Dysfunction and Power

Consistent with prior research in social psychology and organizational behavior, we adopt the most commonly used definition for the basic construct of power – control over valued resources. Power holders have the capacity to influence other's attitudes and behaviors as well as the capacity to resist others' influence. In understanding power, gaining insight into the different resources upon which power can be based is important. Namely, resources which can afford power must be subjectively consequential (e.g., materials, rewards, job title, information access, etc.) and important. When someone possesses a resource, which is not seen as valuable to others, the person cannot be said to have power. When studying power in the context of teams, teams naturally contain a variety of valuable resources, including material (e.g., money, food, economic opportunity, professional security, physical safety, etc.), social (e.g., knowledge, information, expertise, affection, friendship, social approval, decision-making opportunities, etc.), and cultural resources (habitus, taste, style of speech and dress, etc.). Different frameworks have proposed different components of power (such as coercive, reward, legitimate, reference, and informational bases of power as proposed by French & Raven), and there has been much debate in the literature on whether different power bases differ or converge in their effects.

One popular comparison has been between formal power (i.e., asymmetric organizational resource control; Magee & Galinsky) and informal power, or status (i.e., respect, prestige, admiration and esteem that a party has in the eyes of others. The basis of these forms differs in that formal power reflects the actual control of tangible resources and is a property of the actor and informal power reflects the control one has been socially conferred by others and is a property of co-actors and observers. While the effects of formal and informal power have been found to differ at the individual-level of analysis, a recent meta-analysis found no systematic differences among the bases of power when analyzed at the team-level of analysis. We therefore cover all studies which could potentially come under the umbrella of power, across all potential power bases, including studies which measure power via formal roles, expertise, referent position or status, legitimate control of resources such as outside alternatives to negotiation outcomes in negotiation studies, and salary. We note that these bases are only reliable measures of power when they are socially valued in a team. For example, salary is a proxy for power in a team only when it is publically known and valued. By taking a broad stance in our review, this allows us to be inclusive of the different approaches that exist to the study of power in teams and to have the broadest overview possible of the work in this area.

When investigating power in the context of teams, or interacting groups, researchers have had to find ways to conceptualize and operationalize power at the team-level of analysis. Similar to other research which has sought to understand how individual traits and properties, such as personality or values, can be compiled to the team level, those researching power at the team level of analysis have investigated different ways to conceptualize power at the team level. The two primary conceptualizations of power in teams thus far are team power-level and team power-dispersion.

Team power-level is defined as a team's control of valued resources in an organization or broader social system. A team's resource control could come from the average of individual members within the team. Team power-level, in this form, is at its highest when all members within the team hold a high level of power, and is lowest when all members within the team hold a low level of power. Past research has operationalized team power by looking at the average control of resources held by members in a team within the broader company, as well as by looking at the average talent level, or control of expertise related assets of members in the team. A team's resource control can also come from the power bestowed on a team by the broader context which translates to its members. For example, a company may construct a task force which has the mandate to guide a change throughout the company. While the individual members in this team may come from all levels of the company, the power vested in this team to change the entire organization can give the team, and thereby its members, far-reaching power in the company. To illustrate, past research has looked at this type of power by having HR directors within a telecommunications company rate the power held by different members within the company. Team power-level, in both forms, is thus at its highest when all members within the team hold a high level of power, and is lowest when all members within the team hold a low level of power. Research has shown that teams are similarly impacted by both sources of team power - be it the average of individual member power or the team's possession of power in the broader organization.

Team power-dispersion is defined as vertical differentiation in the amounts of resources controlled by different members within the team. A team's power dispersion is based on comparing the relative resource control of different members within the team, and past research has examined this by looking at the coefficient of variation or gini coefficient in salary or the presence of different ranks or control of organizational resources. Teams reach the highest power dispersion if power is concentrated within one person, whereas it reaches the lowest power dispersion if power is equally distributed among all team members. For example, a team in which one member holds a substantially more influential job title than others would have high power dispersion, and a team in which all members hold similarly valued job titles would have lower power dispersion.

The main behavioral process around power which has been studied in combination with such power structures in teams is intra-team power struggles. Power struggles are defined as the degree to which members compete over the relative levels of valuable resources controlled by members within the team. Team power struggles reflect behavioral processes by which members may overtly or covertly try to change the structure of power in the team, including improving their own power positions or challenging the power positions of others. Team power struggles have been assessed by surveys of team-members as well as via video-coding of team interactions. Teams have the highest levels of power struggles when all members are actively competing over power within the team, and teams have the lowest levels of power struggles when there is no competition over power within the team. For example, a team of business unit leaders could be said to have a high level of power struggles when all team members are competing against one another to procure monetary resources available to their team for their own individual purposes within their different business units. In contrast, a team in which power roles and positions haven't changed in years, and members feel comfortably freely sharing resources, such as time or money, with one another can be said to have a low level of power struggles.