Organizational Behavior

61: Power & Influence in Organizations — Dan Brass

February 11, 2020 Pedro Monteiro

With Special Guest Sarah Otner

Dan Brass

What is power and influence? Although power appears as a multilevel concept, the early organizational literature tended to view it as wielded by people–measured as skills, traits, or competencies. This would change in the 1980s, in large part to a classic empirical study providing evidence that one’s position within an organizational structure was more likely to translate into one’s source of power. Dan Brass’ article, “Being in the Right Place: A Structural Analysis of Individual Influence in an Organization” from Administrative Science Quarterly is the subject of this episode.

Brass studied the relative positions of 140 non-supervisory members of a newspaper publishing company. His mixed-methods approach included a number of variables such as criticality, transaction alternatives, and centrality (access and control) in the social networks of the organization. The results showed that connections in workflow, communication, and friendship networks resulted in greater perceptions of influence by others. Such individuals were also more likely to be promoted within the organization. Workers in some specialized or boundary-spanning positions were well-postured to gain influence by maintaining broader social networks than one’s duties would normally require.

The impact of the article is still significant today, as the structural perspective on individual influence is now generally accepted. It also kickstarted a long and industrious career for Brass who has written extensively on social network(ing), power, and influence to the present day.

Joining us in the studio for this episode is Sarah Otner, a junior research fellow at the Imperial College in London. Giving credit where due, it was Sarah’s suggestion that we cover this theme as it has greatly influenced her work. After this episode, we believe you too will be convinced that this article is deserving of being called a “classic.”

Part 1. On Power, Influence, and Networks (and the Growth of ASQ)
Part 2. In What Way Were Brass’ Findings Surprising?
Read With Us:

Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 518-539.

To Know More:

Betancourt, N., Kovacs, B., & Otner, S. (2018). The perception of status: How we infer the status of others from their social relationships. Network Science, 6(3), 319-347.

Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.

Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795-817.

Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.

Friedkin, N. E. (2006). A structural theory of social influence (Vol. 13). Cambridge University Press.

Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471-501.

Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56-87.

Kleinbaum, A. M. (2012). Organizational misfits and the origins of brokerage in intrafirm networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(3), 407-452.

Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 342-369.

Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social Hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.

Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2010). Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 317-357.

Otner, S. M. (2018). Near-winners in status competitions: Neglected sources of dynamism in the Matthew Effect. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(4), 374-377.

59: Theory X and Y – Douglas McGregor

December 2, 2019 Tom Galvin
Douglas McGregor

In this episode, we examine Douglas McGregor’s most famous work, The Human Side of Enterprise, that proposed two “theories” encapsulating management assumptions about human behavior. His Theory X described the dominant thinking of the 1950s, where managers held a dim view of employees, who were assumed to be disinclined to work and had to be coerced into doing so. McGregor felt that Theory X led to adversarial relationships between managers and workers, resulting in poorer performance and an unhealthy environment. His Theory Y saw employees as wishing to be challenged and fulfilled if properly empowered and engaged.

The book has become a staple of management literature. Numerous studies of organizations have confirmed the benefits of Theory Y assumptions serving as the foundation for performance appraisals, reward systems, working in teams, and building worker commitment to the organization. The Annotated Edition of the book, published in 2006, includes dozens of additional callouts and citations of research and vignettes of management experience, demonstrated the continued relevance of this master work.

Part 1. Examining Theory X and Theory Y
Part 2. Does Theory Y Really Work? Is Theory X Really All that Bad?
Read With Us:

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw‐Hill: New York.
McGregor, D. (2006). The human side of enterprise, annotated edition. McGraw-Hill: New York.

57: Reward Systems – Steven Kerr

October 21, 2019 Tom Galvin
Steven Kerr

Why do organizations espouse one thing but do another? This is essentially what Steven Kerr asks in his popular 1975 article in the Academy of Management Journal, “On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B,” on reward systems. Using examples ranging from politics and war to business and public sector settings, Kerr found a common pattern: that the organization’s goals are too often not supported by the things they actually reward and encourage. The context and relationships among actors may differ, but the result is too commonplace to ignore.

In Part 1 of this episode, we break down Kerr’s examples (which in some cases were peculiar to 1975) and consider how generalizable they really are. We also address key differences in the 1995 update, published in the Academy of Management Executive. Then in Part 2, we examine criticisms of the article, particularly Richard Boettger and Charles Greer’s rejoinder “On the Wisdom of Rewarding A While Hoping for B,” published in Organization Science in 1994.

