Critical Text Essay - Your views on the textbook content

ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

This page intentionally left blank

ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Tactics in Organizational Leadership

Second Edition

GILBERT W. FAIRHOLM

PRAEGER An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC

Copyright © 2009 by Gilbert W. Fairholm

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Fairholm, Gilbert W.

Organizational power politics : tactics in organizational leadership / Gilbert W. Fairholm. — 2nd ed.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-313-37976-5 (alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-313-37977-2 (ebook)

1. Office politics. 2. Leadership. 3. Power (Social sciences) I. Title. HF5386.5.F35 2009 658.4’095—dc22 2009018808

13 12 11 10 09 1 2 3 4 5

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook. Visit www.abc-clio.com for details.

ABC-CLIO, LLC 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911

This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America

Contents

Preface vii

Acknowledgement xi

Introduction: The History and Theory of Power xiii

Part I: Defining Power in Work Group Operations 1

Chapter 1: Elements of a Definition 3

Chapter 2: Defining the Forms of Power 11

Chapter 3: Bases of Power 23

Chapter 4: Using Power Politics in Organizational Life 31

Part I Issues and Activities 41

Part II: Power Use: Tactical and Strategic Models 47

Chapter 5: A Power Use Model 49

Chapter 6: Power Use Tactics: Application of Power on the Job 57

Chapter 7: Using Power in the Organization 65

Part II Issues and Activities 77

Part III: Power Interventions That Work 83

Chapter 8: Tactics Used with Superiors 85

Chapter 9: Power Tactics Used with Peers 101

Chapter 10: Tactics Used with Subordinates 117

Chapter 11: Comparing Tactics 133

Chapter 12: How Inner Leaders Get Willing Compliance 155

Chapter 13: Using Power in Multinational Groups 171

Part III Issues and Activities 181

Appendix 189

Bibliography 191

Index 199

vi CONTENTS

Preface

Everyone uses power. Whether we think about it or not, using power is a normal and universal part of life. It pervades what we do and how we relate to others and it dictates much of our success (Johnson, 2005). Power use is integral to our rela- tionships (Telford & Gostick, 2005). It is a central element in leadership. For very many people, the idea of power has negative overtones (Goltz & Hietapelto, 2002). This attitude stifles full effectiveness on the job and limits our success in all other dimensions of life. Perhaps the lack of prethought associated with much organizational politics accounts for its failure and therefore its negative image in the eyes of many group members.

Understanding power and power use, along with sensitivity to cultural values, provide the best means of understanding leadership and what leaders do (Fairholm, 1994; Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002). It helps us understand how leaders lead, what they do in exercising leadership, and why some people are leaders and other are not—even though they occupy similar positions in our economic and social communities. Familiarity with how power is acquired and used in our rela- tionships is critical in understanding our own and our followers’ behavior. Applied power use is also a critical element of follower behavior. Engagement in power use—practicing organizational power politics—therefore, becomes a crucial part of our quest for success in life regardless of the role played in the group hierarchy (Hogan, 2008).

The pioneering research the author reported on in the first edition of Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership continues to provide a solid foundation upon which to analyze this phenomenon. In the inter- est of readability, the details of methodology and statistical proofs adduced in the first edition are omitted from this volume. The reader is directed to that resource

for details of this research, its methodology, and statistical findings. This second edition assumes the interested reader will be familiar with this research. The pres- ent volume builds on its findings as it incorporates contemporary research, model building, and the effectiveness of power tactics and related thinking to the model presented earlier. This research references power use by executives from a wide range of demographic and work situations and is summarized in Table A in the Appendix.

This book interprets a solid and growing body of literature extending over one hundred years on the operational uses of power coming from the growing body of leadership studies and traditional managerial, sociological, psycho- logical, and political perspectives on power (Brannen, 2005). The intent here is to help readers—teachers, students, leaders, technicians, and followers— access current knowledge and integrate it into a coherent strategy of operational power tactics we have always used to secure our desired outcomes at work and in all of our relationships with others (Barnes, 2005; Telford & Gostick, 2005). It will help readers learn to use power to aid them and their group in achieving their personal and organizational goals within the complex, global, multidifferentiated organizations peculiar to twenty-first century America.

This second edition includes several features intended to increase its utility as a resource researchers and practitioners alike can use to sharpen their under- standing and skills in using power in their relationships. Its main contribution remains the identification and application of the twenty-two power tactics that leaders use to get their way in their relationships with others. Details of applica- tion and refinement and a revised and updated analysis of the theory, operational models, elements of power and their probability of success in use in a variety of situations and by the range of professionals peopling the workplace will make the second edition valuable to a wide range of professional and technical leaders. This new edition will integrate current theory and practice to provide a twenty- first century resource for twenty-first century leaders.

In addition to updating the theory component of the first edition and tighten- ing the document’s language, the second edition includes a new chapter elaborat- ing the use of power in multinational work groups and places this innovative perspective in the marketplace of ideas. Another new chapter discusses the use of power by organization members peopling the amorphous organizational sub- groups making up the middle ranges of our large-scale organizations. These group members differ in their orientation toward power from their CEO bosses— the object of much past discussion and research about power use.

And, as a way to help novice leaders apply power in their group relationships in appropriate ways, the second edition will add a variety of simple exercises, activities, self-assessment instruments, cases studies, and/or discussion issues to help readers assess their own power skills and hone them to better succeed at work, home, or in other social situations, Together, these three major area of focus will strengthen and direct the second edition, making it more useful to the reader in both understanding and skillfully using power in their relationships.

viii PREFACE

The perspective taken here is practical in the sense that the orientation is toward applied power use by individuals associated through organizational rela- tionships (Telford & Gostick, 2005; Helgesen, 2008). The locus is, of course, the group—an organization characterized by unique culture, values, and mores and with a unique purpose, known leadership, and known and accepted group behav- iors (Petersen, 2005). The centerpiece of this book is a grouping of 22 specific power tactics both leaders and those they lead use in varying contexts to gain their individual or group objectives. These tactics are typical of the internal political interactions seen in the interpersonal relationships in which we all operate—the jargon used is “office politics.”

The thrust of this book is to blow away the mysterious shadows that obscure organizational politics. Power is, obviously, a necessary and constituent part of leadership (Rost, 1991) whether we admit it or not. The focus is on power-in-use as an important tool facilitating all group action. All of us have power and use it routinely in our relationships with others. Whenever a leader acts to induce others to behave in ways they desire, power is in use. Employees also use power to impact the behavior of their leaders and coworkers, customers, and constituents. Indeed, whenever anyone induces others to behave in ways they would not otherwise have behaved, power and potentially leadership is being exercised. Leadership is, therefore, independent of rank or formal managerial position. It is an aspect of personal behavior that always includes routine power use. Power use is, simply, an instrument of intended action.

PREFACE ix

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgment

Creativity involves, not in making something of nothing, but in integrating distinct materials into a new whole. As with the first edition, I am indebted to many peo- ple whose ideas and insights have informed and formed this book. So implicit is their contribution that I can not always directly credit their contributions. To them I owe thanks. I am also indebted to my wife, children, and grandchildren. Much of my understanding of applied power comes from seeing them create their lives by the positive choices they make daily in the face of an increasingly dangerous and challenging world, a world they make livable—and lovable—for me.

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction: The History and Theory of Power

Power is a part of all organized behavior. It characterizes all human interaction. Organizational power politics permeates all aspects of interpersonal communica- tions and is an essential characteristic of all organizational action. Knowing how to use power is invaluable to us all as a means to achieve some desired future action in others. It is instrumental, in that people use power as an aid to achieve their intended results (Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002). Although we recognize that power can be, and sometimes is, an end-goal, its basic use is instrumental. Power has utility for the group member most often as an intermediary tool to achieve some personal, desired-end value. It does not have much utility (or, some say, even being) as a “stored resource.” In fact evidence supports the contention that power is not a “tangible,” storable commodity (such as information or money or raw materials). Rather, its main value is in its use.

The idea of power has both emotional and ethical impact (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1995). For many it carries negative connotations. Some see power as “manipulation,” “coercion,” “control,” or “force” (Rickards, 2000). For many, power use has Machiavellian connotations. Of course, power is, or can be, manipulative. We see power at work in behaviors such as “brown-nosing,” “yes-ing” the boss, and similar sycophantic action. In fact, “Machiavellian” has come to epitomize the worst in manipulative, exploitative, self-serving power use (McMurry, 2000).

A balanced perspective allows, however, for an alternative construction of the situation and a more positive view—one that sees power as ethically neutral. The ethics of power lies not in power itself but in the motives and values of the user. As with any other tool, we can use power for “good,” that is, for socially

developmental purposes (Kuhn & Graham, 2005), or for “bad,” that is, for personal aggrandizement. User goals and operational results achieved, not power application itself, are the ethical criteria (McClelland, 1975; Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1995). One can use power without destructive result to either self or others. Results depend on the motives and skill of the power user. They are also a func- tion of the power capabilities of all others involved in the particular power exchange (Tepper, 1993).

Accepting this perspective, we also must accept the idea that power use becomes critical in understanding normal group life. All organization members use power to secure their goals, not just the leaders, supervisors, and managers whom we traditionally view as powerful people. All people control scarce resources of some type in negotiating agreement among related individuals. We take independent action to direct organizational energies toward our predeter- mined goals, indeed, in setting those goals in the first instance. Effective power use secures both organizational and personal goals in most (if not all) organiza- tional action. All of us most of the time engage in organizational politics as we negotiate our way through our careers.

There is mounting support in current and traditional management writings that legitimizes power and defines power maintenance functions (Tepper, 1993). Power is, of course, central to organizational impact processes such as leadership, planning, directing, controlling, and performance evaluation. It is in this sense that most leaders and other workers see power use. It is also in this context that power use has its most telling impact on personal and organizational success. The task ahead is clear: develop a constructive way to think about and use power with a minimum amount of disruption, pain, and dysfunction. Before anyone can accomplish this, there must exist a body of knowledge and a technology they can apply to day-to-day situations. Until scholars and practitioners have these data at their disposal, it will be extremely difficult for either to be effective in making improvements. Until someone develops this knowledge, both will have to get along on the basis of hunch, guess. and an individually ascertained, “cumulative wisdom.” It is to this end that I dedicate this book.

THE HISTORY OF POWER THEORY

Power use is so imbedded in daily life that viewing our interrelationships in power terms deepens our understanding of why we are or are not successful in reaching our goals. Seeing our relationships in power terms is a new perspective for most of us and adds a new dimension to human relations, in stark contrast to traditional relationship perspectives such as networks of communications, con- flict resolution, change, motivation, or values (Fairholm, 1991; Gragnolati & Stu- pak, 2002). Adding a power perspective is new, even through a few researchers in the past hundred years of its modern history have advocated this perspective. A careful reading of organization and leadership theories unmasks the power com-

xiv INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

ponent that has always been part of our theory and practice. We have only lacked a language of power and the theoretical platform to make it clear. Over the years several writers have begun to abstract working models and strategies applicable to leadership. (See, e.g., Russell, 1938; Follett, 1942; Krech & Crutchfield, 1948; Bachrach & Baratz, 1970; Hickson, Hinings, Lee, Schneck, & Pennings, 1971; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977; Fairholm, 1993, 2003; Coleman, 2004; Brannen, 2005; Yap, 2006: Yukl & Becker, 2006.)

The following discussion relates sometimes disparate power ideas into a syn- thesis, which is hopefully beneficial to practitioner and academic alike.

Background

Society is a condition of inequality. Whether in the animal or human realm, we find the ordinary and the extraordinary, the leaders and the led, the powerful and the relatively powerless. The patterns of dominance and subservience found in nature are mirror images of systems present in our social systems all over the globe. Consider this listing:

1. The leader displays the trappings, posturing, and gestures of dominance— sleek, calm, relaxed, and purposive.

2. When challenged, he scares his foe with aggressive charges. 3. If needed he can—and does—overpower his opponent. 4. He is not only physically strong, but is cunning, quick, and intelligent as

well. 5. He reinforces his dominance on the group by maintaining harmony,

thereby ensuring his position. 6. He develops a cadre of assistants who help him maintain the safety of

the group. He rewards them with relative freedom of action and a closer association with him.

7. He protects his subordinates, thus ensuring the continuance of the group. 8. He determines the movement of the group. They go where he goes, work

when he works, and rest when he rests. 9. He is continually reassuring the group members of his affection and love

for them. 10. He assumes command in times of danger and is in the forefront of battle.

This account could be a description of the modern business executive. In fact, it is an outline of the ten commandments of dominance in baboon leaders described by Desmond Morris in The Human Zoo (1969).

Human society follows this natural pattern. The immense differences in power between the powerful and the relatively powerless are no longer as strik- ing as they perhaps once were. The relative power of the slave and the holder of 10,000 slaves is not the same as the CEO with 10,000 subordinates over whose

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER xv

livelihood he has suzerainty. Nor are the depredations of the Spanish inquisition similar to the egalitarianism of today’s governments or modern religious ecumenicalism. Whether or not the individual need for dominance has atrophied over the centuries is debatable. Its gross manifestations appear to have at least moderated. The plain fact remains, however, that those individuals with power act in ways uncommonly similar to the ways those in power in ancient times acted. And, both are similar to the actions of the dominant ape.

