BBA Principle Management Power authority Study Material notes
Table of Contents
BBA Principle Management Power authority Study Material notes: Concept power dependency in power relationship factors determining dependency bases of power positional power personal power concept of authority sources of authority acceptance theory formal authority theory limits of authority competence theory distinction between authority and power accountability responsibility and delegation responsibility
MCom I Semester Study Material Notes / English
Power of Authority
Organisatior is are built by the aggregation of people for some common goals, and in order to achieve the se goals, people should behave in a manner specified by organisational rules. regulations, policies, and other methods. Organisations try to achieve this through the process of influencing behaviour of their members. The process of influence involves a series of social interactions by which a person or a group of persons is influenced by another persor or group of persons to act in conformance to the influencing agent’s expectations to do something. Thus, influence has three elements: the agent (A) exerting influence, the met’ nod of influence, and target (T) subjected to influence. The influence process can be expressed as A…T. Thus, if A is able to get Tto behave in a certain way, we can say that A h as influenced T. In an organisational context, there are various means through which behaviour of people can be influenced. These are power, authority, and leadership. However, their method of influencing is different. While power and authority tend to be closer to exerting pressure on targets, leadership is closer to persuasion to targets. In this chapter, we shall discuss power (and to some extent authority because of its close linkage to power): leadership will be discussed in Chapter 25.
Measures Making Committee Effective
Concept of Power
Power is a term which has been defined in different ways by different theorists because power can be used as a means of influence in different ways. For example, Max Weber, the famous sociologist, has defined power in social context as follows:
The basic theme of power as suggested by Weber is followed in management. For example, Bass and Stogdill have defined power as follows:
This definition implies that (1) agent (A) has potential to influence behaviour of target (B) that may or may not be actualised to be effective, (2) there is dependence relationship between agent and target, and (3) target has some discretion over his or her behaviour, which can be used by him or her in the absence of use of power by the agent. Dependency in power relationship determines, to a very great extent, whether use of power will be effective or not. Therefore, let us discuss this concept.
Measures Making Committee Effective
Dependency in Power Relationship
Power variable is a relational one. A person or group cannot have power in isolation; it has to be in relationship to other person or group. The parties involved in power relationship are tied to each other by mutual dependency. By virtue of mutual dependency, it is more or less imperative for each party to be able to control or influence other’s conduct. It implies that each party to the power relationship is in a position to some degree to grant or deny facilities or hinder the other’s gratification. Thus, the power to control or influence the other resides in control over things which other person values. This may be material things or abstract things like attitudes and ego support.
Dependency of some kind is the basic characteristic of all the modern organisations. Such dependency exists either among individuals or units and subunits. For example, the design of a bureaucratic organisation rests largely on the power variable with the intent ol ensuring that each level in the organisation has sufficient power. This power, however, is affected by informal patterns worked out over time and by personal differences in the exercise of the power available in a unit or subunit. Thus, various units may have power in varying amounts. For example, Perrow has concluded that in the industrial firms, sales departments are overwhelmingly regarded as the most powerful units. The other subunits of the firm regard them in that way and behave accordingly.
In the mutual dependency, the power of a person over another depends on the amount of resistance the other person can put against the influence attempts by the person. Thus, power is balanced if both have equal power and dependency upon each other. The relationship is imbalanced when either of them has more power or dependency than the other. This is the situation when power can be exercised. However, it does not mean that power always brings desired result. The possible responses to the use of power may vary along a continuum as shown in Figure 14.1
Resistance. The target person on whom the power is exercised may resist the influence and may not behave in accordance to influencer’s wishes. The attempt of influence may be thwarted by the person.
Obedience. The person may succumb to influence though he would rather not. When people are forced to behave against their wishes, it is referred to as obedience.
Compliance. The person may comply with the desire of the influencer. Compliance refers to a person’s acceptance of influence because he is expected to be rewarded for responding to a request or punished for not responding to it.
Conformity. The person may conform to the influencer’s desire. Conformity refers to acceptance of influence because people desire to be in mainstream of social behaviour. Often. people who are free to behave in different ways, will simply do what they see others doing.
Commitment. The person may show commitment to the desire of the influencer. This is the most desirable outcome from the use of power as there is enthusiastic release of energy and talent to satisfy the influencer’s requests.
Measures Making Committee Effective
Factors Determining Dependency
There are several factors that determine dependency between power agent and power target. Dependency increases when the resource that agent controls is important, scarce, and non-substitutable. Here, resource does not merely include physical and financial one but also includes knowledge, expertise, skills, etc. which are relevant for an organisation.
