On the job, you can expect to devote much of your time to influencing others. Over the course of a day, you may find yourself urging the mail room to ship your package first, asking a subordinate to complete a project on time, convincing a customer to place another order, and persuading your boss to increase the budget for your department. The exercise of influence is not an option in the workplace. We must influence others if we are to fulfill our roles. If we don’t, our work groups and organizations (not to mention our careers) will suffer.

While we don’t have much choice as to whether or not we exert influence, we do have control over how we go about modifying the behaviors of others. These choices will go a long way toward determining the ethical health of our organizations. In this chapter, we’ll address ethical questions that arise when influencing others. We’ll begin with a look at power and then address moral issues related to proactive influence tactics, impression management, deception, emotional labor, and the communication of expectations.

Questions of Power

The exercise of ethical influence is founded on an understanding of power, the capacity to control the behavior of others. Power is the foundation for influence. The greater the power we have, the more likely that others will comply with our wishes no matter what particular strategy we employ. However, to wield power ethically, we need to answer some important questions.

Question 1: Are Some Forms of Power More Ethical Than Others?

Power comes from a variety of sources. The most popular power classification system identifies five power bases: 1

1. Coercive power is based on penalties or punishments—for example, verbal warnings, wage cuts, staffing reductions, and student suspensions.

2. Reward power depends on being able to deliver something of value to others, whether tangible (bonuses, health insurance, grades) or intangible (praise, recognition, cooperation).

3. Legitimate power resides in the position. Supervisors, judges, police officers, and instructors have the right to control our behavior within certain limits. A professor sets the requirements in her course, for example, but has no influence over what we do in our other classes.

4. Expert power, in contrast to legitimate power, is based on the characteristics of the individual regardless of his or her official position. Knowledge, skills, education, and certification all build expert power. As a result, those who are not in positions of authority can be very influential because they possess valued information.

5. 5. Referent (role model) power rests on the admiration one individual has for another. We’re more likely to do favors for a peer we admire or to agree to work over the weekend for a supervisor we respect.

No form of power is inherently immoral. In fact, we need to draw from a variety of power sources. The manager who is appointed to lead a task force is granted legitimate power that enables her to reward or punish. In order to succeed, she’ll also have to demonstrate her knowledge of the topic, skillfully direct the group process, and earn the respect of task force members through hard work and commitment to the group. The effective use of one form of power can increase other power bases. 2 A widely admired employee who demonstrates expertise is more likely to be promoted. Conversely, the boss who has more access to information is better equipped to solve problems and thus will appear more expert. (Complete the Personal Power Profile in Self-Assessment 5.1 to determine how you prefer to influence others.)

Ultimately, the morality of a particular power source depends on the ends or goals that it serves. We need to ask if our exercise of power serves worthy objectives. However, arguing that no form of power is unethical in and of itself should not obscure the fact that some types of power are more likely to be abused. Hard power linked to organizational position (coercive, reward, and legitimate) is more dangerous than soft power linked to the person (expert, referent). Positional power gets immediate results, securing compliance and boosting short-term performance—but at a high cost. The use of legitimate, reward, and coercive power reduces trust and lowers task satisfaction and performance over the long term. 3 Of the three forms of positional power, coercive tactics pose the greatest risk. Extreme coercion can be devastating to individuals, attacking their dignity and value while threatening their mental and physical health.

To sum up, select your power bases carefully. Positional power should be used with caution. Reduce your reliance on authority, reward, and coercion by developing your skills and knowledge while modeling the behaviors you want to see in others. Coercion should only be employed as a last resort. It is best used for preventing and punishing incivility, dishonesty, aggression, discrimination, criminal activity, sexual harassment, and other destructive behaviors.

Self-Assessment 5.1

Personal Power Profile

Instructions

Below is a list of statements that describe possible behaviors of leaders in work organizations toward their followers. Carefully read each statement, thinking about how you prefer to influence others. Mark the number that most closely represents how you feel.

Scoring

Record your responses to the 20 questions in the corresponding numbered blanks below. Total each column, then divide the result by 4 for each of the five types of influence.

Interpretation

A score of 4 or 5 on any of the five dimensions of power indicates that you prefer to influence others by using that particular form of power. A score of 2 or less indicates that you prefer not to employ this particular type of power to influence others. Your power profile is not a simple addition of each of the five sources. Some combinations are more synergistic than the simple sum of their parts. For example, referent power magnifies 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 can give them things. Some power combinations tend to produce the opposite of synergistic effects. Coercive power, for example, often negates the effects of other types of influence.

SOURCE: Modified version of Hinken, T. R., & Schreisheim, 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 © 2016 by the American Psychological Association. Reproduced with permission.

Question 2: Is It Possible to Have Too Much Power?

Concentration of power produces a wide range of unethical behavior, as Britain’s Lord Acton noted in the 1800s. “Power corrupts,” asserted Acton, “and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton could have been commenting on the organizational scandals of our day. In case after case, powerful individuals abused their positions and put their organizations at risk. Enron CEOs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling intimidated employees, making it harder for them to object to the unethical schemes that drove the company into bankruptcy. 4 John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was accused of treating his bosses with respect while bullying subordinates. 5 Richard Scrushy, disgraced former CEO of HealthSouth, berated his management team during weekly staff meetings. 6

Positional power is most susceptible to abuse. Lord Acton probably had this type of control in mind when he noted power’s corrosive effects. History’s most infamous leaders—Nero, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Amin—used their lofty positions to darken the lives of followers through purges, torture, murder, and other means. However, many of these same leaders also misused their personal power. Followers believed that these leaders were endowed with special gifts and looked to them as role models.

There are a number of possible explanations for why unfettered power is so susceptible to misuse. The first ties in with our discussion of the shadow side of the personality in Chapter 2 . Powerful individuals who fail to master their inner monsters are free to project their inner darkness on others. Without checks and balances, they cast deeper and deeper shadows on larger and larger audiences. Second, powerful people are more susceptible to judgment biases. 7 They typically devote little attention to finding out how others think and feel. As a consequence, they are more likely to hold and act on harmful stereotypes, which justify their lofty positions. In addition, they believe they deserve their high status because those who are powerless aren’t as capable as they are. Third, powerful people protect their positions by attacking those they perceive as threats. Fourth, those in power often ignore the needs of others. They see subordinates as a means to achieving their ends. Fifth, powerful individuals are tempted to rely upon positional power. Rather than building personal power bases, they employ coercion. Power holders are more likely to order subordinates to complete a task when a softer tactic (making a request, offering a reason) would achieve the same result at less emotional and relational cost. 8

If you have considerable power, be open to influence. Influence needs to be reciprocal; leaders exert power but, at the same time, respond to the influence attempts of followers. Enact formal mechanisms like appeals procedures, subordinate feedback, recalls, and elections to encourage yourself to be responsive to your less powerful colleagues. 9

Having too little power also poses ethical dilemmas. 10 Powerless members can’t achieve worthy objectives and feel like they have no control over their environments. They focus on maintaining the little power they have instead of on achieving collective goals. Along with taking out their frustrations on other employees, they harm the organization through work slowdowns, breaking equipment, calling in sick, and other aggressive behaviors. Powerlessness also impairs cognitive functioning, making errors more likely. If you find yourself in a low-power position in an organizational relationship, here are some ways to address your situation: 11

· Highlight your interdependence. Help the high-power person recognize that your help is essential if he or she is to succeed. Take the case of the high-level executive and the lowly IT specialist, for example. The executive has significantly more organizational power but, in order to get her work done, relies on the specialist to keep her computer and mobile devices running properly.

