10 discussions - due in 40 hours - 200 words each

combs

11CH_Weiss_Leadership_2e_U.pdf

Home >Education homework help >10 discussions - due in 40 hours - 200 words each

Power, Politics, and Conflict

iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Define power generally and within organizations, and identify the classical sources of power.

2. Describe methods for gaining power.

3. List both positive and negative tactics for influencing others, as well tactics that could be deemed morally or ethically questionable.

4. Identify and explain the possible outcomes for the use of power.

5. Discuss the types of conflict, the possible sources of those conflicts, styles of managing conflict, and finally strategies for resolving it.

272

The world is constantly changing— and so are effective models of lead- ership. Effective leadership today increasingly calls for cooperation and the ability to not only see but also empathize with other people’s perspectives and plights. The 2015 edition of Fortune’s World’s Greatest Leaders gives evidence to this chang- ing reality, as many of the leaders on the list have no direct authority over anyone—and many of these leaders are women.

For example, Johnetta Elzie pro- moted and led peaceful protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after racial ten- sions boiled over the tipping point. This is also true of Beatrice Mtetwa who is a human rights activist in Zim- babwe. Neither of these leaders can be effective by giving orders. Even General Motors CEO Mary Barra and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former presi- dent of Liberia, were effective by influencing others without ordering or using coercion or force. Barra had to manage the faulty ignition switch crisis; Sirleaf dealt with the Ebola

epidemic. Both women had to rely on cooperation with their followers and stakeholders.

Research shows that women are more adept at this kind of leadership. “They’re better than men at empathy—sensing the thoughts and feelings of others and responding in some appropriate way. They value reciprocal relationships more highly than men do” (Colvin, 2015). “In a world that favors leadership based on skills of personal interaction rather than on authority, women have a head start.” Still, these “soft skills” can be learned, “men can adapt, and many are doing so. But don’t be surprised to see more women on lists of effective leaders” (Colin, 2015).

This is not to say that classical forms of leadership are by any means defunct. They’re not. But as the world becomes more globalized and social, cultural, and gender norms continue to evolve, new strategies for leadership will inevitably emerge, and sources of power and authority will continue to shift. This chapter focuses on the complex landscape of power, poli- tics, and conflict.

We start by defining power and the sources of power. Then we look at ways of gaining power and authority, followed by strategies for effectively persuading and influenc- ing followers. Next we examine the outcomes of the use of power. Finally, we close the chapter with a closer look at conflict, the roots of it, as well as ways of effectively manag- ing it.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images News/Getty Images Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former president of Liberia, was an effective leader by influencing others without ordering or using coercion or force in dealing with the Ebola epidemic.

273

Section 11.1 What Is Power? What Are the Sources of Power in Organizations?

11.1 What Is Power? What Are the Sources of Power in Organizations?

Power resides in all relationships that include individuals, groups, and coalitions inside and outside of organizations. Power is the potential to influence. Influence is a person’s ability to affect or change the actions, behaviors, and opinions of others in desired ways. Some choose to define power more specifically by saying that it is directed toward reach- ing a desired set of outcomes (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974) or applied toward carrying out orders (Kaplan, 1964). Heimans and Timms (2014) use British philosopher Bertrand Russell’s definition of power, which is stated as “the ability to produce intended effects.” In terms of organizations, Scholl states, “Power in organizations is the ability of Party A to influence the behavior and decision-making of Party B, despite resistance on the part of Party B” (2003).

Sources of Power French and Raven’s (1959) classic study of power (Raven, 1993) identifies five sources of power: reward, expert, legitimate, referent, and coercive. From psychologist Nicole Lipkin’s modern look at this classic study (Giang, 2013) emerged additional sources. We include infor- mation, prestige, and connection here as well. These sources taken together are not exhaus- tive but serve as a basis for understanding different power sources.

Legitimate power comes from the organization. The very nature of a leader’s position offers power over others. A follower is likely to act upon requests because of this hierarchical rela- tionship, which comes with the understanding of a leader’s formal position and role as repre- senting the organization’s interest until and unless proven otherwise.

Reward power is one of the hard forms of power and comes from the leader’s ability to reward followers. Beyond having a higher position in an organization, a manager can influ- ence an employee through raises, bonuses, and other incentives. The ability to reward also translates into the ability to withhold rewards, so this source of power can be used in both positive and negative manners. Like legitimate power, reward power is based on the person’s position in the organization.

Coercive power is another type of hard power and is based on the leader’s authority to pun- ish, threaten, use force, and withhold rewards. Not following a leader or manager could result in a warning or potentially even a firing. This source of power also stems from the organiza- tion and the systems of reward and punishment that are built into the hierarchy.

Expert power is the first of the personal sources of power, and as such it’s also an example of soft power. Expert power is based on a leader’s experience and expertise. A leader who knows a particular field and is a domain expert can influence employees. Examples of this may include a managing partner at a law firm or a senior engineer at a biotech com- pany who reached the position through years of education and professional experience. Followers also have expert power and can influence leaders and managers from their knowledge.

274

Section 11.1 What Is Power? What Are the Sources of Power in Organizations?

Recently, there has been a debate about whether computing and the automated use of power should be trusted over the knowledge and wisdom of experts. Seifert and Hadida (2013) argued that one is not superior over the other, but that both are important. In straightforward situations, computers can be more reliable as sources of expertise. However, in situations that are less straightforward and uncertain, human expert knowledge and wisdom may be needed.

Referent power is another form of personal power that is based on personality and personal characteristics. Employees esteem the leader and will follow out of admiration or general regard. Charismatic leaders, in particular, excel through referent power. In some ways, this source of power is the opposite of coercive power. Followers are influenced by trust rather than fear or warnings of retribution. Referent power remains a major source of leadership influence, as we discussed in Chapter 5 with transformational and charismatic leaders.

Cuddy, Kohut, and Neffinger (2013) pose the question whether strong leaders fare better by being loved or being strong? They state “Leaders who project strength before establishing trust run the risk of eliciting fear, and along with it a host of dysfunctional behaviors. Fear can undermine cognitive potential, creativity, and problem solving, and cause employees to get stuck and even disengage.” A related study by Zenger and Folkman (2014) found that of 51,836 leaders, only 27 of them were “rated in the bottom quartile in terms of likability and in the top quartile in terms of overall leadership effectiveness—in other words, the chances that a manager who is strongly disliked will be considered a good leader are only about one in 2,000” (Zenger & Folkman, 2014).

Consequently, being and showing “warmth” increases a leader’s influence since warmth leads to trust and “the communication and absorption of ideas” (Cuddy, Kohut, & Neffinger, 2013). Cuddy and her colleagues note that “Even a few small nonverbal signals—a nod, a smile, an open gesture—can show people that you’re pleased to be in their company and attentive to their concerns. Prioritizing warmth helps you connect immediately with those around you … and can be trusted by them.”

Of course, one leadership style or use of influence is not sufficient to effectively respond to others in all situations. As research in Chapter 2 showed, a leader’s versatility in using a range of influence techniques that suit different situations is recommended. Still, the “power of nice” cannot be underestimated or minimized as a major source of connecting with people.

Information power comes from having access to the information that others need to com- plete their work (Dubrin, 2010), so that an individual or department is dependent on another. This power could belong to an individual who is supposed to communicate information to others—such as the White House press secretary, whose responsibility is to serve as a con- duit between the executive branch and the media—or to a group that gives information to another, such as analysts who look at raw data and interpret it for others. Knowledge of infor- mation technology and manipulation of software programs and functions are also popular sources of information power that followers and employees have.

As technology advances and becomes more accessible, the power of information also increases. Concepts such as “big data,” processing large amounts of data, and the discov- ery and use of patterns provides users with competitive advantages. This technological power of information is an extension of the common phrase “information is power,” which

275

Section 11.1 What Is Power? What Are the Sources of Power in Organizations?

also relates to the power of experts (or those people who hold information). As previously stated, there are times when technology is the best resource for a situation, and there are times when a human expert is more effective (Satell, 2014). This type of power can be short-lived because once the information is shared, it may no longer be a source of power in certain situations.

Prestige power comes from informal status rather than an official position within an orga- nization (Finkelstein, 1992). It is argued (“CEO Power Cycles,” 2005) that prestige power increases as performance increases. It is earned through past success or seniority. A person with prestige in an organization may be an experienced leader with a strong track record or a new hire from a competitive company or program. Individuals with prestige power can influ- ence others who expect past successes to translate into future ones.

Connection power relates to an individual’s network by virtue of relationships with pow- erful and influential people. An employee may have a junior position and access to a strong network through family and friends, which provides a capacity to influence others, even a supervising manager.

