Power in Organizations - Essay Example

?Power in Organizations Introduction: It is believed that power cannot be understood without having an understanding of an organization. Similarly, an organization cannot be studied without studying the powers prevailing within the organization. Power is carved within every organization and has a significant role to play in the organizational performances towards achievement of its goals. The literature on power is wide-ranging and multifaceted. However the implications of the research on power within organizations have stayed principally unknown. Power cannot be separated from organizational communications a reason why power is instilled in every organizational institution (Clegg, Courpasson & Phillips, 2006, pp.2-6). Formal structure of authority, leadership standards prevailing in the organization, organizational environment, familiar processes of working, and aims and commitments of organizational members are the major forces that transform the use and distribution of power within an organization. Thus this determines the degree of power than an individual has in comparison to others in the organization (Bacon, 2011, p.217). Organizations have a dependence on adequate resources that include “money, materials, technology, personnel, and support” and these resources are required in a flow for an organization to perform successfully. Sources of power internal and external to an organization may be obtained owing to these control measures (Morgan, 2006, p.169). Several authors have given their views and opinions on the study of power within organizations. These include the elements of power, the different dimensions of control that are exercised through the powers available to different organizational members, and thus the ultimate uses of power. This report would particularly focus on the concept of power in the organizations and study its uses and implications on different control measures mainly in the context of Berkley-Thomas’ analytical framework. Implications of Power within Organizations: Various researchers have conducted various studies on the topic of power within organizations. For example, Machiavelli provided a “strategic and decentralized” view on use of power within organizations. He studied power as a resource to gain strategic advantages of the company. Hobbes believed that power was centralized and had greater attentions on independence. Weber’s approach to the study of power was associated to bureaucracy and power in this respect was connected to organizational rules and influence. Dahl had continued with Weber’s theory and further associated it with human resources. Bachrach and Baratz criticized Dahl’s concept reflecting doubts on a decision making process being truly democratic as previous studies presented. Lukes developed this theory and emphasized on a three dimensional study on power (Theories of power, n.d., pp.33-37). The case study provides the views and studies of several such authors and theorists with respect to power structure in organizations. However, this report would try to reflect the concerned topic in regard to the analytical framework as formed and analyzed by Berkley-Thomas. The concept of leadership has different meanings to different human beings. Alan Berkeley Thomas had given his view on leadership as “Even in everyday usage the term ‘leadership’ is ambiguous. It is used to refer to the holders of certain formally defined positions in an organization, as when speaking of the ‘party leadership’ or ‘the union leadership’. But it is also used to denote a particular type of behavior; when someone is commended for displaying ‘outstanding leadership’ it is their actions that are being praised” (Gill, 2006, p.7). Concept of Power Structure in Organizations in the context of Berkley-Thomas’ analytical framework: Looking at the modern organizations, the structure within organizations can be viewed as not been fixed, objective bodies that may exist independently. Organizational structures are rather found to be “neither natural nor inevitable”, thus the circumstances faced by an organization reflect the power of a group, “the power to privilege one set of meanings while denying and suppressing” other factors (Thomas, 2006, pp.114-115). Cultural factors in organizations were not used to be given much importance in the earlier times. However, “growing awareness” and the global competition have led to an increasing concern regarding the cultural factors in the organizational performances. Theorists like Hofstede had presented studies that reflect the impact of cultural differences in cross cultural organizational relationships. It has been realized that a “decentralized” organization that shares power and is managed in an informal manner, having lesser rules and regulations fits best in such organizational cultures (Thomas, 2003, p.187). Several countries may exhibit “high power distance” and “high uncertainty avoidance”. These organizations may reflect centralization in their organizational structure that is regulated by strict measures and rules. However, all organizations may not be suitable in all forms of cultural inclinations. Management needs to take into consideration several factors in addition to culture while planning the structure and style of organizations that include the power structure and leadership factors as well (Thomas, 2003, p.187). As the different studies represent, the outcomes and performances of an organization depends to a large extent on the interaction between the organization and its surroundings. Organizations are “open systems” and depend on changes within surroundings that have effects on the operations and survival impacting both the organizational structure and behavior that are strongly affected by the external factors as well (Thomas, 2003, p.168). Thus viewing the influences occurring within organizations due to internal and external factors, there occurs a need to regulate the “behavior” of the organizational members. This assists them in contributing “effectively and efficiently” in the realization of the executive objectives. Thus an internal