2.4 Power in an Organisational Context
2.4.3 Organisational Culture and Power
The behavioural perspective on organisations draws from the behavioural school of psychology as discussed earlier in section 2.3 of this chapter and reflects a modernist paradigm where science is used to understand how to predict and control human behaviour. In an organisational context, the behavioural perspective assumes that leadership is central to performance and organisational outcomes (Schermerhorn, Hunt
& Osborn 2005; Van Tonder 2008) It relates the concept of cause and effect to the study of human motivation and is concerned with outcomes rather than the process in organisations (Kets de Vries 2011; Wheatley 2004). From an organisational behavioural perspective, power is defined as “the ability to get someone to do something you want done or the ability to make things happen in the way that you want them to”
(Schermerhorn et al. 2005: 266) The popular management theorist, Mintzberg (1979: 4) takes a behavioural approach when he defines power as “the capacity to affect organisational outcomes”. The behavioural paradigm, therefore, focuses on the power of control over the behaviour of others, stemming from both the authority of position within an organisation and the ability to influence through more personal forms of power. With the focus on quantitative and measurement in research, management studies into human behaviour in organisations are typically informed by this paradigm (Van Tonder 2008; Wheatley 2004).
In the context of an organisation, legitimate claim to power is exercised through the authority bestowed on an individual as part of the organisational structures.
Organisational behavioural theorists (Forsyth 2010; French & Raven 1959; Hinkin &
51
Schriesheim 1989;Schermerhorn et al. 2005; Weber in Gerth & Mills, 2009) claim that for an organisational system to operate effectively it is essential to have clarity in matters of authority, leadership and organisational structure. Authority in an organisational context refers to the right to make ultimate decisions that are binding on others. Formal authority is a quality that is derived from a leader’s role in the system and is exercised on others’ behalf (Morgan 1997; Shriberg et al. 2005). Different organisations may have varying levels of authority, where it comes from and who claims ownership of the organisation. This is in contrast to a systemic view of self- organisation where leadership will emerge within a system regardless of formally imposed structures (Wheatley 1994).
Authority and power are often used interchangeably in an organisational context and lead to confusion. Organisational theorists believe that unlike authority, power is an attribute of persons rather than roles, and it can arise from both internal and external sources (Kets de Vries 2006). Externally, power in an organisational context comes from what the individual controls, such as resources, privileges, promotions, and from the sanctions one can impose on others (Morgan 1997; Robbins 1993). It also derives from one’s social and political connections (Robbins 1993). Internally it comes from individuals’ knowledge and presence, strength of personality; how powerful they feel within their role and how they therefore present themselves to others (Shriberg, Shriberg & Kumari 2005). Rosenbach and Taylor (2006: 120) try to clarify by describing power within organisations as taking three forms, namely “power over”
which represents the traditional view of domination;; “power to” which enhances other people’s power;; and “power from” being able to resist the power of others unwanted demands.
What the behaviourists, such as Mintzberg (1979) fail to highlight is the fact that authority has characteristics which, according to pscycho-dynamic theorists like Schein (1985) and Kets de Vries (2011), may be unconscious and therefore not available to be worked with. These characteristics include the internal psychological process which affects the nature and extent to which those in charge assume authority. According to Morgan (1997) formalised authority only becomes effective when it is legitimised by those from below. Awareness of levels of authority and its limitations is regarded as critical in early management theory (French & Raven 1959; Weber in Gerth et al.
52
2009). However, acting on authority would largely depend on the nature of leaders’
relationships with authority figures which would mainly stem from past and childhood experiences of authority (Gabriel 1999; Kets de Vries 2006). Inner world figures can be critical in the process of self-doubt and the inability to assume power in relations.
Equally they can become sources of omnipotence, making for an inflated picture of the self which can translate into authoritative attitudes and behaviour reflecting an abusive approach to power, such as those discussed in relation to narcissism previously this chapter (section 2.3.1.1) and in corporate bullying later in the chapter (section 2.4.5)
While authority is more specifically related to the rights held by individual to make decisions that affect others, power is broader in its source and application, even within institutions. Many of the early and traditional models of power within organisations reflect the source of power as stemming from knowledge and expertise, financial resources, position and title and relationships (French & Raven 1962; Yukl 1999).