It is important to note that some power sources are open to any individual. For example, one can increase one’s expertise in a particular area or make an effort to network and form relationships with individuals across the organization and at multiple levels. This does not require a special title or role. However, gaining reward power may require a promotion, so it depends on someone else.

All these sources of power also demonstrate that the potential to influence can be based on dependency. An organizational leader with the ability to distribute resources has power, whether that comes from the capacity to offer rewards, supply information, or provide other types of access. However, referent power and some of the softer, personal forms of power are based on relationships and the ability to communicate and connect emotionally with people.

New Versus Old Sources of Power “New power”(Heimans & Timms, 2014) is a phenomenon evolving in the world that is dis- rupting traditional industries and institutions. Embodied in such companies as Google, Lyft, LinkedIn®, Facebook, Uber, Occupy, and Kickstarter, this “new power” is motivated by “peo- ple’s capacity—and desire—to go far beyond passive consumption of ideas and goods” (p. 50) to creating and delivering assets and content in the context of a peer community, that can also lead to partial or complete co-ownership of content and assets. Whereas “old power” values were based on “managerialism, institutionalism, representative governance”; the new val- ues include “informal, opt-in decision making self-organization; and networked governance.” Apple®, the NSA, the Nobel Prize, and the office of the U.S. presidency represent “old power values” (Heimans & Timms, 2014, p. 51).

Whether power values are “old” or “new,” leaders need power and influence to involve and mobilize board members, stakeholders, and followers to accept and enact vision, mission, and strategies. Although the two terms power and influence are often used interchangeably, they differ subtly. Recall our definition of power—it is the ability to influence. Influence involves

276

Section 11.1 What Is Power? What Are the Sources of Power in Organizations?

the ability to affect an individual or a group to change behavior (Cohen, Fink, Gadon, & Willits, 1992). Manning (2012) describes influence as “getting [people] to do things they would oth- erwise not do,” (p. 26) which can be achieved through a variety of different strategies. Either way, power refers to potential, whereas influence refers to actual ability.

Oftentimes the idea of power has a negative connotation; however, without power, organizations could not meet their goals (Bennis, 2004). Leaders rely on power to direct their followers. We will examine where power comes from, how people gain power, and how people use power. Before continuing, take Assessment 11.1 to identify your sources of power.

Assessment 11.1: Personal Power Profile

Instructions The following is a list of statements that may be used to describe behaviors that supervisors (leaders) in work organizations can direct toward their subordinates (followers). First, carefully read each descriptive statement, thinking in terms of how you prefer to influence others. Mark the number that most closely represents how you feel.

To influence others, I would prefer to:

Strongly disagree Disagree

Slightly disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Slightly agree Agree

Strongly agree

1. Increase their pay level

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Make them feel valued

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Give undesirable job assignments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Make them feel like I approve of them

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Make them feel that they have commitments to meet

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Make them feel personally accepted

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Make them feel important

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Give them good technical suggestions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(continued)

277

Section 11.1 What Is Power? What Are the Sources of Power in Organizations?

9. Make the work difficult for them

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Share my experience or training

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. Make things unpleasant here 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. Make being at work distasteful

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Influence their getting a pay increase

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. Make them feel like they should satisfy their job requirements

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. Provide them with sound job-related advice

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Provide them with special benefits

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. Influence their getting a promotion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. Give them the feeling that they have responsibilities to fulfill

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. Provide them with needed technical knowledge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. Make them recognize that they have tasks to accomplish

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scoring Using the following grid, insert your scores for the 20 questions. For reward power, sum your responses to items 1, 13, 16, and 17 and divide by 4. For coercive power, sum your responses to items 3, 9, 11, and 12 and divide by 4. For legitimate power, sum your responses to questions 5, 14, 18, and 20 and divide by 4. For referent power, sum your responses to questions 2, 4, 6, and 7 and divide by 4. For expert power, sum your responses to questions 8, 10, 15, and 19 and divide by 4.

(continued)

Assessment 11.1: Personal Power Profile (continued )

278

Section 11.1 What Is Power? What Are the Sources of Power in Organizations?

Assessment 11.1: Personal Power Profile (continued )

Reward Coercive Legitimate Referent Expert 1. _______ 3. _______ 5. _______ 2. _______ 8. _______ 13. _______ 9. _______ 14. _______ 4. _______ 10. _______ 16. _______ 11. _______ 18. _______ 6. _______ 15. _______ 17. _______ 12. _______ 20. _______ 7. _______ 19. _______ Total: _______ Total: _______ Total: _______ Total: _______ Total: _______ Divide by 4:

_______ Divide by 4:

_______

Interpretation A high score (6 or greater) on any of the five dimensions of power implies that you prefer to influence others by employing that particular form of power. A low score (2 or less) implies that you prefer not to employ that particular form of power to influence others. These scores represent your power profile. Your overall power profile is not reflected by the simple sum of each of the five sources. Instead, some combinations of power are synergistic in nature— they are greater than the sum of their parts. For example, referent power tends to magnify the impact of other power sources because these other influence attempts are coming from a respected person. Reward power often increases the impact of referent power, because people generally tend to like those who give them things that they desire. Some power combinations tend to produce the opposite of synergistic effects, such that the total is less than the sum of the parts. Power dilution frequently accompanies the use of (or threatened use of ) coercive power. Source: Modified version of Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 561–567. Copyright 1989, American Psychological Association, adapted and printed with permission.

In an organization, a leader or manager assigns projects to employees with the reasonable expectation that the work will be completed. This is because the manager has position power over the employee, or the potential to influence that employee. The manager does not need to exert this influence every time a project or task is assigned because both parties have an implicit understanding of the manager’s power.

Power is often broken down according to source: Does this potential to influence come from an individual or from the organization (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1988)?

Heimans and Timms (2014) suggest breaking down power with the concepts of “old power” and “new power.” Old power is highly exclusive, collected and held onto, and leader-driven. Heimans and Timms describe it as being like a “currency.” New power, on the other hand, is open to many, inclusive, coordinated by peers, and distributed out to others. While old power is “hoarded,” new power tends to be “channeled,” almost like electricity. Old power is also more effective with consumption settings, because those that have more ownership have more power. One example of old power would be Apple, because their business focuses on consumption, and they try to hold onto their highly exclusive and powerful business. As con- sumption is changing in the world today to sharing and experiencing, new power is becoming

279

Section 11.2 Organizational Politics

more effective. An example of new power would be LinkedIn® because its broad community of professionals derive value from creating connections with each other.

Uber is another example of new power. The ride-sharing company allows for the power to be spread out, allowing many people to participate as drivers and passengers. However, the “old power” taxi drivers are unhappy with this new player in the market. It will be interesting to see if the old power or the new power wins (Heimans & Timms, 2014). It may also be that this new form of power integrates as well as challenges the existing values and organizational forms. Soft power remains a useful concept, suggesting that a leader’s use of culture, val- ues, and personal characteristics is an important influencing source for organizational goal attainment.

Power can also be described according to method. “Hard power” uses coercion or inducement, whereas “soft power” relies on personal or relational power to get others to do what you want them to do (Nye, 2004). Nayar (2011) believes that because of their negotiation skills, women are more effective than men at using soft power. Nye (2004) described soft power as “the abil- ity to obtain what one wants through co-option and attraction. It can be contrasted with ‘hard power’, that is the use of coercion and payment” (2004, p. 169). The sources of soft power are a leader’s values, culture, policies, and institu- tions (Nye, 2008). Nye argued that soft power had the ability to attract attention, which can also lead to compliance and acquiescence on the part of others. Some have suggested that former President George W. Bush used soft power in his threat or admonition on global terrorism, “You are either with us or against us.” Critics argued this was not only soft power, because Bush would probably have backed up his words. Others have argued that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin used soft power by manufac- turing myths of invincibility and inevitability to attract followers to join their causes.

Coutu (2008) argued that neither soft power nor hard power is sufficient in all situations, and that power should also be “smart.” Smart power is a mix of both soft and hard power, and it is smart because soft or hard power aspects are chosen based on the situation, thus having the best of both types of power.

11.2 Organizational Politics The sources of power we have described show that power can stem from the organization or from individual ability or connections. These are not necessarily preordained; individu- als can take steps to actively gain power. Organizational politics is the way individuals or groups attempt to obtain and use power. Organizational politics are unavoidable (Marcus,

Science and Society/Science and Society/Thinkstock Some say that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin used soft power by manufacturing myths of invincibility.

280

Section 11.2 Organizational Politics

2015). Instead of trying to avoid politics, professionals can learn to constructively use dif- ferent sources of power to enhance job performance and their careers. Power and influence constantly change throughout the organization, and politics provides opportunities to net- work socially, get work done, and enhance exchanges (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012). It should be noted that political behavior is not necessarily bad or dysfunctional. Politics, for example, can emerge from any number of sources in an organization: Office politics can arise from unstructured rules and regulations that leave room for interpretation, competition, rivalry, and conflict over disagreements. Some scholars suggest that politics should be taught, not avoided (Pfeffer, 2011).

Organizational politics is rooted in other motivations in addition to seeking advancement, such as distrust of the formal, merit-based system; environmental instability; and other perceived threats. During an economic downturn, people fear losing their jobs, especially if cuts are announced, and they try to make their positions more secure any way that they can. Sometimes this is through allying themselves with powerful people or through self-promotion. Others try to cover lack of confidence or actual lack of knowledge through politics. Some people simply engage in politics because they enjoy it and perceive it as a game.

Marcus (2013) states that organizational politics can fluctuate, especially during times of change within the organization. He proposes 10 steps to manage organizational politics:

1. Notice who has power and influence. 2. Be aware of the people that control organizational resources. 3. Know your stakeholders. 4. Create a network of allies across the organization. 5. Communicate how your work is essential to the organization. 6. Know different strategies for influencing others in a way that adds to your

credibility. 7. Have a mentor. 8. Network and build relationships. 9. Know the dynamics of the organization and how power changes according to differ-

ent situations. 10. Understand the motivations and interests of others.

These 10 steps allow for the awareness of politics in an organization, and allow individuals to use politics in a constructive and helpful way.

Power can be accumulated through either positive or negative methods. Although negative methods may work in the short-term, positive strategies help foster an open and collabora- tive culture, which benefits the organization in the long-term.

Methods of Gaining Power Two basic principles apply to gaining power through politics: collecting resources and controlling access points. Resources can include anything from a powerful network of con- tacts to expertise in a particular field, whereas access can be to powerful people or to information. Access points are means, ways, and the ability to get in touch with important

281

Section 11.2 Organizational Politics

and influential people and executives. The methods of gaining power can be described by the acronym NEAR: Individuals can gain power using a network, expertise, access, and reciprocity.

Networking A strong network offers a great deal of power to an individual; networks can include people from within the organization and external consultants. Having allies helps propel new initia- tives, and having external validation from a consultant can lend greater credibility, so one can gain power by consciously extending a professional network (Andruss, 2013; Baer, 2012). Today, social networking tools such as Facebook and LinkedIn offer new networking career opportunities, so it is possible to connect with a diverse group of professionals across indus- tries and levels of management. This can help in searching for a job, identifying partners for collaboration, or even learning about competitors within the industry.

When you are at a networking event and first meet someone, there are certain behaviors that could ruin the chance of adding that person to your network (Weingarten, 2015). Today, with the ubiquitous availability of technology, it is especially important to put cell phones and other devices away when networking, as it suggests that you are not fully pay- ing attention.

More traditional advice when actively networking is to make sure to have a solid hand- shake with a firm grip. Your handshake is often the first impression someone has of you. It is also important (after putting devices away) to pay attention to what others are saying by staying engaged in the conversation and showing attentiveness. The pace of interaction should not be overly rushed, as this would not show engagement in the conversation. It is also important to do your research prior to an event, in order to be prepared in knowing about relevant people and organizations you are discussing. This leads to a more relaxed conversation because you will be on a more equal playing ground. Not being prepared may cause discomfort and detract from your connection with influential individuals whom you wish to influence. Although technology has been changing the game for networking, these basics are still important.

Melé (2009) suggests three categories of networking, based on Aristotle’s types of friend- ships. Utilitarian networking focuses mostly on economic benefit and gaining power. An example of this type of networking would be networking (or advertising) to current custom- ers in order to maintain their loyalty, because it is cheaper to keep a current customer than it is to get a new customer. Emotional networking focuses on feelings, relationships, and the desire to be a part of a network. Virtuous networking focuses on morals that are not only in the end result, but also in the means to that end. This type of networking focuses more on the needs of others.

Melé (2009) also identifies six common networking practices that are of questionable ethics:

1. Acting in bad faith or taking advantage of trust. 2. Taking advantage of opportunities. 3. Abusing or misusing power. 4. Cronyism—giving people more power because you know them, not because

of ability.

282

Section 11.2 Organizational Politics

5. Using networking as a facilitator of bribery. 6. Using networking to cooperate with wrongful acts.

Expertise Another method of gaining political power is through building and demonstrating expertise. Part of this development may come from shadowing senior, experienced members on the team and learning their approaches or listening as they develop solutions to problems. Formal channels such as professional development or coursework and advanced degrees are other possibilities, and often certain positions or pay scales are open only to candidates who meet minimum educa- tional requirements. Simply learning new skills is not enough, though; managers and coworkers need to see application of this knowledge in order for it to be a source of power.

Access Controlling who can access certain people and certain information also lends power because it produces a dependent relationship. Oftentimes an executive assistant may wield a great deal of power through managing a CEO’s calendar and determining who has access and how quickly. Access to information works in a similar way. A team that depends on another for information can be influenced by it because of this unidirectional movement.

Reciprocity A final way of consolidating power is by building relationships of reciprocity. Asking someone for immediate help in exchange for later assistance is a way of forming a mutually beneficial alliance. One can also earn a future favor by agreeing to a new initiative when it is introduced, before others agree to it. Even if the relationship is not explicitly reciprocal, goodwill earned through supporting another will oftentimes be repaid. This does not mean backing every pro- posal indiscriminately, but if an idea seems straightforward and reasonable, speaking first can create an implicit reciprocity. Braverman and Lovegrove (2008) describe this reciprocity in terms of support. In order to receive support (for a project, etc.) it is important to give sup- port through listening. If others feel that their ideas and concerns are being listened to and taken into account, they are more likely to be supportive in return.

Building Coalitions Related to the process of creating reciprocity to gain power, is building coalitions, that is, identifying and mobilizing individuals who share your interests in order to obtain unmet needs and goals. Industry and government leaders not only build and use coalitions for their political ends, but they also use a more institutionalized form of coalitions—profes- sional lobbying groups. Coalitions and lobbies socialize, politic, and network informally and formally to make deals, agreements, and strategies to influence and meet goals. A caveat about coalitional activities relates to the ethics of how far some coalitions and indi- vidual members will go to stay legal and ethical. Using an “ends justifies the means” ethic, as we discussed in Chapter 2, can lead to bribery, lying, and other ways of hurting individu- als and institutions. The now classic business cases in the 2000s of Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling,

283

Section 11.2 Organizational Politics

Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski, Bernard Madoff of Madoff Investment Securities, and other infa- mous company CEOs—some of whom are still in prison—illustrate this caveat.

Leaders benefit from cultivating multiple sources of power, so that when it is time to imple- ment a change, there are multiple ways of influencing followers. Networking and developing expertise always help in the long-term, and these two methods of gaining power can grow continuously. Access and reciprocity are more specific, situational sources of power and can- not be developed as easily, but they can be important sources of power. Take an online quiz (http://www.theladders.com/career-advice/networking-skills-test) to gain a sense of your networking skills.

Other Skills for Gaining Power: Negotiating and Coalition Building The methods we have described thus far hint at the most important basic political skill that a leader must possess: the ability to work with others (Oh, Chung, & Labianca, 2004). Although leadership skills can change based on the level of the leader and the specific circumstance, there are leadership skills that have been found (Zenger & Folkman, 2014) to always be important. The first skill (inspiring and motivating others) is related to working with others. If leaders are unable to inspire and motivate, they are most likely not successful at working with others. Other important capacities and skills include having and showing high integrity and honesty (Pitesa & Thau, 2013), problem solving, ability to achieve results, communica- tion, collaboration, building relationships, as well as others. While the importance of these skills can change from time to time, leaders at all levels must realize that these skills are important for them to be successful.

Whatever personal feelings may come into play, it is important to be able to establish and work toward a common goal. Business is a human endeavor, and decisions are often made due to politics rather than quantitative data (Ireland & Miller, 2004). Although expertise often provides access into entry levels of management, individuals must be able to manage relationships to be promoted or gain power (Tharenou, 2001; Zenger & Folkman, 2014). In organizational politics, the ability to work with others can be more specifically referred to in various forms as networking, coalition building, co-optation, or negotiation.