Podcasting in this episode: Tom, Ella, Maikel, and Frithjof

Part 1. The Many Ways Reward Systems Can Go Wrong

 

Part 2. Is Fixing the Reward System Really Necessary?
Read With Us:

Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-783.

Kerr, S. (1995). AN ACADEMY CLASSIC: On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Perspectives, 9(1), 7-14.

To Learn More:

Boettger, R. D., & Greer, C. R. (1994). On the wisdom of rewarding A while hoping for B. Organization Science, 5(4), 569-582.

56: Cooperative Advantage – Charles Clinton Spaulding

July 16, 2019 Pedro Monteiro
In this episode, we acknowledge the extraordinary contributions of Charles Clinton Spaulding, an important management thought leader who, like many African-Americans prior to the U.S. civil rights movement, has been sadly overlooked in the management canon. In 1927, with the U.S. in recession, Spaulding wrote a reflection of his experiences as a business leader in the Pittsburgh Courier, a widely-read newspaper, hoping to help fellow African-American business leaders overcome the economic downturn.

55: Group Dynamics and Foundations of Organizational Change – Kurt Lewin

May 22, 2019 Tom Galvin
We discuss Kurt Lewin's article, "Frontiers in Group Dynamics," that makes a strong case for treating the social sciences on the same level with the natural sciences--previously, social science was considered neither rigorous nor valid. Using metaphors from physics, Lewin explains social phenomena in tangible, physical terms and explains how individuals within a social space interact in ways that could be measured similarly to physical or chemical phenomenon.

54: Measuring Organizational Cultures – Hofstede

May 2, 2019 Tom Galvin
Geert Hofstede

Fresh off a study that identified key factors for comparing national cultures, organizational psychologist Geert Hofstede and his team set off to determine whether similar constructs could be deduced for organizational cultures. The success of this research is detailed in Hofstede’s classic 1990 paper, “Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases,” published in Administrative Science Quarterly. Through surveys and interviews among members of twenty units within ten large organizations, Hofstede’s team proposed six distinct determinants of organizational culture that could be compared and contrasted across all organizations.

In Part 1 of this episode, veteran TAOP podcasters Tom and Ralph welcome two of our newest cast members Jarryd and Frithjof. Together they review the article, its methodology and results, and its significant in the study of organizational behavior. Then in Part 2, the podcasters look at how much has changed in organizations from 1980s to the present day. To what extent do Hofstede’s six factors still hold up? How salient is his model of socializing cultures between societies (“nations”) and organizations? To what extent is the construct of organizational culture being misused, such as suggested in our Episode 49 where we explored Gideon Kunda’s study of “tech culture?” Are there dangers to conflating organizational culture with climate?

Part 1. Studying Culture — From Societies to Organizations (released 2 May 2019)

 

Part 2. Value and Pitfalls of Treating Culture Like a Rheostat (released 8 May 2019)

Read With Us:

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D. and Sanders, G., 1990. Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative science quarterly 35(2), pp. 286-316.

Related Episodes in Tom’s podcast Reflections on Management

Episode 3-6. Can One Really Plan Culture Change?

To Know More:

Schein, E. H. (2010) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kunda, G. (2006). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation, Revised Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

52: Management in Practice – Rosemary Stewart

February 5, 2019 Ralph Soule

With Special Guest Maja Korica from the Warwick Business School, UK!

Rosemary Stewart

So what do managers do in practice? How do they spend their time (or put another way, how does their time spend them)? Are there differences in the demands of managers in different positions, or withiin different organizations? These were the questions that famed management theorist Rosemary Stewart set out to uncover in her research back in the 1960s, resulting in the first edition of this episode’s subject–her book Managers and Their Jobs: A Study of the Similarities and Differences in the Ways Managers Spend Their Time.

The methodology is fascinating. Stewart asked 160 top managers in firms large and small to maintain diaries of their work over the course of four weeks. What were they doing and why? Poring over the data provided a rich accounting of their work and professional lives. This allowed her to develop a proposed taxonomy of managerial work that might not have become as renowned as other similar taxonomies but was based on strong empirical support. The five “job profiles” she developed were very convincing.

In this episode, we discuss the work and bring it into present-day focus. In what ways has managerial work changed or remained the same? Is it the nature of management that is changing or merely its character? And where should Rosemary Stewart’s work be placed in the context of management science? To discuss these and many more questions, we welcome Dr. Maja Korica of the Warwick Business School!

You can also down the audio files here: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

 

Read with us:

Stewart, R. (1988). Managers and their jobs: A study of the similarities and differences in the ways managers spend their time, 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.

