Chapter 8: Critical Approach to Organizational Communication

Learning Objectives

• Define power and its relation to status.
• Identify the five bases of power and how they exert power.
• Explain the role of ideology, hegemony, and manufactured consent in power.
• Compare ways organizations use power in everyday practices.

Defining Power

Take a moment to reflect on the different ways you think about power. What images come to mind for you when you think of power? Are there different kinds of power? Are some people inherently more powerful than others? Do you consider yourself to be a powerful person? In this chapter, we will focus on three ways to understand power as it relates to group, team, and organizational communication. The word “power” literally means “to be able” and has many implications.

If you associate power with control or dominance, this refers to the notion of power as power-over. According to Starhawk (1987), “power-over enables one individual or group to make the decisions that affect others, and to enforce control” (p. 9). Control can and does take many forms in society. Starhawk explains that, “This power is wielded from the workplace, in the schools, in the courts, in the doctor’s office. It may rule with weapons that are physical or by controlling the resources we need to live: money, food, medical care; or by controlling more subtle resources: information, approval, love. We are so accustomed to power-over, so steeped in its language and its implicit threats, that we often become aware of its functioning only when we see its extreme manifestations” (p. 9). When we are in group situations and someone dominates the conversation, makes all of the decisions, or controls the resources of the group such as money or equipment, this is power-over.

Power-from-within refers to a more personal sense of strength or agency. Power-from-within manifests itself when we can stand, walk, and speak “words that convey our needs and thoughts” (Starhawk, 1987, p. 10). In groups, this type of power “arises from our sense of connection, our bonding with other human beings, and with the environment” (p. 10). As Heider explains in The Tao of Leadership, “Since all creation is a whole, separateness is an illusion. Like it or not, we are team players. Power comes through cooperation, independence through service, and a greater self through selflessness” (77). If you think about your role in groups, how have you influenced other group members? Your strategies indicate your sense of power-from-within.

Finally, power-with, which is “the power of a strong individual in a group of equals, the power not to command, but to suggest and be listened to, to begin something and see it happen” (Starhawk, 1987, p. 10). For this to be effective in a group or team, at least two qualities must be present among members: (1) all group members must communicate respect and equality for one another, and (2) the leader must not abuse power-with and attempt to turn it into power-over. Have you ever been involved in a group where people did not treat each other as equals or with respect? How did you feel about the group? What was the outcome? Could you have done anything to change that dynamic?

Understanding Power and Oppression

(Credit: National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History/1854 $3 Indian Princess Head/Public Domain).

Power and oppression can be said to be mirror reflections of one another in a sense or two sides of the same coin. Where you see power that causes harm, you will likely see oppression. Oppression is defined in Merriam-Webster dictionary as: “Unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power especially by the imposition of burdens; the condition of being weighed down; an act of pressing down; a sense of heaviness or obstruction in the body or mind.” This definition demonstrates the intensity of oppression, which also shows how difficult such a challenge is to address or eradicate. Further, the word oppression comes from the Latin root primere, which means “pressed down”. Importantly, we can conclude that oppression is the social act of placing severe restrictions on an individual, group, or institution.

Oppression emerges as a result of power, with its roots in global colonialism and conquests. For example, oppression as an action can deny certain groups jobs that pay living wages, can establish unequal education (e.g., through a lack of adequate capital per student for resources), can deny affordable housing, and the list goes on. You may be wondering why some groups live in poverty, reside in substandard housing, or simply do not ‘measure up’ to the dominant society in some facet. As discussed at a seminar at the Leaven Center (2003), groups that do not have “power-over” are those society classifies or labels as disenfranchised; they are often exploited and victimized in a variety of ways. They may be subjected to restrictions and seen as expendable and replaceable. This philosophy, in turn, minimizes the roles certain populations play in society. As a result, people often deny that this injustice occurs and blame oppressive conditions on the behaviors and actions of the oppressed group.

