The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Structural Conditions of Intraorganizational Power
Abstract
1 This research was carried out at the Faculty of Business Administration, University of Alberta, with the support of Canada Council Grants No. 67-0253 and No. 69-0714, and concluded at the Organizational Analysis Research Unit, University of Bradford, England, and the Industrial Administration Research Unit, The University of Aston in Birmingham, England. The strategic-contingencies theory of intraorganizational power proposed by Hickson et al. hypothesizes that the power of subunits results from contingent dependences among them created by unspecified combinations of coping with uncertainty, workflow centrality (immediacy and pervasiveness), and nonsubstitutability. This paper reports on methods devised to test this theory with alternative forms of data on seven organizations, or power systems, of four subunits each. The theory is refined by the exploration of different patterns of variables related to successive levels of power, and the tentative ordering of these variables in terms of their consequences for power.1
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation
Finkelstein, S. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256485 · Cited by 2,389
Representing and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392322 · Cited by 2,064
Being in the Right Place: A Structural Analysis of Individual Influence in an Organization
Brass, D. J. (1984) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392937 · Cited by 1,549
Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393414 · Cited by 1,014
Robey, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (1999) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.10.2.167 · Cited by 765
Diversified Mentoring Relationships in Organizations: A Power Perspective
Ragins, B. R. (1997) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1997.9707154067 · Cited by 724
Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing
Lee, M. Y., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.002 · Cited by 540
Resource Dependence Theory – How Well Does It Explain Behavior of Organizations?
Nienhüser, W. (2008) · management revu · doi:10.5771/0935-9915-2008-1-2-9 · Cited by 235
2. Is it lonely at the top?: The independence and interdependence of power holders
Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2001) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(01)23003-2 · Cited by 174
Cooperative and Competitive Relationships Between Leaders and Subordinates
Tjosvold, D., Andrews, R., & Jones, H. (1983) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872678303601203 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- Hinings, C. R., Hickson, D. J., Pennings, J. M., & Schneck, R. E.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1974-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169268900
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.