Power, Influence and Politics

The famous pioneering sociologist Max Weber defined power as “the probability that
one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will
despite resistance.” More recently, a search of the literature on power found it referred
to as the ability to get things done despite the will and resistance of others or the ability
to “win” political fights and outmaneuver the opposition. The power theorist stress the
positive sum of power, suggesting it is the raw ability to mobilize resources to
accomplish some end without reference to any organized opposition. Pfeffer, the
organizational behavior theorist perhaps most closely associated with the study of
power, simply defined power as a potential force and in more detail “as the potential
ability to influence behavior, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance,
and to get people to do things that they would not otherwise do.”

The distinctions among power, authority, and influence

Power can be defined as the ability to get an individual or group to do something- to get
the person or group to change in some way. The individual who possesses power has
the ability to manipulate or change others. Such a definition of power distinguishes it
from authority and influence.

One of the primary sources of definitional controversy revolves around the question: Is
power the observed influence over others, or is it merely potential to influence? An
argument can be made that those individuals who have the most power are the least
likely to need to demonstrate outward evidence that they hold it. Their mere presence
is enough to change the behaviors of others without lifting a finger or saying a word.
This makes the study of power much more difficult, but at the same time conceptually
should not be ignored. An employee who takes the back stairs to avoid confronting an
intimidating coworker is being influenced without the coworker even knowing of the
power held over the frightened coworker.

Authority legitimatizes and is a source of power. Authority is the right to manipulate or

change others. Power need not be legitimate. In addition, the distinction must be made
between top-down classical, bureaucratic authority and Barnard’s concept of bottom-up
authority based on acceptance. In particular, Barnard defined authority as “the
character of a communication (order) in a formal organization by virtue of which it is
accepted by a contributor to or ‘member’ of the organization as governing the action he
contributes.”

Such an acceptance theory of authority is easily differentiated from power. What

legitimizes authority is the promotion or pursuit of collective goals that are associated
with group consensus. The polar opposite, power, is the pursuit of individual or
particularistic goals associated with group compliance.

1
Influence is usually conceived of a being broader in scope than power. It involves the
ability to alter other people in general ways, such as by changing their satisfaction and
performance. Influence is more closely associated with leadership than power is, but
both obviously are involved in the leadership process. Thus, authority is different from
power because of its legitimacy and acceptance, and influence is broader than power,
but it is so conceptually close that the two terms can be used interchangeably.

The classifications of power

Most discussions of power often begin and sometimes even end with a review of the
categories of the sources of social power identified by John French and Bertram Raven.
These bases of power are defined below:

1. Reward power- this is based on the perception by one member of the relationship
that another member has the capacity to provide rewards.
2. Coercive power- this is based on the perception by one person in a relationship that
another person has the capacity to remove rewards or administer punishments.
3. Legitimate power- this is based on the perception that one member has the right to
influence and that another member in the relationship has an obligation to yield to
his influence.
4. Referent power- this is based on the perceived attraction of members in a
relationship to one another. The source of this power may arise from friendship,
identification with a successful model, or feelings of shared identity.
5. Expert power- this is based on the perception by one member of the relationship
that another member has special knowledge and expertise in a relevant area.
6. Information power- this is based on the perception by one member of the
relationship that another possesses or has access to information that is valuable for
others.
7. Connection power- this is based on the perception by one member of the
relationship that another member has connections with influential or important
persons.

Contingency approaches to power

Pfeffer simply says that power comes from being in the “right” place. He describes the
right place or position in the organization as one where the manager has:

1. Control over resources such as budgets, physical facilities, and positions that can be
used to cultivate allies and supporters
2. Control over or extensive access to information- about the organization’s activities,
about the preferences and judgements of others, about what is going on, and about
who is doing it
3. Formal authority

Besides these overall contingency observations, there is increasing recognition of the

moderating impact of the control of strategic contingencies such as organizational

2
interdependence and the extent to which a department controls critical operations of
other departments or the role of influence behaviors in the perception of power.

Influenceability of the targets of power

Most discussions of power imply a unilateral process of influence from the agent to the
target. It is becoming increasingly clear, however that power involves a reciprocal
relationship between the agent and the target, which is in accordance with the overall
social cognitive perspective. The power relationship can be better understood by
examining some of the characteristics of the target. The following characteristics have
been identified as being especially important to the Influenceability of targets:

1. Dependency- the greater the target’s dependency on their relationship to agents,

the more targets are influenced.
2. Uncertainty- experiments have shown that the more uncertain people are about the
appropriateness or correctness of a behavior, the more likely they are to be
influenced to change that behavior.
3. Personality- there have been a number of research studies showing the relationship
between personality characteristics and Influenceability. Some of these findings are
obvious (for example, people who cannot tolerate ambiguity or who are highly
anxious are more susceptible to influence, and those with high needs for affiliation
are more susceptible to group influence.
4. Intelligence- there is no relationship between intelligence and Influenceability.
5. Gender- although traditionally it was generally thought that women were more likely
to conform to influence attempts than because of the way they were raised, there is
now evidence that this is changing. As women’s society’s views of the role of women
are changing, there is less of a distinction of Influenceability.
6. Age- susceptibility to influence increases in young children up to about the age of
eight or nine and then decreases with age until adolescence, when it level off.
7. Culture- the culture values of a society have a tremendous impact on the
Influenceability of its people.