As discussed, a strong network is a method of gaining power, providing power within the organization, and amplifying social status. Networking, or the development of relationships for purposes beyond the personal (Barney, 2004), is how that network is created. Networking does not necessarily mean making a number of friends: Although a professional relationship should be friendly, it does not necessarily constitute a friendship. Networking involves con- necting with others, learning about what they do and what their skills are, sharing relevant information about yourself, and understanding how you can help one another. Although some people appear to have a natural gift for networking, it is a skill that can be developed and prac- ticed. If you find yourself struggling, do not be discouraged; even the most skilled networkers encounter challenges (Gitomer, 2002). Some tips on networking include joining networking groups in your community or nearby city that have influential people; starting a networking group in your community or organization; joining a trade or professional association that

http://www.theladders.com/career-advice/networking-skills-test%20to%20gain%20a%20sense%20of%20your%20networking%20skills

284

Section 11.2 Organizational Politics

interests you; and finding a mentor who is an influential person and may be interested in advising you.

Coalition building is another important skill for a leader to possess. Although reciprocity cre- ates a future obligation, a coalition (or alliance) lets each group achieve an immediate goal if they work together (Pickett & Kennedy, 2004). Coalition building usually starts with finding people who have the same interests, goals, and objectives as you with regard to a particular subject or topic. Coalition building involves some of the same skills as networking, only here you are looking to align, join, or sign up with others who have like interests or a common cause. Building alliances is not only important among employees within an organization, but it is important to build alliances among organizations in order to gain competitive advan- tages. However, McKinsey & Company found that alliances between organizations are likely to fail half of the time (Kaplan, Norton, & Rugelsjoen, 2010). Dennis Goin (2012) suggests three tips for keeping a coalition together: continuous communication between leaders and employees, cross-train between older and newer coalition members to promote teamwork and work ethic, and show people how their work is important, even if they are no longer a part of the group.

Co-optation is another effective political skill. Here a potential competitor becomes an ally within a coalition (Gimeno, 2004), so an adversarial relationship transforms into a mutually

beneficial alliance. Baur and Schmitz (2012) use Trumpy’s (2008) definition of co- optation, stating that it is the ability for an organization to “bring the interests of a chal- lenging group into alignment with its own goals” (p. 480).

Former PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi earned her position through this technique. In 2006 she was one of two can- didates in line to succeed for- mer CEO Steven Reinemund. As soon as she heard that she was a finalist, she flew to meet her competitor face- to-face. Instead of becoming rivals with her coworker, Nooyi offered him compen-

sation similar to her salary and a position close to hers if she got the position. Through co-optation, she became the CEO and gained a powerful ally (Useem, 2008).

Negotiation is a discussion aimed at reaching an agreement. For example, during the hiring process, a prospective employee may want to increase the starting salary while the organiza- tion is trying to limit costs. Each side would like the hire to take place, but both are weighing costs and benefits. By nature, the two sides have different goals; in order to succeed, they must find common ground. The key to good negotiation is finding a way for all parties to win

Cultura Limited / Cultura Limited/Superstock In discussions, it is important to listen to the other party. Speaking gives information to the other party, while listening and asking questions allows one to receive information.

285

Step (1) Planning Step (2) Discussion Step (3/4) Outcome

Step (3) Postponement

Section 11.2 Organizational Politics

rather than treating the discussion as a competitive situation where a win for one person translates into a loss for another (Global Knowledge, 2008).

Jensen (2014) describes this switch from an “opposing parties” approach to a “business part- ners” approach where the focus switches from self-serving to group-service, where the goal is to maximize the benefit of both parties, instead of just one. This partnership approach to negotiation helps build trust that leads to trust down the road.

There are two types of negotiation: integrative negotiation and distributive negotiation (“Negotiation Types,” n.d.). Integrative negotiation is a type of negotiation where the goal is to create a “win-win” situation. In other words, negotiations are made so that all parties involved benefit. This is a very popular and desirable form of negotiation. The following steps, adapted from Fisher and Ury (n.d.), and Malhotra and Bazerman (2007), are helpful for ensur- ing that integrative negotiation is successful:

1. Understand the underlying interest and motivation for what the other party wants and why.

2. Listen, and be aware of constraints so that solutions to the constraints can be explored.

3. Use hurdles as an opportunity to grow. 4. Establish a common ground. 5. Focus on the problem at hand instead of trying to discredit the other party.

Distributive negotiation, on the other hand, is a type of negotiation where “win-lose” situa- tions arise. In this type of negotiation, one party tries to “win,” or benefit, as much as possible, taking away from the benefit from the other party or parties.

Negotiation involves three steps, sometimes four: forming a plan, discussion, postponement if necessary, and outcome (Lussier, 2004). (See Figure 11.1.)

Figure 11.1: Negotiation steps

Step (1) Planning Step (2) Discussion Step (3/4) Outcome

Step (3) Postponement

The first step—planning—is extremely important. It involves both understanding the stakes and setting limits. You should know what the other parties want, and where might they be willing to bend. The more research and thought that goes into the other party’s goals and potential areas of compromise, the greater the chances of a successful negotiation (Flory, 2004). Setting limits in advance helps all parties identify areas where they will not compro- mise. What minimum offer is acceptable? What is the ideal result? What would make a good opening proposal?

286

Section 11.2 Organizational Politics

How badly each side needs to reach an agreement influences the risk each takes. In a used- car sale, the buyer and the seller have different reasons for entering the transaction, and these reasons affect negotiation. If the seller is moving abroad and needs to get rid of the car soon, he or she will want to reach an agreement quickly and may be willing to take less than the target price. If the seller has just received a raise and would like to upgrade to a new car, there is less urgency to sell because the time constraint is gone. Understanding the seller’s situation would make it easier to predict his or her behavior and willingness to compromise. Likewise, it would help the seller to understand the buyer’s motivation and stakes. The buyer may need a reasonably priced car immediately and may be willing to spend a little extra for the convenience of a simple transaction without having to pay full price for a new car. In this instance, the seller may receive the asking price rather than the lower target price.

In the negotiation discussion, one of the most important parts is listening to the other party. Speaking gives information to the other party, while listening and asking questions allows you to receive information. This enables you to find out what the other party actually wants from the outcome, which can help frame the discussion to your advantage. Trust is also an important factor in reaching an agreement, as each side needs to believe the other will adhere to the compromise (Sapanto & Chen, 2004).

There are three types of relationships with trust: when trust is “likely,” “possible,” and “not possible” (Gunia, Brett, & Nandkeolyar, 2012). Trust is more likely when you are likeable, build the relationship, are understanding of other perspectives, and realize common ground. When trust is possible, it is also important to realize common ground, but this time also focus on what you are trying to avoid or go against. It is also important to look at the goal of the relationship, and to seek the help of a mediator if needed. When trust is not possible, it is still possible to be successful in negotiation. It may be necessary to make inferences about the priorities about the other party. These types of relations should be more focused on recipro- cation, and using data support and logic. These strategies make it possible to be successful in negotiation for all levels of trust.

With increased trust, Michael Useem argues that there is more room for action, and actions are not met with as many questions and objections (Javetski, 2012). Because others have more trust, they believe the action will be successful or helpful without knowing all of the details.

Both parties may encounter sticking points during discussion, even when both go in intend- ing to reach an agreement. In that case, it helps to think creatively and find ways to expand the negotiation. Negotiation can be viewed as an attempt to allocate limited resources, and one way of addressing this challenge is to increase the resources under discussion. Another method is to create new options. For example, when establishing a new business partner- ship, each partner brings assets to the table: finances, time, or whatever each person can contribute. If partners disagree on how to divide profit, what else could become part of the discussion? Perhaps the profit-sharing model could change over time so that the distribution of profit becomes more equitable once the initial financial investment has been recouped. Or perhaps the partner donating time might be willing to take a smaller share of profits in exchange for a higher salary.

287

Section 11.3 Influencing Tactics

Ultimately, negotiation is relationship building, and the best way to enter a professional rela- tionship is to understand how each party can benefit the other. A good negotiator highlights the benefits of the proposal instead of constantly trying to make demands. For example, if the car seller mentions an upcoming move abroad, the buyer can use this in negotiation by touting the benefits of an immediate sale: The seller will have one less thing to think about before leaving the country. Keeping the focus on the seller’s needs in this case reframes the negotiation from a discussion about price to one about the seller’s convenience. Often, it helps to let the other party begin negotiations, to understand how they are framing the discussion before responding.

However, sometimes the only way through a stalled discussion is to postpone it. This provides time to think about the other party’s offers and concerns and to reevaluate. Once each side has time to think over terms, reassess limits and willingness to compromise, and possibly devise new options, everyone can return to the table and hopefully reach an agreement. If no agreement can be reached, it is better to walk away than to yield on predetermined lower limits.