· Be persistent. Be patient and remain calm. Carefully analyze the problem at hand and offer a credible solution. Oftentimes the higher-power person gives in to the lower-power individual just to get him or her to go away.

· Stay actively engaged. Resist the temptation to disconnect or to use the destructive tactics described above. Instead, speak up and state your values, beliefs, and priorities. Reflect your values through your actions.

Question 3: Should I Play Politics?

In organizational politics, members accumulate and use informal power to achieve personal and organizational objectives. Political behavior is not officially sanctioned by the organization and operates outside the formal power structure. 12 Examples of engaging in organizational politics include lobbying for a higher salary, forming a coalition with other managers to push through a project, or doing a favor for someone in another department in hopes that this individual will reciprocate in the future.

Most of us associate “playing politics” with hidden agendas, selfishness, backroom deals, manipulation, and deceit. More often than not, those who engage in politics get what they want while more deserving, nonpolitical individuals do not. Members who perceive that they work in highly political organizational climates are less satisfied with their jobs and less committed to their organizations. At the same time, they report higher stress levels and are more likely to leave the group. 13

Given its poor reputation, it would appear that engaging in organizational politics is unethical. But that is not always the case. Sometimes going outside formal channels is the only way to achieve worthy objectives like getting top management to deal with safety problems, to introduce innovative new products, or to keep the organization going when formal authority breaks down. 14 Then, too, informal power is an inescapable fact of organizational life. It is most frequently used in lateral or peer relationships to promote projects, to allocate resources like people and equipment, and to coordinate work flow. Dwight Eisenhower used his political skill to organize the successful invasion of Europe in World War II. Earlier in his career, he developed a network of friendships with George Patton, George Marshall, and Omar Bradley, generals who were to play a critical role in the assault. From a young age, Eisenhower was skilled at settling disputes and getting classmates to focus on a shared goal, abilities that were to serve him well as he planned the Normandy landing. 15

Ensuring that our political behavior generates positive outcomes begins with a shift in our mind-set. Organizational behavior experts Ronnie Kurchner-Hawkins and Rina Miller argue that we need to abandon our negative image of organizational politics and begin to think of the use of informal power as an opportunity to foster cooperation and collective achievements. 16 In Figure 5.1 , they contrast the “dark side” of political power on the left side of the continuum with the bright, or positive, mind-set on the right side.

Negative politics is self-centered, focused on achieving individual goals like promoting one’s job or career; positive political action supports the vision and values of the group. In positive politics, power is no longer used to control others but is used to serve them instead. While negative politics relies on controlling through intimidation and manipulation, positive politics focuses on achieving a shared vision and living out shared values. Negative political behavior focuses on winning at all costs; positive politics stresses collaboration and working together (win-win). Negative organizational politics often ignores ethical standards and focuses only on efficiency (“doing things right”). Positive political strategies, on the other hand, recognize the importance of considering the ethical implications of actions and following moral standards (“doing the right things”).

Kurchner-Hawkins and Miller go on to suggest that we need to develop strategies for achieving our goals through positive political means. When developing a political strategy for, say, promoting an organizational redesign, consider the following:

1. Identify and name the political behavior you want to engage in.

2. Identify your purpose and what you want to achieve; keep your focus on the organizational vision.

3. Consider the context of the group, its history and culture, and past interactions.

4. Identify who is involved and must influence or be influenced.

5. Anticipate the possible reactions to your plan and what’s at stake.

6. Take responsibility for your behavior, considering what you are contributing and the effect of your actions on others in the organization both now and in the future.

7. Consider whether your actions will be consistent with personal and organizational values.

8. Consider how you might most effectively leverage change—how you can employ your influence, communication/information, alliances/relationships, and networks.

Question 4: What Factors Contribute to Empowerment?

There are both ethical and practical reasons for giving power away. Distributing power to others supports such important ethical values as individual autonomy, fairness (equality), and concern for others. At the same time, empowering followers boosts the bottom line. Researchers report that empowered individuals and groups perform better. People like their jobs more, work harder, take more responsibility, and are more committed to their organizations when they feel that they have a significant voice in shaping decisions. 17 They’re more likely to cooperate as well. Paradoxically, you gain more power by distributing it to others. 18 The performance of the group increases as a result (as do perceptions of your power). Empowerment also fosters the personal growth of followers. Sharing power can help them learn new skills, tackle new challenges, and find greater fulfillment.

Psychological empowerment refers to increased motivation to carry out tasks associated with work roles. According to organizational scholars Kenneth Thomas and Betty Velthouse, this heightened motivation is the product of four factors: 19

1. Meaning. Meaning is the value placed on a task, goal, or purpose based on personal standards. The better the fit between the purpose of the task and our standards, the greater our motivation to do the job.

2. Competence. Competence is the belief that we can do the job required. It is part of a broader sense of personal power or self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the conviction that we can deal with the events, people, and situations at work and in other environments. 20

3. 3. Self-determination. Self-determination is the sense that we have a choice in how we carry out our jobs—when to start, how fast to work, how to prioritize tasks.

4. Impact. Impact is the extent to which we can influence the larger organizational environment. Those with a high sense of impact believe that they make a difference in the work group’s operating procedures, plans, and goals.

All four of the cognitive components of empowerment are shaped by elements of the work group environment. As a consequence, we can boost perceptions of empowerment as managers by modifying the setting where work occurs, including reward systems, job duties, organizational structure and work flow, rules, and physical layout. Elimination of situational factors that create feelings of powerlessness is an excellent place to start. Get rid of petty regulations, authoritarian supervision, and strict routines. Next, shift more decision-making authority to followers. Allow those assigned to do the task a great deal of leeway in how the task gets done. Invite employees into organizational decision-making processes. At the same time, supply resources. Completing a task depends on having adequate funds and supplies, sufficient time to devote to the job, and a place to work. The support of leaders is essential for major projects. The introduction of new products, accounting systems, and software programs requires the endorsement of important individuals who also encourage other leaders to buy into initiatives. 21

Figure 5.1 Political Mind-Set Shift Continuum

Source: Kurchner-Hawkins, R., & Miller, R. (2006). Organizational politics: Building positive political strategies in turbulent times. In E. Vigoda-Gadot & A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Politics (Figure 19.1, p. 332). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Used by permission.

Information may be the most important resource for empowerment. Data about the competition, consumers, and strategy help members see the “big picture.” They gain a better understanding of their roles in the organization and how their efforts help achieve collective goals. Access to information builds self-efficacy and enables individuals to make better decisions while exerting influence over the direction of their work units. Newly empowered followers, in particular, need information in order to carry out more demanding assignments. At one pet supply manufacturer, managers gave employee teams the power to shut down the production line and set production schedules. To prepare workers for this added responsibility, they provided employees with production schedules and information on customer requirements. The company developed a set of criteria for shutdowns, trained teams to diagnose line malfunctions, and told them how much it cost to shut down and restart production. Workers discussed case studies involving line shutdown decisions. They then exercised their new powers for three months with review by managers. At the end of that period, they controlled the production process entirely on their own. 22

Question 5: How Do I Overcome Barriers to Empowerment?

Empowerment efforts face significant obstacles. Keeping, not sharing, authority is rewarded in traditional, top-down organizations. Managers in these systems are afraid to let go of their power for fear of failure. Adopting any new approach is risky, particularly when it comes to empowerment. Managers lose control and have to rely on the efforts of team members. They may be punished if their subordinates fail to produce. Success in a more equalitarian system also requires a different skill set. Empowering managers must provide resources instead of direction, share information, and facilitate the group process. Newly empowered followers are anxious, too. They’re used to having one person make the final decision and must take on greater responsibilities. Some are not eager to learn new skills and are afraid of making mistakes.

Management professor and consultant Alan Randolph admits that empowerment is hard to put into practice but notes it has been successfully implemented at such companies as the Marriott Corporation, General Electric, AES, Springfield Remanufacturing, and Pacific Gas and Electric. Companies who want to take “the long journey to empowerment” must pass through three stages. 23

· Stage 1: Starting and orienting the process of change. Any major empowerment initiative must begin not with a grand vision but with practical answers to personal concerns. People want to know why the change is needed and what’s wrong with the way things operate now. Further, they want to understand how the change will impact them and how they stand to gain (or lose). Providing information—financial statements and projections, data on market changes—motivates members to do a better job. At the same time, managers need to set boundaries so members don’t feel overwhelmed. Boundaries can be established through setting goals and by providing training that equips employees to reach those objectives. Most successful empowerment efforts replace hierarchy with self-directed work teams.

· Stage 2: Making changes and dealing with discouragement. In this stage, the focus shifts to concerns about implementation and impact. Workers wonder what they need to do to be empowered, where to go for help, and why the process is so difficult. They also question whether the effort is worth it and doubt that any progress is being made. Once again, members desire data, this time about how to proceed. They need to know where to get help, what to do if things go wrong, and whether the initiative is producing results. Instead of backing off empowerment efforts, leaders need to expand boundaries further. Work teams ought to be given even more responsibility for work flow, not less. The good news is that once results begin to appear, members will promote the advantages of empowerment to their colleagues. One key during this step is to change performance appraisal systems to reward collaboration instead of individual efforts.

· Stage 3: Adopting and refining empowerment to fit the organization. At this stage, a culture of empowerment emerges. Concerns turn to collaboration and refinement. Individuals in this final step want help getting everyone involved in the process because they know empowerment works. They also want to learn how to perform even better. Managers and teams share data with each other about how to make improvements. Employees internalize commitment to the values and goals of the organization.

Organizational empowerment has its share of critics. 24 Some complain that empowerment is just a management fad and that far too many organizations give it lip service only, resisting any meaningful change efforts. Employees then become disillusioned and resentful as trust breaks down. Others complain that managers and employees understand the term empowerment differently. Empowered employees may expect to be treated equally, while managers view empowerment as a means for better getting the work done. The most cynical observers believe that empowerment is a form of exploitation. In participative systems, workers contribute more ideas and energy but don’t get rewarded for their additional efforts.

These criticisms are valid. Empowerment can be faddish and exploitive. Yet it doesn’t have to be. Truly empowering organizations back up their talk with their walk, following through on their commitment to change. These groups recognize that genuine empowerment benefits both workers and management. They boost compensation for those who accept more responsibility.

Ethical Issues in Influence

Selecting the appropriate tactic is one of the most important choices we make when exerting influence. Ethical considerations should always play a central role in this determination. In the remainder of this chapter we’ll look at the ethical issues raised by five widely used organizational influence strategies: proactive tactics, impression management, deception, emotional labor, and the communication of expectations.

Proactive Tactics

Proactive influence tactics are focused on achieving immediate objectives by convincing targets to go along with requests. Gary Yukl of the State University of New York at Albany and his associates have identified the following as proactive influence strategies commonly used in organizations: 25

· Rational persuasion. Offering explanations, factual evidence, and logical arguments to demonstrate that a proposal or request will attain task and organizational objectives. Examples: “Research shows that there is a need for a new hospital.” “Hiring a new finance professor will draw more students to the major.”

· Apprising: Explaining how compliance with the request will benefit the target (e.g. help a career, make a job more interesting). Examples: “Taking the sales training will help you make your sales quota.” “Accepting a position at company headquarters should get you promoted faster.”

· Inspirational appeals. Creating enthusiasm by appealing to ideals and values; arousing emotions. Examples: “Investing in the new engineering software will make our product the highest quality in the industry.” “Joining our research team will put you on the front lines in the fight against cancer.”

· Consultation: Soliciting support by seeking suggestions for improvement; asking for input when planning strategy, an activity, or a change. Examples: “How do you think we can attract more qualified job applicants?” “Take a look at these plans for the new store and let me know you think.”

· Collaboration: Providing resources and assistance if the target of the request complies. Examples: “If you can provide the staffing, I can get the necessary funds to complete the project.” “I could go with you to talk to your boss about the proposal.”

· Ingratiation: Generating positive feelings by the use of flattery and praise either before or during a request; expressing confidence in the target’s ability to satisfy a difficult request. Examples: “Since you know the product much better than I do, you should make the sales call.” “You are the only person on the team who can create the phone app.”

· Personal appeals: Appealing to feelings of loyalty and friendship when requesting something. Examples: “As a friend, do me a favor, and switch shifts with me.” “We’ve worked together for a long time, so I am counting on you to vote for me when I run for union steward.”

· Exchange: Providing something the target wants in return for compliance; trading favors; promising to reciprocate later or to share the benefits when the job is completed. Examples: “If you support my request for highway funds for my legislative district, I’ll support your request for your district.” “If you invest more in our start-up now, you will have a bigger share of the company when it goes public.”

· Coalition tactics: Enlisting the help of others or using the support of coworkers to convince the target to go along with the request. Examples: “The divisional vice-president supports this policy change.” “Your friend Sue from accounting really likes this idea.”

· Legitimating tactics: Claiming the right or authority to make a request; aligning the request with the organization’s rules, policies, and traditions. Examples: “The policy manual states that I can’t be forced to work overtime two weekends in a row.” “Your company signed a lease stating that you would pay $5,000 a month for the space.”

· Pressure: Demanding, threatening, checking up; persistent reminders. Examples: “If you don’t pay the rent on time, we’ll evict you.” “Have you had a chance to read that report yet?”

Legitimating and pressure tactics, which are based on hard power, are more likely to be abused. Soft power strategies—rational persuasion, consultation, collaboration and inspirational appeal—pose less danger. Nevertheless, as we noted in our earlier discussion of power, the morality of a particular strategy depends on our ends or goals. Rational persuasion and inspirational appeal can support legitimate or illegitimate requests, for example. Legitimating tactics and pressure may be necessary when pursuing important organizational goals or when enforcing safety regulations.

Impression Management

In the organizational setting, you’ll have little chance of getting what you want unless you create the desired image. Want a raise? Then you must convince your supervisor that you are hardworking and productive. Want to be assigned to be a project leader? Then you must be seen as competent and able to manage others. Want to make a sale? Then customers must perceive that you are honest and trustworthy. Want more staff for your work group? Then you’ll have to convince the management team that your group is critical to the organization’s success.

Scholars use the term impression management to describe how people try to control the images others have of them through their behaviors. 26 Impression management is a part of all human interaction, but it is particularly evident in the organizational setting. In a very real sense, organizations act as stages. On the organizational stage, members perform a variety of roles for different audiences. Consider the average professor, for example. Faculty members are typically evaluated on their teaching, scholarship (research), and service. To succeed, our instructor will have to perform well in the classroom, write for scholarly publications and present papers to academic peers, and demonstrate leadership at the university and in the local community. Each of these audiences requires a different performance. The highly technical jargon of the academic journal or presentation won’t work well, for instance, with community audiences. The ability to accurately evaluate student work is essential to a successful teaching performance but has little relevance to research and service.

