Week 7 Student Led Readings Flashcards
Author: Burt
Year: 2000
Focus is on the relationship between social networks and social capital.
Network Mechanisms Over Metaphors: Research on social capital will be more productive if it focuses on specific network mechanisms rather than relying on loosely connected metaphors of social capital.
Brokerage vs. Closure: Empirical evidence suggests that social capital is more often derived from brokerage across structural holes (gaps between different social groups) than from network closure (the density of connections within a group). However, certain conditions can influence the effectiveness of both approaches.
Combining Mechanisms: A more general model of social capital can integrate both brokerage and closure. While structural holes are a source of value, network closure is crucial for realizing that value.
Author: Casciaro & Piskorski
Year: 2005
The authors revisit and reformulate resource dependence theory to address its ambiguities and strengthen its empirical applicability
Ambiguities in Resource Dependence Theory: The authors identify ambiguities in the classic resource dependence theory that have limited its application in empirical research. They propose a reformulation that distinguishes two core dimensions of resource dependence: power imbalance (the difference in power between two organizations) and mutual dependence (the degree to which both parties rely on each other).
Power Imbalance and Mutual Dependence: The study argues that these two dimensions have opposite effects on organizations’ strategies to manage dependencies. Power imbalance often acts as a barrier to actions like mergers and acquisitions, while mutual dependence encourages them.
Empirical Analysis: Using data on interindustry mergers and acquisitions among U.S. public companies from 1985 to 2000, the study finds that mutual dependence drives mergers and acquisitions, while power imbalance impedes these actions.
Constraint Absorption: The authors elaborate on the concept of constraint absorption, where organizations try to control or stabilize their resource dependencies through actions like mergers. They find that while mutual dependence facilitates these operations, power imbalance creates challenges.
Implications for Resource Dependence Theory: The study contributes to resource dependence theory by highlighting the importance of considering both power imbalance and mutual dependence simultaneously. It offers a more nuanced understanding of how these factors influence organizational strategies in managing resource dependencies.
Author: Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee
Year: 2003
The article examines the relationship between power and action
Hypothesis: The study hypothesizes that power increases an action orientation in the power holder, even in contexts where power is not directly experienced.
Experiments: Three experiments were conducted:
Experiment 1: Participants with structural power in a group were more likely to take action in a simulated blackjack game than those without power.
Experiment 2: Participants primed with high power were more likely to act against an annoying stimulus (a fan), indicating that power leads to goal-directed behavior.
Experiment 3: Power priming led to action in a social dilemma, regardless of whether the action was prosocial or antisocial.
Power and Action: The study concludes that power leads to a general tendency to take action, independent of the specific social consequences of those actions. Power can both motivate self-interested behavior and encourage prosocial outcomes.
Cognitive Impact: Power is shown to be not just a structural aspect of social situations but also a cognitive state that can be activated by environmental stimuli, leading to an increased likelihood of taking action.
The findings suggest that power inherently drives individuals towards action, shaping their behavior towards achieving goals, whether in social or individual contexts.
Author: Molm
Year: 1989
The article explores the role of punishment power in social exchange networks and its effect on balancing power in imbalanced relationships.
Punishment as a Power Strategy: The study examines how punishment power, in contrast to reward power, can be used by disadvantaged actors in power-imbalanced relations to influence and balance those relations. Punishment power allows weaker actors to exert control even when they lack reward power.
Use of Punishment: Punishment is more likely to be used by actors with less reward power when they have a relative advantage in punishment power. However, the use of punishment is constrained when the actor is highly dependent on the rewards provided by the other party.
Effectiveness of Punishment: The effectiveness of punishment power depends on the conditions of the relationship. It is most effective when punishment power is weak relative to the overall level of power, and the relation is highly dependent on rewards. This creates a balancing effect that can reduce the dominance of the more powerful actor.
Power Dynamics and Reciprocity: Punishment power tends to lead to reciprocal actions, where one actor’s punishment is often met with a counter-punishment. However, the research suggests that mild punishment is more effective in eliciting the desired behavior change without causing retaliation.
Implications for Power-Dependence Theory: The study expands the power-dependence theory by integrating punishment as a viable strategy for weaker actors. It challenges previous assumptions that punishment is inherently less effective or desirable in social exchanges.