Afterward, it is always helpful to do a postmortem on the negotiation, especially if it failed. Is there room for improvement next time? Was the initial proposal too close to the target, leav- ing little room for movement, or was it so far from the mark that the other party did not know where to begin the discussion? Like networking, negotiation skills can be developed through planning and, most of all, experience and reflection.

11.3 Influencing Tactics Power is the ability of an individual or group to influence another or others to do some- thing they would not necessarily do (Dahl, 1957). Power is used through influence and politics (Hitchner, 1992), and is usually associated with authority to exercise influence. Influence, on the other hand, is a person’s effect on the character, attitudes, values, or behaviors of others. “Power is the capacity to cause a change in a person, influence may be thought of as the degree of actual change” (Daft, 2016, p. 536). At the same time, power is used to influence, and influence can lead to uses of power to achieve certain ends. Some of the most influential historical leaders, who had no formal position authority, were Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Ghandi. And some of the great political leaders, such as Lincoln, the Roosevelts, John F. Kennedy, Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher, who had position power were also highly influential.

Leaders, by virtue of their positions, have at least some capacity to exert influence through their legitimate power, which leads to ethical questions: How should the leader exert power? Are some methods more appropriate than others? What are the limits? Leaders can choose to be honest to their followers or to influence them through dishonesty, just as they can decide on the abrasiveness of their approach.

The fundamental question for leaders to consider is whether the ends justify the means. Does it simply matter that a follower is compliant, or do the follower’s buy-in and commitment matter? How do influencing tactics affect later requests and relationships?

288

Section 11.3 Influencing Tactics

A strategic leader will choose influencing tactics by beginning with low-risk, positive, less abra- sive methods. This may be enough to achieve the intended goal, but if not, the leader can choose to escalate the situation with a more abrasive or higher-cost influencing tactic. For example, when attempting to imple- ment an organizational change, an opening tactic may be to provide a logical explanation for the change to employees, which may persuade fol- lowers to adopt the change of their own volition, perhaps out of under- standing, empathy, or emotion. Coer-

cive tactics—“Change or your position is at risk”—are a less effective initial approach (Byrnes & Kiley, 2007). Although they may secure obedience through fear, the relation- ship becomes adversarial. Tactics also vary depending on directionality: whether a leader is influencing a follower or an employee is influencing a manager. When appealing in an upward direction (follower to leader), logic is far more likely to work than coercion, as a follower will likely not have the organizational power to follow through.

Beyond facilitating the achievement of immediate goals, the types of tactics employed by leaders determine management style and affect organizational culture. Positive methods demonstrate certain values and set expectations for employee behavior, whereas negative tactics create an entirely different environment. Leaders must pay attention to the tone they set because followers will use them as models for their own behavior, affecting organizational culture and values.

Although relationship and trust building takes time, the results of positive, honest tactics are almost always preferable to the outcomes of coercion, in terms of both the specific leader– follower relationship and the overall success and health of the organization. A strategic leader guides an organization toward achieving an ideal vision, and this role requires trust in both the leader and the vision. Harsh tactics applied in the name of vision tarnish that ultimate goal and break down relationships within the organization.

Richard Edelman argues that the CEO should really be the “chief engagement officer,” and focus more on listening to the community, building relationships, and engaging in practices with integrity (Kirkland, 2014). This will not only increase transparency between the CEO and the community, but also within the organization itself. Mikes, Hall, & Millo (2013) suggest four types of “influential experts”:

1. Compliance champions are influencers that only focus on regulation and rules, ensuring that they are followed and enforced. As a result, these influencers do not change the organization.

2. Technical champions come up with tools that can be used by organizations, but these people are not completely necessary to the organization—just their tools. One example of this would be consultants.

Fuse/Thinkstock Although coercive tactics may secure obedience through fear, they are not effective in the long run.

289

Section 11.3 Influencing Tactics

3. Business partners are more valuable to the organization because they focus on analysis and interpretation, which makes them hard to replace.

4. Engaged toolmakers are the most important influential experts because they not only develop tools to be used in an organization, but they also analyze and inter- pret. These engaged toolmakers simplify ideas, persuade, and search for new opportunities.

Constructive Tactics Depending on the situation, leaders can apply different positive influencing tactics, which are described here.

Alignment One way of influencing followers is showing alignment with overall institutional goals. A stra- tegic leader stays focused on goals, and if an intermediate objective can be cast as a step toward an overarching vision, followers are more likely to act in a committed manner. For example, an organization may use the phrases “cutting edge” or “innovative” in its vision statement. The team leader, then, may suggest changing course in marketing to embrace social media or try something new, which would be in line with the company’s vision and values.

Legitimizing Another influencing tactic is to show how a request falls within the scope of an already legiti- mate position. For example, the manager of the marketing team may ask team members to assess how competitors are using Twitter—even though the company itself is not using social media yet. The marketing manager can legitimize the request by saying it is part of marketing and within his or her authority to make.

Persuasion Rational persuasion involves influencing people through evidence and logic (Yukl & Tracey, 1992). A leader states a goal and then establishes clear steps to move from the current state to that goal. This would include establishing objectives and defining specific activities or tasks that get work done. This plan must be well constructed so that followers can easily understand how their actions will lead to a desired outcome. For example, if a person decides to lose 20 pounds, a specific objective might be changing lunchtime eating habits and a spe- cific activity might be setting a limit of 500 calories for each lunch meal. The ability to create a plan and execute it boosts the leader’s power, which can have a positive impact on later need to influence (Nesler, Aguinis, Quigley, & Tedeschi, 1993).

Deploying Expertise As mentioned previously, one source of leadership power is expertise. This can also be used as an influencing tactic. If an expert makes a recommendation, a follower is more likely

290

Section 11.3 Influencing Tactics

to comply than if another, inexperienced person makes the same suggestion. Involving an outside consultant can serve as a similar tactic. If a leader lacks subject matter expertise, an outside expert can influence followers toward the same objective (Yukl, 1990).

Modeling When encouraging followers to adopt a change, a powerful tactic can be for the leader to model that change first. By showing how one should act and behave, the leader provides a template for others to follow. For example, if the leader announces austerity measures in the company due to tough economic times, one way of influencing followers to accept this change is foregoing bonuses or accepting a salary freeze. By demonstrating personal adherence to the new policy, the leader creates a model for followers to also accept the measures.

Finding Allies Sometimes being a solitary leader is not enough, and exerting influence requires a team. This can happen through reciprocity, coalition building, or simply through goodwill for always being a team player. If a leader has demonstrated an ability to work well on other projects, even without explicit reciprocity, this can influence followers to execute the lead- er’s initiative.

Leveraging Charisma Leaders can also appeal directly to followers and influence them, in part, based on force of personality. A confident, empowered person who proposes a change based on informed and experienced judgment can use charisma to persuade others.

Underlying tactics such as this, Cialdini’s (1993) work on the science behind the prin- ciples of influence has become a classic. Basically, Cialdini argued six principles underlying influence:

1. Reciprocation: “The implication is you have to go first. Give something: give informa- tion, give free samples, give a positive experience to people and they will want to give you something in return” (Polanski, 2012).

2. Social Proof: People will look to see what others, especially peers, are doing when unsure, this will guide their decisions.

3. Commitment and Consistency: People prefer not to back out of deals. They usually follow through on something they have agreed to—verbally or in writing. People generally follow “pre-existing attitudes, values and actions.”

4. Liking: “People prefer to say ‘yes’ to those they know and like,” Cialdini wrote, particularly those who are “physically attractive, similar to themselves, or who give them compliments” (Polanski, 2012).

5. Authority: People generally respect authority, experts, those who have “business titles, impressive clothing, and even driving an expensive, high-performing automo- biles.” Impression management counts when trying to get compliance, “even if their authority is illegitimate.”

291

Section 11.3 Influencing Tactics

6. Scarcity: The less there is of something, the more valuable it is, and the more people want it (p. 134).

Questionable or Unethical Tactics Overall, questionable or unethical tactics are soft, in the form of requests rather than demands, with justifications that appeal to intellect and emotion. On the other side, there are harsh tac- tics that are questionably manipulative and authoritarian, while others are simply unethical, if not illegal.

These methods explicitly aim toward creating discord and instability, essentially applying influence by belittling or misusing others for personal gain. These tactics degrade the leader who employs them.

Machiavellianism Do the ends of influencing methods justify the means? People who score high on Machiavellianism believe that they do. As you may recall from Chapter 1, Machiavellianism refers to gaining and using power without regard to the consequences. High Machs employ whatever means necessary to achieve their goals, whether this means lying or manipulating (Bass, 1990). These tactics can work effectively, producing quick results, but the consequence of followers’ discovering the truth or the manipulation can be irreparably harmed relation- ships and reputations.