Anyone with even a little energy, concern for others, or a drive to accomplish anything wants to and does exercise power. We all exercise power. Parents use power, as do ministers, teachers, policemen, athletes, and leaders of all social groups. Within reason, we consider the exercise of power by any of these people as normal and routine. In these cases, power use is not a matter of concern for anyone—not for the object of power, or the power holder, or for the social scien- tist who may study the episode. When we exercise power within normal limits, those exercising it are useful, valuable, and acceptable functionaries in our social system. It is only when the person of power exceeds group norms that power becomes a threat and the object of fear, derision, scorn, and elimination (Peck, 2006). Within acceptable norms, power is a natural part of life. Beyond those norms it is a threat many fear and try to eliminate—or ignore. In these cases, many people see this kind of power as evil, unethical, hurtful, and oppose its use (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1995).

The Progress of Power

Krieger and Stern (1968) have aptly synthesized the evolution of power in theory. Their survey of power evolution (restated here) is instructive. For Plato, power is a necessary aspect of the good. For Plato, the principal ingredient of power was knowledge. We should, therefore, respect power and those who use it. Aristotle concentrated on means and ends distinctions. For him there was reci- procity between the powerful person and the target of power. Power is a function of change we can use to achieve good ends. The good ruler is a good and wise man. On the other hand, the Romans saw political power as independent from ethics. They saw power in terms of origins, not ends. Power for them was posi- tion based; it came with the decision to involve oneself in the political life and institutions of the society. We grant the public leader power, but also constrain him or her by the prerogatives claimed as part of the role of public “controller.” Greek thought placed power in ethical terms around ends sought. They distin- guished ethical ends from the forms of power defined by Roman tradition.

These ideas were separate through the Middle Ages, but gradually merged into one theoretical system. Thomas Aquinas argued that God, being the author of all nature, must also be the final source of political power. Kings must accede to the rule of theology while attending to the business of caring for social sys- tems. Machiavelli demurred from this ecclesiastical construct, arguing instead

xvi INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

that power must be served. His ethics were those of the realist. State power existed to protect and secure the state. Nonetheless, theological primacy over temporal rulership continues into our times. English political traditions implied a divine right until the seventeenth century. Then, consent of the governed in the form of social contracts replaced the divine right to rule. The Social Contract philosophers saw power as residing not only in kings, but in commoners. The assertion of this power took the form of rights granted to citizens in cultural and economic matters. The king‘s role became one of concern with the protection of these rights and for the general welfare of his subjects.

Although, historically, much of the view of power is in political terms (Safty, 2003), there is a much more encompassing arena for the study of power today. The modern organization and its ruler, the leader-executive, is a prime locus for the study of power today. The large-scale organizational executive exercises a power no less encompassing than that of the political executive. His power is pervasive and strong, his impact on the quality of life is broad. Power is a major, often implicit, theoretical thread in American business and government, as well as political and social theory. Much of the theory coming to us from past research forms three distinct tracks: political power theory, psychological power theory, and organization power theory (Coleman, 2004).

POWER IN POLITICAL THEORY

From a political perspective the distribution of power in America is continu- ously covered in the literature. One helpful treatment has been the work of C. Wright Mills (1957). His work established the thesis that political power in America is in the hands of a few people whom he called the power elite—the relatively few political, military, economic, and community leaders. These people occupy strategic positions in the social system at every level in America: national, state, region, and community. Their positions at the top of institutions making up the social infrastructure make it possible for them to command in significant com- munity decisions (Dahl, 1961). Comparing familial, religious, or educational leaders with the power elite, Mills argued that they were not particularly effective in using power to run community institutions or processes. These people are often relegated second-level roles in community decision making. The power elite Mills defined formed a kind of interlocking directorate at the top of the commu- nity leadership system. Conscious of their power and their relationship to each other, and aware of other community leaders, the elite, typically, are not a mono- lithic, formal body. The membership is frequently shifting, with individuals mov- ing in and out on a continuing basis determined in large part by the particular issues on the public decision agenda. The elites are, nevertheless, present at any given moment and are a known and knowable body of community power notables. They cooperate and conspire to exercise decision-making power over significant community action issues.

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER xvii

Another significant contributor to the elites theory of power is Floyd Hunter (1959). Hunter elaborated Mills’ work in research done in Atlanta, Georgia. Nationally, He found that top leaders came from more than just military, eco- nomic, and political cadres, but included labor, recreation, professional, and financial leaders also. For Hunter, the power elite are more homogeneous than Mills suggested and are often highly centralized and structured. This monolithic hierarchy includes at least policy councils as well as general membership. Hunter’s highly definitive structure of power challenged others to move into the power discussion with counter arguments. Most notable was Robert A. Dahl (1961), whose research led him to the conclusion that power was apparent in the community in a pluralistic pattern rather than a monolithic one. For Dahl, power is exercised in the community by a series of shifting coalitions, differing in mem- bership based on the issue under study. Community public works concerns will bring to the fore a markedly different power cadre than, say, one concerned with education. These and other writers of this period have had a significant impact on power theory (see, e.g., Rose, 1967), focusing research attention on multiple theses to explain the working of the community body politic (Ryan, 2000).

The theoretical debate on these two issues—elitist versus pluralistic— continues today. Both sides amass data to support their respective contentions. The issue is not a settled one by any means, but the rhetoric may be abating somewhat. While the controversy is very much in evidence, the dogmatic pos- turing has given way to a more empirical accumulation of the evidence. This posture may provide a future resolution of this critical issue in political power theory (Coleman, 2004; Safty, 2003).

POWER IN SOCIAL THEORY

Social and political power theory shares the same philosophical traditions. Plato, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Adler concluded separately that we can explain man’s nature and place in society in power terms. Today we are using power ideas to describe many different social events: war, social movements, race turmoil, political activism, the counter-revolution. In the process of widespread use, the word has acquired many meanings—so many as to make the term misleading and its use confusing. One prominent thread moving through this body of power in social theory is that it is seen more often as a negative idea rather than a positive one (Goltz & Hietapelto, 2002). Plato saw power as essen- tially good, but cautioned that its misuse can be destructive since it can be the basis for man’s propensity for acquisition.

Machiavelli has achieved a degree of fame (even infamy) as a result of his work to apply power in public life. His advice to rulers on how to gain, maintain, and accrue power are commonplace by today’s standards. But, in a back-handed way, Machiavelli focused public attention on the ethical dimension of power use, a focus much in vogue today. For Hobbes, power was the present means to secure

xviii INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

some future good. Since people seek pleasure, power becomes the means by which they can gain that goal in the face of competition (even conflict) from others. Carried to its logical conclusion, this drive in people for hedonistic pleas- ures leads to conflict and war. The solution for Hobbes was in some form a social order founded in a formal covenant—social contract—among the people. The social contract creates a superior governing entity—the Hobbesian Leviathan— a self-perpetuating, autonomous social order, one, like Machiavelli’s, that is inde- pendent of moral or religious constraint. Although less important today to social scientists, his ideas have significantly influenced our thinking and our theory of social systems.

Others proffered other solutions to the dilemma of power use among the members of social systems. The utopian and the rationalist views were much more in vogue in the past than today. Both grappled with the central issues of power use and distribution among the members of the society. Bertrand Russell followed these theorists. His task was to deal with the corporate version of man in society. Power in modern industrial society becomes a different order of involvement. Power exercised by the organization’s leaders becomes more imper- sonal, anonymous, and related more to abstract roles than previous, more indi- vidualistic constructions. For Russell, the key to understanding power in industrial societies lies in understanding the structure of society and its major institutions. Power in this context relates to institutional values. His definition of power as the production of intended effects is, then, entirely compatible with an organizational focus.

Nietzsche’s work still has currency among social scientists in elaborating power at the psychological level. His work uses power as an elastic term as well as a specific one. He incorporates a widely diverse list of concepts in defining power, as well as the concrete idea that power is the essential and irreducible prime motive for action. For Nietzsche, man’s internal, prime desire is for power. Other desires are incidental to this central drive. He specifically defines power to mean self-overcoming, an idea not dissimilar to Maslow’s self-actualization ideas. The antisocial uses of power come as people experience powerlessness—the antithesis of self-overcoming power. Hence, power use to dominate others is an expression not of self-overcoming power, but of the absence of this central drive in man.

In this connection, the work of Max Weber has had a significant impact on power theory. His power studies are classic and, simultaneously, completely up-to-date. His social conflict perspective is as contemporary and appropriate to our present postindustrial society as it was to the budding industrial society a cen- tury or more ago. His three types of legitimacy (traditional, legal, and charis- matic) are especially useful in describing organizational life and in analyzing change in the organization. His discussion of charismatic power also provides a useful paradigm for analysis of individual power relationships. (For a contempo- rary discussion of charisma, see Sankar, 2003.)

Recent analyses have tried to place power in a behavioral context or see it as a process of interactions within the confines of the group. Both of these perspectives

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER xix

have added insight to the social theory of power. An interesting present focus on power is involves transactional perspectives, as distinct from political, sociologi- cal, or psychological view points (Fairholm, 1993; Tepper, 1993). This tactical approach is useful in elaborating specific actions we can take to direct available power to the accomplishment of our organizational and personal desires. Such an orientation lets us see power in dynamic interaction. This transactional focus brings power into the immediate. It allows us to deal empirically with what is and has been an abstract and complex issue. These perspectives hold promise for further elucidation of this central element of social theory.

Unchecked, power can be viewed as a corrupting influence destructive of man’s higher propensities, even of life itself. This view has, as noted elsewhere, persisted. Lord Acton’s dictum that power corrupts has been a hallmark of social theory. How- ever, we can discern an alternative perception in social thought—namely, that power is second in importance to society behind social altruism. Adherents to this perspec- tive see power as a way to social advancement. Ideas such as duty, responsibility, legitimacy, and love have been at the center of this branch of social thought. Power, they say, has a role in defining and applying these higher ideals.

Contemporary power literature has become more complete and the approach more realistic. Now, writers are dealing directly with concepts such as authority, force, control, and conflict as significant elements of social relations (Telford & Gostick, 2005) and as mechanisms to both describe and predict situational alter- natives (Wrong, 1979). The terminological taboo under which the idea of power has suffered for decades has lifted. Instead of one coherent concept, there are many. Although we can relate each concept to the underlying idea of power, they have not coalesced into a full-blown power theory. Among the ideas that are begin- ning to shape a power theory are those of motivation, self-esteem, competence, and control. Others include causation, helplessness (powerlessness), stimulus- response, and locus of control. Kuhl, Schnelle, and Tillman, (2005) created a new organizational theory and practice called lateral leadership. The foundation of lateral leadership is shared understanding, power, and trust (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1995). Lateral leadership is a flexible leadership method that can be adapted to different situations. The lateral leader uses communication to facilitate change within the organization. They believe that shared understanding can be achieved through the introduction of new rules and people (Miliband, 2008). These ideas all relate directly to power use and have done much to clarify individual aspect of power theory in social science. None have achieved the pervasiveness they would need to dominate in power theory. Each has added significantly toward this goal.

POWER USE IN ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY

Power is both an enigma and a central theme in organization theory. It is an aspect of formal and informal relationships. Although it is common in organiza- tions, it is little discussed or analyzed. Bennis (1966) called it the last dirty word

xx INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

in management. By that, he meant that power is the last (latest) implicit compo- nent of organizational life to be exposed to systematic review and analysis. It has both psychological and social dimensions. It partakes somewhat of the stimulus- response model of education theory. That is, specific power use often can evoke predictable responses in our targets. The research support for this idea is limited, but the idea makes intuitive sense (Nyberg, 1981). In social situations, its use also has a distinct value dimension that brings us into confrontation with ethics and morality (Ryan, 2000). Using power has ideological, methodological, and proce- dural dimensions. Its use is systematically connected to the world of ideas. It presents at once a special aspect of organization theory and the essence of that theoretical discipline (Coleman, 2004).

There is a visceral connection between power and organization. We feel the relationship as much as we see it in day-to-day operation. Power, authority, dependence, and independence are related terms that describe much of modern, large-scale organization. These factors are critical to organizational operations and to the fulfillment of the democratic traditions of our cultural life (Bachrach & Lawler, 1986). The organization is a social grouping of at least two people involved in some common enterprise with accepted goals, methods, and structure. The organizational construct is in every respect one of power. We cannot consider organization apart from the idea of power. To review so universal and complex an idea in the theory of organizations is to attempt the impossible. Yet, power has had a direct impact on organizational theory-building and we must consider it a central issue. Some reference to the theoretical underpinnings is necessary to a proper understanding of the framework within which we place the data on power use.

