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

Administrative Science Quarterly,  June, 1989  by Ran Lachman

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Scope was measured by the number of decisions in which a subunit participated (participation power). Subunit involvement in the four stages of decision making postulated by Hinings et al. (1974)--initiating, providing information, choosing a course of action, and implementing it--were assessed by directly observing decision-making processes in each clinic and from data collected through interviews with clinic staff. Examined were nonroutine decisions such as treatment of cases requiring teamwork, special projects, and obtaining special equipment. High involvement in all stages of all decisions indicated high scope.

Although perceived weight and participation scope ratings were two independent measures based on different methods and data, they were highly correlated ([gamma] = .85). Because they could not be validly distinguished from each other, they were combined into a single index of power.

Coping with uncertainty. According to Hinings et al., coping with uncertainty combines two different elements: the level of uncertainty of events with which a subunit is confronted and the subunit's ability to cope with it. Uncertainty was defined by Hinings et al. (1974: 27) as "lack of information about future events so that alternatives and their outcomes are unpredictable." In the exploratory interviews, six elements of the clinics' environment were mentioned by most subunit heads and headquarters executives as having strategic and consequential outcomes that may be unpredictable: (1) influence and behavior of actual and potential clients, (2) institutions and public organizations in the community, (3) headquarters executives, (4) technical know-how, (5) other health organizations, and (6) medical equipment and supplies. These were incorporated into a questionnaire that was then administered to subunit heads and headquarters executives; this time they were asked to rate the level of uncertainty and criticality of each element for the clinics. The level of uncertainty was rated according to the variability in outcomes, ranging from no variations (1) to high, unpatterned variation (6). The criticality to the clinic of each of the six elements was rated on a scale ranging from not critical (1) to highly critical (7). The ratings on uncertainty were then weighted by criticality: the uncertainty level of each outcome was the mean rating on variability weighted by the mean rating on criticality.

The ability of subunits to cope with these uncertainties was then measured. Three categories of coping, defined as the effective dealing with uncertainties, have been suggested (Hinings et al., 1974): (1) preventive actions that reduce the probability of variations in inputs, (2) providing information about probable variations in inputs, and (3) activities that absorb the effects of variations in clinic inputs. The last-mentioned category was assigned a double weight, because it reflects the actual dealing with an unpredicted variation that has already occurred and is causing problems in the organization. Data on subunit coping with the six areas of uncertainty and on the coping mechanisms employed were collected by means of interviews with clinic staff, observations, and analysis of clinic records. Subunits were then rated for the extent to which they coped with the six areas, on a scale of 1 (no coping) to 5 (high coping), and ratings were given the weights assigned to each category of coping.