topic 4: power, resistance and decision making
DESCRIPTION
Topic 4: Power, Resistance and Decision Making. Developed by Dr. Ruth Barton & Dr. M argaret Heffernan, OAM RMIT University. Aims of the lecture. Questions of Power. How Does Power Work in Organisations?. Power as the ability to control social interaction. Organisations - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Topic 4: Power, Resistance and Decision Making
Developed by Dr. Ruth Barton
&
Dr. Margaret Heffernan, OAM RMIT University
Aims of the lecture
Questions of power
Hoe power works; 4 faces of power
Resistance and control
Types of resistance
Decision making
Theories of decision making; factors that enhance and limit decision making
RMIT University©2012 2
Questions of Power
POWERWhat is power?Several
dimensions and bases
Who has power? How is
influence achieved?
How is power obtained
in organisations? What
alternative theories and perspectives
are there?
What of resistance?
Another form of power?
RMIT University©2012 3
How Does Power Work in Organisations?
RMIT University©
Organisations are
hierarchical
Power as the
ability to control
social interaction
What is Power?
OB blind towards power
An individual capacity?
Property of the person or collective?
Power as the prerogative of
wise or wealthy men?
Two broad
traditions
RMIT University©2012 (Source: Thompson and McHugh 2009:256) 5
Normative (most rational way of organising power) Realpolitik (how does power actually operate)
Power in Mainstream Theory
Bases of power► Reward► Coercive► Referent► Legitimate► Expert
(French & Raven 1959)
RMIT University©
Trend spotting as Power
information power in the advertising industry
Control over information flow legitimate power
More power to those who can help firms cope with uncertainty in contemporary business
Power : Mainstream Theory
•The Four ‘Faces’ of Power►Coercion ► Manipulation ► Domination► Subjectification
(Fleming and Spicer 2007)
RMIT University©
Economic
Ideological(Runciman 1999)
Coercive
RMIT University©
1st Face of Power: Coercion
Coercion one
individual getting
another to follow
his/her orders
Direct coerciongetting another person to do something that might
not have been done.
2nd Face of Power - Manipulation
3 processes► Anticipation of results► Mobilisation of bias► Rule and norm making
►Of agendas: ‘behind the scenes’ politicking►Exclusion from decision making authority►Power as manipulation: There is no direct exercise of power but an implicit shaping of issues considered important or irrelevant.
RMIT University©
RMIT University©
3rd Face of Power - Domination►Over the preferences and opinions of participants►Power that shapes our preferences, attitudes and political outlook►Used in the design and implementation of paradigmatic frameworks►Forms of life e.g. profit►Ideology►Technical rationality
4th Face of Power - Subjectification
►People are moulded with certain understandings of themselves and the world around them ►The organisation moulds people into a certain type►Use knowledge to produce compliance ►Culture of the customer
RMIT University©
RMIT University©2012 12
“A wide range of behaviour – from failure to work very hard or conscientiously, to not working at all, deliberate output restriction, practical joking, pilferage and sabotage.” (Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999 cited in Fleming and Spicer, 2007)
“Resistance constitutes a form of power exercised by subordinates in the workplace.” (Collinson, 1994 cited in Fleming and Spicer, 2007)
Resistance
Resistance as Refusal► 1st face of power is coercion► Resistance is refusal to do what the person in the position of power tells him / her to do► Aim is to block the effects of power by undermining the domination rather than changing it
RMIT University©
RMIT University©
Resistance as Voice
►2nd face of power operates through non-participation► Resistance is to gain access to power in order to express voice►Internal: interest groups, trade unions►External: social movements►Sabotage
Resistance as Escape
► 3rd face of power is domination► Escape is to mentally disengage from the world of work► Tools are ►Cynicism►scepticism ►dis-identification
RMIT University©
Resistance as Creation
•4th face of power is subjectification• Involves using domination to create something that was not intended by those in authority
•May make use of parody e.g. Union newsletter
RMIT University©
RMIT University©2012 Linstead & Fulop 2009: 669 17
“A decision is often defined as a product of decision making processes. Recent researchers argue that managers often seek to avoid making decisions or obscure them, often to avoid accountability for courses of action that are subsequently seen as misguided.”
