Homework answers / question archive / Discussion: Nye vs

Discussion: Nye vs

Business

Share With

Discussion: Nye vs. Helgesen

One aspect of successfully communicating your thoughts within diverse groups is the ability to engage in "friendly" debate. How does this kind of conversation differ from the kind of sparring you may experience on athletic fields or, for some people, at a large holiday gathering? The focus is kept to scholarly inquiry, and personal opinions are de-emphasized. Of course, you can always find a method to express your opinion—just make sure you can find another researcher who has articulated the position you are taking, then argue your point based on research and evidence. Ultimately, the goal is to maintain a respectful forum where diverse ideas can be heard and considered.

To prepare for the Nye vs. Helgesen Discussion, review the commentaries of Nye and Helgesen.

Helgesen, S. (2008). New sources of power. Leadership Excellence Essentials. 25(5), 6.

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2008). Soft power. Leadership Excellence Essentials, 25(4), 10.

Then, choose the side that best represents your views on the use of power. Finally, carefully review the Weekly Resources and conduct your own research in the Walden Library (or other reliable resources) so you can illustrate and substantiate your position on appropriate usage of organizational power by citing academic or credible resources.

Post a cohesive response to the following:

• Based on the commentaries of Ny and Helgesen, explain which position was more aligned to your own view on the use of power.
• Substantiate your position on the use of power with evidence and theories based on the research you conducted.
• How does your view on the use of power affect leadership practices within an organizational culture?

Be sure to support your ideas by connecting them to the week's Learning Resources, as well as other credible resources you have read; or what you have observed and experienced.

General Guidance: Your original post, due by Day 3, will typically be 1 full single space in length, as a general expectation/estimate. Refer to the Week 3 Discussion 1 Rubric for grading elements and criteria..