Peer Pressure Peer pressure is a less direct and harsh method of Machiavellianism; however, it can also be destructive. Although leaders are not peers, they can apply pressure by saying “Everyone is doing this except for you” in order to gain compliance. Singling someone out as an excep- tion and pressuring him or her to conform is an influencing tactic, but it is a negative one. Peer pres- sure can be seen as a dark version of consensus or team building. Instead of forming a supportive group based on shared values or a common goal, this is a demand for conformity and compliance.

One example of this peer pressure is Boeing’s launch of the 787. In order to maximize return on net assets, Boeing did a lot of outsourcing, which led to a complicated supply chain and less control over quality. As a result, there were battery fires. Boeing felt pressure from Wall Street

Stockbyte/Thinkstock Bribery takes the tactic of rewarding others too far.

292

Section 11.3 Influencing Tactics

to maximize shareholder value, leading them to outsource, which had a negative impact on the quality of the product (Mukunda, 2014).

Ingratiation and Debasement As there are positive personal forms of influence, such as charisma and expertise, there are also negative personal tactics (the dark side of charismatic leadership, discussed in Chapter 2), such as ingratiation and debasement. Ingratiation means trying to win admiration from people you do not like. Instead of drawing someone in through charisma or straightforward friendliness, it is an attempt to win influence through pretense. Debasement is lowering the quality or character of something or someone. As an influencing tactic, it is the opposite of expertise. For example, instead of locating a proper expert to do a job, the leader feigns ignorance to influence another into doing the job. Both tactics depend on dishonesty in the relationships.

Legitimating Instead of using a position to provide influence, legitimating invokes the hierarchy directly by asking someone with more authority to intercede. In an upward appeal, a manager might ask a senior manager or director to intercede in order to influence an employee’s behavior. This is a heavy-handed and abrasive tactic and has the counterproductive effect of proving to both the senior and junior staff involved that the manager lacks power. Although not unethi- cal, it could generate reactive responses leading to harmful effects such as sabotage, getting even, and other vengeful actions.

Bribery involves giving money or gifts, or engaging in otherwise questionable transac- tions, to alter behavior when other legal, more ethical influencing means can produce the same result. An organization offering a sales person incentives or rewards to produce more sales is an ethical transaction; the organization as well as the individual benefit from the transaction. An organization paying off a competitor’s sales person to not perform well is considered bribery, as the actions of this transaction result in damages not only to the productivity of the organization but also to potential clients who might benefit from the good or service.

Divide and Conquer The strategy of divide and conquer is often used in war, so it is an odd tactic to apply within an organization. The objective is to keep individuals separate and prevent them from building coalitions, so that the leader can gain and keep power. Instead of fostering a cooperative, sup- portive environment, this tactic intentionally sows discord within the organization.

Retaliation Retaliation is another oppositional tactic, based on the idea of an eye for an eye. Instead of a pro- ductive reciprocity of paying another back for a favor through future support, retaliation calls for repayment for negative actions. If one party did not support a past initiative, that party will not receive future support. Even worse, the “wronged” party will act against the other party’s future

293

Section 11.3 Influencing Tactics

interests, exacerbating the situation. One method of preventing retaliation is removing competi- tors from the situation, but that is another unethical tactic of gaining influence.

Backstabbing Personal dynamics come into play in unethical behavior through backstabbing as well. Whereas ingratiation is an attempt to gain friendship through pretense, backstabbing goes further in pretending to have a positive relationship and then betraying that association. This may include mocking, spreading rumors, or revealing confidences to inappropriate parties.

Setting Up a Fall Guy Setting up a fall guy is another negative tactic. One person creates a situation in which another will fail, resulting in the first person’s gaining power and influence at the second person’s expense.

Turf Wars Finally, while access can be a source of power, turf wars are the negative counterpart. They can happen through severe micromanagement of resources or prevention of access so that groups must fight for resources. Preventing a team from completing their work is a hard bar- gaining chip, and an unethical one. See “Take the Lead: Leadership, Power, and Influence” to apply these concepts.

Take the Lead Leadership Power and Influence You have just been selected to lead a group of district managers who coordinate your organization’s products for a large territory. Although the group is manageable in size (currently 20 members spread out across 14 states), you see what appears to be an opportunity in the methods they use to manage their own districts.

Each district manager has been with the organization for at least 10 years. In the past, members were allowed to manage their own districts as they saw fit. (After all, the district managers were in direct contact with their customers.) Your new role as leader has been determined to better coordinate such management and put in place a more consistent and stable district-management model (which is to be determined by you).

Based on what you’ve reviewed on leadership power and influence, consider the following questions:

1. How will you express your power and influence over the group? 2. What challenges to your power and influence can you anticipate from the group? 3. Should you consider any ethical concerns with your leadership power and influence? 4. How will you measure your power and influence abilities?

See page the appendix for possible answers.

294

Section 11.4 Outcomes of the Uses of Power

A strategic leader guides the organization according to the big picture, and the steps taken to achieve that goal matter, whether in small settings or in implementation of large-scale organiza- tional change. Establishing a culture of open communication and collaboration through the use of honest, ethical influencing tactics becomes especially important when the organization faces a crisis. A divided, competitive organization is not able to come together in a productive way to solve the problem. Rather, a response requires seamless teamwork and trust in the leaders.

11.4 Outcomes of the Uses of Power As mentioned earlier, leadership power stems from two sources: organizational and personal. When it is applied, responses range from resistance to compliance to commitment. The types of tactics leaders use to influence behavior can generate a wide range of responses, some more desirable than others. Although a harsh tactic may engender rapid execution of a task, it may also generate long-term resistance or resentment.

When a leader exercises power, there are three possible outcomes: commitment, compliance, and resistance. Commitment is the best possible outcome. This occurs when the follower or employee willingly embraces the directive and executes it, usually with a high degree of dili- gence and attention. Compliance occurs when orders are followed simply because they were given by a person with power (Daft, 2016). Demands may not be carried out with enthusiasm or even a great deal of care, but they will be completed. In order for individuals to comply, the request must be given by someone influential, especially if they are not in a direct position of power over the other person (Snell, 2014). Resistance is the least desired outcome, in which the request is not completed. Resistance may include behaviors such as procrastina- tion, excuses for not fulfilling the obligation, or complete refusal (Yukl, 2002).

A current trend in leadership is toward personal rather than organizational power (Bennis, 2004). Relying on hierarchy or rewards and coercion leads to compliance at best and resis- tance at worst. Personal power, however, can inspire the emotional connection needed for a committed response. This is why articulating vision is critical to strategic leadership; it trans- forms disparate sets of duties into a unified cause.

Today there is also a trend toward empowerment, or giving employees more leeway to make decisions rather than managing every aspect of work (Spreitzer, 1995). Empowerment means transferring some power to an employee, which builds both trust in the leader and buy-in from the follower because the employee has a higher stake in the process and the outcome. Like personal power, empowerment invites a committed response from followers, and this trusting relationship can in turn boost the leader’s referent power.

As mentioned in Chapter 10, one of Bob Iger’s first actions at Disney was to switch from a centralized to a decentralized structure and to move decision making into the hands of more people. “You put good people in jobs and give them room to run,” he said. “You involve yourself in a responsible way, but not to the point where you are usurping their authority” (Grover, 2007). This approach of empowerment provided much-needed room for innovation and revi- talized Disney’s creative culture, especially after the company transitioned from the former CEO Eisner who was more aggressive and confrontational in using power, which was a style that had been effective earlier in a different period of growth at Disney (Donlon, 2014).

295

Section 11.5 Managing Conflict

“Why do some leaders use their position to amass personal prestige and resources, and others to benefit the team, the organization, or society?” (p. 17) (Galinsky, Rus, & Lammers, 2011; Thomas, Martin, & Riggio, 2013; Williams, 2014). Based on recent studies, “self- serving leader behavior has been found to be predictable based on the function and nature of power—an essential component of leadership” (p. 2) (Williams, 2014). Williams concludes that

for generally other-oriented individuals, having power actually made them better people than they were before. This suggests that not only may power not always have negative effects, but it may have positive, rather than neu- tral, effects as well. This is good news for organizations and good news for humanity. The reputation of power as a purely malevolent social force appears then to be at least partially undeserved. (Williams, 2014, p. 2).