Early organization-thought centered around rational models of human inter- action. It tended to concentrate on authority issues and structure and ignore the more knotty problems of power-in-use (Bachrach & Lawler, 1986; Editor, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2005). Power was an implicit, but unidentified part of the background of the organization within which we discuss specific functions (such as communications, decision making, planning). Initially, we viewed organization theory mechanically and dealt with power (largely in its authority form) only as it added to the logic and predictability of the organizational system. Understanding authority helped us to rationalize the system of people in rela- tionship. We noted deviations in practice, but these were seen as human flaws in performance, not in the underlying rational theory of organization. Rational theory flowed out of an autocratic past that gave place to structured methods of ruling and controlling subordinates. Rational theory was a way to focus on the government of tangibles (parts of the “organizational machine”), rather than on the government of people with their unpredictable impacts on the governors (Editor, Academy of Management Proceedings 2005). Except for authority, power was not a part of this theory; it is plain to see its shadow cast on doctrinaire systems of rationality.

Operationally, power entered organizational theory through the theory of the firm. Theorists see ownership as theoretically similar to political monarchism and

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER xxi

the owner’s treatment of employees equivalent to the ruler’s treatment of subjects. The human relations approach to management, popular in the last half of the twentieth century, was a direct effort to democratize the firm (Drucker, 1977; Telford & Gostick, 2005). The approach was similar to the way that political sci- entists were trying to democratize political society in that same period. Because the human-relations school did not deal with power squarely does not gainsay their recognition of the role of power in organizational life and theory. They chal- lenged the mechanistic school of the classical theorists and brought the people factor of organization life into public focus. While they mostly ignored power per se, they opened the way for later theorists to place this concept in proper perspective. They defined a mode of organizational life built on both rational decision-making and emotion.

The kind of accommodation people make in the organizational system is a function of both mind and heart. The allocation of power and the system of power arrangements in place in the organization have a significant impact on the kind of adjustment people make or can make within the organization to achieve their desires—the needs for achievement, affiliation, or power (McClelland, 1975). We can credit the group dynamics theorists with the continuing interest in power in human interaction in organizations. This movement was simultaneous with the development of human relations and was, indeed, a part of this movement. Their concern with interactive, participative elements of organizational effectiveness led them into consideration of alignments of people’s goals with those of the organization. They also focused on exchange transactions present in the organi- zation where trade-offs (Fisher, 2007) take place to assuage both organizational and personal needs with the determinants of leadership. One impact of the Michigan and Ohio State studies is that today we see active expansion of discus- sion, research, and theory-building in the power areas of organizational and man- agement theory. Three theoretical constructs among several deserve some attention here: exchange theory, alignment theory, and contingency theory. These ideas have encompassed much of the essence of current theoretical thinking on power use.

Exchange Theory

This model flows from the work of many people: Simon (1957), Cartright (1959), Bierstadt (1950), Homans (1958), Thibaut and Kelly (1959), Gouldner (1960), and Follert (1983). Each saw power in terms of symmetry-asymmetry, as systems of control over information and affection, as a function of prestige. They saw power as a balancing of values held by competing participants in an exchange relationship (Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002). An organization is a market place for the exchange of goods and services, information, labor, and intellect to achieve both organizational and individual goals. This marketplace is a political (i.e., a power) arena within which participants engage in using power to make real their

xxii INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

own-result desires. The prime organizational activity is negotiation for advantage and then acting out the terms of their exchange negotiations, whether the rela- tionship is superior-to-subordinate, subordinate-to-superior, or peer-to-peer. Relationships are interactions among equals (i.e., powerful against powerful) or among unequals—the powerful against the relatively powerless. Regardless of which one we employ, the interaction is the same: one party tries to affect the balance of rewards and costs in the relationship. The more one party gets, the less the other enjoys.

Alignment Theory

The idea of alignment is keyed to organizational culture (Petersen, 2005). The culture, customs, and traditions must match (or be made to match) those of the members in real ways if a useful relationship is to evolve. Cultures that focus on a central power figure emphasize the power dynamic more than do cultures focusing on position, role, or task. But regardless, power use is integral to the relationship. Each time we enter an organizational situation, we are induced to align our personal goals, values, and preferred behaviors with those of the organ- ization. Unless the relationship is compatible, that is, aligned, neither our per- sonal goals nor organizational outcomes can be optimized. This end of alignment, once achieved, is an expedient lens through which to view organizational events and their impact on both the organization and the individual. Of course, not all alignments are effective. Some people’s orientation toward the organization is remote from either (or both) organizational demand or personal need satisfaction; that is, they are not in alignment. Effective alignment must orient our actions, values, and views of reality in ways that allow us to achieve important self-interests while meeting organizational needs. Power use is the instrument through which leaders can help followers make such alignments and the force that allows the individual to maintain a fruitful (aligned) relationship.

Contingency Theory

Much has been written about the impact and force of contingencies in the environment on organizational and individual capacity to achieve goals. Parts of contingency, as with the other models, bears on power use. Simply stated, identi- fication of and then acquiring control over these “critical contingencies” becomes a prime cause of power use in the organization. People who control critical con- tingencies are better positioned to use power to achieve their aims than others who do not control critical contingencies. Contingency theory also flows out of the organizational practice of division of labor. As we compartmentalize work functions, we defer to those people or units who come to control at least the crit- ical work elements (critical contingencies) essential to organizational success.

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER xxiii

They become more powerful in relation to others in the organizational system (Coleman, 2004). Contingency theory is a dynamic concept. As the organization and its host environment change, so too do those factors that we consider critical. And as critical factors change, those who control these “new” critical factors supplant the former powerful organization members (Kipnis, 1976). We can sum- marize contingency theory with a cogent comment attributed to Nord (1978). His epigram, a variation on the Golden Rule, is simply: “Them that has the gold make the rules.”

THE ETHICS OF POWER

Many people feel that using power to secure personal goals is somehow ethically wrong. For them, power is the capacity to force others to do something they would rather not do. Power lets one person dominate or subjugate another. They say that one employs power when other forms of impact fail. Ethically, this negative face of power translates into a view that sees it as constraining on the target of power and demeaning to the user. Much of the negative image of orga- nizational politics stems from these kinds of feelings. Alternatively, we can view power as a value-neutral tool in conducting human intercourse. As a tool, it is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It is only in the ethics of the user that power use contributes to or detracts from the accepted values, mores, and standards of the society.

Accepting the ethical neutrality of power use lets us make more informed power decisions about when to use power, specific tactics to employ, and the moral implications of its use. Whether we like the idea or not, power use is a part of all we do, all of our relations. We routinely engage in relationships that can be more fully understood from the perspective of power. It is central to understand- ing how we relate to others as well as to our success in relationships.

The capacity to influence others has always been a part of the history of people and ideas. Kings, priests, and philosophers from our earliest history shared a fascination with the idea of influencing others to procure desired results. Who influences whom? Who is more dominant in a given situation? What resources can I control with this individual or group? These are the stuff of leadership and power and are traceable in the history of mankind. Religiously, this theme has a rich and varied history. Cain’s problem with Abel had a power basis. Moses pitted his power against Pharaoh to “let [his] people go.” Later, he represented the epitome or organizational power as he sat in judgment over the people of Israel during their forty-year pilgrimage. The current pressure in the Catholic Church stemming from the power tension between Rome and local bishops is a modern iteration of power in religion (Laeyendecker, 1989). For the Judeo-Christian, God is the center and source of all power, as He is in Hindu theology. The Bhagavad Gita’s central episode deals with exercising power in warring against chaos. The Chinese I Ching focuses on taming power in both the

xxiv INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

prominent and modest and of the power of light and darkness. To McClelland (1975) it seems that religions represent changes on the eternal theme of how to deal with man’s power relationship.

From a philosophical perspective, power has occupied the interest and writings of every significant theorist. Beginning with the works of Thucydides, Socrates, and Plato, the ideas of power both attract and repel us. And since Machiavelli, this issue has attracted social scientists (Desmond, 1969). Philosophical and ethical writers have dealt with power themes in at least the following ways:

1. As an element of domination-independence relationships 2. As a factor in self-discipline systems 3. As the central element of justice 4. As a factor in sacrifice and service to others (altruism) 5. As an element of equality (as a corollary to or opposite of freedom) 6. As an element of personality (instinct, self)

However, this literature does not highlight a truly sustained and compre- hensive analysis and synthesis of power—scientific, religious, fictional, or pragmatic. The theory of power is vague, incomplete, and inconclusive. As cap- tured in the history of ideas, power use is shadowy, spotty, and inconclusive. Available theory is ideological, not operational. In fact, the discussion of power is ambiguous and its relationship to major human relationship themes are implicit rather than explicit. Leadership theories imply power use but do not deal with it frontally. Yet, in this domain and in all social science, the control of one person or group by another, or of one society by another, is critical to our existence, and control implies power use. In fact, absent power, there would be no society, no cooperative effort of any kind (Coleman, 2004). Nevertheless it persists! While largely ignored as a central issue, power is implicit in the dynamics of history. To ignore it—as many have—is to become prey to those who do not.

Power is the opposite of chaos. Power exercised results in both noble and modest acts of both hate and love. Nyberg (1981) makes the connection between power and two major human traits: the tendency to relate to others and the need to accomplish. The first he calls love, the second he calls power. In many ways power use defines and describes human activity in more helpful terms than any other analytical concept. The determining factor in the results we achieve is in the ethics, purposes, and methods of the power users. Theodore Roosevelt summed up this idea in his contention that power undirected by high purpose spells calamity, and high purpose by itself is utterly useless if the power to put it into effect is lacking. Power use is, in this sense, ethically oriented, but ethics is not power. The ethics of power are in the underlying motives of the person who uses it toward morally useful or harmful effects–the leader, manager, or follower.

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER xxv

The Pervasiveness of Power

We cannot choose whether or not power will be a part of our relationships. It is! We can only choose how we will use it in those relations and how we will react to its use by others. Only as we understand more about power can we become powerful in relationship to others—a situation some suggest is the essence of freedom. Power liberates the powerful and can be the mechanism for expanding the horizons of those in relationship with the powerful person. Power underlies most group interaction. Management-labor negotiations are overlaid on a base of power relationships. Political maneuvering between nations balances on a power fulcrum. Religious strife and persecutions involve, on at least one level, a power struggle between leaders for the fealty of their followers.

The basis of development of cultures, their dissolution, economic enslave- ment, political conquest, and organizational health and growth is power, regard- less of other explanations promulgated. Men and women, nations and institutions have used power constantly throughout history. They have developed arguments to justify its use in any context. Power users base their power use on the intrinsic logic of the situation (Fisher, 2007), on the wisdom of the message, or on the ideology or the philosophy espoused by the powerful. The politically doctrinaire, the religious zealot, and the economic revolutionary have all advanced their dogma from the foundation of the internal justice, validity, or the utility of the idea they espouse through the application of power over others.

We also justify power use on the basis of personal values (Kuhl, Schnelle, & Tillman, 2005). Much of the growth of this nation and the influence of our economic institutions are traceable to the general acceptance of the profit motive. The profit motive is a central reason for the use of power in organizations. We justify our actions on what we, as individuals, value. Our personal motives are laudable; those of the opposition are not nearly so justifiable. Hence we jus- tify our use of power sometimes on the basis of our good motives versus the bad motives of the opponents. We also commonly justify our use of power on the rationale that it only counters the negative, aggressive acts of others. Hence, we justify both the use of power by opponents and our uses on the basis of aggres- sive tendencies found in society, indeed, in all individuals. Fighting fire with fire is an old and often-used rationale.

Power use produces change and change is progress and progress is growth: much of the justification for applying power in society is through this chain of logic. We base power use on a commitment to the growth and development of whatever organizational or institutional system we belong to. And, too, we jus- tify our use of power on the basis of a need to do well. As we (who are good) and our good institutions prosper, so does mankind and, in order to prosper, we must use power on occasion to ensure necessary progress. Its use permeates our individual and institutional acts on all levels and in all activities. We justify our use of power because its use brings us benefits we want. Refraining from using power does not.

xxvi INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

Ambivalence toward Power Use

American ambivalence toward power use is a result of our failure to deal with it frontally. On one hand our teachers teach us to expect that we can become what we set our minds to become. On the other, they also teach us to reject— even fear and oppose—domination by others. Some of our religious leaders say that power is the polar opposite of virtue. We connect power and evil symboli- cally. And power, because of its negative overtones, is largely absent from pedagogy. Our acculturation places the two ideas of freedom and power as oppo- sites. We want power for what it can do for us and we oppose the powerful for what they can do to us. We see it as part of our capacity to achieve and as a threat to external control.

Perhaps the most famous quote about power, one that has set its ethical dimension, is that of Lord Acton. In a letter to Mandell Creighton, Acton wrote, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” While widely quoted, this statement is only partially valid. Surely, power corrupts some people in their capacity to control others. But equally surely, powerlessness is no less corrupting of the soul and of individual capacity. Powerlessness transformed into violence accounts for at least as much of the depredation human history records as does power use that exceeds moral constraints.

The moral definition of power use must rest in the results achieved. Obviously, using power sometimes corrupts both the user and the victim of power. Equally obvious, experience teaches us that power enriches us, ennobles us. It lets individuals and groups achieve their highest potential. The will to power, as Nietzsche said, is one of self-realization and self-actualization. In this sense, the moral obligation is toward power, not away from it. The pull toward power is surely as strong as the counterforce against its use.

