Org Theory Directed Readings

Week 7 – Power

08 March 2018

Introduction

This week’s readings include various approaches to conceptualizing power within organizations.
The reading by Hinings et al provides an expanded examination of the strategic contingencies
theory of intraorganizational power proposed by the same group of authors three years earlier.
Salancik and Pfeffer’s piece looks at the ways in which subunits may acquire and use power by
analyzing the resource allocations to departments within a university. Similarly, Hackman also
conducts her study on subunits within a university system, although a major distinction within
her work relates to the extent to which the centrality of a subunit to the overall mission of the
organization determines how to best achieve intraorganizational power (i.e. remain a “gainer”
instead of a “loser”). Emerson examines the balancing operations which can alter one actor’s
dependence on – or, the power over – another actor, which may be achieved through a number of
balancing techniques such as withdrawal or extending a power network. Clegg’s piece
incorporates ideas of class structure as important elements of control and rule formation in
organization. Finally, Pfeffer’s Power in Organizations covers many of the specific elements
addressed in each article and embeds those ideas within a larger, more comprehensive account of
the determinants, consequences, and indicators of power. All the same, several conceptual
differences distinguish some of these works from others. Certain pieces even define the same
concepts in different ways, which leads to the potential for confusion and the appearance of
disagreement at times. For instance, whereas the centrality of workflows is an important
component of acquiring and retaining power according to the strategic contingencies theory,
Hackman’s theory incorporates centrality only as a determining factor for how power is
appropriately acquired.

The first section of this response aims to provide insight to these divergent accounts of centrality.
Using the works of Hinings et al and Hackman, I argue that differing definitions of centrality
create the appearance of theoretical disagreement where actual disagreement may not be present.
The question of which definition is better is also shown to be a moot point, as the issue of greater
importance involves simply identifying the difference in meanings between Hinings et al’s and
Hackman’s. In the second section, I address Emerson’s concern that the knowledge base and
research literature had “not achieved the cumulative character desired” at the time of his work in
1962 (31). Specifically, has the research on organizational power achieved a body of work which
is consistent, to a certain degree, and were Emerson’s ideas influential? I use Pfeffer’s work to
argue that there is ample evidence of synthesis within the literature on power which signifies a
more coherent body of research. Furthermore, though the literature on the determinants of power
are shown to divide along several lines, Emerson’s original formulation of the power-
dependency relationship remains a common thread across these divisions.

Centrality of what, exactly?

In prior work by Hickson et al (1971), the centrality of workflows is seen by the authors to play a
crucial role in the acquisition of intraorganizational power. The same authors echo this notion in
their research on breweries and container companies, but they define centrality as being
comprised of two aspects. First, workflows can be pervasive to the extent that the work of the
subunit is “linked to the workflows of other subunits” (26). This is distinguished from the second
element of centrality, workflow immediacy, which the authors define as the “speed and severity
with which the workflow of a subunit affects the final outputs of the organization” (27). In their
analysis, Hinings et al find that workflow immediacy and pervasiveness (in particular,
pervasiveness as perceived by other subunits) are strongly related to subunit power.

This finding by Hinings et al runs counter to later work conducted by Hackman. In her study on
university departments, Hackman uses environmental power, institutional power, and centrality
as determining factors in how effectively subunits are able to acquire internal resources (e.g.
share of budget). In particular, the centrality of the subunit is said to interact with the
environmental power of subunits in a way that distinguishes the best ways to secure larger
amounts of internal resources. For “core” subunits (i.e. high centrality), institutional resources
are gained through obtaining external resources which primarily benefit the subunit, while
“peripheral” organizations are better suited to securing external resources which benefit the
entire institution (67). In this way, various forms of power interact with centrality to produce
gainers and losers in terms resource allocation, and the amount of internal resources gained is not
a function of centrality. Rather, the centrality of the subunit only determines the ways in which
organizations should focus their attention with respect to acquiring external resources.

Why does centrality play such a different role in these two works? The main distinction results
from divergent definitions of centrality between Hackman and Hinings et al. Whereas strategic
contingencies theory views centrality with respect to workflows, Hackman simply defines
centrality as “how closely the purposes of a unit match the central mission of its institution” (61).
These conceptual differences should not be overlooked when comparing Hackman’s findings to
Hinings et al. If using Hackman’s definition on the research by Hinings et al, it is fairly clear that
the “core” subunits would be those most closely involved in brewing the beer, while almost all of
the subunits within the container companies would likely be considered peripheral. In this way,
centrality is not a function (nor a predictor) of the amount of power able to be obtained by a
subunit. Similarly, using the centrality of workflows theorized by Hinings et al to examine
Hackman’s study, it becomes clear that workflow immediacy and pervasiveness are not
determined by whether a subunit is core or peripheral, but rather a gainer or a loser. Engineering
and administration, despite their differences in Hackman-defined centrality, are both essential
elements of the workflows of the university, since they were both essential elements of recruiting
prospective students at that point in the university’s history. Teacher education programs and
student affairs, on the other hand, were less pervasive in terms of workflows, thus earning
Hackman’s distinction as losers. Therefore, when applying consistent definitions to terms and
concepts, the findings of Hackman and Hinings et al are not as different as they appear at the
superficial level.