control is found to be necessary. This reflects the need for organizations to include power elements that intend to “facilitate the control of employees’ work behavior” and these elements help the organizational leaders to exercise their influences over the internal operations of the firm. Most fundamentally, an organization’s control system is found to consist of three components that include goals, information systems, and sanctioning systems. It is highly necessary that the individual being controlled is oriented towards his goals. This would help the organization to perform as per its objectives. Also, a proper information system is highly required that facilitates directions to be communicated to different members thus instructing organizational behaviors to attain the desired goals. Feedback may also be obtained in the process. A sanctioning process is necessary since organizations deal with human factors (Thomas, 2003, p.168). An analytical framework of management can be represented through the following chart: Figure 1. An analytical framework for management (Thomas, 2003, p.27) Rationality seems to be a fundamental factor in the controversy issues related to the nature of management in an organization. The nature of “human conduct” can be analyzed by the concepts of rationality. Rationality has been considered as a characteristic feature that can be utilized by the managers of an organization to put the desired goals and objectives into practice. From interpretations of Weber’s studies, differences in the objective and subjective aspects of rationality regarding a particular objective can be realized. Apart from rationalism, another issue having a major significance in the power structure of organizational managements is sectionalism. Management can be understood as a combined approach invading in the individual behaviors and that of the groups to the realization of not only the means but the ends of the organizational practices. Management roles and performances can therefore be considered as significantly “self-interested” where the goals of the management are set up as the goals of the entire organization and thus the individuals of the organization. Internal power and leadership structure thus has a key role to play in this respect (Thomas, 2003, pp.26-29). Reviews from practical examples and further analysis of the study: Organizations have been studied and analyzed by theorists like Stanley Lieberson and James O’Connor who analyzed organizations before and after power and leadership structure changes in such organizations. They realized that there were significant improvements and consistency on part of these organizations when vital characteristics in performances of these organizations were studied. Alan Berkeley Thomas by reanalyzing the studies conducted by Lieberson and Connor that “the mere fact that there was a new chief executive officer in place had a substantial impact of firm performance” that was not possible to be explained for the company or the industry for any particular time period. It could be possible that the former CEO’s performance not being up to the level of expectations might have led the new CEO to be more inspired and get affected positively. Considering the retail stores in the UK, Thomas had reported that “over 60% of the variance in profit and sales” was found to be affected by changes in the executive level in the organization’s management (Clark & Clark, 1996, p.103). Power and control represent two very important features of organizational performances with respect to behaviors of the organizational members. These two factors are required together for the organizations and for the “needs, aspirations and inclinations of the individuals” that are part of the organization. Employment relationship is highly associated with the power structure of organizations (Martin, 2005, p.739). This view truly reflects the understanding of the studies of Alan Berkeley Thomas. As Saunders, Skinner and Lewicki gave an example, if a situation can be imagined where an engineering company operating in the business structure in the UK, desires to purchase some mechanical parts from a buyer’s market. Small suppliers may be available to this firm but since the parts exchanged may be low in number, and insignificant as well, an “interaction based trust” might be considered as expensive whereas “institution based” trusts are not considered as rational alternatives in this surrounding. Here it may be argued that certain coordination and expectations occurring mutually are significant in the entry of market transactions. In this situation the buyer firm would use its power in the exchange process. Thus power may substitute trusts in inter- and similarly in intra- organizational relationships (Saunders, Skinner & Lewicki, 2010, pp.95-96). Dimensions of control as affected by organizational power and a general overview on the organizational power structure: Power distance in the context of an organization refers to the degree to which the firm promotes superiors to implement authoritative power over the subordinates in the firm. A firm where the exercise of power is greater accompanied by strict rules and regulations would rate higher on power distance aspect reflecting “power imbalance” between the superior members and their subordinates. Countries representing lower power distance include the UK, the USA, the Netherlands, Australia and Canada (Singh, 2009, p.414). In the perspective of the UK, the boards of public limited companies comprise mainly of a chairman, a chief executive officer (CEO), non-executive director, and executive director. The common norm that is followed involves the chairman exercising power and hence control over the board and the CEO over the company. Although the structures and the roles of these members may seem to be simple, in reality the boards are highly multifaceted. Boards represent the “ultimate instrument of power” in formulating strategies for organizational performances. The analysts are directed by the “structural analysis of power” towards control of different basis of power that includes “position, expertise, information, and rewards” and thus facilitates in exercising control over the organizational members (Boonstra, 1998, pp.198-202). It has been understood that the internal limitations of an organization stifles the power of influence of the leaders on organizational members and hence the performances; a fact that offsets the propensity to overstate the importance of leaders inbuilt in the opinion of human beings in general. The significance of the organizational constraints for organizational power and control has been highlighted by the “resource dependence model” that represents organizations as “open systems” involved in communications with their surroundings for their success and survival. Organizations encounter continuous problems with “flow of resources” that are required by them and the accomplishment of these factors often depend on issues that may be external to an organization’s control measures. Authoritative members having power within organizations may have the ability to exercise crucial control over the outcomes of organizations. However, they too have certain limitations and constraints on “their freedom of action” and are not supposed to take measures or exercise such powers that may impact the performances of the organization that in reality may be in their control (Thomas, 2003, p.174). Any shift from “hierarchically controlled structures” in the direction of more elastic, developing models may have significant impacts for the sharing of power and control within an organization. This is primarily because an enhancement in independence “granted to self-organizing units” destabilizes the capability of individuals who have the vital power to maintain a firm’s activities and developments growing and improving (Morgan, 2006, p.114). Studies related to behavior of management in organizations at the utmost intensities occur infrequently. From the studies provided by Pettigrew, it can be understood that leaders may get frustrated with their intentions over long range of time owing to the limitations on power exercise. Thus political features can be portrayed through such studies. It cannot be supposed that managers would understand and acknowledge the objectives of the firm as set by their superiors. This might lead them not giving appropriate significance to their performances thus leading to conflicts. Another factor that restricts the exercising power of the leaders is the fact that is a system is followed for a long time; human beings tend to realize it as the ultimate way of rules and regulations to be followed. Thus new power and control encounter limitations (Thomas, 2003, p.173). Thus organizational power control can be found to have its own pros and cons that are required to be considered while an organizational power structure is designed. Conclusion: Power has a very significant role to play in every organization. Several authors and theorists have hence made researches on the organizational power and its influence on the control and performances of the organization. The essence of this report has been to understand the concept of power and its implications in the control structure of an organization in the analysis of Berkeley Thomas against the previous studies conducted by Weber, Hobbes, Lukes and others. In modern organizations the different situations encountered reflect the power of a group. In earlier times culture was not given much importance but in the increasing competitive world, organizations take culture into consideration while designing organizational structures. Organizations may vary in their structures being centralized or decentralized. It has been obtained that organizations with high power distance reflect greater exercise of power by the superiors over their subordinates leading to greater conflicts within the organizations. From the studies of Berkeley Thomas it can be realized that power and control are very important measures needed to be incorporated within organizations to keep regulations in the operations of the organizational members towards achievement of organizational goals. However, it also needs to be understood that there may be restrictions and limitations in the power and control exercised by the leaders of the organizations. An organizational management cannot expect that organizational members would accept whatever their superiors enforce on them to do. Thus, although an appropriate power structure may be necessary within every organization, utmost care also needs to be taken in regard to the functioning of the power and control such that they do not impact the performance of the company or the members negatively, but should rather be able to coordinate and incorporate a system providing with acceptable and beneficial measures in the achievement of both organizational as well as organizational goals. References 1) Bacon, T.R. (2011), The Elements of Power: Lessons on Leadership and Influence, New York: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn 2) Boonstra, J.J. (1998), Power dynamics and organizational change, London: Psychology Press 3) Clark, K.E. & M.B. Clark (1996), Choosing to lead, Belgium: Center for Creative Leadership 4) Clegg, S. Courpasson, D. & N. Phillips (2006), Power and organizations, London: SAGE 5) Gill, R. (2006), Theory and practice of leadership, London: SAGE Morgan, G. (2006), Images of Organization, London: SAGE 6) Martin, J. (2005), Organizational behavior and management, Singapore: Cengage Learning EMEA 7) Saunders, M.N.K. Skinner, D. & R.J. Lewicki (2010), Organizational Trust: A Cultural Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 8) Singh, K. (2009), Organizational Behaviour: Text and Cases, India: Pearson Education India 9) Theories of Power (n.d.). Empowerment and Community Planning, available at: http://www.mpow.org/elisheva_sadan_empowerment_spreads_chapter1.pdf (accessed on August 19, 2011) 10) Thomas, A.B. (2003), Controversies in management: issues, debates, answers, London: Routledge 11) Thomas, A.B. (2006), Research concepts for management studies, London: Routledge 12) Morgan, G. (2006), Images of organization, London: SAGE Read More