Dysfunction and Power

Power sensitivity of members in high power teams and teams with high power dispersion may elicit team power struggles, as members that are excessively perceptive of, affected by, and responsive to the distribution of resources in the team are more prone to try to protect or improve their own power position in the team. However, we argue that this link between power sensitivity and power struggles is largely contextual. In other words, being sensitive to power does not necessarily mean that members will struggle for power. In this conflict account of power in teams, we theorize that only in situations where members' resources are perceived to be threatened (either due to internal team factors or due to external team factors), power sensitivity will translate into power struggles. When such threats are absent, teams will remain sensitive to power, but this will not impair their interactions or outcomes. In such settings, power could even be used to benefit teams. We focus here on unpacking exactly why and when power could harm teams in such situations, and call for future research to extend our research to understand how once the downsides of power are turned off, the benefits of power for team outcomes can be achieved.

Internal team threats

We postulate that internal team factors that create a perceived threat to members' (personal) resources make members more likely to act out on their power sensitivity. Namely, internal team threats implicitly threaten members' power position, and thereby encourage power-sensitized teams to engage in power struggles. Internal factors that create threats to members' resources are aspects of the internal team environment which make power in the team unstable and therefore more easily contested. Such factors can include great power inequities within the team, illegitimate power dispersions, easily mutable power dispersions, and factionalization within the team. All of these factors make members of high power-level and high power-dispersed teams concerned about their personal resource control and power position, and thereby provoke members of power-sensitive teams to fight for their own position, triggering team outcome-detracting internal power struggles.

When power sensitive teams have great perceived inequities, they are more likely to get embroiled in power struggles. Inequity is inherent to power dispersion. However, the degree of inequity may vary in power-dispersed teams. Power dispersion can be greater or smaller, meaning that there are more or less inequities between members. The larger the inequities between members (i.e., the greater the power dispersion), and the more unequally resources are distributed, the more likely members will engage in power struggles. That is, lower ranked members may consider the power distribution to be unfair, and may start to revolt. Higher ranked members may also be extra afraid to lose their powerful position (i.e., the more you have, the more you can lose), and may start to actively defend their position. Support for this idea comes from research on management teams, which shows that more inequitable distributions of power increase political behaviors and power struggles. Related research also shows that when inequity is highlighted in the layout of how passengers board airplanes (they have to walk by first class seats to get to economy seats), conflict is more likely (i.e., air rage incidents). Finally, the Arab Spring also illustrates how great inequities may lead to power struggles. In the countries of the Arab Spring, inequity had become extreme − dictators had all the power and the people had none. Such extreme inequity provoked the people into rising up and deposing (or trying to depose) their leaders in a violent way. Therefore, great inequities are expected to amplify the relationship between intra-team power sensitivity and power struggles.

Illegitimate power dispersions are also more likely to become contested. Power dispersions can be perceived as illegitimate, or based on reasons which are unfair or undeserving, due to several reasons. One reason could be that the process through which power positions are obtained is seen as unreasonable or unfair (e.g., high rank is obtained due to nepotism rather than meritocracy or democracy). Another reason may be that the criteria on which the power dispersion is based are seen as fraudulent (e.g., the power dispersion is dominance rather than competence based). Last, the norms, rules, and parameters that regulate the ongoing stability of power dispersion may be viewed as incorrectly, illegally, or unfairly established. When power dispersion is perceived as illegitimate, this tends to lead lower ranked members to rebel against the current distribution of power. Support for this comes from the organizational justice literature which shows that perceptions of organizational injustice are positively associated with a wide variety of protests. Illegitimacy may also promote dominant and competitive behaviors from higher ranked members, who perceive their powerful position to be less secure and hence try to acquire more power to strengthen their position. As such, power illegitimacy encourages members to try to change the current power structure, and thus to act on the power sensitivity within the team.

When power positions are mutable, i.e., the power dispersion is less rigid and stable, competitions over power between members are more common. When there is greater mutability in a power distribution, there is greater opportunity for upward mobility, which motivates members to compete over power, as they hope to advance in the hierarchy. Greater mobility does not only motivate lower ranked members to try to promote their rank, it also motivates higher ranked members to protect their rank, as they may feel threatened in their position. Indeed, in power dispersions that are less stable, higher ranked members are known to act in self-serving manners, and at times even to pre-emptively strike, in order to safeguard their own position. This suggests that when power is salient and positions are mutable, members will be focused on promoting and protecting their own individual position in the team. Therefore, in teams with high position mutability, power sensitivity is more likely to result into intra-team power struggles.

When teams are more factionalized, the relationship between power sensitivity and power struggles is also expected to become stronger. Teams become factionalized when members put themselves and each other into social categories, rather than seeing each other as individuals. In start-up teams, early stage founders often struggle to keep sales people and engineers from factionalizing into subgroups that compete with each other. When teams become factionalized, the threats posed by us-versus-them conflicts within the team may spark underlying power sensitivities, leading power differences to ignite turf wars between the factional groups. For example, Eisenhardt and Bourgeois found that when team power dispersions are prone to inequality or factionalization, members are more likely to engage in intragroup politics. Similarly, Zahra and Pearce suggested that power factionalization among high-power board members heightens disagreement and fighting.

