Summary - Power and Politics

Power is the ability to make things happen in the way an individual wants, either by self or by the subordinates. The essence of power is control over the behavior of others (French & Raven, 1962). Managers derive power from both organizational and individual sources. These sources are called position power and personal power, respectively. In an organizational context leadership and power are related to each others. Power is used by leaders as a means to attain group goals. In other words, power is a means of facilitating their achievement of goals and objectives that they have set for themselves in view of organizational requirements.

Power can be categorized into two types: Formal and informal. Formal Power: is based on the position of an individual in an organization. Formal power is derived from either one’s ability to coerce or reward others or is derived from the formal authority vested in the individual due to his/ her strategic position in the organizational hierarchy. Formal power may be categorized into four types: Coercive Power, Reward Power, Legitimate Power, Information Power.

Personal power resides in the individual and is independent of that individual’s position. . Three bases of personal power are expertise, rational persuasion, and reference. Using position and personal power well to achieve the desired influence over other people is a challenge for most managers. There are many useful ways of exercising relational influence. The most common strategies involve: Reason, Friendliness, Coalition, Bargaining, Assertiveness, Higher authority, and Sanctions.

Empowerment is the process by which managers help others to acquire and use the power required to make decisions affecting both themselves and their work. Moreover, today, managers in progressive organizations are expected to be competent at empowering the people with whom they work. Rather than concentrating power only at higher levels as found in the traditional “pyramid” of organizations, this concept views power to be shared by all working in flatter and more collegial structures. Individuals who lose power or are out of power seek to increase their power individually. If they fail to do so then the alternative is to form a coalition–an informal group bound together by the active pursuit of a single issue. The natural way to gain influence is to become a power holder but this may be difficult, risky, costly, or impossible. Politics is defined as those activities that are not required as part of one’s formal role in the organization, but that influence, or attempt to influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization.

Organizational politics is the management of influence to obtain ends not sanctioned by the organization or to obtain sanctioned ends through non-sanctioned means and the art of creative compromise among competing interests.

Politics: Power in Action - Power and Politics

Politics is defined as those activities that are not required as part of one’s formal role in the organization, but that influence, or attempt to influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization.

Organizational politics is the management of influence to obtain ends not sanctioned by the organization or to obtain sanctioned ends through non-sanctioned means and the art of creative compromise among competing interests. The above definition clearly points out the following:

a. Political behavior fall outside the ambit of one’s specified job requirements.

b. It includes efforts to influence the goals, criteria, or processes employed for decision-making.

c. It includes a variety of political behaviors such as, withholding vital information from decision makers, whistle-blowing, spreading rumors, leaking confidential information, etc.

In this context, it is necessary to make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate power dimensions within organizational contexts.

The “Legitimate-Illegitimate” Dimension may be explained in terms of the following (Farrell & Peterson, 1988):

Ø  Legitimate political behavior refers to normal everyday politics–complaining to your supervisor, bypassing the chain of command, forming coalitions, etc.

Ø  Illegitimate political behaviors that violate the implied rules of the game, such as sabotage, whistle blowing, and symbolic protests, etc.

Ø  The vast majority of all organizational political actions are legitimate. The extreme illegitimate forms of political behavior pose a very real risk of loss of organizational membership or extreme sanction.

There are two quite different schools of thought found existing in the analysis of literature on organizational politics.

The first tradition builds on Machiavelli’s philosophy and defines politics in terms of self-interest and the use of non-sanctioned means. In this tradition, organizational politics may be formally defined as the management of influence to obtain ends not sanctioned by the organization or to obtain sanctioned ends through non-sanctioned influence means. Managers are often considered political when they seek their own goals or use means that are not currently authorized by the organization or that push legal limits. Where there is uncertainty or ambiguity, it is often extremely difficult to tell whether a manager is being political in this self-serving sense (Pfeffer, 1981).