Although results attained are determined by power use, this is not always a simple cause-effect relationship. We all can think of situations in which power users have deceived themselves as to the moral utility of an outcome attained through power (Ryan, 2000). It is, of course, possible to rationalize power use to attain an end that, when attained, turns out to be destructive. And often an out- come obtained through power use may have more than one ethical result—a good thing for some, but destructive to others. Ethical complexities abound in both the literature and life. Its ubiquity in our relationships demands that we understand power and become expert in its use. Far from treating power as a negative, we can view it as an essential life process vital to growth and development (Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwich, & Mayes, 1980).

Neglect in Discussing Power Use

Power is one of the central motivating forces in individual and organizational life. Disappointingly, the largely negative explanations of power use have led to

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER xxvii

a situation where little discussion of applied power in nonpejorative terms has taken place over the hundred-plus years since its modern iteration. Even casual review of the many books and articles with the word power in the title reveals that most are not, in fact, about power. Indeed, many books in the social, political, and organizational disciplines do not even list entries for power in their indices. As Bennis (1966) suggests, power is the last dirty word—that is, the last seminal issue—in organizational thought. Because of this reluctance to deal directly with power, it has received critical attention only sporadically in modern time. (See, for example, the sound theoretical studies on power since the advent of Scientific Management, such as Millet & Sandberg, 2005).

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF POWER USE

Available research, however, has noted that power is not a uniformly evil tendency in people or a wholly negative aspect in their interrelationships. Although often activated in conflict situations, we can and do use power to attain both positive and negative values. McClelland‘s (1975) much-quoted treatise defines “two faces of power.” One is a positive, outward-oriented, social dimen- sion; the other is a negative, inner-directed, selfish dimension. The negative face seeks to dominate others. The positive face directs us toward helping others develop their full potential.

Rather than being a dirty word in the business or the social sciences, power is one of the key concepts in defining and testing reality. Understanding the nature and uses of power can help both the analyst and the participant in understanding and successfully dealing with the exigencies of organizational life. Howard (1982) suggests that in its ontological meaning, power is good; it is the capacity to act, to be an effective force in society and among our associates.

Power makes it possible for the individual to “be.” Power lets individuals have an impact in society and to this extent all power is good, since “being” is good. In the Sophist, Plato says that anything which has power has real existence; it is. The more power we have, the more capacity we have for affecting others and the environment; the more power we have, the more “good” that capacity becomes. This idea explains part of the attraction of power. It grows with fulfill- ment and that growth is in both the power wielder and the target of power. If we learn not to dominate—not to treat others as pawns—but to use power to enlarge others’ capacities, we make them feel powerful. Then, power can become one of the most helpful resources we can use in enlarging our world (Bachrach & Lawler, 1986), making it a better place in which to live. In this sense power is empowering of others.

The evil in power, then, consists not in its being, but in the way we use it. Negative power is merely power applied to constrain and dominate others. It limits rather than expands human talent. This limiting of another‘s chances is what has turned many away from even the discussion of power. Used this way,

xxviii INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

it hobbles the human being. Bertrand Russell said that the benefits to the powerful are so potentially massive as to corrupt the individual. Power for Russell (1938) is evil, largely because of the corrupting influence power has due to the potential (benefits or harm) it can bring. A better construction of history and of power ideas is that power itself is ethically neutral. It is a personal capacity that allows us to get our desired results, whether or not those actions are ethically positive.

The ethical quality perceived in its use flows out of the motives of the user, not out of the essential “stuff” of power. It is the misuse of power that may be evil; that is, power can harm others. In just the same way, the proper use of power can be ennobling to the group members. We need not place power into one discrete ethical classification. Power is like fire: it can be useful (even life saving), and it can be pleasurable. But it needs to be watched or it can destroy us. The proper intellectual and practical attitude should be respect.

The thread of power ethics moving through modern history is a clear, if only a minor thread in the fabric of human inter-relationships. Indeed, the historical treatment of power is a counterpoint to more explicit social systems and activi- ties. We often can see power in use in the great events and actions of history. Unfortunately, historically, we have only meager explanatory or theoretical models with which to analyze or evaluate this tool. Nevertheless, the theory of power use is available to the careful observer.

The principle threads in the evolution of power as a tool of social intercourse are continually evolving toward a specific technology of power-in-use. Power technology is beginning to be codified into discrete sets of power behavior. These behavior sets are coalescing into definable tactics we can use to secure our desires. Power tactics can assist both leaders and members of our social institu- tions to attain their goals. Conventional techniques of leadership such as, for example, participative management, decision making, or change or conflict management are no longer enough to fully explain organizational action (Yukl & Becker, 2006). Seen in power terms, the behavioral changes leaders need to create organizations capable of adapting to the sometimes intense pressures placed on modern organizations become clear. New techniques and new thrusts—such as power leadership—hold more promise of success. They can provide organiza- tional leaders with new analytical tools and new skills, competence, and the moti- vation to alter ineffective patterns of personal and group behavior.

Power use leads to a program of action intended to produce success from the power user’s point of view. This result may come from cooperative relationships or can flow from terror, violence, force, or anything between. Power use takes any of these forms or a variety of others—all intended to attain the user’s desires. The methods used and the skill applied in their use will determine whether or not individual leaders and our organizations are effective. Working from a power perspective can increase the ability of organization members singly and as a “whole” to respond to a constantly changing environment.

A certain level of abstraction is implicit in any analysis of power usage. The concentration here is on applied use, not theoretical niceties. It is about tactical

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER xxix

power use and only incidentally about power strategies. Strategy, of course, refers to the planning and directing of overall operations, tactics to the more specific and direct application. Both aspects of power use involve alteration of the situational or resource elements of the decision issue. Strategies deal with the main forces and factors found in the overall situation. Strategy determines the general direction along which the power use intends to take the organizational unit or individuals dealt with. This work avoids development of a grand strategy or encompassing theory of power. Even after a hundred years of modern interest, we need to know much more about the details and mechanics of power use before anyone can tackle this higher level of abstraction. Nevertheless, the information presented in these pages provides a helpful approach to others who may investi- gate the subject of an overall strategy of power. In this book the strategic orienta- tion is on the target of our power use, superiors, peers, or subordinates.

xxx INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

Part I

Defining Power in Work Group Operations

Contemporary society demands results from its organizations. Although a commonly sought goal, we really know relatively little about the mechanisms needed to achieve successful results. Applied power theory may be one such mechanism since it focuses on the political relationships among organizational participants. Unfortunately, research and theory building in power use is, at best, rudimentary. Scholars have skillfully avoided discussion of power and its all- inclusive use in relationships as members negotiate advantage vis-à-vis their coworkers. Some work toward a general theory was attempted in the immediate post–World War II period and again in the early 1990s (see Fairholm, 1993). The literature doesn’t point up much more theory-building, although literally thou- sands of books and articles contain the words power or influence, and some include arguments or examples that validate Fairholm’s 1993 model.

The gap between scholar and practitioner is also a significant factor in help- ing us understand the paucity of power research. Scholars are spending relatively little time in learning how people actually use power in organizations. Practition- ers, however, are continuously and actively engaged in this kind of interaction, but they need definitional and applied models to help guide their practice. Our understanding of the tactical use of power must languish until both scholars and practitioners share information derived from their separate involvements with the organization. One thing is certain, however: we cannot ignore power use. It is a necessary and valuable tool that leaders need to successfully navigate in the com- plex global society characterizing today’s work and social organizations. We must overcome the felt tensions arising from even the idea of power and actively embrace it. The demands of contemporary life leave both leader and led little alternative but to engage broadly in studying power and learning to use it.

Part I begins this elaboration with definitional dimensions of applied power usage in today’s organizations. It presents a working definition centered in the idea that power is a personal capacity allowing individuals to get their desired results in the face of possible opposition from others. Chapters in Part I identify and describe eight dimensions of this definition of power and place it in context of our self-perceptions, our views of organization, leadership, and our relation- ships in both formal and informal situations. Here we examine power sources available to us. In this part we also clarify the various forms power takes and place them on a coercion-consent continuum. Power manifests itself in six arche- typical forms: force, authority, manipulation, persuasion, threat (or, promise), and influence. Understanding what power is and how it is expressed in our interrela- tionships illuminates this seminal idea in social relationships and makes clear the key role power plays in our group life.

In a broad sense we can think of power as a personal capacity that allows us to get our desired results from social interaction, even in the face of opposition (read, “competition”) from others. This competition is over the use of materials, space, energy and goals in ways that if one participant attains his goals, the other(s) cannot. Viewed in this way, power is a political process and this office politics takes place in all our interrelationships. We see this “political” competition in normal organizational activities such as planning, decision making, selecting staff, and specification of specific behavior (or sets of ritualized behaviors). While calling this kind of behavior power politics or office politics sometimes turns people off, it is, nevertheless, typical behavior. And this recognition changes the nature of our organizational relationships. It demands our attention not only to ensure organizational success, but to ensure our own as well.

2 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Chapter 1

Elements of a Definition

Everybody uses power to affect others with whom they are in a relationship. Power and power use are difficult ideas to fully comprehend. Analytical studies are not lacking, but they have done little to clarify elements of power, its sources, or com- ponents. Some writers have defined power variously as a potential for social action and as a predictor and conditioner of behavior. Others have described power as an ethical element of freedom, as a tool for analysis of influence, and/or as a basis for violence. Some see power as a possession in a zero-sum game. Others see it as a shared resource to monopolize. And, still others view it as a general capacity of per- sonality. Each of these perspectives helps somewhat in delimiting power. Individu- ally, they elaborate salient dimensions of this perplexing social phenomenon. Together, however, they garble succinct distinctions and create confusion. The result is that many power definitions overlap or even contradict each other, and the sys- tematic definition of power use in complex organizations is still rudimentary at best. The serious reader struggles to obtain insight into specific dimensions of power.

Notwithstanding this confusion, power is attractive. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers have all dealt with this subject. Many writers and practi- tioners view it negatively. Archbishop Fenelon reflected the perceptions of his day when he described power as “poison.” The famous quote by Lord Acton that “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” is typical of much of the tone of power literature. The essential nature of power has eluded us. Perhaps no other concept in social science is more confusing and troublesome. We may say about power what Saint Augustine said about time: we all know perfectly well what it is—until someone asks us.

Nevertheless, power is a part of life. People are always interacting in group settings to secure goals and desired results. This is increasingly true for leaders.

Leaders use power in the group to gain organizational—political, economic, and operational—advantage. All intra- and intergroup communication is purposeful and to achieve that purpose we all engage in power activity. Recently, some writers (among them Follett, 1942; Winter, 1973; McClelland, 1975; Nyberg, 1981; Fairholm, 1993; Gordon, 2002; et al.) have contended that power can be liberating, enhancing the individual and those dealt with. This positive face of power is cur- rently receiving much more attention. It gives “research” support for an activity much maligned, but frequently engaged in by us all.

DEFINING POWER

Concern with differences—but not with definitions—between power and related concepts such as authority, influence, domination, force or control is clear in the literature. Some writers use these terms interchangeably. Others make painstaking distinctions that, although possibly useful to their particular discus- sion, have little value when we compare different writers and different theories (Yukl, 1981). We need a definition of power sufficiently broad to provide what Gardner (1964) called semantic space. Such a definition will allow the analyst to apply particular examples of possible power relationships surely must encompass the overall idea that power is the ability-to-do.

There is little agreement about what power is, where or when the individ- ual gets it, or how to use it successfully. It is clear that individual personality, as well as control over material and psychological resources, is part of power use. What is also clear is that power is pervasive, interesting, somewhat fright- ening, and central to success in operating in organizational settings. We experi- ence the effects of power use at every level of human interaction. Perhaps its most significant arena is that of the complex organization—whether work or social group. Power, as much as any single issue, helps us understand the inner working of the modern organization. It can give us help in analyzing current performance (Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002), measuring impact, and predicting success.

The word power and the underlying concept have been the subject of exten- sive analysis. The result is that there is more confusion and distinction than harmony and synthesis in available definitions. Some convergence centers on the ideas of power as a personal capacity (Swarr, 2005). Many see power in use as a way to activate us so we can get our desired results even in the face of opposition or indifference. Given the above analysis, power is, like many other terms, a uni- versal idea: one not easily classified or specified. Reviewing the power literature quickly points up the ubiquity of the concept as an explicit and (more often) implicit element of leadership, management, and organizational behavior. Power has occupied the attention of scholars from a wide range of disciplines, but even casual perusal confirms that they differ in their degree of rigor, specificity, and scope. Nevertheless, the continuing interest it draws from both academic and practicing professionals in widely diverse disciplines attests to its importance.

4 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Writers in politics, religion, anthropology, psychology, sociology leadership, and management confirm its importance (Doktor, 1982).

The definition used here is operational (Fairholm, 1993). Power is

the individual capacity to gain our own aims in interrelationship with others, even in the face of their opposition.

Implicit in this definition are several ideas important to the systematic use of power. It is a personal capacity, allowing the user to get their way in competition with others. That is, power is implicitly a political idea involving several charac- teristics. These characteristics elaborate power as a personal tool that leaders, as well as followers, use in interpersonal relations. These characteristics add depth to the definition of power and reveal something of its scope, extent, and domain. Each of the following ideas connotes a specific characteristic of the concept called power. Thus, it will be seen that power is a special kind of a social rela- tionship characterized by the following:

Power is intentional, it involves volitional, not random action.

Power is instrumental, it is a means to desired ends.

Power is finite, it is measured and compared in a given situation or occurrence.

Power involves dependency, there is a freedom or dependency-independency factor inherent in any power use.

Power is an action idea, it is apparent in use, not in mere possession.

Power is defined in results terms, results determine our power.

Power is situational, specific power tactics are effective in specific relationships and not necessarily in others.

Power is based on opposition or difference, parties must differ before they will use power.

The sections that follow elaborate on these eight definitional characteristics of operational power.

Intentionality

Power is intentional. It requires a plan and an anticipated outcome. It is only successful when it is a part of an exchange that results in desired behavior in the

ELEMENTS OF A DEFINITION 5

person toward whom we direct power—our target of power. Our behavior may cause another to do something they did not intend to do, but unless we con- sciously intend for someone to behave in that way we cannot say that our power use was effective. The cause may have been happenstance. Of course, power is in use anytime we try to alter the current relationship. But it is successful only if the desired behavior would probably not have occurred if we had not been involved. Sik (1979) suggests that a measure of a person’s power is in exerting power over another so that he can exact compliance as desired. Power is operative to the degree that intended and foreseen results occur.

Both parties in a relationship have and use power. We can define all social con- trol in terms of this mutuality of influence and control (Berle, 1959; Ryan, 2000). The relative power of the participants must be different—one participant must perceive him or herself to be relatively more dominant than the other—otherwise there would be no point in employing energy in power behavior. In this situation, one person consents and in that consent transfers power to the other, making that individual relatively more dominant in that situation.

Of course, power use that produces something other than what was intended in another person does occur. We cannot say this is a use of our power, because the outcome cannot be predicted or controlled—or even desired. Effective power use results only when desired behavior change in others occurs. Unintended results are, by definition, anti-intent. Whether we consciously ignore a potential power use situation or unconsciously engage in power use, the result is fortuitous and not a power result. Intended power is exhibited in any of several forms. Traditional authority is one example seen in many purposeful interactions. Persuasion, manipulation, and force are other examples of intentional power use (see Chapter 4 for a more specific discussion of power forms). Each form of power use involves the user in exerting premeditated behavior toward another person with the intent of securing some desired outcome.

Instrumentality

Power functions through control over organizational and other resources (including other people) and via that control over specific people, things, or events. It is, in this sense, instrumental to final goal attainment. We use power through a chain of events that connect control over needed or scarce resources with control over individual behavior(s). It is always instrumental in this way. It is primarily a means-based phenomenon, not an ends-based one; that is, we use power to gain something else. Influential people use control over scarce skill, ideas, or resources to secure the compliance of those who desire those resources. In a very real sense, power use is a special process for affecting behavior, policies, and program results through actual or threatened deprivations to the noncon- forming. Control over these resources empowers; lack of such control results in relative powerlessness in attaining our desires.

6 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Situational

We cannot define power apart from the situation. Power is operative when specific actors in a definite relationship—either transitory or long-lasting—in time and space interact to change the group dynamic. It is operative in a given sit- uation where one person desires a resource another holds or controls. If the situ- ation changes, the power relationship may no longer obtain. That is, if the desires of the participant changes so he no longer wants the resource we control, there is no longer a power relation. Similarly, if we lose control over a desired resource, the other participants are no longer compelled to follow our lead. They need not follow because doing so likely will not achieve their desired results. As these factors in the situation change, power use is altered.

Analysis of the power relationship reveals at least four factors that define a power situation. People use power when the situation can be described in terms of the following factors:

First, there has to be some interdependence of the actors in the situation. Unless there is some reason for the parties to interact, a relationship— power or otherwise—cannot exist. Second, the participants must differ as to their goals and method for pro- ceeding. A power situation is one of opposition. If the goals or method- ologies of participants in the relationship can be accommodated, there is neither need nor opportunity to exercise power. Given differences in one or both, we must employ power in order for action to take place. A third criterion deals with the scarcity of the resources needed to achieve desired results. Desired results must be limited enough so that both parties cannot achieve their goals or approach the activity from their respective methodologies simultaneously. If resources are adequate to accommodate both, we need not employ power. Given a scarcity of resources, however, the participant with the most control over needed resources can exercise power successfully. Finally, the parties must view the potential results to be sufficiently valu- able to them so that they are willing to engage in competition to achieve their desires. Unless there is enough interest, we cannot define the rela- tionship as a power relationship.

Opposition

Opposition is a part of all life. It is essential in understanding power use situations. Our power is a function of our ability to overcome the resistance of another person. Bierstadt (1950) defines power as present only in situations of social opposition. Weber (1968) suggests that power is the probability that one member within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his or her

ELEMENTS OF A DEFINITION 7

own will despite resistance. Laswell and Kaplin (1950) see power as participation in the making of decisions. For them, A has power over B with respect to the values C he holds, if A participates in the making of decisions effecting the C poli- cies of B. Etzioni (1961), similarly, includes the overcoming of resistance as an element in the analysis of power.

Seen in this light, power is a shared phenomenon between opponents. Both (all) parties in the power relationship have some power in the situation (Berle, 1959). One participant exerts power as he overcomes resistance or opposition interposed by the other participant(s). In a related vein, one with a more altruistic tone, is the work of Mary Parker Follett (1942). She agrees that power is definable in terms similar to those stated above, as the power of some persons over other persons. She also sees the possibility of those two participants exercising their power capacities jointly. Her concept of power-with rather than power-over has the aim of unification, while allowing for infinite difference. Power here is coactive, not coercive, but operating, nonetheless, in situations of difference or opposition.

An Action Idea

Power is apparent in action. As noted, many writers relate power to overt action. As a personal capacity, power has being only in action, in use. Whether physical, mental or moral, power is a relationship in which we impact the behav- ior of another through action that the second individual wants or needs or wants to avoid and therefore acts in specified ways. We often exercise power through threats or promises of action as well as overt actions (Bell, 1975; Hughes & Beatty, 2005). Yet, even a threat is an action. Persons respond to this exercise of power rather than incur the future dire results threatened. Or, they respond to secure a promised future outcome. Power is the prior capacity which, when applied, makes the application of force possible in a given action situation. The key to power, however, is in its eventual use.

Dependence/Independence

Power operates in dependency relationships. At one level we see dependency in domination of the powerful over the relatively powerless. We can think of power—all of life, actually—as a series of one-on-one relationships reiterated continuously. At times, one member of the dyad predominates and at other times the other person may be in ascendancy. We constantly move from direction to being directed in our relationships. At times, we persuade others to do something we want them to do: follow our orders, get us something we want, laugh at our jokes, understand or respect us or our ideas or values. At other times—often in the same conversation—we are persuaded, made to laugh, or do something that

8 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

the other person wants us to do. Independence-dependence relations of this dynamic, interactive sort comprise the power dynamic and the dynamics of life.

From the perspective of the target of power—the more common focus of power research—power is constraining. The dictionary typically defines power as the ability or authority to dominate people, to control them. Power begets obedi- ence. It can interfere with others’ freedom and compel their actions in particular ways. Mechanic (1962) defines power as any force that results in behavior that would not have occurred if the force had not been present. Emerson (1962) also describes the power relationship in dependence terms. That is, A’s power over B becomes a function of B’s dependence on A. Hence, B will be dependent upon A in a given situation to the degree that B cannot find alternate sources for the resource(s) that A controls and B desires (Pfeffer, 1981). We find similar ideas in the work of many sociological theorists.

When the power user is the focus of analysis, we see a different perspective. Power, for the user of power, is liberating. Seen from this vantage point, we can equate power with freedom. The more power we have to determine the course of events that we and others follow, the more freedom we have. Our capacity to act (a key element of power) is a measure of the freedom we enjoy. It is a self- developing capacity—as power-using individuals we have our way in the situa- tion. In a real sense, freedom is having adequate power. It becomes a desirable commodity. People seek power to enhance their freedom of action. It is not merely a negative element of some group situations.

Finite

Power is a finite resource. More accurately, it is control over specific physical or psychological resources needed or desired by others that are in short supply over a given time span; that is, all parties desiring the specific resource cannot be supplied. Handy (1976) distinguishes between influence and power. He points out that power is a resource that allows us to engage in a process of influencing the behavior of others. People often want a resource we control sufficiently enough to do something we want them do to receive this scarce resource. In this discus- sion, Handy, as do others, confuses the concept of power. Power is generic; influ- ence is one form power takes in getting others to comply. His insight that power is a definite resource, however, is relevant to this discussion. Much of the later discussion about power sources confirms and elaborates this concept.

Kaplin (1964) defines the scope of power as the range of stimuli and the range of corresponding responses the power user affects. Kaplin defines power in measurable terms based on the scope of impact over people, material, or other resources held or controlled. For example, a chief executive leading an organiza- tion of 3,000 people has a measurably greater amount of power than one leading a group of 30 people. Similarly, a person who controls the time, money, tools, and equipment you need exercises more potential power over you than does the

ELEMENTS OF A DEFINITION 9

10 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

person who only controls tools. Kaplin refers to power as a specific capacity in a given situation, as a finite element of the situation.

To assume that power is concrete, however, is to overemphasize its resource character. Power is not, strictly speaking, a commodity. We cannot say we own power in the same way that we own money or property. Power is one of the factors of the situation and the dynamics of the interpersonal relationship. The targets of our power use have impact on our total power capacity to the degree that they desire or ignore a power resource we control.

The organization often functions as a kind of power broker. It dispenses power in the form of suzerainty over employees or resources or programs to those who want or need it in order to fulfill their individual goals. In this sense, we increase power by use. When we grant control over a portion of our work force to another, that person gets power. We also keep our power and, often, that power base is enhanced by the addition of another level of control (hierarchy). As the dispenser of power, we have enlarged our own locus of control as we create added loci of power in our newly empowered subordinates.

Power use can, of course, reduce our power. Consider the case of the indi- vidual who threatens another person with dire results if that other person fails to perform in a desired way. If the target of power fails to behave in the desired way and no dire results follow, the power of the threatener dissipates and will not be as effective in future relationships. We lose power through this kind of use.

MEASURED BY RESULTS ATTAINED

As a rule, we exercise power only when we achieve our desired results as opposed to results desired by another. When both parties in a relationship can and do gain their desired results independently, power is not operative. When one person gains power and the other does not, power is, by definition, a part of the power relationship. Succinctly put, we use power when we exert human energy to produce desired results. And results are the measure of success (Howard, 1982). Pursuit of individual goals requires the use of power (a personal capacity). So does pursuit of group goals. The power user may use personal power capacities (Safty, 2003) or group power capacities, that is, authority (Grimes, 1978). Both are examples of power use since they focus on results.

SUMMARY

Power admits to no simple definition. It is a part of the complex nature of human relations. It is central to life as we know it. It is critical to organized interactions. The ideas and issues raised thus far serve to introduce the idea of power-in-use in social groups by all members.

Chapter 2

Defining the Forms of Power

Defined as we have done, power leadership engages the leader (all stakeholders) in using power politically, that is, to gain personal and/or institutional goals in competition with others. Of course, we all exercise power in the context of our institutional and personal history and ethics. Securing our desired results in the face of opposition characterizes much of our interpersonal life activity. Depending upon the writer, power is defined as harmonious with influence or opposed to it. They use the ideas of power and force synonymously. Others define it as disparate ends of a continuum of control. That is, some see power as authority or as anti- thetical to it. Others see coercion as power made manifest or as merely one form of power. Confusion and ambiguity in the literature are rampant. The result is that the lexicon of power terms is almost useless in distinguishing power-use mecha- nisms. We need a new language to reconceptualize power terms in ways that admit precise meaning and unambiguous application. To do this, however, is to introduce further ambiguity into the discussion of power.

Defining power as a personal capacity that allows the individual to get his desired results in the face of opposition encompasses much of current research. It removes, also, the need to construe too narrowly much of the important work now being done to extend and operationalize power usage and to recognize power as we see it manifest in a wide variety of settings and in increasingly multiple forms. It has, thus, a potential for organizational and individual imposition of sanctions and any preliminary steps that induce the target to comply or incur the threatened sanction. Power is also present in situations where someone substitutes logical argument for the threat of or actual imposition of a sanction. This is a much more comprehensive construction of power than is proposed by Robert Bierstadt (1950) or Bachrach and Baratz (1972) who equate power with a capacity to

compel obedience even over resistance. They reject the idea that power is present in persuasion situations where little resistance is present—a construction of power that others support. A more inclusive analysis would support a definition of power that includes instances of compliance due to persuasion, intrinsic logic, or even like-mindedness (Goldhamer & Shils, 1972; Fisher, 2007).

Undoubtedly, power use takes a variety of forms to produce intended and effective results. It is a process based on a desire to induce change in others in conformance with a predetermined plan. The forms it takes range from coercive application of force (Rickards, 2000) to benign and sympathetic persuasion, to joint action based on common values and ideals. The diagram in Figure 2.1 iden- tifies six forms of power subsumed in a coercion-consent behavior impact process. This archetypical power model serves to distinguish the various forms of power available to the individual. Some forms tend to flow out of coercive means (Rickards, 2000) that the individual holds, and some tend to flow from consensus. This diagram also depicts the general relationship each holds to the others. The forms of power use are linearly related to each other on this coercion-consent continuum. At one end of the continuum, the forms rely heavily on coercion to secure compliance; at the other end, power use relies on informed, cooperative consent as the basis for compliance.

