What are the Five Forms of Power?

John French and Bertram Raven introduced the following five forms of power:

1. Coercive Power
2. Reward Power
3. Legitimate Power
4. Referent Power
5. Expert Power

1. Coercive Power

This form of power is based upon the idea of coercion. This means that
someone is forced to do something against their will. The main objective of
coercion is compliance. This form of power illustrates what happens when
compliance is not obtained. According to French en Raven there are also other
forms of power that can be used in a coercive manner such as withholding
rewards or expertise or using referent power to threaten social exclusion. The
force of power is also associated positively with punitive behaviour and
negatively associated with conditional reward behaviour. This form of power
often leads to problems. In many cases this form of power is abused. Coercive
power can lead to unhealthy behaviour and dissatisfaction at work. Leaders
who use this leadership style rely on threats in their management styles. Often
these threats relate to dismissal or demotion.

2. Reward Power

This type of power involves the ability of individuals to delegate matters they
do not wish to do to other people and to reward them for this. For managers
in an organization it is a perceived possibility to value or reward their
subordinates’ good results in a positive manner. This form of power is based
on the idea that as a society we are more inclined to do things well when we
are getting something in return for this. The most popular forms are raises,
promotions or compliments. The problem with this form of power is that when
the reward does not have enough perceived value to others, the power is
weakened. One of the frustrations when using rewards is that they often need
to be bigger than the last time if they are to have the same effect. Even then,
when they are given regularly, employees can become satiated by the rewards
and as a result, they will lose their effectiveness.

3. Legitimate Power

This form of power gives the ability to link certain feelings of obligation or
notion of responsibility to the management. Rewarding and punishing
employees can be seen as a legitimate part of the formal or appointed
leadership role. Most managers in organizations execute a certain degree of
reward and punishment. Legitimate power is usually based on a role. People
always run with the pack and traditionally obey the one person with power
which is solely based on their position or title. This form of power can easily
be overcome as soon as someone loses their position or title. This power is a
weak form to persuade and convince other people.

4. Referent Power

This form of power is about management based on the ability to administer to

someone a sense of personal acceptance or approval. The leader in this form
of power is often seen as a role model. Their power is often treated with
admiration or charm. This power emanates from a person that is highly liked
and people identify strongly with them in some way. A leader who has referent
power often has a good appreciation of their environment and therefore tends
to have a lot of influence. Responsibility in this form of power is heavy and
one can easily lose oneself in this. In combination with other forms of power,
it can be very useful. Celebrities often have this form of power in society, but
also lose a lot of power because of certain circumstances.

5. Expert Power
This form of power is based on in-depth information, knowledge or expertise.
These leaders are often highly intelligent and they trust in their power to fulfil
several organizational roles and responsibilities. This ability enables them to
combine the power of reward in the right mode. The fact is that if someone
has a particular expertise within an organization, they can often persuade
employees, who trust and respect them, to do things for them. This expertise
is greatly appreciated and forms the basis of this type of leadership.
 The consequences of social power
Learning outcome
Completing this section will help you understand the differences in how managers and leaders use social
power.
All five sources of social power – coercive, reward, legitimate, expert and referent – can influence department
members, so why should a head emphasize some rather than others? The answer is that different sources of
power affect the recipients of that power in different ways. The use of some kinds of power may please the
department members and increase the head's influence in the future; the use of others may alienate members
of the department and lessen the head's future influence.
Reflect on what the consequences of using specific kinds of power might be. Consider the following questions,
then move on to our own thoughts.
Question 1 of 6:

What might be the consequences of using coercive power?

Our thoughts:
No one likes to be threatened. Department members may do what the head wants if they are threatened with
political, social, financial – or even physical(!) – retribution if they do not, but coercion is also likely to cause
anger and alienation. As a consequence, even if department members appear to agree to a head's demand,
they may follow the letter but not the spirit of a new policy, refuse to enact it when no one is watching them,
sabotage it, and be less willing to accept the head's influence in the future.
Question 2 of 6:

What might be the consequence of using reward power?

Our thoughts:
Some people are motivated by rewards and may become more productive, but others find the offering of
rewards distasteful and become alienated. Doing something for a reward may reinforce the perception that the
recipient is in a position subservient to the person granting the reward. Large rewards may spur activity, but the
awards available in universities are often small and may be divisive. Heads should be very selective in their use
of reward power, and only use it when they are fairly certain of how department members will respond to it.
While it can sometimes be constructive, it can also be disruptive.
Question 3 of 6:

What might be the consequence of using legitimate power?

Our thoughts:
A head has a prescribed degree of legal authority through university bylaws and other legal documents, and
can exercise the legitimate power of the office without necessarily generating either favorable or unfavorable
feelings among department members. As long as the head acts within the bounds of appropriate behavior,
department members are likely to be indifferent and to accept what the head says or does. However, an action
taken by the head outside the department's 'zone of acceptance', may lead to anger and alienation.
Question 4 of 6:

What might be the consequence of using expert power?

Our thoughts:
Expertise is highly valued, particularly in universities. Heads with some particular area of expertise that is
recognized by the department as being related to its own success can exert influence that is unlikely to induce
alienation among those responding to it.
Question 5 of 6:

What might be the consequence of using referent power?

