Power and potiticsorganizations

]ASE STUDY Fawtey Ridge

tn

Are powerand poli|csqener c to att

Do some .ir.umstances frore thanorheE q ve rse to powersklqgteEand potrtrcs norgan zal ons,

Whyis powersuch a d lficull th ng 1odeatwilh in organizations?

s everyone able to qa n orrercisepower in organ zations?

: . i 1r al,q r980s many porllecii is srer,. abolllo become, .: ol{rh Fa rs c Polle.hr r las one Atth s tm. hor1eler

-- .:! lndtrlhe.oil.o oT oca aulrorlesaidlhevsl Drovded:: : :ed ilrthercducal0i lNAFElmmses $orkotsub del]ree:.i :rasbecomnqce3rliratth$ eve oloorkuasreoadedby

_r:rsiheorov ceolLoca auttort! nsttulors tmLid0r\i' - re hands ol lhe ien ur !mles flhere rlas r0 aLlemaT!e

: :.:' d n Far re lhere frere seYeE compctcnl0lhe6 I-r '.:l ani srt vhch uJas desqraled a NAFE s te uy lreAsset

_ :: :1 r,ou d reve lolhe oca authorr][henll]e!decdedoilhe: :.c 3l0i lra: s dYorceaidalmody Farse.urcxy

: .:::ore ol rls many slcs a !ar.o!s al Fa! e! Fdq. af ata ol. .: -rla and rapd ! apprec!1 nq r vaue ard comeryalve!.-.:r.erlonhdcoiteno0raryr)rc$arolndtl 5trr 0iasa

- : .t aone The ne[ !ilenlk! d need su.h ai ass-Al qYe]: r! r*0lor bu di!l!04.e.lr!1the stems a nosl ei. N!ey

: : _,0 dali me .ounes lor ma b.sncssleope 0oythenlhestI, xr qua llal0n onered las reladed 0rr.a I as benq

::: r,Iir]o(lpurposes and!hsr3soiy5oeimxollir!

:'.:ioc a.ord re.tor Pa! Kosl tad t8ke r oler the reus oi-. : : t {r ch ne d some leryspeclc cha enqes Kosilos

: :::. oLrstaud ng.ar0dale lor lie drc.totsh !: rre had- l.frrmentoi a, s des a lnorolqh !rd sland irr 0l

., . r'r proiedrc aid commnee rork and an a m0s1 lncanr!,

. : i .mpl m nsi.qs and qommenl Po c! Perso.a y. he fras a' : : : sNeaker ai erLrdte. charm iq hosl and iha rmai bll aso

: -- sss o ce he made a decson kost iherlel1 a sltrctre oli : : :r:.i1,! 16 0 onarlldomscremoresurlrseleE

::-:: !3lms lnam a and acadedc readlloexpode

Fa rre Polechi. oi xosr s a.ce$rol rms an nallprryal.ooroan?aloralst[lctureu/il]i iadequaletnanca a..ouilalr lxnadeq!alemonlornqolqMll! nappropraleorrysci ic.o modaloluiderpedormarce i research a.d stall frlro rere roi!!iomedardpo t.?ed and (ho had lreJ to resftt . scuee? i0 0T resofces

tun sd abolt rrudura .ranlc by !r0rD ig deoartmeits ntolacures comb$n-osomeollhcm remo!iqnaryorlhe16lrcadsaido 'qo o doo' .' 'oo D% 6 e' o ib l'

and nrema arponhexs Theneuireadsr echarge0rthxrorn ss ons 10 s.oro!ttr0 co(!p10r 0l lhe od !ua. ard dcdlyaiysac(or Lfdemerlo maice i reatlr rq commtn.nts sulrervs0iresen.lr orqra ly mon,lor ig Trre, uere.cqr red l0 lrsNcl eEr!'th i!and I usl no oie Koslremoled some dcp!ty d.ed0rs .re3ed ierreads nho r/er lrs ooirl ca all atcs ard [r1] io.on5tluei.y r thca.ademc.omm!r l! lrere enl rery a.aouilab.lo the d reclof

DerekE ollfras iopo xedasheadollrre il'Aparlmenl ol .onl nenla

maiaqemdrl He sras reialveylourq al 35 1o tre 3 read. blt he \!r.s

eroercmed i.ofse adm n lrallrr a d 3 so tud a 0oc0 ptbl.alors,],t 0ll!3s po t.a yanft [!i a s0 rad a persona conr lmE.l l0daiaq ig i.r oom,1q ulir a iqr hand on the 1'er

Ear ! n h s renra artaiey Fdqe the d re.lfi l0d oei'.k tial llesterasortcttnaica.ortro rvtt.arniqsiolbe rqproreryaccouited lor lo lrle.enlre at thc on y ray lo !'ol on 10p ol th s lis l0iemo cyr Laicislrre lre ectu4r niharoe lourommaryolllre*an jel a stroig a eg srce clr rus cLos"q io rel remerl age ad t lrasoo .'oD. oo' oj od oP o' o "'

eav nll ear y lrll D cklellreasvatroulh.raionac HerradtoLiirrhealia rs olThe centr.lo ire drl rey proirer ayr 1o tra lron{i and retrlenloied 3rd sial to be ded.aled The r r.clor dd iol s2e llfal [,al

and r-.eded 1o be cear! n coilro ol far! er Rdre aod iherelor-A ct

t

:}iI1 CORECONCEPTS

I -tE E l'ld to be emoved The 9an were, howele devored to cy.il Ai this poinl Derek lhe head ol the departinonl whtctr offuo ed 153I rr .Tr lruri bv rhe way reype(ev-odhmbenq realed sGasoneo sthreesubdvstons w3s called n lo lhe dire{tfl s oti c.I hiehEle nqsaboutttrs n.rdent Derel nendedrorryl0 wilhWiliamFsherthedeputydrecto.ThepostonwasoulnedSpai:| _a'd} a.(ordinq lo h's 0 n(F es As parr or h6 pokv ot openness and in the po lrechn c u,as al a premium Faw ey Bidqe was a va uab eI rrrretrenr n stGEr pdnnn9,Derekhadbequn todrs(us. possbe propeowhchunderpresentusagetheiewunve6[ywoudosean..| _-_-'es and prcrilies w th h s s afi on art three s res on oh(h rhe vest nq day t was mporaive that the propeo be saiequarded by1]l..;jlmnropemhd.Aftsrafunqlohs5rlull.tmesbndtFawey brnqnq]lsusageloradvanc-id(deqreeorequilaent evei)workupi.l:,corhokeveradsstsdtunedDerp(hrd6[edrhemro(onsider over 60 per cent. The on y viab e proposl on wou d t]e to tEnster thel =,era 'vhal l s(enaros ndudnqposrbe.6ureoremerou6es tanquases and bus ness deqrees (ior r,tr ch Derek3 depairment wa;I ., te rme rh s tFated ttonqlhe Eape!ie I b{ame a srory tha tre respom btel, brary hotd ngs. suppoirslafl and anguage absoverto:;

ri{hncr%5rorroselhesre one oi the ,udmts, a neEpaper Fawteysle.sludentswoudhavelobebusedsirmeslorlhercas='{rler plb lshed rhE srorv and Derel round hrnset s n nq Ec nq ai aiter a thrce m e joumey ior n0s1 01 thorn to reach the prcsenl: qf DUb i meerng wrh rh. dean rhe d redor and 300 ra F nudenh. depanneiht|0 ste, shaws pad( irom which heywoutd have to L.r^,:

Kosl \!as br anl rn h s hand ng oi an explos ve situat 0n and chose Faw ey being so naccess b e Derek looked q unr. The d recto, r$ss_.::_:linCenythalco$re,,,asaOossb y and $gqesled thal il was a hmsomewhalh0towly We halen,l made the dec sion yel. I anJ,th.::_-:becauseofgovemmenlpocyHesugqesledlhatthestudents emerqes thal c eary ndcaleslhatlhswildamagelheqlatilyot:-_.-corganneapotca obby, and lhe polirechn c would supood edlElonofthestrdeniswewonl wedarent do t. hewtroe.:- re lIas cheered 10 the echo at lhe end oi lhe meet ng s tlalion s very de mle as I m sure y0! apprec ate. But everllh ng ! i

901vever there was a g rou ndswelr o1 rese nlment bu dinq up Shon, s neloltab e Wo rk c oss y wdr Wilia m and see \rhar you can d 0 at : !:::' :t s incrdenl Kosl allempled to acqufe a b! ding Jrom the Ten e point t,s our on y opt 0n-j,s r! /socral on (IlA) wh c h would mean sludenh would have 10

Sou RcE: adapEd rmm stephs L Nlead 11 997) .84 same aid @lu m por.-:,: ioa dfre'enr site rorc6ses ftesrudents who had nor been ..;,;j;;aioe.;fu.;i;;c,i;;;.'0',;;,,,",,,,,",

rrr:Jled mounledaveryellectvecampaqnoidenonstralois &a,ei630)67 3s::!:lrandeafehandeventuallytheTAp!ledout0llhedeat Nor rheseidlado rrsc$rudlapp. s6ter nthexhao@r

I Whoappea.s!o have power in this situarion?2 Whatare the sources ol the r power?3 What k nd of poweris it?4 Wha! are the obv ous co.fLiclsof interest and howwoutd you expecr peopte to

behave as a resutt?

