Power, Status, and Collective Action: Developing Fundamental Theories to Address a Substantive Problem

Lovaglia, Michael J.; Willer, Robb; Troyer, Lisa

doi:10.1016/s0882-6145(03)20004-7

Cited by 14 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The status and role of actor can change although the power can be static during the implementation of different management systems. Therefore, study confirms the classification of Lovaglia et al (2003) and proposes that their classification should be added in the framework of Gibson and Earley (2007). …”

supporting

confidence: 59%

“…Collective action frameworks of Gibson and Earley (2007) and Lovaglia et al (2003) has not practically utilized before in EMS and PMS studies. Furthermore, the EMS and PMS integration studies have usually been normative without empirical case data.…”

Section: Practical Implications;mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These two systems were finally integrated as one greener PMS. Another purpose of the study is to illustrate how the frameworks of Gibson and Earley (2007) and Lovaglia et al (2003) can be used in practice in management accounting research. Hence, this study is both an interpretative one and illustrative one at the same time (Lukka, 1999), while it is based on interpretative approach, but at the same time it is illustrating how the collective action theory could be used in management accounting research..…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another purpose is to illustrate how the frameworks of Gibson and Earley (2007) and Lovaglia et al (2003) can be utilized for investigating the implementation of different management systems in practice.Methodology; This study is an interpretative case study, which utilizes qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews and internal documents. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Collective action in the implementation of a “greener” performance measurement system

Länsiluoto

Järvenpää

2010

Journal of Accounting &Amp; Organizational Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose; This study investigates how different actors affected the implementation of environmental management system (EMS) and performance management system (PMS) in a case company when EMS and PMS were finally integrated. Another purpose is to illustrate how the frameworks of Gibson and Earley (2007) and Lovaglia et al. (2003) can be utilized for investigating the implementation of different management systems in practice.Methodology; This study is an interpretative case study, which utilizes qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews and internal documents. Findings;The results indicate the importance of separation between the power and status of an actor in EMS and PMS implementation processes. The power and status of actors in EMS and PMS implementation differed. The status and role of actor can change although the power can be static during the implementation of different management systems. Therefore, study confirms the classification of Lovaglia et al. (2003) and proposes that their classification should be added in the framework of Gibson and Earley (2007). Practical implications;It is important to select the key actors and evaluate their power and status in the implementation of management systems deliberately. The implementation of management systems may be affected by both internal and external actors of organization.Originality; Earlier accounting studies with institutional theory framework of Burns and Scapens (2000) have not specifically investigated the role of actors, their power and status in implementing 2 two different management systems. Collective action frameworks of Gibson and Earley (2007) and Lovaglia et al. (2003) has not practically utilized before in EMS and PMS studies. Furthermore, the EMS and PMS integration studies have usually been normative without empirical case data.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 59%

Section: Practical Implications;mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Collective action in the implementation of a “greener” performance measurement system

Länsiluoto

Järvenpää

2010

Journal of Accounting &Amp; Organizational Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

How Do the Powerful Attain Status? The Roots of Legitimate Power Inequalities

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Power inequalities are coercive, based on relative control over resources, whereas status hierarchies are based on collectively endorsed conceptions of merit. How then do the powerful achieve status? We argue that using power for personal gain can lead to perceptions of the powerful as competent—enhancing status—but also selfish—diminishing status. Consequently, power users will be most likely to attain status when they successfully avoid perceptions of selfishness. Two experiments support this view, finding that power users achieve greater status when moderating their power use, forgoing maximal profits in exchange, or using philanthropic gestures to counteract perceptions of greed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Social Exchange and the Maintenance of Order in Status-Stratifed Systems

Thye

Lawler

Yoon

2008

Social Structure and Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the role of social exchange in the construction of microorder within status-differentiated relations. How order is constructed and maintained in the context of social inequality is a classic sociological problem. We use a serendipitous finding from a recent experiment as a stimulus for theorizing an important feature of this larger problem of order. The finding is that, in an experiment where African-American females negotiated with white males, the white males received much larger payoffs than the African-American females. Yet, despite substantial power and profit differentiation advantaging white males, both individuals reported positive feelings (pleasure/satisfaction and interest/excitement) to the same degree, which contradicts most research on emotional responses to power. We argue that these similar emotional responses, in the context of substantial payoff inequalities, are due to parallel, joint effects of (a) status processes that create and legitimate initial profit differences and (b) exchange processes that make salient a relationship between the actors during repeated exchange. This explanation integrates notions of status value, referential structure, and legitimacy from status theories with notions of relational cohesion and shared responsibility from exchange theories.Broadly, the paper proposes some ways to productively interweave ideas from status and exchange theories to explain the emergence or maintenance of enduring social inequalities.

show abstract

Power, Status, and Collective Action: Developing Fundamental Theories to Address a Substantive Problem

Cited by 14 publications

References 68 publications

Collective action in the implementation of a “greener” performance measurement system

Collective action in the implementation of a “greener” performance measurement system

How Do the Powerful Attain Status? The Roots of Legitimate Power Inequalities

Social Exchange and the Maintenance of Order in Status-Stratifed Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About