Journal on Policy and Complex Systems

Table 1 : IPA Comparison of four theories of power

el of Systemicity are generally expected to be more robust ( useful / effective in practical application ) for predicting results and achieving goals including strategic planning and policy implementation ( Wallis , 2011 , 2013 , 2014c , 2016 ).

For the present analysis , we are attempting to discover the potential utility of four theories of organizational power and identify paths for objectively improving those theories so that they may be more useful for reaching goals such as optimizing our operations for success and sustainability .

2.2 Data

In the present study , IPA is applied to Fink ’ s ( 2017 ) descriptions of four theories of social power systems . ² Rather than describe those theories ( which is done more thoroughly in the original text ), the following analysis provides a set of diagrams .

1 Please note that each map is accessible online on “ Kumu .” http :// kumu . io For creating your own version of each Kumu map , use the “ fork ” function . Once you create an account and login , go to the map and look in the upper left hand corner for a “ three bar ” icon indicating a menu . Click there and it will open a project overview page . Look to the left hand side and scroll down . Click on the “ fork project ” icon and follow the instructions . Alternatively , you may download the map onto an excel spreadsheet , make your desired changes , and upload the spreadsheet back to Kumu as your own map .

182

3.0 Results and Insights

above , we find the following results : shown here as diagrams ( Figures 2 – 5 ) and their respective IPA scores . After the diagrams , we discuss additional findings and insights generated from this process that will lead us to better theories that are more useful / effective for understanding and engaging complex organizations and operations . In each Figure , each bubble represents a concept / variable and each arrow represents a causal relationship . Whether it is a positive or negative relationship is indicated by the sign ( plus or minus ), text (“ causes more ” or “ causes less ”), and the form of the line ( solid is “ causes more ”, while dashed is “ causes less ”). The “ halo ” around some concept bubbles indicates that concept is concatenated ( has more than one causal arrow pointing directly at it ). ¹

Table 1 summarizes the IPA scores for the four theories diagramed