At the turn of the twenty-first century, very few people would have accepted that ‘slavery’ was a significant social issue requiring changes in social policy. Think here of the modern day slavery movement. However, we recognise that the history of the voluntary sector is littered with interpretations of policy and the naming of social need by small groups of people that ultimately change the way society understands itself and its limitations. Most of us probably feel that our words are unlikely to have the impact of the living wage campaign. The Living Wage Foundation has successfully persuaded employers of all sizes to implement a Living Wage for their staff, and the term ‘living wage’ has entered the political discourse. Over time, the living wage campaign developed its own identity as a national movement. Through London Citizens, communities, businesses, campaigners and faith groups came together to campaign for wages which are good for business, but also good for the individual and for society. In other words, the living wage started as a framing of a particular social issue by the people who encountered that issue in their daily lives. As you discovered in Activity 2, the living wage concept originated with parents in East London working two minimum wage jobs who were unable to support their family. The work of London Citizens provides a second example of the power of discourse and meaning-making in the discursive production of the ‘living wage’. It becomes embedded in the notes of meetings, is repeated by public sector managers, and played back into decision-making forums. This first micro-level interpretation impacts on the continuing interpretation and enactment of policy at the local level. In one example, a research participant from a voluntary organisation explained that in local partnership meetings the first interpretation of national policy is often provided by voluntary sector representatives, as complex public sector bureaucracy is still determining an official line. This approach also resonates with the idea in the leadership literature that leadership practice can be thought of as associated with meaning-making (Smircich and Morgan, 1982). In the voluntary sector context, ‘voice’ is the ability to name, frame and campaign on issues of concern to the sector – rather than simply acting on issues which have previously been recognised by society. This is closely related to the concept of ‘voice’ (Hirschman 1970). Although this may sound like a somewhat obscure academic concept, we all have experiences that reinforce the idea that words have power. Discursive approaches focus on the use of language as a source of power. Research tells us that power is exercised more subtly at the micro-level through discourse and meaning-making. All of its growth is in the direction of the prevailing wind. These all enable an organisation to wield power over others.Ī photograph of a tree where the growth has been influenced by strong wind. In other words, in the context of inter-organisational collaboration, the macro-level power of an organisation is associated with its control of resources that others need its importance to the strategic purposes of other organisations and its position in the structures of collaboration. This contrasts with macro-level power, which is based on resources, importance and structural position (Huxham and Beech, 2008). Micro-level power is seen in day-to-day activities, in ‘points of power’ which are played out in relationships between people as they collaborate. Huxham and Beech (2008) refer to power at this relational level as ‘micro-level power’. Participants suggested that, even where they are well aware of the greater resources, influence, importance or position of the organisations with which they collaborate, they still believe they are able to make a difference, and they focus this belief on the relational aspects of collaboration. In Carol’s research, she noted a contrast between this public performance of collaboration and informal backstage discussions. It is perhaps for this reason that we have observed that many collaborative partnership meetings seem to avoid surfacing these asymmetries, and instead proceed as if power is shared equally, or as if ‘partnership’ in some way negates power. 5 Influence, meaning-making and micro-level powerįor many of us, working with power asymmetry is not comfortable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |