Authority is a form of power. Specifically formal authority is legitimate power.

But we often
use the term more broadly in speaking of other kinds of power as well. When we say that
someone is ‘an authority’ in a certain field, we mean that he or she knows a great deal about
the subject and thus has expert power. When we hear that a suspected criminal has been
apprehended by ‘the authorities’ we think of those holding the legitimate power of the
government to maintain civil order. If the criminal is convicted, the judge has the ‘authority’ or
coercive power to mete out punishment.

Formal authority is the type of power that we associate with organizational structure and
management. It is based on the recognition of the legitimacy of managers’ attempts to exert
influence. Individuals or groups attempting to exert influence are perceived as having the
right to do so within recognized boundaries. This is a right that arises from their formal
position in an organization. The basis for formal authority has been a continuing subject for
debate in American society. And it should be scrutinized in view of what could go wrong with
the use of authority.

What gives you the right to tell me what to do?

This familiar blunt question implies that before we comply with an instruction we
must be satisfied that the person issuing it has the right to do so. Where do
managers get the right to direct employees’ activities?

There are two major competing views on formal authority in organizations:

The classical View:

1. Constitution guarantees right to

own property and control business
2. Managers’ issues commands
3. Commands obeyed

1. Formal or Classical Theory of

Authority:
This is known as top-down authority. It
supports the principle of scalar chain
or organizational hierarchy. In this
theory, authority flows from top to
bottom through various levels of
hierarchy. It flows from the Board of
Directors to Managing Director, to
General Managers, to middle-level managers, lower-level managers, supervisors and finally
to workers. Every subordinate accepts this authority and obeys instructions issued by the
superiors.
Disobedience is followed by coercive measures to demand obedience. This authority is
derived by virtue of position in the organization. When that person leaves the organization,
he loses the authority to issue instructions also. The flow of authority is governed by the
process of delegation. Each level in the scalar chain can exercise only that much authority
that is delegated through superiors.

Max Weber is of the same opinion as held in the classical theory of authority. According to
him, authority is “the willing and unconditional compliance of people, resting upon their
belief that it is legitimate for superior to impose his will on them and illegitimate for them to
refuse to obey.”

The Acceptance View

1. Managers issues commands

2. Recipient considers acceptance
3. Acceptance/Noncompliance
—The sources of Power:

This theory was formulated by Mary Parker Follett but later popularized by Chester
Barnard. It is also known as bottom-up authority. It is based on the premise that
authority does not flow from top to bottom but flows from bottom to top. It implies
that superiors can exercise authority only if it is accepted by the subordinates.

The acceptance of authority by subordinates, thus, vests management with authority.

The flow of authority takes the form of request by top managers. If this request is
accepted by subordinates, managers exercise the authority, and if subordinates do
not accept it, no authority is exercised by managers.

As against classical authority, Barnard viewed authority as existent when

subordinates are willing to accept it. If employees do not accept the authority,
manager loses the right to give orders.

“Authority is the character of a communication (order) in a formal organization by

virtue of which it is accepted by a contributor to or a member of the organization as
governing … or determining what he does or is not to do so far as the organization is
concerned” — Chester Barnard.

This theory recognizes informal relationships in the organization. Managers have

authority only to the extent that subordinates are willing to accept. The theory
provides logical base to authority because formal authority is meaningless if
subordinates do not conform to directions.
Though employees implicitly accept authority of superiors at the time of taking the
job in return for monetary rewards, this authority does not cover all the directives
issued from the top. They accept directives (authority) within the range of
acceptance. Chester Barnard calls it a “zone of indifference”. Herbert A. Simon calls it
“area of acceptance”.

It means that authority is accepted if it is in the range of acceptance. It is the area or

limits set by individuals within which they accept the authority of superiors over
them. Outside this ‘area of acceptance’, superiors have to command acceptance of
authority. By accepting authority, subordinates enable the order or directives-issuing
managers to possess the requisite authority.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

“An individual will accept an exercise of authority if the advantages accruing to him
from accepting plus the disadvantages accruing to him from not accepting exceed the
advantages accruing to him from not accepting plus the disadvantages accruing to
him from accepting; and conversely, he will not accept an exercise of authority if the
latter factors exceed the former.”

Individuals set limits within which they accept the authority.