Oppression subsequently becomes a system as patterns are adopted and perpetuated. Systems of oppression discriminate or advantage based on perceived or real differences among people. Socialization patterns help maintain such systems. Through formal and informal education, engagement with media, and communication with and observations of others around them, people learn who and what is valued, how they should act, and what their role and place are in society.

The critical approach to studying and understanding organizational communication is nested in the idea that power is not equally distributed and often remains subtle and hidden. This imbalance of power creates a hierarchy that can be seen in both society as a whole and in the workplace.  The overarching goal of the critical approach is to uncover the reasons for the imbalanced power (systems of oppression) and bring those causes to the attention of the oppressed so that they can push for power equalization in their organization.

The critical theory of organizations became popular in the 1980s. Prior to this, a strategy known as “progressive capitalism” prevailed in U.S. industries from the time of the Industrial Revolution into the 1970s. During this time, workers saw wages increase and recover from the Great Depression era, allowing workers to become active consumers of the products they made and recover from record levels of poverty in the U.S. Yet, as global markets emerged and companies began to rely on lower-waged workers overseas in the 1980s and on, critical eyes returned to organizational power and the abuse of workers. Scholars began to look at the ways globalization created a space for the exploitation of many vulnerable groups, including child labor forces (Aaronson & Zimmerman, 2007). Around this time, the U.S. government also began providing resources and support for a concept known as “trickle-down economics,” an economic policy which believed that support (such as tax exemptions and reduced fines) for big businesses would increase profits, then lead businesses to pass on their savings and profits to workers (duGay, 1995). Despite the stated intentions, this economic policy did not lead to a more equitable sharing of wealth and instead resulted in a decline in wages and benefits for workers, and an even greater gap between the wealthy, middle class, and lower-class economic divisions (Hope, 2023).

The combination of globalization and trickle-down economics launched scholarship in organizational communication to examine the role of power in organizations and its effects, and advocate for the interests of the working class. However, it is not simply workers versus corporate powerholders. The critical approach asks how the various needs of all stakeholders can be addressed in a way that considers equity. Stakeholders include workers, managers, the families of workers, communities where the business resides, the environment, and anyone else with an interest in the organization. These needs are wide, and the challenge to balance them all is complex. To consider equity using the critical approach across these varied needs, such as profit, work-life quality, sustainable development, wages, and future job prospects, there are several key concepts to take into consideration.  They consist of power and status, ideology, hegemony, manufactured consent, and concertive control.

The Pervasiveness of Power

Power is arguably the most important of the concepts as it is what drives the critical approach.  Whoever is in the position of power can control the organization.  Corporate structure and relationships play a large role in creating positions of power and gaining compliance from employees and other stakeholders.  This is easily seen in the classic corporate hierarchy where everyone reports to someone else all the way up to the CEO who is in control of the organization.  With these hierarchies the CEO is the person behind all the decisions, and they have the final say on everything in the organization, or do they? Are there mid-level managers with covert control? Are there hidden power dynamics within the company? Who actually has power? What is the relationship between power and status? Critical organizational approaches grapple with these questions and focus on the control employers have over employees seeking to identify how “normal” workplace practices came to exist, who those practices benefit, and whether it creates marginalization for certain groups of people.

Relationship between power and status

One way power dynamics can play out in organizations and teams is related to a group member’s status. Status can be defined as a person’s perceived level of importance or significance within a particular context. Those who have status tend to experience privileges. In a group, members with higher status are apt to command greater respect and possess more prestige and power than those with lower status.

Our status is often tied to our identities and their perceived value within our social and cultural context. Groups may confer status upon their members based on their age, wealth, gender, race or ethnicity, ability, physical stature, perceived intelligence, and/or other attributes. Status can also be granted through title or position. In professional circles, for instance, having earned a “terminal” degree such as a Ph.D. or M.D. usually generates a degree of status. Likewise, people who’ve been honored for achievements in any number of areas may bring status to a group by virtue of that recognition. Once a group has formed and begun to sort out its norms, it will also create internal statuses. For instance, choosing a member to serve as an officer in a group generally conveys status to that person.

