# data[].attributes.body
Structural power is shown through:

-government policies

-funding arrangements

-research agreements

- systems

That connect universities and defence organisations.

# data[].attributes.body
Push factors:

-efficacy: the belief that the students could influence the university via protesting.

-stakeholder profile: students had an emotional investment in their education.

-demographics: students were thinking beyond their own context but to the impact this could have on government policy and global conflict.

# data[].attributes.body
·       Reward power: companies provide funding, research opportunities, and resources.

·       Expert power: weapons manufacturers offer specialised defence and technology expertise.

·       Legitimate power: universities have the authority to approve partnerships.

·       Coercive Power: withdrawing funding for research.

# data[].attributes.body
The most prominent layers are:

-emotional resistance as students stated concerns and frustrations.

-collective resistance as students came together to share their opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
One situation from my own practice was introducing a new HR platform across the organisation. There was some resistance from employees who had strong views about the change and how it would affect their work. At times, this felt like a form of power over, where strong opinions influenced the wider conversation.

Looking back, using the ADKAR model would have helped me understand that resistance was not always about people being difficult. Some employees may not have had enough awareness of why the change was needed, enough knowledge about how to use the system, or a clear understanding of the benefits to them.

Using tools such as ADKAR, power mapping and stakeholder analysis would have helped identify concerns earlier, provide better training and communication, and involve employees more meaningfully in the change process.

# data[].attributes.body
Structural power shows up through the systems, funding arrangements and decision-making structures that connect universities with weapons manufacturers. Large defence companies can provide significant research funding, technology and employment pathways, which may give them influence over what research is prioritised.

For students, this can create an imbalance because they may have limited formal power over these partnerships. It shows how power sits within the structure of an organisation, not just with individual people.

# data[].attributes.body
Push factors may have been concerns about ethics, human rights and the university’s values. Students may have felt uncomfortable that their university was financially connected to companies involved in weapons manufacturing.

There may also have been frustration about a lack of transparency or student involvement in these decisions. For some students, protesting was a way to have their voices heard and encourage the university to reconsider whether these partnerships matched its social responsibilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Isee several bases of power in the relationship between universities and weapons manufacturers:

Reward power – companies can provide research funding, scholarships, jobs and other opportunities to universities and students.

Legitimate power – universities and defence companies have formal authority and influence through contracts and partnerships.

Expert power – weapons manufacturers bring specialised technology, engineering knowledge and industry expertise.

Referent power – large companies such as Lockheed Martin can carry reputation and status, which may make partnerships attractive to universities.

Coercive power less obvious, but financial dependence could make universities reluctant to challenge or end partnerships.

# data[].attributes.body
The most prominent layers of resistance were questioning, challenging and collective action. Students were not only raising concerns about university partnerships with weapons manufacturers, but also questioning whether these relationships aligned with the university’s values and social responsibilities.

Their protests, campaigns and public discussions also showed collective resistance, where students used their shared voice to challenge decisions made by people with greater institutional and financial power.

For me, this shows that resistance can be constructive. It can push organisations to be more transparent, explain their decisions and consider the ethical impact on different stakeholders.

# data[].attributes.body
I am currently going through a new rebrand and signage project and there has been some division as not everyone thinks that a rebrand is necessary. I have found this particular module to be rewarding in highlighting the need to really break down the power in stakeholder engagement. In particular the ADKAR model and also delving in to the forms of resistance you may encounter and how to counteract that resistance.

# data[].attributes.body
Governance Frameworks, legislation and policies are in place to regulate the partnerships between universities and weapon manufacturers. The Defence Trade Controls Amendment Act and policies creates defined boundaries that shape decision-making and research. These structures limit the ability to make changes.

# data[].attributes.body
Efficacy - The students belief that they can influence the universities decisions through protesting.

Transaction / Interaction Salience - Dissatisfied with the Universities decision and lack of transparency.

Demographics - The students collective interest in their learning and further education and what that means for their future.

Stakeholder Profile - the emotional investment to their learning and future.

