INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL

SOCIOLOGY
!

BSc. Business Administration and Sociology !

Copenhagen Business School

Jannick Friis Christensen!

Valeria Esteban Caballos Diaz !

CPR: 010994-3460!

STU: 11.375!

48 hours exam

17-03-2017

Question:

What is power in organisations? How is power related to other perspectives presented in the course,
such as culture, structure, motivation, gender/diversity, and psychoanalysis? Pick one of these
aspects (or any other from the curriculum) and explain in more detail how it is linked to power in
organisations.
!
TABLE&OF&CONTENT&&
INTRODUCTION!.................................................................................................................................!1!

WHAT IS POWER?!..............................................................................................................................!1!

STRUCTURE & POWER!......................................................................................................................!2!

CONCLUSION!.....................................................................................................................................!5!

BIBLIOGRAPHY!.................................................................................................................................!6!

Introduction
!
The aim of this paper is to defined power; explain it in relation to different aspects of the
organization and specifically in relation to structure. The elements of structure are subjected to
contingency factors, thus when explaining power in relation to structure different views on the
organization arise, ranging from a rational-close to an open-natural system when these factors
interrelate with structure.
!

What is power?

The classical approach towards power and organization conceives the former as a functional
resource and the latter as a rational entity created to achieve specific ends. In contrast to it a
contemporary approach acknowledges the relational nature of power, which lies between
individuals, actors and organizations rather than being held by a given member (Fleming & Spicer,
p.239), thus power is relational and therefore omnipresent. Since power is relational it can be
exerted differently and can be classified into either an episodic type – this being coercion or
manipulation, where power can be attributed to identifiable actions aiming at shaping the behaviour
of others – or a systemic one – where domination and subjectification operate through the
mobilization of resources such as ideology or discourse to enact power and for that given reason are
not perceived by the members subjected to them. Placing power in context, one can observe it is
interlinked with several aspects affecting the organization such as motivation, culture and structure.
Addressing motivation from a managerial perspective, the systemic forms of power appear as useful
tools to induce it. As stressed in theory Y where the role of management is to arrange and create
optimal conditions for workers to achieve their own goals while directing their effort towards the

! 1!
organizational goals (McGregor, p.112), motivation is induced through domination, since the
creation of these conditions would appear natural and unchangeable to the workers (Fleming &
Spicer, p. 244) aid by subjectification, which maintains a state of mind where both personal and
organizational goals are realizable. In this instance power is productive whereas in the case of
Theory X power appears as oppressive. According to theory X, the worker is in need of constant
supervision; his/her nature is that of utilitarian aims, thus economic incentives and strict supervision
are the tools management uses to motivate the worker (McGregor, p.109). The resistance towards
power under theory X is due to the fact that members being conscious of the use of episodic powers
(over them) can have negative effect on loyalty and job satisfaction (Fleming & Spicer, p. 261), it is
therefore that systemic power are here deemed as productive forces. This similarity is shared by the
culture. The claim here is that, from a managerial perspective, domination is used to forge the
culture whereas to maintain it the use of subjectification is essential. From this claim the relational
nature of power is observed, here domination becomes the basis of the culture, since the people
subjected to it is not aware of the basic shared assumption that forge it is the first place (Schein,
p.22), while subjectification plays out as the other dimension of this domination, becoming a daily
tool that is even used among peers, shaping their sense of self, belonging and identity to keep the
culture alive. Domination is therefore a subtle mechanism of control that relies on subjectification
to reinforce the idea that the organization does not rely on classic forces of power (episodic) to
control members, that as previous mentioned, alienates them from organizational goals when
operating. The “informal” character of systemic powers can therefore replace the formal authority
that stems from formal structures (Kunda, p. 355), leading to the last aspect of the organization in
relation to power, namely structure.

Structure & Power

The view of the organization in relation to structure is that of a rational system where the
organization is an instrument that can be manipulated and moulded to accomplished given ends, as
defined by Gouldner (Scott, p. 3). Since the elements of the structure are consciously picked by the
organization the claim is in harmony with the definition. Nonetheless, when forces of external
power constrain the organization, the rationality of choosing a structure can easily vanish. Thus, the
structure can be examined from a close-rational perspective when defining its structure, sequentially
an open-rational system when adapting structure to environment and finally as an open- natural
system when external forces of power enable structures that are not necessarily productive.

