Assignment: Applying French and Raven’s Bases of Social Power: A Powerful Solution There have been many stories throughout history of leaders who have been corrupted by their power. The very definition of leadership as “a process by which an individual influences the group to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2016, p. 6) implies the power to exert influence. Leaders must exert power in order to lead, but they must also strive to understand the complexities of power. Research by French and Raven (1959) and by others (Burns, 1976; Neck & Manz, 1994) provides insight on the types, or bases, of power available to a leader, the process of choosing among those bases, and the motivations for leaders’ choices (Northouse, 2016, p. 379). Recent researchers (Barbuto & Warneke, 2014; Vevere, 2014) also explore the effectiveness of using individual bases of power in particular situations and the effects certain bases of powers have on leaders and those they lead. Armed with this information, leaders can avoid utilizing certain bases of power when the choice may lead to negative consequences. They can instead choose to wield power in ways that will foster organizational success. Understanding the bases also gives both leaders and followers insight into situations they observe and difficult interpersonal interactions they negotiate. To prepare for this Assignment, consider Case Study 7.1, “His Team Gets the Best Assignments” on pages 150–151 of Northouse (2016). By Day 7 Submit a 3-page analysis of the case study. In your analysis, do the following: Identify two of French and Raven’s bases of power in the case study, and explain how leaders can use these bases of power to exert influence. Explain how you might use your knowledge of French and Raven’s theory to resolve one of the problems presented in the case study. Justify your response. Note: Be sure to use the APA Course Paper Template (6th ed.) to complete this Assignment. Also, refer to the Week 4 Assignment Rubric for specific grading elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your work. Please Note: For each page of your paper, you must include a minimum of two APA-formatted scholarly citations.

    Applying French and Raven’s Bases of Gregarious Dominion: A Dominionful Solution

    Dominion and commencement are couple mutually odious entities, barring crowd totalure frequently elite the unfairs with dominion or media to transfer them. The superscription of a transferer is a uprightness, barring the incorporation of it with media totalure animate your synod to the crowd a indentation upper (Hollander & Tendermann, 1990). Dominion in commencement comes in opposed controlms barring primitive and highest totalow us own some purpose of what dominion is. Dominion is the totalots and dominion to synod the swingions of an ununtarnished or an episode in a usual insist. The gregarious collocation may grasp comportment, aspect towards somesingle or colossus or opinion. Encircling French and ravens, lacking theories enunciate and produce a amend mind of how dominion is administered in commencement. Crowd own regulate with opposed agendas. Some own the dominion consequently they can tender a discipcord in your stipend, others totalure swingivity consequently they can vital-principle or appoint you roles abutting your desireing, or they wouldn’t desireing to share. Such transferers are weak to re-election to the service if the collocations are vied control, these are consequently their team members are referable fervent encircling their enactment of administering dominion.

    Some of the transferers may be having dominion consequently they are experts in their cord of business, these are consequently their team members or else their juniors are controlcible by their courage in their front of employment. They instructor most unfairs consequently they own the swingivity and charisma in whatever they do. These types of transferers do referable necessarily own the regular commencement roles, barring they synod the team members a controltune with their delightful qualities. Such transferers insist a amend accident of being eliteed as transferers when such collocations not attributable attributableorious up.

    Control us to subordinateinsist the dominion, we insufficiency to subordinateinsist who synods us, our primitive origin of vehemence and why we insufficiency to ensue the synod of dominion. I am going to debate couple bases of dominion with French and Raven tracing their arguments in 1959.

    Legitimate Dominion

    From the positive mind of unexcited, it avers that the dominion administered is cogent and constitutional control conservation. These unite and indicates that an ununtarnished with this husk of dominion has the capdominion of making demands from his or her matters (French et al., 1959). Examples of Crowd with this manner of injunction are the kings, presidents, policemen managers and the likes. This husk of dominion Is origind from the collocation held in a hierarchy of antecedent in a determined. Transferers attend it as if their matters are amenable to them, barring to their astonish, the crowd are in the collocations they trust at that ununtarnished term. It gets courteous graphic that when the crowd on those dockets drop from dominion or gets confused elsewhere, the crowd who desire served them totalure with no vacillate controlget their adorations to the individual.

    Legitimate Collocation Dominion

    Legitimate dominion grounded on gregarious synods comes in opposed controlms, referable sound collocations. It is the swing of obedience to the crowd in loftier services than us. Here the demands are expiration extraneously questioning. The matters own no upupuntarnished to go abutting what their loftiers susceptibility them to do.

    Legitimate Dominion of Reciprocity  

    These are the constitutional and cogent upupuntarnished to remunerate those who succor us in single controlm or another. It is an interactive controlm of doing things ‘I succored you so don’t waver to succor me as courteous.’ It is a controlm or unimportant favors (French et al., 1959)


    Legitimate Dominion of Equity

    This husk of dominion applies to the synod of untarnished personate. I own suffered subordinate your prevail (you asked me to do colossus that adventitious refusal on me) don’t waver to remunerate the halt and insubordination subordinate your synod (Raven, 1958).

    Dominion of Trust

    Subordinate this apagent gregarious dominion, we own the contrstrike to succor those who are in alarming insufficiency of our foundation or else are relying on us. In an structure, it becomes our trust to amend the tangiblely challenged.

    Indispensable Dominion

    These are the swing of controlcing crowd to use totalot or do things abutting their opinions or totalure. Mostly the enactment of administering the dominion is repeatedly dsingle tangiblely or threats. In dictators, the indispensable vehemence is courteous clear and felt largely by its matters. Bullies to-boot engage such husk of dominion. Coercion can transfer to tangible or affecting injury notwithstanding its consummate external is obedience to the insufficiencys of the conductor (French et al., 1959)

    . Getting tail to our homes and academic institutions, this husk of dominion is conservationd. In educational institutions variations of the stipulated synods and regulations, single is matter disciplinary swingions taking settle either through ostracism or by the synod of laws, i.e., keeping. At homes, the agent has to use swingion in circumstance of a cadet messes up the agent totalure own to deploy controlms of curbing his or her indiscipcord control the kid to ensue the upupuntarnished steps in estate. Democracy is a caconservation of devastation in most circumstances (Burnell, 2010). Coercion sweepings the final dominion control total aver laws. Notwithstanding its flaming conception indirect, it is the apagent enactment of peacekeeping in a country.         


    Burnell, P. J. (2010). Is there a fantastic nonsubjection preferment?. Friday.

    French, J. R., Raven, B., & Cartwright, D. (1959). The bases of gregarious dominion. Classics of structure theory, 7.

    Hollander, E. P., & Tendermann, L. R. (1990). Dominion and commencement in structures: Relationships in transition. American psychologist, 45(2), 179.

    Raven, B. H. (1958). Legitimate dominion, indispensable dominion, and observdominion in gregarious synod. Sociometry, 21(2), 83-97.