1 Importance of Resource. If the agent has resource which is perceived as important by the target, he will be more dependent on the agent. For example, organisations want to avoid uncertainty. Any organisational unit that is able to absorb this uncertainty is perceived as controlling an important resource and is more powerful. This is why marketing department is considered more powerful in industrial organisations.
2. Scarcity of Resource. If the agent has resource which is scarce, he will have more power because the target will be dependent on him. For example, in an organisation, if a low-ranking person holds knowledge that is scarce, he may be more powerful than the high-ranking persons.
3. Non-substitutability of Resource. If the agent has resource which does not have viable! substitute, he will have more power because the target depends on him. For example, in an organisation, if a person has certain skills which cannot be substituted even by combining the skills of many persons together, he is perceived to be more powerful. This phenomenon takes place mostly in the case of technical skills.
Measures Making Committee Effective
BASES OF POWER
Understanding of bases of power is important because these bases generate different types of power and a particular type of power is effective in a particular situation. However, researchers on power do not have full agreement about power bases, that is, from where the power is derived. Power has to be derived from somewhere because it is not always legitimised. For example, long back, Lasswell and Kaplan have suggested eight forms of influence: physical power, respect, rectitude, affection, well-being, wealth, skills, and enlightenment. Though these forms of influence are relevant in social context, these do not serve the purpose of applying power in the context of modern organisations. The most important classification of power has been provided by French and Raven who have suggested five types of power: reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert. This classification of power has been used by researchers for a long time. With the re-emergence of charismatic leadership, charismatic power has been added to the above list. Similarly, complexity of managing organisations requires lot of information and it has become vital, and possession of information has also become a form of power. Based on this development, Raven has identified power bases into two broad categories: positional and personal. Within each category, there are different types of power as shown in Figure 14.2.
Positional Power
Positional power, also known as formal power, emerges from the position that an individual holds in an organisation. Thus, it is similar to authority that vests in a position. The power of position remains the same (unless it is modified by the organisation) irrespective of who holds the position. In creating a position, the organisation simultaneously establishes a sphere of power for the person who holds this position. This sphere of power may include to give rewards, to inflict punishment, and to share information with others. The position holder, depending on his style of working, may use the power to gain the control over others. of course, within the overall framework provided by the organisation. Positional power may be of four types: legitimate, reward, coercive, information.
Legitimate Power. Legitimate power is based on agreement and commonly held values allowing one person to have power over another person. Such legitimacy may be either formal, as is the case with the organisation, or may be informal, as is the case with social units. For example, in our culture, age has certain premium and aged people have certain binding force over others even without having any other characteristics. In organisational setting, this legitimacy is in the form of authority which is delegated to the positions of organisational members. Though a person may derive authority from other sources in the organisation, the superior-subordinate relationship is enough to comply subordinates’ behaviour as directed, particularly in bureaucratic organisations.
Reward Power. Reward power is opposite of coercive influence. It is based on one’s control and allocation of material resources and rewards. This power is based on the old saying that ‘wealth is power’. In the organisational situation, this power is based on the control of salaries, wages, commissions, fringe benefits, and amenities. People comply with this power because they get benefits out of compliance. Reward power may be in the form of normative power also. Normative power is based on the allocation and manipulation of symbolic rewards which may be important for the people. The symbolic rewards may be in the form of prestige, affection, esteem, etc. Thus, anybody who can allocate or deny these holds the normative power. It can be exercised in limited interpersonal context or in wide context. Thus, it may also include manipulation of the communication system and ability to control rituals.
Coercive Power. Coercive power is defined as the power which rests upon the application or the threat of application of physical sanctions. The physical sanctions, out of the exercise of coercive power, may be in any form depending upon the situation. Thus, it can be in the form of infliction of pain, deformity, or death; generation of frustration through restriction of movement; or controlling the satisfaction of basic needs such as those for food, sex, comfort, or the like. In organisational situation, it may be in the form of action for or threat for dismissal, suspension, demotion, or other method of embarrassment for the people.
Information Power. Information power comes from access to and control of information. People in an organisation who have information that others need can make those dependent on them. For example, persons who have access to sensitive information like organisation’s future course of action, confidential financial date, etc. can use this information to influence subordinates’ behaviour in a particular way. Similarly, departments that have vital information which can be used at the time of uncertainty over some issues in the organisation like impending negotiation with workers as a result of industrial disputes become more powerful during the period of uncertainty.
