A THREE STEP MODEL FOR THE ANALYSIS

OF POWER AND POLITICS IN

ORGANIZATIONS

Alberto Zanzi
Suffolk University

A main limitation to the study and teaching of power and politics is the
lack of analytical tools needed to effectively examine the complex reality of
organizational politics. This, in turn, has substantially limited the possibili-
ty of rationalizing political manifestations, has reinforced the tendency to
consider political phenomena as generally negative and counterproductive
to a rational management approach, and has prevented this field of study
from entering the mainstream of organizational behavior research (Allen et
al., 1979; Pfeffer, 1981, pp. 9-18).
The purpose of this article is to present an operational and teaching
model for the analysis of power and politics in organizations, using a com-
prehensive and factual approach.
With the exception of March’s concept of business firms as political
coalitions (1962), early organizational behavior researchers in the United
States have centered their attention on power manifestations at the in-
dividual level : power bases (French & Raven, 1968), personality factors of
politics in organizations (Zaleznik, 1970), individual political tactics
(Strauss, 1962), and personal power (McClelland, 1970). This micro-
oriented approach limited political analysis to the interpersonal and small
group level, and did not expand to inter-unit power relationships, coalition
formation, structural modification and strategic decision making, further
reinforcing the irrational perception of power oriented behavior.
Recently, a positive evolution has taken the form of more sociological,
inter-unit and structural orientation in the study of power and politics. This
new research orientation has developed in three main directions:

(1) Field research in organizations centered on the extent and manifesta-

tions of political behavior (Kipnis, Schmidt & Wilkinson, 1980;
Gandz & Murray, 1980; Allen et al., 1979; Pettigrew, 1973).
(2) Political aspect of consulting and managing interventions in
organizations (Pettigrew, 1975; Kanter, 1979; Moore, 1984; Cobb,
1986).
(3) Model building for the analysis of political structures in organiza-
tions (Hickson et al., 1971; Hinnings et al., 1974; Salancik & Pfeffer,
1977).

68

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
 In the last
category, the Strategic Contingency Model of Power (Salancik
& Pfeffer, 1977) is a particularly significant contribution to the develop-
ment of a comprehensive theory of power and politics in organizations.
This model provides the theoretical framework on which this article is
based. It postulates that for an organization to successfully overcome en-
vironmental contingencies, it must allow the group or unit best suited to
solve such contingencies to assume a predominant power position to effec-
tively redirect the focus and resources of the organization in the way most
appropriate to the new situation.
The model rationalizes and legitimates political manifestations, demon-
strating that they are not disruptive of the rational assumption and smooth
functioning of organizations. To the contrary, such forces, when allowed to
operate freely, improve the long range effectiveness and survivability of the
organization.
This position drastically changes the perspective of political phenomena
in organizations from a negative to a positive connotation and from an in-
dividual to an organizational level, in which structure itself inevitably
creates power imbalance and political opportunity.

Overview and Purpose of the Three Step Model

The main limitation of the Strategic Contingency Model of Power (Salan-

cik & Pfeffer, 1977) is the lack of operationalization in the analysis of the
power base of the political actors. Furthermore, the model has an essential-
ly static view of the power relationships, and has no predictive ability on the
outcome of strategic decisions confronting the organization at the present
time or in the immediate future.
The Three Step Model attempts to overcome these limitations through an
indepth analysis of the power base of the political actors involved, a map-
ping of the dynamics of their power cycle, and a projection of the political
reaction to strategic decisions under consideration.
The first step, Power Base Analysis, addresses the issue of the mix and
strengths of the power components each actor can rely on when attempting
to influence decisions or solve critical contingencies.
The second step of the model, Power Cycle Analysis, centers on the
dynamic aspects of power, analyzing the rise and decline of each actor’s
position in relation to present and past contingencies.
The final step, Political Impact Analysis, adds a self-determined and
predictive component to the model. Methodologically, it refines a similar
approach proposed by Pfeffer (1981, pp. 38-42) for analyzing the political
interests conditioning organizational change at New York University.
The primary outcome of the analysis is an evaluation of the political
feasibility of a course of action under consideration. For example, if a par-
ticular issue is expected to be opposed by one or more powerful political ac-
tors, it should be modified before being presented or, in extreme cases,
discarded altogether. Other significant results of the Political Impact
Analysis include a map of potential coalitions for each of the decisions
under examination, and the indication of potential tradeoffs among issues.

