A Study into the Dynamics of Emergent Change - A Structuration Perspective
An Extreme Case Analysis of Power Relations
MSc BA Change Management Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen March 2016 Liza Jongbloed Student number: 2016362 Hondecoeterstraat 30-II 1071 LS, Amsterdam e.c.jongbloed@student.rug.nl
co-authors: Ad van Dorpen (S2597144), Robbin Jan Elbers (S1865676) &, Reinder van Sluis (S2590441) First Supervisior: Dr. C. Reezigt/University of Groningen
Co-assessor: Ileana Maris – de Bresser Word count collective section: 6.850 Word count individual section: 15.004
(excluding references)
Abstract. This study contributes to the literature by providing insights into the social dynamics of emergent change. A qualitative multiple case study, including insights from twenty-two interviewees with different backgrounds and secondary sources, provide comprehensive understanding of the existence of power relations in the ambiguous social context of emergent change. Using (Strong) Structuration Theory, this study analyses the internal and external structures of domination of individuals and groups and how they are the medium and outcome of the conduct they recursively organize. Results imply the importance of sensemaking and social interaction to attain context-specific knowledge and trust to create structural change in line with the proposed change. Propositions for future research were made with regard to the findings.
Keywords: Structuration Theory, Social Interaction, Power Relations, Structure of Domination, Strong
1
Preface
This thesis is part of a larger project that consists of four separate theses. Each researcher focuses on a different yet related topic. Consequently, each thesis has a certain overlap with the others and sections such as the introduction or methodology are therefore present in all theses.
4
1. Introduction
“Change is not only the product of engineered effort, nor solely the result of completely free improvisation of organizational players, but a complex process that happens somewhere on the edge between order and chaos”.
- (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014)
This quote displays the complex and ambiguous nature of organizational change. While the planned approach to change depicts organizations as stable entities that move from a current unsatisfactory state to a desired future state (By, 2005), the emergent approach, on the other hand, sees organizations as entities that are continuously adapting to their ever-changing environment (Burnes, 1997). While the importance of emergent change processes intensified over the years, few empirical studies regarding this change have been conducted (Burnes, 2014; Higgs & Rowland, 2011). To understand why emergent change works, it is important to identify factors contributory to this emergent process (Ford & Ford, 1995; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001; Porras & Silvers, 1991). According to By (2005), it is too difficult for senior managers to effectively identify, plan and implement the necessary organizational responses from the emergent approach perspective. Therefore, the responsibility for organizational change has to become increasingly devolved (Burnes, 2014; By, 2005). This claim is supported in literature; research has demonstrated that employees play a major role in the success or failure of change initiatives (Shin, Taylor, & Seo, 2012; Van Knippenberg, Martin, & Tyler, 2006). In the case of emergent change, it happens when actors continually improvise by making sense of and acting coherently in the world around them (Orlikowski, 1996). Consequently, emergent change should be considered as a social process. Besides being a social process, emergent change is also a political process, since different actors in a social system struggle to protect or enhance their interests and must work together and make sense of the ambiguity inherent in the process due to its complex nature (Burnes & By, 2012). A social system is defined as the patterned series of interrelationships existing between individuals, groups and institutions and forming a whole (Luhmann, 1995). It is through interaction that actors adjust their web of beliefs and habits of actions to obtain new experiences (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). This implies that to enhance this sensemaking process to bring about emergent change, actors should regularly interact within the context of change. A high level of activity could, therefore, be an indication of a high level of interaction. Activity within this research was defined as “doing in order to transform something” (Kuuti, 1995, p.22). Activities are generated by actors in a social system, they are aimed at achieving change and they stimulate an interaction process.
5 whereby changes in social structures and systems take place as a result of human action, which is both enabled and constrained by the structures (Santos & Escanciano, 2002). Giddens refers to this process as the duality of structure. The theory discusses this as functioning of social practice, which is the way actors interact with the social and physical features of context in everyday activities (Jarzabkowski, 2003). Social practice in this study specifically refers to patterns of interaction and sensemaking involved in the pursuit of emergent change activities in the cases under study. More specifically, how these social practices are related to an increased level of activity is important within this study. Therefore, the question this research aims to answer is:
What is the relationship between social practices which actors create, share, negotiate and institutionalize through interaction, and the level of activity within emergent change initiatives?
The results of this study contribute to a better understanding of the processes through which emergent change comes about. Since it is important to enhance our understanding of managing change in complex and uncertain environments, this study might be of managerial interest. Specifically, it may provide practitioners some guidance on how to initiate and facilitate emergent change, by proposing guidelines on which factors to stimulate and eliminate during the process to create activity. Furthermore, this study has theoretical significance by providing more explanatory research within an immature theoretical field.
6
2. Literature Review
2.1 The Emergent Change Process
Advocates of the emergent approach to change argue that due to more turbulent and continually changing environments in which firms operate nowadays, the emergent approach may be more suitable for modern organizations (Bamford & Forrester, 2003). They argue that internal practices and behaviour must be continually and synergistically adapted, in real time, to changing external conditions (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Within emergent change literature, scholars take on different perspectives regarding change initiatives. Analytical-Processualists such as Dawson (2003) and Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) reject prescriptive approaches to change and instead focus on the interrelatedness of individuals, groups, organizations and society. They share the opinion that emergent change needs to be viewed holistically and contextually (Mintzberg & Westley, 1992). Kanter, Stein, Moss, and Jick (1992) and Kotter (1996) take on a more consultant-oriented view emphasizing the role of managers using political skills to overcome resistance and prescribing recipes and checklists for successful change. However, according to Burnes (2014), there is a general agreement among scholars about the main tenets of emergent change. These tenets are that change (1) is continuous, (2) is best achieved by small-to medium-scale changes, leading to reconfiguration and transformation over time, (3) is a multi-level, cross-organization process, (4) is not an analytical-rational process, (5) involves an important role for the manager in shaping the long-term process of change, and (6) requires three organizational activities to operate successfully, which are information-gathering, communication, and learning.