Let’s say you’ve either come into a group with high status or have been granted high status by the other members. What does this mean to you, and how are you apt to behave? Here are some predictions based on organizational communication research (Beebe & Masterson, 2015; Borman, 1989; Brilhart & Galanes, 1997; Homans, 1992).

1. First, the volume and direction of your speech will differ from those of others in the group. You’ll talk more than the low-status members do, and you’ll communicate more with other high-status members than you will with lower-status individuals. In addition, you’ll be more likely to speak to the whole group than will members with lower status.
2. Second, your activity level and self-regard will surpass those of lower-status group members. So will your level of satisfaction with your position. Furthermore, the rest of the group is less likely to ignore your statements and proposals than it is to disregard what lower-status individuals say.
3. Finally, the content of your communication will probably be different from what your fellow members discuss. Because you may have access to special information about the group’s activities and may be expected to shoulder specific responsibilities because of your position, you’re apt to talk about topics that are relevant to the central purposes and direction of the group. Lower-status members, on the other hand, are likely to communicate more about other matters.

There’s no such thing as a “status neutral” group—one in which everyone always has the same status as everyone else. Differences in status within a group are inevitable and can be dangerous if not recognized and managed. For example, someone who gains status without possessing the skills or attributes required to use it well may cause real damage to other members of a group, or a group as a whole. A high-status, low-ability person may develop an inflated self-image as a defensive tactic, begin to abuse power, ignore dissenting voices or create an organizational team with a shared belief system, creating an illusion of righteousness, or all the above.

Bases of Power in Groups

Within groups, there are several different ways in which power can operate. French and Raven (1968) identified five primary ways in which power can be exerted in social situations, including in groups and teams. These are considered to be different bases of power.

Referent Power

In some cases, person B looks up to or admires person A, and, as a result, B follows A largely because of A’s personal qualities, characteristics, or reputation. In this case, A can use referent power to influence B. Referent power has also been called charismatic power, because allegiance is based on the interpersonal attraction of one individual for another. Examples of referent power can be seen in advertising, where companies use celebrities to recommend their products; it is hoped that the star appeal of the person will rub off on the products. In work environments, junior managers often emulate senior managers and assume unnecessarily subservient roles more because of personal admiration than because of respect for authority.

Expert Power

Expert power is demonstrated when person A gains power because A has knowledge or expertise relevant to B. For instance, professors presumably have power in the classroom because of their mastery of a particular subject matter. Other examples of expert power can be seen in staff specialists in organizations (e.g., accountants, labor relations managers, management consultants, and corporate attorneys). In each case, the individual has credibility in a particular—and narrow—area as a result of experience and expertise, and this gives the individual power in that domain.

Legitimate Power

Legitimate power exists when person B submits to person A because B feels that A has a right to exert power in a certain domain (Tjosvold, 1985). Legitimate power is really another name for authority. A supervisor has a “right”, for instance, to assign work. Legitimate power differs from reward and coercive power in that it depends on the official position a person holds, and not on their relationship with others.

Reward Power

Reward power exists when person A has power over person B because A controls rewards that B wants. These rewards can cover a wide array of possibilities, including pay raises, promotions, desirable job assignments, more responsibility, new equipment, and so forth. Research has indicated that reward power often leads to increased job performance as employees see a strong performance-reward contingency (Shetty, 1978). However, in many organizations, supervisors and managers really do not control very many rewards. For example, salary and promotion among most blue-collar workers is based on a labor contract, not a performance appraisal.

Coercive Power

Coercive power is based primarily on fear. Here, person A has power over person B because A can administer some form of punishment to B. Thus, this kind of power is also referred to as punishment power. As Kipnis (1976) points out, coercive power does not have to rest on the threat of violence. “Individuals exercise coercive power through a reliance upon physical strength, verbal facility, or the ability to grant or withhold emotional support from others. These bases provide the individual with the means to physically harm, bully, humiliate, or deny love to others.” Examples of coercive power in organizations include the ability (actual or implied) to fire or demote people, transfer them to undesirable jobs or locations, or strip them of valued perquisites. Indeed, it has been suggested that a good deal of organizational behavior (such as prompt attendance, looking busy, avoiding whistle-blowing) can be attributed to coercive, not reward, power. As Kipnis (1976) explains, “Of all the bases of power available to man, the power to hurt others is possibly the most often used, most often condemned and most difficult to control.”

Consequences of Power

We have seen, then, that at least five bases of power can be identified. In each case, the power of the individual rests on a particular attribute of the power holder, the follower, or their relationship. In some cases (e.g., reward power), power rests in the management; in others (e.g., referent power), power is given to the management by the worker. In all cases, the exercise of power involves subtle and sometimes threatening interpersonal consequences for the parties involved. In fact, when power is exercised, individuals have several ways in which to respond as shown in the table below. 

Employee Reactions to Bases of Power (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

If the worker accepts and identifies with the leader, their behavioral response will probably be one of commitment. That is, the worker will be motivated to follow the wishes of the leader. This is most likely to happen when the person in charge uses referent or expert power. Under these circumstances, the follower believes in the leader’s cause and will exert considerable energies to help the leader succeed.

A second possible response is compliance. This occurs most frequently when the worker feels the leader has either legitimate power or reward power. Under such circumstances, the follower will comply, either because it is perceived as a duty or because a reward is expected; but commitment or enthusiasm for the project is lacking. Finally, under conditions of coercive power, workers will more than likely use resistance. Here, the employee sees little reason—either altruistic or material—for cooperating and will often engage in a series of tactics to defeat the leader’s efforts.

These options of commitment, compliance, or resistance are essential for critical scholars as they help unveil the effects of power on an organization; however, they do not paint the full story. Now that the types of power and potential responses from employees are known, the next step is to better understand ways non-explicit power (e.g. covert power) influences behaviors, thoughts, and actions.

Ideology & Hegemony

An ideology is a system of ideas and assumptions about how things are or how they should be. They shape our thoughts and how we interpret reality and do so outside our normal level of consciousness. Ideologies are what we use to determine good from bad, right from wrong, normal from strange, and so on.  For example, there is a common ideology in the United States that hierarchy is not only normal, but necessary for an organization to function.  This gives rise to the leader-follower (management-worker) relationship that can be found in almost every organization.  Historical ideologies from the classical management era included ideas that men should work in factories while women maintained the home, that white men were best suited for management roles, and that democracy trumps all other forms of political systems (Banta, 1993). These relationships, where someone has power over the other, are normalized because of cultural power ideologies. Ideologies can be dangerous because when we normalize and make certain systems natural ways of doing things, it inhibits our ability to imagine what else is possible. It can hide our ability to see injustice. Organizational scholar Dennis Mumby identified four ways ideology functions to support the power or organizational elites:

1. Sectional interests become universal: everyone is expected to follow the rules at work, but remember, those in power made those rules. Therefore, those rules are sectional interests which protect their organization’s ability to survive as well as the elite’s own interests.
2. Denial of system contradictions: imagine a work rule restricts cell phones on the factory floor. If you are in charge of enforcing this rule, and your boss shows up on the floor with their cell phone, what do you do? Your boss has the power to override the rule, or listen to you and remove the phone from their pocket before entering. If your boss overrides the rule, they have created a non-rule changing interruption, but everyone else would still be expected to comply. If they put away the phone, it becomes an almost awe story that “no one is above the rules.” Regardless, power means that either option denies a system contradiction – because power vetoes the rules.
3. Ideology creates natural behaviors through reification: reification is when we perceive socially constructed meanings as real and objective. Workers forget how these meaning came to be and interpret them as “just the way things are.” Whenever you look for a new job, you may try to determine who your boss would be. What made you believe that position would even have a hierarchal boss? Why not a completely cooperative lateral work environment?
4. Ideology is used to control: if ideologies create an idea of “this is what/how the world is” dominant groups maintain power. Power is embedded in everyday practices that were designed to benefit the elite. Ideological control is also known as hegemony and “works most effectively when the world-view articulated by the ruling elite is actively taken up and pursued by subordinate groups” (Mumby, 1988, p. 123). Essentially, organizational rules and interests are maintained from the bottom-up, rather than top-down in everyday practices.

Manufactured Consent & Concertive Control

Deeply connected to the work of social theorist Jurgen Habermas (1972) is the idea of manufactured consent. He explained how this idea of workers maintaining organizational rules and interests creates a space where those actions are socially legitimized and accepted. This manufactured consent is the idea the employees willingly follow rules created by the organization, thus accepting the organization as having the legitimate power to make them, and thus control workers. Have you ever done something that you didn’t like or felt wrong, but justified it by thinking, “I was just doing my job” or “what other choice did I have!” These are examples of manufactured consent. Mumby (1987) found workers organized their behaviors by their company’s rule systems, allowing them to blame the organization for wrongdoing, rather than holding themselves accountable. Workers also follow the rules without direct supervision. Alongside self-monitoring, competitive work environments and ideologies related to work rules lead to the believe of being “ratted out” by peers. This is a form of concertive control, where employees essentially police themselves, ensuring both they and co-workers follow the rules, without supervisor intervention. Workers act as if they are being surveilled, even when they are not.

As such, newer concepts of power recognize the ways networks develop to create and enforce rules and expectations. Thus, power is achieved through a network of communicative forces both from the elite rule makers and the performative workers. As such, power works through communicative networks in a way that often doesn’t expressly repress individuals, but instead subtly produce interests and processes that align with and reinforce the elite’s preferred ideology.

Uses of Power

As we look at our groups and teams as well as our organizations, it is easy to see manifestations of power almost anywhere. In fact, there are a wide variety of power-based methods used to influence others. As noted above, many power tactics are available for use. However, as we will see, some are more ethical than others. Here, we look at some of the more commonly used power tactics found in both business and public organizations (Pfeffer, 2011).

Controlling Access to Information

Most decisions rest on the availability of relevant information, so persons controlling access to information play a major role in decisions made. A good example of this is the common corporate practice of pay secrecy. Only the personnel department and senior managers typically have salary information—and power—for personnel decisions.

Controlling Access to Persons

Another related power tactic is the practice of controlling access to persons. A well-known factor contributing to President Nixon’s downfall was his isolation from others. His two senior advisers had complete control over who saw the president. Similar criticisms were leveled against President Reagan.

Selective Use of Objective Criteria

Very few questions have one correct answer; instead, decisions must be made concerning the most appropriate criteria for evaluating results. As such, significant power can be exercised by those who can practice selective use of objective criteria that will lead to a decision favorable to themselves. According to Herbert Simon, if an individual is permitted to select decision criteria, then that person needn’t care who actually makes the decision. Attempts to control objective decision criteria can be seen in faculty debates in a university or college over who gets hired or promoted. One group tends to emphasize teaching and will attempt to set criteria for employment dealing with teacher competence, subject area, interpersonal relations, and so on. Another group may emphasize research and will try to set criteria related to the number of publications, reputation in the field, and so on.

Controlling the Agenda

One of the simplest ways to influence a decision is to ensure that it never comes up for consideration in the first place. There are a variety of strategies used for controlling the agenda. Efforts may be made to order the topics at a meeting in such a way that the undesired topic is last on the list. Failing this, opponents may raise several objections or points of information concerning the topic that cannot be easily answered, thereby tabling the topic until another day.

Using Outside Experts

Still, another means to gain an advantage is using outside experts. The unit wishing to exercise power may take the initiative and bring in experts from the field or experts known to be in sympathy with their cause. Hence, when a dispute arises over spending more money on research versus actual production, we would expect differing answers from outside research consultants and outside production consultants. Most consultants have experienced situations in which their clients fed them information and biases they hoped the consultant would repeat in a meeting.

Bureaucratic Gamesmanship

In some situations, the organization’s own policies and procedures provide ammunition for power plays, or bureaucratic gamesmanship. For instance, a group may drag its feet on making changes in the workplace by creating red tape, work slowdowns, or “work to rule.” (Working to rule occurs when employees diligently follow every work rule and policy statement to the letter; this typically results in the organization’s grinding to a halt as a result of the many and often conflicting rules and policy statements.) In this way, the group lets it be known that the workflow will continue to slow down until they get their way.

Coalitions and Alliances

The final power tactic to be discussed here is that of coalitions and alliances. One unit can effectively increase its power by forming an alliance with other groups that share similar interests. This technique is often used when multiple labor unions in the same corporation join forces to gain contract concessions for their workers. It can also be seen in the tendency of corporations within one industry to form trade associations to lobby for their position. Although the various members of a coalition need not agree on everything—indeed, they may be competitors—sufficient agreement on the problem under consideration is necessary as a basis for action.

Conclusion

Through both explicit and implicit means of control, power affects organizational shareholders both in the shape of power holders exerting control, and workers accepting the ideologies of the power holders as normative. Critical organizational scholars aim to disrupt that power by identifying power and status dynamics, unveiling ideologies within organizational communication structures, and bringing to light acts of manufactured consent to encourage workers to not only identify ways they are being controlled, but to also use communication and dialogue to fight for change and empowerment. How do you see power being used within your own group and organizational environments? What bases of power exert their influences? How do you respond? What does power look like in your own teams?

Key Takeaways & Summary

Now that you’ve read the chapter, write a summative conclusion with your key takeaways. What information do you want to remember? How does it all tie together, and why does this information matter? You will thank yourself when it’s time for the exam.

Authors & Attribution

The content in this chapter was remixed, adapted and/or authored by Seroka, L. (2025) from:

• Chapter 4: Negotiating Power in Groups found within Small Group Communication: Forming & Sustaining Teams by Jasmine Linabary on Pressbooks licensed under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 International license
• Chapter 2: The Critical Approach found within Organizational Communication by Julie Zink and Kathy DesRoches published by the University of New Hampshire licensed under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license

References

Aaronson, S. A., & Zimmerman, J. (2007). Trade imbalance: The struggle to weigh human rights concerns in trade policy making. Cambridge University Press.

Banta, M. (1993). Taylored lives: Narrative productions in the age of Taylor, Veblen, and Ford. University of Chicago Press.

Beebe, S.A., & Masterson, J.T. (2015). Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices (11th ed.). Pearson.

Borman, E.G. (1989). Discussion and group methods: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Harper and Row.

Brilhart,J.K., & Galanes, G.J. (1997). Effective group discussion.  Brown.

duGay, P. (1995). Consumption and identity at work. Sage.

French, J., & Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics. Harper & Row.

Heider, J. (2005). The Tao of Leadership: Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching Adapted for a New Age (1st ed.) Green Dragon.

Homans, G.C. (1992). The human group. Harcourt Brace & World.

Hope, D. (2023). Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich: debunking trickle-down economics. The London School of Economics and Political Science. https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics

Kipnis, D. (1976). The Powerholders. University of Chicago Press.

Leaven Center (2003). Doing Our Own Work: A Seminar for Anti-Racist White Women. Visions, Inc. and the MSU Extension Multicultural Awareness Workshop.

Mumby, D. (1988). Communication and power in the organization: Discourse, ideology, and domination. Ablex.

Shetty, Y. (1978). Managerial power and organizational effectiveness: A contingency analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 15, 178–181.

Starhawk (1987). Truth or dare: Encounters with power authority, and mystery. Harper.

Tjosvold, D. (1985). Power and social context in the superior-subordinate interaction,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 281–293.