Authority and Administrative Behavior in Schools

Authority is a basic feature of life in schools because it provides the basis for legitimate control of
administrators, teachers, and students. A primary source of control is formal authority that is vested in the
office or position and not in the particular person who performs the official role (Merton, 1957).

Formal authority, anchored and buttressed by formal sanctions, has a somewhat limited scope.
The existence of what Chester Barnard (1938) refers to as bureaucratic “zone of indifference” – in which
subordinates accept orders without question—may be satisfactory for eliciting certain minimum
performance levels, but it seems likely that this does not lead to an efficient operation. Formal authority
promotes minimal compliance with directives and discipline but it does not encourage employees to exert
effort, to accept responsibility, or to exercise initiative (Blau and Scott, 1962, 2003; Kotter, 1985).
Therefore, a basic challenge facing all administrators, an one especially significant for first level line
supervisors such as school principals, is to find methods to extend their influence over their professional
staff beyond the narrow limits of formal positional authority.

Sources of Power

Reward power is the administrator’s ability to influence subordinates by rewarding their

desirable behavior. The strength of this kind of power depends on the attractiveness of the rewards and
the extent of certainty a person can control rewards.

Coercive power is the administrator’s ability to influence subordinates by punishing them for
undesirable behavior. The strength of coercive power depends on the severity of the punishment and on
the likelihood that the punishment cannot be avoided. Punishment can take many forms—official
reprimands, undesirable work assignments, closer supervision, stricter enforcement of the rules and
regulations, denial of salary increments, or termination. Punishment is not without its negative effects.

Legitimate power is the administrator’s ability to influence the behavior of subordinates simply
because of formal position. Subordinates acknowledge that the administrator has a right to issue directives
and they have an obligation to comply. Every administrator is empowered by the organization to make
decisions within a specific area of responsibility, which is defined as the activities over which the
administrator has legitimate power. The further removed a directive from the administrator’s area, the
weaker his or her legitimate power. When directives from an administrator are accepted without question,
they fall within the subordinate’s “zone of indifference.” Such an order lies within an area that was
anticipated at the time the employee contracted with the organization and is seen by the employee as a
legitimate obligation.

Referent power is an administrator’s ability to influence behavior based on subordinates’ liking

and identification with the administrator. The individual with referent power is admired and respected,
and serves as a model to be emulated. The source of referent power rests with the extraordinary
personality and interpersonal skills of the individual. Not only individuals but also groups can have
referent power. Members of a positive reference group can also provide a source of referent power. Any
highly attractive individual who develops respect, trust, and loyalty among colleagues is likely to develop
such power.
 Expert power is the administrator’s ability to influence subordinates’ behavior on the basis of
specialized knowledge and skill. Subordinates are influenced because they believe that the information
and expertise the administrator holds are relevant, are helpful, and are things they themselves do not have.
Expert power is also a personal characteristic and does not depend on occupying a formal position of
power. The useful knowledge defines the limits of expert power. There is likely a time lag for new
administrators to acquire this kind of power.

Reward, coercive and legitimate power can be bound to the category of organizational position.
The higher the position, the greater the potential for power. Whereas, referent and expert power depend
much on the personal attributes of the administrator.

Administrative Uses of Power

Referent power is likely to produce positive feeling and facilitate the development of referent
power, but coercive power has the opposite effect (Huber, 1981). Moreover, subordinates may view
administrators who demonstrate expertise as having power that is more legitimate. In fact, expert power
may be the most stable form of power.

Referent power depends on personal loyalty to the administrator that grows over a relatively long
period of time. The development of loyalty to one’s superior is a social exchange process, which is
improved when administrators demonstrate concern, trust, and affection for their subordinates. Such
acceptance and confidence promote goodwill and identification with superiors, which in turn create
strong loyalty and commitment. Referent power is most effective if administrators select subordinates,
who are most likely to identify with them, make frequent use of personal appeals, and set examples of
appropriate behavior.

Expertise itself is usually not enough to guarantee commitment of subordinates. Successful use of
expert power requires that subordinates recognize the administrator’s knowledge and perceive the
exercise of that expertise to be useful. Thus, administrators must promote an image of expertise and then
use their knowledge to demonstrate its utility.

Authority is exercised through legitimate power. Legitimate requests may be expressed as orders,
commands, directives, or instructions. The outcome of the administrator’s request may be committed
compliance, resistance, simple compliance, or alienation depending on the nature and manner of request.
There is less likelihood of alienation and resistance if the administrator makes the request politely and
clearly, explains the reasons for the request, is responsive to the concerns of subordinates, and routinely
uses legitimate authority (Yukl, 2002, 1994).

`The use of reward power is a common administrative tactic to achieve compliance with
organizational rules or specific leader requests. The rewards may be either explicit or implicit, but it is
important that they are contingent on compliance with administrative directives. Compliance is most
likely when the request is feasible, the incentive is attractive, the administrator is credible source of
reward, the request is proper and ethical, and the compliance to the request can be verified. There are
some dangers in the use of rewards. Subordinate resistance and hostility. Moreover, the frequent use of
reward power can define the administrative relationship in purely economic terms; thus, subordinate
response becomes calculated based on tangible benefits. When rewards are given to express an
administrator’s personal appreciation for a job well done, however, it can become a source of increased
referent power.

Most effective administrators try to avoid the use of coercive power because it typically erodes
the use of referent power and creates hostility, alienation, and aggression among subordinates. The use of
coercion is usually considered when the problem is one of discipline and is most appropriate when used to
deter behavior detrimental to the organization. To be most effective, subordinates need to be informed
about the rules and penalties for violations. Coercion is never without the potential to alienate; thus
discipline must be administered promptly, consistently, and fairly. The administrator must maintain
credibility, stay calm, avoid appearing hostile, and use measured and appropriate punishments.

Power need not to be thought of as a constraining force on subordinates. Empowerment is the process by
which administrators share power and help others use it in constructive ways to make decisions affecting
themselves and their work (Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn, 1994; Hardy and LeibaO’Sullivan, 1998;
Leuch, Wall, and Jackson, 2003). Rather than viewing power as the domain of administrators, adherents
of empowerment increasingly see it as something to be share by everyone in more collegial organizations
(Lugg and Boyd, 1993).