Be aware of organisational power relations

Julia Trattnig | 29 September 2021

The Cambridge Dictionary defines power as the “ability to control people and events”.
Power exists in all spheres of collaboration and interaction. Unequal power relations are reflected in hiring practices, promotion decisions, assignments of organisational roles and decisions on how the organisation will be structured and governed (Amis, 2018).
The objective of these guiding questions, based on the 5-R method, is to provide support for reflecting on complex power relations in projects or (infra)structures. For this reason, these questions must be understood as non-exhaustive examples, which are intended to stimulate further questions for analysis.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines power as the “ability to control people and events” or as the “amount of political control a person or group has in a country” (Cambridge Dictionary). Both definitions prove that control is a crucial element to constitute power and therefore, it is also a key element of governance.

Hence, it is essential that powerful actors are held accountable, i.e. that power is linked to responsibility (Lukes, 2007).

According to Hannah Arendt, power is communication and not coercion as power radically differs from control, domination or violence (Arendt, 1970). This understanding also refers to the concept of governance, in which communication is one crucial aspect. Arendt states that power arises whenever people come together and act in concert (Arendt, 1970).

Consequently, power exists in all spheres of collaboration and interaction, as in research projects and infrastructures like the HBP or EBRAINS.

“Organizations develop numerous practices that embody the unequal power relations prevalent in society, including marginalisation based on gender, race and class”
(Amis, 2018: 1137).

These unequal power relations are reflected in hiring practices, promotion decisions, assignments of organisational roles and decisions on how the organisation will be structured and governed (Amis, 2018).

In this respect, it is important to differentiate the different justifications for power distribution within organisations and institutions:
Power can stem from institutional hierarchies, as well as unique personal contributions to critical contingencies of the institution.
Whereas the former is clearly identifiable as formal power due to certain positions in these institutions, the latter can be understood as informal power, which can even be more effective than formal power.
Such informal power stems from groups or coalitions emerging from

• individual networks,
• length of time in an institution,
• expert knowledge,
• value of an employee,
• amount of effort,
• personal attractiveness
• and structural centrality in an organisation (which often leads to bigger personal networks).

Especially these individual networks show the complexity of power relations within an organisation as these are beyond a manager’s ability to control (Cenk Sozen, 2012).

Restricted access to informal networks, and hence to power, creates a cycle of disadvantage for members of minority groups who are unable to influence decision-making processes and governance actions of institutions (Amis, 2018).

Transparency and fairness are thus two key aspects to justify power relations: if these are comprehensible for others, acceptance of others increases. Responsibility by design integrates ethical and social dimensions in the research process and is thus the further development of RRI (Stahl et al., 2021).

One method to analyse power relations is the 5-R method – former 3-R method (NCPE). Especially for intersectional approaches (see “Intersectionality”), this method aims to analyse the different aspects of power relations.
Intersectional theories aim to develop a single framework for elaborating power relations that encompass sexism, racism, class oppression, heterosexism, and other axes of oppression in their complex interconnections. The original example of black women, who are discriminated against due to gender and race, illustrates these multiple and intersecting forms of domination (Allen, 2016).

The objective of these guiding questions is to provide support for reflecting on complex power relations in projects or (infra)structures. For this reason, these questions must be understood as non-exhaustive examples, which are intended to stimulate further questions for analysis.