Robert G. Dalton
Positional vs. Personal Power
POSITIONAL POWER VS. PERSONAL POWER: COMPARE/CONTRAST IS RELATION
TO MACHIAVELLI'S "THE PRINCE"
A research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy (Ph.D.)
By
Robert G. Dalton, B.S., B.A., M.S., M.A.
May 2015
University of the Cumberlands
1
Robert G. Dalton
Positional vs. Personal Power
Introduction
Power is a tricky subject because it is not easily defined and making it still more unclear is that it
is often hard to determine where the power comes from, and how a person is giving or obtains
this power. Jerald Greenburg defined power as "the capacity to exert influence over other"
(2011, p. 418). This definition does little to help answer the question presented above. In order
to truly understand power, it is necessary to investigate where does this "capacity" come from.
Obviously, there are persons that hold positions of power, and this is usually referred to as
individual power. Individual power would be that power that puts a person in a position to exert
influence over others. It is simply not enough to say that a person hold individual power. In
1959, French and Raven did work trying to explain social power and did so by providing five
key bases of power that give leaders this capacity to have an effect on others. The five bases of
power as provided by French and Raven include referent, expert, legitimate, reward, and
coercive. Generally speaking, within an organization there is two main types of individual
power: positional power and personal power. Each of these individual powers are backed by at
least two of the five previously listed power bases.
Positional Power
Of the two identified individual powers, positional power is the formal power that is derived
from their rank or position within an organization. Simply put, a person's positional power
comes from a higher status than others within the organization. Those that make up the
management or administrative arm of an organization would possess positional power over those
that work under them. So, it would be possible for an individual to have positional power over
2
Robert G. Dalton
Positional vs. Personal Power
certain people, but at the same time be under someone who has positional power over them. A
good example would be the vice presidents of an organization. The vice presidents have certain
powers that come from their positions and that power is exerted over those below them in rank or
status. However, these same vice presidents are likely to have to answer to someone who has
positional power over them, most likely the president of the organization.
When you look at the bases of individual power, there are three that are pointed to as
being directly tied to positional power. The first of these is legitimate power. Legitimate power
is defined by Kenneth Fracaro (2008, para. 6) as the ability to influence others strictly because
of the position that you hold within the organization. This base of power is very narrow as it
relates to the relationship that is defined by the position for which this leader possess. In the
field of education, an example of legitimate power would be the power that a teacher has to
assign homework to the students in the class. This type of power is recognized as appropriate for
the relationship.
The second power base that is associated with positional power is reward power.
Greenburg defines reward power as "the power to control the rewards that others want to
receive" (2011, p. 418). When using reward power, the manager or leader is rewarding those
under him/her and using these rewards as a way to exert power over those employees. These
rewards are often used as a way to entice better performance or compliance. The types of
rewards could be of any nature, but often are in the form of bonuses, promotions, time off work,
or even gifts. Again, using the example of a teacher in a position of power over the students in
class, the teacher may reward students with homework passes if they are compliant with the
wishes of the teacher.
3
Robert G. Dalton
Positional vs. Personal Power
The final base of power tied to positional power is called coercive power. Peter
Northouse defines coercive power as "having the capacity to penalize or punish others" (2013, p.
10). Coercive power in general terms is the opposite of reward power. While reward power
attempts to influence others by giving them something for compliance, coercive power seeks to
punish someone for poor performance or non-compliance. Coercive power has the potential to
have negative consequences for the person in power because they punishment may cause hard
feelings which could lead to a lack of production. Often times, the coercive powers are not used
at all, but it is the mere threat or potential for punishment that keeps people in line and doing as
they are expected. Once again returning to the classroom as an example, a type of coercive
power would be a teacher threatening to fail a student if they do not complete a certain
assignment.
