Virtual Positions and Power

This paper discusses a class of natural organizational phenomena called virtual positions and links them to the enactment of power. Virtual positions involve three or more persons from different parts of an organization working together on a recurring and usually major task process. A virtual position is contrasted to a regular position in which an incumbent performs a set of task processes. There is no regular position for the task processes performed by a virtual position. Instead the set of individuals act as if they are a composite position. There are two types of virtual positions: regulated and unregulated. Regulated virtual positions usually take the form of committees, standing committees, and task forces. Unregulated virtual positions involve task processes which have been neither rationalized nor integrated with the Organizational Architecture. Virtual positions arise out of attempts to cope with organizational changes without having to redesign the organization. Given enough time a virtual position can be used to analyze change and to determine how it should be handled. But when changes occur at a more rapid rate than the virtual positions can be absorbed, they can spread rapidly. Thus an informal adaptive mechanism can lead to an accumulation of problems which can become maladaptive. Each virtual position involves the control of some task process and the possible leverage of this task process on others. Each virtual position participant has opportunity for access to information, other persons, and the possibility of enhancing his own position or preventing the enhancement of another's. When the virtual position involves major, recurring vulnerabilities, this control can be parlayed into organizational power. Virtual positions are viewed as arenas for power struggles in organizations. An example is given of the virtual positions in an actual community bank. The theory underlying the virtual positions is based on the continuing evolution of a theory of group structures. The concepts of process and task process are defined. A recently developed operationalization of the concept of interdependence is introduced. The notion of uncertainty is generalized. This leads to the development of uncertainty interdependence. Power is seen as the control of uncertainty interdependence. Virtual positions are viewed as the arenas in which uncertainty interdependencies can be resolved. Thus virtual positions are linked to the distribution and enactment of power in organizations. The theoretical discussion is based on a technology which is used in organizational design. Consequently, there exist means by which virtual positions can be identified and analyzed in real organizations. This paper links these analyses of virtual positions to the process of designing an organization.

[1]  Kenneth D. Mackenzie,et al.  Organizational design : the organizational audit and analysis technology , 1986 .

[2]  Kenneth D. Mackenzie The organizational audit and analysis technology for organizational design , 1985 .

[3]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organization Theory and Design , 1983 .

[4]  Ralph H. Kilmann,et al.  Designing Collateral Organizations , 1982 .

[5]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. , 1979 .

[6]  C. Mills,et al.  The Theory of Social and Economic Organization , 1948 .

[7]  J. Pennings,et al.  Structural conditions of intraorganizational power , 1974 .

[8]  Kenneth D. Mackenzie,et al.  Leadership as a task process uncertainty control process , 1981 .

[9]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  A Contingency Model of Influence in Organizational Decision-Making , 1978 .

[10]  Scott Wr,et al.  Technology and the structure of subunits: distinguishing individual and workgroup effects. , 1977 .

[11]  D. Hambrick Environment, strategy, and power within top management teams. , 1981, Administrative science quarterly.

[12]  T. Kochan,et al.  Conflict: Toward Conceptual Clarity. , 1972 .

[13]  J. Pennings,et al.  A Strategic Contingencies' Theory of Intraorganizational Power , 1971 .

[14]  A. Pettigrew Information Control as a Power Resource , 1972 .

[15]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Power in and Around Organizations , 1983 .

[16]  Kenneth D. Mackenzie,et al.  An Experimental Study of Performance Information Systems , 1982 .

[17]  Marshall W. Meyer,et al.  Power in Organizations. , 1982 .

[18]  Amitai Etzioni,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. , 1962 .

[19]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Resource Allocations in United Funds: Examination of Power and Dependence , 1977 .

[20]  R. Emerson Power-Dependence Relations , 1962, Power in Modern Societies.

[21]  Jay R. Galbraith Designing Complex Organizations , 1973 .

[22]  Dennis Hume Wrong Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses , 1979 .

[23]  W. G. Astley,et al.  Structural Sources of Intraorganizational: Power: A Theoretical Synthesis , 1984 .

[24]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  Organizational Decision Making as a Political Process: The Case of a UniversityBudget. , 1974 .

[25]  Francis D. Tuggle,et al.  The Bureaucratic Model in University Budgeting: An Alternative Explanation to Power , 1982 .

[26]  Kenneth D. Mackenzie,et al.  Authority-Task Problems. , 1976 .

[27]  J. Pfeffer Organizations and Organization Theory , 1982 .

[28]  R. Kilmann Beyond the Quick Fix: Managing Five Tracks to Organizational Success , 1984 .

[29]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  Power in University Budgeting: A Replication and Extension. , 1980 .

[30]  M. Crozier The Bureaucratic Phenomenon , 1964 .

[31]  James D. Thompson Organizations in Action , 1967 .