Measures Making Committee Effective
Personal Power
Personal power is informal and resides with a person, regardless of his position in the organisation. Since personal power lacks organisational authority, an individual’s personal power emerges from his qualities that are unique. These qualities help him in persuading others to follow him willingly. Because of followers’ willingness, an individual with personal power often can inspire greater loyalty and dedication in followers than someone who has only positional power. There are three bases of personal power: expert power, referent power, and charismatic power.
Expert Power. Expert power is based on the famous proverb ‘knowledge is power’. Expert power is that influence which one wields as a result of one’s experience, special skill, or knowledge. This power occurs when the expert threatens to withhold his knowledge or skill. The implication of expert power is important in the sense that this is related with the individual’s personal characteristics. Since more organisations are gradually falling under the category of high technology, they will have to utilise the services of these individuals. Consequently, organisational choice of replacing these people will be limited. Since any person who is not easily replaceable has more power as compared to those who are easily replaceable, these people will have greater power over others.
Referent Power. Referent power is based on identification. Identification is the process of learning wherein a person copies the behaviour of other person whom he takes as an ideal. This may occur in the context of power also. Thus, referent power is based on identification with the person who may have some form of power. The target of the influence feels attracted towards the person having power because of his personality characteristics and tries to behave accordingly. Then this becomes the basis of power exercise. Such identification process may take place without organisational context as most of the people take somebody as ideal and behave accordingly up to a certain stage.
Charismatic Power. Charismatic power emerges from an individual’s charisma, a quality that is unique. Because of this charisma, the individual can articulate attractive visions, takes personal risk, demonstrates environmental sensitivity, and is willing to engage in behaviour that most others consider unconventional. Charismatic power has been more popular in political fields and some great persons like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc. had much higher influence without having any significant position in the political party than those having such positions. In the business field, persons like Dhirubhai Ambani, N.R. Narayana Murthy. Azim Premji. etc. have generated much influence because of their charismatic qualities.
Measures Making Committee Effective
Concept of Authority
Numerous concepts of authority exist in everyday life. For example, a person with superior knowledge and skills in some areas is called an authority, meaning that he is an expert. Officials such as managers or personnel in Government administration are referred to as ‘the authorities’. The expression authorised dealers’ denotes an appointed representative with special rights or permissions. The company form of the organisation itself exists as a legal authority. These are useful meanings of authority, but we need a more precise definition of the term as it is used in the context of the organisation and its management.
Authority, even in the context of organising, is defined in various ways because of the various sources through which one acquires authority in the organisation. For example. authority may arise because of official position of a person, his personal competence, or the nature of his subordinates. Naturally, the definition of authority will differ in all these cases. However, in the process of organising, the emphasis is mainly on positional authority. In this respect, authority may be defined as the legitimate right to give orders and get these orders obeyed. Thus, the exercise of authority involves superior-subordinate relationship Max Weber, a classical analyst of organisations, has defined authority as: Various scholars who rely on the formal aspect of authority define it in this way. For example, Simon, a noted thinker on organisational processes, has defined authority as follows:
Both these definitions emphasise the authority relationships in the context of superior and subordinate. However, in modern organisations, authority exists in the context of relationships among various positions which may be occupied by the persons not necessarily having a superior-subordinate relationships, for example, functional authority. Thus, authority may be defined from this perspective. For example, Weihrich and Koontz have defined authority as follows:
“Authority in the organisation is the power in a position (and through it, the person occupying the position) to exercise discretion in making decisions affecting others.”
Based on the definition of authority, we can identify the features of authority which are as follows:
1 There is existence of right in authority. This right is given to a manager in an organisation by his superior. This right puts a manager in a position by which he regulates the behaviour of his subordinates to act or not to act in certain ways.
2. The right of giving of order is legitimate. Unless there is an environment of legitimacy-meaning socially and ethically acceptable to all concerned-authority cannot be meaningful and operational.
3. Authority gives right of decision making because a manager can give order only when he decides what is to be or not to be done by his subordinates. As Terry has pointed out, the authority is exercised by making decisions and seeing that they are carried out.
4. The basic objective behind the use of authority is to influence the behaviour of the subordinates in terms of doing right things at right time so that organisational objectives are achieved. The use of authority may control the negative aspects of behaviour. This behaviour may be governed by persuasion, sanctions, request, coercion, constraints, and force; however a person with authority influences the behaviour of others that might otherwise take place.
5. Authority in itself is an objective thing but its exercise is always subjective. The use of authority is determined by the personality factors of its possessor and the persons or group of persons in whose context this is used.