Our thoughts:
Department members are likely to give special attention to a head with whom they identify, and who has their
respect and admiration. Heads who are able to use referent power can usually exert influence without creating
alienation among their followers.
Question 6 of 6:

Finally, if you wanted to be a leader as well as a manager, which forms of power would you be most – and
least – likely to use?
Our thoughts:
While all forms of social power are potentially available to heads, not all of them should be used by someone
wishing to be a leader. Influence based on coercion or reward reflects dominance rather than leadership (as
does the use of legitimate power beyond the department's zone of acceptance). It is likely to alienate
department members in the long run, and (if used excessively) may cause heads to forfeit any possibility of
being identified by the department as a leader.
In contrast, heads who are thought of as leaders are able to influence their departments through expert and
referent power. Use of these two forms of power, as well as the moderate and appropriate use of legitimate
power that falls within the department's zone of acceptance, is generally non-alienating and permits the head to
maintain influence.
Differences in the use of power available to those heads considered only managers, and to those heads
considered also to be leaders, can be compared as follows:
Managers and legitimate power

Good managers rely to a great extent on the legitimate power they are able to exercise because of their
position. As long as they exercise this power properly it is unlikely to create either alienation or support.
Managers and expert/referent power

Good managers are likely to have relatively little expert or referent power; both may increase as they gain
experience in their position, and if they become seen by the department as knowledgeable and likeable.
Managers and coercive/reward power

A good manager is expected to use some coercive and reward power on occasion. Department members may
not always like this and may become somewhat alienated but, unless the manager's actions are seen as
seriously violating academic principles, departments are likely to grudgingly accept them.
Leaders and expert/referent power

Good leaders rely on the use of expert and referent power because they are most likely to be accepted by
department members and least likely to lead to alienation. Leaders may invoke legitimate power, but always to
a lesser extent than do managers, and always within the department's zone of acceptance.
Leaders and coercive/reward power

Good leaders use reward power infrequently because it may disrupt the department. Coercive power is avoided
whenever possible, but remains available when condoned by the department (for example, if the department
asks the head to punish a member seen by them as egregiously incompetent or destructive).
Comparing use of power

Both managers and leaders utilize the same sources of power. The differences between them may not be the
social powers they use, but the frequency with which they use them and the consequent impact on the
department's willingness to accept influence in the future.
Remember that leadership is both a science and an art:

 The science of leadership tells us that influence can be gained or lost depending on the extent to
which each of the five sources of power has been, and is being, used
 The art of leadership is that the proper mix of these five sources cannot be prescribed, but must be
determined by each head who wishes to be identified as a leader by a specific department.

And remember that, in all cases, the distribution of the frequency with which these five sources of power are
used does not necessarily depend on what the head objectively does, but rather on the department's
perception of what the head does. Therefore:

 The ability of a head to influence by using non-alienating power depends on the beliefs of the
department members
 A head must constantly attend to the effects of the sources of power used and their frequency:
influence built up over years through careful use of referent and expert power can be almost
immediately lost through a single non-judicious act of coercive power.
Consequences of Power
Abstract
This Article challenges a basic premise that litigants and their attorneys broadly
understand and desire similar things from litigation-track mediation processes. In
providing new empirical research from medical malpractice cases, I offer disconcerting
evidence of the surprising degree to which perceptions and meanings ascribed to these
litigation-track processes are not only diverse, but frequently contradictory. I demonstrate
that notwithstanding their different allegiances, lawyers on all sides of cases have
correspondingly similar understandings of the meaning and purpose of litigation-track
mediations. At the same time, I show how plaintiffs and defendants have the same
understandings and visions of what mediation is and how they wish to resolve their cases
there short of trial. Yet disputants' views are diametrically opposed to those of legal actors,
often including their own lawyers. This is seen to be seriously problematic though one
manifestation of these differences: the issue of defendant attendance at mediation. Due to
disparities in knowledge, power and interests as between litigants and attorneys, I show
that plaintiffs and defendants are regularly not afforded communication opportunities to
address issues of prime importance to them during the process. Thus, by examining the
process from a unique angle - that of juxtaposing actors' discourse on all sides of the same
cases - the Article reveals inherent problems with the core workings of the legal system.
This is something that current debates on formal and informal processing of litigated
disputes have failed to capture.

Consequently, the Article offers a new theory that argues for the reinvention of identities of
attorneys and clients in the context of litigation and mediation. This would necessitate
revising conceptions about formal and informal case processing. Reflecting each actor
group's disparate understandings and needs is an unlikely conceptual alignment between
plaintiffs and defendants, distancing them from legal actors (including their own
representatives). Lawyers are also notionally aligned, regardless of which side they are on.
Each new conceptual group, i.e. (1) attorneys on all sides, and (2) disputing plaintiffs and
defendants, ascribe similar meanings to these disputes and their resolution, want similar
things and want communication. However, these new groups do not want the same things
nor do they speak the same language in describing these cases and their resolution. Thus,
actors involved in dispute resolution create competing meanings.

The Article further argues that increasing attention to litigants' extra-legal needs during
litigation-linked mediation processes is necessary. In an attempt to remedy the specific
problem of defendants' absences from litigation-track mediations, three suggestions are
put forward: (1) opt out clauses within court rules or statutes on mandatory mediation that
effectively allow defendants' absences by agreement of the parties should be changed; (2)
lawyers, at a minimum, should attempt to bring at least a proportion of their defendant
clients to these mediations in order to realistically assess what effects this has on their
cases; (3) further emphasis on litigants' extra-legal realities and needs during case
processing is necessary in law schools as well as in continuing legal education for
attorneys. In examining a range of possible objections to these proposals, the Article
concludes that they do not provide a sound basis to oppose increased focus upon litigants'
extra-legal realities and needs within litigation-linked processes.