OEC Handout # 8

Power and Politics

Power
POWER: A CAPACITY THAT A HAS TO INFLUENCE THE BEHAVIOR OF B SO THAT B DOES THINGS HE OR SHE WOULD NOT OTHERWISE DO.
This definition implies:
1)A potential that need not be actualized to be Effective.
2)A dependency relationship.
3)The assumption that B has some discretion over his or her own behavior
DEPENDENCY: B’s relationship to A when A possesses
Something that B requires.
To create dependency,the thing you control must be perceived
As: IMPORTANT
SCARCITY
NONSUBSTITUTABILITY

INFLUENCE: The process of affecting the thoughts,behavior and feelings of another person.
AUTHORITY: The right to influence another person

BASES OF POWER
What do power holders control that allow them to manipulate
The behaviors of others.

FORMAL POWER
LEGITIMATE POWER: One’s structural position in an
organization.represents formal authority to control and use
orgn resources.Positions of authority include coercive and
Reward powers however legitimate power is acceptance by
Members in an orgn the authority of a position.
COERCIVE POWER: Power that is based on fear.
REWARD POWER: Compliance based on the the ability
To distribute rewards that others view as valuable.
INFORMATION POWER: Power that comes from access to
And control over information.

SOURCES OF POWER

PERSONAL POWER
Power that comes from an individuals unique characteristics
EXPERT POWER: Influence based on expertise special skills
or knowledge.
REFERENT POWER:An elusive power based on interpersonal
attraction.(desirable resources or personal
traits)
CHARISMATIC POWER:An extension of referent power
stemming from an individual’s personality
and interpersonal style.
OPPURTUNITY POWER: Influence obtained as a result of
being in the right place at the right time.
POWER TACTICS: Ways in which individuals translate power
bases into specific actions.

1 LEGITIMACY: Relying on one’s authority and position or
Stressing that a request is in accordance with organizational
policies and procedures
2 RATIONAL PERSUASION:logical arguments& facts
3 INSPIRATIONAL APPEALS:emotional commitment to values
Needs, hopes and aspirations.
4 CONSULTATION:involvement
5 EXCHANGE: quid pro quo
6 PERSONAL APPEALS: compliance based on friendship/loyalty
7 INGRATIATION:using flattery,praise before making a request
8 PRESSURE: using warnings,threats and repeated demands.
9 COALITIONS: An informal group bound together by the
active pursuit of a single issue.


IS POWER ELASTIC?

POWER IN GROUPS:-
Those “out of power” and seeking to be “in”will first try to
increase their power individually

The alternative is to form a coalition- an informal group bound
Together by the active pursuit of a single goal. Eg., trade unions

Coalition: two or more individuals who combine their power to
Push for or support their demands.

Coalitions in organizations seek a broad constituency to support
The coalitions objectives.


KANTERS SYMBOLS OF POWER:

1Ability to intercede for someone in trouble
2 Ability to get placements for favored employees
3 Exceeding budget limitations
4 Procuring above average raises for employees
5 Getting items on the agenda at meetings
6 Access to early information
7 Having top managers seek out their opinion.

KANTER’S SYMBOLS OF POWERLESSNESS
1 Overly close supervision
2 Inflexible adherence to rules
3 Tendency to do the job themselves rather than training
the employees
4 resist change and protect turf
5 budget cutting,punishing others, using top-down communication

POWER ANALYSIS
Amitai Etzioni takes a more sociological orientation to power
He says there are three types of organizational power and 3 types of
Organizational involvement or membership.

3 types of organizational power:

COERCIVE POWER: influencing members by forcing them to do
something under threat of punishment,or through fear and
intimidation
UTILITARIAN POWER: Influencing members by providing them
with rewards and benefits
NORMATIVE POWER: Influencing members by using knowledge
that they want very much to belong to the organization and
by letting them know that what they are expected to do is the
“right” thing to do.

ETZONI HAS ALSO PROPOSED THAT WE CAN CLASSIFY
ORGANIZATIONS BY THE TYPE OF MEMBERSHIP THEY
HAVE.

ALTERNATIVE MEMBERSHIP:
The members have hostile,negative feelings about being in the
organization.They don’t want to be there. Eg., prisons, juvenile
centres, alcohol anonymous.

CALCULATIVE MEMBERSHIP:
Members weigh the benefits and limitations of belonging to the
Organisation. Businesses are a good example.

MORAL MEMBERSHIP:
Members have such positive feelings about organizational
membership that they are willing to deny their own needs .
Religious groups, Red cross.

