UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The political model of power in organizations Vakil, Thea Franciska 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A4_6 V34.pdf [ 4.35MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095290.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095290-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095290-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095290-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095290-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095290-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095290-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095290-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095290.ris

Full Text

T H E P O L I T I C A L M O D E L O F P O W E R I N O R G A N I Z A T I O N S b y T H E A F R A N C I S K A V A K I L B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y O f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1 9 7 9 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F S C I E N C E IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION i n T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S F a c u l t y O f C o m m e r c e A n d B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n W e a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A A u g u s t 1 9 8 3 © T h e a F r a n c i s k a V a k i l , 1 9 8 3 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: CLvj^w^V. ^ O , \C^8S i i A b s t r a c t T h i s t h e s i s i s based on the i d e a t h a t the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s enhanced by s i m u l t a n e o u s l y c o n s i d e r i n g the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l , the o r g a n i z a t i o n and s o c i e t y . The d i s c u s s i o n f o c u s e s on two contemporary but f u n d a m e n t a l l y d i f f e r e n t models of power. By comparing the models i n terms of t h e i r l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s i n s i g h t s a r e g a i n e d about the n a t u r e of t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s . Based on Habermas' t h e o r y of c o g n i t i v e i n s t e r e s t a framework i s proposed i n which both models may be i n c o r p o r a t e d . In i s f u r t h e r s u g g e s t e d t h a t a t h i r d model i s n e c e s s a r y t o o b t a i n a t o t a l view of the phenomenon of power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . i i i T a b l e of C o n t e n t s A b s t r a c t . . .. .. .. . i i L i s t of T a b l e s i v L i s t of F i g u r e s v Acknowledgements v i I . INTRODUCTION ,. 1 I I . AN OVERVIEW OF MODELS OF POWER 4 THE FIELD THEORY MODEL OF POWER .4 THE EXCHANGE MODEL OF POWER ..6 THE CONTINGENCY MODEL OF POWER .10 THE POLITICAL MODEL OF POWER 13 A TRADITIONAL VIEW 13 A RADICAL VIEW 15 I I I . THE POLITICAL MODEL, TWO PERSPECTIVES 18 POWER IN ORGANIZATIONS ACCORDING TO JEFFREY PFEFFER 19 STRUCTURE/HIERARCHY 21 DETERMINANTS (SOURCES) OF POWER 22 CONDITIONS. FOR CONFLICT .23 STABILITY 24 LANGUAGE 25 STRATEGIES 26 EXERCISE OF POWER 27 CHANGE 27 POWER IN ORGANIZATIONS ACCORDING TO STEWART CLEGG 28 CLASS RELATIONS 30 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 31 RULES FOR ORGANIZING THE LABOUR PROCESS 33 IV. A COMPARISON OF LEVELS OF ANALYSIS ....36 LOCATION OF THE MODELS 38 THE INDIVIDUAL AS UNIT OF ANALYSIS 38 THE ORGANIZATION AS UNIT OF ANALYSIS 41 SOCIETY AS UNIT OF ANALYSIS ..43 PFEFFER 47 CLEGG 52 LINKAGES BETWEEN LEVELS OF ANALYSIS 56 PFEFFER 57 CLEGG 58 V. PFEFFER AND CLEGG'S POLITICAL MODELS OF POWER RECONSIDERED 62 THE CULTURAL DISTINCTION 62 THE IDEOLOGICAL DISTINCTION 64 THE COGNITIVE DISTINCTION 68 THE COGNITIVE DISTINCTION RECONSIDERED 76 V I . CONCLUSION 82 BIBLIOGRAPHY 84 i v L i s t of T a b l e s I . Elements C h a r a c t e r i z e d by Power or P o l i t i c s ........ .20 I I . S o c i a l C l a s s and Power i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s ....30 I I I . Models of Power O r g a n i z e d by L e v e l of A n a l y s i s 46 IV. Some C u l t u r a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . .63 V L i s t of F i g u r e s 1. C o n d i t i o n s f o r C o n f l i c t ....23 2. C l e g g ' s Model of Power i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s .34 3. A L i n k a g e Model of Power 37 4. A l t e r n a t i v e L i n k a g e Model 60 5. S o c i o l o g i c a l Paradigms 64 Acknowledgement I would l i k e t o thank Dr. Vance M i t c h e l l , Dr. P e t e r F r o s t and Dr. D a v i d Cray f o r t h e i r a d v i c e and a s s i s t a n c e . I would a l s o l i k e t o thank M a r i e Kerchum f o r her encouragement and Haren V a k i l f o r h i s c o n t i n u e d support d u r i n g t h i s t h e s i s p r e p a r a t i o n . 1 I . INTRODUCTION The t o p i c of power and p o l i t i c s i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y p o p u l a r . Books about power a r e found i n many a r e a s of human endeavour, m a i n l y i n p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e , (Chomsky et al,1982;Adam and G i l i o m e e , 1979;Morley e t a l . , 1 9 8 3 ; E l i a s , 1 9 8 2 ; D a h l i e and Fernando, 1981) but a l s o i n such d i v e r s e f i e l d s as s p o r t s (Murray & L e a r , 1981), law ( K a i r y s , 1982), environment ( E p s t e i n , 1979), the media ( H a l b e r s t a m , 1979), r e l i g i o n ( H o r o w i t z , 1982), h e a l t h ( F o u c a u l t , 1972), feminism ( L i p s , 1981) and p e r s o n a l development (Korda, 1975;Leboeuf, 1982;Castaneda, 1974;1983). T h i s l i v e l y i n t e r e s t i n power i s shared by many r e s e a r c h e r s i n s o c i a l s c i e n c e and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c i e n t i s t s a r e no e x c e p t i o n . T h i s t h e s i s i s an attempt t o c o n t r i b u t e t o the d i s c u s s i o n on power. The f i r s t of i t s two o b j e c t i v e s i s t o p r o v i d e an a n a l y s i s of two f u n d a m e n t a l l y d i f f e r e n t "views of power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . A comparison i s made between the work of J e f f r e y P f e f f e r , a w e l l known and r e s p e c t e d r e s e a r c h e r i n the f i e l d , w i t h t h a t of S t ewart C l e g g , a r e s e a r c h e r whose work has been l a r g e l y i g n o r e d . The aim i s t o show how, by r e f e r r i n g t o the l e v e l of a n a l y s i s , these r e s e a r c h e r s have c o n s t r u c t e d t h e i r model of power. The second o b j e c t i v e i s t o propose a framework t h a t can p r o v i d e c r i t e r i a f o r c r i t i c a l though c o n s t r u c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the framework a l l o w s the a p p r a i s a l t o be used as a g u i d e towards a deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the concept of power. The t h e s i s i s d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r main s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t i s an o v e r v i e w of the power l i t e r a t u r e . The g o a l i s t o show how 2 i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c i e n c e , the p r e s e n t l y p r e v a i l i n g p o l i t i c a l model of power has i t s r o o t s i n t h r e e o t h e r models t h a t d e v e l o p e d p a r t l y s e q u e n t i a l l y and p a r t l y i n a p a r a l l e l f a s h i o n . The models have been c a t e g o r i z e d as the f i e l d t h e o r e t i c a l model, the exchange model and the c o n t i n g e n c y model. The p o l i t i c a l model has been s u b d i v i d e d i n t o two s e c t i o n s , one r e p r e s e n t i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l view and one r e p r e s e n t i n g the r a d i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . In the second p a r t a r a t i o n a l e i s g i v e n f o r u s i n g the l e v e l of a n a l y s i s as a v e h i c l e f o r com p a r i s o n . Next, the two s e l e c t e d models are d e s c r i b e d i n terms of t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c e l e m e n t s . P a r t t h r e e i s concerned w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n of th e s e elements a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e l e v e l s and w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t e x i s t between the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l and the o r g a n i z a t i o n , between the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i e t y and between the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n and s o c i e t y . I t f i n i s h e s w i t h a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n and a p r e l i m i n a r y e v a l u a t i o n of the two models and h i g h l i g h t s t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s . The l a s t p a r t c o n s i d e r s f o u r p o s s i b l e responses t o the f i n d i n g s of the a n a l y s i s . I t i s c o n c l u d e d t h a t the most c o n s t r u c t i v e approach i s o f f e r e d by Habermas 1 t h e o r y of c o g n i t i v e i n t e r e s t s and the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e o r y i s b r i e f l y i l l u s t r a t e d . I n the l a s t p a r t of t h i s s e c t i o n i t i s suggested t h a t Habermas' approach i s s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s and the argument i s made t h a t the r o l e of one element of h i s t h e o r y ( t h e h i s t o r i c a l - h e r m e n e u t i c - s c i e n c e s ) 3 s h o u l d be expanded e x t e n s i v e l y i n o r d e r t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e our knowledge of power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The t h e s i s ends w i t h a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of i t s f i n d i n g s and recommendations f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . 4 I I . AN OVERVIEW OF MODELS OF POWER A s u r v e y of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s an i n c r e a s i n g c o n c e r n w i t h power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Contemporary r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s a r e u s u a l l y g u i d e d by p r e v i o u s s t a t e m e n t s on power i n the f i e l d s of p s y c h o l o g y , s o c i o l o g y and p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e . I t i s t he purpose of t h i s c h a p t e r t o t r a c e the development of the concept by r e f e r r i n g t o the l i t e r a t u r e t h a t I n f o r m s most of today's d i s c u s s i o n on power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Four major models of power a r e r e c o g n i z e d : the f i e l d t h e o r e t i c a l model, the exchange model, the c o n t i n g e n c y model and the p o l i t i c a l model. The p o l i t i c a l model t o which most t h e o r i s t s now s u b s c r i b e i s f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d by c o n t r a s t i n g t he t r a d i t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e t o a r a d i c a l one. THE FIELD THEORY MODEL OF POWER F i e l d t h e o r i s t s approach power from the p e r s p e c t i v e of s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y . They r e l a t e power and i t s e x e r c i s e t o p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s of the i n d i v i d u a l such as needs, m o t i v e s and d e s i r e s . The i n d i v i d u a l i s seen as a dynamic e n t i t y composed of v a r i o u s o p p o s i n g f o r c e s which t e n d towards e q u i l i b r i u m . Power i s seen as a f o r c e e x t e r n a l t o the i n d i v i d u a l which i n f l u e n c e s an i n d i v i d u a l ' s system of i n t e r n a l f o r c e s . K u r t Lewin (1951), d e s c r i b e d t h e s e i n t e r n a l f o r c e s as a dynamic f i e l d , the i n d i v i d u a l l i f e space t h a t i n c l u d e s a l l the p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t s of the p a s t , p r e s e n t and f u t u r e h a v i n g e x i s t e n c e f o r the i n d i v i d u a l a t a g i v e n moment. L i f e f a c t s a r e l o c a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t r e g i o n s of the dynamic f i e l d and a r e 5 i n t e r d e p e n d e n t so t h a t a change i n one r e g i o n a f f e c t s a l l o t h e r r e g i o n s . W i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r l i f e space a l l r e g i o n s a r e dependent on a l l o t h e r r e g i o n s . Lewin d i s t i n g u i s h e d between s i m p l e dependence and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l dependence. These c o n s t r u c t s r e f e r t o the d e v e l o p m e n t a l p r o c e s s e s of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and i n t e g r a t i o n r e s p e c t i v e l y . N o t i n g t h a t i t .would be i m p o s s i b l e t o f o r m u l a t e changes i n r e g i o n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l dependence i n the same way as those h a v i n g o n l y s i m p l e dependence he d e f i n e d such changes i n terms of i n d u c i n g f o r c e : the power of b over a i s the q u o t i e n t of the maximum f o r c e which b can induce on a, and the maximum r e s i s t a n c e which a can o f f e r (Lewin,1951:336) L a t e r t h e o r i s t s have i n t e r p r e t e d Lewin's d e f i n i t i o n as r e f e r r i n g t o a person "a" and a pers o n "b". C a r t w r i g h t (1959) f o r example, i n t e r p r e t e d " r e s i s t a n c e " as o p p o s i t i o n e x i s t i n g i n the l i f e space of another p e r s o n . H i s m o d i f i e d d e f i n i t i o n of power r e a d s : the power of 0 over P w i t h r e s p e c t t o a g i v e n change a t a s p e c i f i e d time e q u a l s the maximum s t r e n g t h of the r e s u l t a n t f o r c e which O can s e t up i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n a t t h a t t i m e . The s t r e n g t h of the r e s u l t a n t f o r c e on P i s de t e r m i n e d by the r e l a t i v e magnitudes of the f o c e s a c t i v a t e d by 0 t o "comply" and t o " r e s i s t " . ( C a r t w r i g h t , 1 9 5 9 : 1 9 3 ) C a r t w r i g h t f u r t h e r proposed a s e t of c o n d i t i o n s f o r the e x e r c i s e of power the most i m p o r t a n t of which a r e the b e h a v i o r a l r e p e r t o r y of 0 (depending upon h i s s o c i a l s k i l l , p o s s e s s i o n of r e s o u r c e s and s o c i a l p o s i t i o n ) , and the mo t i v e bases of P (needs, d e s i r e s , w a n t s ) . The s t r o n g e r O's b e h a v i o r a l r e p e r t o r y the more he w i l l be i n c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e power. F r e n c h and Raven (1959) d i s c u s s e d power i n terms of P, the 6 person over whom power i s e x e r c i s e d and d e f i n e power i n much the same terms as C a r t w r i g h t . They f o c u s e d on the e x t e n t t o which P c o u l d t a p i n t o , what C a r t w r i g h t c a l l e d motive f o r c e s , which e n e r g i z e b e h a v i o u r . The a u t h o r s see the a b i l i t y of 0 t o i n f l u e n c e a p a r t i c u l a r r e g i o n i n the l i f e s p a c e of P as dependent upon P's p e r c e p t i o n of how 0 can meet some of the needs of P. Thus, the needs of P form the bases of power f o r 0. Fre n c h and Raven proposed f i v e such bases: reward power, c o e r c i v e power, l e g i t i m a t e power, r e f e r e n t power and e x p e r t power 1 They f o c u s e d on some of the consequences t h a t the e x e r c i s e of power may have, i . e the new s t a t e of dependence of 0 on P, the n a t u r e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t r e s u l t and the i n f l u e n c e the e x e r c i s e of power may have on o t h e r bases of power. In k e e p i n g w i t h the s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l n a t u r e of the f i e l d t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e i t s proponents t e n d t o foc u s on i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s . S t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s a r e u s u a l l y l i m i t e d t o a person's p o s i t i o n i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n or i n s o c i e t y . THE EXCHANGE MODEL OF POWER Exchange t h e o r i s t s view power i n terms of economic r e l a t i o n s between i n d i v i d u a l s or between groups. The a c q u i s i t i o n and e x e r c i s e of power i s assumed t o be a f u n c t i o n of the c o s t s and rewards t h a t s o c i a l a c t o r s mediate f o r each o t h e r ( P o l l a r d & M i t c h e l l , 1972). 1 Raven l a t e r i n c l u d e d a s i x t h base ' i n f o r m a t i o n power' ( S w i n g l e , 1975). Another c a t e g o r y ' c o n n e c t i o n power' has been proposed by P a u l Hersey and M a r s h a l l G o l d s m i t h (Hersey and B l a n c h a r d , 1982). 7 In one of the e a r l y f o r m u l a t i o n s of exchange t h e o r y T h i b a u t and K e l l e y (1959) use the b e h a v i o r a l r e p e r t o r y of s o c i a l a c t o r s as the b a s i s f o r t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n . They suggest t h a t i n any d y a d i c r e l a t i o n s h i p the two s e t s of p o s s i b l e b e h a v i o u r a l responses can be a r r a n g e d i n the form of a m a t r i x . Power i s d e f i n e d i n terms of the v a l u e of the range of p o s s i b l e outcomes. the power of A over B i n c r e a s e s w i t h A's a b i l i t y t o a f f e c t the q u a l i t y of outcomes a t t a i n e d by B. ( T h i b a u t and Ke l l e y , 1 9 5 9 : 1 0 1 ) A c t o r s would t y p i c a l l y attempt t o m i n i m i z e c o s t s w h i l e m a x i m i z i n g awards. The e x e r c i s e of power or the e x t e n t of c o n t r o l over an a c t o r ' s b e h a v i o r i s c o n s t r a i n e d by the c o s t s t h a t the use of power i n v o l v e s . C o n t r o l may a l s o be l i m i t e d when the o t h e r a c t o r has c o u n t e r v a i l i n g power, i . e . when A v a l u e s outcomes which B can mediate. T h i b a u t & K e l l e y f u r t h e r proposed a s e t of s t r a t e g i e s t h a t can be used t o a c q u i r e or . i n c r e a s e power. These a r e : (1) d e v e l o p i n g one's own a l t e r n a t i v e s and/or r e d u c i n g the o t h e r a c t o r ' s a l t e r n a t i v e s t o o b t a i n v a l u e d outcomes; (2) i m p r o v i n g one's a b i l i t y t o d e l i v e r rewards or b u i l d i n g up the v a l u e of one's p r o d u c t v a l u e d by o t h e r s ; (3) r e d u c i n g the o t h e r ' s s k i l l s and d e v a l u a t i n g the o t h e r ' s p r o d u c t . An i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t of T h i b a u t & K e l l e y ' s f o r m u l a t i o n of power r e l a t i o n s i s t h a t i t i s s t a t e d i n terms of d y a d i c r e l a t i o n s . C r u c i a l t o the dyad i s the v e r y h i g h l e v e l of in t e r d e p e n d e n c e of i t s members ( W o l f f , 1950), making power a f u n c t i o n of the l e v e l of dependency. Emerson (1962), who a l s o d e s c r i b e d power w i t h i n the dyad, 8 equated power r e l a t i o n s t o dependency: The dependence of a c t o r A upon a c t o r B i s (1) d i r e c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o A's m o t i v a t i o n a l investment i n g o a l s mediated by B, and (2) i n v e r s e l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o the a v a i l a b i l i t y of those g o a l s t o A o u t s i d e of the A-B r e l a t i o n . (Emerson,1962:32) Emerson's f o c u s was on the consequences of c o s t s t h a t r e s u l t e d from s p e c i f i c i n t e r a c t i o n s . He suggested t h a t i n o r d e r t o m i n i m i z e c o s t s p e o p l e would t e n d t o s h i f t t h e i r a t t i t u d e s and v a l u e s i n the d i r e c t i o n of those upon whom they a r e dependent. Because of t h i s p r o g r e s s i v e s h i f t i n a t t i t u d e , power r e l a t i o n s (and by i m p l i c a t i o n dependence r e l a t i o n s ) would tend toward b a l a n c e . He suggested a s e t of s t r a t e g i e s t h a t a c t o r s might employ t o b u i l d towards b a l a n c e d power r e l a t i o n s . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , t h e s e recommendations a r e a r e v e r s e d v a r i a t i o n of T h i b a u t & K e l l e y ' s s t r a t e g i e s t o i n c r e a s e power: (1) A can reduce m o t i v a t i o n a l investment i n g o a l s mediated by B or A can c u l t i v a t e a l t e r n a t i v e s o u r c e s ; (2) B can i n c r e a s e m o t i v a t i o n a l i n v e s t m e n t i n g o a l s mediated by A or can be d e n i e d a l t e r n a t i v e s o u r c e s f o r such g o a l s . The s t r o n g e s t statement about the r o l e of exchange p r o c e s s e s i s found i n B l a u (1964) f o r whom the p r o c e s s of s o c i a l exchange i s the c e n t r a l p r i n c i p l e i n s o c i a l l i f e . I f the s t a t e of b a l a n c e was a consequence of the dynamics of power f o r Emerson, f o r B l a u i t became the p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e . Imbalances i n s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s a r e c r e a t e d by exchanges which a r e u n i l a t e r a l . P r o v i s i o n of u n i l a t e r a l s e r v i c e s g i v e s r i s e t o power r e l a t i o n s . A person who commands s e r v i c e s o t h e r s need, and who i s independent of any a t t h e i r command, a t t a i n s power over 9 o t h e r s by making the s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e i r need c o n t i n g e n t on t h e i r c o m p l i a n c e (Blau,1964:22) U n l i k e T h i b a u t & K e l l e y and Emerson, B l a u made an attempt t o f o r m u l a t e c o n d i t i o n s f o r e x t e n d i n g power r e l a t i o n s from the l e v e l of the dyad t o t h a t of o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n s t i t u t i o n s , t o what he c a l l e d the complex l e v e l . B l a u u t i l i z e d "the a n a l y s i s of s i m p l e r p r o c e s s e s f o r c l a r i f y i n g complex s t r u c t u r e s " . In p r i n c i p l e , power d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n on the complex l e v e l d e v e l o p s analogous t o d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n on a s i m p l e l e v e l . In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e a r e secondary exchange r e l a t i o n s which f o l l o w from emergent p r o p e r t i e s e x i s t i n g i n complex s t r u c t u r e s t h a t do not have a c o u n t e r p a r t i n s i m p l e r ones. For example, when power i s c o l l e c t i v e l y approved o r g a n i z a t i o n becomes p o s s i b l e t h r o u g h the p r o c e s s of l e g i t i m i z i n g power i n t o a u t h o r i t y . O p p o s i t i o n o c c u r s when t h e r e i s c o l l e c t i v e d i s a p p r o v a l of power, presumably l e a d i n g t o the breakdown of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The d i f f e r e n c e between m i c r o ( s i m p l e ) s t r u c t u r e s and macro (complex) s t r u c t u r e s i s t h a t t h e . l a t t e r a r e e s t a b l i s h e d systems of l e g i t i m a t i o n made p o s s i b l e by emergent p r o p e r t i e s not e x i s t i n g on the m i c r o l e v e l . 2 Much of the work of exchange t h e o r i s t s i s grounded i n s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y and s m a l l groups r e s e a r c h . To t h i s e x t e n t i t i s s i m i l a r t o the f i e l d t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Where an attempt i s made t o g e n e r a l i z e t o l a r g e r s t r u c t u r e s as B l a u does, 2 W h i l e B l a u ' s f o r m u l a t i o n of t r a n s i t i o n from a s i m p l e t o a complex l e v e l i s not w i t h o u t problems, p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s d i s c u s s i o n a re the dynami.c d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t e x i s t between i n d i v i d u a l s and groups. 