The second tradition treats politics as a necessary function resulting from differences in the self-interests of individuals. Here, organizational politics is viewed as the art of creative compromise among competing interests. In a heterogeneous society, individuals will disagree as to whose self-interests are most valuable and whose concerns should, therefore, be bounded by collective interests. Politics come into play as individuals need to develop compromises, avoid confrontation, and co-exist together. The same holds true in organizations, where individuals join, work, and stay together because of their self-interests being served. It is equally important to remember that the goals of the organization and the acceptable means are established by organizationally powerful individuals in negotiation with others. Thus, organizational politics is also the use of power to develop socially acceptable ends and means that balance individual and collective interests.

Factors Contributing to Political Behavior

1. Individual factors:

Researchers have identified certain personality traits, needs, and other factors that are likely to be related to political behavior. They are as follows:

a. Employees who are high self-monitors, possess an internal locus of control, and have a high need for power are more likely to engage in political behavior.

b. The high self-monitor is more sensitive to social cues and in all probability be more likely to be skilled in political behavior than the low self-monitor.

c. Individuals with an internal locus of control are more prone to take a proactive stance and attempt to manipulate situations in their favor.

d. The Machiavellian personality is comfortable using politics as a means to further his/her self-interest and does not see it as an unethical action..

A person’s investment in the organization, perceived alternatives, and expectations of success will influence the tendency to pursue illegitimate means of political action. The following alternatives are possible in this context:

a. The more that a person has invested and the more a person has to lose, the less likely he/she is to use illegitimate means.

b. The more alternative job opportunities an individual has, a prominent reputation, or influential contacts outside the organization, the more likely he/she will risk illegitimate political actions.

c. A low expectation of success in using illegitimate means reduces the probability of its use.

1. Organizational factors:

Political activity has got to do more with the organization’s characteristics than of individual difference variables. When an organization’s resources are declining, and the existing pattern of resources is changing, as also when there is opportunity for promotions, politics is more likely to come into play and surface. Certain important findings in this regard are:

Ø  Cultures characterized by low trust, role ambiguity, unclear performance evaluation systems, zero-sum reward allocation practices, democratic

Ø  decision-making, high pressures for performance, and self-serving senior managers will create fertile grounds for politicking.

Ø  When organizations downsize to improve efficiency, people may engage in political actions to safeguard their existing status-quo.

Ø  Promotion decisions have consistently been found to be one of the most political in organizations.

Ø  The less trust there is within the organization, the higher the level of political behavior and the more likely it will be illegitimate.

Ø  Role ambiguity means that the prescribed behaviors of the employee are not clear. The greater the role ambiguity, the more one may engage in political activity since there is little chance of it being visible..

Ø  Making organizations less autocratic by asking managers to behave more democratically is not necessarily embraced by all individual managers. Internally if the managers believe in autocracy they would use the required committees, conferences, and group meetings in a superficial way as arenas for maneuvering and manipulating.

Ø  Top management may set the climate for politicking by engaging in certain behaviors, thereby giving a signal to people below in the order that is alright to engage in such behavior. When employees see top management successfully engaging in political behavior, a climate is created that supports politicking.

To counter the effects of politicking and protect oneself in organizational contexts, individuals may use three strategies:

1) Avoid action and risk taking

2) Redirect accountability and responsibility

3) Defend their turf.

Avoidance: Avoidance is quite common in controversial areas where the employee must risk being wrong or where actions may yield a sanction. The most common reaction is to “work to the rules.” That is, employees are protected when they adhere strictly to all the rules, policies, and procedures or do not allow deviations or exceptions.

Redirecting Responsibility: Politically sensitive individuals will always protect themselves from accepting blame for the negative consequences of their actions. Again, a variety of well-worn techniques may be used for redirecting responsibility. “Passing the buck” is a common method employees and managers use. The trick here is to define the task in such a way that it becomes someone else’s formal responsibility.

Defending Turf: Defending turf is a time-honored tradition in most large organizations. This results form the coalitional nature of organizations. That is, the organization may be seen as a collection of competing interests held by various departments and groups. As each group tries to increase its influence, it starts to encroach on the activities of other groups.

There are certain other interesting findings regarding people’s responses to organizational politics

Research evidence indicates strong points out that perception of organizational politics are negatively related to job satisfaction. The perception of politics results in anxiety or stress. And when it gets too much to handle, employees leave the organizations. It may thus be a de-motivating force and performance may suffer as a result. The effect of politics is moderated by the knowledge the individual has of the decision making system and his/her political skills. In this regard the following observations have been made:

Ø  High political skills individuals often have improved performance.

