Chapter 14 Power and Politics

Power is the capacity that A has to influence the behaviour of B, so that B acts in accordance with A's
wishes. Power may exist but not be used - it is a capacity or potential. Power is a function of
dependency, in that B is dependent on A to the extent that A controls alternatives that B finds
desirable.

Power, as opposed to leadership, has focused on tactics for gaining compliance. Leaders use power
as a means of attaining group goals. Power does not require goal compatibility, but relies on
dependency. While leadership focuses on the downward influence of one's followers, power also deals
with lateral and upward influence.

Power emanates from both formal and personal bases. Bases of formal power include coercive,
reward, and legitimate power. Coercive power is dependent upon fear and rests on the application of
sanctions, such as a threat to dismiss, suspend, or demote. Another formal base of power, reward
power, is derived from the ability to distribute or withhold rewards, such as pay rates, raises,
promotions, work shifts, or sales territories. Finally, legitimate power stems from one's position within
the organization.

Personal power comes from an individual's unique characteristics - it includes both expert and
referent power. Expert power is the influence derived from expertise, special skill, or knowledge.
Referent power is based on desirable personal traits and may be associated with celebrity status or
personal charisma.

Of the five bases of power, the two informal or personal sources (expert and referent power) are most
effective. Both are positively related to employees' satisfaction with supervision, their organizational
commitment, and their performance.

The general dependency postulate states that the greater B's dependency on A, the greater the
power A has over B. Dependency is inversely proportional to the alternative sources of supply.
Dependency is increased when the resource controlled is important, scarce, and nonsubstitutable.

Power tactics are strategies that people may use to influence their bosses, coworkers, and
employees. Research has identified nine distinct influence tactics: legitimacy, rational persuasion,
inspirational appeals, consultation, exchange, personal appeals, ingratiation, pressure, and coalitions.
Evidence indicates that rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, and consultation tend to be the most
effective, while pressure tends to be the least effective of the nine. Situational and cultural factors also
affect the effectiveness of power tactics.

Sexual harassment is any unwanted activity of a sexual nature that affects an individual's
employment. A recent review concluded that 58% of women report having experienced potentially
harassing behaviours and 24% report having experienced harassment at work. One problem with
sexual harassment is that it is a matter of perception. While some behaviours indisputably constitute
harassment, men and women continue to differ to some degree on what constitutes harassment.
Sexual harassment is related to the concept of power, as sexual harassment is most likely to occur
when there is a large power differential. The supervisor-employee dyad best characterizes an unequal
power relationship, where formal power gives the supervisor the capacity to reward and coerce.
Sexual harassment may also occur among coworkers and power tactics may include the withholding of
information.

Political behaviour consists of 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. Political behaviour includes legitimate activities (complaining to
one's supervisor, bypassing the chain of command, forming coalitions, obstructing organizational
politics, excessively adhering to rules, developing contacts outside the organization) and illegitimate
political activities (sabotage, whistle blowing, and symbolic protests).
Both individual and organizational factors contribute to political behaviour. 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 behaviour. An individual's investment in the organization, perceived
alternatives, and expectations of success will influence the degree to which he or she will pursue
illegitimate means of political action. In terms of organizational factors, politics are more likely to
occur when organizational resources are scarce, trust is low, roles are ambiguous, performance
evaluation systems are unclear, high pressures for performance exist, self-serving senior managers
are in charge, and zero-sum performance evaluation systems are the norm.

Perceptions of organizational politics are negatively related to job satisfaction, increasing job anxiety
and stress. Employees may be inclined to leave a job when politicking becomes too much to handle
and, even they remain with the job, their performance may suffer. These relationships are moderated
by the level of political awareness of the individual. In fact, when both politics and understanding are
high, performance is likely to increase. However, when politics is consistently seen as a threat, a
number of defensive behaviours may arise. The perception of organizational politics varies somewhat
from one country to another. Political processes in the workplace appear to be more accepted in
countries with more unsettled political environments.

Impression management is the process by which individuals attempt to control the impression
others form of them. High self-monitors are more likely to engage in impression management,
moulding their image to fit the situation. Impression management techniques include conformity,
excuses, apologies, self-promotion, flattery, favours, and association. In job interviews, self-promotion
appears to be particularly effective, while ingratiation is more effective than self-promotion in the
performance evaluation process. Finally, there are ethical concerns relating to political behaviour.
Political behaviour has the potential to cross generally accepted standards of equity and justice,
particularly for those in positions of power.