69

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
 Each step of the model will be presented in detail in the following sections
of this article.

Preliminary Step:
Identification of Political Actors
A preliminary step to be taken before the model can be applied consists of
the identification of the political actors involved in the situation, either real
or simulated (e.g. case study).
Actors must remain the same throughout the three steps of the analysis
and can be single individuals, small groups or, exceptionally, even entire
organizational units.
Several criteria are essential for a proper identification of the actors:
~
They must be significant stakeholders in the power structure.
~
They must be directly involved in the events examined.
~ Sufficient information must be available or retrievable to determine
their orientation and standing on different issues.
~ In the case when a group or unit is considered as a single actor it must
be clearly identifiable and homogeneous in terms of goals, prefer-
ences, beliefs, and common interests.
It is essential for a correct analysis to have access not only to present but
also to historic relevant data on the evolution of the organization (structure,
size, top level successions, etc.), its performance (financial, technical in-
novation, competitive position in the industry), and important changes in
the environment (technical, competition, market evolution, etc.). In se-
lecting a case study it is therefore important that it presents enough historic
data to support a meaningful analysis.

Step One: Power Base Analysis

The objective of this first step of the model is to examine the components
and strength of each actor’s power base.
The analysis is structured in a matrix form (see Table 1), with political ac-
tors positioned on the columns and power base components positioned on
the lines. The power based components are derived from a combination of
several authors’ definitions and listings (Hickson et al., 1971; Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1977; Pfeffer, 1981; Kotter, 1977) and original additions such as
physical proximity, and the level of consensus and routinization which
emerged from the application of the model in several MBA elective
seminars on power and politics. A detailed description of each power base is
presented in Appendix 1.
Each power base is considered separately by assigning to each actor a plus
( + ), equal (=),or minus (-) sign: they reflect a strong, medium or weak
evaluation of his/her power base. An example of the use of the matrix is
also reported in Table 1.
The best way to proceed, particularly in a case discussion, is by line: the
strongest and the weakest actor is identified first. The others are then
ranked keeping in mind these two extremes. Some forcing could be needed

70

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
 TABLE 1
Example of Matrix for Power Base Analysis

occasionally. If, for example, we previously judged Actor B the strongest

and Actor F the weakest, we can then compare the rank A, C, and D. Ex-
treme positions can be identified by double signs ( + + ; --) as well as in-
termediate evaluations ( /-; + /-). In case no significant agreement is
reached, even after extensive discussion, I found it useful to force a decision
by majority vote.
When two or more actors appear to have a similar power base strength,
forced ranking can be waved, assigning to each a similar evaluation. If all
actors end up with a similar evaluation the power base should be discarded
as not differentiating the relative position of the actors.
In case the power base under consideration does not apply to a specific
actor (i.e., positional power of an outside consultant), or if there is no data