# data[].attributes.body
Coercive Power: Weapons manufacturers withdrawing funding for research.

Reward Power: The offering of funding or increased funding for research.

Legitimate Power: Universities may feel a sense of obligation and reciprocity.

# data[].attributes.body
The most prominent layers of resistance that I found are emotional resistance: Students likely protested due to fear, anger, frustration due to lack of transparency and lack of choice, which then leads to collective resistance - working together with a shared message and goal giving them increased influence . Acting out resistance - attempting to sabotage and influence the current situation through protesting causing conflict between students and the university.

# data[].attributes.body
Students may have protested because:

they were concerned that university partnerships supported weapons used in wars;

universities were not transparent about their defence contracts and investments;

these partnerships conflicted with students’ values and human rights;

defence funding could influence university research; and

students felt protests were needed to make universities listen and take action.

# data[].attributes.body
Reward power: Weapons manufacturers provide universities with research funding, sponsorships and career opportunities.

Coercive power: Universities may fear losing funding if they end partnerships.

Legitimate power: Governments and university leaders have the formal authority to approve funding and partnerships.

Expert power: Defence companies and university researchers have specialised knowledge and technical skills.

Referent power: Defence companies promote themselves as supporting innovation and national security. Students gain support by appealing to human rights and ethical values.

# data[].attributes.body
Collective resistance occurred when students worked together through protests, petitions, encampments and building occupations. Acting as a group gave them a stronger voice.

Structural resistance occurred because students wanted universities to change their policies and relationships with weapons manufacturers. They were asking for greater transparency and for universities to stop investing in or working with these companies.

# data[].attributes.body
I am a member of an Internal Audit team. Our role is to review and assure work completed by others to ensure compliance and conformance, but also to bring an opinion on things like effectiveness and efficiency.

In situations where our audit opinion may go counter to management's opinion, there is significant stakeholder engagement to agree a position. The content in this module is useful in understanding relationships between groups and how this can support ways of engagement which lead to minimal conflict when reporting on the audit outcome.

At the same time as a reporting position needs to be agreed there is the conflict that Internal Audit is to operate independently, so as not to have the opinion outcome influenced by management (an example of power over). Those in the internal audit team may also wish to work elsewhere in the company in future, and so exercising the power over the business (in the opposite direction) may also limit opportunities.

# data[].attributes.body
University researchers cannot complete their work without some source of funding. There is likely concern from the protesting students that researchers (and universities) will become beholden to the weapons companies (there will likely be 'strings attached'), thereby constraining their research, but also their ability to speak out against the types of activities that are perpetrated using the weapons they have perhaps helped to develop and refine as a result of their research.

# data[].attributes.body
Efficacy - Students likely believe if they input, even through protest, they can sway the universities to make a different decision

Transaction/Interaction Salience - Similar to efficacy, protest is a very visible way of showing dissatisfaction with a situation - not just noticed by the universities, but much more publicly

Benefit-Cost Analysis - Students are likely already on the university campus and so getting together to protest there has a low cost. The benefit is that their presence at a protest is very visible and may be able to persuade others to join in (also on campus and so a low cost to participate)

Stakeholder profile - the protesting students are clearly invested in the reputation of their university, and are using protest to directly demonstrate their concern.

# data[].attributes.body
Between the Universities and weapons manufacturers

Reward Power - the funding decisions from weapons companies to a particular research project at a particular university can be seen as a reward given how competitive this type of funding is likely to be.

Coercive Power - the opposite of reward power in this circumstance. The funding decision can be reversed and awarded to competitor research groups or universities.

Referent Power - where the people receiving the funding are 'beholden' to the weapons companies. Depending on a university's or researcher's world view, they may be looking to emulate the world view of the weapons company who is providing the funding.

# data[].attributes.body
The students have protested as a means for getting their message across to the Universities who are taking money from Lockheed Martin or who have relationships and collaborations with the company. They likely have few other options to influence any outcome as they are not in a position to influence decision-making in a more collaborative way.

Emotional resistance - because there is likely anger and frustration; anger that the decision is seen as unethical and promoting conflict, and frustration that there isn't an alternative way to make their voices heard.