Decision making
Traditional decision-making theories and ‘choice’Decision making: a response to a situation requiring
a choice.
• A general agreement about organisational goals and the best means to achieve them.
Unitary approach
• Emphasises conflict & power struggles between individuals & coalitions in organisations in circumstances where participants have substantial knowledge and information.
Pluralist approach
RMIT University©2012 Linstead & Fulop 2009: 671 18
Types of ‘choice’
• Which two products to adopt. StraightforwardClear choice
• Alternatives of improving profitability Competing choice
• Occurs when issues arising require resolution
Choice avoidance
• When information is distorted or suppressed
Choice suppression
RMIT University©2012 Linstead & Fulop 2009: 672 19
Types of decision processes
Sporadic
InformalWill suffer from delays
Information from various sources of expertiseTime delays
Fluid decisionFlow, formally channelled, Speedy & predictable
Information from fewer sources Fewer delays
Constricted decision
Narrowly channelled,
technical information
Decision made by experts
RMIT University©2012 Linstead & Fulop 2009: 671 20
Models of decision Making
• Decisions are made after careful evaluation of alternative courses of actionRational
• Questions whether managers are capable of making fully rational decisions
Administrative / Bureaucratic
• Introduces the idea that decisions are really problems looking for solutionsGarbage-can
Political
RMIT University©2012 Source: Thompson and McHugh 2009,Table 18.1: 273-4 21
Examines the role of powerful decision making groups (‘dominant coalitions’) and why many decisions are really ‘non-decisions’
The rational decision modelRecognition and
definition of aproblem
Search for alternative courses of action
Gathering andanalysing data
Identification and application of choice criteria
Evaluation of alternatives in relation to choice criteria
RMIT University©
Implementation of decision
Assumptions► Problem clarity► Known options► Clear preferences► Constant preferences► Maximum pay-off► No time or cost constraints►Outcome will be rational
(Bratton et al. 2010: 411; Linstead & Fulop 2009:674; Nelson et al. 2012:150 )
Bureaucratic / administrative modelBased on the actual behaviourof decision makers
There are cognitive or mental limits to human rationality
Decision making is governed by bounded rationality
Influence of non-rational elements in humans
Satisfices
RMIT University©
Decision made on ‘best in the circumstances’
AssumptionsManagers:►Select the first satisfactory alternative
Are comfortable making decisions without determining the alternatives
►Make decisions by short cuts or heuristics (managers make decisions on what has worked in the past)
►Satisfice – because of cost of ‘best choice’
(Bratton et al. 2010: 411; Linstead & Fulop 2009:676; Nelson et al. 2012:151 )
Garbage-can decision model
Organised anarchy
Not clear if an issue is a problem, or a solution to a problem
Reaction to circumstances
Total demands on the decision makers at the time
RMIT University©
Implementation of decision
Difficulty► Failure to account for the
political activity of participants who encourage conditions of organised anarchy, or who exploit them for particular advantage.
(Linstead & Fulop 2009:683)
Political decision modelRecognises the role of conflict and conflict resolution in the
decision-making process
Pluralistic in nature
Recognises the role of stakeholders in the organisation
Decision making is about reconciling stakeholders interests
RMIT University©
Implementation of decision
Difficulty► The pluralist approach
does not explain how decisions can be made or avoided in organisations because of the influence or pressure of external groups who may form part of a dominant coalition.
(Linstead & Fulop 2009:685)
‘Z’ Model of Decision Making
Look at the factsand details
Sensing Intuition
What alternativesdo the facts suggest?
What are the facts?Be specific and realistic.List all relevant details.
Be clear.
Let your imagination
run wild.Brainstorm.
Consider various solutions
Can it beanalysed
objectively?
Thinking Feeling
What impact will it have on those
involved?
Consider the # consequences of each
alternative# cause and effect of each
actionIf you were not involved, what
would you suggest?
Is it something you
can live with?How do you feel about the
action?What hunches do you have
about others’ reactions?
RMIT University©
Pfef
fer’s
Fou
r Org
anis
atio
nal D
ecis
ion-
Mak
ing
Mod
els
(Adapted from Table 14.2, p.686 in Linstead et al. 2009)
DIMENSIONRATIONAL
(Unitary)BUREAUCRATIC
(unitary)GARBAGE CAN
(pluralist)POLITICAL POWER
(pluralist)
PREFERENCES & GOALS
Consistent
among participants
Reasonably consistent
Unclear, ambiguous, may be constructed
afterwards to legitimise actions
Inconsistent, diverse or conflicting goals
& preferences
POWER & CONTROL
Focuses on hierarchical
authority
Less centralised ,
still legitimate authority
Very decentralised,
anarchic; power is also recognised
Shifting coalitions
&interest groups who have power but not
necessarily authority
DECISION
PROCESS
Orderly,rational
Procedural rationality
embodied in programmes &standard operating
procedures
Ad hoc
Disorderly, characterised by push & pull of interest
groups
EXPECTED RESULTS & OUTCOMES
Maximisation
&optimisation
Follow from
‘satisficing’ mode
Unclear, ambiguous
Power & stabilisation
of demands
INFORMATION
REQUIREMENTS
Extensive
&systematic information gathering
Reduced by the use of
rules & procedures information
Haphazard collection &
use of information
Information used
&withheld strategically
RATIONALE
Efficiency &effectiveness in
achieving agreed-to performance criteria
Stability, fairness
Playfulness
Conflict & power struggles among relatively equal
opponents
Escalation of Commitment
Limitation that all decision making models share
Unwillingness to abandon a bad
decision, or continuing to support a failing
course of action, even when substantial costs
are incurred
The desire to win is a motivation to continue
to escalate
RMIT University©2012 Source: Nelson et al. 2012:151 28
RMIT University©
Types of decision Traditional decision-making techniques
Modern decision-making techniques
1.Programmed► Routine, repetitive
decisions; organisation develops specific processes for handling them.
► Low uncertainty and low ambiguity
► Habit► Clerical routine: standard
operating procedures, policies, manuals
► Organisation structure – know your place
► Systems of sub-goals► Well-defined information
channels
► Operations research mathematical models, computer simulations
► Electronic data processing
► Management information systems
2. Non-programmed► One-shot, ill-
structured novel policy decisions.
► Handled by general non-routine problem-solving processes.
► High uncertainty and ambiguity.
► Judgment, intuition , creativity
► Rule of thumb (by top management)
Heuristic (problem solving) techniques applied to:► constructing computer
models► brainstorming► counter-planning► simulation
Techniques of decision making
(Linstead & Fulop 2009:Table 14.1: 677)
Influences of Decision Making
Influences
Risk, risk aversion
Personality, attitudes,
values
IntuitionCreativity
Organisation Environment
RMIT University©2012 (Source: nelson et al. 2012: 153) 30
Individuals differ in risk behaviour
Enablers and
barriers to creativity
Ability to make judgment about a
situation based on a ‘hunch’.
