In this article, we will offer some sociological reflections on power. First, we must recognize that there are different forms of power, which, however, can be classified into two very broad categories.
Reflections on the power of the public dimension
First, there is power in the public sphere, and then there is power in the private sphere. In every society that has existed so far throughout the long history of the human race, power has always been idolized by almost all individuals. In most cases, power has been used for personal and selfish ends , or at most to advance the interests of a small number of people. Only a small minority has used power to advance the interests of the community and to defend the interests of the weakest.
Even in modern society, a mythologizing and idolizing of power exists at all levels. In this article, we will consider both public and private power. We will adopt a classification that seems clearer and more appropriate, first considering power at the macro-social level and then at the micro-social level. A fundamentally important concept, valid at both the macro and micro levels, is that it is not enough to simply gain power; we must also strive to maintain it for as long as possible. Regarding the need to gain power at the macro-social level, Alberoni states that power is not something acquired once and for all, but must be continually acquired.
Reflections on political power
We will now consider political power. Regarding this power, Alberoni states that different political regimes vary in the methods of attaining power, the types of threats those in power face, and the most suitable tools for maintaining it. We will first consider the attainment of political power in democratic regimes. In such regimes, those aspiring to power must win the voters' votes, including through extensive electoral campaigns. They must also gain the support of other important politicians as well as various organizations capable of securing votes for the individual. Regarding the risks faced by political leaders in democratic nations, we must say that they are much lower than those faced by dictators.
Indeed, in democratic nations, there is a risk of losing power during government crises or at the end of an electoral term. As for the means to maintain power in democratic systems, one must strive for re-election. Dictators must violently repress all attempts by their opponents to overthrow the regime. In our opinion, the worst democracy is still better than dictatorial regimes in general.
Reflections on power in medium and large enterprises
Continuing our reflections on power, we will now consider a second type of microsocial power: that of managers in medium and large companies. It seems clear that, to achieve their goals, a manager must possess qualities somewhat similar to those of great military leaders, political leaders, and even the founders of religious movements. According to Alberoni, a manager must possess, above all, the ability to convey to those who work with him the conviction that they are participating in an important task.
Indeed, the individual who lives this type of experience is proud to belong to such an enterprise. Consequently, he or she devotes his or her best energies unstintingly and is willing to accept criticism from superiors and colleagues.
We believe it's quite difficult to communicate this belief to a company manager's employees. In our opinion, the key quality of a manager is knowing how to wield power appropriately, carefully balancing praise and reprimands, and setting a good example at all times by fully performing one's duties. When it comes to praising employees, the manager should neither be too spartan in bestowing praise nor overdo it by inflating it.
praise
In companies where managers never praise employees, cold and distant interpersonal relationships develop between the manager and the employee. Conversely, well-motivated praise increases the motivation of employees who see their contributions to the company publicly recognized. This increases employees' self-esteem, their gratitude for merit, and their desire to demonstrate their qualities to colleagues. Furthermore, well-motivated praise encourages other employees to work harder to ensure that the manager also praises them in the future.
Indeed, deserved praise creates psychological contagion and social imitation, which are very important in group dynamics within a company, as they empower employees. Conversely, a manager who distributes undeserved praise is often seen as weak and, to avoid conflict with management, resorts to flattery , a strategy never suited to a manager. Furthermore, when employees realize that the manager is praising them for flattery purposes, they no longer value such praise. Consequently, such praise is devalued, which fails to motivate employees in any way.
Indeed, they are induced to reduce their commitment as they become aware that their manager is incapable of enforcing discipline within the company due to his own weaknesses. As for reprimands, they are important in group dynamics when they are well-motivated and legitimate. Alberoni states that when the boss has to reprimand, it is not appropriate for him to do so publicly, but only in private.
Reflections on Power: Public Rebukes
In our opinion, Alberoni is partly right and partly wrong regarding public reprimands. Indeed, it is true that a manager should not publicly reprimand an employee who occasionally commits even serious errors, because it would subject them to unnecessary humiliation, which could both demotivate them and trigger feelings of hatred toward the manager . However, it is equally true that public reprimanding is necessary and positive when the employee in question, even after being reprimanded, continues to fail to make an adequate contribution to the work team. In such cases, public reprimanding is appropriate for at least three reasons.
First, it's possible that the employee in question, once humiliated in front of colleagues by the manager's public reprimand, will make greater efforts in the immediate future to avoid similar humiliations. Second, the fact that the employee in question suffers such humiliation may serve to persuade other members of the manager's staff who fail to perform their duties to renounce such behavior, thus avoiding the same punishment as their colleague.
Third, if a manager continues to privately reprimand an employee who isn't performing his or her duties, he or she gives other employees the impression that he or she lacks character, as he or she lacks the courage to publicly reprimand the employee guilty of poor performance. When a manager authoritatively reprimands an employee in public, he or she demonstrates to all other employees that he or she has a strong personality.
Reflections on power in the hands of the mediocre
We conclude our reflections on power at the macro-social level by addressing a very important issue. Powerful figures often choose mediocre, poorly educated individuals as collaborators. Such choices by the powerful prevent individuals with excellent intellectual qualities from occupying the positions they would be entitled to if meritocratic criteria were followed.
The choice of such mediocre, sometimes even squalid, figures can be explained in three ways . First, there are cases in which a powerful figure is forced to lend his support to a mediocre individual as a favor to another powerful figure. (Exchanges of favors between powerful individuals are frequent.) Second, mediocre figures often manage to advance their careers by spending years as errand boys for those in various forms of power. Third, it can also happen that a certain number of powerful men are afraid to surround themselves with brilliant individuals endowed with excellent cognitive qualities. Some because they are authoritarian and dislike being contradicted by their collaborators. Others because they are megalomaniacs and desire constant flattery from their collaborators (they are better and more trained in the art of flattery of squalid and mediocre individuals than of brilliant ones).
Conclusions
Finally, others are overly cautious and know that intellectually gifted people could overshadow them, influence them, and limit their power. Regarding power at the microsocial level, we'll simply say that the holders of this type of power are often much more cruel, cynical, and ruthless than those who wield power at the macrosocial level. Indeed, such people are often guilty of physical violence and sophisticated psychological terror strategies that turn them into veritable dictators at the microsocial level.
Even in the building and neighborhood where we live, there can be a certain number of micro-level dictators. Often, the sadism of these dictators is no less than that of the worst macro-level dictators, even if their actions often go unnoticed and remain in the shadows.
Giovanni Pellegrino, Mariangela Mangieri