Attempt to answer rhese questions before you read on. 'rley are discussed lat= Ithe chapter underAna\ses.

lntroduction

Power and orgeizational poljtics a.e indisputable parts of everyday life, of .r-social relationship im{inable, and are at the heart oforganization. Everyone t. !deal with orwill be a1lecred b/ power andpolitics jn their orguizations. We rLci !organ,zations in which diferences, particularly those that engender antagor*strch as tlose .reited around categorizations, are inscribed within olgaDiaE.-rdiscourses. Some common categoriations include minager or empluyee, su1

POWERANO POLITICSIN ORGAN ZAT]ONS ] 2?9

something anyone holds, owns or can gather it is.bo!c ill else i relational efect.The potenti.l or opportuniry to resist pover is v ied, often complex and can besubde, but ultimately, comes down to how rve choose to deal with who we are in reli-tion to others (CIegB et al. 2oa6 2r7 27).

Organizations are 6elds of contestntion an.l we e .ll positioned in pdicul.rways in relation to potentiil powerstrtrggles. ftere are manyeximples ofsuchpowerstruggles: siJikes ov.r redundancy payments or pension schemes Guch as the onethatshut down a massive BP oil pipeli.e at Grangemouth in ScotlindinApril2008),problcms in enforcing equal employment opportunity policies Gee Chapter 2),disputes over noisy or dirty facilities; 6ghts over the si?e of omces or titles given topositions, conllicts over patronaSe and preferential treatment, nepotrsm (jobs forfamily member, and fivouritism (prefcrential treatment ior onci liie.dr, clashesover closures and relocations, and rnis,nanagement by senior management andboards. Po e! is expcrienced, interp.eted and dealt with difercndy by each indi-ndtral or group as wcll as across culturai contexts, ,s we discussed in Chapter 3tbrough the concept of power distance.

Power is an elusive yet important phenomenor formanagers to understand.It isoneofthenost ch.llenSingdimensionsofhuln relationships. Power and influenc.reoften glorified inmanyways rs sought-aIier 'prizes I and there are many texts andstories, movies ind media messages that see wealth and success as a means to power,ratherthinthe revers. Butpower is not usurlly talked aboutopenly: people areoftenlelucta t to classify themselves as being politielly motivated or cravinS powetfeeling that to do so would automatically qualify them as being 'Machiavellian' or ahighly instrumentil and.uthless pe6on (Clegg:nd Hardy 2006). But power is partof the reality of orgrnizations. Understanding how particulir orSanizatioDaldiscourses are shaped is e esenti.l pirt ofundeBtanding the r.iitional nature ofpower ind politics, especialiy how we illplayourpart in creating and sustainingsuchrelations (Buchanan .nd Brdham 2008).

'Ihough we present a rage of diffcrent views md approaches to power in thischapter,

've propose that a rclational approach to powe. provides the student of

management and organizations with a better understanding ofthe subdeties ofpowerand resinance. We nart from the position that orga.izations are structures o(conmand, and as sl]ch ffeat. many ofthe sources ofdiscontent and resistance thitbecome asso.iatedwith power andpolitics. Hier.rchicil otgdiz.tions, such as manylarge public nnd privnte sector organizatio.s, ire ilso strrcturs ol deJsenee, whercthose at the top speat bothrrand to tbose below th.n. OrgmizitioNare ilso sinr-turet ol desie ot aspiat,o s) as those bclow seek to rise in the hierdchy in order toreceive deference and respect themselves in terms ofrewards and reco8nitions forpast achievements. All too often, those rvho rise in the hierarchyp.s on the unpleis-antness and resentments associatedwith having being subjected to thecommand ofothers without havinghad anyone to whon they couid legitimately give comminds.when they reach positions of autho.ity (and command), thy often forget what itwasliketobethe one who had to obey and whose voice was seldom, ifever, heard inthe right'or 'hish' places. Deference produes some of the key relational problems inorganizations demonstrated in power struggles and organizntional politicking.Commlnd structures are not tliings or objects but the rdidfioralJiilds within whichmany oraanizational dramas ire acted out and these cnn be erperienced in tems ofconnraifis dnd lintits o ow ciro,.a (Clegg et al. 2006: 259). These command struc'tures do not hrve a life ofiheir own but rather 3re created and sustained throughdiscouses, both mundme ud extnordinarily porvertul, such as those ftarned aroundproft, shareholdervalue, new managerialisnl enterprise .1nd so on.

PART ] CORE CONCEPTS

'Ihis chapter reviews the behdrioutul, political and tudi.dl appro.ches t. :.ralhese are also often refened to as the nrstr second and thid dimensions c: :.(Lukes 1974, 1986). To this has been added a foulth dimension (see Hard. .*Our reldtioxdl vielr of power h noi quite the same, as it is an dlteflrdn:. :: -_aapproach. lt does not p.esent a dimensional vlew of power, that might alrerii -::=,that power is a thing or object to which diferent perspectjves can be taken.:_:4power itselfis .orsir"rctcd in the rrays that lee approach it. The more adipt;: . aapproacl! the more adequate it is likely to prove for dealingwith energing o::-r:*iional ieilities. Diverse ideas and perspectives are appareDt within each ati.rc.but by f.r the most popular in the nanagement discourse have been thos. a-j caligned with the behaviour.i.nd politicalvjews, asNe shallsee.WeNill also.a-.'some other approaches that do not necesarilyfit neatly nrto the four{a)-.'l:,,(-described above but have hid signiEcint influence oD the topic. Ilese are g.:-:}grouped under unitaryand pluialist vie',s ofpower that have been develop.':.+cially in the US managenent literahre and, rather difl-erentl, in the Britnh in. --- a

MaxWeber, whose theory ofbureaucracy contained a very complcx view ofaur:: -.left no doubt th.t power was a pervasive force in organi,ations (see Chaf::: -Weber's notion ofritional-legal authoritystated that arthoritywas rot autom:::'accepted by indn iduals bui had to be earDed and Ieg,timated in order for q st.- 'domnration to erist (Wetrer 1964: r24, t52 3, 324-9). By legitimation, he :-the execution oftules or orders in such a Naythatpeople believed that the orc:: rconnands issued rvere L,inding on them and desirable to imitate or follo( \?-was not advocati.g that those in commardh:d automatic authority, but ntht::.rfiere were conditions rnd rules that had to be adhered to,n order to mL--audroriry Once a leader leSitimated his or her authorit, Weber believed th:: :rr{ould tre mirrored in thc followeB' willingness to cary out the leader! ordi.. -commands based on willing compliance. weber clearly recognized the potent,::-polver struggles nr his own theory ofbureaucraq! especially in the .ole ofp.:=sional expertJ and seasoncd bureaucrats .ctin8 iD self-interested ways. Webe: ,:principalll concerned rrith ho\" ptrbljc sector organizations (bureaucLacie, .r.:::and nranltained the authorityrclitions betweenpoliticians and bureaucrats and r::the consequences r"ere ofnot actingwith integrityand legitinacy (see Rrlop lc:Chipter 6). Weber s theories are more ,lidcly recognized in organization theon ::org.nizational behaviour (OB), particuiarly in Europe atrd Australia, but less s. :-mny years in ihe US.

Even so, the domirant aPProaches to Potuer in m.ny OB .nd management t.respccj.lly those emannting liom the US, hav. all emphasized belraviour, an: Ioutcomes, as the key to understanding power llese approaches have struggle:::preserve the notioDs ofauthoritythaiWeberProposed, taking amuch narroiter r::"ofauthorityind ofteD simpry callingit positional powerl Webcr wis not the onll r:.to scc .uthority as critical to understanding power Steven Lukes (197a) b..,Pow.t: A Radieal View, vhlch becnme one ofthe most widely cjted books on :iitopic, rvas heaviiy influenced by political sociology and political science and a de!::ito nove beyond rjgid class-based views otpower to understand social and polrti;issues. His work has also been incorporated into organization theory, OB r::nanageoent per se wjth varying modifications (for exadple Dlnford 1992j IE:'aDd Fulop 1992). Others inthe organizationalstudies 6eld (for example Clegg I95:have also theorized on power, drawins on Lukes and othe6, to dev.lop m.::

Approaches to power

POWERAND POLIT CS

comple& sociologic.lly informed accounts ofpowel In fact, Lukes (1974) iderriiedthree dimensions' of powe., to 1,hich other theorists (for exatuple Bur.eil I98E,Clegg 1989j IGights rnd Vurdubakis l99a) added, de facto, a fourth. Cynthia Hirdy(I99a) was one of the lirst explicitly to deyelop a fourth dimension ofpowei Lukesintegrated three dominant views ofpower aDd he termed these the ore-, iPo rndthree.dinensiondl ,ietus oJ po,,r Table 6. I provides . summary ofthese three dimcnsions aswellasthe fourth or relational approach to porver

