Authority Structures/Relationships
Authority is Complicated
Authority, much like accountability, is a formal matter whose specification can and should be made precise when that is evidently needed. These structures (in principle) are human relationships (in practice).
Much research has determined that there are many varieties of authority structure/relationship. Precision and clarity about these aid smooth inter-personal interaction and can reduce abuses of power.
Simplicity is a virtue, but 
don't be tempted to over-simplify ►
There is an understandable urge to make authority arrangements a simple hierarchy, or to pretend no hierarchy is needed, or fudge expediently. These options are possible in the small bands in which hominids evolved. They are completely impractical in large organizations with hundreds or thousands of employees. If this work seems a distraction from the real work, then that accords with the movement back along the X-axis in the management culture Spiral.
«Dual influence» and «multiple influence» arrangements are a common source of complication and friction in organizations: i.e. most employees need to be—and in reality are—significantly influenced by more than just their boss. The old saw that "no man can serve two masters" is often trotted out by a manager to protect his empire: a moment's reflection and simple observation should reveal that it has no merit whatsoever.
Dual Influence & First Principles
Whenever there is dual or multiple influence—and it is so common as to be almost the norm—the nature of the influence in each relationship must be spelled out. Note that the reverse is also the case: a manager commonly carries more than one form of authority depending on the role of the other party.
Organizations are enormously varied in mission, size, scope, varieties of expertise &c. so generalizations are difficult. The commonest general forms are explained below. However, these and any other authority relationship can be developed or amended in workplace discussions which start from first principles.
See how to do it ►
-
make a list of items to be controlled/influenced in a post
e.g. appointment, induction, training, priorities, programs, budgets, standards, reporting, perquisites(perks);
and then
-
make a list of privileges (or powers) from the weakest to the strongest
e.g. to be informed, to be consulted, to check, to advise, to report on, to evaluate, to veto, to decide;
and then
- determine, via discussions and consultation, what privilege (or power) goes with which item for which person/role.
You say there will be arguments if this sort of thing is brought out into the open? So what? There are always issues with authority. Deliberate obfuscation or avoiding clarity is not much of a solution: arguments will only break out at the moment of decision when discord is most emotional and harmful.
Fortunately, the commoner patterns of authority relationships required in organizations have been extensively tested and can be specified in advance.
Common Patterns of Authority
The following specifications have proved themselves repeatedly in fieldwork. They are not a complete set and might not suit every situation.
Levels of Work: The operation of these forms is affected by the level of work-responsibility. See the final topics within this CG2 section for an introduction to these issues.
Line-management authority is the strongest possible form of managerial authority. The manager («boss») is assigned total responsibility for results and depends on the work-output of subordinates. In using this authority well, the manager naturally leads subordinates.
Getting this fullest accountability right is the prerequisite for maximum management power and creativity in an organization (and its constituent disciplines or functions). The significance of the relationship comes from
four simple core powers:►
- to set contextual goals, priorities, policies, standards,
- to judge the abilities and potentials of each subordinate,
- to assign duties and tasks to subordinates accordingly,
- to assess training and development needs of each subordinate.
These core powers imply other rights including:
- to join in selection of their subordinates,
- to have a veto over the choice of a subordinate,
- to set the main priorities for a subordinate,
- to prescribe work as precisely as required for the subordinate,
- to zoom in on any detail of any work of a subordinate at any time
to initiate de-selection via promotion, transfer or dismissal.
Note: The simplistic, unvarnished right to «hire and fire» is rarely appropriate in large organizations.
Coordinating authority includes powers:►
- to convene and chair meetings of those to be coordinated,
- to issue detailed plans and programs that forward agreed objectives,
- to check progress and other effects of decisions,
- to attempt to overcome obstacles and setbacks,
- to instruct or decide what shall be done in uncertain situations.
But there is noright:
- to set new directions,
- to over-ride sustained or serious disagreements,
- to formally appraise personal performance.
Coordinating authority is used for three sorts of tasks: operational (e.g. cross-functional work in a facility or program), developmental (e.g. team planning or policy-making), resource-management (e.g. in finance, personnel).
Monitoring authority includes powers:►
- to check activities at first hand and get information indirectly,
- to warn of deficiencies or emerging problems and suggest solutions,
- to explain rules/policy and persuade adherence to them,
- to report to higher authorities,
- to recommend new policies, rules or standards.
But there is no right:
- to give instructions,
- to take direct enabling or remedial action,
- to formally appraise personal performance.
Monitoring is a subset and complement of coordinating e.g. a staff officer monitors and coordinates subordinates for a line-manager. Monitoring, like coordinating, can at times include the monitoring/coordinating of manager(s) at a higher level.
Supervisory authority includes powers:►
- to induct new staff,
- to give technical instruction,
- to assign tasks for necessary work,
- to check performance,
- to deal with immediate operational problems.
But there is no right:
- to re-allocate duties,
- to initiate a change in role or status.
Supervisors are needed at the lower levels in the organization when, in a certain situation and for a particular period of time, there needs to be someone unambiguously «in charge» of others.
Prescribing authority includes powers:►
- to set specific tasks for another, including how to perform these,
- to check performance and results.
But there is no right:
- to train/develop,
- to supervise,
- to formally appraise,
- to determine a role.
Typically used at lower levels in an organization where one function is highly specialized, and yet decisions can efficiently, or must in practice, be implemented by someone in a different function.
It is easy to agree that clarity about authority is not a total solution. Other methods of influence, some rather personal, are required.
Originally posted: 20-Oct-2011; last updated 16-Nov-2012.