Power and Dependency, Institutional Theory, and Population Ecology - Coursework Example

Power and Dependency, al Theory, and Population Ecology Jeremy J. Hill August 3, 2009 ORG602 - Organizational Studies II Dr. Wenli Wang TUI University Power and dependency, institutional theory, and population ecology Introduction Resource dependence theory, institutional theory and population ecology theory are the latest three unconventional or unorthodox organizational theories that seek to interpret organizational behavior and outcomes in a completely different light. This paradigm shift in theoretical and conceptual focus and contingency model or framework analysis have enabled a much broader perspective to be adopted in understanding the nature and impact of the organizational environment on the outcomes including organizational goals, leadership, culture and structure. Thus the concept of power is central to all three theories and they essentially identify power as the most important link within the organizational environment. The only difference comes from the fact that three theories mentioned above locate the power concept in three different areas or groups of members within the organization. Resource dependence theory is based on the fact that organizations inevitably depend on resources and their mobility and as result in turn depend on suppliers of those resources (Pfeffer, 2003)On the other hand institutional theory is based on the argument that organizations aren't particularly concerned about task expediencies but about expediencies that arise from the strategic cultural environment of the organization, along with meeting demands put forward by lending and professional institutions. Finally the population ecology theory emphasizes the ways and means through which organizations' structures and forms are influenced ((Hannan M. T., 1989)). For example changing nature of the organization has less influence on such structures than the birth and death of organizations. Analysis In the ordinary sense of the word 'power' enables those who exercise it to dominate over those who don't have it. This explanation seems to be rather simplistic though still the conventional organizational theories have a much wider acceptance in modern management theories. Power is a dynamic concept with a degree of fluidity and much less transparency. In other words the concept of power acquires a newer and more articulate dimension in the modern unconventional organizational theory than hitherto was known. The concept of power has many nuances including that it's associated with responsibility. Thus organizational power can be extended to include corporate responsibility as well. Resource dependence theory invariably supports these power dynamics in its articulation of a strategic supplier dominated organizational environment. However it must be noted here that modern writers on unconventional organizational theory tend to speculate on politicized organizational environments in order to give a revolutionary interpretation to the evolving structures and cultures. Power is rooted in the organization's dependence on resource providers who might not hesitate to manipulate the organizational outcomes by imposing their weight on its structures and forms. Thus power as a concept in the modern sense of the organizational context is a barometer of organizational strengths. In other words organizational power isn't a simple aggregation of 'individual powers' as such. It has a much wider significance and impact on the organizational outcomes. The theoretical premise of power is derived from the fact that suppliers of resources have a strategic link with the organization. Therefore it is the suppliers who exercise political control over the organization (Ulrich, 1984)The authors identify and address the implications of anti-management theories within the organizational context so that a particularly significant hidden feature of the organization is brought to the surface. Notwithstanding the counter argument that organizations do not seek intentionally to politicize their operational environments, the resource dependence theory focuses on the link between power of resource suppliers and the conformist behavior of the organization. In other words the indulgent behavior of the organization is not without implications, though the latter happen to be less significant against the backdrop of suppliers' capacity to help the organization to achieve its corporate goals. On the other hand institutional theory of the organization is determined by the belief that the organization is more or less subject to pressures that arise from its operational environment. In other words there is a tendency among some writers to emphasize the importance of the strategic competitive environment of the organization rather than the contingencies of task based approaches. (Di Maggio, 1983)For example institutional theory predicates on organizational structures being constantly imposed on by expectations and demands from a normative culture centric environment. This predication has received significant attention from analysts because there are parallel structures evolving within the organization despite the existence of intolerant and sometimes hostile behaviors against change. All three theories have a highly influential common thread running through them, i.e. they identify the existence of a behavioral paradigm within the organization though the extent to which such power centric behavior is attributable to individuals cannot be determined. Simply there is no clear definition of groups of members within the organization to whom such behavior can be traced. Resource dependence theory comes closer to locating power in suppliers but doesn't adequately identify the extent of its influence on defining behavioral tendencies. Organizational theory has to be precise in identifying a particular stakeholder group or groups to attribute power to. But nevertheless all three theories agree on the