FollowiDg Lukes, a one-dinersio,4l view ofpower, the beharioural vietu (.xenpli6ed by Robert Dahl 1957), takes a focus on behivionr in the makiDs ofdecisionsover which there is overt contlict ofinterests.In other words, A has thepower to getB to do something B would not otherwise do. A t,o,d,fiersio,al peBpectn e, incorporating the ,r,-duc6io,-mati,g riew, as t.ken by Peter Bacharach and MortonBaratz (I962), involves rhe consideration of ways in which decisions are preventedfrom being taken onpotenti.lissues ofpubl,cconcern overwhich there is observableconnici ofinterest$.In odrer words, A preveDts B fron realizing that B has aproblen,through deception, triclery and orher illegitimate tactics, and thus B cootnrues orbegins to dowhathe or she would not otherwise do.IfB had been given the informa,t,on or the opportunityto raise isues and be party to discusioDs, instead ofbeingduped, B might ict di{erently. The second dimension of power is considered morefuily in Chapter 14, in wbich we consider noD-decisjon m.king and the mobilizitionofbias byporrerfulpeople in orderto structure agendas ro protcct their interests aDd

The third ol these dimcnsions, the rdt)i l structural rie, of Lukes, is that powerincludes the capacity to determjne decisive socialization processesr and therefore thepower to Produce reality.In otherwords, A educates and persuades B io accept theirrole in the order ofthings, dd lot to perceile anyconllict ofinterest.ln organizations,and in a much reduced form, this is close to the managenent ofmeaning' approach toleadership and organiationil culture (Anthony 1994) mentioDed h Chapter 3. Incriticizing the behavioural and political approaches jn general, the radical or iltree"drm.rrordlview ofpower draws attention to the unobtrustue, but nonetheles insidious methods of nanipulation and influence lsed h organizations to ensure thatpower, authority and.ontrol renain in the hands ofmaoagelialgroups who represertdominant intcrests, such as capital (Clegg and Dunkerley 1980: 197-8).

Going beyond Lukess analysis, wc suggest a fourth approach to power that, asmentioned eidier, we have labelled the /elatio al aIproa.l. Power in this view existsnot as a properry ofA or B, but as a qualrty ot$e relationship Lren{een them and inparticular contexts. Each is enpowered in some ways and limited in oihers, by therelationship. Bothmasterand slave, for example, are constrained to behave in partic-ular ways by the roles assigned to them aodthe fact that they exist in th 'institution'of slavery. Neither can escape these encumbrances without dimculty nor a6ord totake then lightly. ftus, rather than seeing power as held by the powerful and exer-cised to enforce conformity among the powerless, itis more instructive to attend to'those contextually specific practices, techniques, piocedures, forns of klowledgeroutinely developed in.ttempts to shape the conduct of others' (Knights andVurdu-bak-is 1994: 174j see also Gergen 1989, 1992, Hady 1994, Buchanan and Badhan1999: 173 5j Buchanan and Badham 2008, 174 9). Whereas the third dimension ofpower is still seekjng to identirywho holds power, the fouith aPProach sees lol,erasimplicated in many micro practices of daily life, sucb as surveillance and monitoingof employees through seeningly benign techDologies and techniques and various

discourses thatpervade organizations, such !s work life balance, baby-booners, and

'Iabk 6.1 Four drytun&.: ta pawi

Decision nalqngbehaviourovert confl i.t (observable).subjective (peiceived) nterestsseenas

policyprelren.es reverled inpolitical

Includes non-decisiotr making.

How potenlial issues .rc Noided.Howco lid n rvoided,lntersts manilest .s gri*ances and demr pulated through policl.

Of gnnd theonel ofposer inpohnal e.onomy focuses on

qlaliGed .ritique of behaviour

Ngative beh.viour .nd resistance

Power c.n be felt ahhouSl not

Ofbeh.viour.l focus, insists onnnportance ofsocial nrtrctu.e andideolog, or powerful ideas.

False.onsiousness, mana8ement

of merni.g, unobtrlsive conkol.

nails or dr hmmd and

someiims coordinated,

like th Mxica. wave at

Rldn l mctnralvi.w The dominanr are in conhol ofsocializ.tionPrc.esses aDd Politi.al aBendas. Thn is a

univerd fact:They coniiDl how isues e defined beciusof commDn ideology and beliefsConIrr' be l.'ren' b.. rr.. u n.otu.,ou'rerl'nreren' drReI lrom.ub,e.rne one.nanipulation md iDfluedce used to controland suPPtss interesrs ol certain gouPs.

Rlatioml approach lower is involved in elerything we dorlwars ibdns resisidce.Not only the donindt rre powerful, it isElational.Confict is relativ.lsues are defi.d by dncou^s thr shaPetnowledge.'Discouse' includeslo.allyvarnblecontqtsi Practices, institutions, lechDiques,and so on, Nothing is univesal.

ofstructurc looks at howpwe! Fou.aultdepends on knowledSe, but also

influen.a how Imowledge is

I6wer is a capillary lolce, movingeverrryhere rnd not the prcperl,olso called dominant groups,

--

PoWEF AND PoL TICS lN oRGAN ZATIoNS , 233

Whilc the above present very specific so.ioiogi.dl views ofPower, olherPersPe6-tives have been put aorw.rd in OB ind maflngement theory, such as thc sr,tar./ andpl!/alisl views ofpower, and the principle ol rmPo,tffc,t. lle notion ofa unitaryand pluralist view oapowet initiilly introduced in US Politic.l science, was devcl-oped in relation to organizations from the rvork ofAlan Fox ( 1974) and rvas extendedby Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgin (1979: 204,388) to dilferenti:te the radicnlview ofpower Irom others and also align it with studies ofconflict (see Chapter 12for a fuller discusion). the unit!.y ed pluralist distjn.tion was common in theindu(rial relations litrature, wherc it provided a usetul tnxonomy for understandingconflict in workplaces (Hall 1972:237 40; Child 1973: l86i Fox 1974: 250, Night-ingale 1974; Lupton 1978.81 8, Farnhm.nd Pimlott 1979: 53, Honour and Main-rveing lgsz: rtsi Kclly 1982:173-88; Dawson 1986: l8-36). OBrndmeagenentalso inco.porated th,s tpology !t an edly st.8e (for examPle Robbins 1974). 'Ihe

unitary aPproach gcneraliy treah Power as an abemtion and thre.t to the organPa_tion, reinforcingthe idea ofm.nigcrial prerogative and authority. Pluralists focus onideDtifying various sour.es ofpowerin orderto explain the nature oforguizationalpolitics. They champion the idea thit power is ivailable to all in orSanizitions and itis up to individualsto take advantage ofthe oPPortunities affordedthemto move uP

the hierrrchy and secure the status and pr.stige isociated with.deer mobility. Illishighly individualistic ind msculinist !ie9 ofpowerstands in stdk contrast to more.ritical views ofpower, such as those olfered by Lukes' third dinension and otherssuch as the fourth or relational aPProach to powei

It would, however, be dilicuh to suggest thit Lules 6.st dimension of power(Hddy rnd Leiba-O Sullivan 1998: 461) comPletely encomPasses the unit&y.ndpluralist views ofporvei Lules'theorywas derivedftom a very dilfere.t theoreticiltradition to that found in many OB and maniSement texts.Indeed, the third dimen_

sion ofpower ofers a critique oftheunjtaryand pluralist assumPtions found i! manyofthese textr and certainly the sc.onddimension is Erely recognized in mainstreamtexts. Furthermore, considention ofthe foorth .PProach to Power introduces a more

reflexive view of power, which focuses on its relational asPects and how discursivcpra.ticcs, such is tilking, writing, argui.g (Gergen 1989, 1992) and disciPli.arypra.tices, such as tools of surveillance dd issessment (for exanPle Performancemeasurement), shape people:s identities and the 6eld force ofrelationv (Buchanan

and Badham 1999: I73, also Clegg 1998, Chan 200r : Part I II ). For the sike ofclarit,we will use the typology developed by Lukes in the rcmainder ofthe chaPten butextend it to include some studies thrt do not neatly fit into it od are better seen aspdt ofthe plulalist tradition.

bhaviouraLview of power and authorily

fte bchaliouril vi.rv ofpooer has mmy divcrse ioterPretations. ln Robert Dahli(1957) rvork, and that ofLukes, the concept was used to cxplain how Policymikingalfected interest group politics and the decision'makjng Prictices ofpoliticians and

dreN hcwily ofl politi.al sciencc to er?lain how power nDd Politics inte6ect. Thc

concept ofpo{er crcpt into the OB ud managem.nt liternture under the.egis oftheunitary view ofpowcr. This approich presents managementt authority .s being rela-

tively lutomatic, its legitimacy emctioned tbrough hierarchical relitions, rules andplocedures within an organizatio and exemPlified by their leadership roles ln theunitary npproach, the exercise ofPorrerissen negatively afld is associited rvith the

illegil use offorce, coercion and threats. 11,e unitdy (orritional) orginizitionis onein which maDagers cmphasize the importance ofcommon goals and Purposes lt is

presuned that those at the top of the hie.ar.hy have the riSht to make all the critic.l

PART I CORECONCEPTS

dechionsand th.t the ruthority to do thaisvcstedin theposition and ofi.e oi..r _man.gement. Contrictu.l .greeftenc bi.d cveryon. to thc pdnciplc of a ti,: irvork for a fiir dayls pay: The go,ls of profitability and emcicncyare the sam.:: -and the contract of .mploynent binds subordirites to n common nDn:i:--purpose. Titles, form.l li.es of communicntion, organizitio.al charts, con-.-:.rules ud policies.U v.st authoriry in managenent nnd its p.erogative o,r, ::-thesc systems ofco,nmand, Porrer bis no plice h the unitiry or rational or{r:tion. Atrthorityprevnik. Overt povcr struggles, hence v,sible conflict, rre $m::: -of a brealdor{n of authority relationships and the stability that the organiz:::: - ,designed to achieve (Velasqnc, 1988: 303-5). ftey sign.l r poientinl chill.::- :managernenti authoritya.d theirrightto exe.cise ibsolutc control intheint.::- :Inainttningconce.tcd actionG) to achieve organizationalgoils (Forsterand 8:: "r.1996:139).

