Business & Finance I need a term assignment completed by 16 April 2025
13
Power and Politics
AFTER STUDYING THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
Learning Objectives
Contrast leadership and power.
Explain the three bases of formal power and the two bases of personal power.
Explain the role of dependence in power relationships.
Identify power or influence tactics and their contingencies.
Identify the causes and consequences of abuse of power.
Describe how politics work in organizations.
Identify the causes, consequences, and ethics of political behavior.
Power and Leadership
In organizational behavior (OB), power simply refers to the capacity, discretion, and means to enforce one’s will over others.1
Someone can thus have power but not use it; a powerful person has discretion over
when to exercise their power. Probably the most important aspect of power is that it is
a function of dependence . 2 The more people rely or depend upon the powerful person
(who controls something the others rely on or want), the more powerful that person
becomes. When people begin to have more alternatives and options, or begin to rely on
themselves or different people, the powerful person loses power.
Power
The capacity, discretion, and means to enforce one’s will over others.
Dependence
The extent to which people depend or rely upon a powerful person.
A careful comparison of our description of power with our descriptionof leadership of
leadership in the previous chapter reveals that the concepts are closely intertwined.
How are the two terms different? Power does not require goal compatibility, just
dependence. Leadership, on the other hand, requires some congruence between the goals
of the leader and those being led. A second difference relates to the direction of
influence. Power
Unfortunately, we all too often hear about people using their power to unethical ends.
For example, people depend upon executives, managers, and even employee “superstars”
(e.g., a partner in a law firm who brings in lucrative clients) for promotions, pay raises,
or bringing in customers/clientele. These powerful leaders are thus unjustly
empowered to enforce their will over others in several ways, including sexual
harassment.3 Sexual harassment is a huge problem, adversely affecting employees’
mental and physical health and opportunities for advancement as well as costing
organizations millions of dollars in legal fees and employee turnover.4
focuses more so on the downward influence on followers. It minimizes the importance
of lateral and upward relationships, which are important in leadership. For a third
difference, leadership research often emphasizes style. It seeks answers to questions
such as: How supportive should a leader be? How much decision making should be shared
with followers? In contrast, the research on power focuses on tactics for gaining
compliance.
Power relationships are possible in all areas of life, not just leadership positions,
and power can be obtained in many ways. Let us explore the various sources of power
next.
Bases of Power
Formal Power
Formal power is based on an individual’s position in an organization. It can come from the
ability to coerce or reward, or from legitimate authority.
Coercive Power
The coercive power base depends on the target’s fear of negative results from failing to
comply, or acting in a way that would anger the power holder.6 Sales consultants may
remain silent after witnessing their supervisors falsify their team’s sales numbers for
fear of being terminated or demoted, being assigned to undesirable regions or clients,
and/or being treated in an embarrassing way in front of the rest of the team. Coercive
power comes also from withholding key information. People in an organization who
have data or knowledge others need can make others dependent on them. For example,
the sales team lead may have valuable information on client leads—anything that
might threaten obtaining this information may lead the consultant to remain silent.
Coercive power
A power base that is dependent on fear of the negative results
from failing to comply.
Reward Power
The opposite of coercive power is reward power , with which people comply because it produces positive benefits;
someone who can distribute rewards that others view as valuable will have power
over them. These rewards can be financial—such as controlling pay rates, raises, and
bonuses—or nonfinancial, including recognition, promotions, interesting work
assignments, friendly colleagues, and preferred work shifts or sales territories.7
Using the same example, the sales team lead who rewards compliant team members
with lead information is exercising reward power.
Where does power come from? We answer this question by dividing the bases (or
sources) of power into two general groupings, formal and personal, and breaking each
of these down into more specific categories.5
Reward power
Power based on the ability to distribute rewards that others
view as valuable.
Legitimate power
Power based on a person’s position in the formal hierarchy of
an organization.
Legitimate Power
The most common way to access one or more of the power bases is probably through
Personal Power
Personal power comes from an individual’s unique characteristics.11 There are two bases
of personal power: expertise and the respect and admiration of others. Some people
might only have personal power, but others can also have formal power. For example,
many consultants have personal power but have no formal power if they are not
managers. Conversely, a sales team lead may not only have formal power bases but
can also be well-liked and respected.
Expert Power
Expert power is based on influence wielded as a result of expertise, special skills,
or knowledge.12 As jobs become more specialized, we become dependent on experts to
achieve goals. It is generally acknowledged that physicians have expertise and
hence expert power: Most of us follow our doctor’s advice. Returning to our sales
consultant
legitimate power . It represents the formal authority to control and use
organizational resources based on the person’s structural position in the
organization. In general, when school principals, bank presidents, or army captains
speak, teachers, tellers, and first lieutenants usually comply. Legitimate power
includes members’ acceptance of the authority of a hierarchical position.8 We associate
power so closely with the concept of hierarchy that just drawing longer lines in an
organization chart leads people to infer the leaders are especially powerful.9
Furthermore, legitimate power can also reduce the effect of others’ power; for
example, research suggests that when an employee stands up against something
unethical, they are less likely to suffer the consequences of others’ coercive power
(e.g., sanctioning, ostracism, etc.) when they, themselves, are high in legitimate power. 10
example, some of the team members may wield expert power due to their strong sales
skills or expertise in the area.
Expert power
Power based on influence through possessing expertise, special
skills, or knowledge.
Referent Power
Referent power
Power based on identification with a person who has
desirable resources or personal traits.
Which Bases of Power Are Most Effective?