Briefly, this basic power impact process suggests that people exercising power behave in ways and for goals that result in impacting another’s behavior, values, ideals, or attitudes. The process by which this change takes place we call a power

12 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Table 2.1 A Basic Impact Power Model

BASE OF COMPLIANCE _________ ARCHETYPICAL POWER FORMS Coersion | Force

| | | | | | | | Authority | | | | | | | | Manipulation

to | | | | | | | Threat/Promise | | | | | | | | Persuasion | | | | | |

Consent ___|___ Influence A personal or positional

Impact process

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

or an impact process. We derive power from our capacity to coerce others’ com- pliance and from our capacity to attain voluntary consent from them. The process of power is one of change; the sources are self and role in the group hierarchy. The actual use of power takes any of these forms. The specific form adopted depends upon the individual, the situation, and the needed, scarce resources controlled. These forms of power (force, authority, manipulation, threat [or promise], persua- sion, and influence) encompass a continuum of control ranging from coercion to consent. These archetypical power forms are described below.

THE POWER IMPACT MODEL

The power process impacts others in certain ways. Any time we influence others in ways that change their behavior, values, ideals, or perceptions, we can say that power is in use (Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002). It is a process of affecting another (Handy, 1976) regardless of the method, approach, or foundation upon which we achieve that effect. It matters only that we impact another to behave in a way that the person would not otherwise have behaved. This Power Impact Model is pervasive and tied to interpersonal relationships and is not merely a function of hierarchy. The impact process is the mechanism for the exercise of power. It is the process by which we direct power and focus it. Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwich, and Mayes (1980) use a financial simile to distinguish impact from its activating source—power. Wealth, he says, is finite (countable), and cash flow is the process by which one puts wealth into use in ways that the holder of wealth desires. He equates impact with wealth and power with cash flow. The impact process, then, is the mechanism by which power is activated and made useful in effecting the power holder’s world.

We apply power in any of its six forms in given situations via this impact process. It is a central social process. It is the mechanism upon which, Moscovici (1974) contends, all other processes in social psychology depend. The sources of power are personality or position held (Gandhi, 2001). Falbo (1977), in analyz- ing ways people get their way in social situations, identified sixteen different approaches. Fundamentally, however, we can order these approaches based on position occupied in the group or personal characteristics held.

POSITION

Position as the basis for power use is a part of the analysis of even the earliest works on power. In the first century A.D., Epictetus, in describing freedom and coercive power, made this penetrating point, “no one is afraid of Caesar himself, but he is afraid of death, loss of property, prison, disenfranchisement. Nor does anyone love Caesar himself . . . but we love wealth, a tribuneship, a praetorship . . . when we love and hate and fear these things, it must needs be that those who

DEFINING THE FORMS OF POWER 13

control them are masters over us” (qtd. in Krieger & Stern, 1968). Position per se grants to the incumbent resources that are useful in exercising power to get our way, such as rewards and punishments.

Position makes available specific rewards or punishment potentials that are instrumental in achieving control over others. Hollander (1978) suggests that superior position in the group carries with it control over specific rewards, but also control over opportunity for experience that they and others value. It also conveys control over information, values that are acceptable in the group, and over uncertainty, hope, and optimism. Our position in the hierarchy also allows the incumbent to control setting norms, values, and other socialization processes. Gouldner (1960) identifies this social binding capacity as a significant source of power that supervisors control in their groups. People in superior sta- tus positions often have the right to prescribe behavior patterns for others in the group. Swarr (2005) notes that cultural factors such as ethnicity and gender and ethnicity are also in play in this connection and may constitute another basis for success in using one’s power.

PERSONALITY

Notwithstanding the above, it is also true that we may follow our “Caesar” out of love for him. People of merit or with outstanding personal qualities or char- acteristics attract us. Stupak and Leitner (2001) diagnose power relationships within organizations. They discuss sources, kinds, and forms of power leaders use. They say that the most critical single factor influencing the transmission, reception, and effectiveness of power may lie in the character of the wielder (see also Telford & Gostick, 2005). We allow people who can provide us with affec- tion, recognition, time, and attention to exercise power over us. People whose qualities or appearance we value can satisfy needs for affiliation, recognition, association, and sympathy. These people can also punish us through rejection, disengagement, attitudes of detachment, or even by formally excluding us from their company. Rosen, Levinger, and Lippitt (1961) and Bass, Wurster, and Alcock (1963) say that we want to be valued and esteemed by others that we value and esteem. We endow such people with power based on aspects of their character or personality (Sankar, 2003).

Personal power as a basis for activation of the impact process in social situ- ations is also important (Safty, 2003). It is an aspect of power use that has only recently received major attention in the research literature. Its impact on organi- zational life, however, is and has always been significant. Weber (1968) identified charisma as one of three primary sources of power along with traditional and legalistic foundations. Charisma, a transcendental idea of supernatural power, also incorporates ideas of strong emotional bonding between charismatic leaders and followers (Sankar, 2003). This bonding may be strong enough to incite intense commitment, fanatical loyalty, and even mass suicide, as the examples of

14 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

the Jonestown, Guyana or the Heaven’s Gate Group in Rancho Santa Fe near San Diego attest.

COMPLIANCE: COERCION OR CONSENT

Compliance is achieving the result intended from our use of power. All of our instructions or commands depend on the acceptance or compliance of the com- manded. Nyberg (1981) relates compliance to a sensed willingness on the part of the target of power. Compliance is effective and the impact process successful as we induce others to obey our orders, instructions, requests, or implied wishes. Such compliance can be voluntary (consented to) or coerced. The form of power we elect to use relies more or less heavily on either coercion or voluntary consent, or a combination of these two. A key idea here has to do with the relative avail- ability of information in the power relationship in defining coercion and consent.

Consent

We relate in one-to-one and one-to-group relationships in order to get others to behave according to our wishes. We want others to relate to us in specific ways that we feel appropriate, given our power resources, and others want the same from us. Sometimes, we consent to another’s wishes because we have thought about it and concluded that the suggested course of action is logical for us. This is voluntary consent (the highest form of compliance). Consent implies unforced respect for the idea or the personality of the individual asking us to comply. It is evoked out of our willingness to be guided by the actions or words of another person because we admire, respect, or are attracted to that person or his or her ideas. The problem of ensuring compliance through voluntary consent to our orders or wishes is universal in social units (Etzioni, 1961). We attain this objective through power use.

Coercion

At times we acquiesce to another person’s wishes under threat of forcible (physical or psychological) sanction. This is coercion. Coercion implies required compliance, the ability to force another to behave in desired ways. It is, therefore, important in power use. In its extreme form coercion is naked force or violence. Coercion is also a characteristic of many orders we receive from those in author- ity over us. Threats of violence or the imposition of force are examples of coer- cion. Coercion implies the absence of alternative courses of actions. If we and our target have antithetical values or needs, one must sacrifice his or her values to the other (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). Coercion, as a basis of power, can be legitimate or illegitimate—for example, a robber’s coercion of a victim. This

DEFINING THE FORMS OF POWER 15

foundation of sway, nevertheless, has impact regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying ethical values

Supporting the concept of coercion is the plausibility of enforcement; that is, unless we have the means to exact the violence threatened, there is no power exercised. Coercion is one of the bases of power identified by French and Raven (1959) upon which the individual can rely in using power. Assuming we have the ability to exact sanctions for noncompliance and we know the situation, in most cases there is little need for direct coercion.

Compliance is the goal of power use. We apply power in a situation depend- ing upon our assessment of the relative success expected by relying on consent or coercion in achieving our goals. Some kinds of power rely more heavily on coer- cion. Other forms rely more on voluntary consent for compliance to our wishes. Both of these extremes are examples of power use, as are all of the intervening options which are open to us. Achieving target compliance shows effective power use. This is true regardless of the power form employed.

THE FORMS OF POWER

The Power Impact Model defines six forms of power—forms that range the continuum from coercive to consensual. The six forms represent archetypes that depict major types of power use, each identifiable from the others in some specific dimensions. Actual power use may take any of these archetypical forms. It is, perhaps, more common that our use of power may overlap one or more forms.

Force

Force power refers to physical or biological force. Force is the ability to impose obstacles restricting another’s freedom and inflict pain or discomfort (physical or psychological), including the taking of life itself (Yukl, 1981). This capacity to cause pain, restrain freedom, or take life underlies power use on two levels. First, force lets us control another’s behavior to exact compliance. Force is a very effective form in the sense that people respond more directly to its appli- cation than to any other power form. Second, force is at one end of a continuum that includes authority, manipulation, and persuasion, as well as threat. Manipu- lation is an aspect of force, for once the target is in the forcer’s grip, he has no option as to his course of action. Both force and manipulation have nonrational implications. Persuasion, threat, and authority are more rational manifestations of power.

The most direct form of force is violence—direct assault on the body. However, nonviolence is also a form of force. Ghandi’s nonviolent movement for civil rights in India, the nuclear nonproliferation activists, and the American civil rights activists show clearly the power that nonviolence can have on other people.

16 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Sit-ins and freedom marches, as much as any other tactic, were instrumental in forcing official attitudes and many private ones about civil rights to change. Deprivation by the individual of certain customary conditions is also an example of nonviolent force. Denial of sleep, subjection of prisoners to intense, continual light, or making them stand for hours all have been used and can be effective in forcing others’ compliance to our wishes.

We also see force in situations where someone threatens violence: “Your money or your life,” with a fist shaken violently in our nose. The difference between these and a shot fired or a punch thrown is significant, but in power terms both are examples of force. They describe situations where the power user gets compliance based on coercive control over the available options. In one case the situation is direct; the other is a situation where force is abstract or symbolic. Some (Arndt, 1951) contend that force is the behavior of choice in the face of a breakdown of power, not an example of power itself. Rather than seeing these two ideas as antithetical, a more logical approach is to view them as separate exam- ples on the power continuum. This is the option taken here. We may, in fact, adopt force to insure compliance when other applications of power—say threat (or promise) or persuasion—fail. Even so, it is not inconsistent with logic to say that in these cases we adopt another form of power. We do not move from power to something else.

Force is effective both in achieving desired behaviors and in forestalling undesired ones. But it is perhaps in the realm of prevention of undesired behavior that we employ force most often. Force limits our ability to behave in desired ways. It limits freedom and independence. And it is expensive. For example, to kill a person will indeed prevent undesired actions, but it drastically limits future relationships. And, too, in work contexts we can seldom achieve compliance by forcefully manipulating someone’s fingers, hands, or head in desired ways. In its psychological dimension, we apply force to forestall others acting in undesired ways or to withhold psychic rewards. It also has psychological limitations in that while it can inhibit undesired behaviors, it has little effect on encouraging desired ones.

Authority

Authority is power sanctioned by the group (Simon, 1957). It is legitimate in that we base our authority on externally-sanctioned law, custom, or common prac- tice (Tepper, 1993). Barnard (1948) defines this power form as part of the charac- ter of a formal organizational communication, by virtue of which it is accepted as governing or determining what targets do or are not to do in so far as the organi- zation is concerned. Authority comes from a position held and on the expectations of the follower corps to obey the authority figure. This form of power is based on sources external to the individual. We get compliance as targets obey because it is implicit in their relationship within the group to behave in such ways.

DEFINING THE FORMS OF POWER 17

Authority power is commonly exhibited through orders we issue to those subordinate to us. It is a coercive resource acquired by the user by virtue of a grant of power from those both above and below us in the social structure. It is often logical, reasoned, legitimate, and systematic in its application and use. It is, nevertheless, a coercive form. Authority is, perhaps, the most ubiquitous form of power use in organizations. It is the basis for division of labor in organizations (Bell, 1975) and insures coordinated action, responsibility, and accomplishment. Authority power is direct where some other forms, such as influence—at the other end of the continuum—is subtle. Authority is easily “seen” and its coercive format attacked more openly and more consistently.

Weber (1968) defined three ideal types of authority: rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic. Each type implies a separate foundation upon which authority functions. The leader’s authority may come from a position legally granted by a superior. It can be a delegation in the traditional sense. Habitual modes of behavior and interaction can also provide the basis for structured authority relationships. An example is where we defer to one person consistently because it is expected. We take authority relationships for granted because we feel that this is how relation- ships work in this organization. And, finally, we can also base our authority upon our special traits and capacities, on our personality, charisma, or specialization.

Authority power appears to have a relationship to acceptance (perceived or real) by the subordinate to the authority figure. A leader by delegation can bestow an amount of authority on us, but until and unless followers perceive that grant as legitimate, reasonable, and acceptable no real capacity to achieve intended results is possible (Grimes, 1978). If the subordinate cannot see this relationship as log- ical and consistent with his perceptions of the organization, its operation, and his personal interests, he will not accede to the order even though sanctions can and do follow. In this situation the leader must resort to force to ensure compliance (Barnard, 1948).