Thc conccpt ofauthonty, as subs.ribed to in thc unitary approlch, js n::_--bound up with notions ofobedience, trust, mutual respect, paternalism, dis.::.,:.command and control. Many approaches to leadership cven today harc ::'--assumptions. For example, Douglas Mccregor's ( I960) f.mous llcory X nr:. rleadcrship (descnbcd in Chapter lo)captures one dimension ofthc unitrr)'\::: iauthority: its coercivc, discipli.ary, forcing, policing and punishmcnt aspc.. -JTreoryY nodel, by contrast, focuses on the manipulative Jod cajoling appi(.::: :lead.rehip Even though Mccregor advocated partiipatory p.acticcsunder i:::-X the use of more subtle forms of control and a more vclvet glove' appN: r :authoriry he still maintiined that the ercrcise ofauthoritywrs rhe.bsoiui. t:.::-..tilc of m.nrgement. Oiher leidership theorists (for example Bl.ke ind ll:jr1978, ilso s.e Chapter l0) ilso shirc n unitnry perspective, because they:,:r:supportivc and p.rticipative leadeGhip stylcs in ivhich authority must be rri.-gtry sutlordinltes and inb.liDces in power or power issues wil not irjse. U. -nviews ofpower see poweras being dysfunctional be(ruse it is usuilly isso.iirt: , =conflict and is thrs defined is being diverSent from good m.nagenent p.:---j(Forster and Browne 1996: 139). fter wis indeed i major stream ofliteraturr - :!US and UK that delcloped thc unitnry and plu.alist viervs ofco.flict from .:-nuch ofthe viex,ofpowerwis also deriyed (see Frith and Fulop 1992, Chaft.: -

]te pluralist approiches chrmpioned in the US shifted .ttention liom autho-- --rfocus onpositio. power and the bronder:ccessto innuence availablc to allrn.i:izatioDs.'Ihese appronches emphasize the dynlmics ofpowerand influence jn,:*interictions. According to onc view ofplurJism, my partner to an exchanSe Li:: !wher. someonc does something for another person) enters into a dependen.r :-tionship. All interactio,rs are co.sideredto involve erchange, and hen.e depeni.:--Thus to gain icceptance i.to any group usually involves giving up some lieedc: rrights in order to belo!19. Acco.ding to some pluralists, exchange involves qu..::labou! the g?c! of,nflue.ce thnt vill be tolcr.ted or rejected, andhowdepend.r-mightbe creatcd orncutralizcd. Forsomephralists, influence means the use off.,:which is associated with acquiring c.nrin resources thnt help create depend.i:.Dependency is the obveEe of poBer: dependency can weaken or strengrhen f .-i.(Pfefer 1981: 99-115, Handy 1985: I18-19, Dawson 1986: 1s9). ftere rr. :r-yersions of the exchinge model of porver tbat assumc people are conscious .::.power plays going oD arouDd them. Th.y usually involve iDdividuah (as per D=otre.dimensional view ofpower, often releded to as A and B)orgroups (forerr=:'departments orsub'uoits) doing something they $ould not othemisc have don. -influence becn absent. Plur.lists generi ly co centrate on expliinirg overt fof-. rinflucnce (that is, influence thJt most pdies ire aivire of) iod the pover resoL:=

POWERANO POLITICS IN ORGAN ZATIONS

used to.reate unequal dependency relatiorships. 'Ile approach presumes individuaisare generally awarc ofthe influelce being exerted over them because it is usualllasso-ciated with some form of overt conflict. There are many di{Ierent versio.s ofhowinfluence can work, and in much of the literature there is a dilirerentiation betweenmanaging power up, do\{n.nd icros the hierarchy.

Power of tower p.riicipants

Early plurilist srudies in the US focused attention on the eaercise of poler amonggroups leho were described as lower participants. David Mechanict (1962) famousstudy descrbed how lower padcipants in various organizations gained influenccover their superiors by usng power lesources such as information, Pe6ons andinstrumentalities to build up dependency relationsbip!. Mechanic defined theseresources as follows: ,,rr,,,rion refers to knol"ledge of organizational Procedrres,rules andresources;persorr means h.ving access to expets ornnPotant individualsjnstrunentalities relates to control over physicai resources such as equipment,machines or facilities. He argued that icce$ to these resources was not solelydependent on a personi; positionin the hierarchyand that lower participants could,through srch things is eFort, interest ind even attractiveDess, increase their access tothese resources, thereby m.kirg others deperdentuponthem. ftese'others can anddid include senior stalf (Mechanic 1962).

Mechani.s study showed how hospital attendants were able to create a depe.d-ency relationship between themselves and doctors through resolvingproblems asso

ciated rvith the administration of wdds. Attendants assumed the administratileresponsibilities of the ward jn exchange for having aD inc.eased say in decisionsaIfecting patie.ts, for ex.mple schednling ofthe operating theatre. Doctors dislikeddoing admnriskative work &d gtidly tiaded'these dutieswiththe attendants, bul inso do,ng helped build a dcpendency relationship. Iis was a quid pro quo arrangement in ,hich attendints gained some inlluence through then efforts and interest irroutine administration. 'ftis .lso increased their access to inform.tion (power)resources aDd made them indispensable to the doctors, who came to defer to theatteDdants on matters oFroutineward admiristratioD. The price oflimiting the influence ofattendants (lowet participants) would have meant extra work and efi'ort onthe part ofdoctors in an area of hospital .dministration that did not intercst them.Doctors had discretionary control overthese tasks and were able to unoficially d.tegate these responsibilitles. Hadhospital rules and procedures prevented this, attendants mightnothavebeen able to fteate the dependency relationshiP. Ifa ward persor,for instaDce, had objected to these informal practices, then Power strlggles andconnictsl,ould iDev,tably hare arisen.

Pluralists from withio the US tradition, t{ith its stroDg anti-union and collectivebirgaining orientation, argue that lower P.rticipants in any organization can gainsome control over power resources and thts exert some inlluence over thei. suPerion.MechaDic gives the example of prison guards bending rules or allowing violations ofregulations (for example possession of certain illegal itens) ln order to extract cooperation fron nrmates. Logically, guards should tryto enforce sa.ctions and Punishrnent against hmates who breakrules and regulations, but at the riskofaPPearing tol.ckauthorityand the abilitlto command obedience should prisoners fiot or sinplyr.fuse to conpba So informal Practices avoid the types of confrontation aDd conflictissociated with thewin-lose s,tuations that waideE mightlre aBious to circumvent.fte studyofthepower oflowerparticipadts highlights ihe geDeric Dature ofdePendency and erchange relationships nr organizations. Tr.nslated into everyday practice,plualists suggest that managers or supervisors who hive nothing of relevaDce or

236 PARI ] COFECONCEPIS

vnlue to krde lrith thcir employees or subordinates rnight encounter re\i(in.::',beunnbleto extract cooperation orsitislictory performince fromlowerpartr.:::':Supervisors rvho have no input, for cxa,Dple, into the promotion or saiiry r.r::. :their stafwiu probilrly Iackinfluerce and be heavily dependent upon subo';.:jto set tbinss done (Dawson 1986: I6l).

Power aesources and stralegies among manaqers

None ofthc studies mcntioned so far has directly eximincd the methods ofini:-:::used by supervisory o. rnnnagriai groups. Table 6.2 describes some ofthe f :---.dreorists {ho have dcait w,th this aspect ofpowei John French aDd Bertram F.: -,( l9s9) typolog of po"r attempted to explain how subordinrtes react to mr.=-power (thcy did not difcrentiate power frorn illluence). 'Ilus co*6r i:r - 'rcflected in a subordinate s fear olpu,iishment or negatile consequcnces othr. : ' :ractions. Re',ardpoNcr is associatcd vith a belietthat benefits will florv from cor: r.with NaDaSements orders. Rcr,",t po,.r js snnihr to charisma, invokjn! .: aidentincation Nidr a,nanagerj it is one ofthe most clTectivewiys ofgaining i; ---i.nce. l.?crt rowel mcans that a subordinate iccepts thc superior knoNleia: r .manaScr l.gitntrrte prpe,'is probibly similir to iuihority or the acccptan;. ,manager s position and tbe rights and responsibilities associated wth it. This t\: : solpowcr identines tlre nrdividualpower resources ofminagers and thcir er,-i: rsubordinates, and does not crylain how or whcn thcse rcsources crn bc used

Tdble6.2 Ddtlapnb of pawr ptr.y(tn.. tnr .Eentut

Creation oa\ens of obligationBuilding olreputltion Dcxpert, fo deri.g identi rl.atio ncEaringdependcncebym.ling otheE believe th.