Ø  Low political skills individuals often respond with defensive behaviors–reactive and protective behaviors to avoid action, change, or blame.

Reaction to organizational politics is also influenced by culture. In countries that are more unstable politically, workers will tolerate higher levels of politicking than more politically stable counties

D. Farrell and J. C Petersen define political behaviour in organizations as "those activities that are not required as part of one's formal role in the organization, but that influence, or attempt to influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization". The table below summarizes basic ways people use political behaviour.

Ways to use political behavior

	What They Can Influence	Advantages	Drawbacks
Face- To-Face Methods
Exercise of power based on position	Behaviour within zone that the other perceives as legitimate in light of the obligation.	Quick - requires   no outlay of tangible resources.	If the request is   outside the acceptable zone, it will fail; if it is too far outside, others might see it as illegitimate.
Exercise of power based on Perceived expertise.	Attitudes and behaviour within the zone of perceived expertise.	Quick - requires   no outlay of tangible resources.	If the request is   outside the acceptable zone, it will fail; if it is too far outside, others   might see it as illegitimate
Exercise of power based on identification with a manager.	Attitudes and behaviour that are not in conflict with the ideals that underlie the identification.	Quick - requires   no expenditure of limited resources.	Restricted to influence attempts that are not in conflict with the ideals that underlie the identification.
Exercise of power based on perceived dependence.	Wide range of behaviour that can be easily monitored.	Quick - can often succeed when other methods fail.	Repeated influence attempts encourage the other to gain power over the influencer.
Coercive exercise of power based on perceived dependence.	Wide range of behaviour that can be easily monitored.	Quick - can often succeed when other methods fail.	Invites retaliation - very risky.
Use persuasion.	Very wide range   of attitudes and behaviour.	Can produce internalized motivation that   does not require monitoring; requires no power or outlay of scarce material resources.	Can be very time-consuming- requires other person to listen.
Combine these   methods.	Depends on the   exact combination.	Can be more potent and less risky than using a single method.	More costly than using a single method.
Indirect Methods
Manipulate the other's environment by using any or all of the face-to-face methods.	Wide range of behaviour and attitudes.	Can succeed when face-to-face methods fail.	Can be time-consuming; is complex to implement; is very risky, especially if used frequently.
Change the forces that continuously act on the individual; formal organizational arrangements, informal social arrangements, technology, resources available, statement of organizational goals.	Wide range of behaviour and attitudes on a continuous basis.	Has continuous   influence, not just a one-shot effect; can have a very powerful impact.	Often requires a   considerable power outlay to achieve.

Maccoby’s Four Political Types:

In his book "The Gamesman", Michael Maccoby describes four types of organizational politicians. They are:

1. The Craftsman: Craftsmen, driven by achievement, are the least political. They are often technical specialists who like details and precision. The person is usually quiet, sincere, modest and practical.

2. The Jungle Fighter: Jungle fighters, although very different in behaviour, are apt to be active politicians. Unafraid to step on others to get ahead, this fighter believes employees should be used to get ahead in the company. They desire success at any cost. There are two types of jungle fighters:

a. Foxes: The foxes make their nests in the organization and manoeuvre from this safe base.

b. Lions: Conquer others' territories and build empires.

3. Company man or women: As politicians go, these are conservative people. They possess a strong desire for affiliation and may not exhibit a lot of political behaviour. In fact, this individual's identity rests with the powerful, protective company. The concern of such people is for humans; however, they are more involved with security than success and may miss opportunities that arise.

4. The Gamesman: The gamesmen are apt politicians. They view business as a game and take calculated risks. The Gamesman tends to be charismatic, thrives on challenge and competition and motivates employees with enthusiasm.

The major contribution of Maccoby's work is that it shows that individuals differ in their behaviour as political actors.

Power In Groups: Coalitions - Power and Politics

Individuals who lose power or are out of power seek to increase their power individually. If they fail to do so, then the alternative is to form a coalition–an informal group bound together by the active pursuit of a single issue. The natural way to gain influence is to become a power holder but this may be difficult, risky, costly, or impossible.

Ø  In such an event, efforts are directed towards forming a coalition of two or more “outs” who, by coming together, can combine their resources to increase rewards for themselves. Successful coalitions have been found to contain fluid membership and are able to form swiftly, achieve their target issue, and quickly disappear disintegrate. 

Ø  There are a couple of predictions about coalition formation. They are as follows:

Ø  First, coalitions in organizations often seek to maximize their size. Decision-making in organizations does not end just with selection from among a set of alternatives, but require to be implemented. The implementation of an commitment to the decision is as important as the decision. It is essential for coalitions within organizations to seek a broad constituency and there may be expansion in coalition to help in consensus building.

Ø    Another prediction relates to the degree of interdependence within the organization. More coalitions are likely be created where there is a great deal of task and resource interdependence. In contrast, there will be less interdependence among subunits and less coalition formation activity where subunits are largely self-contained or resources are in plenty.

Ø   Finally, coalition formation will be influenced by the actual tasks that workers perform. In general, the more routine the task of a group, the greater the likelihood that coalitions will form.

Empowerment - Power and Politics

Empowerment is the process by which managers help others to acquire and use the power required to make decisions affecting both themselves and their work. Moreover, today, managers in progressive organizations are expected to be competent at empowering the people with whom they work. Rather than concentrating power only at higher levels as found in the traditional “pyramid” of organizations, this concept views power to be shared by all working in flatter and more collegial structures.

The concept of empowerment is part of the decentralized structures which are found in today’s corporations. Corporate staff is being cut back; layers of management are being eliminated; the number of employees is being reduced as the volume of work increases. The trend clearly is towards creating leaner and more responsive organizations which are flexible and capable of taking faster decisions with minimum bottlenecks created out of power struggles, typical of bureaucratic tall structures. The need clearly is towards having fewer managers who must share more power as they go about their daily tasks. Hence, empowerment is a key foundation of the increasingly popular self-managing work teams and other creative worker involvement groups.

For the empowerment process to set in and become institutionalized, power in the organization will be changed. The following are important in this context:

Changing Position Power: When an organization attempts to move power down the hierarchy, it must also alter the existing pattern of position power. Changing this pattern raises some important issues

Ø  Can “empowered” individuals give rewards and sanctions based on task accomplishment?

Ø  Has their new right to act been legitimized with formal authority?

Expanding the Zone of Indifference: When embarking on an empowerment program, management needs to recognize the current zone of indifference and systematically move to expand it. All too often, management assumes that its directive for empowerment will be followed; management may fail to show precisely how empowerment will benefit the individuals involved, however.

Thus in empowerment the basic issues which should be addressed are:

Training people in lower ranks how to function in the new empowered position. Using or unleashing power correctly is also an issue and most importantly the authority, responsibility and the accountability process should be clearly outlined so as not to upset organizational power equations. Just apportioning power at lower levels without giving the knowledge of how to use it can actually create havoc in the organizations.

Power and Influence Tactics - Power and Politics

Using position and personal power well to achieve the desired influence over other people is a challenge for most managers. There are many useful ways of exercising relational influence. The most common strategies involve the following (Kipinis et. Al, 1984):

Ø  Reason – Use of facts and data to make a logical or rational presentation of ideas

Ø  Friendliness – Use of flattery, creation of goodwill, acting humble, and being friendly

Ø  Coalition – Getting the support of other people in the organization to back up the request

Ø  Bargaining – Use of negotiation through the exchange of benefits or favors

Ø  Assertiveness – Use of a direct and forceful approach such as demanding compliance

Ø  Higher authority – Gaining the support of higher levels in the organization to back up requests

Ø  Sanctions – Use of organizationally derived rewards and punishments

Employees rely on the seven tactics variably. Depending on the situational factors, individuals tend to use the above strategies accordingly to the suitability and the likelihood of the success to be achieved by employing the same. The manager’s relative power impacts the selection of tactics in two ways.

Ø  First, managers who control resources that are valued by others, or who are perceived to be in positions of dominance, use a greater variety of tactics than do those with less power.