Orlikowski and Yates (2006) recognize change as a political process with different groups struggling to protect or enhance their own interest, underlining the importance of social processes within emergent change. Emergent change is an open-ended, cumulative and unpredictable process, which consists of a continuous sequence of autonomous, local initiatives that pop up within the organization (Kickert, 2010). This view is in line with Weick (2000), who sees these local autonomous initiatives as occurring in an unplanned, unforeseen and unexpected fashion. These on-going accommodations, adaptations, and alterations produce fundamental change without a priori intentions to do so. From an emergent perspective organizational transformation is an on-going improvisation enacted by organizational actors who continually try to make sense of and act coherently in the world (Orlikowski, 1996). Recurrent and reciprocal variations in practices over time create the conditions for further breakdowns, unanticipated outcomes, and innovations that subsequently lead to more variations. Variation or enactment as Weick (1969) mentions, is a starting point of the sensemaking process. Gioia (2006) sees variation as the human action that creates the ambiguous contexts and situations that people need to make sense of or act on. Variation is a necessary condition to create a change in the frame of reference and constitutes the information input for the processes of selection and retention (Weick, 1969). These variations are also on-going with no beginning or end point during the change process (Orlikowski, 1996).
7 process, the change process itself cannot be analysed exclusively on an individual, group or organizational level. Structuration Theory offers a solution to this problem; it provides concepts that effectively bridge these levels of analysis, thus building a more complete social theory (Hartman, 1988; Robey & Markus, 1998). It is a theory to investigate how and why activity within an emergent change system is constituted, interpreted, shaped and institutionalized.
2.2 Structuration Theory
The structuration theory, created by Giddens (1984), aims to explain how humans interact in society. Within this theory, all dualisms of social theory are rejected (MacKay & Tambeau, 2013). The most important notion of the theory is the ‘Duality of structure’, which sees “structure as the medium and outcome of the conduct it recursively organizes; the structural properties of social systems do not exist outside of action but are chronically implicated in its production and reproduction” (Giddens, 1984, p.374). Social structures provide the contextual rules and resources that allow human actors to make sense of their own acts and those of other people (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991) and condition social practices. Social practices refer to the activities within a social system that produce, reproduce or change this system and involve interaction between humans, which is situated temporally and contextually (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991). Furthermore, social structures established by prior human action come to define and shape individuals’ interactions, which subsequently recreate this social structure anew (Orlikowski and Robey, 1991). Enacted social structures however, cannot be viewed in a vacuum, because interaction within a social system can be enabled and shaped by social structures that might be the product of prior human interaction within another social system. Therefore, the process of structuration operates at multiple levels of analysis: individual, group and social system (organization and society) (Orlikowski and Robey, 1991).
8
Figure 1: The three pillars of structuration
2.2.1 Structure of signification. From an emergent perspective, organizational transformation is an on-going improvisation enacted by organizational actors who continually try to make sense of and act coherently in the world (Orlikowski, 1996). Within emergent change, important concepts such as sensemaking, interpretive schemes and/or frames of references can be linked to the first pillar within Structuration theory, i.e., the structure of signification. The structure of signification consists of all the social rules that are formed by interaction and communication and which subsequently constitute and enable further interaction. These social rules are also mediated by the individual’s and group’s frames of reference (interpretive schemes). These frames are viewed as templates that help organizational members understand and interpret events (DiSanza, 1993; Weick, 1995). However, frames, i.e. ways of looking at the world, can differ between actors. As a result, frames can be (partially) appropriated, edited, but also resisted by different employees (Chreim, 2006). Furthermore, when these frames emerge in organizations, whether by managers or employees, they are seldom self-contained. They resonate with, or are derived from the wider institutional environment and potentially shape discourses within this environment. Therefore, individual and organizational frames, or interpretive schemes, are intertwined with wider discourses that go beyond the individual and the organizational meanings (Chreim, 2006).
9 of the agent” (p. 376). Through this reflection and creation of meaning, all humans are able to consciously shape and create social systems and structures (Fuchs, 2002)
The understanding and meaning creation of organizational change is mediated by the individual’s context, way of thinking and interaction with colleagues (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Cornelissen (2012) mentions the importance of language in this process, as it is a resource for individuals to understand novel situations, to articulate a role for themselves, and to cope with the voiced or perceived expectations of other actors in the organization. Through sharing of accounts, which are “descriptive constructions of reality embodying possible interpretations of events”, collective construction of meanings is created (Maitlis, 2005; Stigliani & Ravasi, 2012). Therefore, redirecting continuous change is to be sensitive to discourse, and to understand that people’s interpretations differ and so their attitudes towards a change initiative can differ as well. This on-going cyclical sensemaking process can lead to the revision of old frames or development of new frames, leading to possible institutionalisation of new ways of working within a social system (Weick, 1995).
2.2.2 Structure of domination. An emergent change process is a political process with different groups struggling to protect or enhance their own interests (Orlikowski & Yates, 2006). Through the mobilization of allocative and authoritative resources, different groups can exercise power to transform social structures, while at the same time these resources are structural elements that influence the allocation of power (or structure of
domination). These resources are almost always asymmetric, and only when this distribution is challenged, can
the existing structure of domination be modified (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991).
10 2.2.3 Structure of legitimation. Actors derive the legitimacy of their actions from the norms and rules of the social system they associate with. To facilitate emergent change these norms and rules need to encourage experimentation, divergent thinking, rule-breaking and foster a climate in which people are free to own their own power, think innovatively, and operate in new patterns (Bechtold, 1997). Strong norms and beliefs will become shared throughout the group due to conformity; individuals change their own norms and beliefs to be able to continue identifying themselves with the group (Vonk, 2007). The structure of legitimation entails the higher-level morals that determine how people act or interact, through the use of norms. These norms constitute legitimate or appropriate behaviour, on which interaction is sanctioned. Moral sanctions are used among people to condone inappropriate behaviour. At the same time, human interaction shapes the norms and rules that determine how people act or interact. Therefore, norms are both produced and/or reproduced rules that entail legitimate or appropriate behaviour (Giddens, 1984; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991).
The three pillars of structuration are all interrelated and reciprocal within an emergent change process, and should therefore not be considered in isolation. For example, power exercise becomes legitimate and more successful when it is in line with organizational norms and values. Additionally, within an interconnected social system, actors might derive the legitimacy of their actions from another social system. Therefore, overlapping social structures have to be taken into account. Figure X shows a visual representation of overlapping social structures. An actor (A) interacts within the social system of the organization or department (X) he works in, where context-specific structures influence that actor’s actions. At the same time the actor (A) collaborates with another actor (B). This collaboration (Z), is new and ambiguous, and so actor A and B makes sense of their new social context (Z) by drawing upon what they know from their own social system (X and Y).