There are a variety of ways to manage the image that others have of us in the organizational setting, ranging from what we say and wear to the layout of our dorm rooms and offices. These tactics can be divided into two major categories: acquisitive impression management and protective impression management. 27 Acquisitive tactics are attempts to be seen in a positive light; protective tactics are attempts to avoid looking bad. Both sets of tactics, in turn, can be directly or indirectly applied. Parties use direct tactics during interactions, while indirect tactics involve the process of association. If Dan wants to convince Mary that he deserves a raise, he might point out how hard he works. Or he might take a more indirect approach, counting on her to remember that he was part of the team that launched the company’s hottest new product. A catalog of organizational impression management tactics is provided in Ethics in Action 5.1 .

Some observers equate impression management with manipulation. To them, impression managers are phonies who try to deceive others by projecting a false image when they should strive to reflect their “true” selves instead. They note that competent performers get passed over in favor of employees who ingratiate themselves with the boss.

It is easy to see why impression management would be viewed with suspicion. We probably have all encountered individuals who are “all style and no substance.” These coworkers are all too ready to change their behaviors and standards to conform to the wishes of others. They get ahead by projecting a good image instead of through hard work. Our academic and work careers may have languished because professors and supervisors played favorites.

Research confirms that we are right to be concerned about the ethics of impression management. Skilled impression managers are more likely to be hired and promoted regardless of ability. This puts women, who are more likely to rely on their performance to get ahead, at a disadvantage. Careerists who care little about coworkers and organizational goals use self-promotion to advance themselves at the expense of others. 28 Deceit can quickly turn impression management into manipulation, as in the case of job applicants who overstate their skills and background (see Case Study 5.1 , “To Pad or Not to Pad?”). One study reported that 95% of college students were willing to make at least one false statement in order to get a job. More than 40% of the respondents in the same study had already done so. This happens despite the fact that falsifying credentials and past accomplishments can serve as grounds for dismissal. Padded résumés cost Steve Masiello a $5 million contract to coach men’s basketball at the University of South Florida and cost Scott Thomson his job as CEO of Yahoo. 29 We’ll take a closer look at the ethics of deception in the next section .

Recognition that impression management is prone to abuse does not mean we should abandon this form of influence. In fact, it would be impossible to do so. Impression management is found in every culture. Whatever the particular setting, humans want to achieve their goals and to be seen in a favorable light. Impression management is also hard to eliminate because it can occur at the unconscious or semiconscious level. For example, you may not have given much thought to why you brushed your teeth this morning or chose a particular shirt or top to wear. Yet both of these activities help shape the impressions you make on others throughout the rest of the day.

Other organizational members are forming impressions of us, whether we are intentional about our behaviors or not. Even our attempts to avoid impression management tactics influence the impressions of others. Take the example of the job applicant who thinks that dressing up for an interview is “fake.” His sloppy appearance manages the impressions of the employer, only in a negative manner. The interviewer may think that the applicant doesn’t understand what the business world is like, that he didn’t care enough about this job to make an effort to look good, or that his work habits may match his appearance.

Impression management serves many useful purposes (see Case Study 5.2 , “Taking Charge at the Assisted Living Facility,” at the end of the chapter). More often than not, individuals use it to project an image that is congruent with who they think they are. Rather than deceiving or manipulating others, they want to accurately reflect their identities. Impression management is also essential to accomplishing moral objectives. Convincing management that a department legitimately needs more resources benefits both the work unit and the total organization. Department members will feel fairly treated and produce more. Organizational performance will likely increase because budget and personnel will be strategically allocated.

Organizational impression management experts Paul Rosenfeld, Robert Giacalone, and Catherine Riordan offer the following standards for determining if impression management is beneficial or detrimental to an organization. 30 Beneficial impression management (1) facilitates positive interpersonal relationships both inside and outside the organization; (2) accurately portrays positive people, products, and events to insiders and outsiders; and (3) facilitates effective decisions. Dysfunctional impression management (1) inhibits or obstructs internal and external relationships; (2) inaccurately casts persons, events, and products in a bad light; and (3) distorts information, which leads to erroneous conclusions and decisions.

These standards place ethical demands on impression managers as well as on their audiences. We have a responsibility to generate accurate images. In particular, we need to resist the temptation to exaggerate, for example, by claiming more than our fair share of the credit for a class group project or overstating how much we like the boss’s ideas. One way to ensure that our performances are honest and effective is through pursuing our vocations (see Chapter 2 ). Finding the right job fit will put us in roles that we are passionate about and well suited to fill.

Self-interest should always take a back seat to the interests of others, which means that impression management ought to be a tool for carrying out our roles in a way that benefits both the organization and its constituencies. Consider the impact of your tactics on coworkers. 31 Behaviors that generate positive outcomes for you might have negative consequences for others. Ingratiation and supplication may get you better job assignments and raises but leave fewer desirable tasks and less money for workmates. Even exemplary behaviors might have unintended negative consequences for coworkers. Coming in early and staying later may “raise the bar” for colleagues, making it harder for them to reach excellent performance levels.

Targets of impression management tactics have an ethical responsibility to ensure that agents aren’t unduly or unfairly shaping decisions and outcomes. Job interviewers and human resources personnel ought to use objective criteria in hiring decisions. Managers should be aware that they are susceptible to ingratiation and beware of playing favorites. They, too, need to base personnel decisions on objective criteria, knowing that women in particular may not trumpet their accomplishments as much as men do. Careerists should be confronted. Their success should be tied to how well they cooperate in a group, not on how well they promote themselves.

Ethics in Action 5.1 Impression Management Tactics

Acquisitive/Direct Tactics

1. Ingratiation

· Goal: To appear more likeable and attractive

· Examples: Expressing similar attitudes, doing favors, flattering, complimenting, publicizing one’s desirable qualities

2. Self-Promotion

· Goal: To appear competent

· Examples: Claiming relevant work experience on a résumé, mentioning a high grade point average in a job interview

3. Intimidation

· Goal: To gain social power and influence by appearing dangerous

· Examples: Using coercive power to ensure follower compliance, using counterpower (lawsuits, a tough image) to intimidate superiors

4. Exemplification

· Goal: To generate impressions of integrity and morality

· Examples: Publicizing self-sacrifice (working over the weekend or while sick), going beyond the call of duty

5. Supplication

· Goal: To secure help by appearing incompetent

· Examples: Asking for help with a new computer program, claiming lack of experience to get someone else to take the lead on a project

Acquisitive/Indirect Tactics

1. Acclaiming

· Goal: To highlight a relationship or association with a successful occurrence

· Examples: Claiming to be responsible for success (softball team victory, higher sales), maximizing the value of a positive event (noting that not only did you graduate from college, you graduated from one of the country’s top-rated universities)

2. Nonverbal Impression Management

· Goal: To encourage liking through nonverbal behaviors

· Examples: Smiling and leaning forward during a job interview, renting expensive office furniture to create an image of financial stability

Protective/Direct Tactics

1. Accounts

· Goal: To lessen or repair the damage after a failure has occurred

· Examples: Making excuses—admitting that an action is wrong but denying responsibility for it (“It wasn’t my fault”); offering justifications—accepting responsibility but claiming that the event wasn’t as bad as it seemed or that the behavior was justified

2. Disclaimers

· Goal: To lessen the potential damage that might be caused by an upcoming failure event

· Examples: Claiming credentials to make racist comments (“some of my best friends are . . . ”), claiming an exception to the rules, asking for a suspension of judgment

3. Self-Handicapping

· Goal: To put self-imposed barriers in place when outcomes are uncertain, in order to maximize the value of success and minimize the penalties for failure

· Examples: Claiming to be coming back from an injury prior to a racquetball game with a coworker, mentioning an illness that prevented you from doing as much research as you wanted

4. Apologies

· Goal: To obtain pardon by admitting responsibility and blame

· Examples: Expressions of remorse, offers of restitution, requests for forgiveness

Protective/Indirect Tactics

1. Blaring

· Goal: To disassociate from a negative event or person

· Examples: Publicizing a lack of connection with the occurrence or individual (“I had nothing to do with that project”; “I was always suspicious of him”)

2. Blasting

· Goal: To exaggerate the bad qualities of a person to whom we are connected but don’t want to be

· Examples: Pointing out the poor work habits of another team member, claiming that a supervisor is abusive

SOURCE: Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in organizations: Theory, measurement, practice. London UK: Routledge.