Actions based on authority are, to some, more anxiety-laden than some other forms of power. McKeachie (1969) suggests that fear of aggression and retalia- tion is often present in authority figures. People maintain their authority by using the group resources that gave it rise, such as interpersonal pressures and norms that sanction the relationship and define what is acceptable. The maxim “love flees authority” adds conventional wisdom to this idea. Authority-power induces remoteness, psychological distance between followers and leaders. Gaining and using authority increases our vulnerability to group members. Some of the “loneliness at the top” may derive from the adverse psychological impacts of the exercise of authority.

Manipulation

Force and authority power forms are overt, manipulation is covert. In, say, a force situation, the targets of power are aware of the application of force and to a

18 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

degree, at least, of the potential availability of other power forms. However, in some circumstances we conceal our use of power. In these situations, the power user is using manipulation. Wrong (1979) asserts that sometimes people use manipulation alone as a single power form. Often, we use it in combination with another form, say persuasion or influence. The key to manipulation is masking intent to affect the other person’s behavior directly. Manipulation does not evoke a counter reaction from the target, since our targets do not know that they are targets of our power use. Manipulation may even evoke feelings of freedom and choice (see Dahl, 1961).

Using the manipulation power form is widespread, although counter to American norms. It connotes calculation, premeditation and detachment, not openness, sharing, or candor. People exercise manipulation in several ways. In one scenario we use the technique of hiding our intent by controlling the infor- mation sources available to the target. Advertising and public relations techni- cians sometimes fall into this class of user. In another scenario the technique is for us to manipulate the environmental surroundings of the targets and in this way evoke the desired response. Price setting in the marketplace is an example of this manipulation technique. Manipulation also is a part of efforts to create conducive physical surroundings. Thus, we see manipulation in the case of the man who provides his date with candlelight, flowers, music, and a good meal to influence her to his point of view about his desirability as a mate. And, finally, there is the Machiavellian manipulator who cunningly and devil- ishly sets out to undermine another’s position, reputation, or honor. We can, of course, use manipulation to aid individual and group development, but its covert character places it in a precarious position in terms of acceptance (Kuhn & Graham, 2005).

Group members must deal with manipulation both theoretically and opera- tionally as they function in the real world. It is hard to oppose manipulation openly, since the target is unaware of the use of this power form. There is no action to oppose, no order to disobey, no adversary to face. Manipulation is, therefore, the most dehumanizing form of power. It is more dehumanizing than physical force where the adversary is at least known and can be confronted. Much of the negative reputation power enjoys today may have come from negative experiences we all have had with manipulation.

Threat/Promise

Threat is a distinct form of power use. Threat power is exercised when others obey us because they want to avoid a dire future state of being that we predict will result from their disobedience. Operationally, we sometimes get other people to change as a direct result of the threat of deprivation of something they desire (Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994). The statement “do this or else” is a threat- power paradigm. For this form of power to be effective, there must be recognition

DEFINING THE FORMS OF POWER 19

by our targets that we have, in fact, the capacity to deprive then of an important (to them) need.

This form of power is not like force or authority where we take the options of the target from him. When we use threat, the target retains the option of non- compliance. The decisive factor is the degree of desire he has not to be deprived of the threatened sanction. Our past uses of power can act to strengthen our use of threat power. In fact, theorists justify the occasional use of force on the grounds that it lets us use the less coercive power of threat more. Newstadt (1960) illus- trates this idea clearly in his description of the events surrounding the classic sce- nario encompassing the firing of General Douglas MacArthur by President Truman. The firing of MacArthur (an instance of the use of force) represented a failure of threat power. When President Truman’s threat to relieve MacArthur failed to get him to change, the alternative of force became the only viable option left to a beleaguered president. Once accomplished, however, the firing provided the basis for an increase in President Truman’s perceived power. This power increase extended not only in military realms, but to others in the administration, who perceived the president to be aggressive and who wielded the implicit threat that he could and might fire them also.

Threat is explicit when we forecast that positive results will follow desired behavior on the part of the power target. Promise is like threat in theory and appli- cation. A promise predicts a future state of being, but a desirable one. It is equal to threat as a means of ensuring compliance. In this version, we secure compliance from others through the technique of painting a picture of a desirable future that our power target can attain upon compliance with our wishes. Both threat and promise induce compliance in others by predicting the future—the one dire, the other desirable.

Persuasion

Persuasion is argument (Salacuse, 2007). It is a relationship in which one person independently weighs and accepts the ideas, instructions, and/or values of their leaders after they elaborate their position to that person. In this form of power use, the decision of the target to accept our argument is essentially uncon- strained by considerations of penalty or reward (except via the logical results of this “desired” behavior). When we use argument, we suspend the use of force or authority or manipulation. Persuasion is a form of give-and-take in which both parties interact in relative equality. Persuasion is egalitarian power use character- ized by sharing (Miliband, 2008). The individuals in the situation begin with dif- ferent views, information, ideas, values, biases, or whatever. Through dialogue, one convinces the other to the first one’s point of view and, therefore, to action that the second would not otherwise have taken. As they interact, the power user engages in relationships that employ the talents of persuasion, negotiation, and selling the other on their ideas.

20 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Persuasion depends on resources held or controlled by the individual that give him an advantage in rhetoric. Persuasion is like other forms of power. As one must have force in superior quantity to exercise force successfully, so must one be more persuasive than others to use it successfully. Properly directed, persua- sion is an effective form of power use. It is one of the most effective and reliable forms in existence precisely because it is so common in social interaction. We often see someone trying to persuade a colleague to laugh, to cry, to like them, or in some other way to get the colleague to do what the “persuader” wants because the “persuadee” comes to think the desired action is best for him.

Influence

For Bachrach and Baratz (1970), influence is a function of power without the use of actual or threatened sanctions. If we use sanctions, force, or authority, power is in play. If we only threaten, threat/promise is the form of choice. Influ- ence power is affecting others’ behavior without resorting to either tacit or overt threat or the imposition of severe deprivations. Influence differs from manipula- tion also in that there is no masking of intent.

Influence relates to respect. We comply with other’s wishes when we esteem them, honor them, admire them. Influence is confused by some with persuasion. Persuasion power is power based in argument in a specific situation. Influence is respect for the other person arising from past or cultural relationship experiences. Influence flows out of common values, ideals, and goals. It is noncoercive power used in a nonthreatening way. Persuasion and influence are distinguishable, but the line is narrow. Influence is operative where a young man submits to the orders of an older gentleman because of admiration for the older man’s capacities and accomplishments and agreement with his values and ideals.

If obedience in the above example is because of another reason, it is not an example of influence. For example, if that older man is also his rich uncle, then the situation might involve the threat of a loss of inheritance or the promise of such a result. In this case the power situation is an instance of threat power use. Similarly, a legislator may vote as she does because she comes to value the pres- ident’s political philosophy and the policies of the administration (influence). Or, she may vote because she is convinced by rhetoric or debate (persuasion). Finally, the legislator may vote as she does because of fear of retaliation if she goes against the administration’s recommendation (an instance of threat power use).

These kinds of situations multiply thousands of times in our experience. They complicate life. The observer cannot easily unravel them for analysis. Furthermore, in many situations persuasion and influence are self-reinforcing. While the differentiation of the various power use forms may be difficult in a strictly objective definition, the distinctions are clear in our experience.

DEFINING THE FORMS OF POWER 21

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3

Bases of Power

The basis of power is control over needed and scarce resources. We may define resources as anything physical or psychological we own or control and make avail- able to others that are valuable to them in meeting their perceived needs. To be useful for power purposes, the target must see the resources as available only (or most economically) from us. In effect, power comes to us when others perceive us as having resources in some kind of monopoly (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). The scarcer the commodity, the more useful it is to us to achieve our desires from those who want that commodity. The more of these scarce resources we control, the more powerful we are in the eyes of those persons in need.

Any discussion of power bases must include the seminal work of French and Raven (1959). They distinguished five types of power. Briefly, they define these very commonly referenced bases of power as follows:

1. Reward power—based on our ability to provide benefits to the target. 2. Coercive power—based on our ability to provide punishing effects to the

target for noncompliance. 3. Expert power—based on the special ability and knowledge that we have

that the target would like to have or use. 4. Referent power—based on desires others have to identify favorably with

us or with what we symbolize to them. 5. Legitimate power—based on the feeling others have that we have the right

and authority to exert influence over their activity. This feeling results from acceptance of our grant of power by the formal organization or through historical precedence.

This typology has dominated thinking about power sources since its presenta- tion in 1959. These five bases of power have been useful as a foundation for under- standing power. Unfortunately, they have also served to limit additional thinking about and research into other alternative foundations of operationally used power.

In fact, the French and Raven typology is inconsistent and limiting. Patchen (1974) correctly challenged the French and Raven typology as lacking in identi- fying the range of power resources. He says their five bases of power are not described in a conceptually parallel way. Instead, different types of power are defined in terms of different aspects of the process underlying successful influ- ence. They describe reward and coercive power in terms of resources. Referent power is couched in terms of motivation of the target of influence. and expert power describes a characteristic of the influencer (Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002). Finally, legitimate power is descriptive of the target of influence. Patchen (1974) concludes that French and Raven are not discussing types of power, but different aspects of power itself. These nonparallel aspects make it difficult to compare power forms and to treat power in a systematic fashion.

The result has been that many theories and empirical studies of power ignore sources of power other than the five provided by French and Raven—sometimes augmented by a few simplistic elaborations of their basic model. Stupak and Leitner’s (2001) list includes those noted above and adds symbolic power (the power to confer special status through artifacts that society and organizations acknowledge as significant) and political and connecting (power arising from the ability to astutely network people and their issues and ideas). They also identify mirror power (arising from being connected with powerful people), raw personal power (the power of appearance), brute force (the power to intimidate and/or assault physically, intellectually, or psychologically), intrapersonal or idiosyn- cratic (power arising from charisma, presence, reputation, aura, or differentia- tion), and interpersonal (power emanating from the ability to build or facilitate linkages among individuals in a team context).

Simple observation shows that many other sources of power are available to the active power user. For example, Gandhi (2001) adds spirituality to these sources. These other sources help round out and complete the power sources in any work- ing power system. The following discussion of power bases uses parts of the French and Raven analysis, but expands and synthesizes their work to include other sources not typically presented as power bases. They are equally valuable as possible foun- dations for us to consider in using power in our interrelationships. This inventory may be useful in expanding our insight into effective power use options.

POWER FLOWS FROM CONTROL OVER REWARDS

Power flows to the individual who can provide desired rewards to others (Stupak & Leitner, 2001). This ability allows us to control others’ behavior and achieve desired results to the extent of the others’ need for that reward. Rewards

24 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

can take the form of physical emolument or psychological “strokes.” Rewarding someone with a promotion in return for desired performance is an example of this power base. Giving praise, a smile, our attention, or association to another in return for compliance are psychological rewards. In either case, we base our capacity to reward on our control of rewards desired by others.

Use of this power base is more common in people in the higher reaches of the hierarchy. They typically have more access to materials, information, or psychological emoluments than do those lower in the hierarchy. Still, midlevel supervisors and subordinates also control some rewards. Although less able to gain control over institutional rewards useful in task-accomplishment, they often equal their leaders in controlling nonmaterial or noninstitution-based resources, especially their own energy and skill. Thus, superiors are dependent on subordi- nate energy, time, expertise, information, and experience to get the organization’s work done (Hysong, 2008). Workers can reward superiors by applying these resources in appropriate ways in exchange for results they desire from superiors. Besides energy and skill to do the work, employees can also marshal recognition, esteem, and friendship rewards to induce their leaders to behave in desired ways.

POWER FLOWS FROM COERCIVE FORCE

This base of power lies in our ability to command compliance via physical means. Like rewards, in some respects, this base of power allows leaders to affect others’ behavior because of our ability to impose undesirable results. Noncompliance with our desires can result in the imposition of punishments in the form of the withholding of desired rewards. This situation is a coercive power situation. Coercive force follows a military model. In militaristic organiza- tions (e.g., military, police, and criminal organizations), members marshal power through control over violence and the capacity to inflict violence. Violence provides much of the basis for directive action by those in control. Coercion is also evident in some respects in economic organizations. Managers sometimes control resources to deprive others of essential materials or impose punishing consequences on those who fail to obey. This is an obvious base of power for those higher in the hierarchy. We can also see this base of power active among lower-level group members.

POWER FLOWS FROM THE LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO COMMAND

Power comes to those whom the organization appoints to command (Tepper, 1993; Stupak & Leitner, 2001). A delegation of authority legitimizes our right to impose obedience on those who profess allegiance to the source of our legitimacy. The perception of legitimacy in the mind of the target of power is crit- ical. Unless the target sees leaders as having a legitimate right to command, they

BASES OF POWER 25

lose a valuable basis for using power. And, importantly, legitimacy unaccepted is not legitimacy at all, regardless of the official nature of the delegation of right.