These individual differences in targets greatly complicate the effective use of power and
point up the need for contingency models.

The target will comply in order to gain a favorable reaction or avoid a punishing one
from the agent. This is the process that most supervisors in work organizations must rely
on. But in order for compliance to work, supervisors must be able to reward and punish
and keep an eye on them.

3
People will identify not in order to obtain a favorable reaction from the agent, as in
compliance, but because it is self-satisfying to do so. But in order for the identification
process to work, the agent must have referent power- be very attractive to the target-
and be salient.

Finally, people will internalize because of compatibility with their own value structure. In
order for people to internalize, the agent must have expert or legitimate power
(credibility) and, in addition, be relevant. Obviously, this process of power is most
effective.

The two faces of power

David McClelland indicated that there are two major types of power, one negative and
one positive.

McClelland felt that this negative use of power is associated with personal power.
People with this “face” of power are primarily looking out for themselves and how they
can get ahead; they are very “I” oriented. McClelland felt that this personal power is
primitive and does indeed have negative consequences.

The contrasting “other face” of power identified by McClelland is social power. It is

characterized by a “concern for group goals, for finding those goals that will move
people, for helping the group to formulate them, for taking some initiative in providing
members of the group with the means of achieving such goals, and for giving group
members the feelings of strength and competence they need to work hard for such
goals. In other words, social power types are very “we” oriented.

Individual attributes as sources of power

 Energy and physical stamina- energy and strength provide many advantages to
those seeking to build power. First, it enables you to outlast your opposition, or to
use sheer hard work to overcome others who surpass you in intelligence or skill.
Second, your energy and endurance provide a role model for others. We can say,
without endurance and the ability to persevere, other skills and attributes are not
worth as much.
 Focus- people who exercise great influence tend to focus their energies and efforts
in a single direction.
 Sensitivity to others- in this effort to influence others, it is clearly useful to be able
to understand them, their interests and attitudes, and be able to understand them,
their interests and attitudes, and how to reach them.
 Flexibility- although flexibility sometimes carries a negative connotation, it is a very
important characteristic for those who hope to develop power. It provides the
capacity to change course and to adopt new approaches, rather than clinging to

4
 actions that are not working. Flexibility also helps one to acquire allies, as it is easier
to shift approaches to accommodate different interests.
 Ability to tolerate conflict- because the need for power arises only under
circumstances of disagreement, one of the personal attributes of powerful people is
the willingness to engage in conflict with others.
 Submerging one’s ego and getting along- it is important to build alliances and
networks of friendship by getting along. People who are able to develop great
power often seem to have the knack for changing their behavior according to the
needs of the occasion. It is related to the characteristic of flexibility, since it entails
the ability to trade present restraint for greater power and resources in the future.

Politics
Harold Lasswell defined politics simply as: the study of who gets what, when, and how.

Organizational politics involve those activities taken within organization to acquire,

develop and use power and other resources to obtain one’s preferred outcomes in a
situation in which there is uncertainty of dissensus about choices.

Organizational politics involve intentional acts of influence to enhance or protect the

self-interest of individuals or groups.

Organizational politics is the management of influence to obtain ends not sanctioned by

the organization or to obtain ends through non-sanctioned influence means.

French and Bell view politics as a subset of power, treating it…. as informal power,
illegitimate in nature. Likewise they also treat authority as a subset of power, but in this
sense, formal power, the power vested in office, the capacity to get things done by
virtue of the position held.

Analysis of these definitions suggests that the concepts of power and politics are very
similar. Both relate to getting one’s way- effectance. Both relate to pursuit of self-
interest and overcoming the resistance of others. For our purposes, organizational
politics is power-in-action in organizations; it is engaging in activities to get one’s way in
an organizational setting.

The first three definitions treat politics as a neutral set of activities: the last two
definitions view politics as illegitimate or unsanctioned activities. We are inclined to
consider politics as neither good nor bad per se and believe that politics, like power,
has two faces.

