What B Would Otherwise Do: A Critique of Conceptualizations of ‘Power’ in Organizational Theory

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 44 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.