Abstract
Structural power is often assumed to lead to influence. Yet people vary in their ability to convert power into influence, and the experience of power can itself sow the seeds for the loss of influence. We bring a temporal, historical perspective to account for these disparities and apparent contradictions. We theorize that the gain or loss of power produces corresponding shifts in influence; however, these effects are contingent upon people’s experiences with power and conflict at the time of organizational entry. Individuals who enter an organization wielding considerable structural power can acquire enduring cognitive rigidities–a stamp of power–that subsequently make them less influential, while those who initially experience conflict can derive lasting learning benefits–a stamp of conflict–that later make them more influential. We evaluate and find support for these propositions in analyses of the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 2009: (1) senators became more influential when their party moved into the majority and when they became committee chairs; (2) entering the Senate as a member of the majority party dampened senators’ subsequent ability to exert influence; and (3) initial assignment to politically divided committees enhanced senators’ later influence. We discuss implications for research on power, conflict, and imprinting.
“Stamps of Power and Conflict: Imprinting and Influence in the U.S. Senate, 1973-2009.” In John Humphries (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventy-fifth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Online ISSN: 2151-6561.