Case Study 5.1

To Pad or Not to Pad?

Johann Schultz is graduating in the spring from Midwestern University with a degree in computer science. He knows that landing a job right out of college will be tough in a tight economy. Employers have their pick of applicants to choose from. He will have to stand out in order to be noticed.

Recently, a local consulting firm announced it would open a division to provide computer security advice and systems to large corporations. Some of the positions in the division will require extensive work experience, but others will be open to college graduates. In addition to a degree in computer science, requirements for the entry-level openings include oral and written communication skills, a working knowledge of the SpyEye X security program, a 3.5 grade point average, and the ability to lead project teams.

Meeting the communication criteria is no problem for Schultz, who always found writing papers and making presentations easier than taking tests. Fulfilling the other requirements will be more of a problem, however. Johann is familiar with the other leading security programs but not SpyEye X. He knows someone who works with the program, though, and could practice with it before he is interviewed and hired. His cumulative GPA is 3.3, not 3.5. Further, while he was a member of several successful project groups in school, Johann’s work schedule prevented him from taking a leadership role in any of these teams.

Johann believes that some of the criteria (like the GPA) were arbitrarily selected to weed out applicants and aren’t a true reflection of ability. He is convinced that, if he can land this job, he can succeed and help this employer.

Discussion Probes

1. Should Johann alter any details on his résumé in order to land this job? Why or why not? If you answered yes, which information should he change?

2. Are slight exaggerations more justified than outright lies on résumés?

3. Why is lying on résumés and in job interviews so widespread?

4. What are the potential long-term consequences to an applicant for lying or withholding part of the truth on a résumé? What are the consequences to the employer?

5. What responsibility do organizations have to check up on the claims that applicants make on their résumés? What actions should they take when they discover deceit?

Deception

Deceit, as noted above, is often used when influencing others. Deception is defined as knowingly trying to mislead others. While deception can occur when parties keep secrets or reveal only part of the truth, lies are the most obvious example of messages designed to convince others of something we ourselves don’t believe. Liars (1) are aware that the information is false and (2) knowingly deliver a message with (3) the intent to mislead someone else.

Explanations for the causes of organizational lying generally fall into two categories: self-interest and role conflict. 32 Members lie for personal benefit—to cover up a mistake, save money, further a career, or avoid conflict with the boss. They also lie in order to relieve tension between the various roles they play. For example, a contractor who is unable to complete two remodeling projects at the same time may falsely claim to be waiting for materials in order to placate one homeowner while working at the other job site.

The combination of role conflict and self-interest is more likely to result in deceit than is either factor on its own. Role conflict acts as a stimulus, providing the reason to lie; rewards then provide the motivation or encouragement to engage in lying. The contractor in our example feels caught between two sets of role obligations, and his lie pays off by buying him more time to complete (and to get paid for) both tasks.

Most moral thinkers concur that lying is wrong. 33 Deontological theorists (and some theologians) generally prohibit lying on the basis that such behavior violates moral law or duty. If everyone lied, we would lose our confidence in verbal commitments and in the value of speech itself. Many utilitarians point out that lies typically cause more harm than good. Even if the benefits of a particular lie outweigh the harm (telling “white” lies to protect the feelings of a coworker, for example), the practice of lying generates more costs than benefits. Virtue ethicists note the damage done to the character of the person who lies. Habitual lying becomes second nature, driving out such virtues as honesty, consistency, and integrity.

Researchers who study lying in the organizational context also take a dim view of the practice. They note that lying is costly to organizational performance. Lies not only undermine trust, they corrupt the flow of information essential to organizational decisions and coordination. Deception damages the reputation of the organization, lowers job satisfaction, drives out ethical employees, and encourages further dishonesty. 34

While the preponderance of evidence suggests that lying and related forms of deception are unethical, there are a number of exceptions to this general rule. The law allows police officers to lie to suspects in order to obtain confessions, for instance, and we applaud investigators who go undercover to uncover fraud and corruption. Organizations maintain trade secrets, and nations attempt to dupe each other during war.

Ethicist Sissela Bok offers the principle of veracity as a way to affirm our commitment to the truth while acknowledging that deceit may be justified in special circumstances. 35 She contends that truth should function as the moral standard. Liars must assume the burden of proof if they want to violate this standard, establishing that deceit is justified. In particular, they need to look at the lie from the target’s point of view. Deception might be justified from the liar’s vantage point, but it’s much more difficult to defend lying when taking the other person’s perspective. Targets of deception typically feel victimized even by well-intentioned lies.

What special circumstances might permit lying? Bok doesn’t offer a definitive list but suggests that deception might be justified when (1) there is significant threat to life and safety; (2) society has publicly agreed that certain forms of deceit can be used, like unmarked patrol cars, surprise audits, and random drug tests; and (3) both parties acknowledge that the situation calls for mutual deceit (a poker game, bargaining at a foreign bazaar).

The principle of veracity would outlaw many common lies and other forms of deception, like overstating a company’s income, offering an unrealistically optimistic status report on a project, or padding résumés and expense accounts. Salespeople would have a duty to tell the entire truth about their products (including possible hazards) and to refuse to steer customers toward purchases that might harm them. 36

You may think Bok’s guideline is too restrictive. Or you may hold a deontological position that outlaws any exceptions to total honesty. Nevertheless, the principle of veracity does address the need for truth telling while acknowledging that lying can pose complex ethical dilemmas. It also encourages us to take a closer look at how we might promote truthfulness in organizational relationships.

As a leader, you can reduce the frequency of deception in your organization because you determine both the roles that employees play and the rewards they receive. Reduce the pressure of role conflicts through clarifying expectations and chains of command, opening up lines of communication to resolve role issues, and making sure that you don’t set unreasonably high expectations that tempt workers to lie. “Teach” employees that honesty pays by rewarding integrity while punishing offenders. Further, make honesty a core value, highlighting it in mission statements while promoting truthful interactions with all constituencies.

Emotional Labor

Emotional labor is a special form of impression management that is increasingly common in the modern economy, in which an estimated eight out of every 10 workers are employed in service industries. 37 In emotional labor, frontline workers—baristas, restaurant servers, sales representatives, counter staff, receptionists, retail clerks—manage their feelings so that they can present the desired bodily and facial displays to the public. Service personnel may have to hold back their anger at obnoxious clients, project enthusiasm to everyone entering the store, or answer the same questions with “smiles in their voices” time after time after time. Emotional labor is different from other forms of impression management because (1) control of feelings is done for pay; (2) emotional laborers interact with outsiders, not with other organizational members; and (3) this form of influence raises its own special set of ethical issues.

Sociologist Arlene Hochschild, who coined the term emotional labor, studied the emotional performances of Delta flight attendants who had to project a warm, helpful persona to passengers, even rude ones. (See Case Study 5.3 for a look at the challenges facing contemporary flight attendants.) Subsequent researchers examined the emotional labor of frontline service workers in a wide variety of settings, including, for example, convenience stores, schools, hospitals, fast-food restaurants, a cruise ship, Disneyland, door-to-door insurance sales, and a 911 call center. 38 Investigators discovered that emotions can be managed for neutral or negative displays as well as for “nice” ones. For example, psychiatric workers try to remain calm in the face of abuse, and police officers and bill collectors express irritation and anger to intimidate suspects and to collect delinquent accounts. 39

Emotional labor works. Employees who express positive moods through greeting, smiling, and eye contact encourage customers to develop positive feelings about the organization and its products and services. These feelings, in turn, prompt customers to buy. 40 Emotional contagion helps account for much of the relationship between positive emotional displays, sales, and satisfaction. In service encounters, the happy affect of employees often spreads to customers, who return greetings, smile, and make eye contact. Emotional influence is particularly powerful because it often operates below the level of consciousness. We are often unaware that our emotions (in this case, positive moods) have been aroused and that they are influencing our behavior. Since we don’t realize that our emotions are being managed, we can’t counteract their effects by, say, reminding ourselves to think more carefully about the possible disadvantages of a product or service.

Because emotional labor is so effective, organizations go to great lengths to control the emotional behavior of their frontline workers. Managers (“emotional supervisors”) may only hire individuals deemed to have “friendly, outgoing” personalities. Once hired, new employees go through orientation and training sessions that introduce them to the corporation’s guidelines and formulas for customer service. Emotional routines or scripts tell workers both what to say and how to act. They are given lines like “Welcome to McDonald’s” “How are you today?” and “Have a great day!” These lines are packaged with uniforms (smocks, aprons, name tags, blazers), smiles, eye contact, attentive posture, and vocal enthusiasm.

The practice of emotional labor raises a number of important ethical issues. To begin, all these programmed emotional displays can be costly to employees. (To reflect upon your experiences as an emotional laborer, turn to Application Project 6 at the end of this chapter.) Emotions, traditionally considered the worker’s private concern, are now “owned” by the organization. 41 As service providers, we feel the tension between wanting to maintain our ideal or authentic selves and following organizational rules. Being forced to display emotions that aren’t felt (or that contradict feelings) can produce dissonance. This dissonance may lead to stress, cynicism, burnout, low self-esteem, illness, job turnover, and difficulties in work relationships. Intrusive emotional scripts threaten the dignity of the individual and can reinforce gender stereotypes. Women programmed to be flirtatious, outgoing, and friendly (such as waitresses at Hooters restaurants) run a higher risk of becoming the targets of sexual harassment.

Not everyone is convinced that emotional labor is harmful. 42 Some researchers defend these performances. They point out that service providers aren’t robots. Frontline employees sometimes fight the organization’s attempts to control their feelings and can adjust their performances when needed. Convenience store clerks are friendlier during slow periods, for instance. When lines develop, they adopt a more efficient manner. Emotional labor can also be enjoyable. One group of 911 dispatchers reported that emotional work was the highlight of their jobs, providing comic relief and excitement.

The amount of damage done by emotional labor depends in large part on whether employees engage in surface or deep acting. In surface acting, workers experience a disconnect between their feelings and their emotional expressions, which is stressful. (Complete Self-Assessment 5.2 to determine how much stress you are likely to face when surface acting.) In deep acting, workers embrace their roles and display what they genuinely feel. They experience little or no dissonance as a result. Then, too, employees engaged in surface acting can find their moods shifting to fit their performances. There is some evidence that acting cheerful, even when we are not feeling particularly cheerful, reduces levels of stress hormones and increases resistance to disease. Further, in some roles, like nursing, positive affect is a form of altruistic behavior. We expect nurses to express optimism and concern for patients in order to alleviate their suffering and promote healing. 43

As we can see, emotional labor can have both negative and positive effects on employees. Emotional labor is most damaging when employees (1) experience a great deal of dissonance between their felt and expressed emotions (when surface acting), (2) are not suited for service roles, (3) must suppress negative emotions, (4) become emotionally exhausted from high levels of customer interaction, (5) must deal with aggressive clients, and (6) receive little emotional support from coworkers and the organization.

Organizations can reduce the damage done by emotional labor by recognizing their moral obligation to members. This might mean doing the following:

· Providing potential employees with a realistic preview of the emotional demands of the job.

· Hiring applicants who are emotionally sensitive and expressive.

· Relying less on scripts.

· Providing more opportunity for workers to develop personal performance styles.

· Protecting employees from rude and aggressive customers.

· Providing opportunities to discuss the emotional demands of the job.

· Limiting the amount of acting required during a work shift.

· Encouraging supervisors to be supportive of emotional laborers.

· Encouraging peer support networks.

· Providing adequate compensation for emotional laborers.

· Allowing for expression of negative emotions when appropriate.

Organizations also have a moral obligation to consider the impact of emotional labor on outsiders as well as on employees. As noted earlier, positive moods created through emotional work unconsciously influence buying decisions. The emotional labor provided by frontline employees should therefore benefit the consumer as well as the organization. In addition, customers, like employees, can experience emotional dissonance. 44 Consider the tensions inherent in the pleasant service encounter, for instance. All displays of positive emotion in this setting, no matter how authentic they appear, are suspect because they are designed to sell products and services. These emotional routines are logically and ethically inconsistent because they attempt to standardize “personal” service. In addition, service recipients who are offered pleasant performances might not want to respond in kind if they suspect they are being manipulated or are in a foul mood. Most of us play along, acting the role of the “good customer,” even when we don’t feel very friendly or are having a bad day. But a few consumers resist. When dining out, for instance, they complain to management when the wait staff is too attentive and friendly. They may use put-down or sarcastic lines like “What’s the worst thing on the menu?” or “Hi, my name’s Dave, and I’ll be your customer tonight.” 45 Those who play along run the risk of lying about how they really feel (unhappy, tense, angry). Those who resist may maintain their integrity but little else. They come across as mean spirited and have minimal impact on organizational policy. Instead, resisters make the job of the emotional laborer (who is generally underpaid and overworked) all the harder. As an alternative, we could strive for personal consistency and authenticity in the consumer role by responding tactfully but honestly to emotional displays: “I’m not doing too well today, but thanks for asking”; “I appreciate your friendliness, but it is a little overwhelming this early in the morning.”

Self-Assessment 5.2

Authenticity at Work Scale

Instructions

Indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements.

1. It often makes me uncomfortable if I have to hide emotions that I actually feel.

2. If I need to express emotions that I do not actually feel, I often feel like I am deceiving others.

3. When I need to show emotions that I do not really feel inside, I often feel tense and pressured.

4. It is meaningful and valuable to me to always be honest in showing my real emotions.

Scoring

Your score can range from 4 to 20. The higher your score, the more likely you are to experience emotional exhaustion and job dissatisfaction when engaged in surface-acting emotional labor.

SOURCE: Adapted from Pugh, S. D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2011). Willing and able to fake emotions: A closer examination of the link between emotional dissonance and employee well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, p. 390. Copyright © 2016 by the American Psychological Association. Reproduced with permission.

Communication of Expectations

The communication of expectations is a powerful organizational influence tool. That’s because we have a tendency to live up to the expectations others place on us. Researchers refer to this phenomenon as self-fulfilling prophecy, or the Pygmalion effect, after the sculptor of Greek mythology. Pygmalion created a statue of a beautiful woman, whom he named Galatea. After the figure was complete, he fell in love with his creation. The goddess Aphrodite took pity on the dejected prince and brought Galatea to life.

