Dysfunction and Power

We further argue that external team factors that pose a threat to teams' perceived levels of resources will also increase the likelihood that team power-sensitivity provokes power struggles. This is because external factors that form threats to team resources indirectly also threaten members' personal resources, as members receive their personal resources from the team's resource pool. External threats to team resources could include intergroup conflict, environmental uncertainty), and organizational change. We propose that members of high power teams and teams with high power dispersion, due to their power sensitivity, will be mainly concerned about the individual-level implications of the resource threat (and thus how this resource threat translates to their own power position) and fear that other members will do the same. That is, power sensitive members are vigilant for changes in resource control within the team, and when resources are threatened, a change in resource distribution become more probable. Therefore, when resource threats occur for power-sensitized teams, members are likely to experience this as a threat to their own power position, and power struggles will ensue.

When power sensitized teams get involved in intergroup conflicts, power struggles are a likely consequence. Intergroup conflicts between teams are common occurrences in organizations, as teams are mutually dependent on the same valuable but finite organizational resource pool. For instance, teams may come into conflict with each other about the allocation of resources, such as budget or personnel. Intergroup conflicts inherently pose a threat to a team's own internal resources, as these conflicts may result in teams losing out on desired resources. But also, teams need to expend time and energy towards battling the conflicting team, which means that team resources cannot directly be converted into team tasks. This press on team resources also threatens members' individual resource shares, which will stimulate power sensitive members to seek to protect their own individual resource share and power position. Support for this notion comes from a multi-method study by Van Bunderen, Greer et al. and Van Bunderen, Van Knippenberg et al. They showed, with both ongoing teams in a health insurance organization and student negotiation teams, that resource threatening intergroup conflicts increased power struggles in teams with high power dispersion, but reduced intra-team power struggles in teams with low power dispersion (thereby supporting the general assumption that resource threats in general, and intergroup conflict specifically, may have cohesive effects on teams with low power dispersed structures).

When power-sensitized teams operate in volatile, high uncertainty environments, power struggles are also a likely result. In volatile, high uncertainty environments, it is difficult for members to predict what the future will bring, creating uncertainty about the future resource supply for the team. While resources may not currently be scarce for these teams, the fact that this can change at any moment makes members worried about and focused on team resources. We expect that this anxiety translates for power sensitive members into a concern about their own personal resource share and hence their power position, increasing the likelihood of power struggles in such situations. In support of this reasoning, a qualitative study by Eisenhardt and Bourgeois on power and politics in top management teams in the micro-computer industry showed that in high velocity environments, high uncertainty around resources amplified power and politics within teams.

When power sensitized teams are confronted with organizational change, internal power struggles are a likely consequence. In order to stay competitive, organizations may often choose to reorganize or reprioritize. Such organizational changes tend to pose a resource threat to organizational teams, as they may cause teams to lose out on budget, membership, or status. Also in this situation, we expect members that are sensitive to power to become mainly concerned about what this impending organizational change means for them personally, and as such to focus on their own personal survival - leading them to want to bolster their own individual power position. Support for this prediction can be found in work by Van Bunderen, Van Knippenberg et al., who show in a field study that anticipated organizational change in teams increased social comparisons around position as well as team performance-detracting power struggles in teams with high power dispersion, but decreased these processes and dynamics in teams with low power dispersion.

When external team resource threats are absent, members are less likely to let their power sensitivity guide them and less likely to act out to preserve their power. For instance, when teams operate in very stable, collaborative, resource-abundant environments, and members' power positions are not threatened, members of power-sensitized teams may not vie with another for power. As such, we posit that power-sensitized teams (i.e. high-power teams and teams with high power-dispersion) will only experience team outcome-impairing power struggles when teams experience external team resource threats:

Proposition 3

When teams face external resource threats, such as from intergroup conflict, environmental uncertainty, or organizational changes, power sensitivity will increase intra-team power struggles.