Measures Making Committee Effective
SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
Some disagreement has developed in management literature about the sources of authority. The basic source of disagreement arises because of the question ‘who legitimises power and gives it the status of authority?’ ‘Who designates the areas in which a manager may legitimately exercise power, that is, exert his authority?’ One view is that authority is derived from higher levels, that is normally referred to as the theory of formal authority. However, according to another approach. legitimisation comes from below and flows upward. Accordingly, authority is conferred by those below a given manager. To the extent this legitimisation upward fails to occur, real authority is lacking. There is a third view which suggests that authority emerges from the competence of a person. Let us see how these theories explain the emergence of authority.
Measures Making Committee Effective
Formal Authority Theory
The views of classical management theorists and those of Max Weber on the nature of authority have much in common, in spite of their independent development. Both are theories of formal authority which stress hierarchy and legitimisation from top. Classical Theory. The classical theory holds that the authority inherent in a managerial position is achieved by delegation from the higher positions. In a corporate entity. shareholders may delegate authority to board of directors which may delegate to the chief executive. This proces goes on till the last level of the organisation, as shown in Flow of formal authority Flow of this authority is known as top-down authority. Thus, each manager in the organisation has specific set of authority delegated to him and built into the role prescriptions of his position. The real authority vests at the top level in the organisation. The authority at the top level arises because of provision of private property, social systems, constitution, etc. Irrespective of the specific source to which the ultimate authority is attributed, the classical theory of authority is basically a statement of what the situation should be if goal achievement is to be maximised. It establishes role prescriptions for managerial jobs. Authority at various levels of the organisation is required because managers at each level are responsible to get the things done which are assigned to them. Therefore, classical thinkers have suggested parity of authority and responsibility.
Measures Making Committee Effective
Views of Max Weber. Weber’s views on authority have the same prescriptive character: 11 an effective administrative organisation is to exist, authority should be of certain kind. In developing this theme, he contrasts three types of authority: rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic. 10 According to Weber, rational-legal authority is the common feature of most organisations existing today. It has its source in the enactment of law. This authority rests not in individuals, but in positions and rules and regulations that surround them. Weber contrasts this authority with two others. Traditional authority has its source in the sacredness of the social order and is inherited and follows long-established precedent, for example, feudal system of social organisations. Charismatic authority has its source in the affectual and personal devotion of subordinates. The personalities of both the ‘great man and those who respond to his directives are part of the authority process. There is, in this instance a considerable overlap with acceptance theory, an overlap which is not present in other two types of authority.
Measures Making Committee Effective
Acceptance Theory
Acceptance theory views authority as being present when a directive is legitimised by virtue of its acceptance from below. Authority exists when subordinates are willing to be directed. For the first time, Barnard challenged the traditional concept of flow of authority from top to bottom. According to him:
An essential ingredient of Barnard’s concept of source of authority, not always readily apparent, is that the person subject to authority voluntarily accepts it. If the acceptance is lacking among sufficient number of the employees affected, the manager has lost whatever power was involved in his authority, and finds that his right has become meaningless.
Under the acceptance view. organisational members make what amounts to a contractual agreement when they enter employment. They agree to work and accept authority in return for rewards such as pay and other benefits. This implicit contract involving contributions and inducements does not, however, extend to acceptance of all directives, whatever their nature may be. There is infact a’zone of indifference within which employees will permit authority to be exercised. Beyond this zone, acceptance does not occur and. thus, authority does not exist. The idea of a zone of indifference denotes that individuals tend to set specific limits within which they will respond willingly to the exercise of authority over them. Each person, thus, defines for himself three approximate categories for classifying possible actions: (1) actions that are clearly unacceptable and which will not be carried out; (2) actions that are borderline cases, either barely acceptable or barely unacceptable; and (3) actions that are unquestionably acceptable. This third group constitutes a zone of indifference. These actions are acceptable to the individual and will be performed by him without question as to the authority which is seeking to put him into effect.
The size of an indvidual’s zone of indifference is related to the evaluation he makes of the inducements to cooperate as compared to the burdens and sacrifices involved. According to Barnard, the range of orders accepted will be very limited among those who are barely induced to contribute to the system. From this, it follows that the higher the position held in the hierarchy of the organisation structure, the wider is the zone of indifference as shown in Figure 14.4.
