1 / 17

Power Networks: The Effects of Reputation, Social Embeddedness and Power Strategies

Power Networks: The Effects of Reputation, Social Embeddedness and Power Strategies. Alona Labun, Rafael Wittek, Christian Steglich, Rudi Wielers. QMSS2 2009. What makes someone powerful…. Formal position? Personal characteristics? Social ties? Strategic behavior? Alternatively

derry
Download Presentation

Power Networks: The Effects of Reputation, Social Embeddedness and Power Strategies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Power Networks: The Effects of Reputation, Social Embeddedness and Power Strategies Alona Labun, Rafael Wittek, Christian Steglich, Rudi Wielers QMSS2 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

  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

  4. 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? The research questions QMSS2 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

  6. Theoretical backgroudHow to assess who has the power? Uncertainty concerning one’s power position Reliance on directand indirect cues Own observations Info provided by others QMSS2 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

  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. Time QMSS2 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. Time QMSS2 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 indirectstrategies (H4b). • Passive strategies (H5). QMSS2 2009

  11. Data and Measures Network 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

  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 hierarchy • Time period heterogeneity(dummy variables for periods 2 and 3). QMSS2 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

  14. Descriptive statistics of actorsAverage levels of incoming power attributions and trust Collapse of the trust network Overall depletion of informal power attributions QMSS2 2009

  15. Main findings C – confirmed; R – rejected; WS – weak support; PS – partial support QMSS2 2009

  16. Traditional 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. Broad conclusion

  17. Thank you very much for your attention! Questions… Comments… Suggestions… Contact: Alona Labun a.labun@rug.nl QMSS2 2009

More Related