Organisational Theory Report

110588

power_resistance_and_decision_making.pptx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Marketing homework help >Organisational Theory Report

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

Questions of Power

POWER

What 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?

How Does Power Work in Organisations?

RMIT University©

Organisations

are hierarchical

Power

as the

ability

to control

social interaction

What is Power?

(Source: Thompson and McHugh 2009:256)

Normative (most rational way of organising power) Realpolitik (how does power actually operate)

Property of the person or collective?

An individual capacity?

Two broad traditions

Power as the prerogative of wise or wealthy men?

OB blind towards power

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 coercion

getting 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©

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©

“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©

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©

Linstead & Fulop 2009: 669

“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.

Linstead & Fulop 2009: 671

Unitary approach

A general agreement about organisational goals and the best means to achieve them.

Pluralist approach

Emphasises conflict & power struggles between individuals & coalitions in organisations in circumstances where participants have substantial knowledge and information.

Types of ‘choice’

Linstead & Fulop 2009: 672

Clear choice

Which two products to adopt. Straightforward

Choice avoidance

Competing choice

Choice suppression

Alternatives of improving profitability

When information is distorted or suppressed

Occurs when issues arising require resolution

Types of decision processes

Linstead & Fulop 2009: 671

Sporadic

Informal

Will suffer from delays

Information from various sources of expertise

Time delays

Fluid decision

Flow, formally channelled, Speedy & predictable

Information from fewer sources

Fewer delays

Constricted decision

Narrowly channelled, technical information

Decision made by experts

Models of decision Making

Source: Thompson and McHugh 2009,Table 18.1: 273-4

Examines the role of powerful decision making groups (‘dominant coalitions’) and why many decisions are really ‘non-decisions’

Rational

Decisions are made after careful evaluation of alternative courses of action

Administrative / Bureaucratic

Questions whether managers are capable of making fully rational decisions

Garbage-can

Introduces the idea that decisions are really problems looking for solutions

Political

The rational decision model

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 )

Recognition and

definition of a

problem

Search for alternative courses of action

Gathering and

analysing data

Identification and application of choice criteria

Evaluation of alternatives in relation

to choice criteria

Bureaucratic / administrative model

RMIT University©

Decision made on ‘best in

the circumstances’

Assumptions

Managers:

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 )

Based on the actual behaviour

of 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

Garbage-can decision model

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)

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

Political decision model

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)

Recognises 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

‘Z’ Model of Decision Making

Look at the facts and details	Sensing Intuition	What alternatives do 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 be analysed objectively?	Thinking Feeling	What impact will it have on those involved?
Consider the # consequences of each alternative # cause and effect of each action If 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©

Pfeffer’s Four Organisational Decision-Making Models

(Adapted from Table 14.2, p.686 in Linstead et al. 2009)

DIMENSION	RATIONAL (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

Source: Nelson et al. 2012:151

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

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

(Source: nelson et al. 2012: 153)

Individuals differ in risk behaviour

Enablers

and

barriers to creativity

Ability to make judgment about a situation based on a ‘hunch’.

4 stages:

Preparation

Incubation

Illumination

Verification

Influences

Intuition

Personality, attitudes, values

Organisation Environment

Creativity

Risk, risk aversion

Group Decision making Synergy = 1 + 1 = 3

Nelson et al. 2012: 157

Advantages

More knowledge and information

Disadvantages

Pressure to conform

Domination by one forceful member

Greater understanding of the decision

Member involvement

Time required to make a decision

Levels of organisational decision-making behaviour

Level of analysis	Theoretical Approaches	Key issues	Constraints
Organisation	Theories of organisation power, conflict and decision making	Effects of power and conflict	1.Multiple ongoing tasks 2.Historical precedents 3.HRM systems 4.Time constraints
Group	1.Group conformity, group dynamics, group size, and networks	Effects of group dynamics, individual perceptions and behaviours	1. Group norms 2. Group think
Individual	1.Information-processing theory 2. Cognitive psychology	1.Information overload 2.Personal biases	1.Information processing failures 2.Perceptual biases 3.Intuition and emotion 4.Escalation of commitment

Negative factors arising from group cohesiveness

Source: Thompson and McHugh 2009:375

Groupthink

Moral 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

Symptoms of Groupthink

Wood et al. 2010 : 103

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.

Illusion of invulnerability

Excessive optimism and risk taking

Pressure on individuals

Conform and reach consensus

Group consensus

Group believes it cannot make a bad decision

Unpopular ideas may be suppressed

Members who oppose the group are stereotyped as weak, evil or stupid.

Avoiding Groupthink

Source: Thompson and McHugh 2009:375

Leaders need to be reflexive to assess their behaviour and stay impartial

Can be avoided with some effort

Interaction with other groups

Invite consultants and others to challenge the group

Develop alternative plans

Group Polarisation

Source: Nelson et al. 2012:160

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.

Minimising Bias and Errors in Decision Making

Structured team decision-making process of pooling the collective knowledge of subject experts

Bratton et al. 2010 :425

Brainstorming

Generation of free flowing multiple ideas

Nominal group technique

Variation of brainstorming , independent contribution

Stepladder technique

Discussion with two initial members, then additional members added until all group members have joined the discussion

Computer mediated brainstorming

Delphi technique

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

Organisati​onal Theory Report

Organisational Theory Report