Power dynamics

How to exercise influence without formal authority?

Andy Weeger

Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences

February 14, 2024

Introduction

Managers have to understand and develop new sources of power and influence if they are going to be able to defend their groups’ interests. Thus, they must become “political”— i.e., understand the political dynamics of organizations and build the power and influence necessary to navigate them. Hill (2003, 272)

Preparing for politics …

Figure 1: Dilbert comic strip on politics

Dicussion

Does leadership require the art of politics?

If so, what do you associate with it?

On power and politics

Many new managers erroneously believe that the “powerful” are those in more senior positions, because they equate power simply with formal authority Hill (2003, 272)

Power in organizations

Organizations can be seen as both, cooperative systems of employees working together to achieve goals and political arenas of individuals and groups with differing interests (Brass 2017).

Power can be defined as the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do, politics as power in action, using a range of techniques and tactics (Buchanan and Badham 2020).

Power and politics is at the heart of how organizations function (Hill 2003).

Though, often associated with negative connotations, Buchanan and Badham (2020) shows that the view of the damaging, negative consequences of politics is too narrow. Politics can be both ‘functional’ and ‘dysfunctional’.

Power and leadership

Other things being equal, political conflict increases with growing interdependence, diversity, and resource scarcity (Pfeffer 1992).

Managers who ignore or fail to understand how power and influence work in organizations will find that they and their teams experience difficulty in being effective and ethical in their work. Hill (2003, 273)

Development of competing coalitions and periods of organizational crisis exacerbate political conflict, while leadership and shared value help to reduce the amount of conflict (Hill 2003).

Leaders need to define a vision that aligns and motivates people, creates shared values, and a shared culture—these are critical mechanisms for managing the increased diversity and interpedendence in organizations today.

Political conflict in organizations

Figure 2: Political conflict in organizations according to Hill (2003, 274)

Sources of power

Discovering that formal authority is a very limited source of power, new managers must find other ways to get things done […] they soon learn that power and influence are the meachnisms by which the inevitable political conflicts in organizations get resolved. Hill (2003, 274)

Dicussion

If it is not a formal authority, what are the main sources of power?

Personal and positional characteristics

Sources of personal power (Hill 2003, 276)

• Expertise: relevant knowledge and skills
• Track record: relevant experience
• Attractiveness: attributes that others find appealing and identify with
• Effort: expenditure of time and energy

Sources of positional power (Hill 2003, 276)

• Formal authority: position in hierarchy and prescribed responsibilities
• Relevance: relationship between task and organizational objectives
• Centrality: position in key networks
• Autonomy: amount of discretion in a position
• Visibility: degree to which performance can be seen by others

Discussion

Why is a strong, well-developed network a meaningful source of power?

Relate your answers to the social capital theory.

Building key relationships

Companies are increasingly required to engage in cross-organizational work (across levels, functions, geographies) in an effort to improve their capacities to execute and innovate.

Leaders need to build and maintain key relationships to identify changes in the priorities and needs of these groups and prepare their field for new opportunities and threats—a strong, well-developed network can provide the kind of big picture information needed in today’s world (Brass and Krackhardt 2012).

It is, thus, required to identify dependencies¹, to take into account the political dynamics that make for potential sources of conflict², and to invest time and energy in building and maintaining relationships with those on whom the team is dependent³ (Hill 2003).

It is always better to overestimate rather than underestimate dependencies. Hill (2003)

Social capital theory

In brief

It is not what you know,
it is who you know.

• Gaining membership to exclusive clubs requires inside contacts
• Attractive jobs are usually won by those with friends in high places
• Friends and family constitute the final safety net if one falls hard

The core intuition guiding social capital research is that the goodwill that others have toward us is a valuable resource Adler and Kwon (2002)

Definitions

Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: They all consist of some aspect of social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in its absence Coleman (1988, 98)

… features of social organizations such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefits Putnam (1993, 67)

… the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition Bourdieu (1986, 21)

… the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or an social unit. Social capital thus comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998, 243)

Similarities and distinctions

The definitions of social capital share some similarities and distinctions:

• There is an emphasis on the structure of social relations (networks)
• Social capital is seen as a resource for action (individual goal achievement)
• The level of analysis stems from macro-level to meso/micro-level
• The causal structure of social capital is conceived differently
  
  • Networks as source of social capital; social capital is a result of network embeddedness (e.g., Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1988).
  • The network of relations is equivalent to social capital (e.g., Putnam 1993; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998).

