs perspective on power;
4. Compare and synthesis power perspectives;
5. Relate organisational power and politics;
6. Identify the power games in an organisation;
7. Analyse political tactics in an organisation; and
8. Explain conflict management.
INTRODUCTION
What differentiates politics in government and politics in school? The answer is
they are no different. In school, either teachers, administrators, or students have
equal chance to be abused by others. For example, teacher abuse exists at many
levels (Blase & Blase, 2006). Teachers are assumed to operate at higher levels
and are being treated prejudicially by their administrators (Gray & Gardiner,
2013; Blase & Blase, 2006).
Administrators, on the other hand, have so much power to manipulate teachers
and make almost everybody believe that each teacher is worthy of the abuse
that is used against them. The power that administrators have is the teachers
biggest obstacle.
Therefore, teacher abuse remains off-record and silent as they have been told by
their unions and attorneys not to speak publicly or else they may face the legal
system by administrators (adapted from http://www.endteacherabuse.
info/politics.html). Therefore, in this topic, we will be looking into power and
politics in schools. We will be identifying the source of authority and power in
organisations. Then, we will also be discussing the use of administrative power,
especially in the school setting. Next, the Mintzbergs perspective on power will
be looked at and we will compare and synthesise power perspectives. Through
that, we will relate organisational power and politics and identify the power
games in an organisation. Lastly, we will analyse political tactics in an
organisation and also explain conflict management.
ACTIVITY 6.1
1. Briefly, explain your understanding of power and politics in school.
2. To what extent do you agree politics has affected the way the schools have
been managed in Malaysia? Explain and support your argument with appropriate
examples.
6.1 SOURCES OF AUTHORITY: LEGITIMATE POWER
Authority is a part of school life. For instance, the exercise of authority in school
could happen in different types of relationships namely teacher-students,
teachers-teachers, teachers-principal and principal-subordinates. Typically, the
practice of authority in schools does not involve coercion. Most of the time,
authority is referred to the exercise of legitimate power (Elenkov, 1998). Once an
individual joins an organisation, he will recognise the authority structure in
existence as legitimate and accept the managers right to set policy and give
direction. Blau and Scott (1962) postulated a similar definition of authority where
they called it as willingness to suspend their own criteria for making decisions
and to comply with directives from the superior (Blau and 6 Scott, 1962).
According to Hoy and Miskel (2013), there are three characteristics that shape
authority in schools as illustrated in Figure 6.1:
Figure 6.1: Three characteristics that shape authority in schools Source: Hoy &
Miskel (2013) Hence, authority exists when shared beliefs (norms) in school
legitimises the use of power as right and proper. Weber (1947) classified
authority into three different types, which are (see Figure 9.2):
Figure 6.2: Types of authority Source: Webber (1947) Hoy and Miskel (2013) and
other scholars have further extended authority into charismatic, traditional,
legal, formal, informal and functional authority.
(a) Charismatic Authority
Charismatic authority relies on leaders who gain personal trust and exemplary
quality from the followers. It is rooted in the belief system of the subordinates
(Hoy & Miskel, 2013). It tends to be non-rational, affective or emotional and
influenced by leaders qualities and characteristics. Since the behaviour of
charismatic leaders in organisation is anti-bureaucratic (Fagen 1965), thus it
allows the leaders to gain the characteristics by his overwhelming personal
appeal, and hence a common value orientation arises from within the group to
produce an intense normative commitment for the identification of the leader
(Hoy & Miskel, 2013). However, charismatic authority is not stable and tends to
be transformed over the time (Fagen, 1965).
(b) Traditional Authority
Traditional authority establishes beliefs in individuals authority in the past (Hoy
& Miskel, 2013). The word traditional indicates the historic roots of leadership
that legitimises the execution of power (Lutz & Linder, 2004) and the terms of
inherited or appointed perhaps are most suitable to explain the traditional
authority. Hence, obedience is to follow traditional sanctioned position of
authority, and the person who occupies the position inherits the authority by
custom.
(c) Legal Authority
Legal authority is based on enacted laws that can be changed by formally correct
procedures. People are subjected to obey laws that specify to whom and to what
extent their compliance is dedicated to (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). In the school
context, obedient refers to abiding with the impersonal principles that govern the
operation of the organisation.
(d) Formal Authority
Formal authority is legally established based on positions, rules and regulations
(Hoy & Miskel, 2013). The employees have to obey the sets of rules and
regulations that are determined by the organisation (or rules and terms stated in
the job contract).
(e) Informal Authority
Informal authority is part of the formal authority that stems from personal
behaviour and attributes. The members of the organisation develop norms of
allegiance and support from their colleagues due to social interaction in the
group. These informal norms strengthen and legitimise leaders power and,
hence, provide informal authority (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).
(f) Functional Authority
Functional authority has a variety of sources, including authority of competence
and authority of person. In fact, technical competence serves as a source for
legitimate control, and provides directives in a formal organisation regardless of
any specific position held. Functional authority will cause professionals to be in a
dilemma and conflict due to its ambiguous role.
6.1.1 Authority and Administrative Behaviour in Schools
The concept of authority indicates the present of power in the organisation, and
the exercise of power indicates the authority in existence. Primary source of
control refers to formal authority that comes from office or position and not very
much of who performs the official role (Merton, 1957). In fact, individual with the
authority has the ability to make decisions, to instruct, to elicit compliance, to
employ sanctions, to reward and to effect change (Hall, 1982). Hence, teachers,
administrators and students have to comply with the formal authority in the
school (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). In other words, they have to obey the commands of
the contractual agreement of the school (Commons, 1924).
Formal authority is tied to formal sanctions and it has a limited scope of
authority. It creates zone of indifference in which administrators and teachers
accept orders without questions. When principals powers are formal, they have
the authority to make decisions. Thus, they do not have to spend much energy to
exert their power (Nirel, Schmid & Stem, 1994). Even though formal authority
promotes minimal compliance with directive and discipline, it does not
encourage employees to exert effort, to accept responsibility or to exercise
initiative (Blau & Scott, 1962, 2003; Kotter, 1985). Hence, it becomes a great
challenge to principals especially when they need to exercise their influence over
their professional staff beyond the narrow limits of formal position authority (Hoy
& Miskel, 2013; Cohen & Bradford, 1989).
Many school administrators have the power and authority only in their office and,
hence, they are only the sterile bureaucrats and not leaders (Hoy & Williams,
1971; Hoy & Rees, 1974). Only when the authority of the leadership is being
practised together with the authority of position, the superiors will be deemed fit
to elicit subordinates to comply with directives outside the bureaucratic zone of
indifference (Barnard, 1938). Figure 6.3 illustrates different types of authority
positions based on the combination of formal authority and informal authority.
