The Definition of and Distinction between Power and Politics

The organizational change literature emphasizes the significance of power and politics in organizational change, and suggests that, in order to understand what makes an organization „tick‟, how decisions are made, why resources are allocated in a certain way and why particular changes are implemented while others are not, it is necessary to comprehend the possession and exercise of power and politics over/within that organization (see Pfeffer 1981; 1982; 1992). The influence of power on organizational management and its implications for change have been viewed from many different angles. Some authors highlight this influence in terms of its impact on organizational structure, while others highlight dominance over other key organizational process driving factors (Yazdifar et al. 2006). It‟s worth mentioning here that the MA literature contains very little on power and politics, and their interrelationship with MAC processes (see Burns 2000; Yazdifar 2004).

Power dimensions are present in all organizations; researchers can identify the sources of power and their implications and consequences by understanding how these dimensions are associated with the prevailing institutional logics. Institutional logics shape and construct the rules of change, and how these emerge, remain and fail in organizations. Social and organizational actors depend on their understandings of institutional logics of power to generate the conditions for the reproduction of prevailing change logics (Thornton and Ocasio 2008). Stinchcombe (2002) argues that, as power is theorized as a first-order construct in explaining change, independently of culture, two issues need to be addressed. First, power is produced in the course of action: it does not happen prior to the action that it explains. Second, the decision to use power is an intentional, strategic choice; so, it is not always possible for organizational actors to know the cultural framing or menus of available options preceding any action (Thornton and Ocasio 2008).

159

According to MA literature, power has been defined as the capacity to influence decisions, whereas politics is the actual process of exercising this influence (Clegg 1987; Robbins 1987). Hardy defines power as "a force that affects outcomes", while politics is "power in action" (1996:S3). Similarly, power is a means of achieving desired goals and effects, while politics is the practical domain of power in action (Buchanan and Badham 1999). Accordingly, politics is viewed as the exercising of power (Pfeffer 1981). Politics describes the attempts of people in organizations to gain support for or against policies, rules, goals or other decisions where the outcomes will have some effect on them (Burnes 2004). These definitions allow to examine the role of power from the dynamic view in order to achieve outcomes that could not be attained separately (Knights and Morgan 1991). Hence, power become a key facilitator of change (Pettigrew and McNulty 1995). In this regard, Pfeffer argues that,

“If power is a force, a store of potential influence through which events can be affected, politics involves those activities or behaviours through which power is developed and used in organizational settings. Organizational politics involves those activities taken within organizations to acquire, develop and use power and other resources to obtain one's preferred outcomes in a situation in which there is uncertainty or dissensus about choices” (1981:7).

The fundamental ideas and debates in institutional theory (OIE and NIS) can be settled in explicit power terms. Basically, the argument in institutional theory that considers structures and actions can be expressed as the power of „structures‟ against the power of „agents‟ (Oliveira 2010). Drory and Romm (1988) explain that power and politics are regularly occupied interchangeably and the difference between them has never been fully settled. Thus, the concept of power should be distinguished from authority (Yazdifar 2004). Robbins distinguishes between authority and power as follows:

[…] we defined authority as the right to act, or command others to act, toward the attainment of organizational goals. Its unique characteristic, we said, was that this right had legitimacy based on the authority figure‟s position in the organization. Authority goes with job […]. When we use the term power we mean an individual‟s capacity to influence decisions […] the ability to influence based on an individual‟s legitimate position can affect decisions, but one does not require authority to have such

influence (1987:186)52.

Accordingly, any debate about the interaction between organizations and institutional environment as well as the encoding and enacting of rules and routines needs to be located amidst relations of power, although power is implicit rather than explicit in much of the institutional literature. Hence, politics could represent an alternative to current organizational

52 _{Robbins (1987:187), in supporting his opinion, provides as an example the Secretary to the Executive}

Director, who may have a great deal of power, by virtue of his/her ability to influence the flow of information and people to their bosses, but has very little actual authority. Although this secretary has a lowly position in the organizational structure, he/she is very close to the power core. Hence, he/she can influence decisions because he/she has enough power from what is heard (see also Yazdifar 2004).

160

rules. Power can provide the energy for strategic change as well as accounting change. Without it, we face strategic paralysis because we lack a mechanism with which to make change happen (Hardy 1996). Baum asserts that

“[Power is the ability of] different parties to achieve something together they could not accomplish individually. This power governs a politics concerned with creating new possibilities in a world where resources may be scarce but some interests may be joined and new resources created. This is win-win politics: victory is only collective, and one party‟s loss defeats all” (1989:195).

This study examines the role of power and politics in MAC as part of the theoretical framework. It sheds light on the potential dynamics of powers (or pressures) by different actors from outside (i.e. NIS) and inside (i.e. OIE) the JCO.