LEADERSHIP • POWER ahead leadership. Recently, these skills have moved front and center. Women tend fo evince a healfhy skepticism about the perks and privileges that define high position, in part W e n e e d a n e wm o d e l o f l e a d e r s h i p . because they have long been excluded from traditional hierarchies. But this skepticism is also the result of fhe fact rather than up and down a chain of by Sally Helgesen thaf women, as the Harvard psycholocommand, have a distinct advantage. This has two primary implications: gist Carol Gilligan argued in A First, technology distributes informa- Different Voice, are comfortable being at VER THE LAST 15 years, three forces tion more broadly. Information and powerthe center of things rather than at the are being pushed down to those on fhe top, and making moral judgments on a have transformed the nature of organizations, rendering tra- front lines, no longer isolated at the top. contextual rather than abstract basis. Such attitudes undermine fhe preditional models of leadership obsolete. This undermines hierarchies and the sumptions and disciplines by which By examining these forces, we can bet- status of those at the top, as they rely hierarchies have been maintained primarily upon fhe mystique of their ter see what leadership we need. position. Leadership is becoming deFirst, the nature of our economy has Diversity is the order of fhe day. In shifted. In this knowledge era, primary coupled from fhe power of position; if every organization, people of divermust be constantly earned, not assumed. gent backgrounds are working side-byvalue is vested in the knowledge and expertise of those who comprise and Second, using the technologies of work side. This is the result of greater serve if. Human knowledge—not land, to manage private lives breaks down barriers movement across borders; direct immicapital, or machines—has become the betioeen public and private, work and home. gration to non-gafeway cities; the essential asset, shifting the balance of assimilation of African-Americans into As technology becomes ubiquitous, power azvay from organizations and zones of privacy erode. Public and pri- the mainstream of American life; and toward individuals. vate concerns can no longer be separat- fhe fact thaf members of subcultures ed. Private issues are resolved in public; no longer necessarily find value in subThe shift to a knowledge economy privafe behaviors fhaf were in the past merging efhnic, nafional and religious has three implications for leaders: identify in order to adjust to notions of tolerated have become fhe subject of 3. Individuals noiv own tbe primary a fasf-fragmenting "mainstream/' means of all production. The knowledge economy offers more freedom, choices, Thus leaders must show nimbleness and scope for acfion to those whose and sensitivity to cultural difference to skills and talents have real value. In a balance the needs of their diverse conknowledge economy, talent can't be stifuency. They must also see that divercompelled, but must be encouraged sity is not simply openness to race or and coaxed. Leaders must attract and gender, buf to different values as well. inspire people to use their best talents. Power and Influence 2. Knowledge must be broadly z>ested. In the industrial world, knowledge was The economic, technological and often prized only at the top of the pyrademographic changes work together, mid or chain of command. Dedsioas resulting in a rapidly shifting landscape were made by "heads" at the top; public debate; public and political mat- in which the power and influence of implementation was done by "hands" ters are increasingly viewed as matters those in the ranks becomes integral fo in the ranks. By contrast, in a knowlof privafe concern; and private and work- how organizations function. This turns edge economy, knowledge musf be traditional notions of leadership upside ing hours encroach upon each other. distributed broadly fo be effectively down. For if people in the ranks are Leaders must negotiate the frontier leveraged. Leaders must build colleempowered, if their knowledge constibetween public and privafe, aligning giality and spread decision-making. tutes a primary value, if they can comtheir private actions wifh their public municate directly, and if they prize 3. Since a great idea has greater worth face and respecting privacy that their diversity, they will not be led by mythan costly machines or even access to cap- stakeholders value. Failure to do so way-or-fhe-highway autocrats. ital, competition can come from anyiohere. brings rapid and severe public A 100-year investment can be trumped response, even for fhose whose position To the extent that leadership is equatovernight by a smarter vision of how made them unassailable in the past. ed with and derived from posifion, if to offer a product or perform a service. The third change is demographic. This will be less potent. New concepts of This puts a premium on innovation, is manifest in fhe inclusion of women leadership will be vesfed less in posicontinually adapt to changing condiinfo positions of aufhority and inflution than in the power of connections, tions. Since new ideas are paramount, ence. Women bring witb them many of relationships, individual expertise, perleaders must be skilled in creating a fhe talents, atfifudes, and presumpsonal qualities, aspirations, and earned culture in which innovation flourishes. tions that were formerly honored in fhe personal authority. Leaders need to domestic sphere info the public realm. make the mental shift away from tradiSecond, a new architecture of techThis has had a profound impact upon tional models and sources of pwwer and nology is reshaping organizations. whaf is required of leaders. Relationexercise flexibility and sensitivity to Today's networked systems are fast, flexible, interactive, and non-hierarchi- ship skills, intuifiveness, inclusiveness, meef the challenge of the new model, LE coaching, fhe capacity fo listen—these cal in shape and structure, facilitating Sally Helgesen is a leadership devetopmeni consultant and direct communication. Those who are were considered "soft" skills, antitheti- coadi. Visit wtmo.satlylielgesen.cam or call 51S-392-1998. cal fo heroic conceptions of chargecomfortable communicating directly. ACTION: Tap into new sources of power. New Sources of Power May 2008 Copyright of Leadership Excellence Essentials is the property of HR.com, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. LEADERSHIP • POV/ER Soft Power Mix it with hard power. by Joseph S. Nye, Jr. EADBiSHU' K CHANONG. iThe information revolution is transforming organiza tioi'LS. Hierarchies are becoming flatter, and knowledge workers respond to different incentives and political appeals. People today are less deferential to authority. Soft power— the ability to get what you want by attraction rather than coercion or payment—is more important. The CEO of Google says he has to "coddle" his employees. Even the military is changing. The Pentagon reports that American army drillmasters do "less shouting at everyone/' because today's generation responds better to instructors who play a more "counseling role." Military success against terrorists and counterinsurgents requires soldiers to win hearts and minds, not just break bodies. We see an increase in the use of more participative management processes and "shared" or "distributed" leadership. They suggest images of leaders in the center of a circle rather than atop a hierarchy. Not everyone agrees. Stanford psychologist Roderick Kramer warns: "In our enchantment with sodal intelligence and soft power, we've overlooked 3ie skills leaders need to bring about transformation in cases of tremendous resistance or inertia." Kramer describes bullies who have a vision and disdain stKial constraints as "great intimidators". Yet they often succeed. Hard and soft power are related. They are both approaches to achieving one's purpose by affecting the behavior of others. Sometimes people are attracted to others with command power by myths of inviiidbility. As Osama bin Laden put it, "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse." Some intimidators have a vision, belief in their cause, and reputation for success that attracts others despite their bullying behavior—witness the examples of Steve Jobs, Martha Stewart and Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear navy. Rickover was a small man, far from the top of his class at Annapolis, who did not look the part of a warrior or sea captain. His success as a Navy leader came from his skills in cultivating Congressional support and resources, and from a discipline that tolerated no failures among his officers. The result was the creation of an efficient, accident-free nuclear submarine force with a mystique of success that attracted bright officers. Able people wanted to join him because Rickover was renowned for his strategic vision, not for being a nice boss. Hard and soft power sometimes reinforce and sometimes interfere with each other. Although Jim Jones used soft power to persuade his follow ers to commit mass suicide, ho had an inner core of eight henchmen who used a degree of coercion on followers who threatened to defect. Crowing awareness of this use of hard power threatened to "pop the bubble" of the cult's illusion.^ and accelerated its sad end. In response to Al QaedaS terrorist attacks. Vice President Dick Cheney argued that a strong military force would deter further attacks. Yes, the hard power of military and police force was needed to counter Al Qaeda, but indiscriminate use of hard power— the Iraq invasion, Abu Ghraib prison pictures, and Cuantanamo detentions without trial—served to increase terrorist recruits. The lack of effective soft power component undercut the strategy to respond to terrorism. Every leader needs some soft power. Those who rely on coercion aren't leaders but power wielders. Not all power behavior is leadership, but even tyrants and despots need a degree of soft power, at least within an inner circle. A dictator must attract or induce an inner circle of henchmen to impose his coercive tecliniques on others. Except for some religious leaders, such as the Dalai Lama who combines personal and positional power, soft power is rarely sufficient. And a leader who only courts popularity may be reluctant to exercise hard power when he or she should. Alternatively, leaders who throw their weight around without regard to the effects on their soft power may find others placing obstacles in the way of their hard power. Too much assertiveness by a leader worsens relationships, just as too little limits achievement. As CEO Jeff Imnielt says, "When you run General Electric, there are 12 times a year when you have to say, 'you're doing it my way.' If you do it 18 times, the good people will leave. If you do it three times, the company falls apart." Machiavelli said it is more important for a prince to be feared than to be loved. Perhaps, but we forget that the opposite of love is not fear, but hatred. When the exercise of hard power undercuts soft power, it makes leadership more difficult. Combining hard and soft power into an effective strategy is "smart power." Soft power is not good per se, and it is not always better than hard power. Nobody likes to feel manipulated, even by soft power. Soft power can be used for competitive purposes, and we often talk about wtirs ofwonis— one person's attraction pitu.\\ against another's. A I'irsident may campaign against legislators in their home districts or run ads pushing his agenda and attacking theirs. He is using his attraction to combat theirs, thus putting pressure on them. In that sense, soft power can feel "coercive," but ifs a different sense of coercion than what the victim experiences with physical (though not economic) hard power. In a competition with soft power, it matters much what you and others think. If I shoot you to achieve my objective, it doesn't matter much what you think. Like any form of power, soft power can be wielded for gcxid or bad purposes, and these often vary according to the eye of the beholder. Bin Laden possesses a great deal of soft power in the eyes of his followers, but that does not make his actions good. It is not necessarily better to twist minds than to twist arms. If I want to steal your money, I can threaten you with a gun, lure you into a fraudulent get-rich-quick scheme, or persuade you with a false claim. I can then abscond with your money. The first two approaches rest on the hard power of coercion and inducement while the third depends solely upon attraction or soft power. Yet, the intentions and result remain theft. The views and choices of followers matter more in the case of soft power. And in an age of flatter hierarchies and empowered knowledge workers, soft power is increasing in importance. We need to place more emphasis on the contextual intelligence that enables leaders to combine hard and soft power resources into a smart power strategy.LE ¡Qseph S, Nyf, Ir. is former dean of Ihe Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and aullior of The Power if l^ad. Email josi'ph_nyc(V>Han'ard.eäii. ACTION: Cultivate and exercise your soft power.