Overall, Molm’s work highlights the complex dynamics of power in social relations, emphasizing that punishment can be a strategic tool for balancing power, especially when used under specific conditions.
Author: Pfeffer
Year 1981
The analysis of organizational decision-making often overlooks the significance of power and politics, which are crucial for understanding how organizations operate. Major textbooks tend to emphasize rational models and efficiency while downplaying the role of political dynamics, leading to a limited perspective on organizational behavior.
The author highlights Allison’s (1971) analysis of the Cuban missile crisis, advocating for the use of multiple analytical frameworks to gain a comprehensive understanding of organizations. However, the author notes that differing predictions and recommendations may arise from these frameworks, necessitating a decision on which perspective to prioritize. (argues that each model may hold partial truths in specific situations, and insights can be gained by applying all frameworks rather than selecting one. However, as different models begin to yield conflicting predictions and recommendations, decision-makers must determine which perspective to follow. This complexity is further compounded by the fact that power dynamics within organizations are often context-specific and influenced by social norms and practices).
Power is frequently viewed through an individualistic lens, focusing on personal political strategies rather than structural variables. This individual-oriented approach can provide comforting explanations for managers facing career challenges but may obscure the need for more fundamental changes within the organization.
For the general public, the emphasis on rationality and efficiency in management literature can create an illusion that power and wealth within organizations are being used effectively and legitimately. This perspective aligns with the ideology of functional rationality, which legitimizes formal organizations and bureaucracies as efficient entities. However, the reality is that organizational politics involves navigating conflicts over resources and differing preferences, highlighting the importance of understanding power dynamics in decision-making processes.
Author: Emerson
Year: 1962
Emerson presents a theory of power dynamics within social relations, emphasizing the idea that power is not an inherent trait of individuals but rather a property of the social interactions and relationships they engage in.
Power-Dependence Concept: Power in a relationship is based on the dependence of one actor on another. The more dependent one party is on the other for achieving their goals or obtaining rewards, the more power the other party holds over them.
Reciprocity in Power: Power dynamics are inherently reciprocal. If actor A has power over actor B, it is because B depends on A for something important. This dependence creates a situation where each party has the potential to influence the other.
Balancing Operations: Emerson identifies four generic ways in which imbalances in power-dependence relations can be managed:
Reducing dependence by seeking alternative sources of gratification.
Increasing the motivational investment of the more powerful actor in the relationship.
Strengthening one’s position through coalition-building or network formation.
Reducing the costs associated with dependency by changing values or expectations.
Coalition Formation and Group Dynamics: The theory suggests that coalitions and groups form as a means of balancing power. Through coalition-building, weaker actors can combine their resources and exert more significant influence over stronger actors, thereby creating a more balanced power dynamic.
Legitimacy and Authority: Power becomes legitimized when it is recognized and accepted within a social structure. This process of legitimization transforms power into authority, which is exercised within the norms and role prescriptions of the group.
Emerson’s framework is fundamental in understanding how social structures and networks shape power relations, focusing on the dynamics of dependence, influence, and the strategies actors use to balance power within their interactions.
Author: Long
Year: 1949
Long discusses the critical role of power in public administration, emphasizing that the effectiveness of an agency or program is often hindered by a lack of political power, despite having legal authority and budgetary support. He argues that power is a fundamental resource that administrators must understand and manage, as it influences their ability to act and achieve objectives.
Long critiques the traditional view that power flows solely from the top of the administrative hierarchy, asserting that subordinates often derive their power from various external political forces and interest groups. This decentralized nature of power complicates the relationship between different levels of administration and the political environment, making it essential for administrators to cultivate their own sources of support.
The article highlights the inadequacies of the American political system, which lacks a cohesive party structure that can provide a clear mandate for leadership and policy direction. Long notes that agencies must often engage in public relations and mobilize group support to secure the political backing necessary for their initiatives, as the existing party system fails to create a unified political consensus3.
Long also discusses the challenges of coordinating government activities, which require not only managing bureaucratic interests but also engaging with the broader societal context. He argues that effective administration cannot be achieved in isolation from the political realities and power dynamics that shape it.
Ultimately, Long calls for a realistic understanding of administrative behavior that acknowledges the complexities of the political landscape. He suggests that the development of a responsible two-party system is crucial for creating a stable foundation for effective public administration, as current attempts to centralize power without addressing the underlying political structure are likely to fail