71

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
available, a question mark sign (?) can be used.
Some power bases are broken down into sub-components to take into ac-
count different and potentially conflicting aspects of the same power base.
Under substitutability, for example, an actor could be difficult to replace
(strong base) at the same time available alternatives, such as eliminating or
mechanizing the job drastically, weaken the overall substitutability base. In
similar situations, the final outcome of the sub-component analysis is sum-
marized in the main line of power base title under examination.
Up to this point, the power base analysis of the actors has been essentially
static: they are evaluated on the basis of their position at the present time.
Yet situations exist where a dynamic evaluation over time becomes essen-
tial. For example, a representationally powerful actor has announced
his/her retirement within one year: in this case, a down-pointing arrow ( 1 )
is added to the previous evaluation, reflecting the tendency in the actor’s
specific power base. Conversely, in situations where a substantial
strengthening of the power base is foreseen, an upward point arrow (t) is
used.
Once the analysis is completed line by line, a final ranking of the political
actors examined can be obtained by adding together the evaluations as-
signed in each column.
This can be done both at the static and dynamic level. In the analysis ex-
emplified in Table 1, Actor A will rank first on the overall static power
bases, Actor C second, D third, and B will be last. At the same time, the
predominant position of A seems to be declining (downward arrow) in the
dynamic components, whereas B’s power is on the rise (upward arrow).
The overall ranking (bottom line in Table 1) is an approximation of the
overall power base of the actors. A precise computation based only on the
expressed judgment (signs and arrows) is not feasible, since the final evalua-
tion must take into account exceptional circumstances.
In a classroom discussion the matrix in Table 1 can be reproduced on a
flop-chart and represents an excellent tool for clarifying and debating
power base attributions and interpretations. This initial analysis usually re-
quires a full two-hour session, it is therefore better to plan to postpone the
discussion of the remaining two phases of the model to the following class
meeting.
Step Two: Power Cycle Analysis
In this second phase of the model, a dynamic/historic perspective is add-
ed to the original power base formulation.
The conceptual foundation for this type of analysis is derived from a
historic and evolutionary vision of organizations (Chandler, 1962; Greiner,
1972) in which adaptive change at the structural and political level is deter-
mined by external contingencies in the environment and by internal strategic
choices, and follow cyclical, predictable patterns.
The framework of the Power Cycle Analysis is based on Salancik and
Pfeffer’s (1977) Contingency Model of Power in which political actors and
coalitions experience cyclical surges to predominant power positions as a
consequence of their ability to solve contingencies critical to the survival of

72

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
the organization. They then decline and are ultimately substituted as new
contingencies become more critical to the organization.
This &dquo;Contingency Cycle of Power&dquo; can be envisioned as similar to the
market cycle curve of a new product. In the introductory phase the power
position of the actor is mainly stationary; no new contingency is emerging
clearly to support a power shift. When a new contingency favorable to the
actors emerges and is recognized as such, it signals the start of a growth
phase. The rate and speed of power acquisition is a function of the criticali-
ty of the contingency, the pre-existing power base of the new actor, the
awareness of his emerging power and the strength of the dominant actors or
coalition already in power. In the maturity phase that follows, the power of
the new actor is eventually fully recognized, and she takes over as the domi-
nant actor or as a member of the dominant coalition. Through time, as her
power base erodes, she will enter a decline phase and be ultimately over-
taken by a new emerging political group.
The purpose of this second phase of the model is to map such power
cycles for the organization under consideration. The two dimensions con-
sidered in the power cycle model are time on the horizontal axis (usually ex-
pressed in years) and power level on the vertical axis.
Vertical Axis: Relative Power Ranking of the Actors. The first step of the
analysis consists in positioning on the dotted vertical line, identifying the
present power distribution, the relative strength of the political actors as it
appears in the ranking obtained from the overall evaluation of the power
base (Table 1 ).
Actor A (dominant) will be positioned in the upper end, and Actor B
(weakest) to near the bottom of the &dquo;present line.&dquo; Actors C and D will be
positioned in between according to their ranking and also considering the
relative strength of their power base.
Following the indications of the example in Table 1, Actors C and D seem
very close in their overall power base; therefore, they should be positioned
close together. At the same time, they seem closer to the strength of Actor A
than to the weakness of Actor B. Consequently, they should be positioned
relatively closer to A than to B.
The positioning on the &dquo;present time line&dquo; therefore heavily reflects the
&dquo;static&dquo; strength of the actors at the time of the analysis.
Horizontal Axis: Time Horison of the Power Cycle Analysis. The first
important decision concerning the time horizon of the power cycle anlaysis
is how far back in the past we should start our mapping. This decision is a
function of several factors: when did any of the actors represented on the
&dquo;present line&dquo; start developing any significant power? How far back in
time do we have access to relevant data concerning the organization? Is
there any important event in the past that signaled the beginning of the
present contingency and power configuration of the organization?
The second step consists of detecting the emergence of outside critical
contingencies or other significant events that affected the distribution of
power in the organization. For example, the creation of a new division, the
introduction of a new line of products, or the utilization of a new
technology, a merger or an acquisition, the succession of the CEO, etc.

