POWER AND POLITICS IN ORGANISATIONS

Refs

Edward (1975)

Galbraith (1984) The anatomy of Power

M. Zey-Ferell ( )

Mitchells (1965) Orligarchy

Pfeffer ( )

Cyert and March (1963) A Behavioral theory of the firm

R. Dahl (1957)

D . Wrong (1979)

Frence and Raven (1959)

Foucault (1975) Discipline and Punish

F. G. Bailey Stratagems and Spoils

Why Study Power and Politics

Power and politics inextricably linked and affect human behaviour in organizations.

Goals and decisions in organizations emerge from bargaining, negotiation by individuals and coalitions. Decision making is not rational at all but a product of negotiations.

Three main perspectives of power

a)Power as a property of individuals.

b)Power as a property of relationships.

c)Power as an imbedded property of structures.

Both (a) and (b) fall under episodic power where power is episodically used by different individuals in different situations. (a) looks at power as pervasive – power is diffused throughout the organization and produces an on-going effect on how employees behave.

Definition of power R. Dahl (1957) defines power as ‘a relationship between two or more actors in which the behaviour of one is affected by the other. A, has power over B to the extent that A can get B to do something B would otherwise not do’.

Therefore power is that which enables an individual to make others do things they would not do voluntarily.

D. Wrong (1979) defines power as ‘the capacity of some persons to produce intended and foreseen effects on others.’

Weber (1947) defines power as ‘the chance of a man or a group of men to realize their will in a communal action even against the resistance of others participating in the action.

He distinguished between two types of power;

(1)Coercive power – which involves the use of force/coercion/threat. This power is exercised whether or not it is accepted by the followers.

(2)Authority – accepted by subordinates as right, moral, legal and relevant.

Perspective 1. Power as Property of individuals

This is where power is viewed to be a property/belonging to some individuals and not others. This perspective identifies structural and personal sources of power.

Structural sources of individuals

  1. Formal position and authority in the organization structures.
  2. Access to and control over information and other resources.
  3. Being irreplaceable (because of centrality of your unit or department/section).
  4. Ability to cultivate allies and supporters.
  5. An individual’s role in resolving critical problems and reducing uncertainty.

Personal sources of individual power(personal characteristics)

  1. Energy, endurance and physical stamina.
  2. Sensitivity and ability to read and understand others.
  3. Personal toughness (willingness to engage in conflict and confrontation).
  4. Ability to focus energy and avoid wasteful effort of power assumes there is

Power as a property of relationships/Power as relational

The relational view of power assumes there is a relationship of dependency where for a example, A has power over B to the extent that B depends on A for certain things.

Individuals or groups in organizations have power over others to the extent that others can depend on them (e.g. people in important positions). Related to this is the concept of indispensability. The more indispensable a person is the more powerful he/she is relative to others. Indispensability as a measure of power is not necessarily consistent with one’s positions in the organization’s hierarchy since lower members of the hierarchy can have uncommon knowledge to the extent that they have power over whose at the top e.g. engineers and technicians may not necessarily be at the top.

E.g D. Mechanic’s study (1962) Sources of power for lower participants in complex organizations

Mechanic was interested in understanding how lower participants in an organization can exercise power over those at higher levels of the organization. He argued that lower level participants derive power from such things as expertise (knowledge, ability, charisma and attractiveness.)(can influence those in higher places).

Power is a relationship of dependency where one depends on the other for valuable things e.g. secretaries and bosses.

The Six bases of power (French and Raven 1959)

Bases of power are factors/ things that a power holder controls in order to get compliable from subordinates. These are;

  1. Coercive power – use of force/ coercion. This is based on the power holders ability to inflict punishment/pain on those who don’t obey.
  2. Reward power – ability of the powerholder to reward those who obey. The rewards should be valued by the subordinates. E.g. financial rewards, status, promotion and recognition.
  3. Expert power – expertise/knowledge “knowledge is power” – expertise is what the powerholder possesses. This should be special knowledge uncommon among subordinates. Includes special skill e.g. knowledge about the history of Zimbabwe, law, constitutions, organizations (experimental knowledge by the aged in the organization). To achieve obedience the expert can withhold their knowledge. (sometimes knowledge is assumes/created-carve your own niche) If you give all knowledge you disempower yourself – sen’anga you give knowledge in doses.
  4. Legitimate power – based on legitimacy or derived from one’s position in the organization. The mere occupation of a powerful position gives one a basis of power.
  5. Referent power/reference – where a powerholder is the reference point. This reference is derived from one’s personal characteristics (charismatic power). The subordinates obey the powerholder because they admire him/her and want to imitate them. It is similar to Weber’s charismatic outeonly where the powerholder is a moder and subordinates obey voluntarily e.g. when people want to be like R. Mugabe, R Kelly, G. Gono e.t.c.
  6. Information – having information that other people don’t have.

