Organizational Theory is going to be utilized thus, in order to approach international

organizations from a different, though very enlightening perspective. Two types of

organizations are more visible in Organizational Theory literature. The first model is
known as the rational or configurational model. Once influenced by the Classical School
of Organization Theory, the rational model stands for a mechanistic way of
organizational design (Balding & Wehrenfennig, 2011). The back then focus on
corporations and profit maximization, led organizational theorists to pursue the one
best way of organizing effective organizations (Hodge & Anthony, 1988). Even when,
research on contingency theory brought forth the close relation of organizations with
their environment, the advocates of the rational model insisted that there is a best way
for every circumstance (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1977).
Since, the organization is seen as a machine, its members then, constitute the gears
which are necessary for the organization to operate and accomplish its goals. Rather
than autonomous individuals, an organizations members are working parts of a bigger
structure and scope. As such, an organizations parts are tools at the hands of the
management so as to, maximize efficiency. Therefore, configuration and task allocation
from above, are the requirements for a successful organization.
Furthermore, in order to avoid abstractions and keep the parts of the organization
concentrated on their assigned tasks, a rational organization sets specific goals.
Individuality and self-interests set aside since, effectiveness and functionality could be
disrupted by self-aimed ambitions. As a result, being member of a rational organization
requires dedication as well as, the fulfilment of pre-conditions and sacrifices prior and
after the participation respectively. From this perspective, the organization is a unitary
actor with a single scope which requires total acceptance of its principles and norms by
its members.
Rationally designed organizations rely on top-bottom hierarchy and order so as to
achieve their goals. Regardless of the nature of its goals, all parts of the organization
line up behind a common cause and it is the leadership of the organization which must
ensure that each and every part fits to the structure and functions as planned. To do so,
rational organizations develop disciplinary measures and tools so as to maintain order

and dedication to the master plan. In the business sector, for example, it is the wages,
the fear of unemployment and various kinds of incentives which play the above
mentioned role. On the other hand, when the goal is intangible, similar measures of
alignment can be applied such as, fear of isolation, direct threats and economic
sanctions.
It follows then, that in rational organizations, power derives from above and is equally
distributed but also exercised from the top to the bottom. While, this is evident of how
the structure prevails over the parts, it is also illustrative of how power relations between
the members are limited to the minimum. By restricting the self-interest and ambitions of
the participants, the organization prevents interorganizational politics from delaying or
even put on hold its operation. In contrast, with this view, Graham Astley and Edward
Zajac argued that in the rational model of organizations, members acquire power by
performing tasks that are essential to the organizations collective functioning (Astley &
Zajac, 1991, p. 403). In other words, the significance of an organizational task is
positively relative to the power it offers to the member which is responsible to carry it
out. Thus, it is implied that the distribution of power is rather unlikely to be equal since,
organizational tasks vary in importance. Nevertheless, in the rational type of
organizations, intraorganizational power holds rather a secondary role opposed to, the
coalitional model where the interaction of the members play a decisive role to the
structure and identity of the organization,
The coalitional or coactivational view of organizations suggests a rather different
perspective of organizational structure. Instead of, a unified body and an aligned mode
of operation, it promotes that organizations consist of competing groups (coalitions),
each one of them with its own interests and aims (March & Cyert, 2006). Every member
of the organization owns resources and is willing to exchange them in order to satisfy its
own interests. This kind of continuous, over time exchanges, is the driving force of the
organization. As Dow argues, the key process to a coalitional organization is the
ongoing interaction between members through time (Dow, 1988). In other words, it is up
to the member and its own interest whether, it will participate, contribute or even abstain
from the organizations operations. What is more, not all participants in organizations

are interested or even informed about all aspects of their operations (Pfeffer &
Salancik, 1977, p. 19).
The aforementioned behavior resembles to what Robert B. Glassman described as
loose coupled systems (Glassman, 1973). According to Karl Weick, By loose coupling,
the author intends to convey the image that coupled events are responsive, but that
each event also preserves its own identity and some evidence of its physical or logical
separateness (Weick, 1976, p. 4). Thus, in loose couples, a certain amount of free
choice is implied and, in coalitional organizations, members have rather to decide
whether it is profitable for them to take part or not in organizational operations. On the
other hand, it also provides for organizational flexibility since the removal and potential
substitution of harmful participants is possible (Marriott, et al., 2011). In that sense, the
image of a coalitional organization would be rather a malleable and continuous process
of actors struggling in the intraorganizational arena for control and power over others
and therefore the organization itself.
Resource power and dependency
Organizations are in need of critical resources which are important for their operation
(Provan, et al., 1980) and they acquire them either from the participants of the
organization or from the environment (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1977). Before we proceed
however, we should clarify that resources are tightly related to the organizations scope
and they can vary in form. Defining what an organization considers as resource, will
help us avoid the simplification of the problem and also grasp the complexity of such a
procedure. As Mannix argues, In organizations, resource pools might consist of
tangible items such as funding or personnel or they might be more intangible and
amorphous, consisting of access to information, knowledge, morale, or even trust
(Mannix, 1993, p. 3). What is more, the more critical and scarce a needed resource is,
the more valuable it becomes on the hands of its owner and therefore its ability to
influence the decision making process of the organization.
As open systems, coalitional organizations are flexible as well as, in constant interaction
and interdependency with multiple environments. Changes in the environment, initiate
changes in the organization which, in order to survive, has to adapt, address new

challenges and satisfy more demands. Interdependency however means, mutual

dependency (Placeholder1). Indeed, the organization depends on its environment for
critical resources while, various actors, depend on the organization in order to satisfy
their interests. (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1977).
.
The issue of power and dependency in intraorganizational relations is of extreme
importance in organizations because it sets in motion the organization and allows us to
understand the hierarchy inside the organization. Robert Dahl argued in 1957 that,
power is the ability to get others do something they would not otherwise do (Dahl,
1957). As we have already noticed, members will contribute their resources to the
organization only if it serves their self-interest. As long as the organizations scope
satisfies a members interest, resources will flow from this member to the organization.
The more resources a member owns and willingly contributes to the organization, the
more dependent other members, will be on this particular member. In Brasss words,
The power of Actor A over Actor B is the extent to which Actor B is dependent on Actor
A (Brass, 2002, p. 138). The control of other actors by a single actor through the
control of critical resources leads us also, to the control of the organization and its
utilization for own purposes (Brass, 2002).
Therefore, in rational organizations where, power runs through the structure vertically
from the top to the bottom, a particular position, critical to the organizations operation,
can create dependency on both ends (Madison, et al., 1980) (Krackhardt, 1990). On the
one hand, the organization depends on that position due to its criticality with regard to
the organizations function while, on the other hand, an actor, might depend on the
same position because of the privileges it offers against the other actors including, the
organization.
Although the power of position can be applied to coalitional organizations as well, it is
rather of different significance. As we already noted, in loose couples, potential threats
or actors which might pose a threat to the organizations function, can be removed and
replaced by other actors. Instead of, limiting intraorganizational relations so as to, avoid
threats which derive from dependency, in coalitional organizations,actors try either to

increase their power by reducing their dependence on others or, try to improve their
status and power by forming coalitions (Emerson, 1962). It is evident, that what would
cause problems or even stall a rational organization, constitutes the driving force for
coalitional organizations. In other words, in coalitional organizations due to their need of
resources and the competition between groups of conflicting interests, for better
positioning in the organizational structure, constitutes an incentive and motivation for
the actors.