Organizational politics can have a positive and a negative face. The negative face is
characterized by extreme pursuit of self-interest; unsocialized needs to dominate
others, holding hidden agendas, withholding information, deceiving. The positive face

5
of politics is characterized by a balanced pursuit of self-interest and interest in the
welfare of others; viewing situations in win-win terms as much as possible; engaging in
open problem solving and then moving to action and influencing; a relative absence of
tactics of fighting; and a socialized need to lead, initiate, and influence others.

Pursuit of unsanctioned organizational goals or the use of unsanctioned organizational

means might be examples of the negative face of politics. Illegitimate uses of authority,
information, or resources might also be examples of the negative face of politics. But a
positive face of politics is shown whenever “hard decisions” must be made, are made,
and most organizational members feel good about what was decided and how it was
decided. In this regard, Jeffrey Pfeffer argues that politics are necessary if organizations
are to function effectively and efficiently. This concept of the two faces of politics
handles the two sides of the phenomenon that we all see in our common experience.
Some organizations reflect a mostly positive face of politics and other organizations
reflect a mostly negative face of politics.

Organizational politics tend to be associated with the decision making, resource

allocation, and conflict resolution processes in organizations. These are the key decision
points; these are the areas where actors win and lose; these are where the “good” are
distributed and the goals are decided. In fact, one gains a quick understanding of the
overall “political climate” of an organization by studying its methods of resources
allocation, conflict resolution, and choosing among alternatives means and goals.

Organizations often display modal patterns in the way their decision-making, resource-
allocation, and conflict-resolution processes operate. Patterns identified in the
organization theory literature include the bureaucratic, rational, and political models. In
a bureaucratic mode, decisions are made on the basis of rules, procedures, traditions,
and historical precedents. In a rational mode, decisions are made on the basis of
rational problem solving: goals are identified and agreed upon; situations are analyzed
objectively in relation to goals; alternative action plans are generated and evaluated;
and certain alternatives are chosen and implemented. In a political mode decisions are
made on the basis of perceived self-interest by coalitions jockeying for dominance,
influence, or resource control. Most organizations exhibit all these modes in the
conduct of their business. Some organizations exhibit one predominant modes. It is
important to realize that a predominantly political orientation is only one of several
possibilities.

6
 Differentiation Environment

Heterogeneous
Interdependence Heterogeneous beliefs about
Goals technology

Scarcity Conflict

Importance

Distribution
Of Power

Politics

In this diagram, political activities are seen to be the outcome of a number of

conditions. When these conditions imposes demands and constraints that will be
accommodated to in the form of “means” and “ends”- that is, what the organization
does and how the organizations gets its job done. Ends are the goals pursued by the
organization. Often heterogeneous or incompatible goals are sought by different
members of the organization. Likewise, different or incompatible ways to accomplish
the goals may sought by different members of the organization. Preferences for
different means to the goals is what is meant by the term “heterogeneous beliefs about
technology.” Differentiation refers to the fact that division of labor in organization
causes the creation of many subgroups, which in turn produces different worldviews,
different subgroup goals, and “tunnel vision” of subgroup members.

The three primary conditions giving rise to conflict are scarcity (there are not enough
desired resources to allow all parties to have all they want), interdependence (the
parties are related to each other in such a way that the distribution of resources effects

7
everyone in some way), and incompatible goals and/or means to goals. When these
conditions exist, conflict is a probable result. And when conflict exists, power and
political behavior are likely result if two additional features are present.

It is possible to increase or decrease the amount of political activity in organization by

manipulating the conditions of power shown in the model. For example, if resources
scarcity were replaced by resource abundance, conflict would be reduced and politics
would be reduced. If organizational actors were made less interdependent (for instance,
through the use of profit centers and other structural arrangements), conflict and power
would be reduced. Likewise, increased consensus about goals and means and more
centralized power would reduce conflict and, hence, reduce political activity. The model
suggests the factors that can be changed if less political activity is desired.

In game theory, conflict is viewed as a critical condition leading to power and political
behavior. There can be conflict of interest in which different parties prefer different
goals. There can be conflict or competition for scarce resources where different parties
want the same resources but both parties cannot possess them.

Thus conflict arises because of the real or perceived nature of the payoff matrix, the way
in which the goods and services sought by two or more parties are to be distributed.
Some payoff matrices promote cooperation and minimal power use; other payoff
matrices promote competition, conflict, and maximal power use. Understanding the
nature of the payoff matrix is the key to understanding conflict, which in turn is the key
to understanding most political behavior. An outside observer who wants to analyze a
particular situation for its potential for organizational power and politics thus would
want to know answers to the following questions:
What is the commodity or issue that is under decision?
How important is the commodity or issue?
What are the possible payoffs that are available?
What are the likely payoffs?
Can all parties get their desires or must one party win and one party lose?
These questions lead to another concept involved in power and politics- the nature of
the relationship between the parties. Two parties in interdependent interaction can
have one of three possible relationship based on the nature of the payoff matrix. Purely
competitive (a win-lose or zero situation in which what one party wins the other party
loses and the total payoffs always sum to zero), purely cooperative (a situation in which
both parties have completely compatible interests but must engage in communication
or coordination on order to receive their payoffs), and mixed or mixed motive (a
situation in which both a push to compete and a push to cooperative are inherent in the
payoffs). Power and politics will predominate in the purely competitive, win-lose
situation. Power should be absent from the purely cooperative, win-win situation; here
the appropriate behaviors are communication, coordination, and cooperation. Power
may or may not prevail in the mixed-motive situation; here each party needs the other
to transact an exchange, yet each party is seeking to maximize its own gains. In the

8
mixed-motive situation too much competition may cause both parties to lose; yet “too
little” competition by one party may allow the other to gain a significant advantage.

Mixed-motive relationships are prominent in many social and organizational settings. In

fact, many everyday situations are mixed-motive in nature. Examples are found in labor-
management relations, the relations between two peers both of whom are working for
a promotion that only one can obtain, and relations among members or a sports team
all of whom want the team to win but each of whom wants to be the “star.” Mixed-
motive situations thus contain a push and a potential for both cooperation and
competition, and which of these occurs depends on the behavior of the two parties. But
the important thing to realize is that to cooperate effectively and to compete effectively
require quite different kinds of behaviors. Cooperation usually requires problem solving;
competition usually requires power-oriented action.

In labor-management bargaining situation, both parties the bargaining process should

be conceptualized as a two-phase process: 1. A problem-solving, collaborative phase in
which the total joint payoffs are maximized, and 2. A bargaining phase in which the
payoffs are divided between the parties. In the first phase, called integrative bargaining,
the parties try to identify the areas of mutual concern, search for alternative courses of
action, and identify the largest joint sum of values possible. This is a cooperative,
problem-solving phase. In the second phase, called distributive bargaining, the parties
are in a conflict situation. Here each party tries to establish norms and procedures that
will help to maximize its gains while trying to keep the gains of the other party to a
maximum. Integrative bargaining calls for problem solving, honesty, open
communication, and mutual exploration of all ideas. Distributive bargaining calls for
secrecy, suspicion, deception, and not accepting the ideas of the other parties involved
in the bargaining.

These concepts from the game theory are applicable to understanding political
processes in organizations. The sources of conflict are competition for scarce resources
and conflict over incompatible goals and means to goals. A key factor is the nature of
the payoffs to all parties- what they stand to win or lose. Positive outcomes for both
parties can often be enchanced through a two-phase bargaining process in which
integrative bargaining precedes distributive bargaining.

Dimensions of influence Strategies

(A). Hard Influence Category- It evokes direct assertive demands for compliance. The

hard influence includes tactics like intimidation, disparagement, use of authority,

assertiveness and, coalition formation.

9
(1). Intimidation- Person tries to project a capacity to provide negative outcomes by

verbal anguish, threats, pressures, coercion and henceforth.

(2). Disparagement- Person convinces the target by showing negative attitude toward

him. It includes behaviors like dishonoring, belittling, comparison with inferior means,

and talking slightingly.

(3). Use of Authority- Person uses the authority which is embedded in his position to

favor or disfavor others like writing good C.R., giving rewards and punishments,

assigning leaves, helping in promotion.

(4). Assertiveness- Person keeps on insisting and demanding for something.

(5). Coalition formation- Person persuades the target to do something by seeking aid or

support of others.

(B). Rationale Influence Category- It involves behaviors related to logical requests. The

category consists of exchange of benefit, logical reasoning, and consultation tactic.

10
(1). Exchange of benefit- Person makes an explicit or implicit promise that target will

receive rewards or tangible benefits if the target complies with a request or supports a

proposal or reminds actor of a prior favor to be reciprocated.

(2). Logical Reasoning- Person uses logical arguments and factual evidence to persuade

target that a proposal or request is viable and likely to result in the attainment of tasks

objectives.

(3). Consultational Tactic- Person seeks target’s participation in making a decision or

planning how to implement a proposal policy, strategy or change.

(C). Soft Influence Category- It consists of polite request and attraction seeking effort for

convincing. It includes tactics like exemplification, ethnic identity, ingratiation and

supplication.

(1). Exemplification- Person edifies or presents himself as an example on the ground of

integrity and moral worthiness.

(2). Ethnic Identity- Person establishes regional, religious and casteist similarity with the

target.

11
(3). Ingratiation- Person manipulates the target to establish that the person is attractive

and hence deserves reward.

(4). Supplication- Person advertises his dependence on target to solicit help.

12