Coercive Power and Leadership


Question 1

A. List and define the various types of power that leaders may wield (as discussed in Lesson Six). Which of these types of power are more ethical, and why?
B. Compare and contrast the difference between transactional and transformational leadership. Which of these leadership philosophies is more ethical, and why?

A. List and explain the moral rules discussed in Lesson Seven. What are the strong and weak points of each?
B. For each rule, identify a historical figure (a real person) that embraced the rule, and articulate the results of that choice (good or bad).

Question 2

A. List and define the stages of moral development discussed in Lesson Eight. For each stage, identify one historical figure (a real person) who you feel embodies that stage, and articulate why
B. List and define the various issue intensity factors. Give an example of a fictitious ethical dilemma, and explain each of the intensity factors with respect to your scenario.


Question 1

A. List and define the various types of power that leaders

i. Coercive Power

Coercive power is frequently the least efficient but most commonly utilized (and misused) form of power in the business world. Coercive power is defined as compelling people to do things against their will or imposing repercussions on job performance. Coercive leaders use threats, intimidation, and or else rhetoric to motivate people who are under them. The leader has power over possible penalties such as unfavorable work responsibilities, reprimands, or firing. There will always be instances in an organization where a leader must use coercive authority in challenging situations. The leader has the power to impose concrete punishments like dismissal, demotion, bad rating, less pleasant job assignments, etc. He may also inflict psychological penalties on the subordinate, such as criticism, avoidance, disapproval, or sarcastic remarks, among other things—the ability to reward aids in the release of something unwanted (Kahler, 2020). Because of the reward
power, the subordinate's self-esteem will rise. It is also reduced as a result of retribution or coercive authority.

ii. Reward Power

The capacity to reward for deserving conduct is referred to as reward power. This power is built on the leader's ability to give tangible or intangible incentives. The supervisor or leader has the authority to bestow concrete incentives on the subordinates, such as promotions, private offices, time off from work, appealing job assignments, and assistance. Furthermore, psychological benefits like praise, admiration, approval, and acknowledgment can be offered to the subordinates by the leadership or senior (Kahler, 2020). The subordinate must feel that the leader has access to the higher authority and, as a result, may bestow incentives.

iii. Charismatic Power

The power of fascination or commitment, the urge of one person to admire another, is referred to as charismatic authority. Others appreciate or admire a leader who has a high level of this source of influence. By connecting with the leader or being impacted by the leader’s appealing power, subordinates feel a favorable connection towards the leader. This power is built on the leader’s belief, adoration, or affiliation. This power enables the subordinate to comprehend and appreciate the leader to understand and act following the boss’s or the leader’s expectations (Kahler, 2020). It assists in serving as one’s boss and behaving in ways that one
believes the employer would want.

B. Transactional and transformational leadership.

Transactional leadership is a popular model of management commonly found at the middle managerial levels. Transactional leaders are generally authoritative; they tell their reports precisely to accomplish and lay forth goals and key productivity indices for their assignments to meet. They follow the scholars' term planning and control, where they set work specifications and requirements but wait for issues to develop before reacting to them. In other words, transactional leaders are there to preserve the status quo, allowing a corporation to continue functioning and accomplishing its goal. On the other hand, the transformational management concept is not about one management model or another; instead, it focuses on leadership that
creates a beneficial impact on the context. This setting might refer to a tiny neighborhood or an entire society (Vito et al., 2014). There have been many leaders who have changed the globe, and each has developed a distinctive style to their culture and the present requirements of their people.

Both Transactional and Transformational administration styles have many characteristics; they merely go about obtaining objectives in diverse ways. Both strategies include individuals and organizations with a common objective to profit from one another; both methods are motivating in their techniques, and both styles of leadership have intrinsic goals and aspirations.

Transactional and transformational leadership styles are both responses to the challenge of how
to control teams of employees and employ psychological approaches that have been created and
proven through time. The two techniques are considered among the prime management styles in
today’s modern period and are considered highly successful if done appropriately (Vito, 2014).
Research has also demonstrated that both transactional and transformational leadership styles
may have good benefits on teams of employees.

A. List and explain the moral rules discussed in Lesson Seven. What are the strong
and weak points of each?

The study investigated the idea that morality developed to foster collaboration and that – since there are various forms of cooperation – there are many types of immorality. According to this view of morality as collaboration, behavioral genetics describes why people sense an outstanding obligation of care for many families and why we hate incest. Mutualism emphasizes why we formulate strategies and partnerships, power and mutual support, and why people appreciate unity, cooperation, and devotion. Social exchange describes why people trust others, return favors, feel remorse and appreciation, make apologies, and forgive. Further, conflict resolution describes why people engage in costly demonstrations of superiority such as courage and charity, why people submit to people’s superiors, why we split contested resources equitably, and why we acknowledge past possession.

The research revealed, first, that these seven collaborative actions were always regarded as ethically desirable. Second, instances of most of these values were discovered in most civilizations. Significantly, there were no counter-examples — no cultures in which any of these activities were judged morally wrong (Nichols, 2016). Finally, these morals were seen with similar frequency throughout continents; they were not the unique property of the West or any other place.