Figure 2: Overlapping social structures and sensemaking processes
11
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
To research the process of an emergent change, a theory development approach was used. The first two steps of the empirical cycle: observation and induction help to develop new and expanding theoretical insights in the academic field of emergent change. This approach results in a set of propositions that can be tested in follow-up research (Aken, Berends, & van der Bij, 2012, ch. 2). A case study method is used, because the intimate connection with empirical reality in individual cases increases the likelihood of generating novel theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). The research design of the study, consists of the following steps (taken from Eisenhardt, 1989):
First, the research focus was determined, to prevent becoming overwhelmed by the data. The research
focus based on Giddens’ Theory of Structuration (1984) resulted in the following research question: ‘What is the
relationship between social practices which actors create, share, negotiate and institutionalize through interaction, and the level of activity within emergent change initiatives?’.
Second, multiple cases were selected to enhance the reliability of the study. An extreme case approach
was chosen to show extremes in the level of activity present in the emergent change context. This approach to case analysis illustrates the contrasting characteristics that highlight the differences under study, and enables the recognition of patterns (Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). The cases were selectively chosen based on the following criteria: 1) the case is considered as an emergent change process, 2) the level of activity within the case is either high or low and 3) the time interval between activities is short or long.
Third, multiple data collection methods, including interviews, observations, and secondary data sources
were used to remedy the shortcomings and biases of each instrument (Aken, Berends, & van der Bij, 2012, ch. 13). Four researchers were involved in the data collection and analysis, serving researcher bias. The researchers’ multiple insights and perspectives contributed to the ‘creative potential of the study’ (Eisenhardt, 1989, p.538), and enhanced the quality of observations, resulting in more confidence in the findings.
Fourth, the researchers entered the field. In doing so, field notes and observations were documented to
create consciousness of what is happening in the research. To serve researcher bias, the interviews and observations were conducted by at least two researchers. Interviewees with different backgrounds and functions were selected (e.g. employees, consultants or citizens) with approximately the same number of respondents per case, to account for subjectivity and bias.
Fifth, the researchers, coded and categorized all documentation for the within- and cross-case data
12 3.2 Case Description
The cases selected for this research are Changelabs within the Municipality of Groningen, the governing body in the municipality of Groningen. In March 2015, the organizational development team (ODT) of the municipality introduced a new initiative called “Changelabs”, in line with the coalition agreement ‘For Change’, presented by the City Council for the upcoming years. The Changelabs initiative targeted the goal of the coalition agreement: to bring the municipality and its citizens closer together. For a period of nine months, eight Changelabs, with each a different topic chosen by the City Councillors of a specific domain, were set up to experiment with new ways of working together.
Public organizations like the municipality have been said to have bureaucratic structures and tight control, to ensure values such as accountability, legality and reliability. Unlike this rigid structure, Changelabs were encouraged to ignore all bureaucratic principles and experiment freely, and not to worry about deadlines and results. Each Changelab was supposed to have two people facilitating the entire process: the external and internal driver. The external driver, from this point on considered as the ‘External Change Agent’, is an external consultant hired to apply his expertise in managing change to the project. The internal driver, henceforth described as the ‘Internal Change Agent’, is a civil servant employed by the municipality, who is appointed to ensure an organizational learning effect and to bring the citizens and municipality closer together. From these criteria, it can be derived that the change process is emergent in nature, as there are no predetermined steps and decisions made are unpredictable and evolve over time. Another actor within the Changelabs is the Central Coordination Team (CCT), which is a group of civil servants, some of whom have introduced the Changelab initiative, who were appointed to make sure that everything runs smoothly within the Changelabs. The CCT see themselves as facilitators within the changelabs, in that they know what is going on and can help when needed, but they are not active participants or controllers.
Because the Changelabs operate independently from each other and are guided by change agents with different personalities, they provide a diverse population to select cases from. The cases were selected following the aforementioned criteria. Four cases were chosen as more would be too time-consuming within the specific time frame, and less would not allow for valid and reliable research. The four case descriptions from changelab A, B, C and D, are further explained in appendix I.
3.3 Data Collection
The data were obtained with multiple research instruments; interviews, observations and secondary resources. Interviews were conducted in three rounds, to get insights on the research topic, process and variables influencing emergent change. Interviews can help researchers by contextualizing qualitative findings (Frels & Onwuegbuzie, 2013). Within all the interview rounds, contact with the interviewees was made through various ways (e.g. telephone, e-mail, Facebook). Confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed to the interviewees at the start of the interviews. The protocols of the two interview rounds and the list of interviewees can be found in appendix II, III & IV. Also, a list of additional relevant actors is provided in appendix V.
13 within or outside these Changelabs (e.g. the Central Coordination Team, External Change Agents and Internal Change Agents). The goal of these interviews was to develop an understanding of the process in order to establish the research topic and determine the level of activity to select the cases.
After selecting the research topic and the four cases, another interview round was held. In this second interview round, consisting of twelve semi-structured interviews each lasting between 60 and 90 minutes, the interviewees were chosen regarding their level of involvement within the four chosen cases. Next to different functions like the Internal- and External Change Agents and the Central Coordination Team; involved citizens were interviewed. The focus of this interview round was finding concepts that are relevant within the emergent process of these Changelabs.
The third interview round consisted of ten interviews, which lasted between 30 and 70 minutes. Semi-structured interviews were used to gain more insights in the specific chosen topics and to enable deeper probing into the responses of the interviewee (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). The interviewees were selected because of their involvement within the cases, and most of them were also interviewed in the previous round(s). The third round of interviews focused on the four research topics of the researchers in order to find patterns and mechanisms within these topics. The topics were established from the data from the previous two interview rounds.
Next to these three interview rounds, observations were held to create insights in the process of the Changelabs and to enrich the data of the conducted interviews. This resulted in observations of different types of meetings (e.g. gatherings about the Changelabs, planning workshops and reflection sessions). Observations were done by making field-notes during the meetings. The focus was mainly based on behaviour, roles of the participants and the content of the meetings.
The third data-gathering instrument is analysing secondary sources (e.g. written documents). These resources were used during the whole research to get a better understanding of the process within the Changelab, to clarify the start of the Changelabs. Documents were provided to us by the municipality directly, obtained through Facebook groups, the Internet or provided by some of the participants.
3.4 Data Analysis
14 led to the coding scheme, as displayed in appendix VI. The information derived from the second round led to four concepts of interest that were further researched within the third round of interviews.
Immediately following the interviews, the researchers used self-recordings to capture the most important moments during the interview and their general impression. The observations of the meetings, like the field notes, were also coded inductively and deductively. In a similar way, documents were analysed to find relevant aspects and patterns regarding the formulation and the process of the Changelabs. Furthermore, by documenting all activities within a logbook, a detailed overview is given on how this research is structured and carried out, therefore ensuring controllability.
3.5 Coding and Categorising
Below, an overview is provided of the steps taken to develop the final coding scheme for the analysis of the interview transcripts and field notes. Step 1 and 2 took place after the preliminary data collection, which were explorative interviews that were not transcribed. Step 3 to 11 regard the coding, categorization, and initial analysis of the second interview round, resulting in emergent structures for further investigation. Steps 12 through 16 involve the coding, categorization and analysis of the elaborated themes emerging from the second round of interviews. After these 16 steps, the within-case and a cross-case analysis were conducted. In the following chapter the initial results will be addressed, where step 9, the frequency analysis, will be presented.
First phase
Step 1. Early pattern recognition from first interview round Step 2. Development of deductive coding scheme
Second phase
Step 3. Data collection: second round of interviews
Step 4. Coding of 12 interviews from second interview round [and field notes]
Step 5. Adding codes to inductive coding scheme and modifying deductive coding scheme Step 6. Critically compare coded interviews and discuss differences with fellow researchers Step 7. Modify and finalize coding scheme
Step 8. Coding of 12 interviews from the second interview round by a different researcher Step 9. Frequency analysis of codes from second interview round
Step 10. Elaborated themes and questions developed Step 11. Development of deductive coding scheme Third phase
Step 12. Further data collection: third round of interviews
Step 13. Coding of 10 interviews from the third interview round [and field notes]
15 Step 16. Meetings in which coding is discussed with the fellow researcher to reduce biased coding Fourth phase
16
4. Initial results
This chapter covers the important findings from the analysis of the data acquired in the second phase of this study. Below, an overview is given of the initial data analysis after the second round of interviews, using frequency analysis. From this frequency analysis, individual topics per researcher were selected for further investigation.
4.1 Frequency Analysis
Like explained in the methodology section, a finalized coding scheme was developed, which consisted of 73 codes, falling under 15 categories. In appendix VI an overview of these deductive and inductive coding categories is presented. The goal of this analysis was to select four individual topics for further research. When codes in the data were more frequently mentioned than others, this indicated a stronger presence of accompanying topics over others in the data, and thus interesting for further investigation. All codes were counted in order to do the frequency analysis. The number of times each code was mentioned per Changelab, as well as the number of interviews in which that specific code was mentioned (depth), were counted. A minimum threshold of 50 was used for the frequency of mentioning the code and 10 for the number of interviews in which that specific code is mentioned. Only codes equal to or above the threshold are taken into account for the selection of the individual research topics because they indicate a high frequency and thus a strong presence of certain topics. The top 16 codes satisfying these criteria, including the results of counts can be found in appendix VII.
The most frequently mentioned codes indicated four interesting phenomena for further investigation. These are Roles, Power, Sensemaking and Ownership. These phenomena will be separately investigated by each researcher in the final round of the interviews. The influence of change agents and politics can be related to the role of power within the emergent change system. Often, interviewees described situations indicating that there was something that restricted or inhibited the change agent from doing everything and involving everyone. And in other cases, interviewees described situations where they did not regard these restrictions as restraining to them. What this is, and how it works, was expected to be related to the structure of domination present, and should be researched more in-depth in order to understand its relationship with the level of activity and social practices in emergent change initiatives.
The roles of change agents and employees of the municipality can be related to the field of sensemaking. Interviewees shed light on the difficulty of discovering what their role was in the Changelab. How this role development, role ambiguity, and role conflict came into existence and how it related to a certain level of activity in the emergent change initiative, required further investigation. A strong relationship to sensemaking, and therefore, an individual’s frame of reference was expected to be present and that this could be linked to the structure of signification present. The uncertainty and ambiguity aspects within the Changelabs also seemed relevant factors within the sensemaking process. These factors may play a role in changing the frame of references of the actors and may have some influence regarding activity within the emergent change process. How actors made sense, and how ambiguity and uncertainty influenced that process, was therefore, another topic for further investigation. This topic could be related to the structure of signification as well.
18
5. Introduction Specific Theoretical Field: Power Relations
From primary data analysis, it was found that actors faced difficulties in exercising power over others, or when power was exercised over them. In the four cases under study, the power relations present in the changelabs can thus impact the level of activities considerably. Therefore, an analysis of the power dynamics at play and the nature and outcome of power exercise can help explain its relation to the level of change activities. In the introduction of this paper, the following research question was introduced: ‘What is the relationship between social practices which actors create, share, negotiate and institutionalize through interaction, and the level of activity within emergent change initiatives?’. The following adapted sub-research question is therefore proposed, that will ultimately contribute to providing an answer to the above question:
How are power relations, which are produced and reproduced through human interaction, related to the level of activity within emergent change activities?
19
6. Literature Review: Power Relations
6.1 The Literature Power Debate
There are multiple perspectives on the concept of power in organizations, but one can make the subtle distinction between “ability” and “use” (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993). In other words, researchers focussing on the sources of power and researchers focussing on the tactics of power application. This distinction between “ability” and “use” is best illustrated by the structural and behavioural perspectives on power.
6.1.1 The structural perspective: power sources. From this perspective, resources are considered the structural sources of power. An implication of this view is that power is seen as ‘possessive’, which means that there is ‘a fixed sum of power in a relationship’ and when one actor’s power increases, the other’s decreases (Lawler, 1992, p. 21). Conflict theorists saw the power relationship as a competitive game, assuming agents have independent and conflicting interests (Pfeffer, 1981 & Mintzberg, 1983). Order is present when agents are able to constrain other agents, which are episodes of power accompanied by conflict (Clegg et al., 2006). Criticalist theorists like Dahl (1957), Bachrach and Baratz (1962) and Lukes (1974) also focussed on the possessive nature of power, especially interested in the lack of resistance from subordinate groups in social contexts. A critique on seeing power as ‘possessive’ came from Foucault (1977), who argued that power is not owned, and each actor in the power relationship has a certain measure of autonomy. Emphasis is thus more on interdependence rather than dominance.