However, when internal resource threats are absent, members are less likely to act on their power sensitivity. For example, when the distribution of power is more equitable, members are less likely to engage in political activities in order to expand their own resource control. And work by Anderson and colleagues has shown that people, in legitimate power dispersions, are careful to not overstep their position, as such oversteps can be heavily punished by their team members. Moreover, when members' power moves in teams are seen as legitimate, the upcoming power transitions within the team tend to take place smoothly and eventually benefit team effectiveness. Therefore, we propose that power-sensitized teams (i.e. high-power teams and teams with high power-dispersion) will only have team outcome-detracting power struggles when teams experience internal threats to member resources. When threats are absent, power sensitivities will not lead to downstream negative consequences for teams.

Proposition 2

When members in teams perceive personal resource threats within the team, such as from perceiving positions in the team as inequitable, illegitimate, mutable, or factionalized, power sensitivity will increase intra-team power struggles.

External team threats

We further argue that external team factors that pose a threat to teams' perceived levels of resources will also increase the likelihood that team power-sensitivity provokes power struggles. This is because external factors that form threats to team resources indirectly also threaten members' personal resources, as members receive their personal resources from the team's resource pool. External threats to team resources could include intergroup conflict, environmental uncertainty, and organizational change. We propose that members of high power teams and teams with high power dispersion, due to their power sensitivity, will be mainly concerned about the individual-level implications of the resource threat (and thus how this resource threat translates to their own power position) and fear that other members will do the same. That is, power sensitive members are vigilant for changes in resource control within the team, and when resources are threatened, a change in resource distribution become more probable. Therefore, when resource threats occur for power-sensitized teams, members are likely to experience this as a threat to their own power position, and power struggles will ensue.

When power sensitized teams get involved in intergroup conflicts, power struggles are a likely consequence. Intergroup conflicts between teams are common occurrences in organizations, as teams are mutually dependent on the same valuable but finite organizational resource pool. For instance, teams may come into conflict with each other about the allocation of resources, such as budget or personnel. Intergroup conflicts inherently pose a threat to a team's own internal resources, as these conflicts may result in teams losing out on desired resources. But also, teams need to expend time and energy towards battling the conflicting team, which means that team resources cannot directly be converted into team tasks. This press on team resources also threatens members' individual resource shares, which will stimulate power sensitive members to seek to protect their own individual resource share and power position. Support for this notion comes from a multi-method study by Van Bunderen, Greer et al. and Van Bunderen, Van Knippenberg et al.. They showed, with both ongoing teams in a health insurance organization and student negotiation teams, that resource threatening intergroup conflicts increased power struggles in teams with high power dispersion, but reduced intra-team power struggles in teams with low power dispersion (thereby supporting the general assumption that resource threats in general, and intergroup conflict specifically, may have cohesive effects on teams with low power dispersed structures).

When power-sensitized teams operate in volatile, high uncertainty environments, power struggles are also a likely result. In volatile, high uncertainty environments, it is difficult for members to predict what the future will bring, creating uncertainty about the future resource supply for the team. While resources may not currently be scarce for these teams, the fact that this can change at any moment makes members worried about and focused on team resources. We expect that this anxiety translates for power sensitive members into a concern about their own personal resource share and hence their power position, increasing the likelihood of power struggles in such situations. In support of this reasoning, a qualitative study by Eisenhardt and Bourgeois on power and politics in top management teams in the micro-computer industry showed that in high velocity environments, high uncertainty around resources amplified power and politics within teams.

When power sensitized teams are confronted with organizational change, internal power struggles are a likely consequence. In order to stay competitive, organizations may often choose to reorganize or reprioritize. Such organizational changes tend to pose a resource threat to organizational teams, as they may cause teams to lose out on budget, membership, or status. Also in this situation, we expect members that are sensitive to power to become mainly concerned about what this impending organizational change means for them personally, and as such to focus on their own personal survival - leading them to want to bolster their own individual power position. Support for this prediction can be found in work by Van Bunderen, Van Knippenberg et al., who show in a field study that anticipated organizational change in teams increased social comparisons around position as well as team performance-detracting power struggles in teams with high power dispersion, but decreased these processes and dynamics in teams with low power dispersion.

When external team resource threats are absent, members are less likely to let their power sensitivity guide them and less likely to act out to preserve their power. For instance, when teams operate in very stable, collaborative, resource-abundant environments, and members' power positions are not threatened, members of power-sensitized teams may not vie with another for power. As such, we posit that power-sensitized teams (i.e. high-power teams and teams with high power-dispersion) will only experience team outcome-impairing power struggles when teams experience external team resource threats:

Proposition 3

When teams face external resource threats, such as from intergroup conflict, environmental uncertainty, or organizational changes, power sensitivity will increase intra-team power struggles.