73

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
 74

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
 Important events usually foster a switch in the power cycle of one or more
of the actors. Let’s consider, for example, an actual situation that took
place in a medium size company specializing in measurement instruments.
In 1976, Actor A was the vice president of R&D. We could trace back the
beginning of her &dquo;Growth Phase&dquo; to the successful introduction of an I.C.
portable model production line in that year. In 1980, she became CEO of
the company (maturity phase). In 1985, a new advanced product line did
not sell because of the lack of a marketing strategy (new contingency in a
mature and competitive market). This could signal the beginning of the
decline phase. All these events can be mapped accordingly on the power
curve of Actor A in Figure 3.
At the same time, the marketing department (Actor B), with little power
until 1984, started increasing its power beause of the changing market con-
ditions.
The cycle of the other actors can be mapped on the base of similarly rele-
vant events. Actor C (VP of Finance), very powerful until the early 1980s, is
in a declining cycle since he has been unable to fully manage the financial
impact of a deflationary economy. Actor D (MIS) seems to have a flat
power cycle due to a lack of substantial innovation in his field.
The shape of the individual power curve is not, of course, constant. In
some instances, a &dquo;growth phase&dquo; could be very long, followed by a
relatively short maturity phase before a long decline. Or, alternatively, an
explosive growth could be followed by a prolonged maturity and a very
rapid decline.

75

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
 The over-crossing of two power cycle curves is a significant event, par-
ticularly when it signals the overtaking of a top position by a new actor or a
power group. For example, a representative of an emerging power group
area is put in charge of a newly created division to which previously in-
dependent units now report.
In Figure 3, a similar situation is represented by the new CEO (Actor A)
taking over the VP of Finance (Actor C) in 1981-82. The direction and slope
of the power cycle curve, as it approaches the present time line, should be
further corroborated by the dynamic tendency defected in the power base
analysis. The indication of a sharp erosion of an actor overall power base
should, for example, be consistent with a cycle phase of advanced decline.
In a class situation a similar step by step approach can be used to finalize
on a flop-chart the actors’ individual power curves (different colors please!)
after discussing the shape and phases of development with the students.

Step Three: Political Impact Analysis

The two preceding phases of the model assess ex post facto the relative
strength of the political actors and their position on the power cycle. The
outcome of the model is, therefore, an essentially passive and deterministic
representation of power related events. The third and final phase is, on the
contrary, predictive, self determined and future oriented, and centers on the
evaluation of the political feasibility of courses of action foreseen or con-
sidered for the future.
Since a substantial and often underestimated source or resistance to
change is based on power consideration, the possibility of assessing the
political impact of proposed new strategies or important decisions becomes
particularly relevant. If, for example, a new division is created, a new line
of products introduced or a group of operations moved overseas, what are
the political implications of such decisions?
Who and how powerful are their potential supporters or opponents? Are
they likely to succeed in consideration of their power base and cycle posi-
tion ? Is there any possibility of alliances or tradeoffs?
The Political Impact Analysis specifically addresses these questions:
~ Which political actor will support/oppose the decision or strategy
under consideration?
~ How powerful is such resistance
or support going to be?
~ Based onthe preference and power of the actors, what are the poten-
tial coalitions or tradeoffs?
The model takes the form of a two dimensional matrix. The political ac-
tors to be considered are positioned in the vertical columns, ranked in
descending power order from left to right.
A short description of the decisions under consideration is inserted on
the horizontal lines. They can include events that are seen as probable or
planned in the immediate future, strategic decisions, or proposed changes.
Although the model can be used to evaluate a single decision, a range of five
to eight decisions is considered optimal to allow for potential trade off con-
sideration and at the same time limit the potential confusion generated by