6.1.2 The behavioural perspective: the tactics of power. Where the structural view focussed on the acquisition and possession of power, the behavioural view focusses on power exercise by examining power tactics once power is possessed (Cendon & Jarvenpaa, 2001). This view recognizes that actors with low levels of structural sources of power, can still achieve outcome using skilful behaviour (Mowday, 1978). For example, by creating alliances to ensure support from powerful actors. Therefore, power tactics do not necessarily require an actor to possess resources, due to their manipulative quality (Bachrach & Lawler, 1981; Lawler, 1992).
In academic literature, there is no distinct agreement on the typology of power tactics. Classifications range from positive to negative tactics. One typology of positive and negative power tactics is provided by Goehler (2000) who distinguishes between transitive and intransitive power. Transitive power refers to power struggles in order to achieve outcome against the will of another. Intransitive power involves a set of relations within a group who achieve outcomes together (Arts & Tatenhove, 2005).
Another widely applied classification of influence tactics is provided by Kipnisss, Schmidt and Wilkinson (1980; 1988). Their six tactics are especially developed for upward influence, but can be applied in any direction:
• Friendliness: being friendly and helpful to put an agent in a good mood
• Bargaining: making concessions or sacrifices, or offering a mutually beneficial exchange • Reason: persuade agent using logical arguments based on facts and data
• Assertiveness: using pressure and force
20 But the abovementioned typologies all emphasize the central role played by discursive practices in behavioural power tactics. The skilful use of language can obtain knowledge, resources and support from others (Kanter, 1988).
6.2 Power in Structuration Theory
Empirical research tends to focus on either one of the above mentioned perspectives in exploring interpersonal power in organizations (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993). Giddens (1984) attempted to draw the distinction together in his Structure of Domination (the central pillar in figure 1). Both the structural and behavioural approach are “simultaneous and complementary processes. Structure arises from the actions of people, and these actions are shaped by structures” (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993, p.443)
Figure 3: Structure of Domination (based on Stones, 2009)
Stones (2009) criticised Giddens’ theory of structuration for its excessive concern with abstract concepts, rather than thinking about how they might be employed at the empirical level. He especially criticised Giddens’ lack of clarity on whether structure comes from within an agent (as memory trace or capability) or from beyond the human body (Stones, 2009). He therefore proposes a more refined conceptualisation of the Structure of Domination (figure 3).
21 or feel in certain ways. Context-specific knowledge refers to the agent’s perception and understanding of situated practices, including available resources, shared meanings and norms present. Important to add here is that the internal structure of domination includes knowledge that agents draw upon from other social contexts they operate in, thus creating overlapping social structures to legitimize their actions.
However, structure is not only a ‘medium’ of action, providing the basis which actors draw upon, but also the ‘outcome’ of the production or reproduction of practices (Giddens, 1979). Stones (2009) describes this as ‘Active Agency’, in which agents draw routinely or strategically upon their internal structure in producing practical action, which may influence steady external structures and routine dispositions (Coad & Herbert, 2009). Here, the relational aspect of power needs to be emphasised, because exercising sources of power requires another party onto which their conduct has an effect (Coad & Glyptis, 2014). Although power resources are distributed among actors asymmetrically, Giddens (1984) still holds the notion that all power relations involve some form of ‘dialectic of control’, meaning that anyone can achieve outcome in interaction (Mumby & Stohl, 1991). The final element of Stones’ (2009) structuration cycle are the “intended and unintended ‘Outcomes of Actions’”, which may facilitate or frustrate an actor and therefore result in structural reproduction or change (p.96). In addition, power should not be seen as a stand alone object, but is also highly related to communication, which is essential in creating shared meanings in interaction, and sanctions, which reflect acts of approval and disapproval based on norms (Coad & Glyptis, 2014).
6.3 Position-Practice Relations
Giddens (1984) explains that social systems are “regularised social practices” enacted by actors across time-space, which specifies their ‘identity’ in a “network of social relations” (Giddens, 1984; Busco, 2009, p.252). He defines a social position as:
“A social identity that carries with it a certain range of prerogatives and obligations that an actor who is accorded that identity may activate or carry out: these prerogatives and obligations constitute the role-prescriptions associated with that position” (Giddens, 1979, p.117)
A position of an agent is not merely his position in the organization and the structured practices expected of him, because an individual may occupy a variety of social positions. For example, an individual may be a CEO, a father, and a citizen; with each role having a different set of responsibilities and expectations. Social positions can be analysed at an individual level, but also a collective level, where groups make up the social system (Giddens, 1984; Stones, 2005). Groups also portray institutionalised roles, for example, there are different expectations of civil servants then there are of city councillors.
22 first look primarily at agents’ positioning in the emergent change context and their mobilization of resources in interaction through analysis of the position-practice relations. The second step in the analysis is to examine the agents’ internal structures and how they have shaped social positions and interaction and thus the outcome of action.
Coad & Glyptis (2014) suggest position-practice relations consist of Interaction, Capabilities, Social
Positioning and Trust, expressed diagrammatically in figure 4. Interaction is reflected by the double-headed
arrows and is equal to Stones (2009) notion of active agency (or in our research: power exercise.) The circles in the figure portray an agent’s or group’s capabilities and social positioning and are equal to Stones’ notion of external structures.
Figure 4: Position – Practice relations
Coad & Glyptis (2014) add the element of trust, which is a fundamental mechanism for power in interaction in that it begins where complete knowledge ends and therefore requires faith in times of uncertainty. Giddens (1990) defined trust as “confidence in the reliability of a person or system, regarding a given set of outcomes or events, where the confidence expresses a faith in the probity […] of another” (p.34).
23
Table 1: Position-practice relations and internal structure concepts.
Concept Element Description
Social Position &
Capabilities
Social positioning The agent’s ‘identity’ within a social network [role] or the groups of individuals making up the social system
Capabilities
• Allocative resources • Authoritative resources
The ability to draw on resources, such as: • Monetary, artefactual, natural
resources
• Authority, Physical, Human, Mental resources
Trust Confidence in the reliability of a person or system Interaction Relational power exercise
• Transitive • Intransitive
Achieving outcomes through interaction: A influences B
• Negative tactic • Positive tactic
Power tactics: Friendliness, Bargaining, Reason,
Assertiveness, Higher Authority, Coalition
Upward, downward and lateral influencing tactics
Internal Structure
General dispositions Agents’ cultural habits that become internalised as dispositions to [fully unconsciously] act, think or feel in certain ways.
