Critical Perspectives of Power - Essay Example

? MD3206 – CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES Resit Assignment 11 MD3206 – CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES Introduction While studying organizations and interpretinghow they work and create meaning in life and society, we definitely need to understand the implicit role of authority, decision making and power. In our essay, we study the different critical perspectives of power as seen through the lens of researchers. We structure our essay thus: in the first section, we briefly review the interpretation and import of power through the lens of three different sets of studies. We try and identify points of convergence and divergence of perspectives. Proceeding to our second section, we observe the three different perspectives in the light of Berkeley-Thomas’ analytical framework and also draw upon practical examples from the commercial world to understand the conceptual paradigms better. Our third section deals with integrating the conceptual foundations of power and concluding our discussions with a critical review. I. Brief Overview of Power: Three different voices The origins of power can be understood from medieval businesses where there were smaller organizations and fewer employees in each of them. Typically, an individual learnt a trade and plied his craft, selling his services to others and accumulating capital; in the course of his journey occasionally, he had opportunities to expand and launch his own enterprise (Clegg & Hardy, 1999). A mixture of hard work and serendipity sometimes enabled such journeymen to become masters. In effect, they became owners or owner-managers and employed people to work for their business enterprise. In essence, we find that an individual, in his early days as an apprentice bows to a power center, who for all practical purposes is his master or supervisor; later on there is an opportunity to be the authority or one who now wields power himself. We now trace different viewpoints as observed through the lens of three different theorists Weber (1978) had a clear construct of power. According to him, power flowed through a bureaucratic setup where people and processes were clearly defined. People were endowed with certain powers to approve or reject petitions and they exercised it as per the written code of conduct. Effectively, no one could flout the rigor and the organizational hierarchy to get work done. Power being legitimized through the form of organizational structures, there were no methods or actions that could challenge it. Perhaps, we can visualize it as a one-way street, where everything was clearly spelt out and there was no possibility of dialogue or dissent. Viewed from another angle, power was domination and any overt or covert resistance was construed as a form of insubordination and sanctions were imposed. Bachrach & Baratz (1963, 1970) had a different interpretation. We take this as the second dimension of power. They posited that power was associated with decisions and non-decisions. Power was construed as a process where the issues or problems were excluded from decision-making. Subordinates are not allowed to participate in the decision-making process through various stratagems adopted by people in higher positions of authority. The use of these channels has been described as non-decisions. In scenarios such as these, the powerful actors are able to determine outcomes from behind the scenes. A critical perspective would perhaps hint at this construction as a subtle, non-offensive use of power. Yet, it clearly denotes that there are invisible barriers. On one side, there are people who can take decisions; on the other side, there are subordinates or people who may be in conflict but forced to accept the decisions of the top management team. The third dimension was put forth by Lukes (1974) who argued that power could not be interpreted in the light of conflicts alone. He opined that power could be used to quell dissent and conflicting viewpoints by shaping the perceptions and cognitions of people. This could be done in a subtle manner so that people accept power as an unquestionable issue and respect authority since they perceive it to be the natural order of things. Perhaps, it could also be because they view it as divinely imparted and beneficial to their position. Where Lukes (1974) departed from Weber’s (1978) ideology was that he assumed power to be a more subtle, finely nuanced element that could be exercised to extract subordination and compliance without any form of resistance. His point of divergence from Bachrach & Baratz (1963) was that there is no necessity of a conflict to exercise power in any organization. II. Power in the context of Berkeley-Thomas’ Analytical Framework Berkeley-Thomas’ Analytical framework draws upon a few key learnings from Bachrach & Baratz (1963) where the authors discuss the interactions of power with influence, authority, force and manipulation. While identifying the different perspectives, we need to briefly touch upon the implications of these four critical factors. Influence is a subtle form of power without the accompanying sanctions, which, in the case of legitimate power would have accompanied it. Authority is formalized and hence in a position to exercise power by rule. Force is exercise of power. Manipulation may be considered similar to influence, except that the person at the receiving end dislikes the method in which he is persuaded to execute an action or series of actions. In our subsequent paragraphs, we draw upon several practical