MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

Stakeholder power
The discussion above of stakeholder theory and other ideas of
governance was conducted using language of stakeholder power and
influence. There are separate streams of literature considering aspects
of power in organisations which can usefully now be addressed.
Marxist writing on power forms, as Hardy and Clegg (1996) point out,
the root of one of two clear streams of writing on power in
organizations, one which regards power as domination and actions
taken to challenge it as resistance. Management writing (see e.g.
Mintzberg 1983) regards power structures in organizations as reflecting
legitimate, functional authority and resistance to them as illegitimate
and dysfunctional. Almost all of the literature examining power
structures in unions comes from the former tradition.
Thus, Gaventa (1980) presents a vivid picture of events in an
Appalachian valley in the early part of the century, looking not only at
‘colonialisation’ and industrialisation but the activities of the United
Mine Workers of America in representing many of the workers whilst
these processes took place. The author models the ‘three faces of
power’; the pluralist view (that A prevails over B through superior
bargaining resources - see e.g. Dahl 1961); the second dimension (the
construction of barriers against participation of B through control of the
agenda which results in non-decisions and the mobilisation of bias -
Bachrach and Baratz 1962); and the third dimension (influencing or
shaping the consciousness of B about inequalities through myths,
information control, ideologies etc. - Lukes 1974). He then analyses the
events of his study by reference to these three dimensions. He
concludes that the first and second dimensions cannot explain the
failure of the members of the UMWA to exercise their constitutional
rights to ensure that the union represented their interests. From a third
dimensional perspective the members’ attitudes grew from an instilled
conception of the appropriate relationship between the leaders and the
led. ‘The position of dependency within the union relative to the
powerlessness outside it allowed and encouraged the response of
loyalty to the regime when challenge to it occurred’. (1980: 200)
A more recent work on power offers another perspective of these
dilemmas in a democratic context. Flyvbjerg (1998) provides a
longtitudinal study of a town centre, environmental and traffic project in
Aalborg, Denmark. It charts the formulation, presentation, involvement,
opposition, amendment and partial implementation of the project, an
implementation which actually had a negative environmental benefit.
The progress of the project is analysed in terms of power relations,
specifically explaining much of it in terms of Lukes’ (1974) third face of
power. The power of the various stakeholders is identified in historical
social and political terms and the reaction of the managers of the
project to the exercise of that power is fascinatingly outlined.
31