(a) How is power used as a tool of organisational control ? Elaborate in detail the various sources of power. 20 (b) "Profit…

(a) Power as a tool of organisational control and its sources

Power is the capacity to influence the behaviour of others, allocate resources and secure compliance. It works as a control tool when it is built into routines: managers use rewards, sanctions, authority, information and expertise to align employee action with organisational goals. Targets, appraisals, budgets and reporting systems make the desired behaviour easier and deviation costly. In hierarchical firms, control rests on position; in flatter firms, expertise, trust and networks often replace formal rank.

The sources of power, following French and Raven, are:

• Legitimate power comes from a formal position, which gives the right to direct and decide. Subordinates accept it because of the office, as with a manager's authority over job allocation.
• Reward power rests on control over pay, promotion, recognition and desirable assignments.
• Coercive power rests on the ability to punish through reprimand, demotion, withdrawal of benefits or dismissal. It produces compliance but can cause resentment.
• Expert power comes from specialised knowledge and skill, as with a chief engineer or data scientist whose advice is followed.
• Referent power comes from respect, charisma and identification with the person.

Later writers add information power (control over data and knowledge) and connection or network power (links with influential people and stakeholders).

The first three are position power, given by the organisation; the last two are personal power, earned by the individual and usually more lasting. Effective control relies mainly on legitimate, expert and referent power, using coercion sparingly.

(b) Profit maximisation as a goal

The statement is largely true as a description of trend, but profit has not lost its importance.

For the statement: profit maximisation treats the firm as serving only owners and ignores employees, customers, communities and the environment. Stakeholder theory, the triple bottom line and ESG thinking now say a firm must create long-term value for all. Pursuing short-term profit can also damage reputation, safety and sustainability. In India this shift is institutionalised by Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, under which companies meeting prescribed net worth, turnover or profit thresholds must spend at least 2% of their average net profit of the preceding three years on CSR, and by the mandatory Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report for the top 1,000 listed companies. Many large groups now publish ESG and governance commitments alongside financial targets.

Against: profit is the basis of survival, since without it a firm cannot pay employees, repay capital or invest in growth. Capital markets and investors still judge firms mainly on earnings, and many owner-managed firms still stress returns.

My view: profit is a necessary condition but no longer a sufficient objective. The better goal is wealth or value maximisation over the long term, where profit is earned in a responsible way and is balanced with the interests of stakeholders.

(c) Path-Goal theory of leadership: a critical analysis

The Path-Goal theory (House) holds that a leader's task is to increase followers' motivation by clarifying the path to goals and removing obstacles. It identifies four styles: directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented. The best style depends on follower characteristics, such as experience and need for structure, and on the task and work environment.

Strengths: it is a contingency theory that explains why no single style is best, it is tied to expectancy theory and motivation, and it gives managers practical guidance on choosing a style.

Weaknesses: it is complex and has limited empirical support as a whole; it assumes leaders can switch styles easily and that followers are rational; it gives less weight to the leader's own traits; and it reflects Western assumptions, since in high power-distance settings such as India, directive styles may be more acceptable than participative ones.

Judgement: it is a useful framework for diagnosing leadership, but it should be applied flexibly rather than as a fixed formula.