Ø  Second, managers with power use assertiveness with greater frequency than do those with less power.

Ø  Resistance leads to managers using more directive strategies.

The manager’s objectives for wanting to influence causes them to vary their power tactics. The objectives may be as follows:

Ø  When seeking benefits from a superior, they use friendliness.

Ø  When they are in need to make superiors accept new ideas, they usually rely on reason.

Ø  Managers use reason to sell ideas to employees and friendliness to obtain favors.

Research evidence also supports the following with regard to use of tactics and the choice used by managers with regard to power:

The manager’s expectation of the target person’s willingness to comply is an important factor. When past experience indicates a high probability of success, managers use simple requests to gain compliance. Where success is less predictable, managers are more likely to use assertiveness and sanctions to achieve their objectives. The organization’s culture also plays an important role in deciding the use of power tactics. The organizational culture in which a manager works, will have a significant bearing on defining which tactics are considered appropriate. The organization itself will influence which subset of power tactics is viewed as acceptable for use by managers. People in different countries tend to prefer different power tactics. For example in US people prefer use of reason in contrast to China where coalition as a tactic is preferred. Differences are consistent with values among countries–reason is consistent with American’s preference for direct confrontation and coalition is consistent with the Chinese preference for using indirect approaches.

There are eight basic types of influence tactics. They are listed and described in the table below:

Power tactics

Tactics	Description	Examples
Pressure	The person uses demands, threats, or intimidation to convince you to comply with a request or to support a proposal.	If you don't do this, you're fired. You have until 5:00 to change your mind, or I'm going without you.
Upward appeals	The person seeks to persuade you that the request is approved by higher management, or appeals to higher management for assistance in gaining your compliance with the request.	I'm reporting you to my boss. My boss supports this idea.
Exchange	The person makes an explicit or implicit promise that you will receive rewards or tangible benefits if you comply with a request or support a proposal, or reminds you of a prior favour to be reciprocated.	You owe me a favour. I'll take you to lunch if you'll support me on this.
Coalition	The person seeks the aid of others to persuade you to do something or uses the support of others as an argument for you to agree also.	All the other supervisors agree with me. I'll ask you in front of the whole committee.
Ingratiation	The person seeks to get you in a good mood or to think favourably of him or her before asking you to do something.	Only you can do this job right. I can always count on you, so I have another request.
Rational persuasion	The person uses logical arguments and factual evidence to persuade you that a proposal or request is viable and likely to result in the attainment of task objectives.	This new procedure will save us $150,000 in overhead. It makes sense to hire John; he   has the most experience.
Inspirational appeals	The person makes an emotional request or proposal that arouses enthusiasm by appealing to your values and ideals, or by increasing your confidence that you can do it.	Being environmentally conscious is the right thing. Getting that account will be tough, but I know you can do it.
Consultation	The person seeks your participation in making a decision or planning how to implement a proposed policy, strategy, or change.	This new attendance plan is controversial. How can we make it more acceptable? What do you think we can do to make our workers less fearful of the new robots on the   production line?

Bases of Power - Power and Politics

Power can be categorized into two types: Formal and informal

A. Formal Power:

It is based on the position of an individual in an organization. Formal power is derived from either one’s ability to coerce or reward others or is derived from the formal authority vested in the individual due to his/ her strategic position in the organizational hierarchy. For example, a manager may threaten to withhold a pay raise, or to transfer, demote, or even recommend the firing of a subordinate who does not act as desired. Such coercive power is the extent to which a manager can deny desired rewards or administer punishments to control other people. The availability of coercive power also varies across organizations. The presence of unions and organizational policies on employee treatment can weaken this power base significantly. Formal power may be categorized into four types which are as follows:

1. Coercive Power:

The coercive power base is being dependent on fear. It is based on the application, or the threat of application, of physical sanctions such as the infliction of pain, the generation of frustration through restriction of movement, or the controlling by force of basic physiological or safety needs. In an organization one can exercise power over another if they have the power to dismiss, suspend, demote another assuming that the job is valuable to the person on whom power is being unleashed.

