Search results

This paper aims to analyze current practices, discuss empowerment from the theoretical perspectives on power in organizations and suggest an empowerment model based on the type of organizational culture and the role of human resource development (HRD).

By reviewing the classic viewpoint of power, Lukes’ three-dimensional power and Foucault’s disciplinary power, we discuss power and empowerment in organizational contexts.

Power in organizations can be conceptualized based on the classic view, Foucault and critical view and Lukes’ three-dimensional power. We found that true employee empowerment is related to the third dimension of power. The role of HRD for empowerment can be categorized into enhancing motivation and commitment in terms of psychological empowerment and bringing real power to employees. The proposed empowerment model assumes that organizational culture influences the dimensions of empowerment and the role of HRD for supporting empowerment.

HRD needs to critically assess the meaning of power in particular contexts (Morrell and Wilkinson, 2002) before planning and implementing specific training and development interventions for performance improvement and/or organization development interventions for innovation.

This study attempts to review, analyze and discuss issues regarding employee empowerment from HRD perspectives. Implications for the roles of HRD and the empowerment model are proposed.

This article will attempt to argue and demonstrate that the existing and extensive literature on bargaining power in industrial relations focuses almost exclusively on two central aspects of power. Whilst both these approaches throw valuable light on some aspects of power, we shall seek to argue that the predominance of these constrained perspectives has resulted in the relative neglect of other important aspects. Thus we shall identify several lacunae in the literature and seek to raise some hitherto unexamined questions. We shall also argue that, because of the partial nature of the existing literature, there is a need to develop a more coherent and comprehensive model of power which is capable of integrating the multiple facets and incorporating the existing insights.

This paper aims to present the outcomes from 40 one-to-one semi-structured interviews and 12 focus group sessions with company secretaries, chairmen, CEOs, chief financial officer (CFOs), senior independent director (SIDs) and NEDs, about the role of the company secretary.

Lukes’ (1974, 2005) third dimension of power is engaged in thematic analysis of this strategic leadership role and its contribution to Board effectiveness.

The findings identify “discretionary capacity” as being critical to effective role contribution.

Whilst the inquiry included international participants, e.g. multi-national Board members and company secretaries, it was conducted within the UK.

Having a range of discretion is particularly necessary at this time, when the new governance regime is broadening its demands on the role of the company secretary to interact with wider stakeholders.

Better Board effectiveness is critical to broader sustainability of business in society.

An emergent model of the company secretary role is offered as a tool for building discretionary capacity, based on key technical, commercial and social characteristics, in their contexts – understood together as “Breadth” and “Majesty”. Breadth establishes a competency, whereas majesty, the refined high-level social qualities. This study concludes that the company secretary role is highly dependent on the preferences of the chairman, in enabling them to make an effective contribution to the Board.

There has been increasing engagement with Annual General Meetings (AGMs) in the UK during the past decade by both private investors and protesters. At the same time, proposals have been mooted to allow companies to not hold such meetings. When examined from an agency theory perspective, AGMs appear largely redundant. This paper reports a qualitative investigation of such meetings and considers their relevance both as sites for the expression of stakeholder issues and also as a means for management to (re)confirm their power and status. The paper utilises Lukes (1974) three‐dimensional model of power as an alternative to the conceptualisation of power inherent in agency theory as a means of analysing the dynamics of power at AGMs

Power forms part of the everyday common‐sense language and conceptual framework used by experts and laymen alike to describe industrial relations processes and phenomena. Yet, despite the obvious centrality and importance of power to the study of industrial relations, it may be argued that the concept represents a major lacuna in the theoretical development of the discipline. Thus, there is relatively little literature in industrial relations which focuses directly on the concept. From a study of this literature, and the much more voluminous and extensive work on power in other disciplines (notably sociology, economics and political science), one can discern two almost exclusive central foci. Firstly, there is one school of thought which conceptualises power as an outcome or the result of some other process. From this perspective, the power of social actors can only be ascertained by an analysis of their effects on outcomes or observable events. The second school sees power as a material resource which can be possessed, stored and deployed to achieve the goals of the actor. Whilst both these approaches throw valuable light on some aspects of power, it may be suggested that the predominance of these constrained perspectives has resulted in the relative neglect of other important aspects of power.

The paper aims to conceptualise cosmopolitanism drivers from the third-level power perspective by drawing on the Steven Lukes’ (1974; 2005) theory of power. Additionally, the paper aims to investigate the relationship between entrepreneurs’ cosmopolitan dispositions and habitus, i.e. a pattern of an individual’s demeanour, as it was understood by Pierre Bourdieu.

This conceptual paper makes use of Bourdieu’s framework (habitus) by extending it to the urban cosmopolitan environment and linking habitus to the three-dimensional theory of power and, importantly, to the power’s third dimension – preference-shaping.

Once cosmopolitanism is embedded in the urban area’s values, this creates multiple endless rounds of mutual influence (by power holders onto entrepreneurs via political and business elites and by entrepreneurs onto power holders via the same channels), with mutual benefit. Therefore, mutually beneficial influence that transpires in continuous support of a cosmopolitan city’s environment may be viewed as one of the factors that enhances cosmopolitan cities’ resilience to changes in macroeconomic conditions.

The paper offers a theoretical model that allows to enrich the understanding of the power–cosmopolitanism–entrepreneurship link by emphasising the preference-shaping capacity of power, which leads to embedding cosmopolitanism in societal values. As a value shared by political and business elites, cosmopolitanism is also actively promoted by entrepreneurs through their disposition and habitus. This ensures not only their willing compliance with power and the environment but also their enhancement of favourable business conditions. Entrepreneurs depart from mere acquiescence (to power and its explicit dominance) to practicing their cosmopolitan influence by active preference-shaping.

Bourdieu’s construct of the field of power has received relatively little attention despite its novelty and theoretical potential. This paper explores the meaning and implications of the construct, and integrates it into a wider conception of the formation and functioning of elites at the highest level in society. Drawing on an extensive dataset profiling the careers of members of the French business elite, it compares and contrasts those who enter the field of power with those who fail to qualify for membership, exploring why some succeed as hyper-agents while others do not. The alliance of social origin and educational attainment, class and meritocracy, emerges as particularly compelling. The field of power is shown to be relatively variegated and fluid, connecting agents from different life worlds. Methodologically, this paper connects biographical data of top French directors with the field of power in France in a novel way, while presenting an operationalization of Bourdieu’s concept of the field of power as applied to the French elite.