Acerca de los Grupos Afrodescendientes registrados en la Universidad del Valle

Authority exists only in the tie between two individuals, in contrast to values that affect every participant in the organization; and identification, which is the personal equivalent, may correspond to only a fraction of the whole. Authority here refers to the power of an individual derived from the individual’s official position or based upon respect for the knowledge and experience of this person. It resides in the behavior of both the superior and the subordinate. Authority is commonly perceived as an attribute of the formal organization, which may, at a fist glance, appear to be a strange connection to the discussion about innovation. However, authority plays an essential part in coordination and particularly in the acceptance of decisions when the path chosen must cross the unknown.

Apart from the dimension of authority related to the formal

organization, authority is also related to expertise, which makes authority a vital factor of innovation. Authority is understood here as the suggestions and persuasion of one person being accepted by another person without critical consideration. The right authority serves as a guarantee for the expert quality of decisions, the coordination and articulation of respon-sibilities that emanate from the decisions. Expertise and coordination supposedly lead to a state in which all members involved are part of the same decision, or, more specifically, part of mutually consistent decisions

82

with respect to the desired ends.

Why persons with authority are needed may be understood from their positive influence over decisions. A decision is always a conclusion reached on the grounds of both facts and personal values. When individuals make a decision through a coordinated effort, with the merit of their own criteria, they simultaneously make themselves dependent on the behavior of their peers in the cooperative group. An individual decision also partly incorporates the decision of another person who guides the individual’s choice. The individual comes to accept those premises that form the grounds for the ’borrowed part’ of the decision, without questioning those underlying premises. The borrowed part of the solution rests on authority, which has the power to guide the actions of others. The borrowed piece of the decision contains a transportation of and imperative statement of the choice—a command—of somebody else, and an expectation that the choice is based on solid criteria. The behavior pattern of the subordinate is to follow the advice—the option—selected by the superior.

It is argued (Simon, 1945) that authority occurs only momentarily.

It is not to be expected that the subordinate recognize and follow all the commands of the superior, because individuals can choose to act on the basis of their own values. Those moments when two people play the roles of the superior and the subordinate builds on a mutual expectation of obedience. A subordinate obeying a superior must abdicate personal choice, unless the choice happens to be the same. Suggestion and

persuasion may change the view of the criteria of the environment, which eventually may lead to choice, and possibly conviction. In this situation, authority may be absent, and the choice is made autonomously with greater consideration. The use of the unquestioned statement or command of an authority tends to be seen as inferior to suggestion and persuasion, which are argued to be a potential route to conviction of a permanent nature. A command, Simon argue, does not lead to that destination, as the criterion of choice of a command is in a ’black box’.

83

Conviction is a belief, relevant in a particular decision. What comprises the strength of conviction is the built–in perception of proof, despite the fact that proof may often be absent for the individual. It is like the unlikely situation that the patient would ask a doctor prescribing pain medicine for proof that it will cure a pain. Surely a doctor has both the recognition and the knowledge to be convincing to patients. The authority of the doctor relies partly on merit in making recommendations, but also on social position.

The usefulness of authority may be seen from the perspective of constraints on time and expertise. Individuals acting on recommendations take short cuts—and for good reasons when they take recommendations that they trust. If each detail of every decision were back–tracked, the search for truth would supersede the decision and the consequences where the recommendation is needed. On the flip side of this coin may be the explanation for resistance; in situations of resistance, opponents do not allow short cuts, and find merits for debating suggestions outside the line of duty and questioning the criteria of the suggestions. Such activity is probably most likely to occur in situations with too many employees with plenty of time on their hands who keep themselves occupied digging up details. Consequently, projects with too much time are not necessarily efficient, because of this preoccupation with debating details that would best be kept in the ’black box’.

Narrowly speaking, authority goes along the organizational hierarchy, defining who has the ’right to the last word’. The formal organization is a scheme of distribution of authority. On the other hand, authority may be accepted for the subordinate’s convenience. Subordinates may be unwilling to accept responsibility, particularly for questions outside their area of competence and experience. Then it is opportune to avoid making own risky judgment and let the superior decide and take the responsibility.

The role behavior of a superior and subordinate does not always demonstrate behavior patterns of authority between the two. The area of

84

acceptance of the person as an authority is limited to the area of expertise.

The formal hierarchy of authority may not secure the vast expertise

required in individual decisions. Therefore, the authority may from time to time be found only in the networks of the informal organization, where the

’authority of ideas’ is also found.

This discussion on authority corresponds to the question of who actually leads. ’The leader, or superior, is merely a bus driver whose passengers will leave him unless he takes them in the direction they wish to go’ (Simon, 1945).