Organizational Politics
To understand organizations, we might consider them as political systems. The political metaphor helps us understand power relationships in day-to-day organizational relationships. If we accept that power relations exist in organizations, then politics and politicking are an essential part of organizational life.
Politics is a means of recognizing and, ultimately, reconciling competing interests within the organization. Competing interests can be reconciled by any number of means. For example, resorting to "rule by the manager" might be seen as an example of totalitarian rule. On the other hand, politics may be a means of creating a noncoercive, or a democratic work environment.
As mentioned, organizations need mechanisms whereby they reconcile conflicting interests. Hence, organizations, like governments, tend to "rule" by some sort of "system". This "system" is employed to create and maintain "order" among the organization's members.
Systems of rule within organizations range from autocratic to democratic at the extremes. Between these extremes we find bureaucratic and technocratic systems. Whatever the system, each represents a political orientation with respect to how power is applied and distributed throughout theorganization. Each type of organizational "rule" simply draws on different principles of legitimacy.
According to Aristotle, politics stems from a diversity of interests. To fully understand the politics of the organization, it is necessary to explore the processes by which people engage in politics. Consistent with Aristotle's conceptualization, it is a given that, within the organization, all employees bring their own interests, wants, desires, and needs to the workplace.
Organizational decision-making and problem- solving, while seemingly a rational process, is also a political process. Organizational actors seek to satisfy not only organizational interests, but also their own wants and needs; driven by self-interest.
Rational models of organizational behavior only explain a portion of the behavior observed (Farrell and Peterson, 1982):
Members of a corporation are at one and the same time cooperators in a common enterprise and rivals for the material and intangible rewards of successful competition with each other. (Farrell and Peterson, 1982)
Political behavior has been defined as :
the non-rational influence on decision making Regardless of the degree to which employees may be committed to the organization's objectives, there can be little doubt that, at least occasionally, personal interests will be incongruent with those of the organization. Organizational politics arises when people think differently and want to act differently.
The tension created by this diversity can resolved by political means. In an autocratic organization, resolution comes through the directive: "We'll do it my way!". The democratic organization seeks to resolve this diversity of interests by asking: "How shall we do it?" By whatever means an organization resolves this diversity, alternative approaches generally hinge on the power relations between the actors involved.
According to Farrell and Peterson(Farrell and Peterson, 1982), the successful practice of organizational politics is perceived to lead to a higher level of power, and once a higher level of power is attained, there is more opportunity to engage in political behavior
One things does appear to be clear: the political element of the management process is non-rational. Organizations cannot pretend to engage in rational decision-making processes so long as political influences play a role -- and they always will!
· For purposes of understanding organizational political behavior, Farrell and Peterson (1982) proposed a three-dimensional typology. The dimensions are: where the political activity takes place -- inside or outside the organization,
· the direction of the attempted influence -- vertically or laterally in the organization, and the legitimacy of the political action.

INTERNAL-EXTERNAL DIMENSION
EXTERNAL
· whistleblowing
· lawsuits
· leaking information
INTERNAL
· exchange of favors
· reprisals
· obstructionism
symbolic protest
VERTICAL-LATERAL DIMENSION
VERTICAL
· by- passing the chain of command
· complaining to a supervisor
· mentor- protege activities
LATERAL
· exchange of favors
coalition formation
LEGITIMATE-ILLEGITIMATE DIMENSION
LEGITIMATE
· activities genarally accepted in an organizational context
ILLEGITIMATE
Threats
Most organizational politicking occurs in the internal-vertical- legitimate realm. An example would be individuals trying to achieve personal gain by giving "voice" to their demands/needs.
This could be done by complaining to supervisors, bypassing the chain of command, or obstructionisn (ignoring requests or missing deadlines). In less autocratic organizations, political activity can be expected to occur most frequently in the internal-lateral-legitimate cell. This activity includes coalition formation, the exchange of favors, and reprisals.
PREDICTING ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICAL BEHAVIOR
· As managers (and as students of organizations) it is useful to be able to predict behaviors; this includes political behavior. Exchange Theory, which we have encountered before when discussing motivation (Equity Theory) and power (Dependency Theory of Power), provides some insight into people's political behavior in organizations. Let's examine four variables: investment
· alternatives
· trust
efficacy

Investment
As employees spend more time with a firm, they acquire nonportable training and skills.
The skills acquired working as a machine operator in a pulpmill are valuable to the employee only so long as that employee is employed in the pulp industry. This training constitutes a valuable investment insofar as the employee has value to the firm because of these skills. These same skills are of little value in another industry like mining. Thus, in another industry, the employee has lesser value and, as a consequence, less job security.
An employee with considerable time invested in industry-specific training is less likely to engage in organizational politics, that might jeoporadize that investment, than an employee with less time invested.
Furthermore, over time, most employees acquire frienships with coworkers. These friendships constitute social and psychological investments. Because political activity could potentially undermine an employee's employment with the firm, a senior employee may be assumed to be reluctant to risk losing his/her investment -- friends in the workplace.