UsinS fomal turhonty (rhat

6ams to rcsist iuthonFLames to colnter rcsistE6ums tobuild pow*b*

sd!r.riNlo.l'6edtomtryeFrith Jl.i,Fulop(1992) Confli.r J pds* ln.$rni;toi\;in fulop, l-. rrirh Fnth, F. rnJ Hqrrrd, HIl,nl.tnno.fo,,ldfunitr8r!n ii ,{ Cnn.,,, liar, l\l.lb.ui,r., nft.nilhn, p 225.

A more complcx tuodel emerged in Chnrles Handys typology ofpo$e: ":;still, howcver, concentrated on explaining individuil sources olpower, bur ::-=the diftension of itrl,or' ( H.ndy I 98s: 1 t 8 36). Handy s typology adrin..: =plurilist IgLrment byscparatingpower resources from methods ofinflue.ce. i:. !!poidted otrt that poser is not an absolute fictor in a social relitionship, but e: --depending on its sdience or relerancc to .nother individual, the bilinc. oa:..-:be[reen trto i.diliduals Gcmember even prkners have power) rnd the ..::placcd on power (for exrdplc managers can most afect thcir dn ctsubordinr:.. ::

t\

POWERAND POLITICS]N OR6AN ZATIONS ] 2A?

I

not othe6) (Hardy 1985: 121). Exhibit 6.1 outlines Handy's typolo$a A1t theresources can be used positivel, that is, to gainpromotionsr support peere, achieveresults, or negatively that is, to obstruct, hinder or disrupt. Handy contends that noteverymanager canhope to succeed in acquiritrg all power resources (hence nethodsofinfluence). the nost common ones are resource and position power, althoughinChapte! I0 on leadership, it is argued that expert and pelson.l power are becomingmore important as people moye away fton hierarchical forms oforganization (see

\\EXHIBIT 6.1

Handy's typotogy of power {./l. Pof,.r rlsourots Phys ca , resou rces, pos lion, expen peMna2. il6fli0d ol iillu.n.e Force exclrange, ecology tules and procedures pemuasion, maOnet sm

l,latd al powet and inflrence

Power Ph,5iE Besource Positiontlhlluence Force Exchange Buesand

Emoqy prccedures

Physca force Bu ynq, stand oler lrerson

Besource pnwer Benef ts orhe6 usuarryconlaned n

lob conlmcls and so oi Need nolbe material for erample g vino

slalus 0r rccogn t on or n! ted lo

erclusive clubs

Force Threah bu y ng physrcal pun slirnenlb6s who loses hs or hertsml)er

tuchanqe Barganinq and negotatnq fl eveicalollnq 0r brbng,lor erample mcenlve

s,,stefis 0r rnotual on schemes

Eco 01r\] Env roimenla constraints such 6nois,sue, organ:alonal struclure.

cl nale and so on

Poslon Entt"amenhaodrghlsoione! Bueand l0slllule tu es and procedures aidposl0n aned resource power lor proedures mcl llkelyto be used bythosewthexamp e .lilro over nlormal on, pos ion poMriqhl oi access rghlloor9anze

Expert power knowedge,speca sllGiligor Percuasoi Logc powerotargumenlandevidenceedumt 0n souqhl.ailer resoume oi iacts

Persona pourer Chftsma,asdescrbedbyWeber Maqnersm Anraclon popuaitycharm(pe6onator experr pNer ls usuar sornce)

S.IUBCE Adapled ,rom F q ue 3 I page r 33 o, Cia.r6 Hmdy ,rddrslandrg o.ornzardrs (Peig! . 8@ks 1 976 4h ed nr093t corylqhlochir4H.idvt9T6 t93r r935 r993 1999

,//'iAccording to Handy, thechoice ofvarious methods ofi uence will also depend

on the t)?e ofenvnonment in which a manager works. For qample, j! a consultancyfirm, upert power and persuasive influence are thought to be the most potent. Infact, Hindy ( 1985: 152) bel,eves that these are the prefened or mosr eFective combi-natjons in many moder. organizations. He has a nunber of other dlmensions to histypology dealing with how subordinates react and cope with iDfluence.

John Kotter (1977) and HenryMintzberg (1989) have ako presented interpreta,tions ofthe more overt foms ofpower and inlluence available to managers. Mintz,bery's political ganes nodel contains a nunber of conmon tactics oi strategies that

2AA PART I CORECONCEPTS

de considered efective in protccting onet position, while simultaneously cotrrvith potential threats and uncert.inty ftom various stak.holders. Gases to b:rpow.r bases involve such thinSs.s: securing r powerful sponsor or 'star'; buildinaa'empne with subordinates, securing control of resources, .nd flaunting onet e\-tise or authority. Mintzberg advocates that, phyed in moderation, these 8ame. -healthyi in exces they are cotrsidered destructive to the survivalofthe organiz!:-(Kotter 1977. 128-43, Mintzberg 1983: t88 2l7j Mintzberg 1989:238, Kqs;iCase 1990).

Both Table 6.2 .1nd Exhibit 6. I repiesent some of the cla$ics in the pluralist --ofpower but they are by no meaDs dhaustive and new ones continue to emerg. =Buchanan and Badh.m 1999 for an *cclent sumndy). For example, in 1992,le-Pfefer was advocating a seven-point plan togettbings done through the use oaF.a=and iniluence including: decide your goals, diagnose patterns of dependenc: :r.intcrdependence, including which iddividuals are influentialj establish then e i ,your goals, identify then powerbases and your own, determine effective strareEand choose a course ofaction (.itcd in Bu.hanan and Badham 1999. 148). O'jahave developcd sirnilar or more elaborate approaches, such as the one des$ibe: -Bristol Voss (1992, cited in Bu.hanan dd Badbam 1999. 178, afld 2008: 30:who included the following:

r focus on the job to build your creditr skils of obsen.tion lnd listeningt skiUs to id.ntify opinion leaders and fence sitteB (rn4 we rvould rdd, the b::':

.osers'or those seekinS approvaland patron.ge from theirseniors)r ,udge personalities and interestsr ability to develop unobtrusive partnerships and use reciprocityr avoid blatantusc ofpowerr negotiation skills and knowing when to push and when to pull back or concear abilityto hike the boss lookgoodr not alienating superiore by saying 'no'r developing loyal and competent subordin.tes who make you look good

David Buchanan and Ri.hird Badharn (1999,2008), having reviewed a: tnaior theones of power, camc up with thek own in respect of how change ;S.ccould use power to a6ect mijor organizationnl chlnges. fteir nndings raise !n.-dimension to the study otpower that we will consider in Chapter 13, thJt is. r-power is related to or used during organizatioml change events. The issue of.lla+as well as the identification ofpower resources rnd taciics aDd their deplo\-,:rraises the queslion of how power can be benclicial to an orglnization. The notr.: 'empowerment did much to lend legitinncy to the idei that powcr is an inteEE &vital part oforganizations and theirmanagementand, frr from being a negatire a---is essentill for chaDSe and innovation.

'Ile concept ol empowerment owes much to the lvork of Rosabeth Moss li--(1977a, 1977b, 1979,1982,1983, I 989a, 1989b) who initially nade the rerm pr=(rvlich shc refcrcd to as the last dirty 1,ord h management') sytronymous r=cntrep.encLrrship and innovation, and later with empowerment. In her edll i:=.t,on of enteprefleurs or change masters, she referred io middle m:nagers r!successfully uscd poreer resour.es io change and innovate, so that new strat..aproducts, work methods and structu.es could be created. ftere was no dou:: E

PoWERAND PoLmCSIN 0RGAN ZATIoNS ! 239--..1

Kantert mind that organizations can only survive if they empower their middlenmage6. For Kdter, mdagers who ocupypositions that do not Sive them accesto vital power resources, h.nce makinS them highly visible and successful, were morelikely to become ituckers'who were unable to innov:te or plomote chinge. Manybureaucratically strutured positions, she argue4 bred powerlessness becaus theyprovided few opportunities to act or work other than in a routine way.

For Kanter three important power resources were needed md these consisted olthree 'lines' or methods of access:

t Lines oJsupply Mar.ale$have the epacity to bring in thc thngs that then own depdt-ments need, for efmple m.teri.ls, money or resouces, to dishibute as rewnrds.

. Lin6 of i"krnatioa:'lo he etrective, managers need to be 'tu the know' in both theinformal and the formal sense.