Evidence of the Pygmalion effect has been discovered in a variety of organizational settings. For example: 46

· Nursing home residents are less depressed and less likely to be admitted to hospitals when staff members believe that these clients will respond more favorably to rehabilitation.

· Industrial trainees designated as “high-aptitude personnel” learn more quickly and are less likely to drop out.

· Patients in medical experiments improve when they receive placebos because they believe they will get better.

· The high expectations of teachers lead to higher student test and IQ scores as well as better performance on cognitive tasks.

· Subordinates can improve the performance of their supervisors by expressing high upward expectations (the reverse Pygmalion).

· Military personnel labeled as having high potential perform up to the expectations of their superiors. Those told that they can succeed are more likely to volunteer for dangerous special duty.

· In international relief agencies, the positive expectations of headquarters aid workers can improve the performance of local staff members.

The Pygmalion effect is more pronounced with some individuals than others. Disadvantaged groups (those stereotyped as low achievers) tend to benefit most from positive expectations, as do those who lack a clear sense of their abilities or find themselves in a novel situation. Men seem to be more influenced by the expectancies of their managers than are women. 47 Negative expectations also have an impact on performance. This is sometimes referred to as the Golem effect (golem means “dumbbell” in Yiddish). Unless counteracted, these reduced expectancies lower performance. 48

Verbal persuasion is the straightforward way to communicate expectations—for example, offering compliments, assuring others that they have the necessary ability, and stating that you expect great things from them. However, self-fulfilling prophecies are most often communicated indirectly through these four channels: 49

1. Climate. Climate describes the social and emotional atmosphere individuals create for others. Communicators act in a friendly, supportive, accepting, and encouraging manner with people they like. This is done through using nonverbal behaviors that portray respect and warmth while avoiding behaviors that communicate disrespect, coolness, and superiority. Supervisors, for example, signal positive expectations by giving adequate time to employees, holding appointments in pleasant surroundings, sitting or standing close to workers, nodding and smiling, making frequent eye contact, and using a warm tone of voice.

2. Input. Positive expectations are also communicated through the number and type of assignments and projects given to workers. High expectations create a positive performance spiral. As employees receive and successfully complete more tasks, they gain self-confidence and the confidence of superiors. These outstanding performers are then given further duties, which they are more likely to complete as well.

3. Output. Those tagged as high performers are given more opportunities to speak, to offer their opinions, and to disagree. Superiors pay more attention to these employees when they speak and offer more assistance to them when they’re solving problems. In the classroom, teachers call on “high achievers” more than “low achievers,” wait less time for low achievers to answer questions, and provide fewer clues and follow-up questions to low achievers. 50

4. Feedback. Supervisors give more frequent positive feedback when they have high expectations of employees, both praising them more often for success and criticizing them less often for failure. In addition, managers provide more detailed performance feedback to high-expectation employees. Just the opposite occurs with those labeled as poor performers. Supervisors praise their minimal performance more, reinforcing the impression that they expect less from these employees.

Pygmalion investigators wrestle with the ethical implications of this influence strategy, beginning with the use of deception. Experimenters typically deceive leaders by informing them that groups differ in abilities, even though they have been randomly assigned. Such tactics could be used in the organizational setting by telling managers that selected subordinates have more potential when, in reality, there are no data to support that assertion. Some researchers argue that this deceit would be justified because the organization would benefit from the superior performance of those described as high performers. However, to carry off this deception, managers would have to be misled by their supervisors or staff personnel, which would undermine trust. Deliberately privileging one group of people is unjust and might result in lawsuits.

Even when deception isn’t involved, the separation of groups into different ability groupings is problematical. Organizations routinely label some individuals as exceptional employees according to some set of criteria. These members are then given extra training, assigned to mentors, placed into more challenging assignments, and so on. These measures generate the Pygmalion effect for the chosen few and the Golem effect for everyone else. Those labeled as average or low performers receive fewer benefits and may live down to reduced expectations.

Communicating high expectations to everyone in the organization is an ethical alternative to deception and ability grouping. 51 Such an approach not only maintains integrity, it encourages everyone to function at his or her best. Strategies for improving organizationwide performance include (1) building follower self-efficacy (a sense of personal power) through breaking down tasks into manageable segments, role modeling, and verbal persuasion; (2) encouraging a learning orientation that emphasizes improvement over perfection; (3) creating a friendly atmosphere; (4) raising consciousness of the impact of negative expectations; (5) creating opportunities for employees to start anew in different departments and assignments; and (6) fostering a culture that demands high productivity.

Even if our organization doesn’t adopt a high-expectations orientation, we can do so as individuals. The power of self-fulfilling prophecy places a moral burden upon us. If others are to reach their full potential, we need to communicate positive expectations to them, not negative ones. We should carefully monitor our behavior to reduce inequities, particularly subtle ones, in our treatment of others. The strategies outlined above for communicating high expectations can be employed in our peer relationships and organizational units. Also, we can use the Galatea effect to insulate ourselves from the negative expectations of our leaders. The Galatea effect (named after the statue in the Greek myth) refers to the tendency for high self-expectation to produce high performance. High self-expectancies can keep us from lowering our performance when others expect little of us. We can encourage leaders to raise their expectations of us by meeting and exceeding standards.

Chapter Takeaways

· While the exercise of influence is not optional in the workplace, you do have control over how you go about modifying the behaviors of others.

· Understand that no form of power is inherently immoral, but positional power (legitimate, coercive, reward) is more likely to be abused than person-centered power (expert, referent).

· Use a variety of power sources when pursuing worthy objectives.

· Recognize that concentration of positional power (in yourself or others) is dangerous, that it can produce a wide range of unethical behavior.

· Adopt a positive mind-set toward organizational politics—the use of informal or unofficial power. Positive political behavior supports the organization’s vision and values, serves others, focuses on achieving shared goals, fosters collaboration, and meets widely accepted ethical standards.

· Increase psychological empowerment—the motivation of others to carry out tasks, based on meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact—by modifying the work setting and supplying adequate resources.

· Overcome barriers to empowerment by managing the journey through the three stages of the empowerment process: (1) starting and orienting the process of change, (2) making changes and dealing with discouragement, and (3) adopting and refining empowerment to fit the organization.

· When trying to convince others to along with your requests, try to use “soft” power compliance gaining tactics—rational persuasion, consultation, collaboration, inspirational appeal—whenever possible.

· You’ll have little chance of getting what you want unless you project the desired image. However, you have a moral responsibility to ensure that you use impression management tactics to build positive relationships, to accurately portray your personal image and that of your organization, and to facilitate effective decisions. You also have a duty to ensure that others don’t manipulate you through their use of impression management strategies.

· Truth telling should be your moral standard. If you decide to lie, the burden of proof is on you. Reduce the frequency of lying and other forms of deception in your organization by limiting role conflicts and rewarding truth telling.

· Emotional labor—the management of feelings by frontline workers that leads to facial and bodily displays—can pose significant dilemmas for employees and customers. Take steps to reduce the emotional dissonance that workers experience and provide them with organizational support. As a customer, respond tactfully and honestly to emotional displays.

· Communication of expectations can be one of your most powerful influence tools. Your individual moral responsibility is to encourage those around you to live up to their full potential. Generate positive self-fulfilling prophecies (the Pygmalion effect) through creating a warm emotional climate, providing valuable assignments, giving opportunities for others to express their opinions, and offering frequent positive feedback. Have high expectations of your own behavior (employ the Galatea effect) even if others don’t.

