Effect of Power Relations on Organizational Development - Essay Example

? How do power relations affect organisational development? How do power relations affect organisational development? Introduction The concept of power is relevant to almost every aspect of life. Even within the family, power is relevant to the ways in which the elders impose their beliefs upon the young as they grow. Power sounds like a negative thing, but it is not, in and of itself, a negative aspect of relationships. Power is responsibility. Power is needed for decision making. Power is the glue that keeps a group together and moves it forward through the tasks that are set to meet goals. Power, when handled judiciously, is a positive aspect of a social dynamic that creates the core motivating center from which true innovation and achievement can be reached. Power organizes and keeps a group within limits so that it does not branch out into tangents that are counterproductive to focused goals. Foucault rejected the idea that power was an object, but determined that it is an aspect of the negotiation that people make with each other in trying to find their identity. Organisations are a site in which individuals will develop concepts of who they are within that structure, lending that identity to the greater overall identity of the self. Searle, on the other hand, “argues that social reality exists largely because of the agreement of the people who create it” (McNiff and Whitehead 2000, p. 104). Therefore, the power relations that are created within an organisation exist in order to create the social structure in which the individual finds a sense of their purpose within that organisation. Whichever side of the power that a person finds themselves within, the structure sets the stage from which the actions of the social groups find a platform. In examining the concept of power relations in organisations, it is first important to define power and the way in which power influences. Once power is understood, it is essential to understand power relations in order to understand how they fit into organisational development. Looking at the ways in which power is used through management approaches will help to further define the ways in which power relations are relevant to the organisation of a business. The ways in which power is developed and through the methods of management it is used will define the ability for teams and team members to successfully accomplish tasks towards company goals. Defining Power The concept of power, while seemingly simple, is actually a complex notion as observed through social science. Max Weber defined power as “the chance of a man or number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the act” (Fletcher 2006, p. 37). The representation defines power as the ability to overcome opposition to what is desired by one’s self or by one’s social group. Furthermore, it suggests that people will have clearly defined goals and those goals can come into conflict with one another (Fletcher 2006, p. 37). Sociologist Stephen Lukes suggests that power manifests in three different forms. Each of those manifestations operates at a different level of contestation. The first level is one-dimensional power which occurs when one group gains the coercive power to impose their will over another group. An example of this can be seen when a union gets higher wages and benefits when bargaining with a corporation. The union has exerted one-dimensional power over the corporation. Two dimensional power can be seen when one group controls the level of advancement that can be made by another group. In this scenario, not only has the group found a way to impose their desires onto another group, it will prevent it from pursuing their own goals (Fletcher 2006, p. 37). The third type of power is three-dimensional power. This type of power is the most effective power in that it controls conflict before it happens. Third-dimensional power will align goals, values, and desires. In this case “This outcome, in turn often leads the former to willingly embrace a social order that ultimately serves the interests of the latter” (Fletcher 2006, p. 38). In this form of power, one individual or group convinces the other to come around to their way of thinking or doing through joining certain goals in order to redirect them in the direction that is desired. The simple definition of power is the ability of one person or group to assert control over another person or group (Griffin and Moorehead 2010, p. 357). There is controversy over whether or not every interpersonal or business relationship is affected by a form of power, but there is not doubt that in business, power will affect the way I which an organisation will perform. According to Uguris (2004), it is accepted that individuals will bring values and experiences to a situation, whether it be into an organisation or other circumstance. Perceptions, practices and attitudes will be affected by gender, ethnicity, race and class. Therefore relations will develop based upon these aspects which will result in the context in which authority and power will develop (p. 49). Power Relations Uguris (2004), asserts, despite some controversy to the contrary, that power relations are evident in every social aspect of life (p. 50). When seen through a Marxist point of view, this can be identified for the tension that is involved through the relationships between management and labour. Through the Marxist point of view, “At the heart of the capitalist enterprise…stands a structural antagonism between workers and employees, rooted in the struggle to extract surplus value from the production process” (Tolliday and Zeitlin 1991, p. 5). This conceptualized relationship becomes relevant to all levels of a company, each tier having someone to answer to, thus creating this tension in which the needs of one level come into conflict with the next level up. At the top of this struggle are the shareholders interests or the ownership. In a shareholder model of governance, it is the upward responsibility to the ownership when it does not take into consideration of the levels flowing down the pyramid that exacerbates the power relations in an organisation. The stakeholder Decision Making The decision making process is conducted within the context of power and conflict. Morgan theorizes that “a particular decision or a particular structure is not an expression of the organisation’s goals but the ability of particular groups to impose their definition