Grant (2013) cites studies that show that “Everyday, employees make deci- sions about whether to act like givers or like takers. When they act like giv- ers, they contribute to others without seeking anything in return. They might offer assistance, share knowledge, or make valuable introductions. When they act like takers, they try to get other people to serve their ends while carefully guarding their own exper- tise and time.” Organizations win with employees who are “givers” instead of “takers.” Those organizations with higher rates of “givers” had higher unit “profitability, productivity, efficiency, and customer satisfaction, along with lower costs and turnover rates” (2013).

However, givers as well as organizations with higher numbers of givers must take care that personality types of givers do not succumb to three complicating attributes—timidity, avail- ability, and empathy. As Grant notes, “How can they [organizations and givers] avoid creating situations where already-generous people give away too much of their attention while self- ish coworkers feel they have even more license to take? How, in short, can they protect good people from being treated like doormats?” (2013).

11.5 Managing Conflict Conflict is a disagreement or argument over incompatible goals, opinions, principles, or inter- ests between two or more parties. There is functional (positive) and dysfunctional (negative) conflict in organizations. Like politics, conflict is inevitable and even natural in organizational situations where teams and groups influence, communicate, compete, negotiate, and share resources.

Hero Images / Hero Images/Superstock Organizations win with employees who are “givers” instead of “takers.”

296

Section 11.5 Managing Conflict

Types of Conflict Two types of conflict exist in organizations and group situations: functional and dysfunctional (Jehn, 1997). Dysfunctional, or negative, conflict results in situations where arguments and disruptions among competing parties are not easily if ever resolved. Infighting, taking sides, and dissatisfaction result. Functional conflict occurs when disagreements occur but are nego- tiated and managed to the benefit of organizational goals and priorities. Because both types of conflict generally occur in organizations for different reasons, leaders and followers benefit from knowing the causes of conflict, styles of resolving conflict, and methods to use conflict positively and for the benefit of the organization’s legitimate goals.

Besides functional and dysfunctional types of conflict, Jehn (1995) also stated an additional two types of conflict: relationship conflict and task conflict. Relationship conflict occurs when group members have incompatible personality characteristics and traits. Even if only two group members are incompatible, tension can arise within the entire group. Relationship conflict almost always generates issues that can negatively impact a group if not prevented or resolved early on.

In order to maintain relationships and avoid dysfunctional conflict, there are certain steps that can be taken. Coaching group members on skills that they can use with one another, espe- cially skills for when two parties are not compatible, is recommended. Learning and practic- ing collaboration is one such skill. It is important to also build trust through collaboration. Through trust, each individual member feels safe and communicates from a comfort zone with others and the group as a whole. It is also important to maintain ethical practices, such as fairness, acting for the interests of the larger organization and not from individual or coali- tional interests, and treating others as each member wishes to be treated. We will discuss other related skills in this section.

Task conflict occurs when the members of a group disagree with the actions of the group itself. This is less focused on personalities, and more focused on the actions, opinions, and ideas between members. An example of task conflict arises when a new group member sug- gests, or argues for, a different procedure or method for performing a task, against the group’s traditional working methods. Task conflict can also occur when procedures are nonroutine, and tend to widely vary. Negative task conflict is then likely to occur. Task conflict in non- routine situations can actually help a group if members are willing to openly debate ways to perform a task in a constructive manner.

To avoid task conflict, it is important to focus on the goal of the task, stay organized and plan ahead, ensure all group members receive proper training, and keep all group members invested in the task.

Causes of Conflict There are different causes of conflict in organizations (Terry, 1996), other than the incom- patibility of personalities mentioned earlier. Some of the most common causes of conflict include competition for limited resources, differences in goals, organizational structural dif- ferences (departments and functions), and roles and responsibilities among different profes- sionals. When organizations lack funds, equipment, and other means to enable professionals

297

Section 11.5 Managing Conflict

and teams to perform, conflict will occur. Goal differences occur when groups among differ- ent organizational departments, divisions, and work units whose professionals have different time horizons for accomplishing goals, are rewarded differently, and have different skills and training.

For example, research and development (R&D) departments usually have longer time hori- zons to create and develop new products and services, while production departments build and construct products that work under tight time pressures. Production professionals are generally doers who have been technically trained while R&D professionals are sometimes PhDs with scientific backgrounds who are paid to invent and create. When professionals from sales, marketing, accounting, and quality control are brought together with R&D and produc- tion into a single team with a project goal and deadlines, you can see how natural conflict occurs and can become dysfunctional without the coordination, communication, and control of leaders and managers. Being aware of such structural and personality differences is a first step toward preventing and managing conflicts.

Conflict Management Styles There are five classic conflict management styles (Thomas, 1976; Thomas & Kilmann, 1978) that have been revised, reframed, and enhanced, but still retain the basic meaning of the origi- nal authors. Knowing the different styles, the logic of how each functions, and which style(s) best characterizes your method of addressing conflict provides another valuable resource for effective leadership and management. Refer to Figure 11.1, and take Assessment 11.2 before reading the styles.

Assessment 11.2 Managing Conflict Styles

Circle the number that indicates how well these statements describe you Rarely Always

1. If someone disagrees with me, I vigorously defend my side of the issue…

1 2 3 4 5

2. I go along with suggestions from coworkers, even if I don’t agree with them…

1 2 3 4 5

3. I give and take so that a compromise can be reached…

1 2 3 4 5

4. I keep my opinions to myself rather than openly disagree with people…

1 2 3 4 5

5. In disagreements or negotiations, I try to find the best possible solutions for both sides by sharing information…

1 2 3 4 5

(continued)

298

Section 11.5 Managing Conflict

Circle the number that indicates how well these statements describe you Rarely Always 6. I try to reach a middle ground in

disputes with other people… 1 2 3 4 5

7. I accommodate the wishes of people who have different points of view than my own…

1 2 3 4 5

8. I avoid openly debating issues where there is disagreement …

1 2 3 4 5

9. In negotiations, I hold on to my position rather than give in …

1 2 3 4 5

10. I try to solve conflicts by finding solutions that benefit both me and the other person…

1 2 3 4 5

11. I let coworkers have their way rather than jeopardize our relationship…

1 2 3 4 5

12. I try to win my position in a discussion…

1 2 3 4 5

13. I like to investigate conflicts with coworkers so that we can discover solutions that benefit both of us…

1 2 3 4 5

14. I believe that it is not worth the time and trouble discussing my differences of opinion with other people…

1 2 3 4 5

15. To reach an agreement, I give up some things in exchange for others…

1 2 3 4 5

Scoring Write the scores circled for each item on the appropriate line below (statement numbers are in the brackets), and add up each scale. Higher scores indicate that you are stronger on that conflict management style.

Dominate/Compete (1).......... + (9)........... + (12)......... =............

Accommodate (2) .......... + (7) .......... + (11) .......... =............

Negotiate/Compromise (3) .......... + (6) .......... + (15) .......... =............

Avoid (4) .......... + (8) .......... + (14) .......... =............

Collaborate (5) .......... + (10) ..........+ (13) .......... =............ Source: Originally adapted from M. A. Rahim, (1993). A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict, Academy of Management Journal 26, June , pp. 368-376. Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management.

Assessment 11.2 Managing Conflict Styles (continued )

299

Section 11.5 Managing Conflict

Avoidance A person who realizes that there is a conflict but does not want the conflict to escalate, and does not wish, or is unable, to act to prevent or resolve the conflict will simply ignore the conflict. This style is passive and indicates that although a relationship conflict may not arise, neither is the conflict necessarily resolved. This style can work when the other individual(s) is knowledgeable and can solve the problem at hand. However, a possible limitation is this style may not help you obtain your desired goals.

Accommodation A person using this style does not ignore the conflict, but cooperates with the desire of the other party. This also is a somewhat passive style and the person may not benefit from responding accordingly but relationships can be maintained.

Competition/Domination Using force, or having a competitive mind-set, can lead to relationship conflicts. Unlike accommodation and avoidance which are more passive, this conflict style is aggressive, which may create a benefit for the aggressor, but the benefit may also be taken away from the other party. As a win or lose approach, you may not succeed at achieving your goal. This approach is suggested with emergencies under conditions of high time pressure when decisions must be made and when you inform others about your using this approach to gain support if possible.

Negotiation/Compromise Although competition or domination focuses on winning and losing, there is no winning or losing in negotiation and compromise. (It usually is a lose–lose result because both or all parties do not get all or exactly what they want.) This style focuses on maximizing the benefit for all parties involved through a give-and-take method. This style may lead to a task conflict because both parties may start off with different end goals in mind. In order for this style to be effective, the parties must be aware of differences in goals. This style is recommended when a temporary resolution may work and each party has goals that are of equal importance. It is best to use collaboration if possible to arrive at a more desirable solution.