The Zones of indifference for various levels of employees The zone of indifference varies with the level of employees because of varying equilibrium of inducements and contributions. In essence, an individual will measure the impact of acceptance or non-acceptance of an exercise of authority over his satisfaction. For example, Tannenbaum has put that:
These two theories of authority are concerned with somewhat different aspects of the same problem. Theories of formal authority deal with the authority managers should possess. They are normative in nature and relate to the role prescription. They specify what kinds of formal role prescriptions should be built into managerial positions. Because role behaviour tends towards, but not matches, role prescriptions, one cannot expect the formal approach to yield perfect predictions of actual behaviour. On the other hand, acceptance theories are concerned with role behaviour, and the actual authority patterns that are accepted and that do motivate job behaviour.
Measures Making Committee Effective
Competence Theory
In addition to formal and acceptance theories of the sources of authority, there is a feeling that authority is generated by personal competence. Urwick identifies formal authority as being conferred by organisation, technical authority as being implicit in special knowledge or skill, and personal authority as being conferred by seniority or popularity.13 A person may get his order or advice accepted by others not because he is having any formnal authority. but because of his personal qualities. These qualities may be technical competence and social prestige such as competent engineers, economists, etc. in the organisation whose advice may be sought and followed unerringly as if this is an order. Similarly, in other social groups, people with charisma have the same effect.
The various theories suggest the sources of authority. No doubt, the acceptance and competence theories suggest how and why an individual obeys the order of another, one cannot discount the importance of formal authority. The formal authority may be regarded as basic to managerial job, and other two as the product of leadership. Nevertheless, authority is generated through all these sources.
LIMITS OF AUTHORITY
In an organisation, the quantum of authority decreases at successively lower levels: It is maximum at the highest level and minimum at the lowest level as shown in Figure 14.5.
Measures Making Committee Effective
The authority is not absolute. The authority enjoyed by an organisation is exercised subject to various social, legal, political, and economic factors. Similarly, the use of authority by a superior over his subordinates is restricted by various factors. These factors are as follows:
1 The authority is exercised with regard to mores and folkways of the group concerned. The use of authority generates different reactions from various groups. The authority must be exercised keeping in view the group’s fundamental social beliefs, codes, creeds, and habits, otherwise the effective exercise of authority is limited.
2. There are biological limits on the use of authority. Human beings do not have the capacity to do certain things. An individual cannot be asked to walk up the side of a building. Similarly, there are physical-climate, geography, physical laws, etc.economic-competition, market factors, etc., -and technical limitations on the use of authority. These all suggest that an individual cannot be ordered to do a thing which is not possible because of these limitations.
3. There are certain limitations which restrict managerial authority. Such factors as partnership agreements, memorandum of association, articles of association, Factories Act, and company laws put limitations on authority. A manager has to exercise authority in these contexts. Changes in these can be made, but these can be done through a definite procedure and not at the whim of a manager.
4. A manager’s authority is limited because of the fact that his span of management is limited. As discussed earlier, there is a limit on the number of subordinates who can be effectively managed by a superior. The exercise of authority requires to make decisions and a manager cannot take such decisions about unlimited number of persons. Thus, his authority is limited to the subordinates who are managed by him.
5. A manager can use the authority which is specifically delegated to him. Delegation of authority is required because of the assignment of duties and responsibilities.
Measures Making Committee Effective
The distinction between Authority and Power
Sometimes, the two terms ‘authority and ‘power’ are used interchangeably because of their common objective of influencing the behaviour of people on whom these are exercised. However, there is a difference between these two. While authority is the right to command, power is the capacity to command. The traditional concept of hierarchy has its essential rationale that someone has the right to command someone else and that the subordinate person has the duty to obey the command. This is implied in the notion of official legitimacy legal in nature rather than social and informal. However, the right to command does not necessarily connote the capacity to command. For example, a person in the society may have capacity to influence the behaviour of others by his money power or muscle power but he may not have right to do so.
Sometimes, right and capacity are clearly separable and can be identified easily, but at other times, the two get intermingled. For example, commanding others on the basis of money or muscle power is clearly separable but in an organisation, two managers of equal status and authority may have different type of command in actual practice. The difference arises because one manager may acquire more power due to his personal factors. Here, authority and power go together and distinction is not easy. In fact, there is a continuum of the authority-power relationships. At one end, right and capacity would be one, while at the other end, both would be completely separable. Between these two extremes, it is possible to find a number of variations. Thus, the major differences between authority and power can be identified as follows:
1 Authority is legitimised by certain rules, regulations, laws, and practices. In the case of power, there is no such legitimisation.