These are:
(a) Actions which are unacceptable and, therefore, not carried out by them,

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(b) Actions that are either acceptable or unacceptable. They are the borderline cases,
and

(c) Actions which are acceptable and, therefore, carried out by them. These actions
lie in the zone of indifference and, thus, managers can issue orders with respect to
these actions.

A person accepts authority if, according to Chester Barnard, four conditions are
satisfied.

These are:
(a) He fully understands the communication,
(b) At the time of decision, he believes it is consistent with the objectives of the
organization,

(c) At the time of decision, he also believes that it is consistent with his personal
objectives, and

(d) He is physically and mentally adjusted to the communication i.e., he agrees to

accept the communication.

The fewer of these 4 conditions that are present, the lower the probability that
authority will be accepted and obedience be exacted.

Barnard offers the following guidance on what managers can do so that their
commands will be accepted and obeyed.

He maintains that manager’s commands will be accepted over the long

term if:
1. The manager uses formal channels of communication and these are familiar to all
organizational members.

2. Each organizational member has an assigned formal communication channel

through which orders are received.

3. The line of communication between manager and subordinate is as direct as

possible.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

4. The complete chain of command is used to issue orders.

5. The manager possesses adequate communication skills.

6. The manager uses formal communication lines only for organizational business.

7. A command is authenticated as coming from a manager.

The acceptance theory of authority can be illustrated as follows:

Every person has a different zone of indifference. Same directives may or may not be
acceptable to different subordinates. The size of this zone depends upon how much a
person benefits from acceptance of the authority and how much he loses by not
accepting the authority.

People at lower levels usually have a small zone of indifference as they are induced to
accept most of the directions coming from the superiors. This zone is, however, wide
for those at higher levels as they are more into policy making than implementation.
Thus, the zone of indifference widens as one moves from lower levels to higher levels.

The classical and acceptance theories of authority, thus, deal with same aspects of
management (issuing orders to get the work done) but in different ways.

Classical Theory Acceptance Theory

of Authority of Authority
It is normative in nature. It describes the It is descriptive in nature. It describes
norms that managers follow in issuing
directions. how managers actually exercise authority
over subordinates.

It relates to role prescription, that is, formal

roles to be performed by managers. It relates to role behavior, that is, actual
behavior of subordinates towards the roles
prescribed for managers.

Role behavior (role of employees) more or

less matches role prescription (role of Role behavior may or may not match role
superiors). prescription depending upon employees’
zone of indifference.

3. Authority Theory of the Situation:

This theory applies to situations of crisis or emergency where immediate action is to
be taken. The person present at the emergent situation exercises authority to deal
with the situation, though it is not formally delegated through the chain of command.

For example, if there is fire or accident in a factory, workers present at the site can
immediately use the alarm bell to sound the organization of the emergency or call
fire/ ambulance services. Thus, without having formal authority to use the alarm
bell, the worker uses it as authority of the situation.
4. Competence Theory of Authority:
This theory is derived by virtue of competence, skill and knowledge of a person and
not position. People from all departments at all levels approach the person who has
competence authority disregarding the official chain of command. Despite not having
formal authority, these persons issue orders or directives by virtue of their skill to do
so. The theory accepts informal relations in the organization.

For example, middle-level manager of production department has knowledge of tax

related matters. People with problems on tax from all departments and levels will
approach him for advice irrespective of their official positions. Personal qualities, like
social or technical competence are the basis of authority.

Power does not derive simply from an individual’s level in the organizational
hierarchy. John French and Bertram Raven have identified five sources or
bases of power. These aspects of power may be present in a variety of human
relationships. In an organization, each may occur at all levels.

Reward power is based on one person (the influencer) having the ability to
reward another person (the influencee) for carrying out orders or meeting
performance requirements. On example is the power of a supervisor to assign
work tasks to employees.

Coercive power based on the influencer’s ability to punish the influences for
not meeting requirements is the negative side of reward power. Punishment
may range from a reprimand to loss of a job.

Legitimate power (formal authority) exists when an employee or lnfluencee

acknowledges that the influencer is entitled to exert influence within certain
bounds. It is also implied that the influencee has a obligation to accept this
power. The right of a manager to establish reasonable work schedules is an
example of ‘downward’ legitimate power. A plant guard may have the ‘upward’
authority to require even the company president to present an identification
card before being allowed onto the premises.

Expert power is based on the perception or belief that the influencer has some
relevant expertise or special knowledge that the influencee does not. When
we do what our doctors tell us, we are acknowledging their expert power.