Collaboration Collaboration, like negotiation, has neither a winner nor a loser. However, both parties decide upon the end goal and work together toward a win–win solution. Instead of a give- and-take method, the parties work together towards a single goal in order to maximize the benefit for all involved. This style is recommended for complex issues where trust, the desired skills for reaching consensus, and sufficient time is allotted for the process to occur are required.

300

Concerned with needs of others

Not concerned with needs of others

Concerned with needs

of all

Concerned with own

needs

Accomodate Passive, give benefit to other party.

Collaborate Work together, everyone wins.

Avoid Passive, pretend conflict does not exist

Compete/Dominate Aggressive, need

to win.

Negotiate/Compromise No winning or losing,

Give-and-take.

Summary & Resources

Figure 11.2: Styles of managing conflict

Based on Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. M. Dunnett (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Steps Toward Resolving Conflicts For those conflicts when avoiding, competing, and accommodation do not work, other steps can be taken to address complex, long-term issues and problems. Integrative and distributive negotiation models were discussed earlier and apply here. Collaboration requires an integra- tive negotiation approach where some of the other conflict approaches resemble distributive approaches. Other general steps toward resolving conflicts (Robbins, 1974) include meet- ing face-to-face to identify the problems and then openly discussing—and brainstorming— solution scenarios. Jointly creating a superordinate goal (a larger goal, but perhaps incor- porates goals of those of the parties involved) that requires the cooperation can be helpful. Finding ways to increase resources also may help ease tension and pave ways to arrive at win– win solutions. Including objective outside observers with different, unbiased perspectives can also reduce tension and pressures that lead to more open discussions. Having a discussion to agree to be open-minded and communicating with the intent to resolve differing issues can also provide an environment for change.

For larger, very complex issues in which conflict involves many more stakeholders and employees, leaders and managers may consider larger systems approaches that involve strat- egy, reorganization, and policy changes. These are the topics of the next chapter.

Summary & Resources

Chapter Summary Leaders exert power and influence to achieve organizational goals. Identifying and studying the sources and types of power and influence they effectively use informs us of how we also as followers and leaders can effect change by mobilizing people and resources to get things done. Because leadership involves people, processes, and systems, different types of power and influence are needed depending on the situation.

Concerned with needs of others

Not concerned with needs of others

Concerned with needs

of all

Concerned with own

needs

Accomodate Passive, give benefit to other party.

Collaborate Work together, everyone wins.

Avoid Passive, pretend conflict does not exist

Compete/Dominate Aggressive, need

to win.

Negotiate/Compromise No winning or losing,

Give-and-take.

301

Summary & Resources

Leaders need to know how to use soft, hard, and smart power, as well as expert, reward, infor- mational, referent, connection, prestige, and sometimes, coercive power. Leaders must also be involved in knowing how and when to deal with the politics and power in situations. Since politics is a social as well as professional medium of exchange, which involves a natural way of individuals and groups trying to achieve often competing goals, it isn’t by definition bad, unethical, or evil. In fact, we all need to understand and use power and influence construc- tively to not only achieve organizational goals, but also to advance our department’s and team objectives on behalf of the organization.

We also need to use political power ethically to advance our careers. When individuals and groups use power illegally and unethically to pursue their own personal interests over the orga- nization’s, then problems arise. Knowing how, then, to use power and influence legitimately to network, use methods of reciprocity, coalition building, and negotiating is important. Also being aware of illegitimate, illegal, and unethical uses of power by those around us in organizations is also necessary. Conflict like politics in organizations can be both functional and dysfunctional.

Finally, we discussed ways of understanding our’s and others’ conflict management styles and to recognize sources of conflict in order to prevent and deal effectively with dysfunc- tional types of disagreement to prevent unnecessary consequences. As you move toward the completion of this text, you can see how previous chapter concepts, knowledge, and assess- ments inform, interrelate, and integrate an understanding of leadership and the skills you will or already are using as an emerging leader.

Web Resources

Stanley McChrystal on Leadership

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmpIMt95ndU Stanley McChrystal discusses the lessons he learned about leadership during his time in the military.

The Washington Post on Leadership

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership The Washington Post offers articles and analysis on leadership.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Your boss orders you to perform a task that is unethical, and legally question- able. You have a very good relationship with your boss and do not like to reject her requests; you also need this job. What would you do and why?

2. Identify differences between the four types of power. Which source of power do you use most frequently and why? Which types would you feel uncomfortable using? Why? (Return to the assessments you took earlier in the text and see if there are any connections between your responses and your answers to this question.)

3. What type of influence do you think would work best in your work and/or school experience? Explain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmpIMt95ndU

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership

302

4. Describe the differences between power and politics. Under what conditions would you need to be “political” in your work or university experiences? How and why?

5. Describe situations in your work or university life in which conflict occurred. What part of that conflict, if any, was functional? Dysfunctional?

6. What style of conflict resolution did you use in your situations in question 5? What was the result?

7. Describe what type(s) of conflict resolution you believe you would need to use as a leader in an organization and why. What differences would the style(s) you described here be different than the styles you described in question 6?

8. Are you more a “giver” or “taker” as described in this chapter? Explain. What prob- lems have you experienced as a giver or a taker in your current or previous roles at work or in the university?

9. Did your leader(s) in question 8 influence or make a difference in situations that affected you as a giver or taker? Explain.

Key Terms

bribery Unethical and often illegal tactic of offering money or a gift to alter behavior that cannot be obtained through legitimate means.

coercive power Power based on a person’s authority to punish and withhold rewards.

conflict A disagreement or argument over incompatible goals, opinions, principles, or interests between two or more parties. There is functional (positive) and dysfunc- tional (negative) conflict in organizations.

connection power Power that comes from an individual’s network by virtue of relation- ships with powerful people.

debasement Lowering the quality or char- acter of something or someone.

distributive negotiation A type of negoti- ation where “win-lose” situations arise. One party tries to “win,” or benefit, as much as possible, taking away from the benefit from the other party or parties.

divide and conquer Influencing tactic used to keep individuals separate and prevent them from building coalitions, so that the leader or a person can gain and keep power.

empowerment Giving employees more lee- way to make decisions rather than managing every aspect of work; it means transferring some power to an employee, which builds both trust in the leader and buy-in from the follower because the employee has a higher stake in the process and the outcome.

expert power Power based on a person’s experience, knowledge, or expertise.

influence A person’s ability to affect or change the actions, behaviors, and opinions of others in desired ways.

information power A form of power that comes from having access to the informa- tion or informational sources (technical, organizational, personal) that others need to complete their work.

ingratiation Trying to win admiration from people you do not like.

integrative negotiation A type of negotia- tion where the goal is to create a “win-win” situation.

legitimate power Power that comes from the organization; in this form of power, some- one is likely to act upon requests from another because of formal position, hierarchical status, or relationship to the organization.

Summary & Resources

303

Summary & Resources

legitimating Influencing tactic that invokes the hierarchy of an organization directly by asking someone with more authority to inter- cede. In an upward appeal, a manager might ask a senior manager or director to intercede in order to influence an employee’s behavior.

negotiation Discussion aimed at reaching an agreement; the key to good negotiation is finding a way for all parties to win rather than treating the discussion as a competitive situation where a win for one person trans- lates into a loss for another.

network Source of contacts that includes people, organizations, or alliances inside and outside an organization and that offers a source of power through human connections to an individual.

organizational politics Individuals seek- ing their own goals, objectives, and self- interests, many times disregarding the goals of the organization. There are functional and dysfunctional politics in organizations.

position power Using one’s formal position and status in an organization as a source of influence and control.

power The potential to influence others, directed toward reaching a desired set of outcomes.

prestige power Originates from informal status rather than an official position within an organization.

rational persuasion A tactic that involves influencing people through evidence and logic.

reciprocity A source of power that derives from giving and receiving benefits in organi- zational relationships: “I help you, and you help me.”

referent power A form of power based on personality and personal characteristics.

resistance The least desired outcome, in which a request is not completed.

retaliation An oppositional influencing tactic, based on the idea of an eye for an eye; instead of a productive reciprocity of pay- ing another back for a favor through future support, retaliation calls for repayment for negative actions.

reward power A hard form of power; comes from the leader’s ability to reward a follower through raises, bonuses, and other incentives.

turf wars A tactic used by a group or organization that instigates conflict among other groups or organizations in order to protect or gain control over resources and influence; also used to involve a group or organization in a strug- gle over an issue or dispute in order to prevent collaboration and achievement of a common goal.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/individual.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/self-interest.html