76

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
 too many issues examined at the same time. In each resulting cell, the level
of support, opposition, or neutrality is expressed with the same symbols
used in the Power Base Analysis (+; -; =).
The evaluation is based on the positive neutral or negative impact that a
decision is expected to have on the power base of the actor considered. If,
for example, a new automated process is introduced, this would increase the
level or routinization of the production foreman, considerably eroding his
total power base. The resulting negative political impact will also very likely
result in his strong opposition to such a proposal.
Conversely, a neutral evaluation can be the result of either the actor not
being affected at all by the decision or having only a limited impact on her
power base.
Table 2 exemplifies a hypothetical series of decisions using the same
group of political actors of the previous steps of the model.
The matrix can be used primarily in a horizontal or vertical scanning
mode.

TABLE 2
. Political Impact Analysis

*Actors ordered in descending power rank.

77

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
 Considering each horizontal line, a decision can be analyzed individually
in terms of likelihood of acceptance/rejection based on the actor(s) sup-
porting/opposing/neutral, and their relative power position. If we examine
decision four in Table 2, we notice that not only is no one in favor of mov-
ing to New Jersey, but the two most powerful actors, A and C, oppose it.
Under such conditions, the alternative is clearly unproposable.
On the other side, decision five is very likely a winner, since a powerful
actor supports it and all others are indifferent.
The type of decision in which the horizontal scanning of the matrix is
most useful is where positions are polarized and unbalanced. Under such
conditions, not only are the possibilities of the coalition maximized, but the
model is helpful to detect the direction of feasible alliances.
In decision one, for example, a communality of interest would suggest a
possible coalition of Actor C and B to oppose the power of Actor A (first in
rank). At the same time, Actor D could be approached by either party with
the intent of changing his neutral standing and determine the final approval
or rejection of the issue of the introduction of new technology. In decision
two, Actors A and B have a similar opportunity to form a coalition, in this
case to overcome C’s and D’s opposition.

Vertically, the matrix can be used in evaluating potential tradeoffs be-

tween decisions. For example, Actor A could be convinced to relinquish her
opposition to the start up of new plans (decision three) in exchange for the
enforcement of the higher quality standards she favors (decision two).
For class discussion I found it more effective to require the students to
prepare in advance their own political impact matrix and then compact
similar issues on a flop-chart. The reaction of each political actor is then
discussed, followed by an indepth examination of potential coalition and
possible tradeoffs.
Finally, if we consider the position of each individual actor regarding all
the decisions taken together (vertical columns), we can detect an overall
defensive or aggressive position based on the predominance of minus or
plus signs. The predominance of negative or positive connotations in the
&dquo;package of decisions&dquo; can be interpreted as the actor’s future power
scenario and can be associated with the dynamic components of the Power
Base Analysis and projected past the present time line on the power curve as
a trend for the immediate future. In closing a case discussion, we can
therefore go back to the chart of individual power curves (step two) and
project them in the future as dotted lines (see Figure 4) on the basis of the
chosen decision scenario.

Applications of the Model

Methodologically and from a teaching standpoint the three segments of

the model are most effective when used together and in sequence. The
power base analysis is the centerpiece of the model on which the under-
standing of both power cycle and political impact depend. Without a clear
picture of the power base of a political actor, it would be practically im-
possible to map his power cycle. At the same time, to evaluate the political

78

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
 FIGURE 4
Projection of Power Cycles

impact of a decision, we need to know both the actor’s power base and cycle
position.
The model can be handled individually or in a small group setting. Both
alternatives have pros and cons. An individual analysis is more appropriate
for a real life situation since it guarantees a higher degree of privacy on a
sensitive matter like politics and, at the same time, limits its benefits to a
single actor. But it also restricts the source of available information and
denies the element of a helpful debate and verification.
The analysis conducted in a small group uses an approach similar to the
Organizational Mirror technique (French & Bell, 1978, p. 135) in which a
&dquo;host&dquo; gets feedback from &dquo;outside representatives&dquo; on the functioning
and problems of his own organization. This usually leads to a better and
more accurate overall judgment, assuming the participants are willing to

fully discuss and share their knowledge of the political situation.

