John Hood Claims He Has No Power Or Authority

John Hood claims that he has no power or authority in his job

John Hood, as described in the case "Shaking Up Oxford," asserts that he has no power or authority in his role as the vice-chancellor of Oxford University, emphasizing that his influence is rooted in persuasion rather than formal authority. This claim, while seemingly provocative, reflects the unique governance structure of Oxford, characterized by its decentralized decision-making process and a large body of constituents, including faculty, administrators, and college members. The university’s tradition of shared governance disperses decision-making power, making top-down authority less effective, and underscores Hood's reliance on influence, negotiation, and consensus rather than direct command.

Despite Hood’s assertion, several sources of power operate for and against him in this complex academic setting. French and Raven's (1959) sources of power—legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, and referent—serve as a useful framework to understand these dynamics. Hood's formal positional power is limited by the decentralized structure and the authority vested in congregational bodies where ultimate decisions are made by collective vote. Consequently, his legitimate power is weak, which he acknowledges by emphasizing persuasion. His expert power derives from his prior successes at the University of Auckland, where he managed significant change initiatives, and his reputation for effective leadership lends him influence. Additionally, his referent power stems from his personal qualities and the respect he commands among some stakeholders who believe in his vision for reform.

However, opposition from entrenched faculty members and college administrators diminishes his influence. The rejection of his proposals, such as faculty performance reviews and governance restructuring, highlights the resistance he faces, which stems from the collective's desire to retain autonomy and traditional governance practices. Coercive power is limited, as attempts to impose change unilaterally risk backlash, evidenced by the significant votes against his initiatives. Furthermore, the university's culture of vested interests and historical independence creates barriers to change, undermining Hood's capacity to implement reforms effectively.

The ongoing struggle between change advocates and the conservative faction exemplifies the complex interplay of sources of power. Hood must leverage his persuasive skills and reputation to align stakeholders with his strategic vision, building coalitions and demonstrating benefits of reforms to overcome resistance. His reliance on soft power, persuasion, and strategic influence is essential in such an environment, indicating that authority in this context is more relational than formal. This situation highlights how power in academic institutions is often exercised through influence, reputation, and negotiation rather than hierarchical authority alone, especially within traditional, autonomous systems like Oxford.

References

• French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
• Hood, J. (2005). Shaking Up Oxford. Bloomberg Businessweek.
• French, J. R., & Raven, B. (2014). The bases of social power. In D. M. Messick & R. E. McClintock (Eds.), Research on social power (pp. 3-29). Stanford University Press.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Hollander, E. P., & Julian, R. (1969). Existence and aspects of a leadership style. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(4), 341–351.
• Gronholm, K. (2017). Influence strategies in academic organizations. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 39(3), 231-242.
• Kerr, M. (2012). Leadership in universities: A review of influence and authority. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(4), 423-440.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.
• Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Free Press.
• Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (2010). A theoretical review of leadership in organizations. Journal of Management, 36(1), 84-105.