r invalid forms of control. Money is often thought of as the ultimate incentive; it can assure you that the job will be done, but it does not guarantee how well thatjob will be performed or that you will even be satisfied with the exchange. It is human nature togain the most benefits with the least amount of work possible, therefore making money an inefficient control. For those who do not care whether the quality of work is poor, then it may be said that money is indeed an effective method of exerting power. However, that is not often the case, and as a general rule money is definitely a poor form of power.Another exceedingly futile form of power is that of coercion by force. Coercion essen-tially utilizes threats and terrorism in order to accomplish one's goal; it is perhaps the most contradictory of all the different forms of power. It is also the most self-defeating; the more it is exercised the less control is attained over a subordinate. Perhaps the most interesting questionthat now may be raised is why one would want to mistreat someone who is performing a taskfor them. Logically, doing so would only damage the subordinate and lower his or her capacityfor work, not to mention the inner rebellion that such treatment would bring about. Let the assumption be made that through repeated threats and slight physical harm, a degree of relativecontrol is established over a subordinate. Although you now technically have control overthis individual, they are inwardly rebelling against you and how you have treated them. They will do whatever you ask them to, but the quality of their work will be extremely poor, not unlike theresults of using money as a form of control. Thus, both money and coercion are proven to be inefficient forms of power.In analyzing the institution of power so closely, the author has brought to light a multipleof viewpoints on power in its many forms. Perhaps he wishes to break down the components ofpower i...
