Power

Conceptual Overview

The definition above reflects what is recognized as the first dimensional view of power. The key assumptions that underpin this approach are power is linked to the control of tangible resources, these resources can be manipulated at will, individuals are aware of their [Page 1289]interests in a given context, individuals act on their interests by participating in decision-making processes, nonparticipation in decision processes indicates that individuals are satisfied with the existing state of affairs, and if individuals need to exercise power to realize their interest, then conflict must exist; otherwise there would be no need to exercise power. In organization studies, the best-known theory of power to adopt such a view is French and Raven's 1968 Bases of Power, which demonstrates how people in positions that give them control of resources such as information, expertise, funds, rewards, and authority have the power to influence the outcome of decisionmaking scenarios.

Bachrach and Baratz argued that there was a second dimension of power. They illustrated how issues could be excluded from decision-making scenarios, and that decision agendas could be controlled from behind the scenes to cause decisions not to be made as they might have otherwise been. They used the term non–decision making to describe this dimension of power. The most well-known contribution in the field of organization studies that adopts such an approach to power is Jeffrey Pfeffer's 1981 book, which reflects a convergence of the first and second dimensions of power by offering a detailed account of how individuals exercise power in and around decision-making scenarios to realize intended outcomes. Pfeffer's work on power, while remaining premised on conflict, decision, and non–decision-making scenarios, illustrates that the nature of power mobilized during decision processes may be less visible than power that is mobilized through the control of resources.

In 1974, Lukes argued in his book Power: A Radical View that there was a third dimension of power. Lukes argued that by assuming conflict to be a necessary prerequisite for power, both the first and second dimensional frames overlook the possibility that power might be used to prevent conflict. Power could be used to shape peoples' perceptions, cognitions, and preferences; thus shaped, they accept their role in the existing order of things, either seeing or imagining no alternative to it, or viewing it as natural or unchangeable, or valuing it as divinely ordained and beneficial. What Lukes means is that people often remain politically inactive because they are not aware that it is in their best interest to be otherwise; they are unaware that power unobtrusively produces a consensus and order, replacing visible controls with hidden sociocultural forms of domination. Such perspectives draw on Marx's idea of false consciousness and Gramsci's concept of ideological hegemony. Lukes's approach to power is considered radical because it demonstrated that the study of power could no longer be necessarily confined to situations in which conflict exists, nor could it be confined to decision or non-decisionmaking scenarios. The early work of Andrew Pettigrew is recognized as making the most significant contribution to organization studies by way of the third dimensional frame of power.

...