Of the bases of power, which are most effective? This is a complicated question.
Regarding the dependents in the power relationship, different bases of power are
effective depending upon the perceptions and characteristics of the dependent. For
example, dependents view angry leaders as higher on formal power, and in turn are
more loyal toward these leaders and perceive them as more effective.16 On the other
hand, dependents are likely to perceive coercive and low-referent leaders as
ineffective, become less loyal toward these leaders, and even engage in deviant
behaviors directed at these leaders.
Referent power is based on identification with a person who has desirable resources
or personal traits.13 If I like, respect, and admire you; you can exercise power over me
because I want to please you. Some people who are not in formal leadership positions
have referent power and exert influence over others because of their charismatic
dynamism, likability, and emotional appeal.14
Referent power develops out of admiration of another and a desire to be like that
person. It helps explain, for instance, why celebrities are paid millions of dollars to
endorse products in commercials. Marketing research shows people such as LeBron
James have the power to influence your choice of athletic shoes and credit cards.15
It does appear though, that referent power can be an especially powerful motivator.
Consider Steve Stoute’s company, Translation, which matches pop-star spokespersons
with corporations that want to promote their brands. Stoute has paired Justin
Timberlake with McDonald’s, Mary J. Blige with Apple Music, and several famous rappers
with shoe companies (e.g., Jay-Z and 50 Cent).17 Translation’s approach has changed with
the times as well. As more/frequent content is needed in today’s day and age,
Translation has worked on creating an online mini-series to promote products and to
discuss culture, which has reached 42.5 million people. Partnering with Dr. Dre (Beats by
Dre), Translation created “The Shop,” a series where NBA all-stars (e.g., Kevin Durant,
LeBron James) and hip-hop artists (e.g., Future) alike, all with large bases of referent
power, discuss several topics (e.g., sneakers, music, the game) amid a barbershop
backdrop.18
Dependence: The Key to Power
The most important aspect of power is that it is a function of dependence. In this
section, we show how understanding dependence helps us understand degrees of power.
The General Dependence Postulate
Let us begin with a general postulate: The greater B’s dependence on A, the more power A has over
B. When you possess anything others require that you alone control, you make them
dependent on you, and therefore you gain power over them.19 But if something is
plentiful, possessing it will not increase your power. Therefore, the more you can
expand your own options, the less power you place in the hands of others. This explains
why most organizations develop multiple suppliers rather than give their business to
only one.
What Creates Dependence?
Importance
If nobody wants what you have, it is not going to create dependence. However, note
that there are many degrees of importance, from needing the resource for survival to
wanting a resource that is in fashion or adds to convenience.
Scarcity
When the supply of labor is low relative to demand, workers can negotiate
compensation and benefits packages that are far more attractive than those in
occupations with an abundance of candidates. For example, college administrators
have no problem today finding English instructors since there is a high supply and low
demand. The market for network systems analysts, in contrast, is comparatively tight,
with demand high and supply limited. The resulting bargaining power of
computer-engineering faculty allows them to negotiate higher salaries, lighter
teaching loads, and other benefits.
Nonsubstitutability
The fewer viable substitutes for a resource, the more power a person controlling that
resource has. Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have brought economic and
philosophical issues of labor nonsubstitutability to the forefront. For example,
employees with skilled trades are at risk for losing power as their skills become more
efficiently and
Dependence increases when a resource you control is important, scarce,
and nonsubstitutable.20
Example of a Sociogram
Exhibit 13-1
Social Network Analysis: A Tool for Assessing Resources
automatically handled by robotics: In other words, their skills are becoming
“substitutable” (see the threat of technological unemployment in the chapter on
perception and individual decision-making). Despite this fear, some economists and
theorists suggest that new jobs are created as the need arises for labor that
requires nonsubstitutable abilities, and we are merely enhancing productivity and
making work easier through AI.21
One tool to assess the exchange of resources and dependencies within an organization is
social network analysis. 22 This method examines patterns of communication among
organizational members to identify how information flows between them. Within a
social network, or connections between people who share professional interests, each
individual or group is called a node, and the links between nodes are called ties. When
nodes communicate or exchange resources frequently, they are said to have very
strong ties. Other nodes that are not engaged in direct communication with one
another achieve resource flows through intermediary nodes. In other words, some
nodes act as brokers between otherwise unconnected nodes. A graphical illustration of
the associations among individuals in a social network is called a sociogram, which
functions like an informal version of an organization chart. The difference is that a
formal organization chart shows how authority is supposed to flow, whereas a
sociogram shows how resources really flow in an organization. An example of a
sociogram is shown in Exhibit 13-1 .