Personal Power
While positional power is derived from being in a position of power and has little to do with the
individual in that position, personal power, as defined by Greenburg is "derived because one's
individual qualities or characteristics" (2011, p. 419). Northouse (2013) adds that this power
come from the person being likable and knowledgeable. Personal power, while it may start tied
to a position, the main source of the power is the person and not the position. There are two
bases of power from French and Raven (1959) that are tied to personal power, and both relate to
the two key terms used by Northouse (2013), likable and knowledgeable.
The first of these power bases is referred to as referent power. This is tied to the
likability of the person in power. Referential power comes from how well the leader is liked and
4
Robert G. Dalton
Positional vs. Personal Power
the degree to which you are willing to act for that person based on your feelings for them. The
example of a classroom teacher still works in this situation as well. It is not uncommon to find a
teacher that is well liked by the students for some reason and they are willing and often eager to
tackle any challenge laid forth because of their referential feeling. There is no reward involved,
no coercion, the task is completed because the person asking is someone that you find likeable
because of personal traits you find desirable.
The second base of power associated with personal power is called expert power.
Fracaro (2008), refers to expert power as the instance when a person is seen as being
knowledgeable in a certain area of expertise and this knowledge is highly valuable. This
knowledge is a sign of competence and people are willing to follow the lead of someone they
perceive to be highly skilled in a certain area. Again, there is no reward or coercion needed in
these instances. In fact, it is often the case that that person being looked upon as a leader is as
low in positional power as the followers, but their perceived knowledge and competence draws
followers.
Machiavelli's "The Prince"
According to Niccolo Machiavelli, in The Prince, there are several significant principles
that should be used to wrestle control from others and then be used to hoard and keep that power
intact. The first of these principles is that a person should never show modesty. It is better to be
arrogant when dealing with others. Next, having a morality and ethics will not work. A person
in power should feel free to do whatever suits their needs and this includes lying, cheating, and
deception. In short, do whatever is necessary to reach the intended purpose. But, for our
purposes, let's look at one of the more famous part of chapter seventeen. Machiavelli states that
5
Robert G. Dalton
Positional vs. Personal Power
it far more effective to be feared than loved because fear goes farther in retaining power. As was
stated in The Prince:
Here arises the question: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or feared
than loved. Obviously, it can be answered that one should choose to be both, but
since the two rarely come together for one person… [anyone who must choose
between the two] will find it safer to be feared than to be loved . . . (The Prince,
1515, p. 79).
In this passage, Machiavelli is discussing the social aspect of leadership and it can be
argued that he is referring to positional power and personal power and the bases of power
that help define each. There is a strong argument that he is combining certain portions of
each and certain bases of power to create his argument for being feared instead of loved
since you cannot have both.
Looking at positional power first, obviously if you are the leader, you are going to
automatically have positional power because it is fundamental to the position. But, as
you more closely examine the bases of power and relate them to Machiavelli's words, it
become apparent that he leans more towards legitimate and coercive power and away
from reward power. Like was previously mentioned, the position of leader is going to
come with at least a hint of legitimate power is present. But, the basis for his argument is
rooted in coercive power. Towards the end of his argument in favor of being feared
instead of loved Machiavelli states that, " but fear preserves you by a dread of
punishment which never fails" (1515, p. 80). He is obviously making the argument that
coercive power, which is derived from the power to deny or punish, is far more
influential in keeping power. The argument is that love is less powerful a motivator than
the fear of punishment. In this case, it appears that Machiavelli would consider positional
power most important.
6
Robert G. Dalton
Positional vs. Personal Power
The argument that Machiavelli is attempting to use personal power as a basis for
his belief that it is better to be feared than loved is a less clear, but does exist.
