A Theory of Power and Politics and their Effects on Organizational Commitment of Senior Executive Service Members

Abstract

This research establishes a power-based theory and a theory of politicization as explanations for variation in the commitment level of Senior Executive Service (SES) members in the federal government. Variables were operationalized to measure and explain the relationship between commitment and leader-member relations, involvement in quality decisions, centralization/decentralization, leadership power, and subunit power (the power-based theory). The use of an arbitrary personnel practices variable permitted the theorist to define and measure perceptions of “dirty, self-interested politics” in government (the theory of politicization). In addition, the use of a political neutrality variable allowed the author to operationalize a norm-based motive for wanting to work in the public sector. The most innovative contribution was the development of a model that operationalized the linkages between a public service value and commitment.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aiken, M. , & Hage, J. (1968). Routine technology, social structure and organizational goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 366-376.

Astley, G. W. , & Sachdeva, D. S. (1984). Structural sources of intraorganizational power: A theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 1, 104-113.

Calder, B. J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B. M. Staw & C. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 30-45). Chicago: St. Clair.

Civil Service Reform Act. (1978). U.S. Code, Vol. 5.

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives . (1989, May 2). The Report and Recommendations of the National Commission on Public Service. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. London: Travistock.

Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.

Hage, J. , & Aiken, M. (1969). Routine technology, social structure and organizational goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 366-376.

Hickson, D. J. , Hining, C. R. , Lee, C. A. , Schneck, R. E. , & Pennings, J. M. (1971). Structural conditions of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 22-44.

10.

Hinkin, T. R. , & Schriesheim, C. A. (1988, May). Power and influence: The view from below. Personnel, 37, 47-51.

11.

Huddleston, M. (1987). The government’s managers: Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Senior Executive Service (Background paper). New York: Priority Press.

12.

Karl, B. D. (1979). Louis Brownlow. Public Administration Review, 39, 511-516.

13.

McClelland, D. (1970). The two faces of power. Journal of International Affairs, 24(1), 29-47.

14.

Mowday, R. T. , Steers, R. M. , & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 43-77.

15.

Perry, J. L. , & Wise, L. R. (1990, May/June). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 367-373.

16.

Pfiffner, J. (1987). Political appointees and career executives: The democracy-bureaucracy nexus in the third century. Public Administration Review, 42, 57-65.

17.

Porter, L. W. , Steers, R. M. , Mowday, R. T. , & Boulin, R. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 603-609.

18.

Price, J. L. , & Mueller, C. W. (1986). A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 543-565.

19.

Rourke, F. (1976). Variations in agency power: Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.

20.

Salancik, G. R. , & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power—and how they hold on to it: A strategic contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5, 3-21.

21.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

22.

Tushman, M. L , & Romanelli, E. (1983). Uncertainty, social location and influence in decision-making: A sociometric analysis. Management Science, 29, 12-23.

23.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) . (1988, July). Senior Executive Service: Reasons why career members left in fiscal year 1985 (GAO/GGD-87-106FS). Washington, DC: Author.

24.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation . (1988). Survey of former Senior Executive Service (SES) members. Washington, DC: Author.

25.

Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory of power and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

26.

Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.