Strong vs. weak ties

Coleman (1988) argues that cohesion, that is to say the strength of the relationship between actors, is the source of social capital (strong ties)

• Cohesion facilitates the creation of social norms, trust and sanctions within networks, which safeguard against opportunistic behavior
• Cohesion enables coordination and increases willingness of actors to engage in knowledge exchange (bonding)

Burt (2018) posits that social capital rather emerges from opportunities to bridge disconnections or non-equivalencies separating non-redundant sources of information (structural holes)

• Structural holes (i.e. ‘weak ties’) provide the opportunity to get access to diverse sets of perspectives, skills, or resources.
• Social capital emerges from structurally favorable positions between different group of actors (bridging)

Structure, cognition, and relation

Figure 3: Social capital in the creation of intellectual capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998, 251)

Structural dimension

The structural dimension reflects “the overall pattern of connections between actors” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998, 244) — the possibilities of actors to interact with others (‘physical’ ties)

Relational dimension

The relational dimension “relates to the nature and quality of the relationships among team members” (Robert Jr, Dennis, and Ahuja 2008, 319) — the relational strength of ties (trust, respect, norms, identification)

Cognitive dimension

The cognitive dimension refers to “those resources providing shared representations, interpretations, and systems of meaning among parties” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998, 244) — the ability to communicate and effectively access resources

Value

The ultimate value of a given form of social capital is context-dependent (Adler and Kwon 2002).

Strong ties
Effective search for novel information
(competitive rivalry, certain tasks, individual contribution)

Weak ties
Effective transfer of information and tacit knowledge
(collective goals, uncertain tasks, group contribution)

The value is further dependent on the availability of complementary resources (e.g., combination capability)

Opportunity, motivation, and ability

Figure 4: The conceptual model of social capital according to Adler and Kwon (2002, 23)

Opportunities

The social network creates opportunities for social capital transactions to leverage external resources (bridging) and to act together (bonding) (Adler and Kwon 2002).

Motivation

Contact’s motivation determines the share of potential resources. Motivation reflects the willingness to define and act on collective goals caused by shared interests, common identity, and commitment to the common good (Adler and Kwon 2002).

Ability

If social relations are mobilized is contingent on resources that enables actors to mobilize their social relations (e.g. shared representations, interpretations, and systems of meaning) (Adler and Kwon 2002).

Final remark

It is not what you say, but what you do. Truism

Q&A

Literature

Adler, Paul S, and Seok-Woo Kwon. 2002. “Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept.” Academy of Management Review 27 (1): 17–40.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In The Sociology of Economic Life, 78–92. Routledge.

Brass, Daniel J. 2017. “Intraorganizational Power and Dependence.” The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, 138–57.

Brass, Daniel J, and David M Krackhardt. 2012. “Power, Politics, and Social Networks in Organizations.” In Politics in Organizations, 389–410. Routledge.

Buchanan, David, and Richard Badham. 2020. Power, Politics, and Organizational Change. Sage.

Burt, Ronald S. 2018. “Structural Holes.” In Social Stratification, 659–63. Routledge.

Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94: S95–120.

Di Vincenzo, Fausto, and Daniele Mascia. 2012. “Social Capital in Project-Based Organizations: Its Role, Structure, and Impact on Project Performance.” International Journal of Project Management 30 (1): 5–14.

Hill, Linda Annette. 2003. Becoming a Manager: How New Managers Master the Challenges of Leadership. Harvard Business Press.

Nahapiet, Janine, and Sumantra Ghoshal. 1998. “Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage.” Academy of Management Review 23 (2): 242–66.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1992. Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Harvard Business Press.

Putnam, Robert D. 1993. “The Prosperous Community.” The American Prospect 4 (13): 35–42.

———. 2000. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” In Culture and Politics: A Reader, 223–34. Springer.

Reagans, Ray, and Ezra W Zuckerman. 2001. “Networks, Diversity, and Productivity: The Social Capital of Corporate r&d Teams.” Organization Science 12 (4): 502–17.

Robert Jr, Lionel P, Alan R Dennis, and Manju K Ahuja. 2008. “Social Capital and Knowledge Integration in Digitally Enabled Teams.” Information Systems Research 19 (3): 314–34.

Tsai, Wenpin, and Sumantra Ghoshal. 1998. “Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks.” Academy of Management Journal 41 (4): 464–76.

Wagner, Heinz-Theo, Daniel Beimborn, and Tim Weitzel. 2014. “How Social Capital Among Information Technology and Business Units Drives Operational Alignment and IT Business Value.” Journal of Management Information Systems 31 (1): 241–72.

Footnotes

1. Dependencies can be analyzed by asking questions such as On whom am I dependent, and who depends on me?

2. Political dynamics can be understood by asking, e.g., What differences exist between me and the people on whom I am dependent? What sources of power do I have to influence this relationship?

3. Questions like What can be done to cultivate or repair the relationship? help to cultivate relationships