Advertisement

Systems practice

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 339–355 | Cite as

A typology of power supporting intervention

  • Robert L. Flood
  • Norma R. A. Romm
Papers

Abstract

A typology of power is presented. The typology guides researchers/practitioners to the main concerns currently debated about power and its abuses. Possible ways of managing organisational issues explicitly dealing with power and abuses are explored. The typology forms threearenas of discourse to make this possible: structuralism, intersubjective decision making, and might-right management. Structuralism deals with issues surrounding organisational design and process design. Intersubjective decision making deals with issues surrounding processes of debate. Might-right management deals with issues surrounding disempowering social practices that impact on designing and debating. The arenas of discourse suggest ways, that differ, of understanding and managing a range of issues related to the operation of power. This is part of a wider project called Diversity Management, which in turn is part of Critical Systems Thinking.

Key words

typology of power managing power Diversity Management Critical Systems Thinking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1981).Creating the Corporate Future, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Ackoff, R. L. (1993). Idealised design: Creative corporate visioning.OMEGA 21, 401–410.Google Scholar
  3. Babüroglu, O. N., and Ravn, I. (1992). Normative action research.Organis. Stud. 13, 19–34.Google Scholar
  4. Bachrach, P., and Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power.Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 56, 947–52.Google Scholar
  5. Beer, S. (1973).Designing Freedom, Canadian Broadcasting, Toronto.Google Scholar
  6. Benhabib, S. (1990). Epistemdiogies of postmodernism: A rejoinder to Jean-FranÇois Lyotard. In Nicholson, L. J. (ed.),Feminism/Postmodernism, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, R. (1993).Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom, Verso, London.Google Scholar
  8. Bhaskar, R. (1994).Plato Etc., Verso, London.Google Scholar
  9. Checkland, P. B. (1991).Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  10. Checkland, P. B., and Scholes, J. (1990).Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  11. Clegg, S. R. (1989).Frameworks of Power, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. L., and Arato, A. (1994).Civil Society and Political Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1993).The Three-Dimensional Organization, Studentlitteratur, Lund.Google Scholar
  14. Dahl, R. (1961).Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  15. Dandridge, T. C. (1985). The life stages of a symbol: When symbols work and when they can't. In Frost, P. J. Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R. Lundberg, C. C., and Martin, J. (eds.),Organizational Culture, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  16. Denzin, N. K. (1991).Images of Postmodern Society, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  17. Donnellon, A., and Kolb, D. M. (1994). Constructive for whom? The fate of diversity disputes in organizations.J. Soc. Issues 50, 139–55.Google Scholar
  18. Fals-Borda, O. (1991). Some basic ingredients. In Fals-Borda, O., and Rahman, M. A. (eds.),Action and Knowledge, Apex Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Flood, R. L. (1993). Practicing freedom: Designing, debating and disemprisoning.OMEGA 21, 7–16.Google Scholar
  20. Flood, R. L. (1995).Solving Problem Solving, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  21. Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. A. (1955a). Diversity Management: Theory in action.Syst. Pract. 8, 469–482.Google Scholar
  22. Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. A. (1995b). Enhancing the process of methodology choice in Total Systems Intervention (TSI) and improving chances of tackling coercion.Syst. Pract. 8, 377–482.Google Scholar
  23. Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. A. (1996).Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning, Wiley, Chichester (in press).Google Scholar
  24. Forester, J. (1987). The policy analysis—Critical theory affair: Wildavsky and Habermas as bed-fellows. In Forester, J. (ed.),Critical Theory and Public Life, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  25. Forester, J. (1989).Planning in the Face of Power, University of California Press, London.Google Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. (1984). In Rabinow, P. (ed.),The Foucault Reader, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (1986). Disciplinary power and subjection. In Lukes, S. (ed.),Power, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Freire, P. (1985).The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation, Bergin and Garvey, MA.Google Scholar
  29. Fuenmayor, R., and Lopez-Garay, H. (1991). The scene for Interpretative Systemology.Syst. Pract. 4, 401–418.Google Scholar
  30. Gergen, K. J. (1994). The limits of pure critique. In Simons, H. W., and Billig, M. (eds.),After Postmodernism: Reconstructing Ideology Critique, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  31. Giddens, A. (1977).Studies in Social and Political Theory, Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  32. Gouldner, A. W. (1973).The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Gutmann, A., and Thompson, D. (1995). Moral disagreement in a democracy. InSocial Philos. Policy 12, 87–110.Google Scholar
  34. Habermas, J. (1989).The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. Habermas, J. (1993).Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  36. Hartsock, N. (1990). Foucault on power: A theory for women? In Nicholson, L. J. (ed.),Feminism/Postmodernism, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Hofstede, G. (1994).Uncommon Sense About Organizations, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  38. Jackson, N., and Carter, P. (1991). In defence of paradigm incommensurability.Organiz. Stud. 12, 109–127.Google Scholar
  39. Knights, D., and Vurdubakis, T. (1994). Foucault, power, resistance and all that. In Jarmier, J. M., Knights, D., and Nord, W. R. (eds.),Resistance and Power in Organizations, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  40. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1988). The micro-social order: towards a reconception. In Fielding, N. G. (ed.),Actions and Structure: Research Methods and Social Theory, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  41. Kuhn, T. S. (1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  42. Lukes, S. (1974).Power: A Radical View, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  43. Lundberg, C. C. (1985). On the feasibility of cultural intervention in organizations. In Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., and Martin, J. (eds.),Organizational Culture, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  44. Lyotard, J. F. (1990). The postmodern condition. In Alexander, J. C., and Seidman, S. (eds.),Culture and Society: Contemporary Debates, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  45. Maghimbi, S. (1990). The abolition of peasant cooperatives and the crisis in the rural economy in Tanzania. In Forster, P. G., and Maghimbi, S. (eds.),The Tanzanian Peasantry: Economy in Crisis, Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  46. McKay, V. I., and Romm, N. R. A. (1992).People's Education in Theoretical Perspective, Maskew Miller Longman, Cape Town.Google Scholar
  47. Midgley, G. (1992). Pluralism and the legitimation of systems science.Syst. Pract. 5, 147–172.Google Scholar
  48. Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory.Admin. Sci. Q. 25, 605–621.Google Scholar
  49. Moggridge, A., and Reason, P. (1996). Human inquiry: Steps towards emancipatory practice.Syst. Pract. 9, 159–175.Google Scholar
  50. Nola, R. (1994). Post-modernism, a French cultural Chernobyl: Foucault on power/knowledge.Inquiry 37, 3–43.Google Scholar
  51. Ojo, O. J. B. (1983). Towards a development oriented political science curriculum. In Barongo, Y. (ed.),Political Science in Africa, Zed Press, London.Google Scholar
  52. Oliga, J. (1996).Power, Ideology and Control, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  53. Parker, M. (1993). Life after Jean-FranÇois. In Hassard, J., and Parker, M. (eds.),Postmodernism and Organizations, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  54. Parsons, T. (1957). The distribution of power in American society.World Polit. 10, 123–143.Google Scholar
  55. Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of influence.Public Opin. Q. 27, 37–62.Google Scholar
  56. Parsons, T. (1973). Social classes and class conflict in the light of recent sociological theory. In Thompson, K., and Tunstall, J. (eds.),Sociological Perspectives, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  57. Payne, S. L. (1992). Critical Systems Thinking: A challenge or dilemma in its practice?Syst. Pract. 5, 237–249.Google Scholar
  58. Rahman, M. A. (1991). The theoretical standpoint of PAR. In Fals-Borda, O., and Rahman, M. A. (eds.),Action and Knowledge, Apex Press, New York.Google Scholar
  59. Romm, N. R. A. (1994). Symbolic theory. In Romm, N. R. A., and Sarakinsky, M. (eds.),Social Theory, Heinemann, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
  60. Romm, N. R. A., and Romm, N. (1987). Militarising tolerance.De Arte 36, 23–25.Google Scholar
  61. Sayer, A., and Walker, R. (1992).The New Social Economy, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  62. Schön, D. A. (1989). Supplement on planning education: Teaching planning practice. Case study presented in Forester, J. (ed.),Planning in the Face of Power, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  63. Shotter, J. (1993).Cultural Politics of Everyday Life, Oxford University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
  64. Ulrich, W. (1983).Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy, Haupt, Berne.Google Scholar
  65. Ulrich, W. (1994). Can we secure future-responsive management through Systems Thinking and Design?Interfaces 4, 26–37.Google Scholar
  66. Vanderplaat, M. (1995). Beyond technique: Issues in evaluating for empowerment.Evaluation 1, 81–96.Google Scholar
  67. Wrong, D. H. (1995).Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  68. Zhichang, Z. (1995). Government policy/decision making: Dealing with contestable interests. In Bergvall-Kareborn, B. (ed.),Systems Thinking, Government Policy and Decision Making, Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the International Society for Systems Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Flood
    • 1
  • Norma R. A. Romm
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Systems Studies, School of ManagementUniversity of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations