Power and structure can be seen as each other’s correlates: the more the allocation and use of power in an organization is effective, the less you need to depend on structure, and vice versa. At the same time, the two need each other.
Let’s define ‘power’ as “the ability to have a desired impact on one’s reality”. Structure is a tool to channel that impact. Organizations typically have formal structures, through which certain power is legitimized and made productive.
Organizations also know informal power. This often contributes to an individual’s effectiveness, as it allows him or her to achieve more, sidestepping the official procedures and structures. Yet, the problem is that this power is hardly visible and its use is beyond accountability. The productiveness of this power will then largely depend on the motives of the person using it.
Other than is sometimes thought, leaders with ego issues are ineffective beyond the short term. On the other hand, powerful leaders (in the sense that they inspire, initiate and help build vision) who are motivated by contributing to the lasting success of the organization and to the people in it have a more lasting positive effect on the organization. Usually, you can see which type of a leader someone is from the way in which he or she communicates. Or, at least, does not the style of communicating make you wonder about these things in some cases?

Story

The story of the managers who want to become rats.

The moral side of human resource management.

Sometimes, members of organizations seem to forget that the very existence of an HR department in their organization means that they are regarded as 'resources' for the organization (sometimes, they are called 'assets', in stead of 'resources', to make them feel better about it).

This appears to be at odds with the ethics of Kant; the very ethics which lies at the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and companies' Codes of Conduct. He formulated, two centuries ago, two principles for ethics:

1) "always act in such a way that the principle of your action could through your own will be as a universal law”. In other words"

and

2) "always treat other people as ends, not as means".

It is, of course, the second principle which seems to be at odds with the very nature of human resource management. After all, is treating people as resource not a way of treating them as means (to an end, formulated by the organization), while depriving them of the quality of being ends themselves?

Still, it is very much a human reality that we treat people as means. When I go to the bakery across the street from my house, I do so in order to buy a loaf of bread, not to honour the baker's individuality; I do appreciate the friendly service of the baker and the quality he puts into his bread, but the reason I go to his shop is to satisfy my need.

It is no different for the entrepreneur who needs certain people to do the work in his business or for the CEO who takes on the entrepreneur's role on behalf of stockholders; they may be nice to you, but they need you for their ends. And at a certain size of the organization, a particular department is set up specifically for that and it is called the human resource department.

Does this mean that we are stuck with HR departments which manipulate us? Not necessarily. When I use the baker in order to satisfy my need, I do not manipulate him, because there is a clear transaction and communication is transparent. On that small and personal level, you can see that the two best go together: I go to the baker and treat him as a means to my ends, but there is absolutely no reason why I would treat him solely as a means; on the contrary, treating him also as an end by himself is usually much more natural and works better.

Would this not also be possible for the HR department, treating people as both means and ends?

Is power one-dimensional?

Within engineering, it is quite common that a structure is build, designed to be strong in one particular dimension, while being less strong in other dimensions, where perhaps strength is less called for. Do we not also see that with power in people? For instance, we have all seen powerfull and impressive managers, who upon retirement loose their impressiveness, as they are no longer in the context in which their power could be seen. Or the manager who uses power efficiently and responsibly in the office and at home does not appear to be able to impress his or her own children with similar show of power?

Perhaps this is a matter of leadership. Perhaps we are more willing to accept people as leaders when they do not loose their power when taken out of their context.