Classical administrative theory portrays organisations as
logical, functional, bland, impersonal, passionless entities that operate according to neutral rules of efficiency and economy.
But organisations are social constructions characterised by ownership, membership, control and language. Social power is manifested through the exertion and ability of members and other stakeholders as they generate and maintain their position and relationships. These matters are human and illustrate
One definition of social power is that offered by Dahl: "the ability to get another person to do something that he or she would not otherwise have done."
The weakness in the social construction/language argument relating to power is that
it neglects pure, real, coercive force. The fist 
speaks louder than words. The person who does not speak but who acts - using the gun, the sword, the fist - to force others into submission - has power. This is the first source of power. In the modern business word - coercion - albeit mediated by social mores and the law - is nevertheless still evident. The employee may be dismissed, the union may strike.
Positioning and influencing (politics) are structurally and processually inherent in organisations. Authoritarianism, self-interest, pluralism and coalitions prevail. Through consultation and manoeuvering (politicking), individuals and groups balance their views and preferences. Organisational life is predominantly governmental and political. Participants agree and disagree about purposes, goals and methods. It was the ancient Greeks however who first drew to our attention how political processes may order, stablise and mediate absolutist, coercive and volatile tendencies in government. Machiavelli - similarly offered insights and recommendations about the behaviour of princes in comparison to ordinary citizens.
Metaphors such as "we are all in the same boat together" decorate the scripts of business; HRM, TQM and the "be excellent" school. We talk of
Our use of metaphor in the way we speak indicates imperatives, rights, positions, expectations, manoeuvring and inclusion/exclusion processes. This echoes along organisational and political corridors. The cliche "our most valuable asset is our people" is commonly heard. Indeed humanistic ideals about organisational culture, leadership styles, team building, motivation and performance feature widely in modern business-speak.
Such speech is not neutral, it carries political connotations. It tends to impart necessity, urgency and acceptability to actions and it flavours the scripts of the powerful who
Organisational behaviour textbooks generally under-play the first two of these points and the drama of politicking. This is why a power perspective, how people in organisations engage in politics, will better our understanding of organisational life and reduce our human relations nievity. We should not gloss over the contradictions of owner/manager dominance. Nor should we label "politicking" as abnormal or dysfunctional behaviour - it could not be more normal.
Different power sources may be more or less highly regarded in history and according to the predispositions of the observer. The expectations, values and language of Year 2000 incorporates words and phrases that focus attention on matters we regard as important today. If we lived in 1800, our expectations, values and language may result in different interpretations about what we regard as good, immoral, true. We will see principles, needs, trends, opportunities and threats differently.
The person who speaks fluently is empowered and may also empower others to create, direct and dominate organisational relationships. A study of language and iconic words and phrases of the time may better explain managerial behaviour than shallow propositions about team leadership and management styles.
Other sources of power
In his book "Images of Organisations" Gareth Morgan
presents a thorough analysis of metaphors, devices and power-plays. It broadens
and deepens our understanding of power in organisations. The book is
essential reading for any student of organisational behaviour and is
highly recommended for purchase.
Morgan's framework of analysis almost offers itself as a DIY guide - a curriculum - for a management training course entitled "Teach Yourself to Become a Power-Player". He clearly does not intend this - however - trainee power-players have much to learn from the substance and themes illustrated by the metaphors. Morgan's sources of power may be listed as follows:
| Resource-based | Bureaucracy-based |
| Decision Control | Know-How |
| The Contingent Hero | Managing Boundaries |
| Technological Dependence | Alliances and Networks |
| Countervailers | Symbolism |
| Gender | Groupthink |
If organisations have a natural propensity for conflict, why do so many organisational studies treat contention over competing interests, personality clashes or rivalries as dysfunctional/abnormal? Competition is a major driver of business and interpersonal competitiveness is a major source of creative energy and power seeking.
Competitiveness over job roles, residual grudges, stereotyping and disappointments over "just deserts" are all possible sources of overt or covert conflict.
An organisation's structure itself pits competition against co-operation. Collaborative performances are needed yet departments vie with each other for attention and resources. An organisation chart maps co-operative relationships yet junior jobs of limited discretion are accountable to senior controllers.
Win-lose struggles are common. An employee does not have to be Machiavellian to be sucked into manoeuvring as an initiator or recipient. Everyday examples are legion. The history of industrial relations in the UK demonstrates the ample scope for conflict between employer and employee.
Free marketeers would argue - "keep government out of business". Allow the invisible hand of market transactions to play its productive and beneficial course. As Friedman argued - "the business of business is business. "
Ownership legalities in the UK operate to exclude employees from having seats - as of right - on executive boards. They do not own the business. In the same breath however, why should businesses (UK or foreign owned) or trade unions or the gun lobby be able to use their funds and influence to sway the decision-making of nationally, democratically elected governments?
Power players draw on many bases. In analysing these and differentiating sources, consider how participants construe the situation. Dramas are driven by imperatives and logic of the times.
To properly understand situational influences, we must account for time. The influence of language and scripts perhaps better explains managerial power than the shallow protestations of HRM. Rather than just focus on "team-isms", those interested in manager development (and the claim rights of the managerial class) might benefit more from developing skills of navigation across a range of power bases as they walk the corridors of power.
Visitors since 1 April 2000