Docx

Critical Assessment 1

Joe C. Magee, Clifford W. Frasier. 2014.“Status and Power: The Principal Inputs to Influence Public Managers.” Public Administration Review, vol. 74, issue 3, pp. 307-317

Moore, M. (2014) , Commentary: Sharing Power to Amplify Influence and Results. Public Administration Review, 74: 318–319.

Argument: The whole article focuses on the “principal inputs to influence for public managers”, and in these ten pages, the authors argue that status and power are the most significant elements that determine interpersonal influence. The authors propose that influence is essential in the administrative process. The authors think that managers can improve their status so that their colleagues can perceive managers’ influence, and also managers and improve their personal character and capacity to gain higher power to improve their influence. Then, authors illustrate that both status and power have their own powerful effects on the interpersonal influence.

Evidence: Authors use several examples in real world and methods from other articles to illustrate their opinion. Firstly, authors show a set of examples from the U.S. Senate to highlight the differences between power and status. Roland Burris (D-IL) has low-status but high-power, and this lead to a result that Roland Burris’ voice is important but he lost the support of his colleagues. 61st Senate chaplain called Reverend Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, has high-status but with low-power. Finally, with no power, Reverend occupies operational role in the Senate out of the public eye. Then, authors give a table (table 1) from Fragale, Overbeck and Neale (2011) to show what role a manager could be if he has a combination of different degrees of power and status.

Secondly, authors show two long cases to analyze the distinct effects of power and status. First is the role of power in the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina. It shows that what high-power leaders think is totally different to low-power people...