My experience in using the model in several seminars on power and
politics (targeted to senior and MBA students), indicates that the best com-
bination consists of an individual analysis and presentation of one’s &dquo;real
situation,&dquo; followed by a group discussion in which the other members con-
tribute their interpretations, feedback, and additional questions. Although
very effective, this approach is only possible when a solid trust is established
in the discussion group via an effective psychological contract and several
sessions of team building.
In case a high level of trust cannot be reached, for example in a conflic-
tual group from the same organization, the use of stimulated situations such

79

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
as case studiesi and experiential exercises seem more appropriate. It pro-
vides emotional distance from the personal situation, offers a valid training
tool to learn the use of the model and maximizes at the same time the advan-
tages of the group contributions mentioned before.
Once the model is mastered at the simulated level, it becomes far easier to
expand its use to a personal, real life environment. The group dynamics of a
seminar setting further support this approach, since the high level of trust
initially established using cases exercises is then carried on to the sharing of
personal situations.
From a purely teaching standpoint the Three Step Model can provide the
conceptual backbone of a graduate elective on Power and Politics in con-
junction with several case studies and using Pfeffer’s (1981) Power in
Organizations as a textbook. I also found very useful adding selected
readings from Allen and Porter’s (1983) Organizational Influence Pro-
cesses.
Alternatively the model can be used in a two session module inside a
regular graduate course in OB to address the political dimension of
organizations.
In practical terms, there are numerous areas of real life management
where the model can be successfully applied, including change management
conflict resolution, and career planning and consulting. Change manage-
ment, including mergers and acquisitions, is the area in which political con-
siderations are most important and at the same time largely overlooked in
favor of optimal &dquo;technical solutions.&dquo; The model is helpful in evaluating
the source of resistance to change and their strength or even the feasibility
of proposing a specific change. Furthermore, emerging or declining power
groups can be identified, together with potential coalition and tradeoffs on
different change alternatives.
Coalition and tradeoff analysis are also useful in conflict resolution, par-
ticularly when the contestants find themselves in a &dquo;mixed situation&dquo; on the
distributive/integrative continuum (Scmidt & Kochan, 1971). The adoption
of the most appropriate resolution tactics (forcing, negotiation, arbitration,
etc.), can also be improved by a clear understanding of the political situa-
tion.
In the area of career planning, the model is most applicable to evaluate
the advancement potential in a given function or organizational unit and the
appropriateness of joining a coalition or selecting a mentor. For example, a
transfer to a new department or a job offer with a new company can be
properly evaluated only if the power base and cycle position of such new
unit is clearly detected.
From the standpoint of an outside consultant, the model can be used for
data gathering and analysis of the strength of the power holders in client
organization, and the existing or emerging dominant coalition (functional
area, division, etc.). The consultant’s intervention and proposed solution
can also benefit from a priori evaluation of politically realistic results.