10 i t i s by means of e x t r a p o l a t i n g from the p r o c e s s e s found i n i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t i o n . THE CONTINGENCY MODEL OF POWER In s t r a t e g i c c o n t i n g e n c y t h e o r y the c o n c e p t s of i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e and u n c e r t a i n t y a r e emphasized. Power i s seen as the a b i l i t y t o cope w i t h q u e s t i o n s of u n c e r t a i n t y s i n c e i t i s assumed t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s a r e r a t i o n a l and t h a t i t i s r a t i o n a l t o s e a r c h f o r c e r t a i n t y . Those who can reduce u n c e r t a i n t y have power. I n s o f a r as the a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e d e t e r m i n a t e n e s s and c e r t a i n t y i n c r e a s e s one's independence i t a l s o i n c r e a s e s o t h e r s ' dependence g i v i n g more power t o the independent a c t o r . A s t r a t e g i c c o n t i n g e n c y t h e o r y of power as f o r m u l a t e d by H i c k s o n e t a l . (1971) and f u r t h e r r e f i n e d by Hambrick (1974) and H i n i n g s e t a l . (1975) r e s t s on two major p r e v i o u s c o n t r i b u t i o n s by C r o z i e r (1964) and Thompson (1967). C r o z i e r a n a l y z e d what he c a l l e d the s i m p l e s t r u c t u r e of I n d u s t r i a l Monopoly, a to b a c c o p r o c e s s i n g f i r m i n F r a n c e . He found t h a t . maintenance workers w i e l d e d power over both p r o d u c t i o n workers and t h e i r own s u p e r i o r s because t h e i r b e h a v i o r was l e s s r u l e bound and t h e r e f o r e u n p r e d i c t a b l e . Power r e s i d e d i n the f a c t t h a t o t h e r s were u n c e r t a i n about maintenance workers' b e h a v i o u r . T h i s l e d C r o z i e r t o propose t h a t The power of A over B depends on A's a b i l i t y t o p r e d i c t B's b e h a v i o r and on the u n c e r t a i n t y of B about A's b e h a v i o u r , A has more b a r g a i n i n g power. ( C r o z i e r , 1 9 6 4 : 1 5 8 ) O r g a n i z a t i o n s attempt t o l i m i t power s t r u g g l e s t h rough i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e and h i e r a r c h i c a l o r d e r and by 11 s e l e c t i v e l y d i s t r i b u t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . Power a c c r u e s t o managers to the e x t e n t t h a t they a r e a b l e t o r a t i o n a l i z e and t o c o n t r o l r u l e s on the one hand and t o make e x c e p t i o n s t o t h o s e r u l e s on the o t h e r . The " u n c e r t a i n t y " i n C r o z i e r ' s f o r m u l a t i o n f o l l o w s from the f a c t t h a t p e o p l e , as f r e e a g e n t s who p a r t i c i p a t e and ar e p a r t of a power s t r u c t u r e , use s t r a t e g i c means t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r r e l a t i v e power. To the e x t e n t t h a t they succeed i n making t h e i r b e h a v i o u r l e s s p r e d i c t a b l e they c r e a t e u n c e r t a i n t y f o r o t h e r s . Thompson ( 1 9 6 7 ) who saw o r g a n i z a t i o n s as systems of i n t e r d e p e n d e n t p a r t s i n open r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r environment, s t r e s s e d the dependency a s p e c t of power. H i s d i s c u s s i o n of C r o z i e r emphasized t h a t a p p a r e n t l y power i s a f u n c t i o n of the " a b i l i t y t o s o l v e dependency problems" (Thompson,19 7 9 :12 9 ) . Thompson f u r t h e r f o l l o w e d Emerson who obse r v e d t h a t the obverse of power i s dependence. Indeed, Thompson's d e f i n i t i o n of power i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t of Emerson except t h a t " a c t o r P" and " a c t o r 0" have been r e p l a c e d . b y " o r g a n i z a t i o n P" and "an element of t h e t a s k environment 0". The dependence of o r g a n i z a t i o n P upon an element of the t a s k environment 0 i s ( 1 ) d i r e c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o "the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s need f o r r e s o u r c e s or performance which t h a t element can p r o v i d e " and (2 ) i n v e r s e l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o "the a b i l i t y of o t h e r elements of the t a s k environment t o p r o v i d e the same r e s o u r c e or performance. (Thompson,1967 :129 ) By r e c a s t i n g Emerson's d e f i n i t i o n i n t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l terms Thompson a t t e n p t s t o l i f t the d e f i n i t i o n of power above the c o n s t r a i n t s of the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l . H i n i n g s e t a l . ( l 9 7 5 ) a l s o endeavored t o s h i f t the fo c u s of 1 2 a p e r s o n a l i z e d concept of power t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s u b u n i t s as u n i t s of a n a l y s i s . F o c u s i n g on the n o t i o n of u n c e r t a i n t y t h e s e a u t h o r s proposed t h a t power a c c r u e s t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . These a r e c e n t r a l i t y of workflow and n o n - s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y i n s o f a r as they r e l a t e t o c o p i n g w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y . Together w i t h c e n t r a l i t y of w o r k f l o w s and s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y of a c t i v i t i e s , c o p i n g w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y g i v e s r i s e t o dependencies of one s u b u n i t upon a n o t h e r , because the a c t i v i t i e s performed by one a r e c o n t i n g e n c i e s f o r the a c t i v i t i e s of another ( H i n i n g s e t a l . 1975:22) U n c e r t a i n t i e s a r e p r i m a r i l y seen as a r i s i n g from e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s s u r e s such as those f o l l o w i n g from s c a r c i t y of raw m a t e r i a l s or impending r e s t r i c t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n . L i k e w i s e , the d i s p o s a l of o u t p u t s a r e c o n t i n g e n t upon v a r i a t i o n s i n the n a t u r e of the environment. The n a t u r e of power s t r a t e g i e s can be e i t h e r t o i n c r e a s e or t o reduce power. Power i s i n c r e a s e d when a c e n t r a l , non-s u b s t i t u t a b l e s u b u n i t reduces the impact t h a t u n c e r t a i n t y has on the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Power i s d e c r e a s e d when u n c e r t a i n t y i t s e l f i s e l i m i n a t e d . A c c o r d i n g t o the h y p o t h e s i s , a s a l e s department which t r a n s m i t s steady o r d e r s d e s p i t e a v o l a t i l e market has h i g h power; a s a l e s department which reduces the u n c e r t a i n t y i t s e l f by l o n g - t e r m t i e d c o n t r a c t s had low power ( H i c k s o n e t al.,1971:224) The c o n t i n g e n c y t h e o r y of power has been f o r m u l a t e d on the l e v e l of t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n r a t h e r than on the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l . " A c t o r s " a r e now " s u b u n i t s " and the " m e d i a t i o n of rewards and p r e f e r r e d outcomes" has been r e p l a c e d by "the a b i l i t y t o cope w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y " . 13 THE POLITICAL MODEL OF POWER A T r a d i t i o n a l View v T h e o r i s t s who view power as a p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s tend t o d i s c u s s power from a p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e or s o c i o l o g y r a t h e r than a s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y p e r s p e c t i v e . D e c i s i o n making and c o a l i t i o n f o r m a t i o n as w e l l as i n d i v i d u a l p o l i t i c a l b e h a v i o u r i s emphasized. D e c i s i o n outcomes a re thought t o r e f l e c t power r e l a t i o n s as w e l l as the e x e r c i s e of power. S t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s such as h i e r a r c h i e s , i n f o r m a t i o n networks and the d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r become the f o c u s f o r s t u d y . The p o l i t i c a l model proposes t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s j o i n c o a l i t i o n s w i t h the p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t i v e of i n f l u e n c i n g the outcomes of d e c i s i o n s or the c r i t e r i a by which d e c i s i o n s a r e b e i n g made. The c e n t r a l i t y of d e c i s i o n making i n s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s was s t r e s s e d by March (1962) who su g g e s t e d t h a t d e c i s i o n making was one of the key f o c a l p o i n t s f o r s o c i a l s c i e n c e . I n d i v i d u a l s ' b e h a v i o u r can' be s t u d i e d i n terms of the d e c i s i o n s t h a t they make. I f such d e c i s i o n s v a r y from p r e d i c t e d ones the change can be a t t r i b u t e d t o p r o c e s s e s of i n f l u e n c e . Power i s t h a t which i n d u c e s b e h a v i o r on the p a r t of the i n d i v i d u a l a t time t1 d i f f e r e n t from t h a t which might be p r e d i c t e d on the b a s i s of a knowledge of the i n d i v i d u a l o rganism a t time tO (March,1962:438) Another t h e o r i s t who f o c u s e d on the outcome of d e c i s i o n s was Dahl (1957) whose d e f i n i t i o n of power i s p r o b a b l y the most w e l l known: A has power over B t o the e x t e n t t h a t he can get B t o do something t h a t B would not o t h e r w i s e do" (Dahl,1957:202) Dahl proposed t h a t the e x e r c i s e of power can be e x p r e s s e d by M, 1 4 the p r o b a b i l i t y of an event o c c u r r i n g g i v e n an a c t i o n by A. T h i s p r o b a b i l i t y i s a f u n c t i o n of f o u r f a c t o r s : the magnitude, d i s t r i b u t i o n , scope and domain of A's power. In a d d i t i o n Dahl suggested t h a t A's power would be based on p a r t i c u l a r r e s o u r c e s and would be dependent upon A's p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s . The i d e a of c o a l i t i o n f o r m a t i o n was i n t r o d u c e d by C y e r t and March (1963) i n an attempt t o e x p l a i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v e r s u s i n d i v i d u a l g o a l s e t t i n g . C o a l i t i o n s a r e l o o s e l y c o u p l e d groups of i n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r n a l as w e l l as e x t e r n a l t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n . C o a l i t i o n s have no c l e a r l y d e f i n e d b o u n d a r i e s and may v a r y over time depending upon t h e i r purpose. C o a l i t i o n f o r m a t i o n i s seen as p o l i t i c a l b e h a v i o u r , the o b j e c t i v e s of i t s members b e i n g t o a c h i e v e a p a r t i c u l a r g o a l f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e i r p o s i t i o n . Recent d i s c u s s i o n s of power as a p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s t e n d t o be r a t h e r e c l e c t i c . ( P f e f f e r , 1981, M i n t z b e r g , 1982). These a u t h o r s attempt t o i n c o r p o r a t e many of the d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s of power i n an a l l - e m b r a c i n g way. P f e f f e r ' s aim was t o s y n t h e s i z e a l l p r e v i o u s s t a t e m e n t s of power i n one c o h e r e n t t r e a t m e n t . ( P f e f f e r , 1981). O r g a n i z a t i o n a l power P f e f f e r argues i s f i r s t and foremost the r e s u l t of the d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r f o l l o w i n g from t a s k s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . Power t h e r e f o r e i s a s t r u c t u r a l phenomenon. F u r t h e r m o r e , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a c t o r s e x e r c i s e t h e i r power over i s s u e s , making the d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s a c e n t r a l p o i n t of c o n c e r n . The s t r e n g t h , scope and domain of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s power i s thought t o be a f u n c t i o n of ( l ) the r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o him, (2) the n a t u r e of h i s dependence r e l a t i o n s , (3) the 15 l e v e r a g e of the v a r i o u s c o a l i t i o n s of which he i s a member, (4) the degree t o which he can mediate r e d u c t i o n of u n c e r t a i n t y and f i n a l l y , (5) h i s p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s . In a d d i t i o n t o s y n t h e s i z i n g p r e v i o u s t h e o r i e s P f e f f e r s t r e s s e s the importance of language as an e x p r e s s i v e means f o r p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y The t a s k of p o l i t i c a l language and s y m b o l i c a c t i v i t y i s t o r a t i o n a l i z e and j u s t i f y d e c i s i o n s t h a t a r e l a r g e l y the r e s u l t of power and i n f l u e n c e , i n o r d e r t o make the s e r e s u l t s a c c e p t a b l e and l e g i t i m a t e i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . In f a c t , w i t h o u t t h i s l e g i t i m a t i o n and r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , the e x e r c i s e of power i s h i n d e r e d . ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 1 8 4 ) A R a d i c a l View So f a r , power has been d i s c u s s e d from the p e r s p e c t i v e of the i n d i v i d u a l or groups of i n d i v i d u a l s ( c o a l i t i o n s , s u b u n i t s ) and t h e i r a b i l i t y t o i n f l u e n c e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s . However, power can a l s o be seen as a g e n e r a l i z e d s t r a t e g y used by the management of o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o c o n t r o l t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s ' o u t p u t . . One of the most i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t s of c o n v e r t i n g i n p u t s i n t o o u t p u t s i s l a b o u r and i t i s r a t i o n a l f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o attempt t o c o n t r o l t h i s v a r i a b l e as much as p o s s i b l e . Braverman i n h i s book Labor and Monopoly C a p i t a l (1974), t r a c e s the h i s t o r i c a l development of r e l a t i o n s of l a b o u r . He s t r e s s e s the importance of c o n t r o l over the l a b o u r p r o c e s s and s u g g e s t s t h a t by c o n t r o l l i n g the d e c i s i o n s made i n the c o u r s e of work the work i t s e l f w i l l be c o n t r o l l e d . The p r o c e s s i n v o l v e s s e v e r a l s t e p s : 1. A l l knowledge about the l a b o u r p r o c e s s i s o b t a i n e d . 2. T h i s knowledge i s c o n c e n t r a t e d i n the hands of management 1 6 and cannot be a c c e s s e d by those who c a r r y out the l a b o u r . 3. Management uses i t s monopoly power over knowledge t o c o n t r o l the l a b o u r p r o c e s s . 4. By d i v i d i n g t a s k s i n t o ever s m a l l e r components workers a r e d e s k i l l e d and become e a s i l y s u b s t i t u t a b l e . Edwards (1981) made a d i s t i n c t i o n between t h r e e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of c o n t r o l : s i m p l e , t e c h n i c a l and b u r e a u c r a t i c . S i m ple c o n t r o l m a i n l y o c c u r s i n s m a l l f i r m s where owners e x e r c i s e d i r e c t c o n t r o l over the w o r k e r s . T e c h n i c a l c o n t r o l i s s t r u c t u r a l because i t i n v o l v e s d e s i g n of machinery and the p l a n n i n g of w o r k f l o w s . B u r e a u c r a t i c c o n t r o l e x i s t s where the s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of the f i r m i t s e l f forms the c o n t r o l l i n g framework, an i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d h i e r a r c h y of r u l e s . In a r e c e n t a r t i c l e , C l e g g (1981) c o n s o l i d a t e s h i s i d e a s of power, by p r o p o s i n g a s e t of " s e l e c t i o n " r u l e s which a r e r e l a t e d t o the v a r i o u s c l a s s l e v e l s of s o c i e t y . H i s b a s i c premise i s t h a t S t r u c t u r a l forms, such as o r g a n i z a t i o n s , a r e complex s o c i a l r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t a r e h i s t o r i c a l p r o d u c t s both of the c l a s s s t r u g g l e and of c hanging c y c l e s of c a p i t a l a c c u m u l a t i o n . (Clegg,1981:551) D i f f e r e n t modes of c o n t r o l C l e g g a r g u e s , a r e a f u n c t i o n of the c l a s s l e v e l s w i t h i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Lower c l a s s p a r t i c i p a n t s ( t h e w orkers) f o r example ar e s u b j e c t t o i n t e n s i v e c o n t r o l whereas r u l i n g c l a s s p a r t i c i p a n t s (management) e x p e r i e n c e e x t e n s i v e c o n t r o l . From t h i s o v e r v i e w i t appears t h a t the f i e l d t h e o r e t i c a l , the exchange and the c o n t i n g e n c y p e r s p e c t i v e have been subsumed 1 7 under the i d e a t h a t power s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d p o l i t i c a l l y . T h i s p e r s p e c t i v e which now dominates the l i t e r a t u r e on power has been r e f e r r e d t o as the t r a d i t i o n a l view. A f u n d a m e n t a l l y d i f f e r e n t but e q u a l l y p o l i t i c a l view i s h e l d by a number of M a r x i a n i n f o r m e d r e s e a r c h e r s . T h i s has been r e f e r r e d t o as the r a d i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . The r e s t of t h i s t h e s i s i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h an a n a l y s i s of the d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s of the s e t r a d i t i o n a l and r a d i c a l v i e w p o i n t s . 18 I I I . THE POLITICAL MODEL, TWO PERSPECTIVES The work of two t h e o r i s t s has been s e l e c t e d f o r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n : the model proposed by J e f f r e y P f e f f e r and t h a t propounded by St e w a r t C l e g g . The. reason f o r t h i s c h o i c e i s t w o f o l d . F i r s t , w i t h i n the c o n t e x t of a p o l i t i c a l o u t l o o k P f e f f e r and C l e g g a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the t r a d i t i o n a l and r a d i c a l view r e s p e c t i v e l y . Second, and most i m p o r t a n t l y , w h i l e P f e f f e r ' s work i s g e n e r a l l y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n the mainstream of t h e o r i z i n g about power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s , C l e g g ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n has been l a r g e l y i g n o r e d . W i t h a few n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n s ( e . g . H i c k s o n , e t a l . ,1981; A s t l e y and Van de Ven, 1983) h i s books on power p u b l i s h e d i n 1975, 1979 and 1980 as w e l l as h i s 1981 a r t i c l e i n the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e  Q u a r t e r l y , not c i t e d i n (mainstream) s t u d i e s of power. 3 The d i s c u s s i o n of P f e f f e r ' s model i s l a r g e l y based on h i s book Power i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s (1981). The a n a l y s i s of Cl e g g ' s p e r s p e c t i v e m a i n l y r e l i e s on h i s paper " O r g a n i z a t i o n . and C o n t r o l " p u b l i s h e d i n the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y (1981) as w e l l as on r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n s from C l e g g (1975;1979) and C l e g g and D u n k e r l e y (1980). No attempt i s made t o g i v e a compl e t e , e x h a u s t i v e account of t h e i r work. Ra t h e r m a t e r i a l has been s e l e c t e d and p r e s e n t e d r e l e v a n t t o the f o c u s of t h i s t h e s i s , v i z . the l e v e l of a n a l y s i s . 3 The l a t t e r p o i n t poses some i n t r i g u i n g q u e s t i o n s . However, i t i s beyond the scope of t h i s t h e s i s t o s p e c u l a t e on p o s s i b l e p o l i t i c a l r e a s o n s f o r e x c l u d i n g C l e g g ' s work from d e l i b e r a t i o n s about power. R a t h e r , an attempt i s made t o a s s e s s h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n by c r i t i c a l l y comparing i t t o P f e f f e r ' s work. 19 POWER IN ORGANIZATIONS ACCORDING TO JEFFREY PFEFFER P f e f f e r p r e s e n t s a d u a l p e r s p e c t i v e of power. He s u g gests t h a t power has a s t a t i c ( s t r u c t u r a l ) and a dynamic ( p r o c e s s ) component. T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n r e f e r s t o an o r g a n i z a t i o n as a system a t r e s t and as a system i n a c t i o n r e s p e c t i v e l y (Pf ef f er , 1 981.: 7 ) When the system i s a t r e s t power can be r e c o g n i z e d as t h a t f o r c e which c h a r a c t e r i z e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l a c t o r s . Power i s p o t e n t i a l f o r i n f l u e n c e embedded i n the s t r u c t u r e of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e i n t u r n , i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r . A c c o r d i n g t o P f e f f e r power i s s o c i o l o g i c a l i n t h a t power i s seen as the r e s u l t of the d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r f o l l o w i n g from t a s k s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . ...Power i s f i r s t and foremost a s t r u c t u r a l phenomenon. . ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : x ) T h i s power p o t e n t i a l comes t o be e x p r e s s e d i n the dynamics of o r g a n i z i n g t h r o u g h the use of p o l i t i c s . P o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the system i n a c t i o n . P o l i t i c s a r e t hose a c t i v i t i e s t a k e n w i t h i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o a c q u i r e , d e v e l o p and use power and o t h e r r e s o u r c e s t o o b t a i n one's p r e f e r r e d outcomes i n a s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e r e i s u n c e r t a i n t y or d i s s e n s u s about c h o i c e s . ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 7 ) Upon c l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n of P f e f f e r ' s model i t becomes c l e a r t h a t the s t a t i c and dynamic a s p e c t s of power a r e r e l a t e d i n a complementary way. O r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e , i n s o f a r as i t i s an e x p r e s s i o n of t a s k s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i s the framework which d e f i n e s and c o n s t r a i n s p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . For purposes of t h i s a n a l y s i s i t i s u s e f u l t o e x t e n d the d i f f e r e n c e between power and p o l i t i c s t o the remainder of P f e f f e r ' s d i s c u s s i o n . Elements of the model can be grouped 20 a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r dominant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , t h a t i s whether t h e i r r e l a t i o n s are m a i n l y s t r u c t u r a l l y d e f i n e d or a r e shaped by the p r o c e s s of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . That i s not t o say of c o u r s e , t h a t such a d i s t i n c t i o n i s always m u t u a l l l y e x c l u s i v e . However, b e a r i n g t h i s i n mind i t i s p o s s i b l e t o o r g a n i z e the more i m p o r t a n t components i n two groups. * Power P o l i t i c s S t r u c t u r e / H i e r a r c h y D e t e r m i n a n t s / S o u r c e s C o n d i t i o n s f o r C o n f l i c t S t a b i l i t y Language S t r a t e g i e s E x e r c i s e of Power Change T a b l e I - Elements C h a r a c t e r i z e d by Power or P o l i t i c s In a d d i t i o n t o p o s s i b l e o v e r l a p s the elements grouped under each h e a d i n g are a l s o d y n a m i c a l l y r e l a t e d . For example, power s t r a t e g i e s are u s u a l l y d i r e c t e d a t i n c r e a s i n g d e t e r m i n a n t s or s o u r c e s of power. Power i s e x e r c i s e d over i s s u e s but o n l y i f t h e s e i s s u e s t a k e on- enough i m p o r t a n c e t o r e s u l t i n c o n f l i c t and the e x e r c i s e of power. F i n a l l y , w h i l e s t a b i l i t y and change a r e m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e they a r e b o t h governed by the p r o c e s s of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n as w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d a t a l a t e r s e c t i o n . L e t us now t u r n t o a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of P f e f f e r ' s model. " The measurement of power was not i n c l u d e d s i n c e i t i s o n l y m a r g i n a l l y i m p o r t a n t t o the d i s c u s s i o n . 21 S t r u c t u r e / h i e r a r c h y D e s p i t e P f e f f e r ' s emphasis on the importance of t a s k s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and s t r u c t u r a l arrangements, t h e r e i s v i r t u a l l y no d i s c u s s i o n of s t r u c t u r e i n the model. 5 P f e f f e r t r e a t s the d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r as g i v e n and t o a l a r g e degree as immutable. To the e x t e n t t h a t the ot h e r elements grouped under power a r e r e l a t e d t o s t r u c t u r e i t i s p o s s i b l e t o surmise how v a r i a t i o n s i n s t r u c t u r a l arrangements might impact power r e l a t i o n s but t h i s i s nowhere made e x p l i c i t . P f e f f e r does d i s c u s s two k i n d s of power which f o l l o w from t a s k s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and i t s s t r u c t u r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . F i r s t , the power t h a t comes from a u t h o r i t y . A u t h o r i t y r e s u l t s when f o r m a l power becomes l e g i t i m i z e d t h r o u g h a c c e p t a n c e of a p a r t i c u l a r power d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h i n a g i v e n s o c i a l c o n t e x t ( the o r g a n i z a t i o n ) . Second, the power t h a t f o l l o w s from c o n t r o l l i n g those t a s k s t h a t a r e c r i t i c a l t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s s u r v i v a l or t h a t a r e o t h e r w i s e of g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e . 5 T h i s i s r a t h e r s u r p r i s i n g , e s p e c i a l l y i n view of e a r l i e r s t a t e m e n t s P f e f f e r made on the importance of s t r u c t u r e (see f o r f o r example P f e f f e r , 1978:26). Furthermore t h i s t r e a t m e n t (or r a t h e r non-treatment) of s t r u c t u r e i s i n marked c o n t r a s t t o M i n t z b e r g (1983) whose views a r e s i m i l a r t o P f e f f e r ' s but whose d i s c u s s i o n of power i s f i r m l y anchored i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e . 