Web Power
...a manager’s “ability to deal with environmental dependencies”. The more contacts and relationships a manager develops within the external and internal work environment, the greater is his/her expert power. Others often seek out managers with expert power for information and advice on strategic decisions. Prestige power results from status and reputation. Similar to boundary spanners, managers may gain power and information from external contacts, such as powerful friends and privileged backgrounds. Managerial shareholdings reduce outside board influence and familial relationships may bypass formal organizational structures; taken together, they indicate ownership power. 3. The web, power, and public relations The World Wide Web provides a suitable lens through which to view how practitioners gain management power within their organizations because the web elevates practitioners’ status and roles within organizations. Practitioners gain power in organizations through effective issues management, and the web offers practitioners an effective tool for issues identification and management. Practitioners use the web to become “information entrepreneurs”, a concept akin to expertise power, and practitioners’ productivity and efficiency have been enhanced by e-mail, online databases and the web, boosting their status in their organizations. Ownership creates its own set of privileges, permitting reductions of outside influences and shortcuts within organizational structures, leading to ownership power (Finkelstein, 1992). A study found that public relations practitioners who more frequently use the web are more likely than less-frequent web users to perceive that their web use empowers them in their jobs. These ways of empowerment are positively related to three of Finkelstein’s (1992) power conceptualizations: structural,expert and prestige power. “Super users” see their web use as an integral part of the level of position they achieve (structural power), how others see them in the organization (expert power), and their own personal achievement (prestige power). 4. Structural power Results were strongest and broadest for structural power, conceptualized by Finkelstein (1992) as encompassing a manager’s formal position within an organization. Practitioner-“super users” of the web most frequently for productivity and efficiency, for research and evaluation, and for issues communication are most likely to perceive that the web empowers them to be promoted to their present positions. Web use for productivity and efficiency only had an effect for structural power in the three-way interaction,suggesting that perhaps users of the web for only productivity and efficiency view their web use more casually and don’t see the web as helping them climb the organizational ladder, while the more strategic “super users” relying on the web for productivity and efficiency, research and evaluation, and issues communication more clearly see the web as giving them a structural “leg up.” In general, the main effects suggest that practitioners who use the web in high levels more as a strategic tool to conduct research and to evaluate campaigns as well as those who use the web for issues communication perceive the web as helping them move up in their organizations. 5. Expertise and expert power Practitioners who use the web more frequently for productivity and efficiency as well as for issues communication are more likely to perceive the web empowers them as experts in their organizations and are more likely to perceive their prestige is enhanced. Finkelstein thought expertise reflected contacts and relationships developed by a manager internally and externally to maximize expert power. These findings for expert power are puzzling, since web use for research and evaluation would seem to support information gathering necessary to empower practitioners as “information experts.” However, the web could be providing heavy users with what practitioners see as a clear organizational advantage in terms of productivity and efficiency, thereby making them “experts” in obtaining useful information efficiently. Likewise, issues communication, including interaction with and surveillance of key publics, afforded by the web may also help position practitioners as experts in their organizations. Practitioners’ knowledge gleaned through the web about external environments could make them more valuable – and powerful – strategic advisers to management. If indeed these “super users” are considered more valuable to management, then, with these “friends in high places,” it follows that practitioners would perceive their own prestige to be enhanced by way of their web expertise, since Finkelstein saw prestige power accruing through powerful friends and positions of privilege. 6.. Ownership power Finkelstein thought ownership led to privileges such as enjoying reduced outside influences and abilities to bypass formal organizational structures. Only 20 owner-practitioners participated in this study, which limited data analysis. All answered the item, “The web has empowered me to own my own company”;the mean score indicated owners tend to disagree that the web empowers practitioners toward ownership. Perhaps owner-practitioners think their employees or lesser staff persons should be using the web more than owners themselves, that perhaps web use is “beneath” their station. Owner-practitioners also perceive greater web use leads to greater expert power than do non-owners. Perhaps owner-practitioners believe greater web use enhances quality of counseling-advising expertise. 