These classical models describe the following forms of power and their effects on others (Shriberg et al. 2005: 118):
Resource power which is held through control or access to resources and rewards is a short-lived form of power as long as those resources are within the individual’s control
Positional power is held through title and status in the organisation and in itself will generate compliance from followers, but not necessarily commitment Coercive power is held through threats and manipulative behaviour and usually results in inspiring resistance
Expert power is held through knowledge and expertise and can be abused in organisation if it is not shared amongst colleagues and team members
Relational power is held through networks of relationships and the people that you know and is built on trust and the length of history of the relationship. An example of this in many of our patriarchal institutions would be what is regarded as the ‘old boy’s network’
Referent power is based on relationship and the way in which power is gained through attracting others to their style and charisma. For example a teacher who dresses in an interesting way, may inspire students to do the same.
53
When coupled with authority, these forms of power are usually overt in the organisation and connect with the formal structures of the organisation. They are similar in nature and the way the accord rank to the elements of social power identified in Mindell’s (1995) model of power as discussed in section 2.3.3 of this chapter. However, in his model, social rank relates to power within society as a whole, rather than being organisation specific. These societal elements of power may also exist at a covert level within the organisation and reflect informal power dynamics which are not linked to the formal structures of authority. In its dynamic representation of power, Mindell’s (1995) model adopts a systemic approach to the phenomenon as it focuses on the relationship between power and society as a whole.
54
this theory to groups, group therapists were interested in looking at power relations in the roles in the group system as a whole, rather than in the individuals themselves.
Social scientist Kurt Lewin (1936) took this further in his work with management. He studied group behaviour, including racial prejudice and religion and authoritarian, democratic and laissez faire leadership styles for practical understanding of dynamics of oppression and freedom. Psychologists in the 1960’s, such as Eric Trist (Trist, Higgin, Murray & Pollock 1963) and Wilfred Bion (in Van Tonder 2008) of the Tavistock clinic, developed a similar interest in group dynamics in its work with families, communities and organisations. The development of these practices emerged into the field which was eventually named Organisational Development in the 1960’s which had in common a focus on facilitating change through the transformation of dynamics within and between groups (Beckhard & Schein 1992; Grieves 2000). The application of process oriented psychology to working with groups and their transformation through what Mindell (1995) termed Process Work is an example of a contemporary organisational development practice.
Another characteristic of systems thinking is the dynamic nature of the system itself and its’ ability to learn and adapt from the feedback it receives (Morgan 1997; Senge 1994;
Stacey 2003; Van Tonder 2008). This idea was developed by Senge (1994) in his conceptualisation of the learning organisation. Senge (1994: 89) proposed that “all systems follow certain common learning organisations principles, the nature of which are being discovered and articulated.” This approach recognises that relations within a system, such as those relating to power, are both in a state of constant flux and continuously being reconstructed. Chaos and complexity theory continued this line of thinking when it entered the realm of systems thinking in the 1970’s (Van Tonder 2008). These theories drew from the natural sciences and the science of chaos that was offered as an alternative to the 19th century Newtonian view of the world (Kauffman 1993; Kelly 1994; Langton 1992; Wheatley 1994). The image of organisations as self- organising, adaptive systems which ‘react’ rather than ‘obey’ altered the commonly held perspective of power in organisations as something static and ordered to something more fluid and unpredictable. Another significant contribution of chaos theory to systems thinking was the notion that an organisational system is organic and that mutual adaptation can occur between the individual and the organisation (Wheatley 2005). In introducing diverse elements into the organisational system, Wheatley
55
explains that unpredictable adaptation will occur within the system itself. This is an important assumption when exploring whether women leaders are influencing the experience of power within an organisation and will be dealt with further in the chapter on diversity (Chapter 5).