2. Authority is institutional and originates because of structural relationships. Power emerges because of personal factors and varies with the individuals. In the management of an organisation, authority is the central element of formal organisation and systematic communication. Power reflects the political realities within the organisation and relates to the subtler, more informal patterns of action and interaction that occur.
3. Authority exists in the context of organisational relationships, mostly in superior-subordinate relationships either directly or otherwise. Power relationship may exist between any two persons and organisational relationship may not be necessary. Although these differences have been suggested, it is important to recognise that much of the controversy surrounding right and capacity to control has involved a certain degree of semantic confusion. Much heat has been generated as to whether authority, defined to include capacity, really flows down from the top in traditional fashion or whether it arises from the button as a kind of consent of the governed. For example. Barnard has supported the latter view when he has emphasised the flow of authority upward due to the consent of governed. Notwithstanding this, the distinction between authority and power exists on the above lines, at least, on a conceptual level.
Measures Making Committee Effective
Responsibility
Responsibility is another term that has not been defined in a precise way in management literature. Some writers have defined it in terms of duty or activity assigned to an individual in an organisation. For example, Hurley has defined responsibility as follows:
However, others define responsibility in a more comprehensive way and treat it as the obligation of an individual to perform activities or duties which are assigned to him. For example, Terry has defined responsibility as the obligation of an individual to carry out assigned activities to the best of his ability. Thus, responsibility is not merely duty that is assigned but an obligation that the duty is performed. Responsibility comes into existence because a person with authority, requires assistance from another and delegates authority to him for the performance of needed specific work. The acceptance of the obligation by the individual to perform the work creates his responsibility Accountability Some people consider responsibility as having two parts or phases. The one is the obligation to secure results: the other is to be accountable to a superior (the delegator of authority) for the degree of success achieved in completing the assignment. However, the more common use of the term is the former, namely that responsibility is an obligation to carry out assigned activities. Depending on the viewpoint taken, this might imply inclusion of the second or accountability concept. In this sense, responsibility is not an obligation but a liability for the carrying out of duties by the subordinate. For example, Hurley defines accountability as “liability for reckoning of the responsibilities received by delegation of authority.”16 When the concepts of responsibility and accountability are taken in this way, responsibility is mostly defined in terms of duties and tasks rather than the obligation for the performance of those tasks. Robbins has made issue more clear when he states that:
Measures Making Committee Effective
Thus, accountability creates the obligation for the maintenance of responsibility by the superior (delegator of authority) and an accompanying insistence that the work performed must meet his expectations. Subordinates are responsible for the completion of tasks assigned to them and are accountable to their superiors for the satisfactory performance of that work. However, the concept of comprehensive responsibility includes the concept of accountability also. In that case, the concept of accountability is used mostly to indicate the duty of an executive to keep records and to safeguard public property.
Measures Making Committee Effective
Responsibility and Delegation
A question arises whether responsibility can be delegated or not. The answer of this question can be found out by analysing how responsibility arises and what relationship exists between a superior and his subordinate. Responsibility arises basically from the superior-subordinate relationship. A superior is one who has effective authority over another (subordinate) and a subordinate is one who is subject to this authority of superior. The authority flows from the superior to subordinate when duties are assigned to him and at the same time, authority is given to him for the discharge of duties. The subordinate manager cannot carry all the duties and tasks and, therefore, delegates some of these to his subordinate. However, the relationship between the first subordinate and his superior is such that he will be responsible for the performance of total tasks assigned to him and not only the tasks actually carried out by him. In this case, his actual tasks will be total tasks assigned minus tasks assigned by him to his subordinate. Thus, in practice, responsibility will be divided into two parts: the ultimate responsibility for the total tasks originally assigned and the operating responsibility for getting the job done, but emphasis on getting the job done through someone else, namely his subordinate. If the subordinate fails to perform the job, the superior is held responsible for this failure also because of his ultimate responsibility. Thus, ultimate responsibility cannot be delegated. Keith Davis has stated that “responsibility operates somewhat like the fable of the magic pitcher in which the water level always remains the same no matter how much water poured out.” This relationship can be seen from Figure14.6.
In Figure 14.6, rectangle 1 shows the total tasks assigned to the departmental head out of which shaded part shows the activities to be accomplished by him and the other part would be assigned to his subordinate. However, his ultimate responsibility would be for the total area of the rectangle. In the same way, the supervisor is responsible for the total area of rectangle 2 though he would assign the unshaded portion to his subordinate. Thus, the departmental head is responsible even for the work being performed at the level of operative though the operative has not received duties from him or does not work directly under him but has received tasks originally assigned to him by the supervisor.