I Liies ol suppon: tn a {onal franework, a manager's iob paEmtem treed to allowfor non ordindy action, for a show ofdiscretion or exercise of iudgemeDt. And,informally, managers need the bachng of other important ligures in the organizi-tion whose t&it approval becomes another resource they bring to their oM workunit (Kinter I983: 134)-

In many rspects Kanter's ehpowering sbitegies are more or less a hybrid ofthosementioned in Table 6.2. She identified four key empowering strategies available tomiddle namgers. The 6rst ofthese was 'ride the right coat.tails'-hich meant wo*ingwith soneone who has clout .nd is successtul. This also relates to giining sponsorship(or mentoring) and succeeding by being associated with other successful managers inthe organization. 'Monument building'was about creatinS or red.nging departmentsor dilisions to prcmote uncertainties and provide nerv rewards for loyal subordinatet(for exanple a new position).'High vjsibitity'was associ.ted with risk taking andsolvinS critical problems or coping vith m.ertainties. 'P.er allid.es' related tobuilding rctwo.ks md establishinS supportive relationshjps with those moving up theIadder. Ka er ( 1977b) identined these strategies as masculine ones, not readily avail-able to women. Koter Ms on. of ahe 6rst theorists to consider a.d malyse diversityas a dimension ofpow.r relitions. We $,ill return to this point shortba

Kantert ipproach was.lso difereflt from other pluralists because she re(ognizedstructure as an ihpo{ant factor in empowering managen. She acknowledged thatenpowering was not solely dependent on individual initiitives or actions, butwaslimited or hanpered by inappropriate nructures that havc to be chdged by seniormanagement. As .lrerdy stated, powerlessness was idenlined by her wrth bueau'cratic structures and vllues. knter maintained that powr resources must cnculatced if they did not th.n the more negative and desructive aspects of conoi.t andpowerle$n.ss would engulf an orgdization.

Krnter ( 1989c, cited in R.gins 1997: 487) pointed out that mentoring relation-ships help prot6g6s to develop power resor.es in dd across the org ization andprovide training' for protges in developing their political skills and influence. AsKanter noted, mentors can also provide challeaging assignments and place theirprot6gas in hiShly visible positioDs where they c.n d.velop qpert powcr ud benoticed by those who count in tems ol career development. Moreove4 mentorsprovide 'reflected power'to protagds and the nentors influetrce cnn augment that ofprctt86s, both in terms ofthe resources they get rnd the protection they receive 6omadverse organizational events or forces. Mentors provide career developnent andadvscement opportunities (Kanter 1977b, r989c, cited in Ragins 1997:487).

Kanter's wo.k narked aw.tershed in the theorizingaboutpower and did much toattenuate the negatives associated with the Machiavelliin view of power According

290 PART ] CORE CONCEPTS

to Buchanan and Badham (1999; 132, 138, 200s Chapter 4), one of rhe didi.-::iof confronting rhc issue ofpowe.isto engage with both irs dark or neqatile s,:: !$etr r.,r.bencF,,r, Jnd ne!c\dry..pe(r\ tn r\c,,,retr, K.,fle, .rieJroo,c.._the ncgative and destrucrive eliects ofpoweriessress by presenting empor@rm:. 2a highly nriegr.tive, almost unitary corcept G.e atso Fulop l99rr. rn (.-_-approach, empowernent, with iis focus on open communication, coun\ell:r: al"ppe-'to,rrrordt,r\.\uggen.rheeadotdr ) deJtrng., br.t i.jbo,nq "r r _'oflN o'polilE.rl anoeu\flng1. MoreJrer, lhc poL.i-rt rJ. i., .he..rr..: ealrWs urdurcoed bf Fticipative styles invohed with persuasion, team

.r:-:q.and conseDsus. Howerer, Buchanan and Badhrn suggesr that this trtopianl:., :sro..kno\ledge rhJt drrTerenr ,ppro.che.arercededino,g,ni..,t,o".ro.t....archangc and irnorhtion and sometimes this might iequire aulocraric action. I:. ,ioo ro derelop their oun approach to the ,politi.at entrepreDeu. (Buchanr: aBadharn2008i 238 42)r which expticiriy acknowtedqes the Machiaveltian ete_.5or po^er ,,. s( l a. rch ,orrJ .nd ertrrcrt ,.ew. oip;"* rerhdp, hhere r : -.workhas be.n most r.vealingis in its focus on the gendere,t natur; ofpoi,er

Gende. and empowermenr

Ore ofthe key_proposrtio.s of empowerment rei es to menror,ng.lvlento!.: . ,higlhg.rdereder.ron.l-rp.a.hougt-rhe,r.,rlure\.t.roob{u,erhr..q.\\t.-r(loo8: l2o\ nor,, dmerro.ngre,.,on.hip,e*enrr \ rbour rpowerr.,, ..: -ridentifying reith a young.r veBion ofhimsetf' Gee atlo Krnter l977br t6_1 :_rRose Ragins (1997) rese.rch inro mentoring, esp.cially thc impact of direrj: rmentoiing relationships and hence emporverment, found that ;en.ler ms ; -: rI.rcro, ,1.u.ce.,tul dnd un.u(.e*tuI mcntolng oLr.orne.. Rc8in. d?\ m_ - rp.ual\t per,pecr,\e. roe\rrnine hor rjrerrriei mertonng eLrror.hrp. I ..,..=US o.ganizrtions were workjng. All ihe ,pproaches meDtioned in Tible 6.2 r. .. etially blind or neutral to diveBity i$ues as jDdeed is the titerature in generit .:,-tionsbeingHatch 1997j Buchinau andBadhan 1999,2003 Chapter SJ.

- Infomal nntoring .elarionships ire the main rypes of;ento.jDg ii.:: -

Rigins, but she did acknowledge that some o.ganizations estabtished::mentoriDg programmes as well. Ragins aryues that nrformal menroring rehr--r :iare not easy to form anongpeopte fron divemc backgrolnds. DiveNiaed m.:::?-elarron,n,p. de rho'e n,.otv 1g Dcople iron drflerel pow.r rnd .ra.1... '-g oip. I b.\ed 01 gender. ,crLdlirv ,e ohaoitr.v o. erhnjcrn _ .ee Brg . . . ^-+oq) P.ople ir rl.e'e rel-hon'hrp. r.udlt) lrdrLmo,. d,lficu.r lorden .": -jroer.Jro her Ven o"insreh.,on,nrp.wirt-peopteoi.,hihrtt-racrerir...-- '.ndtu. /rhrl F._To,e lomogcneou. ,el trion,n,p.r .rcJre porerralh greJr, . -. -Jnd er\e ior rl,o\. ,nvol\ed. Rrsin, poinh jo,e.eJ,.h rh.,r na, iound rt- - _gerd* o aos mce motori.g retationships face p.rticul.r problems. rn .-:. -study cited ty Ragins (1997: a99), women reported betng reluctant t: -rmentoring relationships with n.n for fear that this approaci by ttren: cr_: -construedasas.xualadvancebythemalementororothersintheoroanntrij.. ._iarb, social activities outside work (for eranple playing gotf) are Iu'moe tr:_:. : :divqsified motoring relatio.s than those involvjDgpeNons ofthe same genj::

A 1996 study 01461 womeD execurives nr dre USA (RagnB 1997: 49- :--_nCatalyst 1996) found that even women who atiributed their success to r:-:: .nentor also claimed that they had consistently to .xceed perfornance erpe;::: :,and present themselves rn ways that made male co{,ork 6 feel contoriai.. .:theh.JoaD Marg.etta (I997, r9) has coinedthe term tomfo( svndrofte, io r:i--.i idnge oljtrol(ir, oftcn,Lbue.ode, o.rcelurs,ha ire t,(c') ro.,RrLr n..-. -{

POWER AND POLII CS

benveen mcn and women.lhe comfort iyndrome covers feelinSs and enrotions aDdgender st.reotypes such a! fenr,prejudice, env, grecd and aggressiveness in rvomen.

Ragins (1997:492) ilso indicates that dn ersity lbr 3ny individual or group usuallycohprises multiplc identities (for cxample an ethnic mile, a womin who is ilso ,lesbian, i m.tle who,lso has n dislbility) and therefore, tbe splitinto homogeneousi,d diversincd mcntoring relatioDships is in some wiys iD artificialconstruct whichsimpliiits whrt arc often extiemely complex relitionships. RaSins also citcsrese&chin the USA (Ely 199s) ivhich fouDd that privatc sectororganizationsivith l;wNomenin positions ofpower were more likely to support and Fosier stercotypical gcnderroles as opposed to firms with morebalatrced representition.

