David Willer

EXCLUSION AND POWER: A TEST OF FOUR THEORIES OF POWER IN EXCHANGE NETWORKS*

We evaluate four theories that predict the distribution of power in exchange networks. All four theories-core theory, equidependence theory, exchange-resistance theory, and expected value theory-assume actors rationally pursue self-interests. Three of the theories add social psychological assumptions that place the pursuit of self interest in an interactive context. Predictions of exchange earnings by the four theories are evaluated against data from eight experimental networks, including types of networks not previously studied. These networks vary conditions that affect the chances that a position can be excluded from exchange. We find that when the theories base predictions on a network positions structural potential for exclusion, exchange-resistance theory provides the bestfit, but when predictions are based on actual experiences of exclusion, expected value theory fits best. Our discussion focuses on the distinction between the a priori potential for exclusion versus experienced exclusion as factors in the genesis of power T he problem of power distribution in exchange networks has captured the attention of a variety of theorists. The appeal of the problem derives from the combination of the formal representation of social structure as network (Wellman and Berkowitz 1992) and sociologys perennial concern with power. A growing body of experimental studies now permits researchers to test various theoretical formulations. How does location in a network confer advantages on a person or a corporate body in their dealings with others? Consider the promotion prospects of two senior accountants, Andy and Bob. Because Andys work involves accounts at various regional offices, his coworkers typically do not know each other. Bob, on the other hand, deals with corporate accounts, so his coworkers typically associate with each other. Thus, Andy and Bob are surrounded by two very different networks and it is not obvious that Andys network favors him for promotion (Burt 1992). In a second ex

Network exchange theory : Recent developments and new directions

The new millennium opens the third decade of work on network exchange theory. During two decades of continuous growth, the program has been tested as intensively and extensively as any in sociology. This article summarizes existing research and describes new directions. First, we describe basic network connections and recently discovered structural power conditions that sharply affect exchange ratios. Then we show how game theory enhances understanding of collective action in exchange networks. Two new research programs link network exchange theory to status characteristics theory: the first demonstrates that power produces status, and the second shows how status value produces power. Finally, we discuss how questions about network dynamics, complexity, and legitimation define paths for future theory growth.

Power in exchange networks : setting and structural variations

This article adds to the body of findings on how network position and the conditions of exchange influence an actors power to obtain favorable outcomes. Four network structures of four persons each are examined in each of two experimental settings: a face-to-face setting, in which negotiations are carried out directly, and the ExNet setting, in which negotiations are carried out through a microcomputer-based electronic network. The structures are selected to provide further tests of the Markovsky et al. s (1988) procedure for locating power positions. The different settings allow an assessment of the scope of their analysis. The results generally support their predictions. Also examined are two types of predictions, contingency and value, derived from the operant basis of Emersons (1969) power-dependence theory. The contingency predictions receive more support than do the value predictions.

Predicting power in exchange networks: a brief history and introduction to the issues

Abstract Network exchange theory addresses the central question of sociological theory, how to predict activity from structure. This paper introduces a special edition of Social Networks which includes papers offering alternative theories. The edition is exhaustive for it contains all recent developments in the formal theory of exchange networks. This paper introduces the reader to past historical development, the competition between power-dependence theory and elementary theory as well as major research findings as they relate to that development. The paper concludes with a new ‘null-inclusion-exclusion’ typology for network connection which is far more general than the ‘negative-positive’ typology previously used.

Connection and power in centralized exchange networks

The distribution and structural determinants of power are central concerns of network exchange theory. In this paper, using formulations from elementary theory, we present an exhaustive typology of network connections: exclusion, inclusion and null. This typology is compared to the typology of positive and negative connection of power‐dependence theory. Inclusion which has not been previously recognized is investigated. Experimental results supportive of our formulations for inclusion are offered. Some implications of the formulations for inclusion outside the laboratory are discussed. Also discussed is the possibility of using exclusion and inclusion as opposed principles in the analysis of empirical structures.

Exploring dynamic networks: hypotheses and conjectures

Abstract Previously, theories of network exchange and their applications focused only on static configurations. The purpose of this paper is to show that exchange networks with dynamic structures can be analyzed using Network Exchange Theory (NET) even though that theory was developed with only static networks in mind. The Exchange Seek Likelihood (ESL) and Optimal-Seek methods of NET are used. Hypotheses, which focus on network dynamics from the perspective of the network as a whole and from the perspective of individual actors, are both considered. The only previous paper on exchange networks with dynamic structures is that of Leik [Leik, Robert K. 1992. New directions for NET: stategic manipulation of network linkages. Social Networks. 14: 309– 324.]. Since the issues he considered continue to be significant, we use his paper to guide our analysis, offering new hypotheses and conjectures for the issues he considered.

