Bringing the organization back in: a comment on conceptualizations of power in upward influence research

Abstract

Farmer et al.'s (1997) consideration of upward influence strategies is a welcome addition. It reaffirms that there is more to power in organizations than formal authority and develops a typology of forms of upward influence. Farmer et al. remind us that the webs of influence that characterize organizations are not defined by the organization chart, but grow out of complex and multidimensional relationships that are negotiated and re-negotiated over time. Who can do what, when, is an empirical question that depends on history, personal skill, and organizational dynamics. Said another way, while the formal hierarchy is one measure of an actor's ability to influence outcomes, it is nor the only measure, not even the most important one. Farmer et al. (1997) add to the discussion of influence in organizations by linking a typology of upward influence strategies-hard, soft, and rational-to some of the conditions associated with their use. Several characteristics of the subordinate and of the subordinate-supervisor relationship are proposed to explain the subordinate's choice of an influence strategy, including 'dispositional influences or individual differences, relational influences involving perceptions of target power, the quality of the relationship between the influence agent and the target, demographic factors, and opportunities to exercise influence'. However, the study is limited by the underdeveloped conceptualization of power. The study focuses primarily on the characteristics and resources of the individual, and while this conception of power is not wrong, it is limited. A more developed, multidimensional view of power is necessary as a foundation for further working the area (e.g. Clegg, 1989; Hardy, 1994; Lukes, 1974). Upward influence is certainly affected by the personal characteristics and resources of the individuals involved, but it is also an organizational phenomenon, a fact that the conception of power used by researchers should reflect. A more complex and developed view of power will provide the necessary tools to disentangle the complex fabric of power and influence in organizations.