Title: Power in Organizations - Power of Organizations
Abstract: Editorial Power is widely recognized as one of the central concepts - if not the central concept (Clegg/Haugaard 2009) - of social analysis in general and organizational analysis in particular. It has a long history and has been widely used over centuries in various contexts. However, the use of power as a theoretical construct or conceptual tool varies significandy regarding the level of analysis, the research aims (descriptive, explanatory, critical or normative) as well as the implicit or explicit social theoretical assumptions (on actors, societal structures and the relationships between them). Analyses comparing and discussing these assumptions and the usefulness of power theories and concepts can be found in the social theory literature but are also of continuing interest in organization studies. This special issue seeks to contribute to this ongoing debate by bringing together contributions from a wide range of perspectives, theories and methodological approaches that either apply empirically and critically evaluate selected concepts or theories of power to problems of organizing and organizations or critically reflect upon theories of power in organization studies. Concepts of Power At first glance concepts of power have been widely used in organization and management studies in the past decades. Approaches in organization studies that explicitly refer to power as a relevant concept of analysis comprise, for example, contingency theory, resource dependence theory, strategic analysis and micropolitics, new institutionalism, labour process theory, post-structuralist critical management theories, postcolonialism, gender studies, organizational discourse, and corporate governance studies. But a closer look shows that this is not only a comparatively small stream within organization and management studies but moreover in the broader field of social sciences and economics. The study of power is part of a social field (Bourdieu 1984), that means a field of power. The interests of the actors involved (scientists, but also managers and politicians), their resources, their practices and, last but not least, their theoretical concepts and methods produce and reproduce this social field. In this contested terrain several academic disciplines compete and struggle for distinction and capital. This implies that also the concept of power itself is a contested one - and will remain so. How has the construct of power been conceptionalized, how has it been used or ignored? Especially in economics power is a negative buzzword. It is seen as a superfluous construct. Proponents of transaction cost theory, particularly Oliver E. Williamson (for instance 1995), have been arguing for a number of years against the claim that power or differences in power must be included systematically as explanatory factors. According to transaction cost theory institutional arrangements like the employment relationship and its different forms can be explained solely by the efficiency mechanism and cost minimizing calculations of decision makers. In other streams of the social and management sciences power is taken into consideration as an explanatory and/or explaining variable, but in a narrow and narrowing version. For instance, in the study of organizational behaviour, in the analysis of leadership in particular, the construct of power is well established. But very often we find here a perspective ignoring, first, power as dominance and coercion and, second, the embeddedness of power in a broader organizational and societal context. Power appears as a functional medium, which is fluid, changing over time, changeable and moving from one person to the other. Domination - coagulated power - and destructive effects of coercion and exploitation are conveniently overlooked. Furthermore, the role of organizational structures or ideologies making leadership more or less effective and more or less acceptable both in economic and in ethical terms, is largely ignored or downplayed. …
Publication Year: 2009
Publication Date: 2009-10-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 7
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot