CARACTERÍSTICAS DE CRECIMIENTO. .1 Peso al nacimiento

The power balance between a buyer and a supplier influences their adaptive behaviour.

Christopher and Towill, 2001 demonstrate the important role of supply chain managers in implementing change—and hence acting in the role of a change manager—with the example of the implement-

ation of agile principles throughout a SC. As with sustainability, the introduction of agility as a principle requires the restructuring of in- terorganizational relationships. Similarly, as important as working on the relationship itself is for both ideas, there is a need to convince upstreamSCpartners to adopt certain operational principles.

“Power in relationships” is understood as one of the “principal component bodies of supply chain literature”, more specifically in the category of organizational behaviour (Croom et al., 2000, p. 70). On top of the findings from the literature about social exchange (Blau, 1964; Cook, 1977; Emerson, 1962), French Jr. and Raven (1959, p. 260) found further bases of power which go beyond the solely dependence- based power advantage (equation 3.4). Power is defined “in terms of influence, and influence in terms of psychological change” (equa- tions (3.5) and (3.6)). Following the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), a psychological change in the mindset (attitude, equation 3.7) is what brings adaptation to a common sustainability understanding between buyer and supplier (Ajzen, 1991) (equation 3.8).

1

Dependence ∝Power (3.4)

Power→Influence (3.5)

Influence→Psychological Change (3.6)

Psychological Change=Change of Attitude (3.7)

3.2.3 French and Raven’s Bases of Power

3.2.3.1 Five Bases of Power

For the determination of power relationships, French Jr. and Raven (1959) have selected five particularly important bases of power. The bases of power are used to describe due to which perceived circumstance the power is allocatable. The influence, which is found to cause a change in attitude and ultimately in behaviour, is based on the five circumstances French Jr. and Raven describe. The identification of the types of power and their systematic definition allows a comparison of the changes they can produce. The change that can be achieved through the exertion of power can be of various types. French Jr. and Raven (1959, p. 260) list the following possibilities of change occurring due to exertion of power:

• Behaviour, • opinion, • attitude, • goals, • needs, and • values.

An “agent”, which could be a powerful person or firm, is con- sidered to exert positive control if it can produce an intended change. Positive control is therefore needed by a firm ambitious to drive its sustainability agenda through the supply chain.

From the perspective of the more influential and hence more power- ful entity in the relationship, the five original power bases are (French Jr. and Raven, 1959, p. 263):

r e wa r d p o w e r: Reward power is based on the influenced entity’s perception that the agent “has the ability to mediate rewards for him”.

c o e r c i v e p o w e r: Coercive power is based on the influenced en- tity’s perception that the agent “has the ability to mediate pun- ishments for him”.

l e g i t i m at e p o w e r: Legitimate power is based on the influenced entity’s perception that the agent “has a legitimate right to pre- scribe behaviour for him”.

r e f e r e n t p o w e r: Referent power is based on the desire of the in- fluenced entity to be associated with the agent.

e x p e r t p o w e r: Expert power is based on the influenced entity’s perception that the agent “has some special knowledge or ex- pertness” which is either useful or necessary for him or her. Please note that the power bases are mainly grounded on the per- ception of the entities in the relationship. This goes hand in hand with Lippitt et al.’s (1952) conclusion that actions resulting from power in- fluences are based on the perceived power, not on an objective meas- ure of power (see also summary 9).

The Scopus® database reveals 1,358 citations of the original work of French Jr. and Raven (1959).3

The interest in the framework is gain- ing popularity as the climbing numbers of annual citations in fig-

3 Google Scholar finds even more articles citing French Jr. and Raven’s framework (see page 124).

ure 3.2a show, whilst it is widespread across different subject areas (figure 3.2b). 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 0 50 100 No. of articles Publications cit- ing French Jr. and Raven (1959)

(a) Distribution over the years

0 200 400 600

Business, Mgmt. & Accounting Psychology Social Sciences Economics & Finance Computer Science Medicine Decision Sciences Arts & Humanities Engineering Nursing Environmental Science Health Professions Mathematics Agricultural & Biology Multidisciplinary

No. of articles Publications citing French Jr. and Raven (1959)

(b) Distribution over subject areas

Figure 3.2.: Statistics from the Scopus®database for the citation of French Jr. and Raven (1959)

French Jr. and Raven (1959) further elaborate the five bases of power. In order to provide an idea of what is behind these bases of power, a description in note form is given for each base. The description uses the abstract terminology of influenced and influential party. Projec- ted on the case of a dyadic exchange relation with a powerful buyer trying to permeate its sustainability agenda upstream, the influential party would be the buyer and the influenced party the supplier.

r e wa r d p o w e r.