80

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
Conclusion
The main purpose of the Three Step Model is to give methodological
structure to the analysis of power in organizations both real life and
teaching situations. At the same time, it provides a rational base for
understanding the otherwise blurry and often confusing manifestations of
political behavior. Structure and rational analysis are the essential elements
that, allowing us to share a common vision and understanding of the
political reality of organizations, can modify the traditionally negative con-
notations attributed to organizational politics.
The availability of an analytical tool above all reinforces the theoretical
foundation of a positive view of politics intrinsic in the Contingency Model
of Power, particularly when applied in a teaching environment. The tenden-
cy toward more politically active organizations operating in an unstable and
uncertain environment further reinforce the need to increase our under-
standing and mastering of the political aspect of organizational life.
The Three Steps Model is a first attempt in this direction. It provides an
integrated view of the power situation at the structural and relational level
both from a historic and projective perspective. Furthermore its applica-
tions are particularly significant in teaching Power and Politics and in
critical areas of management such as conflict and change, and strategy for-
mulation, since the model forces consideration of political realities often
overlooked when using a merely technical approach to these problems.
Future refinements of the model include improving the measurement of
power base by adopting a seven point anchored scale. This is a substitution
of the + , =
and - signs that presently limits an accurate comparison of the
relative position of each actor. Similarly, the accuracy of the Power Cycle
Curve in Step Two could be improved by performing several evaluations
similar to the &dquo;present time&dquo; vertical line at key points in the past. Further
steps could also include a validation of the model and possibly a computer
based version.
Aside from these possible refinements, the Three Steps Model retains the
practical ability of opening up for discussion and evaluation political
aspects of organizational life avoided or at best overlooked by most
mainstream researchers and practitioners of organizational behavior.

Note
Cases such as Mayflower Paper Co. (HBS 9-470-046) and Higgins Equipment Co. (B) (HBS
1
9-409-070) are particularly suitable for this purpose.

References
Allen, R., Madison, D., Porter, L., Renwick, P., & Mayes, B. (1979). Organizational politics:
Tactics and characteristics of its actors. California Management Review, 22, 77-83.
Allen, R., & Porter, L. (1983). Organizational influence processes. Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman & Co.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

81

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
Cobb, T. (1986). Political diagnosis: Applications in organizational development. The Acad-
emy of Management Review, 11(3), 482-495.
French, J., & Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright, & A. Zander
(Eds.), Group dynamics. New York: Harper & Row.
French, W., & Bell, C. (1978). Organizational development: Behavioral science interventions
for organizational improvement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gandz, J., & Murray, V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 23(2), 237-251.
Greiner, L. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Re-
view, July-August.
Hickson, C., Hinings, C., Lee, C., Schneck, R., & Pennings, J. (1971). A strategic contingency
theory of intraorganizational power, Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 216-229.
Hinings, C., Hickson, C., Pennings, J., & Schneck, R. (1974). Structural conditions of intra-
organizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 22-44.
Kanter, R. (1979). Power failure in management circuit. Harvard Business Review, 57(4),
65-75.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S., & Wilkinson, 1. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Ex-
plorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440-452.
Kotter, P. (1977). Power dependance, and effective management. Harvard Business Review,
53(3), 125-136.
March, J. (1962). The business firm as a political coalition. Journal of Politics, 24, 662-678.
McClelland, D. (1970). The two faces of power. Journal of International Affairs, 29-47.
Moore, G. (1984). The politics of management consulting. New York: Praeger.
Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London: Tavistock.
Pettigrew, A. (1975). Toward a political theory of organizational interventions. Human Re-
lations, 20, 191-208.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. London: Pitman.
Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and the use of power in organizations decision
making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 453-473.
Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power — and how they hold on to it: A strategic-
contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5, 3-21.
Scmidt, S., & Kochan, J. (1971). Conflict: Toward conceptual clarity. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17, 359-370.
Strauss, G. (1962). Tactics of lateral relationship: The purchasing agent. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 7, 161-186.
Zaleznik, A. (1970). Power and politics in organizational life. Harvard Business Review,
18, 47-60.

Appendix 1
Components of the Power Base Analysis
Positional Power
This is the actor’s formal position in the organizational chart, practically identical
to formal authority. The higher up in the organizational ladder the stronger is the ac-
tor’s position relative to the other actors included in the analysis.

Representational Power
This refers to the position of political actors in critical organizational roles such
as membership to influential committees, boards or key administrative positions.

