A Multi Framed Perspective of Political Power

Angelina Spaulding
OGL 498: Pro Seminar I
College of Letters and Sciences
Arizona State University

A Multi Framed Perspective of Political Power

Structural theorists, human resource theorists, and political theorists all view power in
three different ways. The following discussion will describe each perspective. As well, as
compare all three perspectives to the other.
First, consider the structural theorist perspective of power. Structural theorists
typically emphasize authority, the legitimate prerogative to make binding decisions (p. 201).
Those individuals that carry these beliefs see leadership as the single defining factor in
determining a course of action. That it is the leader who is overall responsible for analyzing,
organizing, implementing and monitoring the needs of others. Militant styles of leadership can
likely be associated with those that have a structural perspective of power.
The next perspective of power to consider is the human recourse theorists
perspective. Human resource theorists place less emphasis on power and more on
empowerment (p. 202). Those that have this perspective likely view authority as one with
limitations, so as not to be oppressive to subordinates. Human resources theorists seek out a
collaborative partnership to help empower to lead themselves and others. These types of
leader may be viewed as spiritual leaders.
The final perspective on power is the political frame. The political frame views
authority as only one among many forms of power. It recognizes the importance of individual
(and group) needs but emphasizes that scare resources and incompatible preference cause
needs to collide (p. 202). This view of power sees power coming from many different angles.
Those that have positional power, expertise power, personal power, reputation power, and so on
all have intersecting interests that can cause conflict if resources are scarce. Consider the
position as a school district super attendant as a persona that views power in a political mind
frame.
Each theoretical framework, structural, human resources, and political, all have
different views on how power is distributed. However, one main comparison between all three-

frame works is the acknowledgment of conflict. Power can be very volatile, rising and falling
with change in circumstances (p. 205), and all three frame works are aware that this volatile
nature of politics ultimately results in some sort of conflict that initiates change. However, each
frame views conflict in a different fashion. To the political frame conflict is not viewed as
something that can or should be tamped down or stamped out (p. 205), whereas the structural
frameviews conflict as an impediment to effectiveness. Human resource theorists can see
the potential in well-handled conflict [which] can stimulate creativity and innovation that make
an organization a livelier, more adaptive, and more effective place (p. 207).
The structural perspective, the human resources perspective, and the political
perspective all view power in different ways. Even though each has a varying view on power, all
three theoretical ideologies acknowledged that conflict is an inevitable aspect of organizational
life. However, all three perspectives have different opinions on how to engage conflict with
power.

Reference
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership.
Jossey Bass: San Francisco