Compliance is an important element of the relationship between those who have power and those over whom power is exercised. Research shows that it is power that ensures others are compliant. However, it is the involvement and engagement that establishes the attitude the subject will have towards the exercise of that power. The concepts of Compliance Typology and Bases of Power are especially relevant to PMOs, where different approaches are needed to apply different types of power, often to people who may be more senior in an organisational hierarchy.
What is Compliance Typology?
Compliance typology was a concept developed by Amitai Etzioni in 1961. He created a typology by combining three types of power with three types of subject involvement, shown in the table below.
| Type of power | Paired involvement |
|---|---|
| Coercive | Alienative |
| Remunerative | Calculative |
| Normative | Moral |
- Coercive Power was described as involving the potential use of physical force to gain compliance (e.g. a master/slave relationship).
- Remunerative (or Utilitarian) Power was based on rewards and sanctions such as a system of payment and fines.
- Normative Power requires the subject to believe that the authorities have a right to govern and exert power.
- Alienative Involvement means that the power subject disagrees with the power holder and submits against his or her will, usually out of fear.
- Calculative Involvement refers to the subject's choice to comply, either in expectation of a reward, or to avoid sanctions.
- Moral Involvement is the result of agreement based on the social norms of a value system.
As the table suggests, the relationships on the diagonal are most frequently seen. For example, where the involvement is highly alienative, a coercive power may be the only effective means of power. Other combinations are seen in organisations, but Etzioni notes that organisations tend to strive towards a congruent approach, that is to say, an approach along the diagonal.
Whilst Etzioni’s model can help explain why employees are willing to follow directions or not, the boxes are very broad. Most businesses would expect to be in the centre box most of the time, although those in the third sector, politics, medicine and science may push towards the bottom right. The model is useful, but tighter classifications allow more critical thinking and assessment. For this reason, organisations tend to use French and Raven’s bases of power, which offers six classifications.
What are Bases of Power?
John R. P. French and Bertram Raven set out five bases of power in 1959. Raven added a sixth, informational power, in a 1965 paper of his own. They are:
- Coercive Power uses the threat of force. This does not necessarily mean physical force: it can also be social, emotional or financial.
- Reward Power focuses on the ability to provide rewards. These need not be financial: they can also take the form of social recognition.
- Legitimate Power is power that comes from position or role. Your CEO has legitimate power. So do your parents.
- Reference Power is derived from the organisations or tribes to which you belong, such as trade unions, charter groups and meetups.
- Expert Power is where expertise is the source of power (knowledge is power). Expertise is limited to the area of expertise, e.g. doctors or lawyers.
- Informational Power comes as a result of possessing knowledge that others need or want. It is often short-term: once you have shared the information, you no longer have the power it gave you.
When to use Compliance Typology and Bases of Power
Many people who work in the PMO space are familiar with stakeholder analysis, most often when devising communication strategies. However, it is important for PMOs to also consider their own bases of power, the bases held by those they are engaging with, and how these align with the organisation’s typology.
Consider rolling out a new timesheeting process, where employees are required to complete a timesheet every week. This is likely to meet with resistance. As a PMO, you may not have legitimate power over the employees affected. Power is likely to be limited to reference power (the power derived from being part of the PMO team) and coercive power (naming and shaming individuals who do not comply). But there are other types of power that can be put to good use in this situation. Expert power can be used to influence leaders, who can in turn use their own legitimate power to support you. Alternatively, you could consider a reward scheme that recognises consistently diligent employees.
Power should also be considered when you are undertaking a compliance role with project managers. Too often in these situations the project manager sees the PMO using coercive power:
The PMO Police!
Approaching compliance using expert, informational and reference power tends to produce more positive long-term results, particularly if your organisation is one that strives to be closer to the bottom-right of Etzioni’s diagonal.
Further Reading
- Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. (Revised edition, Free Press, 1975, ISBN 978-0-02-909620-8.)
- French, J.R.P. and Raven, B. (1959). ‘The Bases of Social Power’. In D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
- Raven, B.H. (1965). ‘Social Influence and Power’. In I.D. Steiner and M. Fishbein (eds.), Current Studies in Social Psychology, pp. 371-382. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.