• Having the capability to reward.

• The perception of the magnitude of the reward of the influenced party determines the strength of this power. Rewarding posit- ively and the removal of negatively perceived penalties both count as reward power.

• Piecework in the manufacturing industry is an example of re- ward power.

• Reward power increases the attraction of the influenced party to the influential party.

• The proximity of reward to coercive power is close. If the influ- enced party “conforms in order to obtain praise for conformity”, reward power has been exercised; on the other hand if the in- fluenced party conforms to the norms of a group “only because he fears ridicule or expulsion [. . . ] for nonconformity”, coercive power is executed.

c o e r c i v e p o w e r.

• Having the capability to punish.

• The perception of the magnitude of the possible punishment of the influenced party determines the strength of this power. Further, the chances of the influenced party to avoid the pun- ishment through conforming play a role in the perceived mag- nitude.

• Minimum quantity output goals in production with the threat of losing the job at non-fulfillment would be an example of co- ercive power.

• Depending on the situation, the “withdrawal of a punishment” equals a reward, and the “withholding of a reward” equals a punishment. Hence, in some situations the coercive power and the reward power a quite similar.

• Coercive power tends to decrease the attraction of the influ- enced party to the influential party.

• The influenced party has the perception that the influential party “has a legitimate right to influence” and that the influenced

party “has the obligation to accept this influence”.

• This perception derives from experiences in the past (or in the case of an individual from, for example, education and values taught while growing up) or just cultural values. These percep- tions in social life could be obeying an older person or a person from a different caste.

• Legitimate power is related to authority.

• By trying to apply legitimate power that does not exist in the perception of the influenced party, the attraction to the influen- cing party decreases and so does the possibly small amount of available legitimate power.

r e f e r e n t p o w e r.

• The influenced party identifies itself with the often prestigious influencing party.

• Striving for “oneness” with the influencing party.

• The influenced party may feel like a member of a group, which is then the influencing party.

• If the parties are closely related, the influenced party will try to maintain this relationship.

• The influenced party may be unaware of the power the influen- cing party exerts through this channel.

• Referent power is about achieving satisfaction from the per- spective of the influenced party, rather than being controlled by an influencing party.

• A higher attraction to the influencing party leads to more refer- ent power.

e x p e r t p o w e r.

• The influenced party in a relationship decides through its per- ception of the influential party’s expertise the strength of the prevalent expert power.

• The expert power can only be exerted in the area of expertise (a lawyer would be trusted for legal advice, less for medical advice; a medical doctor would be trusted for medical advice, less for legal advice).

• Expert power can be based on the credibility of the influential party (trust), as well as logical reasoning based on facts supplied by the influential party (“informational influence”).

• The influenced party has to believe that the influential party tells the truth and has some expert knowledge about the matter under discussion.

• Expert power is delimited. It appears to be of greater influence in cases where a certain referent power is installed as well. French Jr. and Raven (1959) conclude that referent power has the broadest range of all five bases of power. Further, the usage of any form of power outside its sphere of action will reduce the power. Since coercive power is likely to decrease attraction from the influ- enced party to the influential party, a more legitimate coercion can be exerted in order to minimize this effect.4

4 “The more legitimate the coercion the less it will produce resistance and decrease attraction.” French Jr. and Raven (1959, p. 268)

A desired change can only be triggered if the correct base of power is exerted on the influenced party. The influenced party must hold the perception that the influential party can actually draw on this power. If this is not the case, the power of the influential party is likely to decrease and the desired change is not triggered through this channel.

Other models have extended or compressed the findings from French Jr. and Raven (1959) (Handy, 1976; Morgan, 2006).

3.2.3.2 The Sixth Base of Power

Yukl and Falbe (1991) found in an exploratory study that different situations or relations require differently exercised power. By apply- ing the principle of the five bases of power, the authors find two groups suitable for different tasks: a) reward power and coercive power were found to be more appropriate for middle managers as a tool to influence their subordinates, whereas b) legitimate and expert power, as well as agent persuasiveness, were applied most effectively to achieve influence over managers or peers. It is understood that the aim is to influence peers in the scenario of implementing sustainabil- ity in a dyadic buyer-seller relationship. Persuasiveness is understood as informational power, which was added later to the bases of power.