4 stages:PreparationIncubationIlluminationVerification
Group Decision makingSynergy = 1 + 1 = 3
Advantages
More knowledge and information
Greater understanding of the
decision
Member involvement
Disadvantages
Pressure to conform
Domination by one forceful member
Time required to make a decision
RMIT University©2012 Nelson et al. 2012: 157 31
Levels of organisational decision-making behaviour
Level of analysis
Theoretical Approaches
Key issues Constraints
OrganisationTheories of organisation power, conflict and decision making
Effects of power and conflict
1.Multiple ongoing tasks2.Historical precedents3.HRM systems4.Time constraints
Group1.Group conformity, group dynamics, group size, and networks
Effects of group dynamics, individual perceptions and behaviours
1. Group norms2. Group think
Individual
1.Information-processing theory2. Cognitive psychology
1.Information overload2.Personal biases
1.Information processing failures2.Perceptual biases3.Intuition and emotion4.Escalation of commitment
RMIT University©
Negative factors arising from group cohesiveness
GroupthinkMoral
judgment and reality testing
are suspended
Often occurs with high risk decisions in high-status groups with dominant leadership
High stress conditions and threats to self-
esteem
RMIT University©2012 Source: Thompson and McHugh 2009:375 33
Symptoms of Groupthink
• Excessive optimism and risk taking
• Group believes it cannot make a bad decision
Illusion of invulnerability
• Conform and reach consensus
• Unpopular ideas may be suppressed
• Members who oppose the group are stereotyped as weak, evil or stupid.
Pressure on
individuals
Group consensus
RMIT University©2012 Wood et al. 2010 : 103 34
Leads to discounting warnings and negative information. An illusion of unanimity emerges Self-censorships of any deviation from group norms.
Belief in the inherent morality of the group
Leads members to be convinced of the logical correctness of what they are dong and ignore the ethical or moral consequences of decisions.
Avoiding Groupthink
Can be avoided with some effort
Interaction with other
groups
Invite consultants and others
to challenge the group
Develop alternative
plans
RMIT University©2012 Source: Thompson and McHugh 2009:375 35
Leaders need to be reflexive to assess their behaviour and stay impartial
Group Polarisation
The tendency for group discussion to produce shifts toward more extreme attitudes among
members.
Can be disastrous
If individuals are leaning towards a
dangerous decision they are likely to support it more
strongly following discussion.
RMIT University©2012 Source: Nelson et al. 2012:160 36
Minimising Bias and Errors in Decision Making
• Generation of free flowing multiple ideas• Computer mediated brainstorming Brainstorming
• Variation of brainstorming , independent contribution
Nominal group technique
• Discussion with two initial members, then additional members added until all group members have joined the discussion
Stepladder technique
Delphi technique
RMIT University©
Structured team decision-making process of pooling the collective knowledge of subject experts
Bratton et al. 2010 :425
RMIT University©
References• Bratton, J, Sawchuck, P, Forshaw, C, Callinan, M, & Corbett, M 2010, Work and Organization
Behaviour, 2nd edn, Palgrave MacMillan, UK. Chapter 15: Decision Making and Ethics, pp.407-432• Clegg, S, Courpasson, D and Phillips, N (2007) Power and Organisations, London: SAGE.• Edwards, P and Wajcman, J (2005) The Politics of Working Life, OUP: Oxford.• Fleming, P and Spicer, A (2007) Contesting the Corporation: Struggle, Power and Resistance in
Organisations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Haslam, SA, 2004, Psychology in organisations: the social identity approach, 2nd edn, Sage
London. Chapter 6: Group decision making, pp.99-119• Knights, D (2009) ‘Power at Work in Organisations’, in Alvesson, M, Bridgman, T and Willmott, H
(eds) The Oxford handbook of Critical Management Studies, Oxford: OUP.• Linstead S, Fulop, L, Lilley, S 2009, Management and Organization: A critical text, 2nd edn,
Palgrave MacMillan, London. Chapter 14: Decision making in organisations, pp. 667-708• Nelson, DL, Quick, JC, Wright, S,& Adams, C 2012, OrgB Asia-Pacific Edition, Cengage, Sydney.
Chapter 10: Decision making by individuals and groups, pp. 148-164• Thompson, P, & McHugh, D, 2009 Work Organisations: A critical approach, Palgrave Macmillan,
London. Chapter 24: From groups to teams, pp. 369-387