82

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
Perceived Power
A reputational measurement of power, it represents the perception, as expressed
by others, of the power of a specific actor. It basically consists of asking people who
have power in the organization: i.e., asking managers of individual units to rank the
power of the other units or individual actors.

ProvidinglControlling Resources or Contingencies

This is the ability of a political actor to provide or control scarce and valuable
resources such as budget and capital allocations, personnel assignments, equip-
ment, etc.
A second and more specific element of this power base refers to the ability to
solve contingencies critical to the survival or the success of the organization, such a
new technology, financial problems, new competitors, etc.

Dependency Position
Power can be defined in terms of dependency: the power of A over B is equal to the
dependency of B upon A. To the extent that A has something that B values and
wants B is dependent from A. Therefore, the more dependent the less power an actor
can master. Several factors must be considered in evaluating one’s dependency
position:
1. Slack: defined as the surplus of resources an actor can master or control, for
example extra personnel, budgets, etc.
2. Discretionality: the freedom of a political actor to autonomously decide how
to allocate excess resources.
3. Control of alternatives and problem definition: a third element in evaluating
the dependency position of a political actor consists in his or her ability to
control how the problem is defined or which alternative solutions are con-
sidered.

Coping with Uncertainty

Dealing with a rapidly changing environment represents one of the most recurring
critical contingencies for most organizations. Although uncertainty itself does not
give power, coping with it gives power. Coping may be by:
1. Prevention: eliminating the cause of uncertainty, i.e., by building large inven-
tories to forestall shortages.
2. Information: being able to forecast fluctuations and consequently be ready
to face them.
3. Absorption: being able to remedy to the impact of uncertainty after the event
has occurred, i.e., in the case of a shortage, being able to find alternative
sources or substitutes.

Substitutability
The ability of the organization to obtain alternative performance to the activity of
an actor. For example, if the job of Manager A can be easily performed by other
managers, Manager A’s power base is, in this respect, very weak. The same
weakness is present if a particular unit or actors can be substituted by other depart-
ments or outside consultants.

Centrality
Centrality is the degree to which the activity of an individual actor or a unit is in-
terlocked with the organizational system. Within the overall concept of centrality,
two components can be identified:

83

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015
 1. Pervasiveness: defined as the degree to which the work flow of an actor or
subunit is connected with the work flow of other actors or subunits.
2. Immediacy: the degree to which the activity of an actor or subunit is essen-
tial to the organization’s performance in such a way that its cessation will
quickly and substantially affect the functioning of the entire organization.

Physical Proximity
Proximity to the power holders or to the decision makers tends to increase the
power base of a political actor. A typical example is corporate staffs deriving power
from the close and frequent interactions with top management.
Physical proximity can be separated into two different components:
1. Visibility: the ability of an actor to be in a position to be noticed and to at-
tract attention to his or her performance.
2. Access: defined as the opportunity to have unrestricted access to the power
holders and to be able to directly present one’s own ideas and opinions.

Level of Consensus
This refers to what extent political actors within a unit of the organization share a
common perspective, set of values or preferences concerning outcomes. The more
they do share, the more they are likely to act and interact with other actors in a con-
sistent fashion. The power base of the actors within such a unit is increased by such
mutually shared position. On the contrary internal disunity and factional struggles
tend to lower the power of the unit in their relation with other groups in the organiza-
tion.

Level of Routinization
Defined as the extent to which a task or a function can be reduced to the repetitive
application of a set of rules and procedures. To the extent that a particular task does
involve little discretionality and can be mechanically performed the power base of
the actor involved is substantially eroded.

Symbols of Power
Symbols affect and reinforce the perception of power in organizations since they
tend to give immediate recognition to the power position of the actor under con-
sideration.
To the extent that the symbols used are considered valuable, difficult to obtain,
and are recognized as such by others they represent both a confirmation and a rein-
forcement of the power base of a political actor. They include such things as titles,
parking spaces, special eating facilities, office size and furnishing, etc.

84

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 24, 2015