Networks can create substantial power dynamics. Those in the position of brokers tend
to have more power because they can leverage the unique resources they can acquire
from different groups. In other words, many people are dependent upon brokers, which
gives the brokers more power. Data from the United Kingdom’s National Health Service
shows that change agents, people entrusted with helping an organization to make a
significant change, have more success if they are information brokers.23 However, it is
paradoxical how powerful brokers within marketing agency networks, even though
they are more willing to leverage their power, often fail to perceive opportunities to
do so.24
Some of the most powerful people within social networks are able to amass power
because of their personality traits—for example, their insensitivity to rewards
(making them resistant to others’ influence), extraversion, and even dark triad traits
(see the chapter on personality and values) is positively related to their social
network position and power. 25 Stereotype threat (see the chapter on diversity),
however, can also influence the effectiveness of women in brokerage positions. Because
the agency, power, and assertiveness (that come with the brokerage position)
contradict with the feminine stereotype, women are more likely to experience anxiety
about their performance and fear of negative evaluation in these positions.26
The relationships brokers form within networks are also
extremely important. People form relationships with their leaders and coworkers,
such as friendships and partnerships, which nurture mutual reliance and obligation.27
These “ties” are important not only for getting things done in organizations, but also
for employees’ well-being—employees who do not nurture these ties or who lose them
over time are more likely to leave their organization (although these ties can remain
dormant, even after the employee leaves!).28
There are many ways to implement a social network analysis in an organization.29 Some
organizations keep track of the flow of e-mail communications or document sharing
across departments. These big data tools are an easy way to gather objective
information about how individuals exchange information. Other organizations look at
data from human resources (HR) information systems, analyzing how supervisors and
subordinates interact with one another. These data sources can produce sociograms
showing how resources and power flow. Leaders can then identify powerful brokers
who exert the strongest influence on many groups and address these key individuals.
Newer applications of AI have enabled organizations and researchers to use machine
learning algorithms to model the flow of information in social networks over time
(and learn from events).30
Influence Tactics
What
Influence tactics
Ways in which individuals translate power bases into specific actions.
LEGITIMACY. Relying on your authority position or saying a request accords with
organizational policies or rules.
RATIONAL PERSUASION. Presenting logical arguments and factual evidence to
demonstrate a request is reasonable.
INSPIRATIONAL APPEALS. Developing emotional commitment by appealing to a
target’s values, needs, hopes, and aspirations.
CONSULTATION. Increasing support by involving the target in deciding how to
accomplish your plan.
EXCHANGE. Rewarding the target with benefits or favors in exchange for agreeing
to a request.
PERSONAL APPEALS. Asking for compliance based on friendship or loyalty.
INGRATIATION. Using flattery, praise, or friendly behavior prior to making a
request.
PRESSURE. Using warnings, repeated demands, and threats.
COALITIONS. Enlisting the aid or support of others to persuade the target to agree.
Using Influence Tactics
Some tactics are more effective than others. Rational persuasion, inspirational appeal,
and consultation tend to be equally effective in influencing performance at work.32
Rational persuasion, although still effective at helping build relationships at work,
tends to not be as superbly effective as inspirational appeal and consultation.33 The
pressure tactic tends to backfire and is typically the least effective.34 Using
ingratiation can improve relational outcomes of influence at work (e.g., during job
interviews),35 but perhaps only
influence tactics do people use to translate power bases into specific action?
What options do they have for influencing their bosses, coworkers, or employees?
Research has identified nine distinct influence tactics:31
Preferred Influence Tactics by Influence Direction
when the audience does not really care about the outcome of the request or if
it is routine.36
Exhibit 13-2
Upward Influence Downward Influence Lateral Influence
Rational persuasion Rational persuasion
Inspirational appeals
Ingratiation
Rational persuasion
Consultation
Ingratiation
Let us consider the most effective way of getting a raise. You can start with a rational
approach—figure out how your pay compares to that of your organizational peers,
land a competing job offer, gather data that testify to your performance, or use salary
calculators like Salary.com to compare your pay with others in your occupation—then
share your findings with your manager. The results can be impressive. Kitty Dunning, a
senior vice president at Don Jagoda Associates, once landed a 16 percent raise when she
e-mailed her boss numbers showing she had increased sales.37 Using rational persuasion
to make a case to your supervisor about a possible raise or even an alternative work
arrangement (see the chapter on motivation applications) may be effective because it
fosters a mutual sense of respect between you and your supervisor.38
While rational persuasion may work in this situation, the effectiveness of some
influence tactics depends to some extent on the direction of influence39 and, of course,
on the audience. As Exhibit 13-2 shows, rational persuasion is the only tactic effective
at both upwardly and downwardly influencing, although it is stronger when it is used
for downward influence attempts.40 Inspirational appeals work best as a
downward-influencing tactic with subordinates.41 Ingratiation is most effective as
lateral influence, although it can also be effective in downward influence.42 Other
factors relating to the effectiveness of influence include the sequencing of tactics, a
person’s skill in using the tactic, and the organizational culture. In general, you are
more likely to be effective if you begin with “softer” tactics that rely on personal
power, such as personal and inspirational appeals, rational persuasion, and
consultation. If these fail, you can move to “harder” tactics, such as exchange and
coalitions, which emphasize formal power and incur greater costs and risks.43
Legitimacy Exchange
Legitimacy
Personal appeals
Coalitions
Cultural Preferences for Influence Tactics
Preference for influence tactics varies across cultures.46 Those from individualistic
countries tend to see power in personalized terms and as a legitimate means of
advancing their personal ends, whereas those in collectivistic countries see power in
social terms and as a legitimate means of helping others.47 Managers in the United
States seem to prefer rational appeal, whereas Chinese managers may prefer coalition
tactics.48 Reason-based tactics are consistent with the U.S. preference for direct
confrontation and rational persuasion to influence others and resolve differences,
while coalition tactics align with the Chinese preference for meeting difficult or
controversial requests with indirect approaches.
Applying Influence Tactics
People differ in their political skill , or their ability to influence others to enhance their own
objectives.49 The politically skilled are more effective users of influence tactics and
draw on their knowledge of others’ demands, resources, and preferences to do so. 50
Political skill is also more effective when social skills are required to do well in
your job, such as in leadership positions, sales consultants, real estate agents, and
other relationship- oriented occupations.51 The politically skilled can exert their
influence
As we mentioned, the effectiveness of tactics depends on the audience.44 People
especially likely to comply with soft influence tactics tend to be more reflective and
intrinsically motivated; they have high self-esteem and a greater desire for control.
