Date post: | 28-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | adrian-perry |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 1 times |
28.08.2009 | 1
Power Networks: The Effects of Reputation, Social
Embeddedness and Power Strategies
QMSS2 2009
Alona Labun, Rafael Wittek, Christian Steglich, Rudi Wielers
28.08.2009 | 2
What makes someone powerful…
Formal position? Personal characteristics? Social ties? Strategic behavior?
Alternatively
Power reputation – being seen as powerful by others!
QMSS2 2009
28.08.2009 | 3
Structure of the presentation
The research questions. Some definitions. Theoretical background and hypotheses. Data, Measures and Method. Results and Conclusion.
Questions, Comments, Suggestions…
QMSS2 2009
28.08.2009 | 4
The research questions
Why are some organization members perceived to have more informal power than others?
Which factors affect the stability/change of perceptions concerning one’s informal power?
QMSS2 2009
28.08.2009 | 5
Some definitions…
Informal power – ability to get things done, mobilize resources, influence through “personal appeal”.
Reputational (perceived) power – the set of beliefs others hold about how powerful an actor is.Power as an inference people draw about
certain others.
QMSS2 2009
28.08.2009 | 6
Theoretical backgroud
How to assess who has the power?
Uncertainty concerning one’s power position
Reliance on direct and indirect cues
Own observations Info provided by others
QMSS2 2009
28.08.2009 | 7
Three core mechanisms Accounting for the emergence of differences in
informal power attributions in uncertain environments:
Rational imitation
Interpersonal ties
Power strategies
QMSS2 2009
28.08.2009 | 8
Rational imitation Perceived informal power
differences are driven by: Other actor’s perceptions of one’s
informal power – one’s power reputation.
H1: The higher the number of group members who perceive a focal actor to be powerful, the more likely is ego to perceive the focal actor as powerful.
QMSS2 2009
Time
28.08.2009 | 9
Interpersonal ties Perceived informal power differences
are driven by: One’s social embeddedness. Personal ties to others characterized by
trust, respect.
H2: The stronger the interpersonal trust between an individual and a focal actor, the more likely one is to perceive the focal actor as powerful.
QMSS2 2009
Time
28.08.2009 | 10
Power strategies
Perceived informal power differences are driven by: One’s choice of power strategies.
Positive power reputation Direct strategies (H3). Horizontal indirect strategies (H4a).
Negative power reputation Vertical indirect strategies (H4b). Passive strategies (H5).
QMSS2 2009
28.08.2009 | 11
Data and MeasuresNetwork panel data (4 waves, 6 months
intervals).
Management team (N=17), German Paper Factory.
Phase 1 Clear group goal and allocation of tasks.
Phase 2 No common goal, fuzzy task structure,
drop in morale. Phase 3
Clarity reintroduced, chaos left behind.
QMSS2 2009
28.08.2009 | 12
Measures Dependent variable:
Reputational power (how much influence each colleague has; 5-point Likert scale).
Independent variables:Power position (current). Interpersonal trust (intensity; sociometric measure;
5-point Likert scale).Power strategies (appropriatness of direct, indirect
[horizontal, vertical], passive strategies; interval scale). Control:
Formal hierarchyTime period heterogeneity (dummy variables for
periods 2 and 3).
QMSS2 2009
28.08.2009 | 13
Method An extension of stochastic, actor-based network
models (SIENA).
The continuous-time model describes the development of a social network through time as a result of relational changes made by its members.
Accounts for network structure, individual attributes (e.g., strategies) and dyadic covariates (e.g., social ties).
QMSS2 2009
28.08.2009 | 14
Descriptive statistics of actors
Average levels of incoming power attributions and trust
2,5
2,7
2,9
3,1
3,3
3,5
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
Power indegree
Trust indegree
QMSS2 2009
Collapse of the trust network
Overall depletion of informal power attributions
28.08.2009 | 15
Main findingsMechanism Hypothesize
d EffectResult
Rational imitation + C
Interpersonal ties + C
Direct strategies + R
Indirect strategies (horizontal) + R
Indirect strategies (vertical) - (-) WS
Passive strategies - PS
Formal hierarchy control Weak pos. effect
C – confirmed; R – rejected; WS – weak support; PS – partial support
QMSS2 2009
28.08.2009 | 16
Broad conclusionTraditional power explanation
Stability/change of perceptions of one’s informal power are driven by:
Social embeddedness in networks of interpersonal relationships.
Choice of certain power strategies.
One’s formal position.
Alternative power conceptualization
Reputation plays an important role in the power
attribution process! The essence of power is
being seen as powerful by others.
28.08.2009 | 17
Thank you very much for your attention!
Questions…Comments…
Suggestions…
Contact:
Alona Labun
QMSS2 2009