7. Implications for future research While Finkelstein’s conceptualizations provided a helpful foundation for this study and the measures used here had face validity, additional measures of power need to be operationalized and tested. Several operationalizations used by Finkelstein in the traditional corporate business organization are inapplicable for public relations. Additional research will lead to increased understanding of the relationships between power, practitioners and the top management teams in their organizations. References: • Ball, T. (1992). New faces of power. In T. E.Wartenburg (Ed.), Rethinking power (pp. 14–31). Albany: State University of New York Press. • S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management • Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. . Web power: a survey of practitioners. World Wide Web use and their perceptions of its effects on their decision-making power A national e-mail survey investigated how 432 public relations practitioners perceive their World Wide Web use impacts their decision-making power in their organizations. Practitioners’ web use appears to be positively related to three power in top management terms: dimension, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal conceptualizations of power derived from “upper echelons” theory from the strategic management literature—structural, expert and prestige power. “Super users” who use the web more frequently for productivity and efficiency, for research and evaluation, and for issues communication are most likely to perceive the web empowered them to be promoted (structural power). Practitioners who use the web more frequently for productivity and efficiency as well as for issues communication are more likely to perceive the web empowers them as experts in their organizations (expert power) and enhances how others see them (prestige power). Practitioner-owners perceive that greater web use leads to greater expert power than did non-owners. The World Wide Web is increasingly important to public relations, and most practitioners agree the Internet is having a positive impact. The web provides numerous opportunities for practitioners to assume powerful decision-making roles within organizations .The power construct has sparked interest among leading public relations scholars ,but is thought to need further development .Little research has focused on power as a variable when investigating the impact of new technologies on public relations practice. An exploratory qualitative study consisting of four focus group discussions was guided by theory about power from strategic management literature to explore how web use affects practitioners’ perceptions of their status and decision-making power. Practitioners were found to use the web widely as a tool integral to public relations to conduct research and evaluation; enhance two-way communication, productivity and efficiency; and manage issues. Practitioners perceived that four types of decision-making power conceptualized by Finkelstein (1992) – structural, expert, prestige and ownership – were enhanced by their web use.This study uses quantitative methods to test the results of the previous qualitative work investigating how practitioners’ use of the web affects their perceptions of their power within their organizations. 1. Defining and conceptualizing decision-making power Fundamental to all lives, power influences what people can say and do, how they say and do things, and what opportunities are available to them. To some, power is the most important organizing concept in social and political theory, and is central to strategic choice. Organizational theory holds that communication defines organizational culture. Through communication, those in power can create ideologies that justify their actions, while denying the power of those not in power. Power is exercised in an organization when one group is able “to frame the interests (needs, concerns, world view) of other groups in terms of its own interests […]the group in power can provide the frame of reference for all organizational activity” (Mumby, 1988,p. 3). Public relations scholars have studied practitioner roles within organizations from power-control perspective for more than 20 years. In that perspective, the most senior of the top managers – or the “dominant coalition” – wields the most power and consequently determines the values of the organization.Without the power to participate in strategic decision-making,public relations practitioners are often relegated to staff positions, merely producing communication materials at the bidding of others. Some public relations research in new technologies has focused on how practitioners use new technology to obtain memberships in these inner circles. Numerous conceptualizations of power exist in sociology literature and management literature. Piezca and L’Etang (2001) noted that public relations research has focused on differences between practitioners,such as role and gender, but has largely ignored the issue of power. They suggested examining public relations from a sociology of professions perspective, which requires operationalizing the construct power. Recent attempts to operationalize power have focused on external power and power differentials between organizations and activist publics .Grunig (1992) used the Hage and Hull (1981) typology of organizational structure to measure power in internal organizational relationships, operationalized as clearance and authority. Unfortunately, in interviews and surveys, respondents could not distinguish between “authority” and “clearance,” and the variables were collapsed into a single “autonomy” measure to serve as a proxy for “power.” While universal support and understanding existed for public relations across organizations, respondents reported limitedautonomy. Further, the Hage–Hull typology yielded low correlations and explained only 10% of the variance. 2. Seeking a power taxonomy in the strategic management literature Since the strategic management literature of the 1960s guided the roles researchers, it seems logical to look again to it for an update on power. New conceptualizations and terms, such as “top management teams” or “TMTs” (Mintzberg, 1979) have been adopted in place of “dominant coalition.” In developing “upper echelons” theory, Hambrick and Mason (1984) theorized that strategic choices are partially predicted by background characteristics of TMTs. Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) posited the key to studying power is focusing on the most powerful groups in organizations – the TMTs – because their major function is to “direct the behavior of others (which) both generates and uses power for each executive”. Finkelstein (1992) conceptualized power as “the capacity of individual actors to exert their will”), and pointed out that the less “programmable or easily specified a decision, the more non-bureaucratic influencesare important”. Such decisions are likely to pertain to the upper management of organizations.Finkelstein (1992) further conceptualized, operationalized and tested four types of decisionmaking power among TMTs: Structural power encompasses a manager’s formal position within an organization, such as level and number of titles and compensation. Expertise power reflects a manager’s “ability to de...