Application Projects

1. Analyze a leader’s use of power. Determine whether this leader acted ethically or unethically. Explain why. Write up your findings.

2. Debate the following propositions:

· Empowerment takes advantage of workers.

· Empowerment should not be practiced in some organizations.

· Impression management is unethical.

· Nothing good can come from playing organizational politics.

· The costs of emotional labor are overstated.

· Communicating positive expectations to everyone in a work group is impossible.

· Communicating high expectations to people you don’t like is unethical.

3. Write up a summary of your results on Self-Assessment 5.1 or Self-Assessment 5.2 . What do your scores reveal? What steps can you take to act on this information?

4. Create a case study based on an organization’s attempts to empower its employees. What went right? What went wrong? What conclusions can you draw from this organization’s experience?

5. Keep a log of your proactive influence attempts over the course of a day. What requests did you make? What tactics do you use? Do you consider your proactive strategies to be ethical or unethical?

6. In a small group, discuss your experiences as emotional laborers. What characteristics did you have to demonstrate to land your jobs? What training did you receive, and what scripts did you have to follow? What did it take to be successful? What were the costs of your performances? What were the benefits of engaging in emotional labor? What do you conclude about the ethics of emotional labor? Report to the rest of the class. As an alternative, discuss your experiences with positive and negative organizational politics.

7. Under what circumstances is lying justified? See if you can reach a consensus in a small group and report your conclusions to the rest of the class.

8. Have you ever been the victim of low expectations (the Golem effect)? How did you respond? What happened as a result? Share your story orally or in writing.

9. Create an organizational politics case study. Describe how political skill was exercised in this situation and what happened as a result. Determine whether this is an example of negative or positive politics, and highlight the lessons you take from this situation.

Case Study 5.2

Taking Charge at the Assisted Living Facility

Cynthia Peng has been the associate director at a large assisted living facility for the elderly over the past three years. This facility is one of several in the region owned by a for-profit elder care company. The corporation is expanding its operations and has acquired a new location in a small town, far from the firm’s city headquarters. Peng has been selected to be the director of this new residence, which has 25 employees, including caregivers, nursing and office staff, cooks, servers, and maintenance personnel. Residents live in their own apartments but eat their meals together and participate in group recreational activities. Several clients need assistance getting in and out of bed and with medications. The quality of care had suffered under the previous owners, who were cited by the state for safety violations and client mistreatment. Those responsible for the problems were let go, but the rest of the staff was retained. However, employee morale is extremely low, and the facility is only half full due to its poor reputation.

Cynthia knows that she faces a variety of challenges in her new position. She must convince her employees, most of whom are much older than she and skeptical of female managers, that she is a competent leader. Peng must help them improve their performance so that there are no more violations. At the same time, she has to reassure headquarters that she is doing a good job. Cynthia also needs to persuade the community that conditions have improved and attract more residents in order to make the facility profitable. As if that weren’t enough, locals are likely to view her with suspicion as a big city newcomer who doesn’t understand how things work in a small community.

Discussion Probes

1. What sources of power are available to Cynthia? Which ones should she use, and how should she employ each using proactive influence tactics?

2. Identify the groups that Peng must influence. What image does she need to create for each audience?

3. What impression management strategies should Cynthia use with each group? Are there any strategies she should avoid because they are unethical?

4. How can the new director ethically communicate positive expectations to her employees?

5. What are the emotional demands faced by caregivers working at the facility? How can Cynthia help her employees deal with these stresses?

6. How can Cynthia’s supervisors at corporate headquarters help her succeed through the communication of positive expectations?

Case Study 5.3

Flying the Unfriendly Skies

Changes in the airline industry have put added strain on passengers and flight crews alike. Fliers pass through long lines at security checkpoints at crowded airports and are faced with more flight delays and cancellations. Planes are filled to near capacity, seats are smaller, and passengers battle for luggage space in overhead bins. Free meals and movies are a thing of the past. Said one frequent flyer: “My expectations for travel have gotten so low that the highest praise I can bestow upon a trip is that it was ‘uneventful.’” 1 Underpaid flight attendants, who may start at less than $20,000 a year and earn an average of $35,000, now must serve more passengers, some of whom are in a bad mood or intoxicated. They often find themselves mediating disputes between customers about legroom and unruly children as well as dealing with fliers who refuse to turn off their electronic devices.

Given the stresses of flying, it is not surprising that a number of passengers and flight attendants have experienced emotional meltdowns. One flyer attacked a flight attendant who told him to put his duty-free alcohol away before landing in New York. Another threw a cell phone and scratched an attendant. Actor Alec Baldwin was taken off a plane after he refused to stop playing an electronic game on his phone. He called the flight crew “inappropriate names” and then locked himself into a lavatory. Ivana Trump was also removed from a plane after she launched a diatribe against small children on the flight.

Flight attendants have also made the news for their emotional outbursts. A Jet Blue attendant briefly became a hero to service workers everywhere when he got on the plane’s intercom to berate passengers, grabbed a couple of beers, and exited via an inflatable emergency chute. (Later he agreed to a plea deal that required him to receive mental health counseling and to repay the airline $10,000 for deploying the chute.) An American Eagle flight attendant yelled at passengers over the public address system after enduring abuse from belligerent customers angry about a five-hour delay. An American Airlines flight attendant had to be subdued by passengers and crew after ranting about a possible crash over the PA.

Of course, the vast majority of passengers and flight attendants play their roles, ensuring pleasant customer service interactions. But the stresses of flying set the stage for further emotional breakdowns. Airports and planes will continue to be crowded as additional Americans fly and airlines struggle to remain profitable. However, passengers and flight crews can reduce the frequency of these incidents by recognizing and avoiding behaviors that irritate the other party. A USA Today online survey found that passengers are most bothered by flight attendants with a “surly demeanor,” followed by “gabbing in the back,” “refusal to deal with unruly passengers,” a “schoolmarm attitude,” and “slowness in serving drinks and food.” 2 For their part, members of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants union identified the following as their top 10 peeves about passengers: 3

1. Walking around without shoes

2. Changing diapers on seats or tray tables

3. Clipping fingernails or toenails while flying

4. Talking to crew members with earphones on

5. Speaking to flight attendants in a condescending and angry tone

6. Hanging arms or legs out into the aisles, blocking the food and beverage cart

7. Standing and exercising in the galley and restroom areas

8. Keeping electronic devices on after being told to turn them off

9. Bringing smelly food onto the plane

10. Carrying a bag onto the plane that you can’t lift into the overhead bin

Discussion Probes

1. What is your attitude toward flying? Are you satisfied when nothing unpleasant happens at the airport or during the flight?

2. What is your biggest complaint about flight attendants? Or, if you are a member of a flight crew, what is your biggest complaint about passengers?

3. Have you engaged in any of the irritating behaviors identified by flight attendants?

4. What moral obligations do passengers have to flight crews? What moral obligations do flight crews have to passengers? How can each side meet its obligations in this service industry?

5. What can airlines do to help their flight crews avoid emotional breakdowns?

Notes

1. Stoller, K. (2011, July 19). Fliers say they see more rude travelers. USA Today, p. 5B.

2. Yancey, K. B. (2010, September 3). The midair standoff: Crew vs. fliers. USA Today, p. 4D.

3. Stoller (2011, July 19). Other sources for this section include Antonio Ynoa, JetBlue passenger (2011); Jose Serrano, American Eagle flight attendant (2012); Kaye (2010), p. C10; Stern (2012); Yancey, K. B. (2010, February 26), p. 11B; Yoshino and Blankstein (2011).