A cumulative framework of power?

At the time of his work, Emerson laments that despite growing attention being paid towards
organizational and interpersonal power (and its related concepts), researchers to that point had
not been building frameworks in a way that could be considered integrative or coherent. With
this problem in mind, Emerson intends for his work to lay the foundation for a general
framework of interpersonal power-dependence relations, which future research may build from
in order to foster a more systematic investigation of power, including its components and
antecedents.

All of this begs the question: has the study of power, particularly within organization theory,
achieved the goal of formalizing and systematizing a coherent framework (or set of
frameworks)? If so, does Emerson significantly contribute to this framework? The first question
is addressed throughout Pfeffer’s Power in Organizations. Pfeffer offers a robust account of the
indicators, antecedents, and consequences associated with power. Using this as a guide, one can
see that similarities abound in the ways the other authors in this week’s readings conceptualize
power. One example involves comparing the measurements of power in several articles against
the common methods identified in chapter 2 of Pfeffer’s book. Pfeffer emphasizes the “most
reasonable approach in diagnosing power” is to search for a convergence of several possible
indicators related to the symbols, reputation, representation, or consequences which signify
subunit power (59). For Salancik and Pfeffer, this convergence manifested itself through
interviews to obtain measures of reputation and concrete figures related to representation on
committees. Hinings et al also use a multi-method approach which collected information on
subunit reputations (legitimate power), decision-making influence, and 17 separate factors which
commonly result from power (31). Hackman also divides her measurement of power to
distinguish between environmental and institutional forms. All of these works – implicitly, or
otherwise – recognize that power is identified through a number of distinct indicators, and the
most robust evaluation of subunit power must rely upon several of the tools mentioned by Pfeffer
based upon the availability of certain information and contextual factors within the organization
being studied.

When evaluating the coherence of the power literature, the approaches taken in the papers by
Hinings et al and Salancik and Pfeffer do not superficially provide much evidence of a
cumulative power framework. Chapter 4 of Power in Organizations provides a larger context in
which we may place these two works. The strategic contingencies theory is not a wholly separate
theory of power in organizations; rather, Pfeffer uses this theory as a central element of the
determinants of subunit power in organizations. The facets of strategic contingencies theory are
crucial for understanding the importance of coping with uncertainty, but several other elements –
such as possessing monetary resources or Simon’s “altering the premises of decision making” –
combine with strategic contingencies theory to provide a more complete account of the
determinants of subunit power.

Even in instances where power is not uniformly applied according to the same framework, some
studies with differing approaches come to quite similar conclusions of the characteristics of
subunits with significant power. Though Hackman states in the concluding segments of her work
that the research “was conducted without reference to the strategic-contingencies theory of
intraorganizational power proposed by Hickson et al” (73), we still find in the previous section of
this response that the determining factors of internal resource allocation can easily be linked to
the determinants of power discussed in Hinings et al. Ultimately, the gainers discussed within the
university subunits proved to be the ones which coped most effectively when faced with
uncertainty and were essential contributors to the workflows of the institution. Additionally,
many of the characteristics of gainers (particularly peripheral gainers) exhibited many of the
same characteristics were Salancik and Pfeffer found to be determinants of departmental power
in their study (e.g. securing restricted or external resources for the department/institution).
Therefore, though the language and explicit use of constructs may vary across studies of power,
we find many of the same factors play an important role in determining the extent of subunit
power.

Finally, what role does Emerson play in this integration? Chapter 4 of Pfeffer’s Power in
Organizations provides ample evidence that Emerson’s ideas on dependence have had a strong
impact on the study of power. Pfeffer underlines Emerson’s importance by stating that “most
definitions of power offered by other authors (Blau, 1964; Thompson, 1967) are virtually
identical to Emerson’s original formulation” (99). Dependency is not the only aspect of
Emerson’s work which Pfeffer retains, though. Pfeffer’s discussion of factors which reduce the
use of power in organizations (88) echoes several of the balancing operations to reduce
dependency noted by Emerson. For example, managing slack resources and reducing the
importance of decisions can be viewed through the lens of Emerson as “B” reducing the
motivational investment in goals mediated by “A,” which Emerson refers to as withdrawal (36),
while Pfeffer’s discussion on the cultivation of homogeneity and agreement resembles
Emerson’s coalition forming. Thus, Emerson seems to have been quite successful in his efforts to
concentrate and integrate proceeding studies of power into a more cumulative set of frameworks.