Content provided in partnership with

Business Services Industry

Power from what? A reexamination of its relationships with structural conditions

Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1989 by Ran Lachman

Power from What? A Reexamination of Its Relationships with Structural Conditions To examine whether control over structural conditions of the organization is a source of power, an outcome of power, or simply an indication of subunit power, this study investigated longitudinally the relationships between coping with uncertainty, centrality, nonsubstitutability, and subunit power in nine healthcare clinics of three subunits each. The results show previous power position to be the main predictor of subsequent power, whereas control of conditions or intertemporal changes therein were found to have no significant effect on subsequent subunit power. These results cast doubt on the commonly assumed determinant-outcome relations between control over contingencies and subunit power. An alternative interpretation proposed here is that control over certain structural conditions could be regarded as the tangible manifestations of the otherwise abstract concept of power. This conception appears to fit well the findings of this and previous research.

Most Popular Articles in Business: Research and Markets : Tesco Plc - SWOT Framework Analysis; Do Us a Flavor - Ben & Jerry's Issues a Call for Euphoric New Flavors; eBay made easy: ready to start an eBay business? These 5 simple steps will ...; Katrina's lawsuit surge: a legal battle to force insurers to pay for flood ...; Wal-Mart's newest distribution center opened last month near the southwest ...; More »

A key question in the study of intraorganizational power has been From what sources do the subunits or departments of an organization derive their power? This question concerns the relationships between subunit power and certain structural or functional conditions in the organization. Most studies assume determinant-outcome relationships between them, suggesting that control over structural conditions provides subunits with power, and propose a variety of conditions as possible sources, bases, or determinants of power. Some studies also propose the inverse effect, by which control over structural conditions is regarded as an outcome and not necessarily a determinant of subunit power. Having obtained a position of power, subunits will tend to use their power to gain control over structural conditions and organizational resources (e.g., Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977; Pfeffer, 1981). It has also been recognized that the power positions of subunits will thereby be further enhanced. Thus, in fact, underlying this argument is the assumption that the relationships between subunit power and structural conditions are cyclical or reciprocal.

In most studies, the assumed causal relations between power and its sources were tested only by analyzing cross-sectional data collected at a single point in time. The analysis of such data, however, is insufficient for indicating causal relationships and cannot support these determinant-outcome assumptions. It is possible, for example, that control over structural conditions is an indicator of the abstract concept of power, and the high contemporaneous correlations frequently observed reflect the anticipated close association among various indicators of the same concept. The question posed here, therefore, is Do measures of control over structural conditions account for subunit power? Although central to the theory of intraorganizational power, this question does not appear to have been answered appropriately. To explore these relationships a longitudinal rather than a cross-sectional perspective must be used. This was done in the present study. Subunit power and control over structural conditions commonly proposed to be power sources were measured at two points in time. Their determinant-outcome relationships were examined by relating subsequent subunit power to previous intraorganizational power structure and to changes over time in the structural conditions.

Structural Conditions of Subunit Power

Power is an elusive concept that has a variety of meanings and definitions and has been measured in different ways (March, 1966; Wrong, 1968; Pfeffer, 1981; Astley and Sachdeva, 1984; Cobb, 1984). Here, subunit power within organizations is defined as the capacity of a subunit to influence the behavior of other subunits (hickson et al., 1971; Hickson et al., 1981; Astley and Sachdeva, 1984). This definition follows Dahl's (1957) conception of power as the ability of a social unit to influence the behavior of other social units in the pursuit of its own interests, within an interactive open system. Three dimensions of power have been suggested: (1) weight, or the amount of power; (2) scope, or the range of activities or relationships that may be influenced; and (3) domain, or the other subunits in the system whose behavior is affected (Hickson et al., 1971; Hinings et al., 1974).

Studies of intraorganizational power frequently associate properties of the organizational structure and processes with subunit power, either as its sources or its outcomes. The view that the power of a subunit results from its ability to control certain inputs required by other subunits underlies almost all the specific conditions proposed as power sources. The variety of the proposed sources is large and includes control over task and resource allocation (Peabody, 1962; Weber, 1964; Pfeffer and Moore, 1980), network or workflow relations (Hickson et al., 1971; Tichy, Tushman, and Fombrun, 1979; Brass, 1984; Hackman, 1985), information or specialized knowledge (Crozier, 1964; Bacharach and Aiken, 1976; Hambrick, 1981), and control over environmental uncertainties (Hickson et al., 1971; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1974, 1977; Pfeffer and Moore, 1980; Saunders and Scamell, 1982). Several studies have tried to integrate the proposed sources into more general frameworks of intraorganizational power (Hickson et al., 1971; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977; Hickson et al., 1981; Astley and Sachdeva, 1984; Cobb, 1984). Of these, the strategic contingencies theory of intraorganizational power (Hickson et al., 1971) stands out as one of the most widely accepted and highly referenced frameworks (Saunders and Scamell, 1982). It incorporates the structural conditions of coping with uncertainty, centrality, and substitutability prevalently proposed in the literature as the main sources of power. Therefore, it can serve here as a main reference point.

Business Services Industry

Power from what? A reexamination of its relationships with structural conditions

Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1989 by Ran Lachman

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: News

Most Popular Articles in Business

Most Popular Publications in Business