Power dynamics

Introduction

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, p. 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 & Badham, 2020).

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

Though, often associated with negative connotations, Buchanan & 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, p. 273)

Development of competing coalitions and periods of organizational crisis¹ 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.

Summary

Figure 1: Political conflict in organizations according to Hill (2003, p. 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, p. 274)

Personal and positional characteristics

Sources of personal power (Hill, 2003, p. 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, p. 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

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 & Krackhardt, 2012).

According to Hill (2003), effective leadership requires to

• identify dependencies²
• take into account the political dynamics that make for potential sources of conflict³
• build and maintaining relationships with those on whom the team is dependent⁴

---

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 & Kwon (2002)

History

The concept of social capital has been relative independently introduced by scholars from various disciplines at different times.

Seminal works particularly originate from

• James Coleman (1988) on the topic of education/utilisation of human capital (e.g., Coleman (1988))
• Robert Putman (1993) on social participation (e.g., Putnam (2000))
• Pierre Bourdieu (1983) on the relationship between economic, cultural and social capital (e.g., Bourdieu (1986))
• Ronald Burt (1982) on social networks (e.g., Burt (2018))

Since the 1990s the concept of social capital found its way into organizational and management sciences to explain e.g.

• value creation in intrafirm networks (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998),
• creation of intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998),
• productivity of R&D teams (Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001),
• project performance (Di Vincenzo & Mascia, 2012), and
• business-IT alignment (Wagner et al., 2014).

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, p. 98)

… features of social organizations such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefits Putnam (1993, p. 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, p. 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 & Ghoshal (1998, p. 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 (e.g., societies) to meso/micro-level (e.g., organizations and groups)
• 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 (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; e.g., Putnam, 1993).

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 2: Social capital in the creation of intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, p. 251)

Structural dimension

The structural dimension reflects “the overall pattern of connections between actors” (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, p. 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 et al., 2008, p. 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 & Ghoshal, 1998, p. 244) — the ability to communicate and effectively access resources

Value

The ultimate value of a given form of social capital is context-dependent (Adler & 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 3: The conceptual model of social capital according to Adler & Kwon (2002, p. 23)

Opportunities

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

According to Adler & Kwon (2002) conceptual model, context plays a critical role in determining the value of social capital. They propose that the value of social capital is not universal or fixed but rather contingent on specific contextual factors. This contextual perspective is significant because it challenges simplistic views that social capital is universally beneficial. Instead, Adler and Kwon emphasize that the value of social capital is situational and dependent on these contextual factors, which helps explain why similar network structures or relationships might yield different outcomes in different settings.

Conclusion

---

Leadership in modern organizations extends far beyond formal authority. As you develop in your leadership journey, consider these key insights:

• Recognize that power is multifaceted — while formal authority is limited, effective leaders cultivate diverse sources of power—both personal (expertise, track record, effort) and positional (relevance, centrality, visibility). ** Embrace productive politics** — politics isn’t inherently negative but rather “power in action.” Skilled leaders engage in organizational politics functionally, using influence techniques to navigate interdependencies and resolve conflicts constructively.
• Manage organizational seams — pay particular attention to the interfaces between departments and units, as these are where political conflicts often emerge. Your ability to reduce friction at these seams directly impacts organizational effectiveness.
• Invest strategically in social capital — your network is a critical resource. Understand that the value of relationships is context-dependent—sometimes strong, cohesive ties are beneficial; other times, weak ties that bridge structural holes provide greater advantage.
  • Apply the opportunity-motivation-ability framework from Adler and Kwon to develop relationships that provide access to resources, information, and support across organizational boundaries.
  • Create alignment through shared values. Use your influence to foster a common vision that can overcome the natural political tensions arising from diversity and interdependence.

Remember that effective leadership requires constant attention to dependencies and relationships. As you progress, continuously reevaluate your sources of power, nurture your network, and adapt your political strategies to changing contexts. In the end, your effectiveness will be judged not by your formal position but by your ability to exercise influence across organizational boundaries.

Literature

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In The sociology of economic life (pp. 78–92). Routledge.

Brass, D. J. (2017). Intraorganizational power and dependence. The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, 138–157.

Brass, D. J., & Krackhardt, D. M. (2012). Power, politics, and social networks in organizations. In Politics in organizations (pp. 389–410). Routledge.

Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (2020). Power, politics, and organizational change. Sage.

Burt, R. S. (2018). Structural holes. In Social stratification (pp. 659–663). Routledge.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

Di Vincenzo, F., & Mascia, D. (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, L. A. (2003). Becoming a manager: How new managers master the challenges of leadership. Harvard Business Press.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Harvard Business Press.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community. The American Prospect, 4(13), 35–42.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In Culture and politics: A reader (pp. 223–234). Springer.

Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate r&d teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.

Robert Jr, L. P., Dennis, A. R., & Ahuja, M. K. (2008). Social capital and knowledge integration in digitally enabled teams. Information Systems Research, 19(3), 314–334.

Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.

Wagner, H.-T., Beimborn, D., & Weitzel, T. (2014). How social capital among information technology and business units drives operational alignment and IT business value. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(1), 241–272.

Footnotes

1. Competing coalitions represent what happens when ‘organizational seams’ (i.e., interfaces or boundaries between distinct units) become battlegrounds — different departments or teams develop their own agendas, priorities, and cultures - creating friction at the seams. Organizational crises can intensify these seam problems as departments protect their interests during uncertainty or resource constraints.

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

3. 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?

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