of the situation and their solution onto other groups within the organisation” (Uguris 2004, p. 49). It can also be argued that those who equate power with the decision making process leave out the situation where no decision is made. However, it is the ability to make a decision and to impose that decision that has the most relevance to holding power. Indecision does not lend itself well to the concept of power. Hall defines four characteristics that will lead towards the resting of power. A person who can most often gain and hold onto power will have: position, personal characteristics such as charisma or expertise, opportunity, or a combination of these factors that lend themselves to the particular needs of the situation. Because of these requirements, it can be observed that power is domain specific - that having power in one aspect does not necessarily mean that power is held within another aspect (Ugaris 2004, p. 50). In this way, power is related to decision making in that the ability to make decisions and enact those decision sin one domain will not necessarily mean that one can do the same in other circumstances. For an organisation that is attempting to meet goals and attain a level of innovation, being able to make decisions and have the control to manipulate all the players to have those decisions be realized will shift power towards one entity or another. Power relations depends on the ability of an individual to make decisions. However, this is not always the best way to approach decisions. Despite the more common singular figure who heads up and manages a group or a set of groups, the best method of reaching a decisions is to have it occur as a group decisions. As shown in the following approaches to organisational development, of all of the ways in which authority is used in management styles, the adaptive approach is the best possible structure in which to see good decisions made. A group dynamic where power is distributed evenly will produce a logical, well thought out answer to a dilemma. Approaches to Organisational Development In order to understand how power is used in organisational development, it is important to understand the ways in which organisations can approach their structure so that power relations are properly organized within the team or group. There are many approaches that can be used to structure a group. The adaptive approach can be equalizing in the way in which power relationships are balanced. However, there are a series of other approaches that can be used to reach goals in relationship to the requirements of the situation. The Adaptive Approach One of the way sin which organisational development can be approached is through the adaptive approach. The adaptive approach is based upon the theory that decisions reached by a team or group are often reached through logic that is more sound and more well thought out than decisions reached by individuals (Seleshi 2006, p. 144). In this type of organisation, the team is built to be balanced with each team member having an equal status within the group, thus an equally weighted opinion in which to contribute to the decision making process. In this type of organisation the power relations are built through mutual respect for the capacity in which each team member has been selected to equally contribute through specialized skills to the task. This approach is a trust relationship between management and the team. The team is given the tools to accomplish their task, then they are expected to take those tools and use them creatively for their goals. The tools are just the beginning of the process, where they are intended to innovate with the tools provided with the understanding that management will support whatever comes from having experimented with what was given to the team (Austin 2001, p. 101). In the adaptive approach, the management does not guide the team, but expects performance to happen without a supervisory role. Directive Approach The directive approach is designed to have management guide a team towards the goal with parameters and adjustments that come down to the team from higher levels of authority. In this approach, decisions are made and new rules or procedures are established without the input of the team, but then passed to the team to utilize in the accomplishment of their goals (Austin 2001, p. 101). The advantages of this type of approach is that when small or quick changes are needed, they are given and expected to be implemented without analysis from the team members. A directive approach can have an abrasive nature, thus it is more often used when legislation has changed the nature of an aspect and must be implemented or when the business is under a threat (Robinson and Palmer 2006, p. 150). Negotiation Approach A negotiating approach to management of an organisation means that the various teams are put into negotiation with each other so that quality compromises can be made for the benefit of all actors (Robinson and Palmer 2010, p. 150). This approach is based upon Machiavellian theories of resistance to change. The theory is founded in the idea that an innovator will be resisted even when change will provide benefit because of caution (Osborne and Brown 2005, p. 204) . The concept of negotiation is founded in the belief that there will be different interested groups and actors within an organisation who will be interested in protecting their corner against anything that will negatively impact what they are trying to accomplish. Therefore, they will approach the suggestion of change with extreme caution. According to Pettigrew as quoted by Osborne and Brown (2005): Innovation decisions are likely to threaten existing patterns of resource sharing. New responses are created and appear to fall within a jurisdiction of a department. This department or its principal representative may see this as an opportunity to increase his or her status and rewards in an organisation. Those who see their interests threatened…may invoke resistance in the joint decision making process. In all these ways new political action is released and ultimately the existing distribution of power is endangered (p. 204). In this scenario, the concept is of power is vital in understanding the reactions of actors as change is presented. If power is not properly assessed and addressed, then resistance might be heightened and implementation of change may not be properly put into play. A Normative Approach When a large change will be put into place, the normative