FROM EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS DOCUMENT RESUME EA 006 856 Patches , Martin The Locus and Basis of Influence on Organizational Decisions

A conceptual approach to studying interpersonal influence is outlined as a framework within which results of a study of purchase decisions in business firms are presented. Data concerning the bases of influence in these organizations---especia13,y data showing the importance of a persona stake in the decision---do not fit neatly into the well-known influence categories proposed by French and Raven. Disagreements among informants about who had most influence on each decision also raises questions about the general applicability of certain often-used measures of influence in organizations. The Locus and Basis of Decision-making in Organizational A number of recent writers have emphasized that the process of decision king within organizations is a group process involving some kind of accommodation among individuals and units. This accommodation has been variously discussed in terms of such processes as resolving conflict (march and Simon, 1958), mutual adjustment (Lindblom, 1968), forming a winning coalition (Bauer, 1968; Thompson, 1967), and of both conflict and consensus-building (Hilsman, 1959). Given that decision-making in organizations is a process of accommodation among individuals and units, it is important to know the basis on which given individuals or units exert more or less influence an the final decision. Who is influential and why? This paper discuases the basis of interpersonal influence and reports the results of a study which focuses an the bases of influence an organizational decisions. The Bases of Influence On the subject of the bases of influence, the work of French and Raven (1959) has been widely cited. However, while French and Raven have pointed to some important aspects of Influence, their classification is limited in important ways. lighe study reported here was conducted by the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan tinder the direction of the author. Interviewing was done by the field staff of the National Opinion Research Center under the immediate supervision of Eve Weinberg and Jean Schwartz. The study was sponsored. by Time, Inc. Arnold Tannenbaum and Robert Perrucci made helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. French and Raven define the basis of power in terms of "the relationships between 0 and P which is the source of that power" and then discuss five bases of power. Two of these (reward power and coercive power) are defined in terms of resources available to the influencer -i.e., "reward power is defined as power whose basis is the ability to reward" and coercive power is "similar to reward power in that it also involves O's ability to manipulate the attainment of valences" (1959:157). However, referent power is said to have "its basis in the identification of P (target) with 0 (influencer). a feeling of oneness of P with 0, or a desire for such an identify" (1959:161) . Thus, reference power is described not in terms of the resources of the influencer but in terms of the characteristics and motivations of the target. Similarly, legitimate power is defined in terms of the target person's characteristics and motivations--i.e., "as that power which stems from internalized values in P which dictate that 0 has a legitimate right to influence P and that P has an obligation to accept this influence" (1959:159). Finally, "expert power" is discussed in terms which appear that it in part depends on certain characteristics of the influencer (e.g., his credibility) and in nart on certain resources he possesses (e.g., facts). It appears, then, that the five "bases of power" distinguished by French and Raven are not described in a conceptually parallel way. Instead, for different types of power, different aspects of the process underlying successful influence are highlighted. 6 Table 1 presents a conceptual framework for analyzing social influence which is intended to consider more systematically the various components of the influence process. Looking first at the person exerting influence, the scheme directs the investigator's attention to the relationship between his characteristics, the resources available to him, and his role in the decision process. Thus, for elcample, the person with the characteristic of specialized training and experience has information resources and may, because of his expertise, conduct certain investigations f.ar tests relevant to the decision. Similarly the scheme draws attentl.on to the relation between the characteristics, needs, and decision-asking role of those who are the targets of influence. Most important, the scheme directs attention to the degree of correspondence between the resources of the influencer and the needs of the target as well as to the types of communication between them following from their respective decision -making roles. Thus, for example, the person with information about the consequences of possible decisions has an important resource which meetly the needs of the target person who has a need for such information. The person exerting influence may have the role of giving relevant information to the target person whose role may bl to review such information from this and other sources. The interaction between these persons is likely to have an effect on the target person, by =king certain options seem more or less desirable and perhaps by indicating new options not considered previously.