Those likely to comply with hard influence tactics are more action-oriented and
extrinsically motivated and are more focused on getting along with others than on
getting their own way. Interestingly, prior research does not support differences
between men and women in the effectiveness of use of influence tactics—both men and
women benefit from soft or neutral tactics, as opposed to harder tactics.45
Political skill
The ability to influence others in such a way as to enhance
one’s objectives.
without others detecting it, a key element in effectiveness (it is damaging to be
labeled political).52
We know cultures within organizations differ markedly; some are warm, relaxed, and
supportive; others are formal and conservative. Some encourage participation and
consultation, some encourage reason, and still others rely on pressure. People who fit
the culture of the organization tend to obtain more influence.53 Specifically,
extraverts tend to be more influential in team-oriented organizations, and highly
conscientious people are more influential in organizations that value working alone
on technical tasks. People who fit the culture are influential because they can
perform especially well in the domains deemed most important for success. Thus, the
organization itself will influence which subset of influence tactics is viewed as
acceptable for use. Regardless of the cultural fit, however, evidence suggests that in
general, extraverts tend to be more prone to develop political skills, although
agreeableness and conscientiousness are also important to some degree.54 But beware:
political skill has been found to camouflage some negative dark triad traits, such as
Machiavellianism (see the chapter on personality and values).55
Overall, political skill leads to several positive individual outcomes for employees.56
Developing political skill can help you build self-efficacy and become more satisfied
with your job and committed to your organization, and lead you to experience less
stress, to a small degree. Furthermore, developing political skill can boost your
performance and productivity, as well as enable you to engage in more organizational
citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Probably the most important are the career outcomes:
Being politically skilled can improve your reputation and career success as you earn a
higher income and a more prestigious position and are more satisfied with your career.
Research suggests the reasons why political skill leads to these positive outcomes are
through the reputation and confidence boosts that come along with building these
skills.57
How Power Affects People
To this point, we have discussed what power is and how it is acquired. But we have not
yet answered one important question: Does power corrupt? For one, it is clear that
power affects the power holder: It energizes people, on the one hand, but can cause the
power holder to rely more on gut feelings and to become self-serving and potentially
more corrupt.58 So all forms of power can lead to the downside of getting “caught up”
in the feeling of power.
What We Can Do About Power
There is certainly evidence that there are corrupting aspects of power. Power leads
people to place their own interests ahead of others’ needs or goals.59 Why does this
happen? Interestingly, power not only leads people to focus on their self-interests
because they can; it also liberates them to focus inward and thus come to place
greater weight on their own aims and interests. Power also appears to lead
individuals to “objectify” others (to see them as tools to obtain their instrumental
goals) and to see relationships as more peripheral.60
That is not all. Powerful people react—especially negatively—to any threats to their
competence. People in positions of power hold on to it when they can, and individuals
who face threats to their power are exceptionally willing to take actions to retain it
whether their actions harm others or not.61 Possessing formal power can alter how
you perceive others’ emotions (e.g., the powerful are quicker to detect anger because
this threatens their power) and cause you to behave in an ineffective way. 62 Those
given power are more likely to make self-interested decisions when faced with a moral
hazard (such as when hedge fund managers take more risks with other people’s money
because they are rewarded for gains but punished less often for losses). People in
power are also more willing to denigrate others. Power also leads to overconfident
decision making (although firm leader overconfidence may actually result in positive
firm outcomes).63
Power does not affect everyone in the same way, and there are even positive effects of
power. Power can cause others to view you more positively.64 Power energizes and
increases motivation to achieve goals. It also can enhance our motivation to help
others. One study found, for example, that a desire to help others translated into
actual work behavior when people felt a sense of power. 65 In general, power has been
studied based on how it affects peoples’ thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.66
Power affects the cognition, or thought, as the powerful tend to simplify how they
process information, rely on single sources, and use information that is easier to
retrieve.67 This means that the powerful are more likely to rely on stereotypes and
heuristic forms of processing. For example, a start-up founder who has built several
successful businesses in the past may look past certain aspects of the market or the
process because of the previous successes enjoyed. Although not much research has been
conducted on how power affects emotions, some work suggests that the powerful are
more inclined to express genuine positive emotions without repercussions, but less
likely to “mirror” others’ emotions (e.g., not feeling distressed at witnessing another
person’s distress).68 Finally, powerful people (due to enhanced confidence and a sense of
volition) tend to display personal initiative and be more sensitive to potential rewards
or benefits (e.g., are personally selfish), and are less sensitive to normative behaviors.69
For example, graduate students at professional academic conferences often note that
they can tell who has “made it” in their careers, because they are the ones showing up
to presentations in jeans, rather than business attire.
Sexual Harassment: Unequal Power in the Workplace
So, what can we do about power? Are we “powerless” in its wake? First, the toxic effects
of power depend on the wielder’s personality. Research suggests that if you have an
anxious personality, power does not corrupt you because you are less likely to think
that using power benefits yourself.70 Second, the corrosive effect of power can be
contained by organizational systems. For example, one study found that while power
made people behave in a self-serving manner, the self-serving behavior stopped when
accountability for the behavior was initiated. Third, we have the means to blunt the
negative effects of power. One study showed that simply expressing gratitude toward
powerful others makes them less likely to act aggressively against us. Finally,
remember the saying that those with little power abuse what little they have. There
seems to be some truth to this in that the people most likely to abuse power are those
who start low in status and gain power. Why is this the case? It appears that having low
status is threatening, and the fear this creates is used in negative ways if power is given
later.71
Sexual harassment
Any unwanted activity of a sexual nature that affects an
individual’s employment and creates a hostile work environment.