! 2!
When an organization designs a structure the main goal is to achieve consistency with its own
situational factors, those being size and age, the technology available and the environment it
navigates (Mintzberg, p. 3). Due to division of labour and the need for coordination of tasks arising
from it, the organization (in theory) follows different stages. The simplest one is mutual adjustment,
which relies on informal communication. Large amounts of informal communication through
mutual adjustment suggest that the organization has a sociogram structure, where unofficial centers
of power exist (Mintzberg, p.21). The specific types of power can vary but since it is based on
mutual adjustment, direct “consensus” is needed, which implies that the forces playing here are
either coercion- of one peer over another - or manipulation- of the action and topics the
organization is allowed to act and touch upon. With increase division of labour direct supervision
appear as the optimal mechanism - this one builds on the idea of one brain operating in behalf of the
rest. When the organization achieves considerable size, it must rely on standardization mechanisms,
those being standardization of work processes, output, skills and norms. In standardization of work
processes the goal is to program beforehand the content of the work, whereas that of output focus
on specify the result of a given task but not the means to achieve it. The last two standardization
mechanisms, skills and norms, rely on autonomous behaviour and performance that has been
internalized beforehand reinforce with further internalization of norms present in the organization.
The aim of the standardization mechanisms is not to rely on direct supervision when the content of
the work increases in complexity, although a regression towards mutual adjustment takes place
when the task is of high complexity (Mintzberg, pp. 4-7). Direct supervision, standardization of
work processes and output are mainly present in organizations with formal lines of authority, for
these mechanisms coercion and manipulation are the main types of power available, whereas
standardization of skills and norms are easily subjected to the use of domination or subjectification
since the workers is already institutionalized and operate better when institutionalized. Thus the
worker can be re-shaped or not depending on if it fits under the lines of the organization. It is worth
noticing that the mechanisms are interchangeable and operate simultaneously, although it is likely
that one mechanism is dominant they co-exist daily in organizations.

Here follows an account of power in relation to basic elements of the organization. There are five
elements to an organization of considerable size and age. These elements are the operating core,
strategic apex, middle line, technostructure and support staff. The three first elements together
create a formal line of authority (Mintzberg, p.10). The claim here is that both episodic and

! 3!
systemic powers are concentrated in the strategic apex and the technostructure, the latter being
outside the formal line is given more autonomy with the main task of improving efficiency through
standardization (Mintzberg, p.15). Being the focal area of the analyst procuring the organization’s
structure and design an advantageous position for using power appears. Although in this approach,
the operating core seems powerless it is not, as a matter of fact, they probably develop informal
lines of authorities within the formals one (as previous shown with the sociogram structure). These
informal structures are powerful and can represent a threat to the strategic apex and middle line
range managers if they develop within lines that go against the organizational goals.

The last part of this essay aims at accounting for external constrains beyond the organization’s
control that compels them to adopt a different structure. First of all, hostility as a dominant factor in
the environment- mainly from competition and outside groups such as unions and government-
demands of the organization a quick response; and according to the following “the environment
drives organizations to centralize their structure temporarily”, power is concentrated in the hands
of the leader, whom uses direct supervision to response optimally, sorting the hostility coming from
the environment much better than if the former structure had prevailed (Mintzberg, p. 141) .
Although momentary, episodic powers are abruptly present which is not an unproductive force in
such instance; on the contrary it would be determinant for the survival of the organization. When
external forces of power act upon the organization it results in a centralized and formalized
structure, either due to external control of a normative and coercive character– e.g. government
regulation- or the power needs of members -to retain it permanently in order to obtain more control
over their own work- that is characteristic of hierarchical formal structures, is prompt to create
sources of coercive power. Last but not least is fashion over structure. This relies upon the power of
the norms from the broader culture to introduce new structures in an industry that might be
appropriate for some organizations but not others. Claiming hereby that fashions is exerting power
over organizations primarily through the systemic form of power of domination, owing to the fact
that these trends in structure become naturally adopted by the population of organizations under its
influence, in the same way the ideology of the organizational culture appear natural to the members.
This process takes place without a rational justification to do so, and in some instances lacking real
efficiency factors to justify the given structure. (Mintzberg, pp. 147-149).

! 4!
Conclusion
!
Power is relational in nature and omnipresent in organizations. It has been stressed through several
aspects of the organization although focusing on structure. The structure is designed to achieve
consistency with the organization’s situational factors where power can stem from coordination
mechanisms of tasks, the contingency of the environment- forcing the organization to adapt a
structure- and external power upon the organization, compelling the adoption of even unproductive
structures that are mainly centralized due to external control, members desire for power and fashion
in structure among populations of organizations. Power is therefore dual in two aspects; one is its
relational nature, and the other is the productive or unproductive outcome when exercised.

! 5!
Bibliography&
!

Fleming, P. & A. Spicer (2014): Power in Management and Organization Science. The Academy of
Management Annals, 8 (1): 237-298.

Homans, G. (1941): The Hawthorne Experiments. In Handel, Michael J. The Sociology of

Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 85-96.

Kunda, G. (1992/2001): Engineering Culture. . In Handel, Michael J., The Sociology of

Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 351-369.

McGregor, D. (1966): The Human Side of Enterprise. Reflections, 2 (1): 6-15.

Mintzberg, H. (1983/1993). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Upper Saddle

River: Pearson Education, pp. 1-24, and 121- 151.

Schein, E. H. (2004): Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd edition. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, chapter 1 and 2.

Scott, Richard W. (2004): Reflections on a Half-Century of Organizational Sociology. Annual

Review of Sociology, 20; 1 -21.

!
!!!!!!
!

! 6!