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

a.labun@rug.nl

QMSS2 2009