Context-specific knowledge Agents’ perception of the availability of resources in that specific context, (e.g. potential transitive or intransitive power) as well as shared meanings and norms present.
Overlapping structure Agent’s knowledge on power relations applied from other social systems he is part of
24
7. Within-Case Analysis
This chapter covers the results of the within-case analysis. An overview of the coding scheme used for the data analysis is provided in appendix IX. This coding scheme was applied to the second and third round of interviews, and all secondary data. Inductive codes were added in the process. Below is an overview of the results of the within-case analysis, covering each case’s social positioning, and the actual and potential power exercises of agents and their outcome.
7.1 CASE A
Figure 5 presents the position-practice relations of case A. The dotted line denotes the borders of the changelab. Within those borders are the actors who are actively involved, while those outside are not actively involved, yet they interact with parties inside. Those parties outside the context of the changelab are still considered groups that constitute the social system as they exercise power over actors within the borders of the changelab, but they are not actively involved in the experiments within the changelab.
Figure 5: Position-practice relations Case A
7.1.1 Social positioning & capabilities of actors. The Regulatory Body of the municipality is considered the highest influential power, in that it could “hinder the realization of all of your experiments, because
the minister does not agree (A1)”. It has the capability to draw upon authoritative resources, like “regulations and such (A2)”, that could prevent the actualization of experiments. The issue of trust in the regulatory body is
apparent in this case as most actors assume the regulatory body will not respond positively to their suggestions. Consequently, the regulatory body acts according to what is expected by the parties inside the changelab: abiding rules and regulations.
25 [knowledge of the field] and human [network] resources in interaction. Another issue of trust is apparent here as civil servants from the domain lack the knowledge of what is the goal of the experiment and what is expected of them by the change agents. As a result, only a limited number engage in interaction and also to a lesser extent than was expected, while the rest continue their work as they are used to. The Online Community is the Facebook page which is the central “medium through which we communicate (A2)”. Members include of citizens and civil servants who mobilize mental resources, such as information or beliefs with regard to the changelab topic. In some instances, actors from the online community act as expected by expressing “things that make you think
(A2)”, while in other instances they write negative comments, containing their discontent with the way the
organization operates, which both influence the course of action of the changelab. Those individuals who respond positively indicate their awareness of context in that they are conscious and understanding of how their power can contribute to a positive outcome.
The external change agent is hired to lead the changelab and is expected by both citizens and civil servants to take a leading position. His capabilities include mental resources, such as knowledge about consulting change projects, and autonomy, as he is given the position to make decisions. Those involved trusted his capabilities as they themselves lacked the knowledge on how to go through a process of change. “At the first
meeting, he was very influential with an entire program set for the meeting (A2)”, which determined the course
of action for the changelab. But soon, the external change agent felt that that was not the role he should have: to be in “the centre of attention, and very, ehm, steering the entire program (A1)”. He wanted to become more facilitative. At a later stage, “he had taken more distance, and designed [only] the procedure of the meeting.
Which is of course, his area of expertise (A2)”. In doing so, his role was more in the background and the Internal
change agent became the person people consulted with questions. She has the capability to mobilize mental resources [“knowledge of the municipality is in some way my area of expertise” (A2)] and human resources [“I
can connect them to departments and organise meetings (A2)”]. She thus enacted the role that was intended by
the ODT, which was new and ambiguous to her: to facilitate and encourage participants [citizens and civil servants] to take over the process. Citizens confirm this as well: “she is very involved but does not steer, so there
is no one telling us: ‘you have to do this or this’. It is only facilitating, as in: ‘if you want to do this, we can try to make it possible, or not (A4)”. The internal and external change agent cooperated well with each other.
The Citizens involved the group of individuals who “bring the ideas to the table (A5)”, which resulted in 7 pitches for development in the changelab. Citizens were expected to take this role of pitchers by drawing upon their mental and human resources [knowledge of and connections within the welfare system at local level], which was a new role to the citizens. They enact this expected role, though the issue of their mistrust in the municipality from past experiences and the uncertainty regarding the development of their pitch holds, as citizens notice the distance between themselves and the municipality [even within the context of the changelab]. The group of citizens involved is small but highly variable and some are more submissive than others.
26 within their group on which role to enact. Eventually, they remained rather distant and only became involved upon request, to mobilize the necessary monetary, human and authoritative resources.
The city councillor responsible for the Domain of Civil Servants also struggled to determine his contribution to the changelab. He was expected to “play an important role himself because he really wants to
experience that experimentation environment” (A1), and can mobilize his authority to achieve that. He was
involved in the lab for his own pitch, but his interaction with citizens was minimal: “the citizen works on his or
her own initiative and if I [the city councillor] am necessary, they can come to me” (A2). This reflects the city
councillor’s lack of contextual knowledge with regard to the changelab, where he is expected to fully participate. As a result, the trust issue between citizens and municipality remains.
7.1.2 Interaction: power exercise. Transitive power refers to the power struggles of one actor or group of actors, to achieve outcome at cost of another actor or group of actors. In case A, there are numerous examples of transitive power exercise which was mainly targeted at subordinates. This form of power exercise occurred by the mobilization of authority [one’s position in the organizational hierarchy] or autonomy [the given position to make the decision] through assertiveness [force] and exclusion tactics resulting in either submission or non-involvement and ultimately more negative outcome of action.
The city councillor used his authority to force his welfare initiative upon the changelab. “His influence was different in the beginning. “He really set the tone with one of the tests he had [his pitch], which we did not
even end up using. So we did struggle with that in the beginning(A1)”. “His idea was fixed on what had to be developed in the end (A2)”, so his pitch did not need any adjustments. The change agents and citizens struggled
with that as it was contradictory to what they expected was supposed to be done in the lab: experimentation and working together to create something. This somehow “felt forced (A2)”. This power exercise reflected the city councillor’s lack of knowledge on what was expected of him and how he reproduced his structural authority in the context of the changelab. Due to this unawareness, the outcome was a rather slow start of activities regarding his pitch, as citizens and change agents did not know how to deal with a ready-made pitch.