examples from industry and interpret them from the perspective of ‘people in power’ or firms exercising power. We do not confine our discussion to merely organizations, but also include political and government actions where the role of power can be studied in its diverse manifestations. Consider the case of the Osama killing (Walsh, Adams & MacAskill 2011). For long considered the mastermind behind the terror attack on the US, the American President Obama had commissioned a unique, lethal force that directly penetrated into Pakistan and killed the alleged criminal. How does the power equation work here? We notice that the use of manipulation and force is clearly evident complying with Bachrach & Baratz (1963). We observe that despite the US having no constitutional authority over entry into foreign territory, an absence of legitimate power (Weber 1978), the American Government machinery still went ahead with the assassination. A critical perspective reveals that the use of power definitely goes beyond the realms of textbook definitions. Perhaps, in hindsight, America is justified in this bold encounter. Yet critics could shun the action, stating that this violates international rules and regulations. So, who is right? In an international political agenda such as that set forth for Barack Obama, clearly, the use of power has transcended national boundaries. We could now consider the case of a corporate captain, Jack Welch who championed the rise of General Electric. He had a specific policy of firing the bottom 10% of his employees (Dunn 2011). The policy is likely to draw accolades as well as criticisms. Yet, Jack Welch on taking over the reins as the CEO, clearly articulated that in his firing policy. Viewing this policy from the perspective of power, we see traces of semblance to the Weberian ideology, where what was written down was also followed. Effectively, in certain areas of corporate policy, Jack Welch did follow the bureaucratic ideology. Here, there is no subtle form of power or it cannot be taken as a form of non-decision (Bachrach & Baratz, 1963). The written down rules were merely followed. Questioning whether Jack Welch was right in his ideology is a different subject and beyond the scope of our argument. Pausing to ponder over the two excerpts described in the prior paragraphs, we can sense that the interpretations of power in different settings vary. In a political setting, the use of power could be on a contingent perspective, where the rules are not written down. Based on a certain set of contextual factors, the political actors could decide on a course of actions. Subsequent events merely reflect the decisions of the political actors. In the corporate realm, however, there are some rules that are stated at the outset. It is easy for the employees and the management to follow them. So we cannot say that just a certain dimensional perspective of power is relevant. The context dictates the specific ideology that is adopted. To understand the finer nuances of power in a business environment that encourages participatory decision making, we could draw upon an example from a London-based software firm Misys (Tushman, Smith & Binns, 2011) which was facing a strategically critical decision. While the CEO asked his executives to prepare a plan to face the economic crisis, the team responded with cutbacks in investments in the Open Source solutions division to the tune of $3 million. Had the CEO taken the decision on this issue himself, would it have been different? In a typical new-age economy firm, the decisions and the power to initiate them lie with a team, instead of a single individual. Often, the CEO passes on the challenge to his team. What is the nature of the power equation here? We may perceive that it is definitely not a bureaucratic set up. It calls for constructive dialogue and decision making through consensus. The question of exercising power is through influence and not force or manipulation. The seminal work of Bachrach & Baratz (1963) has raised pertinent issues which find meaning and relevance in the case of Misys, almost four decades later. If we were to extend the argument here and consider how the team would allocate resources to different business units, then a similar mode of approach would be adopted: team work to arrive at a consensual decision. However, for specific contexts, the final course of action could be contingent on several prevailing organization and industry factors. Extending our analytical discourse to country-level factors, we observe that the power equations and the exercise of powers tend to be very fragile. For instance, India’s relations with its neighbors are a source of acute embarrassment. Sample this: of the eight countries which share a land or maritime boundary, only two are seemingly happy with India – Maldives and Bhutan (‘New humility for the hegemon’ 2011). The rest, comprising of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar among others are engaged in some kind of cold war or military tussle with India. How do we decipher the power struggle here? Where International relations are concerned there are no set rules. All that one can expect is that a country behaves in a cordial and civil manner, so as to encourage trade between nations. Standard notions of power cannot explain the delicate situation that India faces. It has no legitimate power, yet it wants to use force in some instances – the case with the migrants at the Bangladesh border or the display of an attitude of defiance with Pakistan. The article goes on to describe that although the current crop of politicians are attempting to establish cordial relations, there is still a long way to go in terms of fostering trade and business between India and its neighbors. The scientific community often notices lack of enthusiasm for old and out-dated methods of diagnosis, especially in the case of screening for breast cancers. In the twenty-first century, the percentage of women having mammograms declined sharply (Shute 2011). One reason quoted is the failure rate of the procedure, which tends to be as high as 20%. How do women react to this? More and more women say that they would choose not to go through the rigor of testing. The medical community is powerless. Unless more powerful and efficient ways of diagnosis come up, the trust factor would be lost. This is of grave concern to the medical fraternity and healthcare providers. What kind of power struggles do we observe in the case of women on one side and the medical community on the other? For one, the women exercise their freedom of choice in the face of high failure rates in the screening process. The medical community needs to step in and fund more useful research in this area so that the patients can be benefited. The research field needs to be given greater power to choose the area which is most likely to show positive results in this discipline. It calls for the subtle influence of the Government and the healthcare system on the research teams who work in academia, industry and various not-for-profit organizations. As our last case in point, we draw upon the current developments in India where one of the protagonists by the name of Anna Hazare, has declared a 15-day fast (Dhawan 2011) calling for the establishment of an anti-corruption independent regulatory body. His vociferous demands have ensured that the Government will act and some form of an anti-corruption bureau would come into force. Is it power to the citizen? If so, how do we interpret this kind of power that has roused an entire nation to rally behind the activist? One explanation is that the bases of this form of power are perhaps not from traditional preserves such as authority, influence or force, but they are more likely to stem from moral bases. While corporate social change can be initiated through activist groups, even at a national level, activist groups could influence radical change (den Hond & de Bakker 2007); the base of this is moral standards and the capability to distinguish between the right and the appropriate tenets for society at large. The Anna Hazare movement is due evidence of social activism which gets rocketed onto the political platform, prodding inert bureaucrats into definitive action. What does the corporate domain tell us about how power evolves? To answer this we briefly review some research papers in this domain and try to understand the linkages with the earlier part of our paper where we looked at the three dimensions of power. Facilitating such a discourse necessitates an understanding of the real-life scenario and its application to ratifying theoretical underpinnings. In this regard, the study of a minority of corporate agents, who subsequently rose to positions of power in French and British companies sheds light on the inner workings of management (Maclean, Harvey & Chia 2010). The researchers observed governance and board membership of 100 companies in France and Britain over a six-year period from 1998 to 2003. The underlying definition of power here was command over resources. The authors found significant linkages between educational qualifications and family and the ascension to positions of prestige and power. The second finding was that organizations themselves were crucial in structuring the careers of its fast-track executives in Britain. In the case of France, about 49% of executives began their careers in Government services. Our essay had humble beginnings where we traced the progress of the ‘journeyman’ (Clegg & Hardy 1999) and towards the closing part of the discourse, we bring to notice research on the evolution of the entrepreneur, a microcosmic study of emancipatory entrepreneurship (Goss, Jones, Betta & Latham 2011). Power is construed as practice here. We find that entrepreneurship by way of bestowing risks, rewards and responsibilities on the individual is also able to generate a larger sense of participation. The erstwhile journeyman now becomes the owner-manager. The size or nature of the business is not important; what is of crucial interest to researchers is that entrepreneurship is entrenched in the notion of power rituals. In the upwardly mobile, aggressive march towards becoming an entrepreneur, the individual is able to exercise power in its myriad forms. Effectively, it is a form of posture that imparts respectability and status. Attempting to interpret Bachrach and Baratz (1963), we explored the analytical framework where the interaction of power with influence, manipulation, force and authority were studied from different perspectives. Continuing the same stream of thought, we can also look at routines, which are predominantly embedded in most organizations as a source of power. In this domain, Brown & Lewis (2011) have studied the inherent simplicities of routines and the implicit nature of power in them. The authors have explored the topic in the context of a regional law firm in UK. They find that structuring work in the form of routines is in itself a manifestation of power. Those in positions of authority keep a check on the individual roles and responsibilities by listing down minute, detailed, hourly activities which need to be