22 D e t e r m i n a n t s ( s o u r c e s ) Of Power P f e f f e r s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e a r e f i v e v a r i a b l e s which determine o r g a n i z a t i o n a l power: (1) s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n , (2) a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e c r i t i c a l r e s o u r c e s , (3) c o p i n g w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y , (4) consensus, and (5) p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s . S t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n r e f e r s t o the r e l a t i v e importance of the t a s k , the g r e a t e r the importance of the t a s k the g r e a t e r the power. The view t h a t power f o l l o w s from the a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e c r i t i c a l r e s o u r c e s r e l i e s h e a v i l y on Emerson (1962) who r e l a t e d power t o dependency. S i m i l a r l y , H i c k s o n e t a l . ' s (1971) s t r a t e g i c c o n t i n g e n c y t h e o r y has been used as the b a s i s f o r the view t h a t c o p i n g w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y p r o v i d e s a source of power. P f e f f e r s u g g e s t s t h a t the r e s o u r c e dependence p e r s p e c t i v e and the u n c e r t a i n t y p e r s p e c t i v e a r e but v a r i a n t s of the same i d e a namely "the a b i l i t y t o s o l v e o b j e c t i v e l y d e f i n e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l problems" ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 1 0 1 ) . I t i s suggested t h a t the power f l o w i n g from consensus as f o r m u l a t e d by P f e f f e r i s another v a r i a n t of t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e . When s u b u n i t s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e a b l e t o a r t i c u l a t e a c l e a r , c o n s e n s u a l l y s h a red p e r s p e c t i v e t h e i r power i s enhanced. When a h i g h l e v e l of consensus about the a c t i v i t i e s of the s u b u n i t e x i s t s i t w i l l be seen as more r e l i a b l e and t h e r e f o r e more p r e d i c t a b l e . " T h i s g r e a t e r p r e d i c t a b i l i t y encourages those who need t o know t h a t t h e i r money i s w e l l s p e n t , t o a l l o c a t e funds towards those a r e a s of g r e a t e r p r e d i c t a b i l i t y " ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 1 2 3 ) . Consensus, because i t i n c r e a s e s p r e d i c t a b i l i t y reduces u n c e r t a i n t y . F i n a l l y , p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s a r e a source of power. P f e f f e r \ 23 does not e l a b o r a t e on what t h e s e s k i l l s a re or how they are p r e c i s e l y a p p l i e d . As a measure of p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s he s u g g e s t s t h a t i t i s r e p r e s e n t e d by the c a p a c i t y t o c o r r e c t l y p e r c e i v e one's r o l e and the f u n c t i o n of one's s u b u n i t as w e l l as the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power. Advantages a r i s i n g from the p r e v i o u s f o u r d e t e r m i n a n t s are of l i t t l e v a l u e i f no p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s a re a v a i l a b l e t o s o c i a l a c t o r s t o c o n s o l i d a t e and defend t h e i r p o s i t i o n . C o n d i t i o n s For C o n f l i c t The p o i n t of t r a n s i t i o n where power becomes p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y i s when c o n f l i c t o c c u r s . P f e f f e r proposes the f o l l o w i n g model d e s c r i b i n g c o n d i t i o n s l e a d i n g t o c o n f l i c t : D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n / E n v i ronment Interdependence S c a r c i t y Heterogeneous G o a l s \ eterogeneous b e l i e f s about t e c h n o l o g y •^Conf l i c t — I m p o r t a n c e • — D i s t r i b u t i o n of power P o l i t i c s ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 6 9 ) F i g u r e 1 - C o n d i t i o n s f o r C o n f l i c t I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e , heterogeneous g o a l s and heterogeneous b e l i e f s about t e c h n o l o g y a c c o r d i n g t o P f e f f e r , a r e n e c e s s a r y but not s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n s f o r c o n f l i c t . S c a r c i t y , i n whatever 24 form, w i l l determine whether a c o n f l i c t does in fact develop. Subsequently, the importance of the issue as well as the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power within the organization w i l l ultimately determine i f and to what extent p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y ensues. 6 P o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y i s directed to influence decision situations which arise from the condition of c o n f l i c t . It i s for t h i s reason that one of the central concerns of the p o l i t i c a l model is the process by which decisions are made. S t a b i l i t y Pfeffer argues that existing power relationships in organizations experience only minor s h i f t over time. On the whole power tends to be stable and to be perpetuated. This i s the inevitable result of the process of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n whereby certain b e l i e f s and practices which have come to be seen as legitimate are considered objective facts. In addition, s o c i a l actors who hold power tend to maintain or increase, that power by appropriating more and more power sources. Power begets power. 6 I suggest that this model is inconsistent with what Pfeffer argues elsewhere in the book. Importance of issues and d i s t r i b u t i o n of power do not merely modify c o n f l i c t after i t has occurred. These factors w i l l in part determine whether issues lead to c o n f l i c t or indeed, whether issues become issues at a l l . For example on page 306 Pfeffer describes how 'Engineering was at one time the most powerful department in the firm, after the firm was acquired by a large conglomerate and a f i n a n c i a l type was put in charge of i t , finance became to assume increasing power'. Apparently, those resources important to the finance interests became c r i t i c a l to the organization. 25 Language An i m p o r t a n t r o l e i s r e s e r v e d f o r the use of language i n P f e f f e r ' s model. He proposes t h a t c o m p e t i t i o n f o r power t a k e s p l a c e on two l e v e l s , the s u b s t a n t i v e and the s y m b o l i c . I t i s t h r o u g h the c o m p e t i t i o n t h a t o c c u r s on both a s y m b o l i c l e v e l as w e l l as w i t h r e s p e c t t o i n t e r d e p e n d e n c i e s and power r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t the outcomes of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l power and p o l i t i c s a r e d e t e r m i n e d . ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 2 2 9 ) S y m b o l i c a c t i o n may take the form of ce r e m o n i e s , symbols, s e t t i n g s and language. The f u n c t i o n of language as symbol P f e f f e r a r g u e s , i s o n l y e x p r e s s i v e . I t i s m a i n l y used t o r a t i o n a l i z e and l e g i t i m i z e d e c i s i o n . . I t i s the power d i s t r i b u t i o n t h a t i s i n s t r u m e n t a l . In t h i s r e s p e c t language i s im p o r t a n t i n the e x e r c i s e of power and c o n t r i b u t e s o n l y m a r g i n a l l y t o i t s development. 7 Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , the a p p l i c a t i o n of language as a p o l i t i c a l t o o l c e n t r e s around d e c i s i o n making. Language can be used t o i n f l u e n c e which d i m e n s i o n s of d e c i s i o n making are used and which of t h o s e a r e seen as most i m p o r t a n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , i t can t a k e cues from how o t h e r s i m i l a r d e c i s i o n s a r e seen and f i n a l l y , i t can p r o v i d e the v e r y c o n t e x t w i t h i n which d e c i s i o n s a r e framed. 7 I suggest t h a t P f e f f e r s e r i o u s l y u n d e r s t a t e s the importance of language as an i n s t r u m e n t a l t o o l . I t has been argued (Cohen, 1974) t h a t symbols a r e b o t h e x p r e s s i v e and i n s t r u m e n t a l . For example a c e r e m o n i a l of a u t h o r i t y i s a r e f l e c t i o n of t h a t a u t h o r i t y but the same c e r e m o n i a l a l s o f u n c t i o n s as a means t o r e c r e a t e and r e c o n s t r u c t a u t h o r i t y . The i m p o r t a n t but n e v e r t h e l e s s l i m i t e d r o l e t h a t P f e f f e r a c c o r d s t o language i s a f u n c t i o n of h i s c o n t i n u e d emphasis on s t r u c t u r e as the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of power. A l l a c t i o n s , language i n c l u d e d a r e c o n s t r a i n e d by the e x i s t i n g power d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . 26 The use of language as a p o l i t i c a l t o o l depends f o r i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s on the e x i s t e n c e of two f a c t o r s . The f i r s t i s t h a t many people do not have c l e a r p r e f e r e n c e s , a t l e a s t not a p r i o r i . ( T h i s view i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the n o t i o n t h a t p e o p l e j u s t i f y a c t i o n s o n l y a f t e r they have taken them. R e a l i t y i s enact e d t h r o u g h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of p a s t a c t i o n s . {Weick, 1969}). The second f a c t o r i s t h a t d e c i s i o n outcomes a r e o f t e n ambiguous i n t h a t they t e n d t o e n t a i l many complex i s s u e s as w e l l as p o s s e s s m u l t i p l e a t t r i b u t e s . T h e r e f o r e , people come t o c o n f u s e s y m b o l i c outcomes f o r s u b s t a n t i v e ones. The r e a l i t y of the consequences of s y m b o l i c outcomes a r e n o n e t h e l e s s r e a l s i n c e s o c i a l a c t o r s a c t on the b a s i s of t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n . S t r a t e g i e s S t r a t e g i e s t o d e v e l o p and enhance power a r e i n t i m a t e l y r e l a t e d t o the u n d e r l y i n g power s o u r c e . C e n t r a l t o any s t r a t e g y i s the d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s . The s t r a t e g i e s t h e m s e l v e s may ta k e many forms, c o a l i t i o n f o r m a t i o n w i t h p a r t i e s i n s i d e and o u t s i d e the o r g a n i z a t i o n , f o r example the use of o u t s i d e c o n s u l t a n t s , memberships on i m p o r t a n t committees, l o g r o l l i n g , c o o p t a t i o n , c o n t r o l l i n g the agenda, c o n t r o l l i n g d e c i s i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s e t c . Whatever the s t r a t e g y i t i s c r u c i a l t h a t the attempt t o i n f l u e n c e be made as u n o b t r u s i v e as p o s s i b l e , a v o i d i n g o v e r t d i s p l a y of power. I d e a l l y , the i n f l u e n c e s h o u l d be such t h a t the d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s appears l o g i c a l and r a t i o n a l . 27 S t r a t e g i e s may be employed a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . A s t r a t e g y c o u l d be used f o r example t o i n t e r p r e t o u t s i d e c o n s u l t a n t s ' s o l u t i o n t o a p a r t i c u l a r problem i n terms of one's own e x p e r t i s e . I t would be a b e t t e r s t r a t e g y however t o s e l e c t i v e l y r e l e a s e i n f o r m a t i o n t o the c o n s u l t a n t s which makes a p a r t i c u l a r type of s o l u t i o n i n e v i t a b l e . But the most s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t r a t e g y would be t o have the c o n s u l t a n t s h i r e d i n the f i r s t p l a c e or t o h i r e the " r i g h t " k i n d of c o n s u l t a n t s . E x e r c i s e Of Power Whether or not p a r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g i e s w i l l be used i s a f u n c t i o n of the a c t o r ' s p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s and the c o s t s t h a t are i n v o l v e d i n the e x e r c i s e of power. The l a t t e r p o i n t i s emphasized by exchange t h e o r i s t s such as T h i b a u t & K e l l e y (1959), Emerson (1962) and B l a u (1964). Change D e s p i t e the s t r o n g tendency t o p e r p e t u a t e power o r g a n i z a t i o n s do undergo change. T h i s i s brought about " c h i e f l y by major changes i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n s ' environment which c r e a t e problems or c o n s t r a i n t s which a r e too p e r v a s i v e t o i g n o r e " ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 3 2 9 ) . When f a c e d w i t h such c o m p e l l i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r g a n i z a t i o n s adapt t o ensure s u r v i v a l . To the e x t e n t t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d they cannot adapt s u f f i c i e n t l y . P f e f f e r argues t h a t a t the l e v e l of s o c i e t y 28 o r g a n i z a t i o n s s u r v i v e t h r o u g h s e l e c t i o n r a t h e r than a d a p t a t i o n and t h a t i t i s s e l e c t i o n which s e r v e s as the mechanism f o r change. G i v e n an e c o l o g y of p o p u l a t i o n s c o m p e t i t i o n i s a f o r c e which e n s u r e s s e l e c t i o n and by i m p l i c a t i o n change. To the e x t e n t t h a t c o m p e t i t i o n i s d i s a l l o w e d t h r o u g h f o r c e s of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n on the s o c i e t a l l e v e l by means of r u l e s and c e n t r a l p l a n n i n g , change becomes i m p o s s i b l e and o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i l l be s e r i o u s l y out of phase w i t h the environment. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o o b s erve how P f e f f e r ' s model i s t r a d i t i o n a l i n ' more than one r e s p e c t . Not o n l y a r e h i s s t a t e m e n t s about power f i r m l y grounded i n s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y and the systems view of o r g a n i z a t i o n s , i t i s a l s o p r e s e n t e d i n the g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d manner of e m p i r i c a l l y s u p p o r t e d s t a t e m e n t s . C l e g g ' s model r e l i e s much more on t h e o r e t i c a l e x p o s i t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g s k e t c h of h i s model w i l l of n e c e s s i t y r e f l e c t some of t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n . POWER IN ORGANIZATIONS ACCORDING TO STEWART CLEGG Cl e g g v i e w s power as d o m i n a t i o n of one s o c i a l c l a s s over another e x e r c i s e d t h r o u g h c o n t r o l of the l a b o u r p r o c e s s . Power r e l a t i o n s , a c c o r d i n g t o C l e g g , a r e more than r e l a t i o n s of dependence, they i n v o l v e t h e n o t i o n of freedom. Freedom i s t h e 'power' t o d e v e l o p n a t u r a l a t t r i b u t e s , c a p a c i t i e s and a b i l i t i e s . To the e x t e n t t h a t p e o p l e a r e s u b o r d i n a t e d t h r o u g h power they l o s e t h e i r autonomy. The i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e s a r e autonomy and d o m i n a t i o n r a t h e r than power and dependence. 2 9 T h e c l a s s s t r u c t u r e p r e v a i l i n g i n s o c i e t y c o n s t i t u t e s i t s s t r u c t u r e o f d o m i n a t i o n . E c o n o m i c r e l a t i o n s o f p r o d u c t i o n c o n t i n u a l l y p r o d u c e a n d r e i n f o c e t h i s s t r u c t u r e . O r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e s e e n a s t h e l o c i w h e r e t h e s t r u g g l e b e t w e e n c l a s s e s i s p l a y e d o u t . O r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e s t r u c t u r e s o f r e g i o n a l d o m i n a t i o n a n d s u b o r d i n a t i o n w i t h i n t h e s o c i a l s y s t e m . D o m i n a t i o n i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s t a k e s t h e f o r m o f h e g e m o n y w h i c h i s c o n t r o l o f o n e c l a s s o v e r a n o t h e r b y c o n s e n t r a t h e r t h a n b y f o r c e . H e g e m o n y i s r e f l e c t e d i n a w a y o f l i f e w h i c h r e l i e s o n c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s a n d a s s u m p t i o n s t h a t a r e t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d s u c h a s p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y a n d t h e f o r c e s o f t h e m a r k e t . C l e g g p r o p o s e s t h a t i n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e p o w e r r e l a t i o n s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s ' s t r u c t u r e i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o s t u d y t h e " r u l e s " w h i c h a r e t h e g o v e r n i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . A n y d e f i n i t i o n o f p o w e r t h e r e f o r e w o u l d b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h r u l e s . T o i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t C l e g g u s e s t h e a n a l o g y o f a c h e s s g a m e w h e r e t h e p o w e r o f t h e p i e c e s i s n o t d e f i n e d b y t h e p o s i t i o n t h e y c u r r e n t l y h o l d i n a n o n g o i n g g a m e . M o r e a p p r o p r i a t e l y , p o w e r i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e r u l e s t h a t g o v e r n t h e p i e c e s ' m o v e m e n t s . I n C l e g g a n d D u n k e r l e y ' s w o r d s , p o w e r i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f p i e c e s t o r u l e s , i n t h a t r u l e s i n v e s t a c e r t a i n p o w e r i n a p i e c e i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f i t s p o s i t i o n o n t h e b o a r d . ( C l e g g a n d D u n k e r l e y , 1 9 8 0 : 4 4 4 ) . O f c o u r s e , t h i s d e f i n i t i o n d o e s n o t e x c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s o f p o s i t i o n s w o u l d n o t i n f l u e n c e t h e p o w e r o f t h e p i e c e . B u t t h e a r g u m e n t i s t h a t s u c h p o s i t i o n s e v o l v e h i s t o r i c a l l y i n t h e p r o c e s s o f t h e g a m e a n d a r e r u l e 30 bound. The i d e a s t h a t form the c o r e of Cl e g g ' s model of power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e (1) c l a s s r e l a t i o n s , (2) economic c o n d i t i o n s and (3) t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n i n h i s t o r i c a l l y d e v e l o p e d r u l e s f o r o r g a n i z i n g the l a b o u r p r o c e s s . C l a s s R e l a t i o n s C l a s s r e l a t i o n s i n modern i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y have been c e n t r a l t o much t h e o r i z i n g by s o c i o l o g i s t s (Dahrendorf,1959;Bendix and L i p s e t , 1 9 6 6 ) . S o c i a l c l a s s e s a re t y p i c a l l y d e f i n e d by t h e i r members' r e l a t i o n t o the economic p r o c e s s , even t o the e x t e n t t h a t s u b - c l a s s e s a r e grouped i n terms of t h e i r c o l l a r c o l o u r . In h i s model C l e g g d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h r e e broad s o c i a l c l a s s e s . The wo r k i n g c l a s s , the new mi d d l e c l a s s and the r u l i n g c l a s s . The c o n t r a d i c t o r y n a t u r e of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n p roduces a s e t of c o n f l i c t i n g r e l a t i o n s which can be c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as f o l l o w s . Work ing Class New Midd le Class Rul ing Class Work ing Class D e m a r c a t i o n d i s p u t e s ; c l o s e d M e n in t h e m i d d l e e n g a g e d in D i s p u t e s abou t l i qu ida t i on ; s h o p e x c l u s i o n s ; loca l , d i s p u t e s abou t b o n u s , b a n k r u p t c y ; cap i ta l s t r i k e s • reg iona l , a n d in te rna t iona l p roduc t i v i t y , s p e e d s , for a n d s t a r v a t i o n ; l o c k - o u t s ; d i v i s i on of labor . e x a m p l e . " r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n " t h r o u g h p roduc t i v i t y and res t r i c t i ve p r a c t i c e s d e a l s . N e w Midd le L i n e v s . s ta f f c o n f l i c t s ; D i s p u t e s abou t t h e c h e a p e n i n g Class . • . c o s m o p o l i t a n s v s . l o c a l s ; of n o n - s u r p l u s va lue p r o d u c i n g b u r e a u c r a t s vs. p r o f e s s i o n a l s . labor p r o c e s s , t h r o u g h au to -m a t i o n ; s t anda rd i za t i on , v ia , for e x a m p l e . E l e c t r o n i c Da ta P r o c e s s i n g ( E D P ) a n d o t h e r m i c r o p r o c e s s - r e l n t e d t e c h n o l o g y . Ruling Class D i s p u t e s about t a k e o v e r s , m e r g e r s , t rus t i f i ca t ion , (Clegg,198l:548) Table I I - S o c i a l C l a s s and Power i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s O r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e the s i t e s where such c o n f l i c t s a r e p l a y e d o u t . 31 Economic C o n d i t i o n s O r g a n i z a t i o n s C l e g g a r g u e s , s h o u l d be seen i n the b r o a d e s t p o s s i b l e way, t h a t i s as they e x i s t i n a w o r l d economic system. He agrees w i t h W a l l e r s t e i n t h a t the c a p i t a l i s t mode of p r o d u c t i o n can o n l y e x i s t w i t h i n a w o r l d economy. As a f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e , a w o r l d economy i s d e f i n e d as a s i n g l e d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r w i t h i n which a re l o c a t e d m u l t i p l e c u l t u r e s . . . but which has no overwhelming p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e . Without a p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e t o r e d i s t r i b u t e the a p p r o p r i a t e d s u r p l u s , the s u r p l u s can o n l y be r e d i s t r i b u t e d v i a the "market", however f r e q u e n t l y S t a t e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n the w o r l d economy i n t e r v e n e t o d i s t o r t the market. Hence the mode of p r o d u c t i o n i s c a p i t a l i s t . ( W a l l e r s t e i n c i t e d i n C l e g g and D u n k e r l e y , 1980:459). The advantage of s i t u a t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h i n a w o r l d economic system, a c c o r d i n g t o C l e g g , i s t w o f o l d . One, the problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a systems view (where problems of b o u n d a r i e s a r e ig n o r e d ) or a c o g n i t i v i s t view (which i g n o r e s the s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t m i c r o s c o p i c i n t e r a c t i o n s have i n the s o c i e t a l c o n t e x t ) , a r e a v o i d e d . Two, o r g a n i z a t i o n s can be more e a s i l y s t u d i e d from a h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . H i s t o r i c a l l y , o r g a n i z a t i o n s have changed i n response t o the demands of the w o r l d market economy and i n acco r d a n c e w i t h the p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f f e r e d by the development of s o p h i s t i c a t e d t e c h n o l o g i e s . One of the most i m p o r t a n t consequences of t h i s development i s an ever i n c r e a s i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of t a s k s . The d i v i s i o n of t a s k s i n t o ever s m a l l e r components has l e d t o the d e s k i l l i n g of manual l a b o u r and the h y p e r s k i l l i n g of mental l a b o u r . The r e s u l t i n g s h i f t s i n power r e l a t i o n s became e x p r e s s e d i n (1) a s e p a r a t i o n of t a s k from h i e r a r c h i c a l p o s i t i o n and (2) the change from s i m p l e c o n t r o l t o t e c h n i c a l and 32 b u r e a u c r a t i c c o n t r o l . The s e p a r a t i o n of t a s k from p o s i t i o n gave r i s e t o the n o t i o n of " i n f o r m a l power"; the d e v i a t i o n from the f o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n . O f f e (1976) has d e s c r i b e d t h i s p r o c e s s as the s h i f t from a t a s k - c o n t i n u o u s s t a t u s o r g a n i z a t i o n t o one which i s t a s k - d i s c o n t i n u o u s . In the former, t h e r e e x i s t s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s i n the h i e r a r c h y , such t h a t "a s u p e r o r d i n a t e p o s i t i o n would d i f f e r from a s u b o r d i n a t e p o s i t i o n merely i n terms of g r e a t e r mastery of the r u l e s and g r e a t e r a b i l i t y , knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e i n p r o d u c t i o n " ( C l e g g and D u n k e r l e y , 1980:462). In the l a t t e r , w i t h i n c r e a s i n g d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between mental and manual l a b o u r , g r e a t e r s k i l l s and knowledge do not n e c e s s a r i l y l e a d t o a s u p e r o r d i n a t e p o s i t i o n . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e s e s k i l l s a r e c r i t i c a l t o an o r g a n i z a t i o n they become a s o u r c e of i n f o r m a l power. In a p a r a l l e l f a s h i o n , the t r a n s i t i o n from the 19th c e n t u r y s m a l l b u s i n e s s economy t o the 20th c e n t r y l a r g e c o r p o r a t i o n s c r e a t e d i n c r e a s i n g c o n f l i c t between workers and employers over the c o n t r o l over the methods of p r o d u c t i o n . Edwards (1981) s i g n a l s a development from s i m p l e c o n t r o l t o t e c h n i c a l and b u r e a u c r a t i c c o n t r o l i n response t o r e s p e c t i v e c r i s e s on the l e v e l of the b l u e c o l l a r and w h i t e c o l l a r worker. Simple c o n t r o l i n v o l v e d the d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n of owners on the p r o c e s s of p r o d u c t i o n (such as i s s t i l l the case i n what M i n t z b e r g (1979) c a l l e d " s i m p l e " o r g a n i z a t i o n s ) . T e c h n i c a l c o n t r o l r e f e r s t o the use of t e c h n o l o g y and machines t o c o n t r o l the l a b o u r p r o c e s s . B u r e a u c r a t i c c o n t r o l i s the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of 33 c o n t r o l t h r o u g h the d e f i n i t i o n of r u l e s , laws and s t a n d a r d o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e s which g u i d e t h e work of m i d d l e management and c l e r i c a l s t a f f . The i m p o r t a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of both t e c h n i c a l and b u r e a u c r a t i c c o n t r o l i s t h a t t hey a r e s t r u c t u r a l , t h a t i s they become embedded i n the v e r y f a b r i c which c o n s t i t u t e s the o r g a n i z a t i o n . R u l e s For O r g a n i z i n g The Labour P r o c e s s C l e g g ' s c o n c e p t i o n of power r e l a t i o n s i n v o l v e s the t r a n s l a t i o n of h i s t o r i c a l developments and the u t i l i z a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of c o n t r o l i n t o a s e t of r u l e s . The r u l e s a r e sedimented i n t h a t they have been h i s t o r i c a l l y l a i d down, not n e c e s s a r i l y t h r o u g h the p r o c e s s of one r u l e r e p l a c i n g the o t h e r , but by a ' l a y e r i n g ' of r u l e s superimposed on one a n o t h e r . The r u l e s a r e s e l e c t e d r u l e s i n t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n s enact them s e l e c t i v e l y . Power t h e r e f o r e , i s e x p r e s s e d i n a s e r i e s of sedimented s e l e c t i o n r u l e s which a r e r e l a t e d t e m p o r a l l y and s p a c i a l l y t o the s o c i a l c l a s s system. The model of power which C l e g g proposes i s d e s c r i p t i v e of o r g a n i z a t i o n s ' f u n c t i o n i n g i s r e p r o d u c e d below. I t r e l a t e s t h e c l a s s s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y t o r u l e s t h a t a r e dominant a t a p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l and a t a p a r t i c u l a r moment i n t i m e . i 34 Working Middle Ruling Class Class Class Relations to value producers, exploited, non-owners, laborers, wage earners non-producers, exploiters, non-owners, non-laborers, revenue-receivers non-producers, exploiters, owners, non-laborers, revenue-receivers Occupational range unskilled — skilled Occupational range supervisory — managerial professional Ownership and control of the organization as a whole private — public Labor Market Legislation: e.g., Equal Pay Acts Extra-organi^ zational rules Technical rules Dual labor markets: sex-ual, ethnic, regional axes > job design Social-regulative rules Reproduction rules Strategic rules State rules low-wage labor j Industrial Reconstruction Schemes Technological transfor-mation: e.g., from Taylorism to automation enriched job design organization problems • L Industrial Democracy Schemes The reconstruction of so-cial solidarity: e.g., from human relations to human resources ^ principles • of design and design skills cases for management teaching • t Development of Business Education Dominant ideology: e.g., use of organization theory in management schools short course students qualified personnel-Monopoly capitalism: e.g., multinational corporation [securing of favorable policies production for state__ Imonopolyj markets Y State intervention: e.g., state capitalism: role of state apparatuses "D (Clegg,1981:553) F i g u r e 2 - C l e g g ' s Model of Power i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s In a d d i t i o n t o these r e l a t i o n s h i p s C l e g g s u g g e s t s t h a t "the r u l e s may be r e l a t e d t o the development of l o n g waves i n the w o r l d economy. They become dominant a t p a r t i c u l a r moments because they r e p r e s e n t s t r a t e g i e s a p p r o p r i a t e t o the 3 5 c o n j u n c t u r a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f a c c u m u l a t i o n " 8 ( C l e g g , 1 9 8 1 : 5 5 2 ) . S o m e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e m o d e l s a r e b e g i n n i n g t o e m e r g e f r o m t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n . I t c a n b e s e e n f o r e x a m p l e t h a t P f e f f e r d i s c u s s e s p o w e r m a i n l y i n t e r m s o f i n d i v i d u a l s , y e t h e e m p h a s i z e s s t r u c t u r e . A s i m i l a r s t r u c t u r a l e m p h a s i s a p p e a r s i n C l e g g ' s m o d e l b u t h e i s m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e s o c i e t y t h a n w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s . I n t h e n e x t c h a p t e r t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l b e e x p l o r e d f u r t h e r . I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e v e r t i c a l a x i s o f t h e m o d e l d o e s n o t r e p r e s e n t a t e m p o r a l s c a l e e v e n t h o u g h C l e g g s e e m s t o s u g g e s t t h i s . 36 IV. A COMPARISON OF LEVELS OF ANALYSIS S i n c e P f e f f e r and C l e g g approach the t o p i c from such d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s , development of r e l i a b l e c r i t e r i a f o r comparison seems p r o b l e m a t i c . However, s i n c e most models i n s o c i a l s c i e n c e a r e c o n s t r u c t e d on a t l e a s t one p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l of a n a l y s i s , a comparison of the two models c o u l d be made i n terms of t h e i r l e v e l of a n a l y s i s . Kemelgor (1976) has suggested t h a t many s t u d i e s of power have c o n f i n e d themselves t o b o u n d a r i e s t h a t a r e both a r b i t r a r y and narrow. One apparent problem stems from the f a c t t h a t s t u d i e s a r e a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s - s o c i e t a l , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , and p e r s o n a l or i n d i v i d u a l . R ather than i g n o r i n g r e l a t e d l e v e l s as independent of one a n o t h e r , i t i s p o s t u l a t e d t h a t a m u t u a l l y i n t e r a c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s among the s o c i e t a l , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and i n d i v i d u a l t h e o r e t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n s . (Kemelgor,1976:143). F a r r e l and P e t e r s e n (1982) have c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o the problem t h a t i n many s t u d i e s of power the d i s t i n c t i o n among d i f f e r e n t u n i t s of a n a l y s i s i s b l u r r e d . A l a r g e number of s t u d i e s they m a i n t a i n , c o n f u s e i s s u e s by t a l k i n g about the power of i n d i v i d u a l s , u n i t s and i n t e r - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l networks i n the same d i s c u s s i o n . The s t u d i e s f a i l t o c o n s i d e r the c r i t i c a l i s s u e s of the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s or s i m i l a r i t y of c o r r e l a t e s of p o l i t i c s f o r each l e v e l of a n a l y s i s as w e l l as the l i n k a g e s between the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s . ( F a r r e l l and Pe t e r s e n , 1 9 8 2 : 4 0 5 ) . Thus, by e s t a b l i s h i n g on which l e v e l or l e v e l s P f e f f e r and C l e g g ' s models a r e s t a t e d and by f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i n g how t h e s e l e v e l s a r e r e l a t e d , the models c o u l d be compared and the co n c e r n s r a i s e d by both Kemelgor and F a r r e l l and P e t e r s e n c o u l d be a d d r e s s e d . Such a comparison might f r u i t f u l l y p r o c e e d by 37 u t i l i z i n g a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n of an a n a l y t i c model of power proposed by Kemelgor (1976). F i g u r e 3 - A L i n k a g e Model of,,Power There a r e two ways i n which Kemelgor's model may s e r v e the p r e s e n t a n a l y s i s : (a) as h e u r i s t i c d e v i c e t o map "both models i n terms of t h e i r l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s (b) as i d e a l c o n c e p t u a l model i n which the l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s are c l a r i f i e d t h r o u g h t h e i r containment i n what Kaplan (1964) has c a l l e d e x p l a n a t o r y s h e l l s , but where the concept becomes c o m p l e t e l y u n d e r s t o o d o n l y when c o n s i d e r e d i n i t s r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s . Kemelgor c o n c e i v e s of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s as l i n k a g e c o n c e p t s . L i n k a g e c o n c e p t s c o u l d be seen as r u l e s of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . F a r r e l l and P e t e r s e n (1982) f o r example suggest a t y p o l o g y u s i n g d i m e n s i o n s such as i n t e r n a l v e r s u s e x t e r n a l and v e r t i c a l v e r s u s l a t e r a l as a p o s s i b l e framework. No doubt t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l e q u a l l y u s e f u l ways of making th e s e t r a n s i t i o n s . The q u e s t i o n a d d r e s s e d here i s whether P f e f f e r and C l e g g have made any 38 attempt t o connect the v a r i o u s l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s . In o r d e r t o do so the models s h o u l d be l o c a t e d on t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e l e v e l s f o r which c r i t e r i a have been d e f i n e d by r e f e r r i n g t o the l i t e r a t u r e . These d e s c r i p t i v e c r i t e r i a w i l l a i d i n the d e c i s i o n which elements of the models under i n v e s t i g a t i o n p r o p e r l y b e l o n g i n the r e a l m of the i n d i v i d u a l , the o r g a n i z a t i o n or s o c i e t y . LOCATION OF THE MODELS The I n d i v i d u a l As U n i t Of A n a l y s i s At the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l F i e l d Theory and Exchange Theory and t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e t h e o r i e s have been dominant i n t h e o r i z i n g about power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e of f i e l d t h e o r i s t s (Lewin, 1 9 5 1 ; C a r t w r i g h t , 1959;French and Raven, 1959) emphasizes p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s . These a r e s u b s e q u e n t l y t r a n s f o r m e d t o economic r e l a t i o n s i n the view of exchange t h e o r i s t s , ( T h i b a u t & K e l l e y , 1959; Emerson, 1962), and ( B l a u , 19643). The p o l i t i c a l view s t r e s s e s the c e n t r a l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s a t t a i n i n g outcomes i n the fa c e of o p p o s i t i o n ( D a h l , 1956), the importance of c o a l i t i o n f o r m a t i o n ( C y e r t and March, 1963) and the use of b a r g a i n i n g t a c t i c s (Bacharach & L a w l e r , 1980). Power i s seen as an i n t e r p l a y between i n d i v i d u a l s i n d y a d i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a r i s i n g out of needs and d e s i r e s e x i s t i n g i n one i n d i v i d u a l which may be u n i l a t e r a l l y met by a n o t h e r . P o l i t i c a l b e h a v i o u r i s e n e r g i z e d when one i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e i v e s a n other as b e i n g i n a p o s i t i o n t o mediate rewards t h a t s a t i s f y the 3 9 i n d i v i d u a l ' s motive base. The range of p o s s i b l e power r e l a t i o n s i s a f u n c t i o n of p e o p l e ' s s o c i a l s k i l l s , l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t y , p o s s e s s i o n of r e s o u r c e s and the c o s t s which the use of power may e n t a i l . Models of power r e l a t i o n s on the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l t y p i c a l l y employ m a t h e m a t i c a l formulae d e f i n i n g l e v e l s of c o m p l i a n c e and r e s i s t a n c e ( C a r t w r i g h t , 1 9 5 9 ) , or the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a g i v e n b e h a v i o u r w i l l o c c u r ( D a h l , 1 9 5 7 ) . Another model o f t e n employed i s t h a t of the m a t r i x , d e f i n i n g p o s s i b l e b e h a v i o u r a l r e p e r t o i r e s of i n d i v i d u a l s ( T h i b a u t and K e l l e y , 1 9 5 9 ; Pendse, 1 9 8 3 ) . But the most common t r e a t m e n t of power on the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l i s the a r t i c u l a t i o n of a s e t of s t r a t e g i e s which enhance (or d e l i m i t ) i n d i v i d u a l s ' power ( T h i b a u t and K e l l e y , 1 9 5 9 ; E m e r s o n , 1 9 6 2 ; M u l d e r , 1977; M i n t z b e r g , 1 9 8 3 ) . The elements of P f e f f e r ' s model t h a t a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p o l i t i c s a l l f i t t h e s e c r i t e r i a . S t r a t e g i e s , language and the e x e r c i s e of power r e f e r t o the b e h a v i o u r of i n d i v i d u a l s as they attempt t o d e v e l o p t h e i r power p o s i t i o n . S t r a t e g i e s f o r example such as c o a l i t i o n f o r m a t i o n , i n f l u e n c i n g of d e c i s i o n s or the f o r m a t i o n of i s s u e s , c o o p t a t i o n and m a n i p u l a t i o n of o t h e r s , c l e a r l y b e l o n g a t the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l . U s u a l l y the d e c i s i o n t o j o i n a c o a l i t i o n w i l l be based on t h e l e v e l of reward t h a t such ( o f t e n temporary) memberships may i n v o l v e . The s o c i a l s k i l l s of i n d i v i d u a l s as w e l l as o t h e r p e o p l e ' s p e r c e p t i o n of them a r e of the utmost importance f o r t h e s u c c e s s of a p a r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g y . Language i s a s y m b o l i c means used by i n d i v i d u a l s t o j u s t i f y 40 d e c i s i o n s t o i n t e r p r e t which r e s o u r c e s a re c r i t i c a l t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n , t o s u b s t i t u t e s y m b o l i c outcomes f o r s u b s t a n t i v e ones, t o advocate t h e i r p o s i t i o n and i n g e n e r a l t o d e v e l o p and s t r e n g t h e n t h e i r power. W h i l e i t can be argued c o n v i n c i n g l y t h a t language i s e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t a t the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r laws, r u l e s and p r o c e d u r e s t o g u i d e e f f o r t s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members, P f e f f e r a r g u e s t h a t t h i s a s p e c t of language i s o n l y secondary. C o n s e q u e n t l y language as i n t e r p r e t e d by P f e f f e r i s c o n s i d e r e d o n l y a t the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l . Whether or not power w i l l be e x e r c i s e d w i l l be dependent upon the c o s t s such use i n v o l v e s , the r e l a t i v e importance of the i s s u e , and the p e r c e i v e d b e n e f i t of the outcome. E x e r c i s e of power t h e r e f o r e i n v o l v e s the w e i g h i n g of c o s t s and b e n e f i t s as the s e r e l a t e t o the i n d i v i d u a l . In . k e e p i n g w i t h h i s statement t h a t f o r the d i s c u s s i o n of power " i n d i v i d u a l s " a r e u n i m p o r t a n t , C l e g g does not use- the i n d i v i d u a l as a u n i t of a n a l y s i s . Nor does he anywhere d i s c u s s p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s , needs, d e s i r e s or m o t i v e s . In C l e g g ' s model p e o p l e a r e viewed r a t h e r d e t e r m i n i s t i c a l l y , o n l y as s u b j e c t s of c o n t r o l . The hegemonic n a t u r e of t h i s c o n t r o l p r e v e n t s i n d i v i d u a l s from i n f l u e n c i n g the p r o c e s s of o r g a n i z i n g . 41 The O r g a n i z a t i o n As U n i t Of A n a l y s i s The s t r a t e g i c c o n t i n g e n c y and t o some e x t e n t the p o l i t i c a l view of power a r e dominant on the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h i s p e r s p e c t i v e i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o a systems approach t o o r g a n i z a t i o n s (Thompson, 1967), as w e l l as the s t r u c t u r a l p o i n t of view propounded by t h e o r i s t s such as M i n t z b e r g (1979). At the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l of a n a l y s i s the f o c u s i s on r e l a t i o n s between s u b u n i t s ( H i c k s o n e t al.,1971;Hambrick, 1974;Hinings e t a l . , 1975), and s t r u c t u r a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ( M i n t z b e r g , 1983). Power i s viewed as r e s u l t i n g from s t r u c t u r a l i m p e r a t i v e s e x t e r n a l t o the i n d i v i d u a l and d e f i n i n g i n d i v i d u a l s ' b e h a v i o u r through r o l e p r e s c r i p t i o n . D i v i s i o n of l a b o u r , c e n t r a l i t y of d e c i s i o n making, i n f o r m a t i o n networks . e t c . shape the f u n c t i o n i n g of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , l e a v i n g l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n d i v i d u a l m a n i p u l a t i o n . The e x e r c i s e of power f o l l o w s from a u t h o r i t y p o s i t i o n s which have been l i g i t i m a t e d by g o a l consensus and ac c e p t a n c e of the n e c e s s i t y f o r t a s k s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . R e s e a r c h of power r e l a t i o n s on the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n f o c u s e s on the i n f l u e n c e of s i z e , t e c h n o l o g y , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e s i g n , g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n and p r o d u c t i o n mode. Of i n t e r e s t a r e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e and. o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l ( O u c h i , 1977; Edwards, 1981), the r e l a t i v e i n f l u e n c e of s t r u c t u r i n g of a c t i v i t i e s and c e n t r a l i z e d d e c i s i o n making on l e v e l s of c o n f l i c t ( C h i l d , 1973), the use of c o n t r o l mechanisms such as budgets ( P f e f f e r and S a l a n c i k , 1975), ( P f e f f e r and Moore, 1980) or the importance of own e r s h i p , 4 2 p u b l i c s a n d e x t e r n a l c o a l i t i o n s ( M i n t z b e r g , 1 9 8 3 ) . F o l l o w i n g t h e s e c r i t e r i a i t i s e a s y t o r e l a t e t h o s e e l e m e n t s o f P f e f f e r ' s m o d e l t h a t a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y p o w e r t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l o f a n a l y s i s . F o r P f e f f e r t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e d i v i s i o n o f l a b o u r d e f i n e s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p o w e r . S u c h d i s t r i b u t i o n i s d e p e n d e n t o n p o s i t i o n , n o t i n d i v i d u a l a c u m e n . R o l e p r e s c r i p t i o n d e t e r m i n e s t h e r a n g e o f i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o u r a s w e l l a s t h e r e l a t i v e p o w e r t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l h a s . T h e p o w e r o f a p e r s o n w i l l t h e r e f o r e v a r y a s a f u n c t i o n o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . T h e n a t u r e o f h i e r a r c h i c a l p o w e r i s t h a t o f f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y . P e o p l e i n p o s i t i o n s o f a u t h o r i t y p o s s e s s p o w e r s o u r c e s b y v i r t u e o f t h a t p o s i t i o n . T h e m o r e c e n t r a l t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s a r e t h e f e w e r a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e g r e a t e r t h e a m o u n t o f p o w e r s o u r c e s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s m a y a c q u i r e . C o n t r o l o v e r t e c h n o l o g y , i n f o r m a t i o n o r u n c e r t a i n t y a r e c r u c i a l s o u r c e s o f p o w e r a n d t h e y a c c r u e t o t h o s e w h o h o l d p o s i t i o n s i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n g r a n t i n g t h e m t h e s e c o n t r o l s . C o n d i t i o n s t h a t l e a d t o c o n f l i c t a r e r e l a t e d t o o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e a s w e l l a s t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s . I n s o f a r a s t h e l a t t e r a r e t r e a t e d a s " g i v e n " t h e y p r o v i d e i m p e r a t i v e s f o r a c t i o n . T h e s p e c i a l i z a t i o n o f t a s k s c r e a t e s h i g h l e v e l s o f i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e . T h i s f a c t o r , c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f h e t e r o g e n e o u s g o a l s , h e t e r o g e n e o u s b e l i e f s a b o u t t e c h n o l o g y a n d s c a r c i t y l e a d s t o c o n d i t i o n s o f c o n f l i c t . I t i s i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y w i l l t a k e p l a c e . 43 C l e g g ' s t e c h n i c a l r u l e s and s o c i a l r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s meet the c r i t e r i a f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l . T e c h n i c a l r u l e s r e f e r t o the d o m i n a t i o n of the l a b o u r p r o c e s s by t e c h n o l o g y . The development of t h e s e r u l e s , a c c o r d i n g t o C l e g g , was a f u n c t i o n of the r i s e of s c i e n t i f i c management combined w i t h advancement i n t e c h n o l o g y . Technology, t h r o u g h the p r o c e s s of d e s k i l l i n g , frames the way i n which workers l a b o u r . I t i s a s t r u c t u r a l means of c o n t r o l i n the hands of management. S o c i a l - r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s a r e j u s t another form of c o n t r o l d i r e c t e d a t those above the l e v e l of the worker. R a t h e r than c o n t r o l by t e c h n o l o g y , t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s a r e c o n t r o l l e d t h r ough hegemony. S o c i a l - r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s c o n t r o l by s o c i a l i z i n g workers i n t o a s.et of v a l u e s and o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e s t h a t s e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t t h e i r autonomy. An example would be the g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d n o t i o n t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e r a t i o n a l e n t i t i e s c o m p r i s e d of i n d i v i d u a l s which h o l d the c o n s e n s u a l l y s h a red v a l u e of p r o f i t m a x i m i z a t i o n . S o c i e t y As U n i t Of A n a l y s i s R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e work has been done by o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r i s t s a t the l e v e l of s o c i e t y (Nord, 1974) and has l a r g e l y been the p r o v i n c e of p h i l o s o p h e r s ( R u s s e l l , 1969), p o l i t i c a l ' s c i e n t i s t s ( O ' B r i e n et a l . , 1969), s o c i o l o g i s t s ( T o u r a i n e , 1971) and e c o n o m i s t s ( G a l b r a i t h , 1973). Those o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r i s t s t h a t d i d d i s c u s s power on t h i s l e v e l were the r a d i c a l t h e o r i s t s (Braverman, l 9 7 4 ; S t o n e , 1981). At the s o c i e t a l l e v e l of a n a l y s i s , power i s seen as 44 embedded i n r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n . Emphasis i s on the s t a t e of the economy, h i s t o r i c a l development of i n d u s t r y , the p o s i t i o n of the s t a t e and such s o c i e t a l v a r i a b l e s as s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and norms and v a l u e s . Types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s , m o n o p o l i e s , o l i g o p o l i e s or s t a t e owned e n t e r p r i s e s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d r a t h e r than i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . S t u d i e s of the l e v e l of s o c i e t y have been d i r e c t e d a t c o l l e c t i v i t i e s , f o r example the i n t e r p l a y between u n i o n s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s of employers (Walton and M c K e r s i e , 1965), the c h a n g i n g p o s i t i o n of the e n t e r p r i s e i n s o c i e t y , ( T o u r a i n e , 1971) and t h e need t o study t h o s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t are c r i t i c a l f o r s o c i e t a l d e c i s i o n making ( C o l i g n o n and C r a y, 1980). To the e x t e n t t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s such as H i c k s o n et a l (1971) and M i n t z b e r g , (1983) have gone beyond the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , t hey have t y p i c a l l y f o c u s e d on the more immediate environment r a t h e r than on s o c i e t y as a whole. I t i s i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n of change v e r s u s s t a b i l i t y t h a t P f e f f e r goes beyond the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . 9 S t a b i l i t y of p r e v a i l i n g power d i s t r i b u t i o n s i s a f u n c t i o n of the p r o c e s s of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In the f a c e of e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p e r a t i v e s however o r g a n i z a t i o n s s u r v i v e by n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n . To the e x t e n t t h a t e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s 9 T h i s d i s c u s s i o n i g n o r e s P f e f f e r ' s c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n i n the a r e a of i n t e r - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t u d i e s ( P f e f f e r , 1972 a; P f e f f e r , 1972 b ; P f e f f e r and L e b l e c i , 1973; ( P f e f f e r and Nowak, 1976; P f e f f e r , l 9 7 7 ; P f e f f e r and S a l a n c i k , 1978) s i n c e t h i s l i t e r a t u r e does not e x p l i c i t l y d e a l w i t h power, nor does P f e f f e r r e l a t e t h i s work t o h i s d i s c u s s i o n i n Power i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s (1981 ) 45 a l l o w s u r v i v a l t h r ough a d a p t a t i o n power r e l a t i o n s w i l l be unchanged because of the p r o c e s s of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . D r a s t i c changes o n l y occur when d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s d e v e l o p i n response t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s . The importance of the l e v e l of s o c i e t y i n C l e g g ' s model may be demonstrated by the f a c t t h a t f o u r out of a t o t a l of s i x r u l e s meet the c r i t e r i a f o r t h i s l e v e l of a n a l y s i s . E x t r a o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r u l e s d e a l w i t h the way i n which cheap l a b o u r i s o b t a i n e d from the lower s t r a t a of s o c i e t y . D e s k i l l i n g of manual l a b o u r makes workers h i g h l y s u b s t i t u t a b l e t h e r e b y d e c r e a s i n g t h e i r r e l a t i v e power. C l e g g s u g g e s t s t h a t e x t r a o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r u l e s t h a t segment the l a b o u r market c o n t r o l the worker a t the l e v e l of s o c i e t y . I f t e c h n i c a l r u l e s c o n t r o l b l u e c o l l a r workers and s o c i a l -r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s dominate w h i t e c o l l a r w o r k e r s , t h o s e t h a t e n j o y "the l e a s t s p e c i f i c i t y of r o l e p r e s c r i p t i o n " ( C l e g g , 1981:558) are r u l e d by the s o c i a l i z i n g powers of e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . M a n a g e r i a l . a c t i v i t i e s a r e g u i d e d by what C l e g g c a l l s r e p r o d u c t i o n r u l e s . The r a t i o n a l e f o r the e x i s t e n c e of these r u l e s l i e s i n the non-ownership s t a t u s of most modern managers. E d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s t e a c h c o u r s e s t h a t propound the m a n a g e r i a l p e r s p e c t i v e , t h u s p e r p e t u a t i n g a system of d o m i n a t i o n . S t a t e r u l e s may be seen as a subset of s t r a t e g i c r u l e s i n t h a t c o r p o r a t i o n s i n t h e i r d e s i r e t o c o n t r o l e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n t i n g e n c i e s attempt " t o use the s t a t e t o a f f e c t the market i n 46 t h e i r i n t e r e s t s " ( C l e g g , 1981; 558). 1 0 O r g a n i z a t i o n s t h e n , i n f l u e n c e t h e i r environment i n two ways, through c o n t r o l of the market and th r o u g h c o n t r o l of the s t a t e . O r g a n i z i n g the s e p a r a t e elements a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r l e v e l of a n a l y s i s produces the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e . 1 1 L e v e l of A n a l y s i s P f e f f e r C l e g g I n d i v i d u a l Language S t r a t e g i e s E x e r c i s e O r g a n i z a t i o n S t r u c t u r e / H i e r a r c h y D e t e r m i n a n t s / S o u r c e s C o n d i t i o n s f o r C o n f l i c t T e c h n i c a l R u l e s S o c i a l R e g u l a t i v e R u l e s S o c i e t y S t a b i l i t y / C h a n g e E x t r a O r g a n i z a t i o n a l R u l e s R e p r o d u c t i o n R u l e s S t r a t e g i c R u l e s S t a t e R u l e s T a b l e I I I - Models of Power O r g a n i z e d by L e v e l of A n a l y s i s For a more i n depth c o n s i d e r a t i o n of these r e l a t i o n s the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l be used as p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e . By 1 0 I t has been argued elsewhere t h a t the a d v e r s a r y model of government and b u s i n e s s i s a myth and t h a t 'the b u s i n e s s community i s e s s e n t i a l l y i n c o n t r o l of d e c i s i o n making a t a p o l i c y l e v e l " (Whetter, 1976 p. 109) 1 1 C l e g g ' s 1981 model p u b l i s h e d i n the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e  Q u a r t e r l y d e p a r t s c o n s i d e r a b l y from e a r l i e r s t a t e m e n t s where c o u n t e r v a i l i n g power of i n d i v i d u a l s was i m p o r t a n t ( C l e g g , 1 9 7 5 ) . I t h i n k however t h a t h i s l a t e s t f o r m u l a t i o n i s more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of h i s p o s i t i o n on t h i s i s s u e t o d a y . S i m i l a r l y , P f e f f e r d i s c u s s e s r e l a t i o n s between o r g a n i z a t i o n s e x t e n s i v e l y i n P f e f f e r and S a l a n c i k (1978). But P f e f f e r does not i n t e g r a t e t h i s work i n h i s model of power. 47 f o c u s i n g on t h i s l e v e l , common t o each model, i t i s p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n i n s i g h t s about the o t h e r l e v e l s and t o e x p l o r e the d i f f e r e n c e s i n emphasis. P f e f f e r In P f e f f e r ' s model t h r e e components a r e l o c a t e d on the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n : (1) S t r u c t u r e , (2) So u r c e s of power and (3) C o n d i t i o n s f o r c o n f l i c t . The most s a l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e s e components i s t h a t they form the c o n s t r a i n i n g b o u n d a r i e s w i t h i n which p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y on the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l o c c u r s . In the p r e f a c e t o h i s book P f e f f e r makes c l e a r h i s view t h a t power i s c h i e f l y d e r i v e d from s t r u c t u r e : Power i s seen as d e r i v i n g from the d i v i s i o n of l a b o r t h a t o c c u r s as t a s k s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i s implemented i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . When the o v e r a l l t a s k s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e d i v i d e d i n t o smaller*, p a r t s , i t i s i n e v i t a b l e t h a t some t a s k s w i l l come t o 'be more i m p o r t a n t than o t h e r s . . . . A l t h o u g h i n d i v i d u a l s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s can c e r t a i n l y a f f e c t the amount of power and the e f f e c t i v e n e s s w i t h which i t i s used, power i s f i r s t and foremost a s t r u c t u r a l phenomenon, and s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d as such. ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : x ) Throughout the book the dominant r o l e of s t r u c t u r e i s r e p e a t e d l y emphasized. In a d d i t i o n , the l i m i t e d p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l a c t o r s t o e x e r t i n f l u e n c e i s s t a t e d on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s , f o r i n s t a n c e on page 137: the argument was made t h a t a l t h o u g h power was l a r g e l y a f u n c t i o n of p o s i t i o n i n the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and the s o c i a l a c t o r s net dependence w i t h r e s p e c t t o o t h e r a c t o r s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e r e were s t i l l some s t r a t e g i e s and t a c t i c s t h a t c o u l d enhance the power of the a c t o r s w i t h i n t hose c o n s t r a i n t s . ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 1 3 7 ) W i t h r e s p e c t t o the s o u r c e s of power, a g a i n , P f e f f e r d e c l a r e s t h a t " [ t ] h e amount of power each a c t o r p o s s e s s e s i s 48 d e r i v e d f i r s t , from the importance of the a c t i v i t y performed. I t i s i n t h i s sense t h a t i t can be s a i d t h a t power i s s t r u c t u r a l l y d e t e r m i n e d " ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 9 8 ) . Other d e t e r m i n a n t s of power such as the a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e c r i t i c a l r e s o u r c e s and c o p i n g w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y a r e p r e d i c a t e d upon such s t r u c t u r a l a n t e c e d e n t s . I t i s o n l y when power a l r e a d y a c c r u e s t o a c t o r s because of the r e l a t i v e i mportance of t h e i r t a s k t h a t s o u r c e s of power can be d e v e l o p e d . Or i n P f e f f e r ' s words: ...power i s a t once s t r u c t u r a l l y d e t e r m i n e d but a l s o i s more than s t r u c t u r a l l y d e t e r m i n e d ; power i s a f f e c t e d by the c a p a c i t y of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t s t o enhance t h e i r bases of power and t o c o n v i n c e o t h e r s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e i r n e c e s s i t y and v a l u e . ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 9 8 ) C l e a r l y , no power bases can be enhanced i f a c t o r s don't a l r e a d y p o s s e s s them and p o s s e s s i o n of any power b a s i s i s a f u n c t i o n of one's importance i n the s t r u c t u r e . Power i s used i n the form of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y when c o n f l i c t o c c u r s . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o i n v e s t i g a t e which f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e the o c c u r r e n c e of c o n f l i c t . P f e f f e r p o s t u l a t e s t h r e e b a s i c c o n d i t i o n s : i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e , h e t e r o g e n e i t y and s c a r c i t y . The l e v e l of dependence of one a c t o r s upon the a c t i v i t y of a n o t h e r f o l l o w s d i r e c t l y from the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of t a s k s . R e l a t i o n s of dependence (and t h e i r c o n c o m i t a n t power r e l a t i o n s ) a r e g i v e n , they a r e a f u n c t i o n of the d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r . S i m i l a r l y , h e t e r o g e n i t y which may l e a d t o d i s a g r e e m e n t s about g o a l s and about t e c h n o l o g y , f o l l o w s from o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . P f e f f e r p r o v i d e s v a r i o u s examples of how c o n d i t i o n s f o r c o n f l i c t a r e ' b u i l t i n ' ... v a r i o u s s u b u n i t s may have d i f f e r e n t g o a l s e x p l i c i t l y p r o v i d e d as a p a r t of t h e i r t a s k assignment. These g o a l s 49 may i n h e r e n t l y c o n f l i c t . . . . In a d d i t i o n , d i f f e r e n t s u b u n i t s r e c e i v e d i f f e r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n as a consequence of the d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r . . . [ w h i c h ] . . . t e n d t o cause a p a r o c h i a l i s m i n p o i n t of v i e w , i n which each p a r t i c i p a n t sees the w o r l d through h i s s u b u n i t ' s p e r s p e c t i v e . ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 7 2 ) . the l a s t c o n d i t i o n s , s c a r c i t y , i s the most i m p o r t a n t c o n d i t i o n f o r w i t h o u t i t t h e r e would be no d e c i s i o n problem and hence c o n f l i c t would not o c c u r . To the e x t e n t t h a t r e s o u r c e s a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o meet the v a r i o u s demands... c h o i c e s have t o be made c o n c e r n i n g the a l l o c a t i o n of those r e s o u r c e s . The g r e a t e r the s c a r c i t y as compared t o the demand, the g r e a t e r the power and the e f f o r t t h a t w i l l be expended i n r e s o l v i n g the d e c i s i o n . ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 6 9 ) The r e s o u r c e s t h a t P f e f f e r r e f e r s t o a r e those n e c e s s a r y f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n t o o p e r a t e such as p e r s o n n e l , money, customers, raw m a t e r i a l and t e c h n o l o g y . The d e f i n i t i o n of what c o n s t i t u t e s a s c a r c e r e s o u r c e i s i n i t s e l f not g i v e n by s t r u c t u r e . Indeed, P f e f f e r s u g g e s t s t h a t s c a r c i t y " i s , by d e f i n i t i o n , a concept t h a t i s d e f i n e d i n r e l a t i v e terms" which can seldom be d e t e r m i n e d o b j e c t i v e l y . However, the r e l a t i v e s c a r c i t y of a r e s o u r c e w i l l be i n e v i t a b l y d e f i n e d by t h o s e who c o n t r o l a c c e s s t o the r e s o u r c e i n q u e s t i o n or as P f e f f e r p u t s i t the o r g a n i z a t i o n or s o c i a l a c t o r p o s s e s s i n g a r e s o u r c e can i n c r e a s e the v a l u e of t h a t r e s o u r c e and t h e i r own power by c l a i m i n g s c a r c i t y , and b e h a v i n g as i f the r e s o u r c e were s c a r c e . ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 8 2 ) Thus, i f a c t o r s a r e a b l e t o ' c r e a t e ' s c a r c i t y by v i r t u e of p r i o r p o s s e s s i o n of or c o n t r o l over a r e s o u r c e , i t f o l l o w s t h a t u l t i m a t e l y s c a r c i t y t o o , i s a f u n c t i o n of the d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r . C l e a r l y , from P f e f f e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e the d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r governs a l l c o n d i t i o n s t h a t g i v e r i s e t o c o n f l i c t , whether e x p l i c i t (as i n the case of i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e and 50 h e t e r o g e n e i t y ) or i m p l i c i t (as i n the case of s c a r c i t y ) . From t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i t can be c o n c l u d e d t h a t not o n l y i s power u n d e r s t o o d s t r u c t u r a l l y , i t i s a l s o e x c l u s i v e l y d e f i n e d by s t r u c t u r e . The s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of t a s k s which makes 'some u n i t s more i m p o r t a n t than o t h e r s ' i s the u n d e r l y i n g mechanism by which power becomes d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . The more c r i t i c a l a t a s k i s f o r the s u r v i v a l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , the g r e a t e r the power, the more o p p o r t u n i t y t o engage i n p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . One of the most i m p o r t a n t consequences of t h i s view i s t h a t any p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y on the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l i s c o m p l e t e l y c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n s t r u c t u r a l c o n s t r a i n t s . I n d i v i d u a l s ' f o r m a l p o s i t i o n i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n d e f i n e s the b o u n d a r i e s of t h e i r p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n and a l l o w s a u t o m a t i c a c c e s s t o c e r t a i n r e s o u r c e s but not t o o t h e r s . In a d d i t i o n , the power t h a t comes w i t h the p o s i t i o n can be enhanced depending upon an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p o l i t i c a l s k i l l . The o n l y v a r i a b l e i t seems i s an a c t o r ' s s k i l l a t e x p l o r i n g the- p o s s i b i l i t i e s w i t h i n a. g i v e n s t r u c t u r a l framework. In P f e f f e r ' s view i t a p p e a r s , the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l i s c o n t a i n e d i n and d e t e r m i n e d by the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . I f the r e l a t i o n between the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l and the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n i s t i g h t l y c o u p l e d the c o n n e c t i o n between the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n and t h a t of s o c i e t y i s f a r more tenuous. The environment i s l a r g e l y t r e a t e d as g i v e n and i s c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t o the e x t e n t t h a t i t d i r e c t l y a f f e c t s an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s f u n c t i o n i n g . P f e f f e r s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e a r e two p o s s i b l e ways f o r 51 o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o s u r v i v e i n the l o n g r u n , a d a p t a t i o n and s e l e c t i o n . These are mechanisms by which o r g a n i z a t i o n s adapt t o changes i n t h e environment. A d a p t a t i o n may be s e r i o u s l y o b s t r u c t e d by the p r o c e s s of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n t h a t t a k e s p l a c e i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . P f e f f e r l i s t s t h r e e causes f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n : ( 1 ) p e o p l e become committed t o p a s t d e c i s i o n s , ( 2 ) over time b e l i e f s , r u l e s and p r a c t i c e s become l o o k e d upon as o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y , and ( 3 ) e x p a n s i o n a r y p o l i t i c s of power h o l d e r s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . To the e x t e n t t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i s s u c c e s s f u l power r e l a t i o n s remain s t a b l e but a d a p t a t i o n w i l l be d e l a y e d and l o n g term s u r v i v a l t h r e a t e n e d . The mechanism of s e l e c t i o n f a v o u r s d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l forms depending on the ' n i c h e s ' t h a t become a v a i l a b l e i n the environment. S e l e c t i o n mechanisms b r i n g about major s h i f t s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power, presumably by c h a n g i n g the d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r . P f e f f e r o f f e r s no s u g g e s t i o n s as t o how such fundamental changes might be brought about. 1 2 At the l e v e l of s o c i e t y P f e f f e r has s h i f t e d h i s f o c u s from the s t r u c t u r a l i m p e r a t i v e s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l demands and c o n s t r a i n t s . The o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s f u n c t i o n i n g as w e l l as an o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s s t r u c t u r e a r e d e t e r m i n e d by i t s environment. However, the i n t e r a c t i o n s between environment and o r g a n i z a t i o n s seem t o have v e r y l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power, a t l e a s t i n P f e f f e r ' s t r e a t m e n t . 1 2 I t has been assumed i n t h i s t h e s i s t h a t major s h i f t s i n power i n o r d e r t o occupy a p a r t i c u l a r n i c h e i n the environment a r e the outcome of a p o l i t i c a l s t r u g g l e between power h o l d e r s a l t h o u g h P f e f f e r does not make t h i s e x p l i c i t . 52 P f e f f e r ' s model of power i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a r a t h e r d e t e r m i n i s t i c o u t l o o k . Environments determine which o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l s u r v i v e i n the l o n g run ( g i v e n t h a t the s e l e c t i o n mechanism i s dominant which P f e f f e r seems t o s u g g e s t ) , and the type of r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n . The d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r i n any o r g a n i z a t i o n d e t e r m i n e s who h o l d s power over which r e s o u r c e s and s e t s the b o u n d a r i e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . C l e g g Next, l e t us c o n s i d e r C l e g g ' s model. C l e g g ' s t e c h n i c a l r u l e s and s o c i a l - r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s which a r e s t a t e d on the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e no l e s s d e t e r m i n i s t i c t h a t the s t r u c t u r a l c o n s t r a i n t s of P f e f f e r ' s model. The form of t h i s d e t e r m i n i s m however d i f f e r s s h a r p l y from t h a t of P f e f f e r , both i n terms of d i r e c t i o n and e x p r e s s i o n . W h i l e i t i s t r u e t h a t t e c h n i c a l and s o c i a l - r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s govern the a c t i v i t i e s of i n d i v i d u a l s , t h e i r more i m p o r t a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s , a c c o r d i n g t o C l e g g , t h a t they a r e the i n e v i t a b l e outcome of the d e s i r e of the c a p i t a l i s t t o a p p r o p r i a t e s u r p l u s v a l u e . The r u l e s a r e not g i v e n i n the same way t h a t P f e f f e r ' s d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r i s g i v e n . R a t h e r , they have e v o l v e d h i s t o r i c a l l y and a r e d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o economic c o n d i t i o n s . To u n d e r s t a n d the n a t u r e of t e c h n i c a l and s o c i a l - r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s i t i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o d e s c r i b e them, r a t h e r , the p r o c e s s t h a t governed t h e i r ' s e d i m e n t a t i o n ' s h o u l d be emphasized. T e c h n i c a l r u l e s - t h o s e t h a t s u b o r d i n a t e workers t o machine 53 p r o c e s s e s - d e v e l o p e d a f t e r 1895 when F r e d e r i c k T a y l o r p r e s e n t e d h i s paper on p i e c e r a t e s . I t was T a y l o r ' s o b j e c t i v e t o t a k e a l l the i m p o r t a n t d e c i s i o n s and p l a n n i n g which v i t a l l y a f f e c t the o utput of the shop out of the hands of the workmen, and c e n t r a l i z e them i n a few men, each of whom i s e s p e c i a l l y t r a i n e d i n the a r t of making tho s e d e c i s i o n s and i n s e e i n g t h a t they a r e c a r r i e d o u t " ( T a y l o r , 1907, s e c t . 126; c i t e d i n C l e g g and Dunkerley,1979:130) By p l a c i n g the complete c o n t r o l over work i n the hands of a few 'managers' workers l o s e t h e i r b a r g a i n i n g power which u n t i l then had been v e s t e d i n worker c o n t r o l over the methods of p r o d u c t i o n . C l e g g s u g gests t h a t T a y l o r ' s i d e a s were an ' a n t i d o t e ' f o r the d i f f i c u l t i e s f a c e d by i n d u s t r i e s by the end of the 19th c e n t u r y . " T a y l o r " he s a y s , "was an h i s t o r i c a l a g e n t , r a t h e r than an i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t " 1 3 (p.127) A f t e r the d e p r e s s i o n which s t a r t e d i n 1870 c a p i t a l i s t s were f a c e d w i t h i n c r e a s e d c o m p e t i t i o n on an i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e v e l and d e c l i n i n g p r o f i t s . At the same time the growth of t e c h n o l o g y d u r i n g the second h a l f of the 19th c e n t u r y l e d t o i n c r e a s e d use of machines which opened the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r mass p r o d u c t i o n of commodities. The n a t u r e of the l a b o u r f o r c e a t t h a t time p r e s e n t e d a s p e c i a l problem. In the U.S. a t the end of the 19th c e n t u r y , the s k i l l e d w o r k e r s , those w i t h t r a d e or c r a f t t r a i n i n g . . . engaged i n a p o l i t i c a l s t r u g g l e which was w i d e s p r e a d enough t o form an o b s t a c l e t o ... the a c c u m u l a t i o n of c a p i t a l . At the same time t h e r e was a r r i v i n g from Europe a mass of peasant immigrants who c o u l d not be i n c o r p o r a t e d . . . i n t o the p r o c e s s of p r o d u c t i o n . Labour p r o c e s s e s t h e r e f o r e had t o be m o d i f i e d . ( C l e g g , 1979:129) I t was T a y l o r who was a b l e t o remedy t h i s problem t h r o u g h 1 3 My emphasis 54 h i s methods of s c i e n t i f i c management. C o n t r o l over the methods of p r o d u c t i o n ( i n a d d i t i o n t o c o n t r o l over the means of p r o d u c t i o n which was v e s t e d i n o w n e r s h i p ) , was a c h i e v e d by the "breakdown of human s k i l l s , p a r a l l e l and i n a d d i t i o n t o the d e v e l o p i n g machine p r o c e s s e s " (p.129) C l e g g a t t r i b u t e s a s i m i l a r h i s t o r i c a l r o l e t o E l t o n Mayo i n the development of s o c i a l - r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s . Mayo was concerned w i t h the a d v e r s e e f f e c t s on the worker of t e c h n o l o g i c a l change and the m e c h a n i s t i c model of economic man which p r e v a i l e d i n the days of s c i e n t i f i c management. In 1933 when r e p o r t i n g on the Hawthorne e x p e r i m e n t s , Mayo c o n c l u d e d t h a t Human c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n work, i n p r i m i t i v e and d e v e l o p e d s o c i e t i e s , has always depended f o r i t s p e r p e t u a t i o n upon the e v o l u t i o n of a n o n - l o g i c a l s o c i a l code which r e g u l a t e s the r e l a t i o n s between persons and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s t o one a n o t h e r . I n s i s t e n c e upon a merely economic l o g i c of p r o d u c t i o n e s p e c i a l l y i f the l o g i c , i s f r e q u e n t l y changed-i n t e r f e r e s w i t h the development of such a code and c o n s e q u e n t l y g i v e s r i s e i n the group t o a sense of human d e f e a t . T h i s human d e f e a t r e s u l t s i n the f o r m a t i o n of a s o c i a l code a t a lower l e v e l and i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the economic l o g i c . One of i t s symptoms i s " r e s t r i c t i o n " . (Mayo, 1933:.120-121. c i t e d i n B u r r e l l and Morgan, 1979:139) R e - i n s t i t u t i o n of such a s o c i a l code would r e s t o r e the e q u i l i b r i u m , which was d i s t u r b e d by the d i s j u n c t u r e of man and h i s work, i n d u c e d by t e c h n o l o g y . W h i l e C l e g g r e c o g n i z e s Mayo's "humanist c r i t i q u e of s c i e n t i f i c management" (p.134), he m a i n t a i n s t h a t Mayo's recommendations o n l y s e r v e d t o c o n t r o l the worker i n o r d e r t o d e a l w i t h such problems as p r o d u c t i o n r e s t r i c t i o n and a b s e n t e e i s m . H i s d i s c u s s i o n of Mayo's work i s p r i m a r i l y i n f o r m e d by the l a t t e r ' s most i n f l u e n t i a l work The S o c i a l Problems of an I n d u s t r i a l C i v i l i z a t i o n which was p u b l i s h e d i n 55 1949. T h i s means t h a t the Human R e l a t i o n s S c h o o l which g a i n e d so much prominence a f t e r the second w o r l d war f o l l o w e d from the economic u p t u r n ( r a t h e r than a downturn which i n s p i r e d s c i e n t i f i c management) a