Sexual harassment is defined as any unwanted activity of a
Most studies confirm that power is central to understanding sexual harassment.79
This seems true whether the harassment comes from a supervisor, coworker, or
employee, although it is especially pronounced for employees who have newly
acquired power.80 Sexual harassment is more likely to occur when there are large
power differentials. The
sexual nature that affects an individual’s employment or creates a hostile work
environment.72 According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
sexual harassment happens when a person encounters “unwelcome sexual advances,
requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”
on the job that disrupts work performance or that creates an “intimidating, hostile,
or offensive” work environment.73 Worldwide, 35 percent of women have experienced
physical or sexual violence, and even larger numbers (for some countries, well over
50 percent) across the world have experienced sexual harassment.74 For example, a
study in Pakistan found that up to 93 percent of female workers were sexually
harassed.75 Although the definition changes from country to country, most nations
have at least some policies to protect workers. Whether the policies or laws are
followed is another question, however. Equal employment opportunity legislation is
established in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Oman, for example, but studies suggest it
might not be well implemented.76 Sexual harassment is disproportionately prevalent
for women in certain types of jobs. In the restaurant industry, for instance, 80 percent
of female waitstaff in a study reported having been sexually harassed by coworkers
or customers, compared to 70 percent of male waitstaff.77 It goes without saying that
the effects of sexual harassment are deplorable and nefarious and, in large part, due
to the prevailing climate in the team, organization, or region.78
Sexual harassment can have a detrimental impact on individuals and the
organization, but it can be avoided. The manager’s commitment to the process and
responsibility is critical:83
Make sure an active policy defines what constitutes sexual harassment, informs employees they can be
fired for inappropriate behavior, and establishes procedures for making complaints.
Reassure employees that they will not encounter retaliation if they file a complaint.
Investigate every complaint and inform the legal and HR departments.
Make sure offenders are disciplined or terminated.
Set up in-house training to raise employee awareness of sexual harassment issues.
supervisor–employee dyad best characterizes an unequal power relationship, where
formal power gives the supervisor the capacity to reward and coerce. Because
employees want favorable performance reviews, salary increases, and the like,
supervisors control resources most employees consider important and scarce. When
there are not effective controls to detect and prevent sexual harassment, abusers are
more likely to act. Relatedly, if there are not effective controls to give voice to
whistleblowers and protect them from retaliation, abusers are more likely to act and
continue to act.81 The #MeToo and Time’s Up movements were formed to establish a
coalition giving voice to sexual harassment and abuse survivors to quell the tide of
sexual harassment in organizations and communities.82
Politics: Power in Action
Whenever people get together in groups, power will be exerted. People in organizations
want to carve out a niche to exert influence, earn rewards, and advance their careers.
If they convert their power into action, we describe them as being engaged in politics.
Those with good political skills will likely use their bases of power effectively.84
Politics are not only inevitable; they might be essential, too.
Political Behavior
Essentially, organizational politics focus on the use of power to affect decision making in an
organization, sometimes for self-serving and organizationally unsanctioned
behaviors.
Political behavior
Activities that are not required as part of a person’s formal role in
the organization but that influence, or attempt to influence, the
distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the
organization.
Political behavior is outside specified job requirements. It requires some attempt to
use power bases. It includes efforts to influence the goals, criteria, or processes used
for decision making. Our definition is broad enough to include varied political
behaviors such as withholding key information from decision makers, joining a
coalition, whistleblowing, spreading rumors, leaking confidential information to
the media, exchanging favors with others for mutual benefit, and lobbying on behalf
of or against a particular individual or decision alternative.87 In this way, political
behavior is often negative, but not always.
The Reality of Politics
Research has demonstrated that there are multiple ways people
construe politics: (1) some are reactive, believing that it involves
engaging in destructive and manipulative behavior; some are (2) reluctant,
viewing it as a necessary evil; still, others are (3)
85 For our purposes, political behavior in organizations consists of activities that are
not required as part of an individual’s formal role but that influence, or attempt to
influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization.86
strategic, and view politics as a useful way of getting things done; and finally, some have
more of an (4) integrated perception, viewing politics as central to the reality of decision
making.88
Maybe the most important factor leading to politics within organizations is the
realization that most of the “facts” used to allocate limited resources are open to
interpretation. When allocating pay based on performance, for instance, what is good
performance? What is an adequate improvement? What constitutes an unsatisfactory job? It
is in this large and ambiguous middle ground of organizational life—where the facts
do not speak for themselves—that politics flourish.