performed. Any deviations are bound to invite sanctions from the managers. Yet, the employees surveyed identified themselves with their routines; surprisingly, the routines imbued them with a sense of power. What theory can we ascribe it to? Perhaps it can be interpreted in the form of a subtle influence of power. Evidently, the nature of work in a law form corresponds to Weberian theory, where clearly articulated rules flowed down from top to bottom. It is akin to a work flow chart in a manufacturing line. III. Conceptual Integration & Concluding Discussion We began our discourse from the sweeping discourse of Clegg & Hardy (1999) where the focus was on understanding three different dimensions of power: 1) Weber’s perspective: bureaucracy and power roles, 2) Bachrach & Baratz: Decisions & non-decisions – conflicts are essential for power and 3) Lukes’ perspective of the notion of subtle influence of power, its all pervasive nature, without the need for conflict. In the course of our journey, we have covered several examples and perspectives from industry and politics where we try and decipher the implications of power and its impact on the organizational actors. Our third and last section attempts to integrate and summarize the learnings. Firstly, there is no single dominant perspective that can hold sway. While reviewing examples from industry and politics, we observed that one or more dimensions as discussed in our previous paragraph may be applied to interpret different scenarios. There is no single and dominant theory that can provide an overarching explanation for observed phenomena. Secondly, the exercise of power is always manifested in subtle ways. The exercise of power need not be through force or authority figures. Power can be exercised even by a citizen activist as we saw in the case of Anna Hazare (Dhawan 2011). Power can be exercised by non-participation as we studied the case of declining number of women undergoing mammograms. In both these scenarios, power does not flow from authorities, but it is still manifested effectively. Thirdly, in rule and rigor based organizations, the use of bureaucratic power is found to be effective. We observed this in the case of law firms and also in Jack Welch’s employee retrenchment policy. For the employees working in routines-and-procedure based organizations such as those of law firms, accounting firms and consultancies, following rules does not necessarily imply lack of power. Even in such supposedly cloistered and rigid environments, we notice the exercise of power. Finally, we notice that theoretical underpinnings have been strengthened from observations of real-life and practical situations. There is a translation of learnings from Practice to Theory also. Moreover, we observe that real life can contribute to theory building just as the case of the Osama killing and the case of social activism exhibited by Anna Hazare prove. As emerging academicians and enterprising practitioners, we need to understand the implications of power in all its subtle nuances. This would help us to be more efficient in our understanding of the everyday power equations and struggles. The broad assumption that all individuals are aggressive and aspire to become tomorrow’s leaders also calls for a deeper consideration of personal development that will encapsulate a profound understanding of the right and legitimate use of the element ‘power’. Reference List ‘New humility for the hegemon’, 2011, The Economist, 30 July, p. 9 Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M.S 1963. ‘Decisions and nondecisions: an analytical framework’, American Political Science Review, vol.57, pp. 641-651. Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M.S 1970. Power and Poverty. Oxford University Press: London Brown, Andrew D. & Lewis, Michael A. 2011, ‘Identities, Disciplines and Routines’, Organization Studies, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 871-895. Clegg, Stewart R. & Hardy, Cynthia. 1999, ‘Some dare call it power’, in Clegg, Stewart R. & Hardy, Cynthia. (eds.), Studying Organization. Sage Publications, London, pp. 368-387. Den Hond, Frank & de Bakker, Frank G.A. 2007, ‘Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 901-924. Dhawan, Himanshi 2011, ‘Anna rides Wrath Yatra, Ups Ante’, The Times of India, 20 August, p. 1. Dunn, Kris 2011 More than Jack Welch: Should we Fire everyone who’s doing an “Adequate” job? 2 January, viewed 20 August 2011, < http://www.hrcapitalist.com/2011/01/more-than-jack-welch-should-we-fire-everyone-whos-doing-an-adequate-job.html> Goss, David, Jones, Robert, Betta, Michela & Latham, James 2011, ‘Power as practice: A Micro-sociological Analysis of the Dynamics of Emancipatory Entrepreneurship’, Organization Studies, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 211-229. Lukes S. 1974. Power: a Radical View. Macmillan, London Maclean, Mairi, Harvey, Charles & Chia, Robert 2010, ‘Dominant Corporate Agents and the Power Elite in France and Britain’, Organization Studies, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 327-348. Shute, Nancy 2011, ‘Beyond Mammograms’, May, Scientific American, pp. 32-34. Tushman, Michael L., Smith, Wendy K & Binns, Andy 2011 ‘The Ambidextrous CEO’, Harvard Business Review South Asia, June issue, pp. 64-70 Walsh, Declan, Adams, Richard & MacAskill, Ewen 2011 Osama bin Laden is dead, Obama announces. 2 May, viewed 20 August 2011, Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society: An outline of interpretive sociology, 2 vols, edited by G.Roth and C.Wittich. University of California Press, Berkeley Read More