Machiavelli makes it clear that while being feared if preferential, being hated should be
avoided. He states that, " a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not
win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not
hated" (1515, p. 80). From this point, Machiavelli points to actions that should and
should not be taken by a leader so as to not have fear cross into hatred, such as the
improper seizing of land. So, the argument to be examined is can a person be feared and
at the same time possess referential power as well as expert power, both bases of personal
power. Can a person be feared and liked at the same time? Using the example of the
classroom teacher, it is possible for that teacher to be feared because he/she wields a
certain amount of power over the students and their grades. But if the students are treated
fairly, as Machiavelli mentions doing, then it is possible that those student may genuinely
admire the teacher. In the instance of expert power, an argument can be made that a
person being an expert and your fear of that person are unrelated. Is it not possible to
believe that a person is genius in their actions, but at the same time you hold a fear of
being on the wrong side of their wrath?
Machiavelli makes another key argument about being feared instead of being
loved that can be tied to the bases of power that make up positional and personal powers.
He argues that love is based on the will of the loved, while being feared is based on the
will of the ruler. He states:
Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that,
men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince,
a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not
7
Robert G. Dalton
Positional vs. Personal Power
in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted. (The
Prince, 1515, p. 82).
Machiavelli is making it clear that a ruler should decide for themselves how they are
viewed and obviously this would be achieved through their actions. The position itself
has legitimate power, and coercive power would be important to get what you want and
at the same time create a fear within those being ruled. But, at the same time being
careful not to punish too harshly so as to create hatred. It can be argued that referential
and expert power are also at the hands of the ruler and can play into the followers
perceptions of the ruler. Machiavelli, in this last quote, is stating that the perception of
the ruler, should be controlled by the ruler and this could include whether or not they are
adored by the people and if they are seen as a competent leader. This can be
accomplished by being strict and coercive when necessary, but at the same time being
fair and seen as competent, like protecting them when in danger from outside forces or
not taking from them without just cause.
Summary
Both positional power and personal power are identified as individual powers, and one is
based on external factors and the other on internal factors. Positional power is based on
the status or role that a person plays within an organization. The power, in most cases is
legitimate, because of the hierarchy within the organization. But, a person that has
positional power may also have personal power. Just because you have a position of
power, does not mean that you are not adored by your followers or recognized as being
8
Robert G. Dalton
Positional vs. Personal Power
highly skilled in the job that you do. And, the reverse is also true. A leader does not
have to have positional or legitimate power to have personal power. It may be argued
that often times a person is more likely to have referent power if they do not have
positional power. When a person is in a position of power, the followers may see only
the position and miss how truly knowledgeable the leader is or how admirable of a job
they are performing for the organization. Or, if you are an seen as an expert, followers
are more likely to recognize your legitimate power because it would appear your position
was warranted. As was mentioned by Podsakoff and Schriesheim, the power bases are
strongly linked to each other and with how they are used (1985, p. 391).
Positional power comes from the status or hierarchy of the position held by the
leader and there are certain bases of power that come along with that. There is legitimate
power, which comes from the position itself. In addition, there are reward power and
coercive power which allow the leader to either reward or punish the followers for their
effort or lack thereof. Personal power comes from the leader, and has little or nothing to
do with the position held by the leader. A leader would hope to be both admired and seen
as knowledgeable by their followers. While each would allow the leader some control, it
appears that a combination of the two would provide a true leadership situation. The
power flows from the position, but you are seen as likable and knowledgeable which will
cause others to gravitate to you and want to perform for you.
9
Robert G. Dalton
Positional vs. Personal Power
References
Fracaro, K. (2008). You're a manager, but are you a leader? Contract Management. Retrieved
May 25, 2015, from https://www.ncmahq.org/files/Articles/CM1008%20%20Professional%20Development.pdf
French, J. R. Jr. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies
in social power (pp. 259-269). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Greenburg, J. (2011). Behavior in organizations (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Machiavelli, N. (n.d.). The Prince. (W. K. Marriott, trans.). Retrieved May 23, 2015, from
http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince.pdf (Original work published 1515).
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Field studies of French and Raven’s bases of
power: Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research. Psychological Bulletin,
97, 387–411.
10