2. Reward Power:

The opposite of coercive power is reward power. Reward power is the extent to which a manager can use extrinsic and intrinsic rewards to control other people. Examples of such rewards include money, promotions, compliments, or enriched jobs. Although all managers have some access to rewards, success in accessing and utilizing rewards to achieve influence varies according to the skills of the manager.

3. Legitimate Power:

The third base of “position” power is legitimate power, or formal authority.It stems from the extent to which a manager can use subordinates’ internalized values or beliefs that the “boss” has a “right of command” to control their behavior. For example, the boss may have the formal authority to approve or deny such employee requests as job transfers, equipment purchases, personal time off, or overtime work. Legitimate power represents a special kind of power a manager has because subordinates believe it is legitimate for a person occupying the managerial position to have the right to command. The lack of this is legitimacy will result in authority not being accepted by subordinates. Thus this type of power has the following elements:

Ø  It represents the power a person receives as a result of his/her position in the formal hierarchy.

Ø  Positions of authority include coercive and reward powers.

Ø  Legitimate power, however, is not limited to the power to coerce and reward. It encompasses the acceptance of the authority of a position by members of an organization.

4. Information Power:

This type of power is derived from access to and control over information. When people have needed information, others become dependant on them. (For example, managers have access to data that subordinates do not have). Normally the higher the level, the more information would be accessed by managers.

B. Personal Power

Personal power resides in the individual and is independent of that individual’s position. Three bases of personal power are expertise, rational persuasion, and reference.

Expert power is the ability to control another person’s behavior by virtue of possessing knowledge, experience, or judgment that the other person lacks, but needs. A subordinate obeys a supervisor possessing expert power because the boss ordinarily knows more about what is to be done or how it is to be done than does the subordinate. Expert power is relative, not absolute. However the table may turn in case the subordinate has superior knowledge or skills than his/ her boss. In this age of technology driven environments, the second proposition holds true in many occasions where the boss is dependent heavily on the juniors for technologically oriented support.

Rational persuasion is the ability to control another’s behavior, since, through the individual’s efforts, the person accepts the desirability of an offered goal and a viable way of achieving it. Rational persuasion involves both explaining the desirability of expected outcomes and showing how specific actions will achieve these outcomes.

Referent power is the ability to control another’s behavior because the person wants to identify with the power source. In this case, a subordinate obeys the boss because he or she wants to behave, perceive, or believe as the boss does. This obedience may occur, for example, because the subordinate likes the boss personally and therefore tries to do things the way the boss wants them done. In a sense, the subordinate attempts to avoid doing anything that would interfere with the pleasing boss –subordinate relationship. Followership is not based on what the subordinate will get for specific actions or specific levels of performance, but on what the individual represents – a path toward lucrative future prospects.

Charismatic Power is an extension of referent power stemming from an individual’s personality and interpersonal style. Others follow because they can articulate attractive visions, take personal risks, demonstrate follower sensitivity, etc.

Dependency: The Key to Power

The General Dependency Equation is as follows:

Ø  The greater B’s dependency on A, the greater the power A has over B. When an individual possess anything that others require but that which alone the individual controls, he / she can make others dependent and, therefore, gain power over them.

Ø  Dependency, then, is inversely proportional to the alternative sources of supply.

This is one of the reasons why most organizations develop multiple suppliers rather using just one. It also explains why individuals in general aspire to financial independence.

Three factors are responsible for dependency. They are as follows:

Ø  Importance

To create dependency, the thing(s) you control must be perceived as being important. Organizations actively seek to avoid uncertainty and hence, those individuals or groups who can absorb an organization’s uncertainty will be perceived as controlling an important resource.

Ø  Scarcity

A resource needs to be perceived as scarce to create dependency. For example, low-ranking members in an organization who have important knowledge unavailable to high-ranking members gain power over the high-ranking members. The scarcity-dependency relationship is also important in the power of occupational categories. Individuals in occupations in which the supply of personnel is low relative to demand can negotiate compensation and benefit packages, which are far more attractive than can those in occupations where there is an abundance of candidates. Thus scarcity in supply of certain types of skilled people can give them power to bargain over compensations and other benefits.

Ø  Non-substitutability

The more that a resource has no viable substitutes, the more power that control over that resource provides.