As chaos and complexity theory gained prominence in the field of systems thinking, social scientists and researchers began to integrate these concepts into the theories relating to organisations and organisational change within organisations (Beeson &
Davis 2000; Marion & Bacon 2000; Van Tonder 2008) Arising from these theories, the emergent nature of change has been applied to complex organisational systems by many theorists (Cilliers 2010; Stacey 2003). Emergence describes the appearance of system level patterns, properties or phenomena that result from collective interaction of components of the system (Van Tonder 2008). McMillan (2004: 32) describes emergence as “a phenomenon of the process of evolving, of adapting and transforming spontaneously and intuitively to changing circumstances and finding new ways of being”. Within an organisational context emergence includes how the dominant logic of an organisation, such as the ideology, values and identity of the organisation arises without necessarily being able to analyse specific parts of the system (Strümpfer 2007;
Van Tonder 2008). The concept of emergence is a helpful way of understanding how dominant discourses develop and evolve in organisations and society. In understanding women leader’s power discourse in the South African business context, this study is interested in the ‘emerging models of power’ which recognises the evolutionary nature of the process of constructing power as well as the collective process resulting from individuals’ interaction with the organisational system and broader society. This collective process has been studied by several organisational theorists within the framework of understanding the emergent culture of an organisation (Kets de Vries 2006; Van Tonder 2008) which is discussed in the following section.
2.4.3 Organisational Culture and Power
Organisational culture can be defined as what holds the organisation together and encourages employees not only to perform well but also to feel committed to the organisation (Wilderom, Berg & Peter 2004). The mutual relationship between the individual and the system was the focus of the symbolic-interpretive approach to
56
organisational theory which was a significant focus of studies conducted by social psychologist, Schein (1985). Schein’s (1985) theory became an influential model of organisational culture where he identified three levels of culture: on the surface there are artefacts, underneath artefacts lie values and behavioural norms, and at the deepest level lie core beliefs and assumptions. These assumptions and beliefs represent the unquestioned truths that penetrate every aspect of cultural life and colours all forms of experiences. More recently Fey and Denison (2003) confirmed that organisational culture is a multifaceted phenomenon, scoping from deeper layers like beliefs and assumptions to visible layers like structures and practices. McAdams and Pals (2006b:
11) describe culture as “the rich mix of meanings, practices and discourses about human life that prevail in a given group or society.” According to Van Fleet and Griffin (2006:
702), “the organisation’s culture develops over time and becomes a powerful force for shaping the behaviour of those in the organisation”.
While organisational culture evolves from a myriad of sources, leaders are considered the most powerful determinant of organisational culture (Van Fleet & Griffin 2006).
They set the tone of the organisation, define its values and norms and maintain a persona of what the organisation is like. What leaders pay attention to sends powerful messages throughout the organisation and has a major influence on individuals (Lok &
Crawford 2000). However, while an organisational culture is shaped by its leaders, organisational theorists believe that it can also shape the behaviours of the leaders themselves (Brown & Thornborrow 1996; Elsmore 2001; Kets de Vries 2006). In this study the culture of the organisation will have significant influence on the experience and way in which power is exercised by the leadership. Hofstede’s (1993) work on national cultures recognised dimensions of culture that have often been applied to organisations, including power distance which refers to how power is distributed in an organisation. Another dimension he identified was the masculine and feminine, where masculine refers to the value placed on assertiveness and formal power, whereas feminine refers to the value placed on personal relations and concerns for others (DuBrin 1997; Hofstede 1993). Women who operate in ‘masculine’ or patriarchal cultures might consciously or unconsciously assimilate and perpetuate behaviours associated with this type of culture. Where women are actively engaged in trying to transform this type of culture, they may find significant obstacles, including the lack of critical mass of women leaders and the time it takes to change attitudes and behaviours
57
that are rooted not only in organisational norms, but societal norms as well. The unconscious processes of groups in organisations and the emerging culture and power dynamics arising within a system has been the focus of psychodynamic studies within organisations over the past seventy years.