Testing Ten Theories

Using the most comprehensive data set now available, this investigation tests the precision of all exchange theories that now contend. Beyond precision, the investigation focuses on broad issues of effectiveness including consistency, parsimony, and whether the theories can be applied to structures larger than normally studied in the lab. Seeking greater parsimony, this investigation introduces a new model by combining parts of two contending theories. We find that all ten theories have scientific merit for all can predict with some effectiveness for the exchange structures experimentally investigated. Nevertheless, the ten vary in precision. Elementary Theory is the most precise. The new Expected-value Resistance model ranks second in precision and is the simplest. Both apply to large networks as well as the best of the other theories.

Power-at-a-Distance

How power is extended vertically through hierarchies and horizontally through industrial networks and markets is a classic issue in sociology that was once extensively studied by Weber. Yet it is little studied today. Definitions of power exclude power exercise beyond the single relation, as does research in exchange networks. In contrast, research in organizations recognizes the extension of power, but offers no theory to explain how it is produced or to identify the conditions which might further or impede it. Here the extension of power beyond the single relationship is called power-at-a-distance. New theory offering metric predictions is applied to power-ata- distance in exchange networks. That theory identifies the conditions that extend power beyond the dyad and the conditions that tend to block that extension. Five experiments on contrasting structures broadly support those predictions. Relations between power-at-a-distance and power centralization are theorized. Practical problems of extending power are addressed and further research is proposed.

Exclusion, inclusion, and compound connection in exchange networks

Elementary theory predicts that the distribution of power will vary as the type of connection varies. Previous research supporting that prediction has shown that power in unilateral monopolies is centralized when the central position is connected exclusively and decentralized when the central position is connected inclusively. Here we extend the theory to networks with compound inclusion-exclusion connections. The theory predicts that exclusion will overwhelm inclusion and that power will be centralized as it is in purely exclusionary structures. Preliminary experimental support is offered.

Power, influence, and legitimacy in organizations: Implications of three theoretical research programs

Classical and contemporary theorists are at odds over the structure of power relations in organizations and the relationship between power differences and the distribution of control and benefits. The classical arguments of Marx and Weber describe steep hierarchical structures in which those at the top exercise substantial control over subordinates and gain a disproportionate share of the organizations benefits. Contemporary theories are divided on two counts. Some imply that power is organized hierarchically—although not to the extent claimed by classical scholars—while others claim that power is diffuse. Similarly, the early exchange arguments separated benefit from control, and claimed that power is directly related to the distribution of control but inversely related to the distribution of benefits. Contemporary exchange theorists connect power to the distribution of control and benefit but most imply that power differences weaken, that is, power relations become less hierarchical, with power use.This paper offers the first simultaneous application of Elementary Theory, Status Characteristics Theory, and Legitimacy Theory to the study of organizational dynamics. Each theory describes the process through which differences on a single factor, e.g., power, influence, or organizations. We claim that most organizational analysts either focus on power processes to the exclusion of influence and legitimacy processes or conflate the three ideas and treat their confluence as power. In either case, the result is misspecification of the distribution of power in organizations and/or an underestimation of its effects on the distribution of control and benefit.We untangle the three ideas and use the three arguments to develop new understandings of the distribution of benefits and control in organizations. All three theories describe processes that connect behavior to structural conditions. Elementary Theory infers power differences from exchange structures that permit competitive mobility while Status Characteristic Theory infers influence from status orders. The three theories do not exhaust coverage of power, influence, and legitimacy processes under all conditions. However, when they are applied concurrently, the three describe greater concentrations of power than those implied by conventional organizational theories.Our joint application of Elementary Theory and Status Characteristics Theory offers a new explanation for the commonly described relationship between differences in expertise and the exercise of power. We also explain the relationship between uncertainty and the distribution of benefit and control. As uncertainty increases, the door is opened for subordinates to exercise greater and greater influence over superordinate actors. Our analysis also offers insights into the phenomena of power-at-a-distance and the relation between mobility in hierarchies and domination and obedience. Conditions that block mobility promote power decentralization. Finally, we show how legitimacy processes enhance and/or constrain power and influence processes. The complex interplay of power, influence, and legitimation processes can produce somewhat flatter distributions of benefit and control than separate analyses of the three processes might imply. We end with a cautionary note: some but not all of our applications of the three theories are supported by experimental studies. Especially in that regard, this work is quite preliminary. Our application of structural social psychological theories—and that of our predecessors—to the study of organizational dynamics leaves much work undone.