premise that power is a structural entity. Thus change management principles also have contributed in large measure to this evolution. The connotations and denotations associated with the institutional theory of the organization have often been interpreted as culturally norm-based and strategically impervious to outside influences. However purely theoretical and conceptual frameworks or models cannot be built to accommodate contingency demands and expectations because such models are much less amenable to predictions. Institutional theory stresses the need to incorporate contingency demands and expectations in to the existing organizational structure and culture thus seeking to modify the theoretical and conceptual organizational model (Scott, 1994)While there is a considerable amount of political power dynamics in this theoretical analysis, the ultimate organizational structure has emerged with less political trappings. However the current developments in institutional theory are essentially based on the political conceptualization of structures and culture as well. These influences originate in the external environment such as lending banks and professional bodies which set standards and impose rules on the organization. Finally institutional theory posits itself against the very passive approach to influencing structure and culture related changes within the organization. It advocates far reaching structural changes including the internal power relations that exist between managers and subordinates. These power relations also govern the organizational outcomes to such an extent that political power has become an inevitable corollary or appendage to the very management structures .Thus irrespective of vertical and horizontal structures within the organization, institutional theory seeks to apply more or less some political power theories to the organizational environment. Population ecology theory identifies that anti-management theoretical and conceptual paradigms essentially underlie the modern organizational theory. In other words modern organizational theory must be reshaped to include functional convergent behaviors (Hannan M. &., 1977)For example according to this theory mere adaptations would not work because there must be some originality in changing the functional environment of the organization. This belief forms the core argument of population ecology theory. Even though the theoretical underpinnings of this theory are dictated by a greater temptation to accept the fact that internal changes at organizations occur at a leisurely pace and therefore only a politically motivated approach to changing the inner social organizational structures would help, there is still a degree of doubt as to what parametric tendencies would be required to shift the internal ecological environment of the organization away from its current causality relations. Population ecology theory also identifies the existence of power structures and relations within the organization. As such any attempted change must identify the existence of politically motivated organizational structures. Any effort to introduce adaptive changes will be resisted by vested interests within the organization. Especially the organizational structure, culture and leadership might not yield to change because they interpret their current positions as conclusively established. Therefore according to population ecology theory change must come through a new birth. In order to facilitate a new birth the existing organization must die (Wholey, 1986))In other words the existing organizations political power structures and relations must yield to a re-incarnated self of the organization. Conclusion All three theories have basically been intended to provide a much broader analytical framework based on the power concept as a behavioral paradigm. In other words these theories suggest that there is a definable and clear connect between individuals and power thus hinting at a behavioral theoretical paradigm within the organization though all three theories don't adequately identify groups of stakeholders to attribute that power to. As a result organizations cannot escape the modern day reality, i.e. according to resource dependency theory the political conceptualization of the modern organization entails a paradigm shift in favor of power structures within the organization; according to institutional theory of the organization there are much wider structural and expectations related influences operating within the organization than what can be seen through the conventional theoretical models; and finally according to the population ecology theory internal power systems in existing organizations would not accept new efforts at change or adaptation and therefore existing organizational structures and power relations need to be changed through complete destruction of the existing organizational structures and relations. Works Cited clegg, s. (n.d.). Lives in the Balance. Administrative Science Quarterly , 428-441. Di Maggio, P. P. (1983). The iron cage revisited : Institutional Isomorphism. American Sociological review , 147-160. Donaldson, L. (1995). American Anti-Management Theories of Organization:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . Hannan, M. &. (1977). The population ecology of organizations , American . Journal of Sociology , , 929-964 . Hannan, M. T. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Pfeffer, J. ,. (2003). The External Control of Organizations:. California: Stanford Business Books . Powell, W. W. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational . Chicago: University Of Chicago Press . Scott, W. R. (1994). Institutional Environments and Organizations: . California: Sage Publications, Inc. Ulrich, D. &. (1984). Perspectives in Organizations: Resources dependence , . Academy of Management Review , 471. Wholey, D. R. (1986)). Organizational Ecology : Findings & Implications , . The Academy of Management Review , 513-534. Read More