The change agents used their authority and autonomy in two separate instances to achieve outcome they preferred. First was in the start-up phase, when a civil servant suggested “to organise some sort of symposium,
including only entrepreneurs (A1)”, which the change agents turned down, thinking “at the time, well, it was not convenient (A1)”. Their action determined who became the primary decision makers: the change agents. As a
result, the civil servant no longer joined changelab meetings or became involved in any other way. They later realised that “we should have let him do it to discover whether it works or not (A1)”, but at the time they handled according to what they knew. Both parties lacked contextual knowledge on what the changelab could mean for both of them, and so one instance of power exercise at the cost of the civil servant was enough to lead to his non-involvement. Second was when citizens were excluded from multiple instances of decision-making. The external change agent admits that “the management process has continuously been directed by the municipality (A1)”. The internal change agent explains that “that must have been out of habit. And it should not have been like that. It is
strange that eventually you remain separate worlds (A2)”. As a result, not all opinions were taken into account
27 ‘municipality’ is the ordering group. While in the beginning, citizens did not consider this an issue, later one citizen said he had given up on trying to realize his pitch as he could not get through to the municipality.
The social security domain exercised power of authority over some of the citizens involved in the changelab by excluding them from a social welfare project, through mobilization of monetary recourses to hire consultants to do a job that citizens were willing to do for free. This reflects the lack of knowledge the civil servants have about what the changelab is trying to achieve: collaboration between civil servants and citizens, and not hiring a consultant to do the job for you. As a result, civil servants unconsciously act the way they are used to. Their outcome of action does not generate activity within the changelab through collaboration, even after attempts have been made by citizens to work together.
Finally, one instance of transitive power led to more positive outcome for the changelab, yet not for some citizens in the online community: Change agents excluded some citizens from Facebook who posted highly negative messages, resulting in “our handling of rules and also consciously warning people. Besides that, we have
removed some messages, rather than blocking people (A1)”. The change agents made this decision after talking
about it with people who had raised concerns about these negative comments. So through interaction, a new set of rules was developed with regard to Facebook which would uphold positive dialogue.
Intransitive power refers to the power exercise where involved parties achieve outcome together for personal or collective goals. In case A, this power exercise involved multiple parties using complementary human [connections] and mental [knowledge/expertise] resources through friendliness and bargaining tactics to influence each other, so an outcome could be achieved serving all parties’ goals.
Change agents, citizens, civil servants and the city councillor worked together on several occasions. The change agents had one-on-one meetings with the pitchers, “to see where they are at the moment, what problems
they face, if they still have the willpower to continue, what they need, who we can connect them to. […] to just try and see if it can create more movement (A1”). And a few times everyone, including the city councillor, came
together to work on the city councillor’s pitch. The outcome was both intended and unintended in that knowledge was shared and ideas were generated, but much of the ideas generated were not reflected in actions later on. When the city councillor joined meetings, he had changed his position of authority by taking on a “more vulnerable
position, in which he shared his motivations with people and you noticed his personal interest in some of the pitches, and that gave people the trust to really do something with it (A1)”. Whether or not the citizen’s
contributions to the city councillor’s pitch would be used is however uncertain at this point. The more vulnerable positions of change agents and the city councillor have positively influenced trust among parties, indicating a change in structural attributes where complementary resources are mobilized to generate positive outcome together, rather than forcing power of authority upon another.
28 the internal agent applied her network so that “the person who knows everything and the one who has to do
something, are put together in the same room (A1)’. The outcome was that the right people were brought together
in the right way due to the change agents’ power exercise. In addition, the internal agent learned from the external agent so she could take over his work as well later in the process, although she remained uncertain whether the facilitative technique was better than the controlled technique to guide the meetings.
7.2 Patterns Derived Case A.
Appendix X portrays a summary of above case analysis, which is used to derive the following patterns:
• Social positioning by the regulatory body, civil servants, negative online commenters and city councillor was different than was expected of them. Lack of context-specific knowledge and issues of trust were related to their reproduced structure of domination. Later: city councillor improved context-specific knowledge and issues of trust and took on a different role.
• Social positioning by the internal change agent, citizens, CCT, city councillor [later], and positive online commenters was as expected of them.
• Role enactment by the external change agent was as expected by himself and those involved in the beginning, but later became different than expected.
• Transitive power was often a choice of power exercise when parties lacked contextual knowledge, resulting in lower levels of activity as a result of the exclusion and non-involvement of actors (reproduced structure of domination). When all parties were familiar with the context, transitive power could lead to higher levels of activity as a result of exclusion of some actors (changed structure of domination). • In examples of intransitive power exercise, involved parties were already aware of the context and which
29 7.3 CASE B
Figure 6 presents the position-practice relations of case B. This case was considerably more complex to analyse as there was no clear distinction between which groups of agents was involved actively and which were not. Eventually it became apparent that the external agent was the central actor in this case, interacting with multiple parties outside the borders of the changelab, yet he had not achieved a common ground upon which all parties interacted with each other.