While French and Raven identify bases of power some distinguish bases and sources of power where bases are described as that which the powerholder controls immediately which permits him/her to manipulate the behaviour of others e.g. rewards, sanctions, e.t.c while sources are ways in which an individual comes to control the bases of power.

QUESTION How does one come to control rewards?

Sources of power include a) expertise b) legitimacy c) references.

See study by. (d) Mechanic, (e) Goffman (f) Levi-strauss.

Perspective 3: Power as an embedded property of structures (pervasive power perspective)

This perspective looks at the ways in which power is ‘built into’ the organisation’s fabric/design. Power is embedded to the extent that it becomes less visible and detectable therefore taken for granted. Power then becomes natural. People naturally accept rules, regulations, job descriptions, and budgets etc.

Examples of embedded power

Power can be embedded through strategic contingencies where some departments are responsible for certain key events or activities both inside and outside the organization necessary for its survival. It is argued that the departments/units/sections that are responsible for these key issues or are able to resolve pressing organizational problems or cries are said to be more powerful than those that do not. The power sources of such departments stem from such things as;

(a)Financial resources.

(b)Dependency creation.

(c)Ability to decrease uncertainty

(d)Centrality of activities.

(e)Non-substitutability.

E.g. Case study by M. Crozier – The bureaucratic Phenomenon 1964

He explained how the maintenance unit in a cigarette manufacturing company managed to create dependency and therefore power over all other departments through its ability to resolve problems for the company. The maintenance unit was able to overcome the unpredictable nature of assembly line breakdowns by being able to repair machines critical for the production of cigarettes.

Because the vital knowledge needed for machine repair was within the maintenance men (tacit knowledge) the dept had non-substitutability since no one could repair machines except these 12 maintenance men.

Under this third perspective is also Foucault’s view of the panopticon/disciplinary power.

Where management are able to dominate by creating “rules of the game” or defining what is normal/ abnormal for society, organization etc.

Here power is achieved through disciplinary practices such as punishment, surveillance, timetables, and assessments etc. Organisations are also viewed poisons”. Power is present in its absence” e.g. TQM – modem version of the participation.

This leads us to another view of:

Organisations as political arenas/ contexts

References: Pfeffer (1981) Power in organizations

H. Mintzberg (1983) Power in and around organizations.

D. Mechanic (1962) Sources of power for lower participants in Complex organizations.

This view is based on a number of the following assumptions that:

  1. Organizations are instruments for the protection and advancement of the interests of the politically, socially, and economically powerful.
  2. Organizations are a creation of the macro power structures of the society of which they are a part.
  3. Structural arrangements and managerial practices within organizations are determined by the wider arrangement within society. Therefore those who wield power in society in society also wield power in organizations.
  4. Organizational actors such as managers, professionals, struggling to control each other. This struggle is generated by a conflict of interests and values between the actors. These struggles are mainly over 2 things :(a) the way in which work is organized (b) How the benefits of participation are distributed.
  5. Inherent and inevitable conflicts in organizations are regulated by administrative, technological and management practices in the interests of the powerful. (It is argued that management are not rational but they control others in the interests of the powerful). Bureaucracy is created as an administrative technology to make sure the behaviour of people is directed towards the interests of the powerful.
  6. Mechanisms of control have partial success because the sources of power continuously shift from one group to the next and with each group trying to coin back lost power. Therefore, industrial peace is a myth because various groups are always in conflict.

Pfeffer (1974, 1977, 1981) argues that organizations are composed of power coalitions (which are group of individuals with conflicting interests). These compete and conflict over the goals of the organization. Goals at any one given time, are a reflection of the most powerful coalition group within the organization therefore organizational goals are in favour of those who at that moment organize power/are powerful.

Control in such cases becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve organizational goal (goal displacement).

Thus the design of any organisation is an outcome of a power struggle. Pfeffer goes on to argue that in order to understand why organizations operate and are designed in particular ways one has to understand the shifts of power between the coalitions.

Organisational analysis therefore becomes a study of power – how it is gained, used, abused, lost and why?

END

1