Morality as cooperation' does not suggest that moral standards would be equal among belief systems. On the converse, the moral concept anticipates variability on a theme: moral values would reflect the worth of different forms of cooperation under diverse environmental and natural situations. Indeed, people sensed that these civilizations did undoubtedly vary in how they prioritized or rated the seven moral principles. With future research, possibly accumulating new data on ethical standards in modern sophistication, we shall be able to examine the causes of this variance. Therefore, there is a shared core of normative ethics ideals. Morality is always and anywhere a collaborative phenomenon. And everyone believes that collaborating, advancing the collective good, is the proper thing to do (Nichols, 2016).

Acknowledging this fundamental aspect about human behavior might assist in developing common understanding between individuals of various cultures and contribute to the betterment of society.


B. Discuss each Moral rule,

C. Do not judge- Moral decisions should be logical. To argue that moral judgments must be rational entails several things. First, as discussed in the section on moral thinking, people’s moral judgments should be rationally deduced from their premises. The relationship between (i) the norm, (ii) the behavior or policy, and (3) the moral position ought to be such that (i) and (ii) logically imply (iii). Our objective is to back up our moral judgments with arguments and facts rather than just emotion, sympathy, or societal or personal preferences.

D. Have courage- Moral bravery entails more than just thinking about one’s professional responsibilities and deciding what threat path to take. In the circumstances requiring moral bravery, excellent communication skills, especially assertiveness and negotiating, are needed. These essential abilities assist persons in dealing with antagonism, defensiveness, and several other techniques employed by people to discourage them from acting morally courageously.

E. Do not Cheat- Cheating, similar to lying and violating commitments, weakens social integrity, reduces trust, and harms society. Furthermore, cheating provides certain people with an unfair edge over others. That is a frequent justification used to justify cheating. But what if certain people already have a disproportionate edge over others?
One probably observed that the world isn’t always fair. So, can cheating be justified if it balances the scales and allows the poor to have the same benefits as the successful?

F. Treat others the way you would like to treat you- The golden rule is an interesting conceptual idea, which has been stated in numerous ways by many various organizations across humanity, which may influence human behavior in several scenarios. As such, in the following essay, you will learn more about the basic
principle, discover how it may be enhanced, and comprehend how you can use it in reality.

Question 4

A. Stages of moral development discussed in Lesson Eight.

Stage One focuses on children’s motivation to follow guidelines and escape being punished. For example, an activity is regarded as ethically repugnant because the offender is punished; the harsher the consequence for the conduct is, the more the deed is judged. Phase two reflects the what’s in it for me? attitude, in which appropriate action is determined by whatever the individual perceives to be in their best benefit.

Stage two thinking demonstrates a little concern in the needs of others, only to the point that it could advance the personal goals. Consequently, care for others is not founded on loyalty or inherent respect, but rather a you scratch my back, and I will scratch yours mindset.

In stage three, children desire the acceptance of others and act in ways to avoid criticism. Emphasis is focused on positive behaviors and individuals being nice to others. In stage 4, the kid blindly accepts norms and tradition because of their relevance in sustaining a functional society (Kohlberg, 2016). Rules are regarded as the same to everybody, and observing rules by doing what one is supposed to do is considered useful and essential.
Moral thinking in stage four is beyond the requirement for individual approval demonstrated in stage three. If one individual breaks the law, possibly everyone would—thus, there is a responsibility and a duty to obey laws and norms.

In stage 5, the world is regarded as possessing various perspectives, rights, and principles. Such viewpoints should be equally recognized as distinct to each person or group. Laws are seen as social systems rather than strict edicts. Those that do not support public welfare should be modified as required to meet the highest happiness for the most significant number of people. Majority decisions and unavoidable compromises do it (Kohlberg, 2016). Democratic administration is supposedly based on stage five thinking.

At stage 6, individuals have established their own set of ethical rules that may or may not correspond to the laws. The concepts are applicable to all. Civil liberties, equality, and justice are a few examples. The individual will be willing to protect these beliefs, even if it means going against the majority of society and facing the repercussions of rejection and jail. Few people, according to Kohlberg, have reached this point.

B. Various issue intensity factors. Give an example of a fictitious ethical dilemma, and explain each of the intensity factors

Moral intensity is a concept that refers to issues based on their perceived moral importance. Individual judgments of moral intensity should influence their awareness of situations that pose moral quandaries and their ethical judgments and continuance intention toward those concerns. The magnitude of repercussions, the first element of moral intensity, reflects the proportionate harm or benefit that results from a moral act. For example, a medication is created and tested with adverse effects that might kill 40% of those who use it. The possible adverse effects of this medication are more severe than those of a drug that may produce
a skin rash in 40% of those who take it. As a result, identification is more likely to happen with the medication that causes death than the one that causes a skin rash. The second component of moral intensity is majority consensus, which indicates how society agrees on whether an ethical decision is good or bad. Because a moral problem may gain widespread public attention, the social contract may impact its realism.

Ethical intensity may be defined as the relevance of an event or decision based on the individual, workgroup, and organization. Under current legislation, managers, CEOs, and business owners can be held liable for their employees and subordinates misleading and illegal actions. Individual considerations, such as a person’s convictions, characteristics, and ideals, will generally influence an individual when deciding or determining a moral issue. Qualities and social standards vary between countries, upbringing, and interactions; nonetheless, while a person’s propensity toward ethical behavior aligns with individual variables, the organizational structure, corporate approaches, and societal standards will all play a role in the decision (Nichols, 2016). A person would make an excellent or terrible decision based on how the option would affect the person in issue. The right actions result in positive outcomes or the lack of harmful consequences for the individual.’

Please contact us on for any question, assistance and many more. 


Related articles