To know more:

Korica, M., Nicolini, D., & Johnson, B. (2017). In search of ‘managerial work’: Past, present and future of an analytical category. International journal of management reviews, 19(2), 151-174.

Nicolini, D., Korica, M., & Ruddle, K. (2015). Staying in the Know. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(4), 57.

Stewart, R. (2003). Woman in a man’s world. Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 197-197.

Porter, M. E., & Nohria, N. I. T. I. N. (2018). How CEOs manage time. Harvard business review, 96(4), 41-51.

49: Engineered Culture and Normative Control – Gideon Kunda

October 30, 2018 Ralph Soule

Gideon Kunda

Originally published in 1992, Gideon Kunda’s ethnographic study of a high-tech corporation altered the discourse on organizational culture. “Tech,” the firm being studied, was a firm on the rise and saw itself as a leader and ground breaker in the rapidly growing high-tech industries of the 1980s. But as the firm grew from a modest couple hundred to tens of thousands of employees and multiple sites, Tech undertook an effort to indoctrinate its members with its tried-and-true formula for success — hard work, sacrifice, and belief in the company. The degree to which this indoctrination occurred was extensive, from the choreographed leader messages, trained cultural experts and internal publications to the highly competitive and cut-throat nature of project work. Kunda captured it all in gripping detail.

The centerpiece of Kunda’s thesis was Tech’s exercise of normative control. This was ironic in a way given how Tech’s professed culture valued self-determination and autonomy. But, the rewards and sanctions were constructed to enforce a particular form of autonomy, one in which Tech extracted the most out of its people while breaking their lives in the process.
Does this mean ‘normative control’ as a mechanism for mission accomplishment is bad? As we dove into the text and applied its lessons to present-day matters, the question is actually difficult to answer as there are many factors to consider. Listen as we wrestle with this extraordinary and provocative text!

You may also download the audio files here: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Read with us:

Kunda, G. (2006). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation, Revised Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Related episodes from Tom’s podcast Reflections on Management:

Episode 1-3. Is ‘Competitive Advantage’ a Real Thing?

Episode 3-6. Can One Really Plan Culture Change?

To know more:

Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American sociological review, 77(6), 999-1022.

Rivera, L. A. (2016). Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs. Princeton University Press.

Turco, C. J. (2016). The conversational firm: Rethinking bureaucracy in the age of social media. Columbia University Press.

47: Organizational Identity — Albert & Whetten

September 18, 2018 Ralph Soule

Stuart Albert

David Whetten

“Who are we?”

The pursuit of an answer to this tantalizingly simple question began with a book chapter written in 1985 by organization theorists Stuart Albert and David Whetten. “Organizational Identity” established the construct of identity at the organizational level and described it as the sum of three types of claims — claims of an organization’s central character, claims of its distinctiveness from other organizations, and claims of temporal continuity that tie the present organization to its history. The chapter also raised the idea that organizations can have multiple identities, which each being more salient at different times. With seven key research questions and thirty-three hypothesis, the chapter also laid out a far-reaching research agenda.

But as we discuss in this episode, the twenty years that followed saw much of the research yield lots of confusion and consternation. David Whetten would prepare a follow-up commentary in 2006 to clarify and update the construct while addressing the conflicts.

So how useful is it? Listen in as we grapple with answering questions like, “Who are we as the Talking About Organizations Podcast?” using Albert & Whetten’s construct as a starting point. We then follow with examples, case studies, and uses of organizational identity in both scholarship and practice. We hope you enjoy the discussion and find it useful for understanding the deep culture of organizations.

You may also download the audio files here: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Read with us:

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in organizational behavior, 7, 263-285.

Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of management inquiry, 15(3), 219-234.

To Learn More:

Whetten, D. A., Godfrey, P. C., & Godfrey, P. (Eds.). (1998). Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Galvin, T. (forthcoming, about Dec 2018). Two case studies of successful strategic communication campaigns. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.

45: Fate of Whistleblowers – C. Fred Alford

August 2, 2018 Ralph Soule
We discuss Fred Alford's book Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power in 2001 to understand and make sense of horrible treatment often suffered by those who witness and report illegal or immoral acts and have the courage and persistence to speak up and stand for what is right. In workplace environments, we have a name for such heroic men and women – whistleblowers. But historically, the experiences of many other whistleblowers are discouraging – being ostracized, ignored, harassed, marginalized, physically attacked, socially isolated and ultimately defeated while the wrongdoers continue with their organizations. Alford's study brings these experiences to light in hopes of changing attitudes toward those who would speak up for what is right.