Content area
Full text
Abstract.
The paper presents a critique of organizational theories that is based upon Robert Dahl's famous definition: 'A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do'. This definition highlights the fact that appreciating 'power' often demands knowledge not only about what B does but also about what B would otherwise do. Organizational theorists, it is argued, lacked such knowledge. Instead, they relied upon untested and ideologically biased assumptions concerning what B would otherwise do. Reviewing major conceptualizations of power in organizational theory, the paper unravels and categorizes six underlying assumptions of this sort. Then it goes on to promote an alternative, empirically-grounded and emically-oriented strategy for dealing with this issue. This strategy, it is argued, offers a new and less problematic research path with which to pursue the different theoretical interests in the field.
Key words. organizational theory; power; resistance
In 1957 Robert A. Dahl offered the following definition of power (pp. 202-3): 'A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do'. His commonsensical definition was widely embraced within the field of organizational studies. As Hardy and Clegg (1999: 369) claimed, 'this seemingly simple definition, which presents the negative rather than the positive aspects of power, has been challenged, amended, critiqued, extended, and rebuffed over the years but, nonetheless, remains the starting point for a remarkably diverse body of literature'.
Beyond this common starting point, organization theory is characterized by a tremendous variety of attempts to handle the origins, expressions, and implications of 'power' in organizational life. It seems, however, that Dahl's definition not only constitutes the common starting point for these attempts but also provides a basis for a common critique. Namely, by conceptualizing power as the capacity to alter the behavior of others-of the proverbial B-Dahl's definition implies that appreciating power demands not only awareness of what B does but assurance that it is something that B would not otherwise do. In most cases, such assurance entails knowing what B would otherwise do.1 Focusing upon uncomplicated political matters over which there was an observable conflict between A and B, Dahl and his followers often deduced what...