f t e r the second w o r l d war. The f u l l y employed war economy of the l o n g post-war boom would pose p a r t i c u l a r problems f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n and c o n t r o l of the l a b o u r p r o c e s s a t t h e l e v e l of t h e i n d i v i d u a l e n t e r p r i s e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t would withdraw the c o e r c i v e d o m i n a t i o n of the r e s e r v e army of the unemployed. ( C l e g g , 1979 p.132). In the absence of the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r e x e r c i s i n g c o e r c i v e d o m i n a t i o n , i t became n e c e s s a r y , a c c o r d i n g t o C l e g g , t o r e a s s e r t c o n t r o l t h r o u g h hegemonic d o m i n a t i o n " i n the g u i s e of new forms of s o c i a l s o l i d a r i t y ..." C l e g g i n t e r p r e t s Mayo's i n s i s t e n c e on the need f o r c o - o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t s , the development of s o c i a l s k i l l s and the c r e a t i o n i n the worker of "the d e s i r e and c a p a c i t y t o work b e t t e r w i t h management" (Clegg,1979:136) as a hegemonic answer t o the management of l a b o u r problems. W h i l e C l e g g ' s d i s c u s s i o n of Mayo and the development of the Human R e l a t i o n s s c h o o l of management t a k e s on somewhat p o l e m i c o v e r t o n e s , i t i s c l e a r t h a t s o c i a l - r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s a r e of a p e r v a s i v e n e s s t h a t f a r exceed the impact of the t e c h n i c a l r u l e s . The r u l e s t h a t e x i s t a t the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n r e f e r t o b oth c o n t r o l of the l a b o u r p r o c e s s i t s e l f and t o c o n t r o l of the needs, d e s i r e s and b e h a v i o u r of the i n d i v i d u a l worker. To t h i s e x t e n t C l e g g ' s model of power as s t a t e d on the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n i s f a r more d e t e r m i n i s t i c a t the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l than P f e f f e r ' s model. But more i m p o r t a n t l y C l e g g ' s f o r m u l a t i o n of the s e r u l e s i s i n f u s e d w i t h a d e t e r m i n i s m d e r i v e d from the economic endeavor of r e a l i z i n g s u r p l u s v a l u e s , or i n 56 C l e g g ' s words: W i t h i n the c a p i t a l i s t mode of p r o d u c t i o n the economy i s both the dominant and d e t e r m i n a n t s t r u c t u r a l l e v e l , over and above the i d e o l o g i c a l and p o l i t i c a l l e v e l s . (Clegg,1979:124) S t r u c t u r e t h e r e f o r e , i s as i m p o r t a n t and d e f i n i n g f o r C l e g g as i t i s f o r P f e f f e r . The d i f f e r e n c e l i e s i n t h e l e v e l a t which they see these s t r u c t u r a l i m p e r a t i v e s and t o what e x t e n t i n d i v i d u a l s r e t a i n the p o s s i b i l i t y of e x e r c i s i n g power. C l e a r l y , P f e f f e r b e l i e v e s t h i s t o be s u b s t a n t i a l , as e v i d e n c e d by the overwhelming a t t e n t i o n he g i v e s i n h i s book t o the a c t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l s . For C l e g g , the l a c k of autonomy of i n d i v i d u a l s ( m a i n l y t h o s e a t the lower l e v e l s of s o c i e t y ) would p r e v e n t them from e x e r c i s i n g any power a t a l l . Moreover, t h e sev e r e r e s t r i c t i o n s on i n d i v i d u a l freedom imposed by t e c h n i c a l and s o c i a l r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s a r e r e i n f o r c e d by the r u l e s t h a t govern on the s o c i e t a l l e v e l . LINKAGES BETWEEN LEVELS OF ANALYSIS L e t us now t u r n t o the q u e s t i o n of t r a n s i t i o n s between the models. L i n k a g e s a c c o r d i n g t o Kemelgor's model a r e m u l t i d i r e c t i o n a l . C o n s e q u e n t l y , any t h e o r y of power s h o u l d not o n l y e x p l a i n how f o r i n s t a n c e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e i n f l u e n c e s i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o u r , i t s h o u l d a l s o account f o r how these s t r u c t u r e s may be a l t e r e d as the r e s u l t of i n d i v i d u a l c o u n t e r v a i l i n g power. I t i s suggested t h a t power a t i n c r e a s i n g l y complex l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s i s of n e c e s s i t y q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t . That i s t o say , i t i s not o n l y g r e a t e r i n terms of magnitude but i t a l s o v a r i e s i n scope and impact. 57 As a c o r o l l a r y , l i n k a g e s must p r o v i d e t r a n s i t i o n s between the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of c o m p l e x i t y . P f e f f e r In P f e f f e r ' s d i s c u s s i o n of power the q u e s t i o n of how the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l might be c o n n e c t e d t o the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n i s not a d d r e s s e d , s i m p l y because P f e f f e r makes no d i s t i n c t i o n between u n i t s of a n a l y s i s . T h i s p o s i t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d p r o b l e m a t i c . P f e f f e r proposes a c o n t i n g e n c y approach t o the d e f i n i t i o n of the u n i t of a n a l y s i s . He s t i p u l a t e s c o n d i t i o n s which s o c i a l a c t o r s s h o u l d meet i n o r d e r t o be c o n s i d e r e d as a n a l y t i c a l l y s e p a r a t e . These c o n d i t i o n s however cannot be m a i n t a i n e d i f h i s model p f power i s a c c e p t e d . For example, P f e f f e r says t h a t s o c i a l a c t o r s q u a l i f y as u n i t s when they a r e " i n t e r n a l l y homogeneous *with r e s p e c t t o p r e f e r e n c e s and b e l i e f s on the i s s u e s b e i n g i n v e s t i g a t e d " ( P f e f f e r , 1981, p.36). Elsewhere however he argues t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s t e n d t o be o n l y m a r g i n a l l y aware of t h e i r r e a l p r e f e r e n c e s , a t l e a s t b e f o r e d e c i s i o n s are t a k e n . Moreover he s u g g e s t s t h a t d e c i s i o n outcomes are s u f f i c i e n t l y ambiguous so . t h a t consent can be e a s i l y m a n i p u l a t e d . How then i s i t s p o s s i b l e t o d e c i d e i n advance whether p e o p l e or groups of p e o p l e a r e i n t e r n a l l y homogeneous? P f e f f e r f u r t h e r suggests t h a t a good measure of homogeneity i s t o d e c i d e a t which p o i n t i n d i v i d u a l s a r e i n agreement about enough i m p o r t a n t i s s u e s . But what a r e i m p o r t a n t i s s u e s i s o f t e n a m a t t e r of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , more s p e c i f i c a l l y , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the most p o w e r f u l s o c i a l a c t o r . 58 R e g a r d l e s s of the q u e s t i o n of homogeneity, the n o t i o n t h a t u n i t s (departments) or o r g a n i z a t i o n s can a c t i s an u n t e n a b l e r e i f i c a t i o n . I t was o r i g i n a l l y i n t r o d u c e d i n response t o the need t o r a i s e the d i s c u s s i o n on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l power above the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l so e l o q u e n t l y a r t i c u l a t e d by Perrow (1970). W h i l e i t i s p o s s i b l e and o f t e n d e s i r a b l e t o t a l k about power a t the a g g r e g a t e l e v e l , such t r a n s i t i o n would have t o take i n t o account what B l a u (1964) has c a l l e d the"emergent p r o p e r t i e s " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of groups. However, f o r the purposes of h i s d i s c u s s i o n P f e f f e r u n q u e s t i o n i n g l y adopted Thompson (1967) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Emerson's (1959) d e f i n i t i o n of power i n which he s i m p l y s u b s t i t u t e d the word " o r g a n i z a t i o n " f o r " i n d i v i d u a l " . C l e g g C o n t r a r y t o P f e f f e r ' s approach C l e g g makes a s e r i o u s e f f o r t t o connect the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n t o t h a t of s o c i e t y . In a d d i t i o n , he has o r g a n i z e d h i s s e t s of r u l e s such t h a t they a l s o r e l a t e t o h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h i s a c c o r d i n g t o C l e g g m i r r o r s p r e c i s e l y the c l a s s s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y . D e s p i t e t h i s attempt the argument i s f l a w e d i n one i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t . C l e g g s model i s c l e a r l y e x c l u s i v e l y u n i d i r e c t i o n a l . These i s no d i s c u s s i o n of c o u n t e r v a i l i n g power, not on an i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l (which i s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e s i n c e C l e g g never c o n s i d e r s t h i s l e v e l ) , but n e i t h e r on a c o l l e c t i v e l e v e l . There i s no mention i s h i s s e t of r u l e s of u n i o n s or of any 59 o t h e r c o l l e c t i v e r e s i s t a n c e which may be o f f e r e d a g a i n s t c o r p o r a t e power.. T h i s f i n d i n g i s somewhat s u r p r i s i n g i n view of C l e g g ' s r a t h e r l e n g t h y t r e a t m e n t i n h i s w r i t i n g s of the d i f f e r e n c e s between f o r m a l and i n f o r m a l power and the way. i n which i n f o r m a l (and t h e r e f o r e i l l e g i t i m a t e ) power has become a problem f o r management. C l e g g f u r t h e r s u g g e s t s t h a t the whole mainstream debate on power as we know i t today d e v e l o p e d from the c oncern w i t h such i n f o r m a l power. An example would be C r o z i e r ' s (1964) maintenance men. Another problem o n l y i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d i s the l i n k between s o c i e t y and o r g a n i z a t i o n as e x p r e s s e d i n the " r e p r o d u c t i o n r u l e s " . The assumption i s t h a t the m a j o r i t y of m i d d l e managers i s c o l l e g e educated but t h i s may not h o l d f o r e v e r y type of s o c i e t y . 1 4 The comparison between the way P f e f f e r and C l e g g have a t t e m p t e d t o d e a l w i t h the problem of t r a n s i t i o n t u r n s out t o be a d i f f i c u l t one because P f e f f e r l e a v e s the i s s u e , u n e x p l o r e d . I f a t a l l a n y t h i n g can be s a i d i t would be t h a t P f e f f e r ' s model i m p l i e s a u n i d i r e c t i o n a l t r a n s i t i o n g o i n g from the environment t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n and from the o r g a n i z a t i o n t o the i n d i v i d u a l . I t seems f a i r t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t r a n s i t i o n s i n b o th models a r e e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y u n i - d i r e c t i o n a l and f a l l s h o r t of p r o v i d i n g a b a l a n c e d view of power. In a d d i t i o n , n e i t h e r P f e f f e r nor C l e g g sees any d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between 1" Bank branch managers i n Canada f o r example g e n e r a l l y do not h o l d a c o l l e g e degree a c c o r d i n g t o a r e c e n t s t u d y ( E g r i , l 9 8 3 ) . I t i s much more l i k e l y t h a t managers become s o c i a l i z e d w i t h i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . 60 the l e v e l of s o c i e t y and the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l or v i c e -v e r s a . One way of. e x p l a i n i n g t h i s i s i n terms of the model i t s e l f r a t h e r than of power r e l a t i o n s . Perhaps Kemelgor's l i n k a g e model s h o u l d be r e v i s e d as f o l l o w s : F i g u r e 4 - A l t e r n a t i v e L i n k a g e Model There i s some support f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n . G i v e n the n e c e s s i t y t o engage i n work i n o r d e r t o s u r v i v e the r e l a t i o n p e r s o n - w o r k - s o c i e t y i s h i s t o r i c a l l y and i n p r i n c i p l e t i g h t l y c o u p l e d . With the event of the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n work 61 became o r g a n i z e d i n p r o d u c t i o n u n i t s . T o u r a i n e (1971) i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n of the e v o l u t i o n of the f i r m shows how the o r g a n i z a t i o n of work c r e a t e s i n t e r m e d i a r y l e v e l s between the one time d i r e c t l i n k between work and s o c i e t y , o r what became work and economic power. As f i r m s e v o l v e d T o u r a i n e argued t h e r e grew an ' o r g a n i z a t i o n ' between work and economic power. As f i r m s became t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o o l i g a r c h i c e n t e r p r i s e s a n o ther l e v e l was added, t h a t of the ' i n s t i t u t i o n ' . Thus workers today a r e s e p a r a t e d from but a l s o c o n n e c t e d t o s o c i e t y by o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n s t i t u t i o n s . S i m i l a r l y , i n 1938 R u s s e l l observed the ever p e r v a d i n g p r e s e n c e of o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n p e o p l e ' s l i v e s . From b e f o r e b i r t h ( t h e p r e n a t a l c l i n i c ) u n t i l a f t e r d e a t h ( e s t a t e -t a x e s ) and any time i n between o r g a n i z a t i o n s p l a y a major r o l e . I t i s s u g g e s t e d t h a t the i n f l u e n c e of o r g a n i z a t i o n s has s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c r e a s e d r a t h e r than d e c r e a s e d s i n c e t h a t time and t h a t t h e r e i s v e r y l i t t l e i n our l i v e s t h a t does not o c c u r i n some o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t e x t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , whether or not the l i n k a g e model of power i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o r r e c t , the f a i l u r e of both P f e f f e r and C l e g g ' s models t o d e a l s a t i s f a c t o r i l y w i t h t h i s i s s u e must be n o t e d . We w i l l r e t u r n t o the dilemma of t r a n s i t i o n s between l e v e l s towards the end of t h i s t h e s i s . 62 V. PFEFFER AND CLEGG'S POLITICAL MODELS OF POWER RECONSIDERED The f o r e g o i n g a n a l y s i s of P f e f f e r and Cleg g ' s work has p r o v i d e d some i n s i g h t i n t o the way t h e i r models of power a r e c o n s t r u c t e d . I t has shown t h a t w h i l e t h e r e a r e some s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s the models a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s . Moreover the d i f f e r e n c e s a r e so fundamental t h a t a s i m p l e e v a l u a t i o n would be i m p o s s i b l e . How then a r e we t o proceed ? To what e x t e n t can the r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s s e r v e t o i n c r e a s e our u n d e r s t a n d i n g about power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s ? There a r e s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e r e s p o n s e s . The f i r s t i s as si m p l e as i t i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y , namely t o i g n o r e the e x i s t e n c e and the p o s s i b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n of C l e g g ' s model a l t o g e t h e r . T h i s i s , i n f a c t what i s happening t o d a y . The d i s c u s s i o n of power i n the mainstream l i t e r a t u r e on o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s c a r r i e d on w i t h o u t the b e n e f i t of Cleg g ' s and o t h e r r a d i c a l t h e o r i s t s ' i n s i g h t s . W h i l e i t i s p o s s i b l e and even l i k e l y t h a t t h e o r i e s i n s p i r e d by M a r x i s t i n f o r m e d i d e a s a r e c o n t r o v e r s i a l and p r o v o c a t i v e t hey may s t i l l c o n t r i b u t e i n s i g n i f i c a n t ways t o the knowledge of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . By s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i g n o r i n g work by pe o p l e such as C l e g g the d i s c i p l i n e w i l l u l t i m a t e l y be worse o f f . The C u l t u r a l D i s t i n c t i o n Another response i s t o p o i n t t o the c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t e x i s t between P f e f f e r , who b e l o n g s t o the N o r t h American t r a d i t i o n and Cl e g g whose background i s European. Some of t h e s e c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s have been d e s c r i b e d by Kassem (1976) and we c o u l d l i s t them s i d e by s i d e : 63 Dimension [North]-Amer i c a n European Approach M i c r o s c o p i c ( b e h a v i o u r a l ) M a c r o s c o p i c ( s t r u c t u r a l ) F i e l d of Study O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Soc i o l o g y M a n - i n - O r g a n i z a t i o n O r g a n i z a t i o n i n S o c i e t y Focus on P e o p l e ; t h e i r needs and a t t i t u d e s What goes on i n s i d e the system The o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole What i s g o i n g on between the system and i t s environment Methodology L a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t s s u r v e y s , o b s e r v a t i o n , l o n g i t u d i n a l , one-case s t u d i e s . Comparative case s t u d i e s . I d e o l o g y Harmony b a s e d ; s t a t u s quo A n t i - M a r x i a n C o n f l i c t based M a r x i a n (Kassem, 1 1 97 ,' c i t e d i n C l e g g , 1 979: 3-4) Ta b l e IV - Some C u l t u r a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h I t i s easy t o see s i m i l a r i t i e s between the c r i t e r i a l i s t e d by Kassem and the d i f f e r e n c e s e n c o u n t e r e d i n the models. D i f f e r e n c e s i n c u l t u r a l backgrounds s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e t h e o r i s t s and an openness t o the s e f a c t o r s h e l p s t o g a i n i n s i g h t i n t o the f o r c e s t h a t i n f l u e n c e P f e f f e r and C l e g g ' s t h e o r i z i n g . However, the a p p r e c i a t i o n of c u l t u r e a l o n e does not guide towards a p o s s i b l e r e s o l u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e s between the models. 64 ; The I d e o l o g i c a l D i s t i n c t i o n B u r r e l l and Morgan (1979) go one s t e p f u r t h e r i n t h e i r book S o c i o l o g i c a l Paradigms and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s i n w h i c h they o r g a n i z e d e x i s t i n g t h e o r i e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o two s e t s of u n d e r l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n s . A dichotomous one d e a l i n g w i t h a s s umptions h e l d about the n a t u r e of s o c i e t y and a c o n t i n u o u s one r e f l e c t i n g a s s umptions about the n a t u r e of s o c i a l s c i e n c e . In i t s most s i m p l e form the scheme l o o k s as f o l l o w s : S o c i o l o g y of R a d i c a l Change S u b j e c t i v e R a d i c a l Human i s t R a d i c a l S t r u c t u r a l i s t I n t e r p r e t i v e F u n c t i o n a l i s t O b j e c t i v e S o c i o l o g y of R e g u l a t i o n ( B u r r e l l and Morgan,1979:22) F i g u r e 5 - S o c i o l o g i c a l Paradigms B u r r e l l and Morgan t a k e f o r the b a s i s of t h e i r a n a l y s i s the development i n s o c i o l o g i c a l t h o u g h t . For most t h e o r i s t s , t h o s e t h a t f o l l o w the i d e a s of Durkheim, Weber and P a r e t o the most i m p o r t a n t s o c i o l o g i c a l q u e s t i o n i s 'how i s s o c i e t y p o s s i b l e ' . 65 E x p l a n a t i o n s of s o c i e t y emphasize o r d e r , e q u i l i b r i u m and s t a b i l i t y . S o c i e t y i s seen as a r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e and i n t e g r a t e d s t r u c t u r e based on n o r m a t i v e o r d e r and v a l u e consensus. In t h i s p e r c e p t i o n c o n f l i c t p l a y s a minor r o l e f u n c t i o n i n g merely as a d e v i c e f o r i n t e g r a t i o n . T h e o r i s t s f o r whom the most i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n i s how s o c i e t y changes tend t o be i n f o r m e d by M a r x i a n i d e a s t h a t s t r e s s l a r g e s c a l e s t r u c t u r a l c o n f l i c t between s o c i a l c l a s s e s , the i m p o s i t i o n of f o r c e t o o b t a i n c o n f o r m i t y , and modes of d o m i n a t i o n . S o c i e t y i n t h i s view i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by change, c o n f l i c t and d i s i n t e g r a t i o n . I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o suggest t h a t P f e f f e r ' s approach t o power would be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the i d e a t h a t s o c i e t y i s dynamic but b a s i c a l l y c o h e s i v e , r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e and p r e d i c t a b l e . P f e f f e r ' s model i s based on the premise of o r d e r l y o r g a n i z a t i o n s , s t r u c t u r a l l y i n t e g r a t e d , whose mode of o p e r a t i o n i s n o r m a t i v e l y g u i d e d . C o n f l i c t i s seen as s e r v i n g the f u n c t i o n of r e d e f i n i n g b o u n d a r i e s of p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e w i t h i n the c o n s t r a i n t s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . T h i s would l o c a t e P f e f f e r of the r e g u l a t i o n s i d e of the scheme. By the same token C l e g g can be c l a s s i f i e d as a t h e o r i s t p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h c o n d i t i o n s of c o n f l i c t and d o m i n a t i o n . People i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e d e p r i v e d b oth on a m a t e r i a l and p s y c h i c l e v e l . I t i s the o b j e c t i v e of C l e g g ' s model t o l a y bare t h i s p r o c e s s of c o e r c i o n and f o r c e d c h o i c e so t h a t changes may be brought about i n the way the l a b o u r p r o c e s s i s o r g a n i z e d The o b j e c t i v e - s u b j e c t i v e d i m e n s i o n r e f e r s t o assumptions h e l d about s o c i a l s c i e n c e . T h i s d i m e n s i o n i s f u r t h e r broken 66 down i n t o o n t o l o g y , e p i s t e m o l o g y , human n a t u r e and methodology. In the o b j e c t i v i s t approach r e a l i t y i s e x t e r n a l t o the i n d i v i d u a l and can be ob s e r v e d , d e s c r i b e d and t r a n s m i t t e d o b j e c t i v e l y . P e o p l e ' s f r e e w i l l i s l i m i t e d t o a l a r g e e x t e n t by e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and i t i s p o s s i b l e t o p r e d i c t p e o p l e ' s b e h a v i o u r from m a n i p u l a t i o n s of the environment. M e t h o d o l o g i e s are c o n cerned w i t h g r a s p i n g i n v a r i a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the f o r m u l a t i o n of g e n e r a l laws. S u b j e c t i v i s t s a r e g u i d e d by the id e a t h a t r e a l i t y merely e x i s t s i n the human mind, t h a t by s t u d y i n g phenomena they w i l l be t r a n s f o r m e d so t h a t knowledge can o n l y be e x p e r i e n c e d and never t r u l y t r a n s m i t t e d . People a r e not seen as dominated by t h e i r environment. Rather they themselves c r e a t e the w o r l d they l i v e i n . The g r e a t e r r o l e t h a t t h i s view a c c o r d s t o f r e e w i l l makes human b e h a v i o u r r e l a t i v e l y u n p r e d i c t a b l e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , m e t h o d o l o g i e s f o c u s p r i m a r i l y on the way i n which i n d i v i d u a l s c o n s t i t u t e and are p a r t of t h e i r e nvironment. Emphasis i s on u n d e r s t a n d i n g the s u b j e c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e of; i n d i v i d u a l s and not on the f o r m u l a t i o n of u n i v e r s a l l a w s . S i n c e the o b j e c t i v e - s u b j e c t i v e d i m e n s i o n i s c o n t i n u o u s and s i n c e i t c o n t a i n s f o u r r e l a t e d but d i f f e r e n t elements i t i s not always p o s s i b l e t o e x a c t l y d e f i n e any one t h e o r i s t ' s p o s i t i o n i n the scheme and the q u a d r a n t s a re of n e c e s s i t y an a p p r o x i m a t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n P f e f f e r ' s case i t i s f a i r l y easy t o see t h a t he would p r o p e r l y b e l o n g i n the f u n c t i o n a l i s t q u a d r a n t . In P f e f f e r ' s view r e a l i t y c o n s i s t s of c o n c r e t e s t r u c t u r e s t h a t can be o b j e c t i v e l y d e s c r i b e d , measured, comprehended and 67 communicated. P e o p l e ' s a c t i o n s a r e s u b j e c t e d t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n s t r a i n t s such as s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n and t a s k s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . By v a r y i n g t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s b e h a v i o u r can be p r e d i c t e d w i t h i n a g i v e n range. The problems of r i g o r o u s , c o n t r o l l e d measurement and a p p r o p r i a t e o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of c o n c e p t s a r e c e n t r a l t o P f e f f e r ' s methodology. C l e g g ' s p o s i t i o n on t h i s d i m e n s i o n i s much more p r o b l e m a t i c . He cannot be c l a s s i f i e d as B u r r e l l and Morgan suggest ( B u r r e l l and Morgan,1979:321) as a r a d i c a l humanist because some elements i n C l e g g ' s model a r e more a p p r o p r i a t e l y d e s c r i b e d by the r a d i c a l s t r u c t u r a l i s t l a b e l . The most s t r i k i n g f e a t u r e of h i s model of power as w i l l be r e c a l l e d i s i t s d e t e r m i n i s t i c n a t u r e . There i s v i r t u a l l y no room i n C l e g g ' s d e s c r i p t i o n f o r f r e e w i l l w i t h the e x c e p t i o n perhaps of those p e o p l e t h a t ' i n f l u e n c e economic p r o c e s s e s . T h i s would render p e o p l e , a t l e a s t the m a j o r i t y t h a t c o m p r i s e the lower c l a s s e s , h e l p l e s s i n the f a c e of e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n s t r a i n t s , t h a t i s t h e s t r u c t u r e of sedimented s e l e c t i o n r u l e s . O n t o l o g i c a l l y s p e a k i n g however, C l e g g tends more i n the d i r e c t i o n of a n o m i n a l i s t c o n c e p t i o n of the w o r l d . That i s he a t t e m p t s t o show how r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n a r e c o n s c i o u s l y s t r u c t u r e d i n p a r t i c u l a r ways and t h a t moreover p e o p l e i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e dominated l i n g u i s t i c a l l y by a language t h a t l e g i t i m i z e s a u t h o r i t y . The l a t t e r p o i n t s h o u l d be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from P f e f f e r ' s i d e a of language as a t o o l f o r l e g i t i m a t i o n of d e c i s i o n s . P f e f f e r a c c o r d s mere s y m b o l i c s i g n i f i c a n c e t o the m a n i p u l a t i o n of language whereas f o r C l e g g i t s v e r y s t r u c t u r e i s i n s t r u m e n t a l 68 f o r the d o m i n a t i o n of one c l a s s over a n o t h e r . L a t e r i t w i l l be shown t h a t the ambiguous s t a t u s of C l e g g on the o b j e c t i v e -s u b j e c t i v e d i m e n s i o n i n f l u e n c e s h i s model i n a n e g a t i v e way. For the moment i t can be c o n c l u d e d t h a t C l e g g ' s p o s i t i o n on t h i s d i m e n s i o n cannot be p r e c i s e l y i n d i c a t e d . The C o g n i t i v e D i s t i n c t i o n B u r r e l l and Morgan's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n adds t o the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the u n d e r l y i n g i d e o l o g i c a l and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s of the models but does so i n a r e s t r i c t i v e sense. In f a c t , the a u t h o r s m a i n t a i n t h a t the p o i n t s of view r e p r e s e n t e d i n the f o u r q u a d r a n t s a r e m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e . Acceptance of t h i s p o s i t i o n would f o r c e a c h o i c e between P f e f f e r and C l e g g and t h i s i s p r e c i s e l y what s h o u l d be a v o i d e d . The most p r o m i s i n g approach t o our predicament i s o f f e r e d by J u r g e n Habermas' (1971) "theory of c o g n i t i v e i n t e r e s t s . Habermas i s a German p h i l o s o p h e r and s o c i a l t h e o r i s t and belongs to the F r a n k f u r t S c h o o l of c r i t i c a l , t h e o r y . C r i t i c a l t h e o r y d e v e l o p e d i n o p p o s i t i o n t o p o s i t i v i s m f i r s t a r t i c u l a t e d by Kant and l a t e r m o d i f i e d by the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Hegel and Marx.. C r i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s would . be c l a s s i f i e d on the s i d e of the s o c i o l o g y of change i n B u r r e l l and Morgan's scheme. Habermas i s i n t e r e s t e d i n e x p o s i n g the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of dominance and c o e r c i o n which s u p p o r t s the c a p i t a l i s t system. Habermas' work c o v e r s a broad range of i d e a s and h i s t h e o r y of c o g n i t i v e i n t e r e s t s can be seen as a r e a c t i o n t o the f u n c t i o n a l i s t as w e l l as the i n t e r p r e t i v e paradigm which occupy the range on the s i d e of the s o c i o l o g y of r e g u l a t i o n . 69 B r i e f l y , Habermas grounds the i d e a of d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i v e i n t e r e s t s i n the n a t u r a l h i s t o r y of the human s p e c i e s . As c r e a t u r e s who a r e not o n l y c o n cerned w i t h problems of a d a p t a t i o n but who a r e c o n s c i o u s l y engaged i n changing the e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s . People a r e both i n and t r a n s c e n d n a t u r e . T h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n i n c u l t u r e i s a break w i t h n a t u r e and r e p r e s e n t s human d e s i r e towards U t o p i a n f u l f i l l m e n t . The means of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t s e r v e s both s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n and s e l f -f u l f i l l m e n t c o n s i s t of work, language and d o m i n a t i o n . Work i s the mode by which we g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t expands our a b i l i t y t o c o n t r o l our environment. Language a l l o w s us t o i n t e r p r e t and o r i e n t our a c t i o n s towards a l i f e w i t h i n common t r a d i t i o n s . Dominance i s r e p r e s e n t e d by the s o c i a l c o n s t r a i n t s which c o n f l i c t w i t h our aims f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n and f u l f i l l m e n t . Habermas c o n c e i v e s of the s e modes of o r g a n i z a t i o n as s e r v i n g d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i v e i n t e r e s t s , the t e c h n i c a l , the p r a c t i c a l and the eman c i p a t o r y r e s p e c t i v e l y . The e m p i r i c a l -a n a l y t i c s c i e n c e s ( t h o s e i n the f u n c t i o n a l i s t quadrant of B u r r e l l and Morgan) ser v e the t e c h n i c a l i n t e r e s t , the h i s t o r i c a l - h e r m e n e u t i c (those i n the i n t e r p r e t i v e q u adrant) the p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t and the c r i t i c a l s c i e n c e s s e r v e the ema n c i p a t o r y i n t e r e s t . The l a t t e r r e f e r s t o a l l the t h e o r i e s l o c a t e d on the r a d i c a l s i d e of B u r r e l l and Morgan's scheme. The d i f f e r e n c e between Habermas and B u r r e l l and Morgan i s t h a t f o r Habermas the t h r e e p o s s i b l e o r i e n t a t i o n s t o s c i e n c e a r e g e n e r a l c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s a i m i n g f o r the same g o a l . They a r e s p e c i f i c v i e w p o i n t s t h a t i n them s e l v e s a re e q u a l l y v a l i d and 70 t h a t t o g e t h e r w i l l g u i d e towards s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n and s e l f -f u l f i l l m e n t . Acceptance of Habermas' t h e o r y would o b v i a t e the n e c e s s i t y t o choose between t h e o r i e s ; they can s i m p l y be c o n s i d e r e d together.. In a r e c e n t a d d r e s s S t a b l e i n (1982) s k e t c h e d Habermas' t h e o r y of c o g n i t i v e i n t e r e s t s and d i s c u s s e d some of the consequences t h a t a d o p t i o n of t h i s t h e o r y would have f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c i e n c e . S t a b l e i n s u g g e s t s t h a t a l l t h r e e i n t e r e s t s a r e r e q u i r e d i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e , and s i n c e each type i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i t s own methods and v a l i d i t y c l a i m s , comparisons s h o u l d be made w i t h i n r a t h e r than between t y p e s , and t h a t c o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e r e i s no one p a t h t h a t a p r i o r i l e a d s t o s u c c e s s . S t a b l e i n ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Habermas' t h e o r y makes i t p o s s i b l e t o e v a l u a t e P f e f f e r and Cl e g g ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of power i n * o r g a n i z a t i o n s , not by comparing them a g a i n s t some u n i v e r s a l s t a n d a r d but by j u d g i n g them on t h e i r own m e r i t s . The f i r s t s t e p i n such an e v a l u a t i o n would be t o p r o p e r l y c l a s s i f y P f e f f e r and C l e g g ' s models. As has been demonstrated by the f o r e g o i n g a n a l y s i s P f e f f e r ' s model s e r v e s the t e c h n i c a l i n t e r e s t s and can be c l a s s i f i e d as an e m p i r i c a l - a n a l y t i c approach and C l e g g s e r v e s the emancipatory i n t e r e s t which makes h i s model a c r i t i c a l one. The next s t e p i s t o a r t i c u l a t e c r i t e r i a t h a t a r e s p e c i f i c t o each approach and t h a t w i l l s e r v e as a s t a n d a r d f o r e v a l u a t i o n . What a r e some of the e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e m p i r i c a l - a n a l y t i c s c i e n c e s ? The u l t i m a t e aim i s t o c o n t r o l 71 the e nvironment, p h y s i c a l as w e l l as s o c i a l . R e search t h a t r e s u l t s i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of u n i v e r s a l laws based on c o n s i s t e n t l y c o r r e c t p r e d i c t i o n s of the b e h a v i o u r of o b s e r v a b l e phenomena i s c o n s i d e r e d s u c c e s s f u l . The t r u t h or f a l s i t y of t hese laws depends on t h e i r l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e m p i r i c a l d a t a . The most i m p o r t a n t c r i t e r i a on which t o judge the c r i t i c a l s c i e n c e s i s t o what e x t e n t they f r e e p e o p l e from the d o m i n a t i o n i n h e r e n t i n the s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y . T h e i r o b j e c t i v e i s t o r a i s e the s e l f c o n s c i o u s n e s s by t r a n s f o r m i n g the u n r e f l e c t e d c o n s c i o u s n e s s i n t o a r e f l e c t e d one. C r i t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n on o n e - s e l f and on o t h e r s i s the method towards e m a n c i p a t i o n and s e l f - f o r m a t i o n . The l a s t s t e p i s the a p p l i c a t i o n of these c r i t e r i a t o the models. On the s u r f a c e P f e f f e r ' s r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s a r e s t r i k i n g l y s u c c e s s f u l . I t i s p o s s i b l e t o e x t r a c t from h i s book a number of p r a c t i c a l g u i d e l i n e s t h a t when f o l l o w e d would d e v e l o p one's, power i n any o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g . These g u i d e l i n e s t e l l us t h a t i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n power i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o r i s e as h i g h on the h i e r a r c h i c a l l a d d e r as p o s s i b l e , t o a p r o p r i a t e t h o s e t a s k s t h a t a r e c e n t r a l and c r u c i a l t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s s u r v i v a l (or d e f i n e one's e x i s t i n g t a s k i n t h o s e t e r m s ) , t o be i n a p o s i t i o n t o cope w i t h problems of u n c e r t a i n t y (but making sure not t o s o l v e them permanently) t o seek membership on a l l i m p o r t a n t committees, t o a l i g n o c c a s i o n a l l y w i t h o t h e r s t h a t s u pport one's p o s i t i o n , and t o i n f l u e n c e the d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s a t the e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e s t a g e s . A l l t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s s h o u l d be c a r r i e d out w i t h g r e a t p o l i t i c a l 72 s k i l l but most i m p o r t a n t l y s h o u l d not be p e r c e i v e d by o t h e r s as power s e e k i n g b e h a v i o u r . Language and o t h e r s y m b o l i c means s h o u l d be used t o l e g i t i m i z e one's a c t i o n s by making them appear r a t i o n a l . The problem i s one of g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y . W h i l e t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s may r o u g h l y h o l d f o r t h o s e people t h a t have a l r e a d y a t t a i n e d p o w e r f u l p o s i t i o n s i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n , they a r e r u l e s f o r the e x e r c i s e of power once o b t a i n e d . They a p p l y o n l y t o c e r t a i n k i n d s of p e o p l e (management) and r e f e r o n l y t o a c e r t a i n k i n d of power ( d i r e c t i n g downward and h o r i z o n t a l l y , not upward). The model f a l l s s h o r t of p r o v i d i n g a model of power i n g e n e r a l , r a t h e r i t c o n f i n e s i t s e l f t o a v e r y l i m i t e d statement t h a t does not a p p l y e q u a l l y everywhere i n time and space. P f e f f e r ' s f a i l u r e t o t a k e i n t o account the i n f l u e n c e s of the environment has a l r e a d y been p o i n t e d o u t . But even i f a c c e p t i n g a l i m i t e d p o i n t of view as l e g i t i m a t e t h e r e remain a number of c o n c e r n s r e l a t i n g t o the v a l i d i t y of the s t a t e m e n t s t h a t P f e f f e r makes the two most i m p o r t a n t o f which w i l l be h i g h l i g h t e d . F i r s t t h e r e i s the q u e s t i o n of u n i t of a n a l y s i s . As a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter I I the p r o p e r t i e s of i n d i v i d u a l s a r e f u n d a m e n t a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those of groups and p a r t i c u l a r l y when these groups have been o r g a n i z e d h i e r a r c h i c a l l y i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of a head of a department t o the head of a n o t h e r department i s r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from the r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h a t head t o the members of h i s / h e r own department. The i d e a t h a t those t h a t u n i t heads a r e a c t i n g f o r the u n i t on the b a s i s of c o n s e n s u a l l y 73 shared v a l u e s i s mere c o n j e c t u r e . P f e f f e r i s not a b l e t o s a t i s f a c t o r i l y d e f i n e c r i t e r i a of h e t e r o g e n e i t y and homogeneity t h a t l i e a t the b a s i s of any statement about u n i f i e d v i e w p o i n t s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s . Second t h e r e i s the l a c k of i n f o r m a t i o n about s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . I f power i s " f i r s t and foremost a s t r u c t u r a l phenomenon" then i t i s i m p e r a t i v e t o s p e l l out what th e s e s t r u c t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s a r e . As an example, i n h i s c o n d i t i o n s f o r c o n f l i c t (which are c o n d i t i o n a l f o r a l l p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y ) one e s s e n t i a l v a r i a b l e i s t h a t of c e n t r a l i t y . For as P f e f f e r argues When power i s c o n c e n t r a t e d , p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s i n g o a l s and i n d e f i n i t i o n s of t e c h n o l o g y a r e r e s o l v e d by the i m p o s i t i o n of a s e t of p r e f e r e n c e s and a view of t e c h n o l o g y which r e f l e c t s the p o s i t i o n of the dominant c o a l i t i o n c o n t r o l l i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n ( P f e f f e r , 1 9 8 1 : 8 7 ) But i f t h i s i s t r u e then the i d e a that' heterogeneous g o a l s and heterogeneous b e l i e f s about t e c h n o l o g y a r e i n s t r u m e n t a l i n p r o d u c i n g c o n f l i c t i s e n t i r e l y dependent upon the l e v e l of c e n t r a l i z e d c o n t r o l . The g r e a t e r the c e n t r a l i z a t i o n the l e s s i n f l u e n t i a l t hese f a c t o r s w i l l be. In o r d e r t o make any p r e d i c t i o n s about c o n f l i c t (and c o n s e q u e n t l y the use of power a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t ) we would need some measure of c e n t r a l i t y , y e t P f e f f e r does not d e v e l o p t h i s v a r i a b l e . A d i f f e r e n t but r e l a t e d problem i s t h a t i n e i t h e r s i t u a t i o n power i s used. In the case of d e c e n t r a l i z e d c o n t r o l c o n f l i c t s a r e a l l o w e d t o d e v e l o p which (when i m p o r t a n t enough) w i l l r e s u l t i n p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . In the case of c e n t r a l i z e d c o n t r o l , power has been used t o p r e v e n t the c o n f l i c t from o c c u r r i n g i n the f i r s t p l a c e . 74 P f e f f e r does not c o n s i d e r t h i s use of power i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n . ' G i v e n t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s (and s e v e r a l o t h e r s c o u l d be r a i s e d t h a t a r e e n t i r e l y w i t h i n the r e alm of e m p i r i c a l - a n a l y t i c c r i t e r i a ) the g e n e r a l v a l i d i t y of P f e f f e r ' s model w i l l have t o be doubted. The " r e c i p e " f o r the development of power t h a t P f e f f e r p r o v i d e s may o n l y be u s e f u l i n c e r t a i n k i t c h e n s . That i s t o say t h a t c e r t a i n t y p e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s such as u n i v e r s i t i e s where P f e f f e r has c a r r i e d out most s t u d i e s on power would f i n d the model u s e f u l . O t h e r s , e s p e c i a l l y l a r g e , m u l t i n a t i o n a l c o r p o r a t e e n t i t i e s can b e n e f i t l i t t l e from i t . By i t s v e r y n a t u r e C l e g g ' s model s u f f e r s from an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t s e t of problems the essence of which i s C l e g g ' s l a c k of s e l f - r e f l e x i v i t y and the l i m i t e d c o n t r i b u t i o n he makes towards the e m a n c i p a t i o n of the dominated c l a s s e s . As a l r e a d y a l l u d e d t o C l e g g i s both a r a d i c a l humanist and a r a d i c a l s t r u c t u r a l i s t . As a r a d i c a l humanist C l e g g c r i t i q u e s the way i n which o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c i e n c e has d e v e l o p e d by p o i n t i n g t o the' i n t e r e s t s i t s e r v e s . In the t r a d i t i o n of M a r x i a n informed c r i t i c a l t h e o r y he a t t e m p t s , q u i t e s u c c e s s f u l l y , t o l a y bare the c o n c e n t r a t e d e f f o r t s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c i e n c e t o s o l v e problems of management, p r o d u c t i o n and the r e a l i z a t i o n of p r o f i t s . H i s d i s c u s s i o n of t h e c o n cerns t h a t g u i d e d such r e s e a r c h e r s as T a y l o r and Mayo i s i n s i g h t f u l , f o r c e f u l and i l l u m i n a t i n g . To the e x t e n t t h a t such c r i t i q u e i s a c c e p t e d as v a l u a b l e by the r e s e a r c h community i t s e r v e s an e mancipatory purpose. I t encourages s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n on the p a r t of those s c i e n t i s t s who now dominate the f i e l d 75 I t i s as a r a d i c a l s t r u c t u r a l i s t t h a t C l e g g f a i l s i n h i s e m a n c i p a t o r y m i s s i o n . F i r s t because he does not r e f l e c t on h i s own s t a t e m e n t s . He l e a v e s out of c o n s i d e r a t i o n those elements of power t h a t do not f i t h i s c o n c e p t i o n of the problem, t h a t i s the e x i s t e n c e of c o u n t e r v a i l i n g power of u n i o n s . Second, C l e g g ' s i n s i s t e n c e on the d e t e r m i n i s t i c and immutable n a t u r e of the s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y i s a t odds w i t h the c r i t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e which h o l d s t h a t s o c i e t y i s e n a c t e d . I f i t i s t r u e t h a t s e d i m e n t a t i o n of s e l e c t e d r u l e s d e v e l o p s i n response t o l o n g economic waves then the d e t e r m i n a n t s of t h e s e waves s h o u l d be s u b j e c t e d t o a n a l y s i s . C l e g g merely t r e a t s them as g i v e n . I t i s the power of r e f l e c t i v e a c t i v i t y , a c c o r d i n g t o Habermas, t o a l t e r p a t t e r n s of d o m i n a t i o n by making them t r a n s p a r e n t . I t i s s u g g e s t e d t h a t C l e g g i n t h e e x p o s i t i o n of h i s own model of power i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y r e f l e c t i v e upon the u l t i m a t e t r a n s p a r e n c y of what appear t o be s t r u c t u r a l i m p e r a t i v e s . As a f i n a l measure of the e m a n c i p a t o r y power of C l e g g ' s model i t s u t i l i t y f o r those t h a t l a b o u r i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s s h o u l d be e v a l u a t e d . The r e a l i z a t i o n of workers t h a t c a p i t a l i s t have i n c r e a s e d t h e i r c o n t r o l by a p p r o p r i a t i n g the methods of p r o d u c t i o n i n a d d i t i o n t o the means of p r o d u c t i o n t h r o u g h the i n t r o d u c t i o n of ' l a b o u r s a v i n g ' t e c h n o l o g i e s d i d not a w a i t C l e g g ' s model of power. The lower c l a s s e s , those a p p a r e n t l y most i n need t o be f r e e d from d o m i n a t i o n have been a c t i v e l y engaged i n the s t r u g g l e f o r c o n t r o l over work s i n c e t e c h n o l o g y was f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d . There i s l i t t l e t h a t C l e g g has t o o f f e r t h a t might i n c r e a s e the u n d e r s t a n d i n g or t h a t might g u i d e e f f o r t 76 the change the p a t t e r n of s t r u c t u r a l d o m i n a t i o n . C l e g g , i t ap p e a r s , p r e s e n t somewhat of a paradox. H i s e f f o r t s t o expose the u n d e r l y i n g m o t i v e s and assumptions of mainstream o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e o r i e s a r e j u s t i f i e d and h i s o b j e c t i o n s s h o u l d be h e a r d . By p r o p o s i n g h i s own " c r i t i c a l " model of power C l e g g r e a p p r o p r i a t e s some of the emancipatory power he a c c o r d s o t h e r s . In the f i n a l a n a l y s i s C l e g g appears too much of a p o s i t i v i s t t r y i n g t o prove h i s case t o be e n t i r e l y c o n v i n c i n g i n h i s c r i t i c a l s e l f - r e f l e x i v e endeavour. The C o g n i t i v e D i s t i n c t i o n R e c o n s i d e r e d From the d i s c u s s i o n on the r e l a t i v e m e r i t s of P f e f f e r and Cl e g g ' s models of power judged on t h e i r own terms a g a i n more i n s i g h t has been g a i n e d i n t o the models. In a d d i t i o n a r e a s of i n t e r a c t i o n can be ob s e r v e d which would not have been r e v e a l e d had the models been compared w i t h each o t h e r . I t can be seen how, each o r i e n t a t i o n t o the problem of power may s e r v e as a sounding b o a r d , a sou r c e of c r i t i c i s m and a source of i n s p i r a t i o n f o r the o t h e r . Taken t o g e t h e r (but not s y n t h e s i z e d ) the comprehension of power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s has been i n c r e a s e d by P f e f f e r and Cl e g g ' s models. Complete u n d e r s t a n d i n g w i l l o n l y be a c h i e v e d however when the h i s t o r i c a l - h e r m e n e u t i c s c i e n c e s a r e i n c l u d e d so t h a t the p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t may be s e r v e d . L e t us c o n s i d e r what i n Habermas' t h e o r y the c o n t r i b u t i o n of t he h i s t o r i c a l - h e r m e n e u t i c approach would be t o the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of power. As an i l l u s t r a t i o n S t a b l e i n ' s (1982) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and example w i l l be used. The b a s i c aim of the h i s t o r i c a l - h e r m e n e u t i c s c i e n c e s i s t o come t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g 77 of meaning i n the i n t e r e s t of the " p r e s e r v a t i o n and e x p a n s i o n of the i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y of p o s s i b l e a c t i o n - o r i e n t i n g mutual o r i e n t a t i o n " . U n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e r e f o r e , s e r v e s as the b a s i s f o r d e c i s i o n making. The b a s i s f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n t u r n i s the a b i l i t y t o a p p l y language i n a way t h a t i s f r e e from d i s t o r t i o n . As an example of o b t a i n i n g knowledge i n the p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t S t a b l e i n r e f e r s t o change e f f o r t s and i n t e r v e n t i o n s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s known as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l development where [ t ] h e change agent must be concerned w i t h the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n a t hand. The c o n s u l t a n t must i n t e r p r e t the meaning of t h i s s i t u a t i o n i n l i g h t of h i s / her background and t h a t of the c l i e n t . ( S t a b l e i n , 1 9 8 2 : 1 1 ) Emphasis i s on a c t i o n - o r i e n t e d r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s by i n t e r p r e t i n g complex problems i n a d i a l o g u e w i t h o t h e r s i n o r d e r t o come t o c o n s e n s u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g How would the h i s t o r i c a l h ermeneutic s c i e n c e s c o n t r i b u t e t o the problem of o b t a i n i n g a complete p i c t u r e of power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s ? R e f e r r i n g back t o the dilemma of l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s and t h e i r c o n n e c t i o n s r e c a l l t h a t n e i t h e r C l e g g nor P f e f f e r made the c o n n e c t i o n between the i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i e t y . F o l l o w i n g Habermas r e s e a r c h e r s would have t o i n v e s t i g a t e the p a t t e r n s of power d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n s o c i e t y and how the s e a f f e c t p e o p l e w i t h i n and w i t h o u t o r g a n i z a t i o n s . T h i s would i n v o l v e a d i a l o g u e w i t h p e o p l e on a l l l e v e l s or o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n o r d e r t o un d e r s t a n d how s o c i e t a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l power d i s t r i b u t i o n s a f f e c t t h e i r l i v e s . A c t i o n would be o r i e n t e d towards making tho s e power d i s t r i b u t i o n s c o m p a t i b l e i n the i n t e r e s t of the i n d i v i d u a l and the o r g a n i z a t i o n . 