Acting out resistance - the protest is a form of conflict.

# data[].attributes.body
I have been part of a change management initiative in an organisation, involving the implementation of CRM software, providing a single platform for client information and replacing legacy systems. The technical aspects of the change have received more attention than the power dynamics. It is becoming more apparent now, after the CRM has been deployed in the organisation, that power dynamics have impacted the take up of the system.

In relation to "power over", three significant internal stakeholders have influenced the project outcomes - legitimate position power expressed by the CEO and Board and expert power by the new COO, who is leading the CRM Project.

In terms of “power to”, the CRM project was designed to enable the day-to-day work of engaging with clients and provide benefits for employees in being able to document their interactions and collaborate internally and externally.  A divergence in the responses made by different employees and groups of employees became apparent.

One client team works in a highly collaborative manner, based in the same office, and were highly impacted by push factors (group membership and transaction/interaction salience), engaging strongly with the CRM in their daily work together, as they believed it would be of great benefit to them and enable them to serve their clients well.

Another client team operates in a highly geographically dispersed manner and has a much weaker sense of group membership. They have been impacted significantly by their own cost-benefit analysis, believing that the benefits of the CRM do not compensate for the loss of autonomy and the difficulty in using it.

Passive resistance has been apparent in this group – emotions of anxiety and frustration, disengaged resistance (indifference to the CRM), non-compliance with use of the CRM (inferred but not overtly stated), negativity (focussing on the problems and ignoring the benefits of the CRM), avoidant resistance (work arounds and maintaining legacy systems) and maintaining secrecy (not being upfront about concerns and how they can be addressed).

It is clear from the ADKAR model that more work needs to be done to “circle back” earlier in the change journey, to acknowledge and address resistance through a combination of “power over” and “power to” approaches.

This would involve revisiting the earlier stages of Awareness Desire and Knowledge to improve recognition of the need for change, increase levels of motivation to participate in and support the change and ensuring that all employees have what they need to engage in the change.

# data[].attributes.body
The structures of funding agreements are key, resourcing research and the growth of new faculties and departments in universities. The significance of funding structures will dramatically increase in scope and depth through the AUKUS agreement, driving by an agreement between the governments of Australia, UK and the USA. The funding agreements will enable the research and development that underpins the activities of weapons manufacturers.

This expression of structural power relies on commercial in-confidence arrangements which conflicts with the transparency and academic freedom that normally characterises universities.

# data[].attributes.body
Stakeholder Profile – as current students of the university the students have a vested interest in the reputation of the institution, its ethical stance and academic freedom in research and teaching.

Demographics – the students were not only thinking of their local university context, but were responding to the influence of weapons manufacturers on government policy and global conflicts.

Efficacy – as students of the university, they felt that their protests were more likely to gain traction than the protests of the general public.

Group Membership – students acted collectively to lobby for the university leadership to become transparent about their involvement with weapons manufacturers.

Transaction/Interaction Salience – students were concerned by the secrecy applied by the university leadership to funding received from weapons manufacturers.

Resources – students centred their protests on their own university campus and set up spaces to highlight their concerns and to call for transparency.

Benefit-Cost Analysis – students committed to a sustained protest, believing that a change in approach by the university was achievable.

# data[].attributes.body
Coercive Power – weapons manufacturers can threaten to withdraw research funding for universities if universities do not hold to their requirements regarding confidentiality and exclusivity.

Reward Power – universities are granted new funding or increased research funding if they meet the requirements of weapons manufacturers.

Expert Power – universities trust the expertise of weapons manufacturers in an area of research that is new for them.

Legitimate Power – universities accept the authority of weapons manufacturers and express their obligation through reciprocity and responsibility.

# data[].attributes.headline
I work with a wide range of stakeholders, often very senior and often with very passionate and diverse views. Reflecting on these factors helps with preparing and learning from engagement activities.

# data[].attributes.subject
I work with a wide range of stakeholders, often very senior and often with very passionate and diverse views. Reflecting on these factors helps with preparing and learning from engagement activities.