Indeed, interviews with experienced managers show most believe political behavior is
a major part of organizational life.89 Many managers report some use of political
behavior is ethical, if it does not directly harm anyone else. They describe politics as
necessary and believe someone who never uses political behavior will have a hard
time getting things done. Although those with lower incomes also believe political
behavior is necessary, they are more reluctant to engage in it and thus have a harder
time of advancing their careers.90
But why, you may wonder, must politics exist? Is it not possible for an organization to
be politics-free? It is possible—if all members of that organization hold the same goals
and interests, if organizational resources are not scarce, and if performance outcomes
are completely clear and objective. But that does not describe the organizational
world in which most of us live. Regardless, it appears as if people, although often
reluctant to politick, will do so when it is done through prosocial means and with the
goal of helping others.91
Finally, because most decisions must be made in a climate of ambiguity—where facts are
rarely objective and thus are open to interpretation—people within organizations will
use whatever influence they can to support their goals and interests. That, of course,
creates the activities we call politicking. One person’s “selfless effort to benefit the
organization” is seen by another as a “blatant attempt to further his or her interest.”92
Antecedents and Outcomes of Political Behavior
Causes and Consequences of Political Behavior
Now that we have discussed the constant presence of politicking in organizations, let
us discuss the causes and consequences of these behaviors.
Factors Contributing to Political Behavior
Not all groups or organizations are equally political. In some organizations,
politicking is overt and rampant, while in others, politics play a small role in
influencing outcomes. What causes this variation? Research and observation have
identified several factors that appear to encourage political behavior. Some are
individual characteristics, derived from the qualities of the people the organization
employs; others are a result of the organization’s culture or internal environment.
Exhibit 13-3 illustrates how both individual and organizational factors can
encourage political behavior and provide favorable outcomes (increased rewards and
averted punishments) for individuals and groups in the organization.
Exhibit 13-3
Individual Factors
At the individual level, researchers have identified certain personality traits,
needs, and other factors likely to be related to political behavior. In terms of
traits, we find that
employees who are high self-monitors, possess an internal locus of control, and have a
high need for power (nPow; see the chapter on motivation concepts) are more likely to
engage in political behavior. The high self-monitor is more sensitive to social cues,
exhibits higher levels of social conformity, and is more likely to be skilled in
political behavior than the low self-monitor. Because they believe they can control
their environment, individuals with an internal locus of control are more prone to
take a proactive stance and attempt to manipulate situations in their favor. Not
surprisingly, the Machiavellian personality (see the chapter on personality and
values)—characterized by the will to manipulate and the desire for power—is
consistent with using politics to further personal interests.
An individual’s investment in the organization and perceived alternatives influence
the degree to which they will pursue illegitimate means of political action.93 The more
a person expects increased future benefits from the organization, and the more that
person has to lose if forced out, the less likely they are to use illegitimate means.
Conversely, the more alternate job opportunities an individual has—due to a favorable
job market, possession of scarce skills or knowledge, prominent reputation, or
influential contacts outside the organization—the more likely the person is to employ
politics.
Finally, some individuals engage in political behavior simply
Organizational Factors Although we acknowledge the role individual differences can play, the evidence more
strongly suggests that certain situations and cultures promote politics. Specifically,
when an organization’s resources are declining, when the existing pattern of
resources is
because they are better at it. Such individuals read interpersonal interactions well, fit
their behavior to situational needs, and excel at networking.94 These people are often
indirectly rewarded for their political efforts. For example, a study of a construction
firm in southern China found that politically skilled subordinates were more likely to
receive recommendations for rewards from their supervisors, and politically oriented
supervisors were especially likely to respond positively to politically skilled
subordinates.95 Other studies from countries around the world have similarly shown
that higher levels of political skill are associated with higher levels of perceived job
performance.96
For most people who have modest political skills or who are unwilling to play the politics
game, outcomes tend to be predominantly negative in terms of decreased job satisfaction,
increased anxiety and stress, increased turnover, and reduced performance. Research has
demonstrated that the more politics play a role in one’s environment, organization, or team,
the more negative outcomes will be experienced (e.g., increased stress and
turnover intentions as well as decreased morale and performance), regardless of how
changing, and when there is opportunity for promotions, politicking is more likely to
surface.97 When resources are reduced, people may engage in political actions to
safeguard what they have. Also, any changes, especially those implying a significant
reallocation of resources within the organization, are likely to stimulate conflict
and increase politicking.
Cultures characterized by low trust, role ambiguity, unclear performance evaluation
systems, win–lose reward allocation practices, democratic decision making, high
pressure for performance, and self-serving senior managers will create breeding
grounds for politicking.98 Because political activities are not required as part of the
employee’s formal role, the greater the role ambiguity, the more employees can engage
in unnoticed political activity. Role ambiguity means the prescribed employee
behaviors are not clear. In this situation, there are fewer limits to the scope and
functions of the employee’s political actions.
Additionally, the more an organizational culture emphasizes the zero-sum or
win–lose approach to reward allocations (which often begins as a result of financial
vulnerability), the more employees will be motivated to engage in politicking.
approach treats the reward “pie” as fixed, so any gain one person or group achieves comes at the expense
of another person or group. For example, if fifteen thousand dollars is distributed among five
employees for raises, any employee who gets more than three thousand dollars takes money away from
one or more of the others. Such a practice encourages making others look bad and increasing the
visibility of what you do.
Zero-sum approach
An approach to reward allocation that treats the reward “pie” as
fixed, so any gain one person or group achieves comes at the expense
of another person or group.
How Do People Respond to Organizational Politics?
Defensive Behaviors
necessary people perceive them to be.100 Politics may lead to self-reported declines in
employee performance, perhaps because employees perceive political environments to be
unfair, which demotivates them.101 Other research suggests that it may be a
“double-edged sword” (e.g., beneficial on the one hand, but detrimental on the other),
meaning that political behaviors can empower people to do well, while at the same time
draining them from emotional exhaustion.102
When employees see change as a threat, they may respond with defensive behaviors — reactive and protective behaviors to avoid action, blame, or
change.105 (Exhibit 13-4 provides some examples.) These behaviors can be a part of
politicking, but in a destructive, negative sense. Instead of attempting to influence people
in “soft,” bond-affirming ways, these behaviors protect self-interests through aggressive
or avoidant means, such as withholding ideas or contributions.106 In the short run,
employees may find that defensiveness protects their self-interests, but in the long run it
wears them down.
Exhibit 13-4
Avoiding Action
OVERCONFORMING. Strictly interpreting your responsibility by saying things like “The
rules clearly state ...” or “This is the way we’ve always done it.”
BUCK PASSING. Transferring responsibility for the execution of a task or decision to
someone else.
The politics–performance relationship appears to be moderated by an individual’s
understanding of the “hows” and “whys” of organizational politics. Researchers have
noted, “An individual who has a clear understanding of who is responsible for making
decisions and why they were selected to be the decision makers would have a better
understanding of how and why things happen the way they do than someone who does
not understand the decision-making process in the organization.”103 When both politics
and understanding are high, performance is likely to increase because these
individuals see political activity as an opportunity. This is consistent with what you
might expect for individuals with well-honed political skills. But when understanding
is low, individuals are more likely to see politics as a threat, which can have a negative
effect on job performance.104
PLAYING DUMB. Avoiding an unwanted task by falsely pleading ignorance or
inability.
STRETCHING. Prolonging a task so that one person appears to be occupied—for
example, turning a two-week task into a four-month job.
STALLING. Appearing to be more or less supportive publicly while doing little or
nothing privately.
Avoiding Blame
BLUFFING. Rigorously documenting activity to project an image of competence and
thoroughness, known as “covering your rear.”
PLAYING SAFE. Evading situations that may reflect unfavorably. It includes taking on
only projects with a high probability of success, having risky decisions approved by
superiors, qualifying expressions of judgment, and taking neutral positions in conflicts.
JUSTIFYING. Developing explanations that lessen one’s responsibility for a
negative outcome and/or apologizing to demonstrate remorse, or both.
SCAPEGOATING. Placing the blame for a negative outcome on external factors that are
not entirely blameworthy.
MISREPRESENTING. Manipulation of information by distortion, embellishment,
deception, selective presentation, or obfuscation.
Avoiding Change
PREVENTION. Trying to prevent a threatening change from occurring.
SELF-PROTECTION. Acting in ways to protect one’s self-interest during change by
guarding information or other resources.
Defensive behaviors
Reactive and protective behaviors to avoid action, blame, or change.
Impression Management
Impression Management (IM) Techniques
We know people have an ongoing interest in how others
perceive and evaluate them. Being perceived positively by others has benefits in an
organizational setting. It might, for instance, help us initially to get the jobs we want
in an organization and, once hired, to get favorable evaluations, superior salary
increases, and more rapid promotions. Managing how others perceive you is especially
important, for example, to expatriates representing their organizations in other
countries, and requires them to adapt to cultural norms.
Exhibit 13-5
Conformity
Agreeing with someone else’s opinion to gain his or her approval is a form of
ingratiation.
Example: A manager tells his boss, “You’re absolutely right on your reorganization plan
for the western regional office. I couldn’t agree with you more.
Favors
Doing something nice for someone to gain that person’s approval is a form of
ingratiation.
Example: A salesperson says to a prospective client, “I’ve got two tickets to the theater
tonight that I can’t use. Take them. Consider it a thank-you for taking the time to talk
with me.”
107 The process by which individuals attempt to control the impression others form
of them is called impression management (IM) . 108 See Exhibit 13-5 for examples. This
process can be conscious or unconscious and can be perceived as authentic or
disingenuous. When perceived as inauthentic or disingenuous, IM can lead to
decrements in performance, increased anxiety, and negative feelings.109 When
perceived as modest, authentic, and genuine (e.g., disclosing something negative and
humorous about yourself to relate with another person), IM can lead others to see
you more positively and lead to better relationship outcomes.110
Claiming that something you did is more valuable than most other members of the
organizations would think is a self-focused IM technique.
Excuses
Explaining a predicament-creating event aimed at minimizing the apparent severity of the
predicament is a defensive IM technique.
Example: A sales manager says to her boss, “We failed to get the ad in the paper on time,
but no one responds to those ads anyway.”
Self-Promotion
Highlighting your best qualities, downplaying your deficits, and calling attention to your
achievements is a self-focused IM technique.
Example: A salesperson tells his boss, “Matt worked unsuccessfully for three years to try
to get that account. I sewed it up in six weeks. I’m the best closer this company has.”
Enhancement
Example: A journalist tells his editor, “My work on this celebrity divorce story was really a
major boost to our sales” (even though the story only made it to page 3 in the
entertainment section).
Flattery
Complimenting others about their virtues in an effort to make yourself appear
perceptive and likeable is an assertive IM technique.
Example: A new sales trainee says to her peer, “You handled that client’s complaint so
tactfully! I could never have handled that as well as you did.”
Exemplification
Doing more than you need to in an effort to show how dedicated and hardworking you are
is an assertive IM technique.
Impression management (IM)
The process by which individuals attempt to control the
impression others form of them.
Example: An employee sends e-mails from his work computer when he works late so
that his supervisor will know how long he’s been working.
Source: Based on B. R. Schlenker, Impression Management (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1980); M. C. Bolino, K. M. Kacmar, W. H. Turnley, and J. B. Gilstrap, “A Multi-Level Review of Impression Management Motives and Behaviors,” Journal of Management 34, no. 6 (2008), 1080–109; R. B. Cialdini, “Indirect Tactics of Image Management Beyond Basking,” in R. A. Giacalone and P. Rosenfeld (eds.), Impression Management in the Organization (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989), 45–71.
IM research has linked IM to two criteria: interview success and performance
evaluations. Let us consider each of these.
Interviews and IM
The evidence indicates most job applicants and interviewers alike use IM techniques in
interviews and that they work, in part because they increase interviewer perceptions
of the applicants’ warmth and competence.111 To develop a sense of how effective
different IM techniques are in interviews, one study grouped data from thousands of
recruiting and selection interviews into appearance-oriented efforts (efforts toward
looking professional), explicit tactics (such as flattering the interviewer or talking
up your own accomplishments), and verbal cues (such as using positive terms and
showing general enthusiasm).112 Across all the dimensions, it was quite clear that IM
was a powerful predictor of how well people did. However, there was a twist. When
interviews were highly structured, meaning the interviewer’s questions were written
out in advance and focused on applicant qualifications, the effects of IM were
substantially weaker. Manipulative behaviors like IM are more likely to have an
effect in ambiguous and unstructured interviews.
Performance Evaluations and IM
In terms of performance evaluations, the picture is quite different. Ingratiation is
positively related to performance ratings, meaning those who ingratiate with their
supervisors get higher performance evaluations. However, self-promotion appears to
backfire: Those who self-promote may receive lower performance ratings.113 There is an
important qualifier to these general findings. It appears that individuals high in
political skill are able to translate IM into higher performance appraisals,
whereas those lower in political skill are more likely to be hurt by their IM
attempts.114 One study of 760 boards of directors found that individuals who
ingratiated themselves to current board members (expressed agreement with the
director, pointed out shared attitudes and opinions, complimented the director)
increased their chances of landing on a board.115 Another study found that interns
who attempted to use ingratiation with their supervisors were usually disliked—
unless they had high levels of political skill. For those who had this ability,
ingratiation led to higher levels of liking from supervisors, and higher
performance ratings.116
The Ethics of Behaving Politically
Although there are no clear-cut ways to differentiate ethical from unethical
politicking, there are some questions you should consider. For example, what is the
utility of engaging in politicking? Sometimes we do it for little good reason.
Another question is this: How does the utility of engaging in the political behavior
balance out the harm (or potential harm) it will do to others? Finally, does the
political activity conform to justice and fairness standards?
Unfortunately, powerful people can become very good at explaining self-serving
behaviors in terms of the organization’s best interests. They can persuasively argue
that unfair actions are fair and just. Those who are powerful, articulate, and
persuasive are most vulnerable to ethical lapses because they are more likely to get
away with them. When faced with an ethical dilemma regarding organizational
politics, try to consider whether playing politics is worth the risk and whether
others might be harmed in the process. If you have a strong power base, recognize the
ability of power to corrupt. Remember it is a lot easier for people who are in a
powerless position to act ethically, if for no other reason than they typically have
very little political discretion to exploit.
Mapping Your Political Career
As we have seen, politics are not just for politicians. You can use the concepts
presented in this chapter in some very tangible ways we have outlined in your
organization. However, they also have another application: You.
One of the most useful ways to think about power and politics is in terms of your own
career. 117 What are your ambitions? Who has the power to help you achieve them? What
is your relationship to these people? The best way to answer these questions is with a
Drawing Your Political Map
Exhibit 13-6
131–134. Source: Based on D. Clark, “A Campaign Strategy for Your Career,” Harvard Business Review, November 2012,
political map, which can help you sketch out your relationships with the people
upon whom your career depends. Exhibit 13-6 contains such a political map.118 Let us
walk through it.
Assume your future promotion depends on five people, including Jamie, your immediate
supervisor. As you can see in the exhibit, you have a close relationship with Jamie (you
would be in real trouble otherwise). You also have a close relationship with Zack in
finance. However, with the others you have either a loose relationship (Lane) or none
(Jia, Marty). One obvious implication of this map is the need to formulate a plan to gain
more influence over, and a closer relationship with, these people. How might you do
that?
One of the best ways to influence people is indirectly. What if you played in a tennis
league with Mark, Jamie’s former coworker who you know remains friends with
Jamie?
To influence Mark, in many cases, may also be to influence Marty. You can complete a
similar analysis for the other four decision makers and their networks.
All of this may seem a bit Machiavellian to you. However, remember that only one
person gets the promotion, and your competition may have a map of their own. As we
noted in the early part of the chapter, power and politics are a part of
organizational life.
Summary
Few employees relish being powerless in their jobs and organizations. People respond
differently to the various power bases. Expert and referent power are derived from an
individual’s personal qualities. In contrast, coercion, reward, and legitimate power
are essentially organizationally granted. Competence especially appears to offer
wide appeal, and its use as a power base results in high performance by group members.
An effective manager accepts the political nature of organizations. Some people are
more politically astute than others, meaning they are aware of the underlying
politics and can manage impressions. Those who are good at playing politics can be
expected to get higher performance evaluations and, hence, larger salary increases
and more promotions than the politically naïve or inept. The politically astute are
also likely to exhibit higher job satisfaction and be better able to neutralize job
stressors. However, politics may be a double-edged sword, leading to both positive
and negative outcomes.
A political map can provide a good schematic from which to identify positive
politicking opportunities. Finally, power and politics present significant ethical
considerations. To accept the reality of these dimensions in organizations is to accept
the responsibility for awareness and ethical behavior.