Figure 6: Position-practice relations Changelab B
7.3.1 Social positioning & capabilities of actors. There are two parties who do not interact with the changelab directly but are considered to play a role in the social system. These are the regulatory body and the city councillor (E9), who can affect the changelab by drawing upon their authority as a resource and make decisions that the external change agent is unaware of or disagrees with. The city councillor’s interference was minimal, because he “might be too busy to take that all up with me [external change agent] (B1)”. His position, therefore reflects the external change agent’s expectation that he is ‘too busy and therefore reluctant to become involved’. The city councillor and regulatory body are only expected to interfere when absolutely necessary, thus emphasizing the trust issue between them. The external change agent’s interacts regularly with Nicole (B4), a member of the central coordination team who has taken over some of the responsibilities of the appointed Internal change agent (B3), who is an actor that no longer interacts with the changelab (dotted two-way arrow in figure 6), because “I notice that with respect to content, she has nothing to add, and so, I can’t do anything with that
(B1)”. The external change agent therefore admits that: “I do not involve her directly because then I think: ‘I’ll have to explain her first what has been going on’(B1)”. The internal agent claims it is due to the external change
agent’s way of working: “he has said to me: ‘I am a loner’ […]. And in the beginning I did not have much time,
so I did not do much, […] so it’s a combination of things (B3)”. Due to her lack of connections, context-specific
30 The external change agent had an interesting social position in that he placed himself in the centre of the network of relations and everyone should interact through him. His mental resources [practical knowledge on project management] and autonomy [to operate independently] could help him solve the problem of his changelab. Unfortunately, that goal has not yet been achieved, as the external change agent remains to hold a lonesome position. He says it is because “the municipality, the way they communicate, is where a lot of energy gets lost
(B1)” and that “the soccer club does things behind my back, without informing me, they work with the municipality, from which I conclude that they do not think that I can play a crucial role (B1)”. So his trust in the
municipality, and other parties’ trust in him resulted in him not being able to bring the necessary groups together. Other interviewees say it is due to the external agent’s over-practical thinking and lack of creativity, and his preference to work alone that highlights the enactment of a role they did not expect of an external change agent. Nicole (B4) is the one who had the most contact with the external change agent, and saw it as her responsibility to “bring people together, at least internal to the organization (B4)”. Her human resources were therefore valuable in interaction, yet Nicole had more roles to enact, as she could also draw upon her authority as member of the CCT and her function as policy advisor for the city councillor when necessary. The former role is what the external change agent expected of her, yet the latter is what he would rather not interact with, as that would mean Nicole would try to steer him in a certain direction. Unfortunately, her role did become more “polarising” rather than “connecting”, because, as she explains: “I have not seen anything yet which indicates energy and involvement’
(B4)”. In enacting this different role, Nicole reproduces her role of authority she was familiar with instead of
holding on to that facilitative role of connector inside the organization. The final two parties the external change agent interacts with are the Citizens, who are mostly from sports societies and the covering sports association, and The Domain of Civil Servants from the municipality. Both are expected to enact an active role in the changelab and collaborate to find an innovative solution to the problem they face with the sports complex that needed adjustments. The citizens’ knowledge about what needs to happen and the possibilities are valuable to finding innovative solutions. The civil servants’ complementary resources of knowledge of regulations the municipality holds and the specific field could contribute to that. Unfortunately, both parties did not enact the role that was expected of them. The citizens “are stuck in their role [of being sponsored by the municipality], and that is very
difficult to get them out (B2)”. The external change agent noticed a significant trust issue between citizens and
civil servants and believes that is why they are reluctant to work together and that all energy to accomplish something together is lost because of it. The external agent therefore does not get much more from the civil servants, other than information about the history of the problem, which they have faced for several years already. As a civil servant explains: “B1 hasn’t succeeded, which I can understand completely, because we tried that
already, to create movement there, and we haven’t succeeded either (B2)”. In response to this all, the external
change agent decided to do something else and look for citizens working on similar projects in sports who can help him. He believes that “if you show them [citizens and the municipality] that things could work, then things
start to flow (B1)”.
31 of his possible value [unconscious action], or their distrust in his capabilities [conscious action]. One example is when the city councillor mobilized his authority and his monetary resources through assertiveness to influence the targeted party, resulting in their submission. Once, when he ordered the sports domain to invest money in the tennis club, which was a situation that “two other civil servants had stranded upon because they did not believe
it was a good idea to invest in tennis. But then the city councillor says, ‘we are going to do this’, […] but then you insult two people who have invested a lot of time to solve issues with that tennis club (B1)”. In doing so,
citizens are content, but the sports domain is disappointed and they mistrust the changelab even more, because they think the external change agent was involved in the city councillor’s decision, which was not the case: “he
[city councillor] made concessions, or has put things in motion, which I did not know about (B1)”. Another time,
the city councillor ordered Nicole (B4) to deal with an angry letter he received from citizens regarding their sports complex, which forced her to exercise transitive power over the changelab. Both examples reflect the city councillor’s and the submissive parties’ [sports domain & Nicole] lack of context-specific knowledge which leads them to reproduce their structure of domination.
Transitive power has also been exercised in interaction with the changelab [or external change agent]. Once by Nicole (B4) who had been forced by the city councillor to exercise control over the changelab which she did not feel comfortable with, but “At least, through this letter, something is happening, giving you an opportunity
to bring something in motion (B4)”. Nicole mobilizes her authority by forcing the external change agent and
sports domain to hold a meeting to discuss what has happened. Her power exercise had intended outcome in that parties were brought together, yet unintended outcomes were that the external change agent now choose to exclude her in later stages. His exclusion of Nicole, [and the internal change agent at an earlier stage] has left the external change agent as the sole decision-maker, who says that “I am not ready [to bring all parties together], because I
don’t trust that will work. And I think that both groups are not ready to try and learn each other’s language (B1)”.
Nicole and the external change agent’s intransitive power struggle have resulted in a low level of activity within the changelab and thus reflect that both hold on to their structure of domination, rather than experiment which form of power relations could increase activity and trust among parties.
Only minimal intransitive power exercise was observed in case B. In the starting phase of the lab, several groups came together to mobilize their complementary mental and human resources through a variety of influencing tactics [friendliness, higher authority, bargaining], which achieved both intended and unintended outcome. On an individual level, Nicole and the external change agent brainstormed for possible ways to proceed with the changelab: “she informs me, I inform her. Sometimes we brainstorm together (B1)”. Afterwards, Nicole would take a step back to enact her other roles [CCT member & policy advisor], leaving the external change agent to execute their generated ideas. When the external change agent encountered difficulties to involve parties for cooperation, he and Nicole organised a meeting which was attended by civil servants of the sports domain. “In
the first hour there was a lot of energy, and then all of a sudden, when I wanted to make it more concrete to the group, all that energy faded away (B4)”. When the civil servants were asked to help the external change agent
32 7.4 Patterns Derived Case B
Appendix X portrays a summary of the above case analysis, which is used to derive the following patterns: • Social positioning by the external change agent, citizens and sports domain was different than expected
of them by others. For the external change agent however, he believed his role enactment was as expected by himself. Lack of context-specific knowledge and issues of trust were related to the reproduced structure of domination of the citizens and sports domain.
• Social positioning by the regulatory body, city councillor and external change agent was as expected of them by others. Only the internal change agent did not get a chance to prove otherwise.
• Social positioning of Nicole (B4) was as expected by herself and others in the beginning (changed structure), but later became different than expected.
• Transitive power was the primary choice of power exercise when parties lacked contextual knowledge, resulting in lower levels of activity as a result of surpassing the context of action completely (reproduced structure of domination).
• Transitive power was often a choice of power exercise when actors were familiar with the context of action and which resources could be mobilized, which did not lead to higher levels of activity as a result of exclusion and non-involvement of parties (reproduced structure of domination)
