•Power is generally related to increased accuracy of the social network.•Individuals with power are more accurate about the negative tie network.•Formal and informal power relate to increased ...accuracy about one’s own incoming ties.•Formal power relates to increased accuracy about the whole negative tie network.•Individual network accuracy was negatively related to employee exit and transfer.
Individuals differ in how accurately they perceive their social environment, but research and theory provide conflicting predictions on whether powerful people are more or less accurate than others. Drawing on social network theory and the situated cognition theory of power, we examine the relationship between individuals’ formal and informal power and their perceptual accuracy of social network relationships. We propose that individuals’ perceptual accuracy is related to: 1) their formal and informal power in the organization; 2) the type of relationship being perceived (positive/negative valence) and its relevance to task and goal completion; and 3) the dependence relationship with the target of perception (i.e., whether the perceiver is dependent on the perceived to get their work done). Predictions were tested using cognitive social structure data collected from a technical call center. Results showed that power was generally linked to increased perceptual accuracy, particularly for the types of relationships most relevant for task and goal completion. We further demonstrated that social network accuracy was related to employees’ outcomes, including subsequent transfer, promotion, and exit from the organization.
The issues that we have considered so far have revolved around different, if sometimes sprawling, policy domains, and the respective capacities of the Obama and Trump administrations to implement and ...undo a variety of policy initiatives. This chapter and the next will somewhat move away from that formula and will reflect on the manner in which presidents Obama and Trump exercised their presidential powers. As we have already explained, it is far from simple to make definitive judgments about the legacy imprint of presidential actions, even in relatively tangible policy areas. That difficulty is heightened with regard to assessing the