Ruth Simpson (1997: SI22) lends support to Ragins'dndhgs l,y citing researchi. the UK which lound that women rvho typicJly form i minority (20 per cent orless ofthe rotil workforce for any milority makes them tokeD members) nnd them,selves being marginalized and excluded through stereotypes. Stereotypes cin bepolan,ed or exaggcrated to create boundarics bet$een groups, .ssimilated into !groups subculture or evcn nore widely idopted in the orgi.iz.rtion. vvomen tend tobc isolated in these cultures, but $e noncthel.s still highlyvisible (Simpson, .,tingKanter I977b). Some of tlre st.reotypic.l role traps cD ibclude: Nothcr rolc(confortrble and caring), the seductress (sexy and drngerous), the pet ($reet butinconpetent) I md for those who do not conform to these, thc 'non maidcD (asexualand strid.no' (Simpson 1997; sl22). Sinpson.ites rcsearch b) i{a.shll (199s)connrming evidence oa rolc traps beidg uscd in corporations to marginalizc andexclude women fron power aDd influence through these,nformal processes. h herstudy of 100 women minagers who trerc MBA grnduates, Simpson found tro evidenccof role traps but rrther strenuous c$orts being made by Nomen to ivoid tbese roletrips by ovcrperforming or performing well above expcctations. Moreover, peoplervith a higher so.ioeconomic status orbackground receive nore carcer dcvelopmentsupport from mcntors than do people with a lower socioeconomic brckground(Ragins 1997: SoZ .rting Whitely et al. I99 l ). ftis is covered by the old adrge it i,notNhat you know but who you know:As Ragins (1997: 507) also points out, eveDgroups that have similar demogriplic characteristics c.n experience diferetrces invalues, attitudes and beliefs among their members.

Paul Gollim (1997:25 6), writing on sti(selection inAustralii, notes how thcapparent ufldervaluing ofwomen io Aust.alirtr busnresses merns thrt it would prob-ably take a.oths 170 years to achieve equil representation between the sexes nrmanagcnent. He quotes reseirch showingthat between 1995 and 1996 the propor-tiofl ofrvomco in management positions had de.hred. Tlris trcnd continues in mostOECD countries. He : so cited research showing that 73 per ccnt of Au(raliinrvomen managers leare their jobs because oflimited clreer opportunitics. In otherwords, notonlyis the pool oimentors avulable to otherwomen not expindnrg, butthe problems wjth diverse m.ntoring rel.tionships rre probablyalso taung thcir toll(Flett 2007). Gollam (1997: 25) suggcsts th.t when one Iooks it mimgemcnt irAustralii, one is still conaront.d with an image ofihc'old boy networkl Similar trendsare appuent in thc UK (see also Chapter 2) wherc a DrtioDil siudy in 1995 foundonly 5 pe! cent ofwomcn were.t the serior levels and only 3 per centwere dncctorsofbo.rds (Simpson 1997: S 121) and ngures for 2007 nrdicite thit femile representation at the highest levels ofpublic, piivite.nd voluntarysecton clusters between I0per cent and 30pcr cent (sec Chipter2 fordetailed disctrssion).In Simpson:s stodl(mentioned earlier), the single Sreatest birier thrt women expericnced in ih.i.cireers rvrs the presence ofthe ment.lub: In her study, token women ( omen inthe minority) recorded a mucb higher i.cide.c. ofhavinS expcrienced th. menls

292 PART ] CORECONCEPTS

club as a barrie! to c&eer advancemert than those women in organna-::greatergenderbalance (non tokenvonen). Simpson (1997: S122, citin! a?-Maddockand Prkin 1994) says the nent club can operate to separate:::women through sexual innuendo Genstjoke, and coDversations domrn;r:: -thi.gs as sport. These tactics, which ire often ritualized, act to exclude\rc:-informal encounters where importanr information is exchanged, often a$e,-_1sions and, ultimately, careers (Sinpson 1997. S127).

Empowerment became one of the buzz-lyords of the 1990s in manr r-,managemeDt and business. Yet Cynthia Hardy and Sharon Leiba-O'Sulli!.:463) suggest that managenentrarelyintroduces empow.rment straregies jr :ishare poweror create a more democratictuorkplace. ftis applies equallrto:."omen. Rrrher, enponerm u'u:lly rsoc.ared rrrl: :ment's goals ofimproving productivity, lowering costs orindeasing cusro-::faction. In fact they argue that there are two mai! approaches ro empor.:iadopted in busioess. The 66t entaik delegating power and auihoriq ::

tional goal setting and leadeElip to increase the commirmeDt and iNoh.--

enployees s'ho thrive on siress and challenges and can !e kusted to use f:'.the berent ofthe organization.

'fte second is when enporvernent is used by management is a mori:: -disirategy ind not to share power ftis entails using open communicitjon. r-.i@"

people to their organizatioDt success (Hardy and Leiba-O'sulliva! 199! -!.Instead of focusi.g oD the dclegatiorl and sharing of power, rhis mor,r::3aapproach to empowerment seeks to give people encouragement ind feedbt:, :.rtthem tolearn, provides themwith emotionil supportto alleviate stres an{l r-:aand createspositive emotionalresponsesto organizational goals. lis ls a yen :-,?r,view ofpowerbecause iis nain aim is to addre$ the feelings ofpo',erlessne'. r-,:qpeople and imbalances in power aDd certainly neglects the problefts ron:r

-face.As one ofBuchanan and Badham s respondents notes, shouldthole go!: aindividuals empowered stirt to come up u,ith solutions not ac.eptable to rr-"}ment, then the organization would have ... to deal with that problem' (Badhr- aBuchanan 1999: 1221.

D.vid Collins (2000: 213 49) develops an argumeDt based on the }ori :' :lite Harvie Ramsay (1977) that participition and empowerment initiatilrs:-: :

G.rgen, K. (1989) O.Sinisltion ilcory itr the post- r:dc prpd prc'enred n rhe Rcrh.nLn8 orgrlFrr _Confer.n e, University ol Lancastei

G$gen, K. ( 1992) 'Oryanization theory in the posE:r:-erilinReed,M. ind Hughes, M. (eds) Ret/,irtirrOtSd t:oho :: Nnr Dt(ho srOrgant.otio4'fl'---ardArdi)s,r London: SiEe.

Gliz.r, M.n dd Ghzer, P.M. (1989) Wi,Eilc-Blor 6,fj,pasi gcotuptionin Govet n.nt o lndentt,\..

Coflmin, L. (1979) c.tr,/../1drcn6o"dx,. New \b ,

Gollam, P. ( 1997) Succe$lul strE selection: Ihe vaLu; rrcknosledS,nB womcnl Md,,,,g,n(n, focrober): ::. :

GoulLlner, A.\1. ( l95r) fdflchr!) h\lu,t alButttt,--'Nerv York, Free Press.

Grint, K. ( r ee7a) 'I QM, BPR JI! BSCS and rLA\:Mina8erial rvaves or droNlings Mancg.,rcd D..r.:j3s(10):731-8.

Crilr. N r l9o_b) Ldrl Mrn,son.nt. Oxford: Orl'o,.

Hill, R.H. (1s72) O,gd r:atrorr, Srfuc/!,r/r,l Pro.rLoodon: Pr.nti

FOWERAND POLTLCS N ORGANIZAT ONS 317

--- ]1.A. ( 1994) 'Multiplicitl and ch.nge in pesons- {d1,.rl on.ll.rrn,ro,Otgn .an4tttd gt. :...r ent 7 (6)| 72-8|-

:-,--:.. DJ. and Mccullougl, A.r. (1980) Powrin-:.,zationslln Salaman, G. ddftomPson, K. Gd,:.1r1 dnd ldeologt in Organi:dliori, MiltoD K.Ines:;:i Univctsity Pre$.

LJ.. DJ., Hinings, C.R., Lee, C.A., Sch!e.k,R.E-and:.lrnss,J.M.(1971) $estratcgiccontingencies:= r- ol intaorganisational pow.rl A,imirntrdtnt

:aa Qu tefi r6(2):2t6-29.-i.:1rn, A.O. ( 1970) lnt Voi.e a d Loldlq: Resrons.s

. :.1"8 in Fnfls, Organi.atioas, ard Sldies Cambridgq-., Harvard Univereity Press.

-r-::'. TF. nndMainwaring, R.M. (1982) 8!sr,eJJd,,l.ii:rh-9, London: Croom H.ln.

u. - a \1. ( lq---) lok- g., ncs,n ihe. n'po,J.,orlI j;xldc-y Toda-i (July), a8 53.

',- - q \l (ro--hlM.n,,lfrd" altt\tdpddna,.:.ri \nrl, Rasi. Rooks.

i--:: R.M. (1979) Power railure in nanrgement::rtsl Hdl,,/d E,rin.ss R.,i.to s7(4): 6s-7s.

L . - R.\1. \.o82\'The,1 dd , mrnager ^ rro'r.o..r-,.rdEd,,drr Re,ieu60(4): 95 10s.c ::: R.}L ( 1983 ) 7e Cla n* Mdst.6: Innalation dhd

: -:.[. .urthip in the Aneri.an Coryorriid,, NewYotkl

g=: R.M. ( 1989a) 'Swnnmiog in newstreams:.:.:ering innovation dilenmas, Cdllotnid Nldndgounr.: i.r 3r(4):4s-6e.

.-- ::. Rju. ( 1989b) The ne$.m.n.geriil workl Hdnurd-' -.,'r: Review 67(6), ss-92.

.-.::i R.M. (1989c) iflren Gid k Leatn to Ddn e:...:nflg th. Challenge oJ StrdtegJ, M.hagenent lndj':r ifl.,i.I9905, NewYork: Simon & Schuster

,=. .'.E. (1982) S,ie,trJi.Md dlono$ lab Reddie andr -i P./o,,,,.e, London: Acideoic Press.

,.. l. ind Cise,T. (1990) Ho$,tobecomean.:tr.ntial managerlA.ad.,l ol Llandgene t Extcrhtca ts-51.

.- , -. lc. l\. f rocs) 'Tr con(eli or poha: A'-. ira in:i:rJtriil relitio.s theoryIl.lou lnl oJ Ldustlidl::..,rorr 27( 3 ): 26s-82.

\,'::r. D. and vurdubtrLis, T. (1994) l'owei rcsistance:: Jl thatl in Jermier, J.lvL, No!d,WR. and Knishts, D.::; ), Rststdne and Po'|* ii Arganizations: A*n.l/.-::i:ttti\ and the Ldbaw Ptoe$, London: Routledge.

. -r..ger, M., Clegg, S.R. .nd Carter, C. (2006)._.:th,nkjng the polyphonic orSanization: Maniging as

:!.u6ive practicel s.4,d,,d riM lautnal oJ Mdndgene"t:r: 3 30.

, ::: J. (1977) Powe! dcpendence, and e$cctive-trnigement; H"r,,rl E,s,,err Re,,eu ss(4)r 12s 36.

Lansburil R.K. and Spillane, R. (I983) o/8d,rdtion,lBah@iow in th! Arsndlian Cd,krl, Melbourne:Longman Cheshire.

Linstead, S. (1997) Resisttrnce .nd return: Porver,cormnard aod change managenent I Srlriei i, Cutu,,trO/8d,i?irid,sd,idSocietidr3(1):67 89.

L,nsteid S.A. and ThaDem, T. (2007) 'Multipli.it,vntualitl ind orgaDization: the contiibution of GillesDeletze, Orgd izdtion Stditi 28 ( 10) | 1483-501.

Lotrnrgen S. (2004) Iorewo : we, the multitude,'inVir.o, P (2004) A Cra,a-dl aJ th. LlrltnuAe: Far dnAndl!5is of Co tcflpordrt Forar o/rlr, New York,

Lukes, S. (1974) Por.r,,{ Rddi.al via,, Londo.:Macmillan now Palgrtrve Macnillan.

Lules,S. (1986) Po c/, OJord: Blach,ell. upLor, 1.. lo-8) lldrd!.,I.,r 44.1 rrr \o,r,r \. iP,..r,

H:nnondsworth: Penguin.Nlccabe, D. (2007) Podr ar Wotk: Haw En'Plords

Reprodke th. Cotpardk Md.lrr, Londo!, Routl.dgc-Mccregof D. (r960) 7,,H,nld Side ol E"t.rPrEe,N.*

York: McGnw-Hil1.McKenna, E.P ( 1997) r4lren Wo* Daan't Wark Ary Mat:

Wont, Watk ond ldentity,NewYork: Hodder &

Maddock, S. ind Parknr, D. (1994) Gender cultures: HowtlEy a6ect men andwotuen at tlorklin Davidson, M.and Buke, R. (ed, lvdn., ,n Mdndgonent: CurrtntR6earli I$!s, London: Paul Chapman.

Margretta,J. (1997) will shc fit in? I Harud,'d B,ri,AsRs,,., (March Aprl): 18 32.

Ma6hall, J. ( 199s ) lvo,r"r ,Id ndgers Mawl{ On: Explatn[Car.e/ dtd LtJe Choices,London: Routledge.

Mauss, M. (1990) "r

Gf, London: RoutledgeMe.hanic, D. (1962) Sources ol power oflo,vcr

participants in.ompl.x otganisatio.sl,4lu irnrdrrcScience Q@rttl! 7, 349 64.

\r.1r/bcig, h.,'ra^r) po' ., rr "rl.rouaA Otg-a.zot-o1..Englewood Clifs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mintzberg, H. ( 1989) M, izbo'g on Mdnagenl.nt: lnsideOrl St n* Warld ol Orldni.rrir,t New Yort: Free

Mumb), D.K. (1987)']hc political function ofnirative inorginizationsl Cdu r icriion Monog dph s 31: 1 1 1 -27.

N1utuby, D.K. ( r 99,r) Review af Culttfts in Otgdnizntians:

Tl,"e Pc^f ,,rives (oxlord University Prcss) byJoanneMartin. ln ,{c,den-i oll\,Lrragd,tnt R.r,s, l9: 156-9.

\igLr nErle D., lu_4)'l-onfli'r Jnd onn(t re'olurion. inStrau$, G., Miles,R.E., Snow, C.C. and T.nnebaum,

A.S. (ed, O,xanizdrio"dlB.hduat Rdedrh dn.l tssgCalilornia: lvadssorth.

Palner,l. and Dunford, R. (1996) 'Co!flktinSuses ofmetaphoEi Reconceptualizingtheirusc ln the 6eld ol

.!. I prPrl .nRF..N..pr< /

orgmizarional chaDge; A.idml ol Managen@t Reeiee2r(3). 69r-717 .

Payne, S-L. and Callon,l.M ( 2002) 'Towards a managerialprictice of stateholder enga8ement: Developing multistakeholder learnidg dialogues, louriol oJ CoryorateCitianship 6:37 -57-

Phillips, N. (199s)'Telling olganizational t3les, On the

'ole ofnJrrl,ve nction h the \tudy oi orginpat,onr

Or*aniz ati o a Studi e s L 6(4'1 624 - 49.Pre(er,l. (I98I) Po,er,,i Orjatrisatiotrs, London, Pitmin.Pfefte\]. (t992') Managln.Nith Poe.r: Politks ond

Inluesce if Orga izotiotr (znd edn), Boston, MAIHfvnd Business School Press.

Pugh, DS., Hiclcotr, DJ. and HinioSs, C.R. (1983) Wrlerjon OrganEatio,i, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Rrgin', B.R. ( l eaT ) 'Divers'6ed mentoflng r.lauon.hrp, rnorganizatio.s: A power pcBp ecti\e , Acddemf oJMdnogenent Reliee 22(z\ 482 S2t.

Ramsa, H. ( 1977) Cycles ofcontrol: So.roiog, I I (3):48r-506.

Reed, \,1(198s) R.d,r.,rro,ir h Orya\zoro olA otJrs,NewYork: Tavistock.

Robbins, S. (197.1) Maftag,ij Organi.ational Conliet: AN o n -n a.li t i on al Ap p ro ach, Englewood Clitrr NJ:

Roy, A. (200t)'Ihe Algebru al L,r,,ts /!si,ce, New DelhilViking.

Roy, A. (2002) Pd,r/ Polifi.s, Cambridge, MA: South End

Ro, A. (2004) ne C,,c.tE,ok a th. Cruis. Missile:Co {.oion:k L Aruadha Ro.r,, Cobridge. MA

Rusbuit, C.E., Zenbrodt,I-M., and cunn, L.K. (1982)'Erit, voice, loyal9, and .e8le.t: Responses to

dissitisfaction in rcmanti. iNolyernc.tsl .Jo!4rcl orPenondlit! dhd SacidL Pstcholo+t 43t l23O-42.

RyD,M.(1984)'Theorie\ofpower;'nKalibrdse,.\ .-iP,.ker, C. (eds) Po,c/, Pol,tic t snd Orgdnisdtiarr ABehatioutul Sck ce yiew, London: loh! wiley.

Saldan, G. ( r 979) lyort orga sisotiotrt R5istanc andCd"lroL Londo.: Heinemann.

S,lvemrn, D. ( r970) nr. fi.oty ol Otgaibat@n' Lon.!

Simpson, R. (1997) Hive times chaDged? Ca.eerbam-,md the tote. woman ha!a8ei, Brttiih lourfol ojMd,djems,l (spe.ial Issue) E; SI21-30.

velasque?, M. (r988) 8,n,c- Erlir ., Lnglewood Cl,a'NJ: Prentice H.ll.

Voss, B. (1992) 'Onice politics; A playerii guidelSdl.J;-iMarketing Manale .ht 44(tZ).46 52.

wajcnln,J. ( r 998) Ma"asiss Like a Mon: Woncn dtd :.,jin Ca/prute Mdnagedent,Unive6ity Park, PA: Per.State Unirersity Press.

Weben M. (1964) Ir,e ,r,r.dry oJ Sociol EcononicOrgd :dliDr, tondon: Heincm n.

Westwood, R., Chan,A. ndd LiDstead S. (2004)'theorizing Chinese cdployment relntionscompaatively: Exchlnge, recip.ocity and the mocleconody , A'ia Pa.ije lounal ol Manas.n.nt 2tl3),365-89.

Whrtel, W" Doughert, T.w and Deher, c.F. ( l99l )Rehrior,hip of .reermenlonng and socroeconomr

origins to mrnage6' and profe$ionak' edly careerptogtcss,Acadcnr oJ Monos.nent 1ouridl34(2),331 ..

Withe, M.J. and Cooperu/.H. (1989) PredictinSexit.voi