approach holds the best possibility for a positive outcome. In this approach, all of the actors are brought into the process and given a part to play in the act of change (Robinson and Palmer 2010, p. 150). This approach is reflective of the third-dimension of power in that it is used when getting the most number of people all moving in the same direction. In this way, participation, while possibly valuable for the result of the participation, is primarily valuable for getting all actors involved in the procuess, thus giving them a stake in the outcome. The Analytic Approach The analytic approach is designed to handle a situation when a clear problem is present and the use of learned consultants and experts are needed in order to find a solution (Robinson and Palmer 2010, p. 151). This approach is intended to take the decision making process out of the hands of the normal groups and put it into the hands of others who, by education or experience, have a better chance of finding a viable solution. In this scenario, the power is pulled from its normal positioning and put into the hands of people who are outside of the social circle that is naturally created in a work atmosphere. An Action-Centered Approach The action-centered approach is designed to address a problem by using the internal expertise of team members in order to collaboratively find a solution. This type of approach is empowering and allows for the members of a team to feel useful in approaching a solution for a problem. Of course, if a solution for the problem is not found that may cause problems, but the overall concept allows for the team to feel powerful and central to the issue, thus creating a highly positive circumstance in which the team members, as long as they are accomplishing something in the process, feel as if they are powerful and central to the goals and tasks of the organisation. Summary on Approaches The ways in which an approach affects the outcome of the power relations development will also affect the effectiveness of the group. Each different approach has a specified type of result and when developing a team or group, it is important to analyze which of these approaches will have the best result. While it often happens that a power relation will emerge, creating an organic blossoming of the social interactions within an organisation, it is better to use a concerted effort in designing the way in which a group will be governed and how power relations will be positioned. Organisational Development and Power Relations Power relations are defined by the way in which aspects of a social group relate to one another. The key to understanding power relations is to focus on the relationship aspect of the concept. While the power aspect has an important role, it is the relationship that is developed, whether it is organic or designed, that is the key to the process. The relationship of one individual to another will define who will have the power and who will be the labourer in the dynamic (Kerr 2003, p. 146). The labourer will be exploited for what will be needed for the process, while the empowered individual will be burdened with the responsibilities of the decision making process. Both positions have the potential for problems, therefore it is important that the right individuals are in the appropriate roles. There are a great number of factors that work to help define the appropriate person for the right role. The right person will fulfill his or her duties in such a way that all are satisfied with the outcome. A poor leader will have results that leave some or all of the group to the remnants of the outcome, the passage of the leadership having insinuated its poor execution onto the event. Predictors are important in understanding the level to which the traits of an individual will help to provide the right inter-relational dynamic. Conflict At the core of designing a situation in which leadership is involved is the handling of conflict. Conflict occurs when one idea does not flow in concert with another idea. Conciliation is the tool that alleviates the conflict, the idea resolved so that the best possible aspects have been honored. A consultant is a person who has the skills to find a resolution to the conflict that may arise. Sometimes, conflict can be easily handled internally. However, the relationships within a group will help to define how conflict is resolved (Jain 2005, p. 525). Conclusion Organisational development should be designed in order to use an approach that is appropriate to the goals and needs of the overall organisation. When used properly, power is a vital part of the relational dynamic of an organisation. Power is the focusing detail that provides structure to an organisation. Choosing the right approach to a problem is essential in providing the right structure for a group, thus allowing for the best possible outcome. Decisions need to be made as well as conflict resolved. Through creating relationships that are supportive of the overall goals and aspirations of an organisation, the end result will be a positive experience. References Austin, S. A. 2001. Design chains: a handbook for integrated collaborative design. Tonbridge: T. Telford. Fletcher, Robert. 2006. Beyond resistance: the future of freedom. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova Science. Griffin, Ricky W., and Gregory Moorehead. 2010. Organizational behavior: managing people and organizations. Australia: South-Western/Cengage Learning. Jain, N. K. 2005. Organisational Behaviour, Vol 2. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishing. Kerr, Joanna. 2003. Women reinventing globalisation. Oxford: Oxfam. McNiff, Jean and Jack Whitehead. 2000. Action research in organisations. London: Routledge. Osborne, Stephan P. and Kerry Brown. 2005. Managing change and innovation in public service organisations. London: Routledge. Robinson, Leigh and Richard Palmer. 2010. Managing voluntary sport organisations. London: Taylor and Francis, Inc. Seleshi Sisaye. 2006. The ecology of management accounting and control systems. implications for managing teams and work groups in complex organisations. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Tolliday Stephen and Jonathan Zeitlin. 1991. The power to manage? Employers and industrial relations in comparative-historical perspective. London: Routledge. Uguris, Tijen. 2004. Space, power and participation: ethnic and gender divisions in tenants' participation in public housing. Aldershot [u.a.]: Ashgate. Read More