78 I t i s suggested t h a t the r o l e of mere u n d e r s t a n d i n g a l b e i t i n a d i a l o g u e t h a t Habermas g r a n t s t o the h i s t o r i c a l hermeneutic s c i e n c e s i s u n n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d . G i v e n the l i m i t a t i o n s of the c r i t i c a l s c i e n c e s and the danger of d i m i n i s h e d s e l f - r e f l e x i v i t y on the p a r t of the r e s e a r c h e r Habermas' t h e o r y of c o g n i t i v e i n t e r e s t s does not f u l f i l l i t s promise of e x h a u s t i n g a l l p o s s i b l e ways of knowing. In terms of the concept of power r e s e a r c h i n the p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t s w i l l i n c r e a s e the u n d e r s t a n d i n g somewhat but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y so. At the r o o t of t h i s problem l i e s the p a r t i c u l a r p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t Habermas has on the h i s t o r i c a l - h e r m e n e u t i c s c i e n c e s . He says f o r example t h a t The o b j e c t i v i s t s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the hermeneutic s c i e n c e s . . . defends s t e r i l i z e d knowledge a g a i n s t the r e f l e c t e d a p p r o p r i a t i o n of a c t i v e t r a d i t i o n s and l o c k s up h i s t o r y i n a museum. (Habermas,1971:316) C l e a r l y i n Habermas' o p i n i o n the r o l e of the hermeneutic s c i e n c e s must of n e c e s s i t y be l i m i t e d . I t i s argued t h a t t h e r e i s another p o t e n t i a l l y more f r u i t f u l way t o p e r c e i v e h i s t o r i c a l - h e r m e n e u t i e s . Hermeneutics d e v e l o p e d a t the end of M e d i e v a l t i m e s as an a u x i l i a r y of t h e o l o g y . I t s t a s k was the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c a n o n i c a l t e x t s . The development of h i s t o r i c i s m , D i l t h e y ' s n o t i o n of " V e r s t e h e n " (emphatic u n d e r s t a n d i n g ) and the i n f l u e n c e of p e o p l e l i k e W i t t g e n s t e i n and Winch, t r a n s f o r m e d h e r m e n e u t i c s from a d o g m a t i c - n o r m a t i v e s c i e n c e t o a l i n g u i s t i c a l l y based r e l a t i v i s t and s u b j e c t i v i s t o r i e n t a t i o n . In 1965 Gadamer p u b l i s h e d a h e r m e n e u t i c s of language which formed the b a s i s f o r a p r o t r a c t e d 79 debate w i t h Habermas. 1 5 I t i s suggested t h a t Gadamer's p o i n t of view on h e r m e n e u t i c s s h o u l d be adopted not Habermas' s i n c e i t s b r o a der scope a l l o w s f o r fundamental a n a l y s i s . The emphasis s h o u l d be on language. Language as w i l l be r e c a l l e d i s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c mode of o r g a n i z i n g i n the p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t . From the debate w i t h Gadamer however i t appears t h a t Habermas sees language as s u b o r d i n a t e d t o r e l a t i o n s of l a b o u r and p a t t e r n s of d o m i n a t i o n . W h i l e t h i s i s an a r g u a b l e p o i n t i t i s Habermas h i m s e l f who p r o v i d e s a p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n t o t h i s problem i n h i s t h e o r y of communicative competence. The b a s i c i d e a of t h i s t h e o r y i s t h a t communicative d i s t o r t i o n s (caused by p a t t e r n s of d o m i n a t i o n ) can be r e s o l v e d by the a n t i c i p a t i o n of an i d e a l speech s i t u a t i o n . I f i t i s p o s s i b l e t o communicate on the b a s i s of u n i v e r s a l p r a g m a t i c s and a n t i c i p a t i n g u n d i s t o r t e d c o n d i t i o n s then i t i s not c l e a r why t h i s would f a l l o u t s i d e the purview of h e r m e n e u t i c s which i s concerned w i t h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of language. I t i s Gadamer's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t Habermas i s u n j u s t i f i e d i n g r a n t i n g ' the c r i t i c a l s c i e n c e s the e x c l u s i v e a b i l i t y f o r a c h i e v i n g u n d i s t o r t e d communications. S i m i l a r l y , by c h a r g i n g h e r m e n e u t i c s w i t h the ' a p p r o p r i a t i o n of a c t i v e t r a d i t i o n ' Habermas seems t o r e s e r v e the a b i l i t y f o r s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n f o r the c r i t i c a l s c i e n c e s . But c r i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s do not always a p p l y s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n t o t h e i r own r e s e a r c h . Gadamer s u g g e s t s t h a t the v e r y n a t u r e of h e r m e n e u t i c s would make i t e x t r e m e l y s u i t e d as a r e f l e x i v e s c i e n c e . Gadamer 1 5 For a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s debate see Thomas McCarthy,1978:170-187 80 conceeds t h a t i t i s u n a v o i d a b l e t h a t i n v e s t i g a t o r s harbour p r e c o n c e p t i o n s and prejudgments about t h e m s e l v e s and about t h e i r s u b j e c t of s t u d y , but t o t h i n k t h a t they would be a b l e t o d i s c a r d these a l l a t once as Habermas seems t o suggest i s an i l l u s i o n . At b e s t r e s e a r c h e r s can be aware of them and t a k e them i n t o a ccount when r e f l e c t i n g upon the phenomena of i n t e r p r e t i v e u n d e r s t a n d i n g . Thus a s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c a l l y based hermeneutic s c i e n c e s h o u l d be g i v e n a l a r g e r r o l e i n the scheme of c o g n i t i v e i n t e r e s t s . I f we a c c e p t f o r t h e moment an i n c r e a s e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the h i s t o r i c a l - hermeneutic s c i e n c e s we can t h i n k of a p o s s i b l e s c e n a r i o f o r r e s e a r c h on power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . U s i n g the c i r c u l a r method of h e r m e n e u t i c s we can f i r s t t r y t o g r a s p the whole concept of power t h a t i n c l u d e s a l l l e v e l s ( i n d i v i d u a l , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and s o c i e t a l ) , l i k e a t r a n s l a t o r t r y i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d the g l o b a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of a p i e c e of w r i t i n g . F u r t h e r d e t a i l e d s t u d y of each component w i l l p r o v i d e i n c r e a s e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e whole which i n t u r n i l l u m i n a t e s c o n n e c t i o n s among the components. I t i s i n t h i s way t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s can g a i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of a l l the l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s and t h e i r i n t e r e c o n n e c t i o n s . But i t i s not o n l y t h e concept of power t h a t can be gra s p e d i n t h i s way , h e r m e n e u t i c s can a l s o c o n t r i b u t e t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of d i f f e r e n t i a l approaches l i k e t hose of C l e g g and P f e f f e r . Without c h a n g i n g the models themselves ( h e r m e n e u t i c s o n l y a t t e m p t s i n d e p t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g of phenomena) but a l s o w i t h o u t " a p p r o p r i a t i n g t r a d i t i o n " (hermeneutic u n d e r s t a n d i n g can 81 be pursued c r i t i c a l l y ) i t w i l l a l l o w us t o make sense of the d i f f e r e n c e s . 82 V I . CONCLUSION One of the aims of t h i s t h e s i s has been t o draw a t t e n t i o n t o the r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s about power i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s h e l d be p e o p l e such as Stewart C l e g g . The a n a l y s i s and d i s c u s s i o n have been geared towards p r o v i d i n g a p o s s i b l e framework f o r i f not i n t e g r a t i o n a t l e a s t c o - e x i s t e n c e of the t r a d i t i o n a l and the c r i t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . I t i s f e l t t h a t the d i s c i p l i n e would b e n e f i t from the i n s i g h t s p o t e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n t h i s framework. An i n c r e a s e d r o l e f o r the h i s t o r i c a l - h e r m e n e u t i c . s c i e n c e s , as argued i n the f i n a l s e c t i o n would open up avenues of r e s e a r c h t h a t u n t i l now have been i n s u f f i c i e n t l y e x p l o r e d . R esearch c o u l d p r o ceed on a t l e a s t t h r e e l e v e l s . (1) Power c o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d as a concept so as t o complete Habermas' scheme of t h e t h r e e s c i e n c e s by s e r v i n g the • p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t , (2) st a t e m e n t s about power as f o r m u l a t e d by o t h e r s c o u l d be the fo c u s of study, ( t h i s t h e s i s i s an i n s t a n c e of t h i s k i n d of r e s e a r c h ) , (3) the r o l e t h a t language p l a y s i n t h e o r i e s , of power c o u l d be t o p i c under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . As an example of the l a t t e r case i t can be shown t h a t the r e l a t i v e importance of language i s a c r u c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c between P f e f f e r and C l e g g ' s models. For P f e f f e r language can be used t o l e g i t i m a t e d e c i s i o n s and e x i s t i n g a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e . I t i s t h e r e f o r e a t o o l , an e x p r e s s i v e s y m b o l i c means employed by tho s e i n power t o j u s t i f y t h e i r a c t i o n s by making them appear r a t i o n a l . I t i s t h i s v e r y r e q u i r e m e n t of r a t i o n a l i t y as a mode of o r g a n i z i n g which f o r 83 C l e g g p o i n t s up the hegemonic r o l e of language. Language i s c o n s t i t u i t i v e of a framework f o r r e l a t i o n s of l a b o u r (e.g. s o c i a l - r e g u l a t i v e r u l e s ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y i t r e p r e s e n t s a 'form of l i f e ' , a way of b e i n g i n the w o r l d where r a t i o n a l i t y r e i g n s supreme. Language i s both the i n s t r u m e n t a l and t h e e x p r e s s i v e means of d o m i n a t i o n . More g e n e r a l l y , h e r m e n e u t i c s c o u l d be used on an i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l where we c o u l d i n v e s t i g a t e how the human p o t e n t i a l f o r growth as d i s c u s s e d by C a r l Rogers and o t h e r s , g e t s t h w a r t e d by the c o g n i t i v e t r a p s of c e r t a i n l i n g u i s t i c f o r m a t i o n s . O r g a n i z a t i o n s c o u l d be a n a l y z e d i n terms of t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e ( r u l e s of c o n d u c t , c u l t u r a l c l i m a t e and means of communication) l a y i n g bare the s t r u c t u r a l p a t t e r n s of power. Laws, forms of government, media and r e s e a r c h produced i n academic i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e a l l a r e a s on the l e v e l of s o c i e t y t h a t can be s u b j e c t e d t o hermeneutic a n a l y s i s . • I f i t i s t r u e as Chomsky (.1957) c l a i m s t h a t t h e r e i s an i d e n t i c a l deep grammar u n d e r l y i n g a l l n a t u r a l languages the knowledge of which can make us l i n g u i s t i c a l l y competent and i f i t i s e q u a l l y t r u e as Habermas c l a i m s t h a t language c o n s i s t s of u n i v e r s a l p r a g m a t i c s t h a t make us competent communicators then we have t o t u r n t o language as the b a s i c means of u n d e r s t a n d i n g our w o r l d . 84 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 . B a c h a r a c h , S.B., and L a w l e r , E . J . , Power and P o l i t i c s i n  O r g a n i z a t i o n s San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s P u b l i s h e r s , 1980,. 2. B e n d i x , R., and L i p s e t , S.M., Eds. C l a s s , S t a t u s , and  Power; S o c i a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n Comparative P e r s p e c t i v e . New York: Free P r e s s , 1966. 3. B l a u , P.M., Exchange and Power i n S o c i a l L i f e . New York: John W i l e y & Sons. I n c . , 1964. 4. Braverman, H., Labor and Monopoly C a p i t a l . New York: Monthly Review P r e s s , 1974. 5. B u r r e l l , G., and Morgan, G., S o c i o l o g i c a l Paradigms and  O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s , Elements of the S o c i o l o g y of  C o r p o r a t e L i f e . London: Heineman E d u c a t i o n a l Books L t d . , 1.979. 6. C a r t w r i g h t , D., "A f i e l d t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e p t i o n of Power" i n S t u d i e s i n S o c i a l Power. Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n : The U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , 1959. 7. Castaneda, C , T a l e s of Power. New York: Simon and S c h u s t e r , 1974. 8. Castaneda,C., The Second R i n g of Power. New Y o r k : P o c k e t Books,1980. 9. C h i l d , J . , " S t r a t e g i e s of C o n t r o l and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y 18(1973):1—17. 10. Chomsky, N., S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s . The Hague:Mouton,1957. 11. Chomsky, N . , S t e e l e , J , and G i t t i n g s , J . , Superpowers i n  C o l l i s i o n : The New C o l d War. New York:Penguin Books,1982. 12. Cohen,A., Two-Dimensional Man, An Essay on the  A n t h r o p o l o g y of Power and Symbolism i n Complex S o c i e t y . B e r k e l y : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e ss,1974. 13. C l e g g , S . , Power,Rule and D o m i n a t i o n . London:Routledge & Kegan Paul,1975. 14. C l e g g , S . , The Theory of Power and O r g a n i z a t i o n . London:Routledge & Kegan P a u l Ltd.,1979. 15. C l e g g , S., and Dunkerley,D., O r g a n i z a t i o n , C l a s s and  C o n t r o l . London:Routledge & Kegan P a u l Ltd.,1980. 16. C l e g g , S . , " O r g a n i z a t i o n and C o n t r o l " . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 26(1981):545-562. 85 17. C o l i g n o n , R., and C r a y , D., " C r i t i c a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s " . O r g a n i z a t i o n S t u d i e s 4(1980):349-365. 18. C r o z i e r , M., The B u r e a u c r a t i c Phenomenon. C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o Press,1964. 19. Cyert,R.M., and March,J.G., A B e h a v i o r a l Theory of the  F i r m . Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1 9 6 3 . 20. Dahl,R.A., "The Concept of Power." B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e . 2( 1957) : 20 1 -21 5.. 21. D a h l i e , J . , and Fernando,T., eds. E t h n i c i t y , Power and  P o l i t i c s i n Canada. A g i n c o u r t : M e t h u e n P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 8 1 . 22. Dahrendorf,R., S t a n f o r d , C a l . : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 5 9 . 23. Edwards,R.C.,"The S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s of P r o d u c t i o n a t the P o i n t of P r o d u c t i o n . " In Complex O r g a n i z a t i o n s : C r i t i c a l  P e r s p e c t i v e s . pp. 156-181. E d i t e d by M . Z e y - F e r r e l l and M.Aiken. G l e n v i e w , I 1 1 . : S c o t t , F o r e s m a n and Company,1981. 24. Egri,CP.,"Women Bank Managers i n B r i t i s h C olumbia." M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,1983. 25. E l i a s , N . , Power and C i v i l i t y . O x f o r d r B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , 1 9 8 2 . 26. Emerson,R.,"Power Dependence R e l a t i o n s . " American  S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 22(1962):31-41. 27. E p s t e i n , S . S . , The P o l i t i c s of Cancer. New Y o r k r A n c h o r Books, 1979. 28. F a r r e l l , D . , and P e t e r s e n , J . C . , " P a t t e r s of P o l i t i c a l B e h a v i o r i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " Academy of Management Review.  7,(1982 3) :403-412. 29. F o u c a u l t , M . , Power/Knowledge,Selected I n t e r v i e w s and Other  W r i t i n g s 1972-1977. E d i t e d by G. C o l i n . New York: Pantheon Books,1979 30. F r e n c h , J . R . P . J r . , a n d Raven,B.,"The Bases of S o c i a l Power." In S t u d i e s i n S o c i a l Power. Ann Arbor,Mich.:The U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , 1 9 5 9 . 31. G a l b r a i t h , J . K . , The A f f l u e n t S o c i e t y . B u n g a y , S u f f o l k : R i c h a r d s C l a y ( T h e Chaucer P r e s s ) L t d . , 1 9 5 8 . 32. Habermas,J., Knowledge and Human I n t e r e s t . T r a n s l a t e d by J . J . S h a p i r o . Boston:Beacon P r e s s , 1 9 7 1 . 86 33. Halberstam,D., The Powers t h a t Be. New Y o r k r D e l l P u b l i s h i n g Co.Inc.,1979. 34. Hambrink,D.C.,"Environment, S t r a t e g y , and Power W i t h i n Top Management Teams." A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y . 26(1981):253-276. 35. H e r i b e r t , A . and G i l i o m e e H., E t h n i c Power M o b i l i z e d i C a n  South A f r i c a Change. New HavenrYale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,1979. 36. Hersey,P.,and B l a n c h a r d , K . , Management of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l  B e h a v i o r : U t i l i z i n g Human R e s o u r c e s . Englewood C l i f f s N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1982. 37. H i c k s o n , D . J . , e t a l . , " A S t r a t e g i c C o n t i n g e n c i e s Theory of I n t r a o r g a n i z a t i o n a l Power." A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e  Q u a r t e r l y . 16(1971):216-229. 38. H i n i n g s , C . R . , e t a l . / " S t r u c t u r a l C o n d i t i o n s of I n t r a o r g a n i z a t i o n a l Power." A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e  Q u a r t e r l y 19(1975):22-43. 39. H o r o w i t z , J . L . , S c i e n c e , S i n , and S c h o l a r s h i p : T h e P o l i t i c s  of Reverend Moon and the U n i f i c a t i o n Church. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Pres s , 1 9 8 2 . 40. K a i r y s , D . ,ed. The P o l i t i c s of Law:A P r o g r e s s i v e Cr-dtique New York:Pantheon Books,1982. 41. Kaplan,A., The Conduct of I n q u i r y t M e t h o d o l o g y f o r  B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e . San F r a n c i s c o , C a l . : C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g Company,1964. 42. Kemelgor,B.H., "Power and the Power P r o c e s s : L i n k a g e Concepts." Academy of Management Review. 1(October,1976):143-148. 43. Korda,M., Power! How t o get i t , how t o use i t . New Y o r k : F i r s t B a l l a n t i n e Books,1975. 44. LeBoeuf,M., Imageneering:How t o P r o f i t from your C r e a t i v e  Powers. New York:McGraw H i l l , 1 9 8 2 . 45. L e w i n , K., F i e l d Theory i n S o c i a l S c i e n c e . New York: H a r p e r , 1951. 46. Lips,H.M., Women,Men and the P s y c h o l o g y of Power. 1981. E n g l e w o o d - C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e H a l l . 47. McCarthy,Th., The C r i t i c a l Theory of J u r g e n Habermas. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Pre s s , 1 9 7 8 . 48. March,J.G., "The B u s i n e s s F i r m as a P o l i t i c a l C o a l i t i o n . " 87 J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c s . 24(1962):662-678. 49. Mayo,E., The S o c i a l Problems of an I n d u s t r i a l  C i v i l i s a t i o n . London:Routledge and Kegan Paul,1949. 50. M i n t z b e r g , H . , The S t r u c t u r i n g of O r g a n i z a t i o n s . E n g l e w o o d - C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e H a l l , I n c . , 1 9 7 9 . 51. M i n t z b e r g , H . , Power In and Around O r g a n i z a t i o n s Englewood-C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e H a l l Inc.,1983. 52. Mulder,M., Power D i s t a n c e R e d u c t i o n Tendencies:Problems of  Power and Power R e l a t i o n s . D e l f t : F o u n d a t i o n f o r B u s i n e s s Sc i e n c e s , 1 9 7 4 . 53. M o r l e y , J . T . , et a l . , The R e i n s of PowertGoverning B r i t i s h  C o lumbia. Vancouver:Douglas and M c l n t y r e Ltd.,1983. 54. Murray,A., and L e a r , J . , Power T r a i n i n g f o r S p o r t . New Y o r k : A r c o P u b l i s h i n g Inc.,1981. 55. Nord,W.R.,"The F a i l u r e of C u r r e n t A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e : A M a r x i a n P e r s p e c t i v e . " J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d  B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e . 10(October-December, 1974):557-578. 56. 0'Brien,C.C., and Vanech,W.D.,Eds. Power and C o n s c i o u s n e s s L o n d o n : U n i v e r s i t y of London P r e s s Ltd.,1969. 57. O f f e , C , I n d u s t r y and I n e q u a l i t y . London:Edward Ar n o l d , 1 9 7 6 . 58. Ouchi,W.G., " R e l a t i o n s h i p between O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o n t r o l . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e  Q u a r t e r l y 22(1977):95-113. 59. Pendse,S.,"A C o n c e p t u a l A n a l y s i s of Power, Dependence and S t r a t e g y U s i n g a Game T h e o r e t i c Approach." O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o u r . P r o c e e d i n g s of the Annual Conference of the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e s A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada. Vancouver(May 30-31,1983):155-163. 60. Perrow,C.,"Departmental Power and P e r s p e c t i v e i n I n d u s t r i a l F i r m s . " In Power i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s . E d i t e d by M. N. Z a l d . N a s h v i l l e : V a n d e r b i l t U n i v e r s i t y P r e ss,1970. 61. P f e f f e r , J . , " S i z e and C o m p o s i t i o n of C o r p o r a t e Boards of D i r e c t o r s : The O r g a n i z a t i o n and i t s Environment." A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y . 17(1972a)218-228. 62. P f e f f e r , J . , " M e r g e r as a Response t o O r g a n i z a t i o n a l I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y . 17(1972b):382-394. 63. P f e f f e r , J . , Power i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s . 88 M a r s h f i e l d , M a s s . : P i t m a n P u b l i s h i n g Inc.,1981. 64. P f e f f e r , J . , and L e b l e c i , H . , " E x e c u t i v e R e c r u i t m e n t and the Development of I n t e r f i r m O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y . 18(1973):449-461. 65. P f e f f e r , J . , and Moore,W.L., "Power i n U n i v e r s i t y Budgeting:A R e p l i c a t i o n and E x t e n s i o n . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y . 25(1980):637-653. 66. P f e f f e r , J . , and Nowak,P., " J o i n t V e n t u r e s and I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y . 21(1976):398-418. 67. P f e f f e r , J . , and S a l a n c i k , G . R . , " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l D e c i s i o n Making as a P o l i t i c a l P rocess:The Case of a U n i v e r s i t y Budget." A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y . 19(1975):135-151. 68. . P f e f f e r , J . , and S a l a n c i k ,.G.R. , The E x t e r n a l C o n t r o l of O r g a n i z a t i o n s : A Resource Dependence P e r s p e c t i v e . New Y o rk:Harper & Row,1978. 69. P o l l a r d , W . E . , and M i t c h e l l , T . R . , " D e c i s i o n Theory A n a l y s i s of S o c i a l Power." P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 78(1972 6):433-446. 70. R u s s e l . B . , Power:A New S o c i a l A n a l y s i s . New York:W.W. Norton & Company,1969. 71. S t a b l e i n , R . , "Towards an E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l y Based Typology of O r g a n i z a t i o n Study." Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the Academy of Management (n.p.) August,1982. . 72. Stone,K., "The O r i g i n s of Job S t r u c t u r e s i n the S t e e l I n d u s t r y . " In Complex O r g a n i z a t i o n s : C r i t i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s pp.349-381. E d i t e d by M . Z e y - F e r r e l l and M.Aiken. Glenview,111.:Scott,Foresman and Company,1981. 73. Thibaut,J.W., and K e l l e y , H . H . , The S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y of  Groups New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1 9 5 9 . 74. Thompson,J.D., O r g a n i z a t i o n s on A c t i o n . ,New York:McGraw-H i l l , l 9 6 7 . 75. T o u r a i n e , A., The P o s t - I n d u s t r i a l S o c i e t y . T r a n s l a t e d by L.F.S., Mayhew. New York:Random House, 1971. 76. Walton,R.E., and McKersie,R.B., A B e h a v i o r a l Theory of  Labour N e g o t i a t i o n s ; A n A n a l y s i s of a S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n  System. New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1965. 77. Weick,K.E., The S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y of O r g a n i z i n g . (2nd Ed.) Reading,Mass.:Addison-Wesley,1979. 89 78. Whetter,D.C., "The C o u n t e r b a l a n c e d A d v e r s a r y Model of Government- B u s i n e s s I n t e r a c t i o n : A n E v a l u a t i o n . " M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,1976. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095290/manifest

Comment

Related Items