While legitimacy comes from delegation by the organization’s officers and the acceptance of the delegation by those effected by it, it can also flow out of traditional relationships. Usual and customary modes of interaction and cultural expectations act to legitimize power use in the group. An example of this kind of routinized behavior is that occasioned by standard operation procedures. Standardized procedures allow leaders to legitimize their power relationships without fanfare. They proscribe behaviors in direct and specific ways. Standard procedures bestow capacity to control information, material resources, and esteem symbols held by the legitimizing institution. Group members can hold these bases of power independent of a formal delegation of power. Relationships and roles set within the organization and the ambient community define and delimit the allocation of legitimate power. Its impact, obviously, extends largely to organizational members. Only marginally does legitimate right in one social group provide a basis for power in another, but examples of this are clear. A ready example is available in the politician who is dominant in his governmental role as well as in social and economic spheres. This is a kind of halo effect.

POWER FLOWS FROM IDENTIFICATION WITH POWERFUL OTHERS

Our association and affiliation with powerful people augment our power. Thus, power is derived by reference to “a powerful other.” This kind of power can come from a personal relationship such as that of a secretary or administrative assistant with an executive. In this example, the secretary can achieve desired results because of the perceived closeness by organizational members between the secretary and the CEO. Targets of the secretary’s power behavior cannot easily differentiate the secretary’s personal agenda from that of the CEO. In some instances, the secretary couches her instructions in terms that are similar to those used by the executive, or the actions requested conform to the overall pattern of action the CEO has demonstrated in the past. In either situation, the target obeys because of the identification of the secretary with the CEO, not because of intrin- sic power resources controlled by her.

Identification can be personal, as with the secretary, or symbolic. We can attain or increase our power by adhering to the ideals, norms, or goals others value. Identification with the ideas, values, methods, or goals of powerful people can add to our perceived power in the same way that direct association does.

POWER FLOWS FROM EXPERTISE

People respond to competence (Hysong, 2008). French and Raven (1959) said a prime source of power is expertise. Power flows to people who have skills, knowledge, and abilities needed and respected by others. If a person sees his

26 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

potential for goal accomplishment enhanced by the skills or ability we have, then we enjoy power. Competence originates from expert ability to perform regardless of one’s role in the hierarchy. The increasing complexity of the modern organi- zation and organizational growth both suggest that this power base will be increasingly important in the future. Mechanic (1962) concludes that expertise is important as a base of power because targets come to depend on the expert for performance needed in the organization. This is an important power base in that anyone can exercise power over others, depending on the special skills possessed. It is especially useful for lower-level organizational members. Their special and needed expertise can impact high level group members in ways that make them conform to the lower-level expert’s wishes. Subordinates can, therefore, exert power beyond their role in the organization.

POWER FLOWS FROM CRITICALITY

On another level, we are powerful to the degree that our contributions are critical to the individuals or to the group (Stupak & Leitner, 2001). Whether the other person(s) desires our energy, our resources, or our expertise of any kind, to that degree we have power over them. Criticality applies to either party in the power relationship. We exert power to the extent of the importance (criticality) others attach to the resources we control. We expend energy in power behavior to the degree of our interest and to the degree we feel the outcome to be criti- cal, important, or interesting (Mechanic, 1962). In this, as in many other aspects of interpersonal relationships, perception of the fact is as important as the fact itself.

Motivation is also a helpful factor in understanding this base of power. When we feel a certain behavior is critical to our success we are motivated to exercise that behavior. To that degree we will expend energy in power action. Burns links motive (see Howard, 1982) to control over resources. Unless (1) sufficient motive (importance) is present, and (2) necessary resources are available to apply to the proposed activity, we will not resort to power behavior. Both must be present before movement to achieve our desires can take place. That is, people exercise power when they or the group perceives that they can control events or resources critical to others. Falbo (1977) applies this idea to clergymen. He suggests a direct link between the congregant’s perception of the clergyman’s role and the accept- ance of his power by followers. Individuals who can get critical information or expertise needed by the organization will be more powerful than those who con- trol only marginal or no critical resources. Whatever is critical at the time of need is a source of power in our relationships.

Implicit in this discussion is the idea that power comes to those who control needed expertise. A more accurate and useful idea is that power flows to those who control needed, scarce resources—material, psychological, expertise, or other. Wrong (1979) lists a wide array of potentially critical resources useful in this sense: money, personnel, presence, popularity, legitimacy, legality, solidarity.

BASES OF POWER 27

Kanter (1979) classifies critical resource needs into three sources: lines of supply refer to control over resources available from the larger environment, lines of information describe control over information necessary for organization movement, and lines of support refers to control over information or manpower necessary to deal with critical job situations—for example, situations where routine skills, knowledge, and ability or materials cannot cope successfully. Her typology also implies a power base dependent upon control over scarce (critical) resources in both routine and nonroutine situations.

POWER FLOWS FROM SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

Another power base is social organization (Stupak & Leitner, 2001). Power also derives from structured relationships in which people combine individual strength to meet group goals. James MacGregor Burns (in Howard, 1982) says the same thing in another way: the power of leaders flows from the power of followers. In the final analysis, goal accomplishment comes as powerful individuals mobilize and transform followers who, in turn, transform leaders. For Burns, social interaction multiplies individual power.

Power can flow from group solidarity as much as from individually special people. Power is a function of group cooperative interaction and jointly applied individual power. Coalitions of independently powerful people, united to multi- ply strengths to attain a sufficient critical mass, achieve desired results (Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994). For example, Coenen and Hofstra (1988) conclude that information systems are becoming instruments for the exercise of organizational power. Leaders of information systems may design and implement them for various reasons. When the reason is to affect change in the organization or among its members, the information system becomes a source of the leader’s power. System power, like traditional positional and personal power (Gandhi, 2001), can let the information system leader gain his or her desired results.

Power can also accrue in mere numbers of people. Persons who are part of a dominant coalition in the organization are powerful. They control group behav- ior. Perhaps the main sources of power in emergent unions are in the mere fact of numbers—a germane coalition. On at least one dimension, the amount of power held is in direct proportion to the size of the group represented (Szilagyl & Wallace, 1983). Rule by the majority is a common form of political government and it extends to most social and economic groups as well. It is a part of our cultural value system and it is operationalized in everyday behavior. Those who proceed with their goal-directed behavior without a solid foundation of support from at least a (power) majority of the members of the applicable organization must risk failure without resort to some countervailing power base.

Examples of solidarity as a base for goal-directed activity are common. Politicians assure themselves of a solid core of constituent loyalty before they introduce major policy initiatives or, even, run for office. The civil rights

28 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

movement achieved a measure of success only as it drew support from many citizens. The war in Southeast Asia ended only by the efforts of many individ- uals coalesced around this goal. Nations, groups, religions, military forces, and political activist organizations all seek to grow on the theory that “might makes right.”

POWER FLOWS FROM USING OF POWER

Failure to exercise power can result in its loss. Conversely, the use of power tends to increase power (Wagner & Swanson, 1979). And perceptions by others of our failure to use power (whether true or not) can result in a deterioration of support. Failure to act or acting imprudently can erode power and the support of others necessary to its continuance. Power itself, then, is another base of power. Used judiciously, it increases or at least maintains our power level. Used inappropriately or not at all, it decreases or dilutes that power already held.

POWER FLOWS FROM CHARISMA

Both charisma as described by Weber (1968) and referent power identified by French and Raven (1959) provide theoretical grounding for this power base (Hysong, 2008). Charismatic people have an attractive, pleasing personality, and attractive people command compliance from others. This is true especially when this personal characteristic is scarce. Charismatic people are more likely to be in the inner circle of influential cliques and have access to influential people in the community (Sankar, 2003). They are also likely to share bonds with other attrac- tive people with whom this group interacts. Whether the interaction is between the attractive person and those in key positions or with the masses, the power potential is the same. One depends on the other. Followers depend on the charis- matic person to present their needs to those in power or to satisfy needs that the attractive person can supply. These needs may be anything wanted, including, for example, affiliation and affection.

POWER FLOWS FROM CENTRALITY

Strategic placement of the individual within the organization is also a basis of power (Wakefield, 2006). Physical location in the nexus of activity or in inter- action with powerful people adds to the development and effective use of our power. Centrality is significant in power terms in both physical and social dimen- sions. Propinquity affects opportunities for interaction with others and for control of information and materials (Stupak & Leitner, 2001). Mechanic (1962) makes the point that lower-level subordinates in the organization can add to their power

BASES OF POWER 29

30 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

position by association with needed material and social/psychological resources. He believes one of the best ways for subordinates to gain power is to control critical space and to use it to multiply their personal power. For him, the more central a person is on the organization chart, the greater is his access to persons, information, and other instrumentalities of power.

SUMMARY

We gain, maintain, and expand power when we have control of any of several bases of power. The bases listed are those group members often use. They are available in organizations today. Analysis of these bases of power reaffirms much of the literature on power foundations:

1. Power is resource based. Control over needed or desired resources of any nature or description adds power to the individual who controls them.

2. Scarcity is critical to the acquisition of power. Any resource may be a potential source of power, but only those resources that are scarce are actually helpful in gaining, maintaining, and increasing power. Scarce and needed resources are critical to enlarging power. No one will alter their behavior when someone offers something they already have or can easily get from multiple sources.

3. Control is enough to impute power. We need not own the scarce resources to have power. We need only be able to control their distribution or use, or appear to have this capacity, to be powerful.

Chapter 4

Using Power Politics in Organizational Life

Viewing our leaders, our literature, our government, our work life, our philosophy, and our religion in power terms helps us understand each other better. These social systems record our history of love, cooperation, competition, conflict, and violence. In a word, they record our fascination with power (Winter, 1973) and the politics of power use. Of course, other, more traditional perspectives such as culture, economic events, wars, ideology, and spirituality provide important and needed perspectives on our evolution as a society. They too, have a power com- ponent. Perhaps there is no single concept of human relationship of more gut importance than how we get our way in the group (Stupak & Leitner, 2001). It is central to both who and what we are as individuals and as groups.

We engage in power activity in group—that is, political—settings. It is logical, therefore, that psychology, political science, anthropology, and the rest of the social science disciplines include an interest in power. Its study dates from the earliest efforts to define a social science. However, the modern work on power in organizational contexts had its beginnings in the 1930s. Since then, the focus of research has varied widely. Some focus on sociological underpin- nings (Russell, 1938; Follett, 1942). Some see power as political (Dahl, 1957; Mills, 1957; Hunter, 1959). Others give it a behavioral twist (Homans, 1950; French & Raven; 1959; Cartright, 1965; Thiabut & Kelly, 1959; Weber, 1968; Fairholm, 1993; and many others). A few researchers give power a psychological thrust (Winter, 1973; McClelland, 1975). And finally, some discuss power in organiza- tional and structural terms (Etzioni, 1961; Smith & Tannenbaum, 1963; Crozier, 1964; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1981). Each has something to add to our under- standing of power use. In each discipline, almost every writer has added specific

perspectives to the lexicon of power. The resulting confusion has done little to clarify concepts or to reduce the trauma many feel when the word power in intro- duced into a discussion. Indeed, most work on power adds to the ambiguity rather than diminishes it.

Power is a part of life. People are always interacting in group settings to secure goals and desired results. All interaction is purposeful, and to achieve this purpose we engage in power activity. Because of the ambiguity of the power con- cept in life, it is not hard to understand the existence of its multiple definitions. For the purposes of this book, I defined power in Chapter 1 as an individual’s capacity to gain their interrelationship goals even in the face of opposition from others in the relationship. I believe this perspective captures the essence of power as we use it in group and organizational life.

POWER IN FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS

Organizationally, we can describe power as the ability to make something happen. It is the essence of the causal relationship. Achieving desired organiza- tional results is dependent on our capacity to influence others to our point of view (Ryan, 2000). The mechanism often used is offering desired rewards to followers as an inducement to desired behavior. In effect, we say, if you do what I want (i.e., behave in a manner useful to me), I will provide you with physical or psychological results that will meet your needs or be instrumental in achieving one or more of your desires. In this sense power use is a kind of political exchange transaction and is instrumental to task accomplishment.

Using power is also a process by which we cause change in another’s behav- ior or attitudes (Grimes, 1978). It is in this sense, then, that one can define power as the basis of all organized action. We organize for power (Follett, 1942). Control in the organization rests on power. Delegation is a power relationship. Negotiation is an exercise in power use. Leadership is power in action (Hughes & Beatty, 2005). Power defined in these terms becomes the basis of the “power- relationship.” Power relationships are interactive, interpersonal processes where someone gets power from their personality, position, or the resources they control and use it in interaction with others in the group.

Power and Formal Authority

The literature equates the opportunity to progress within the group with a getting of more authority or position power than other group members. We see it in action when the group places more of the total so-called “group power” on one individual, for example a formal manager or informal leader. Authority (only one of several forms of power) is a divisible commodity that managers ration among work group members via the process of delegation. In this sense it is the basis for

32 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

organizational order, logic, and control. It is the basis of status and hierarchy in the organization (Barnard, 1948; Hogan, 2008).

A view of power in authority terms connotes a system of dependencies, and, in this situation, distribution is the key issue. Each member of the organization relates to others in a power role relationship that constrains each member (Molm, 1990). If one gains power, it is at the expense of others in the group. If one gains, others lose. Mary Parker Follett (1942) defined this “face” of power as “power over” others as opposed to “power with” others—that is, cooperative power use. All of us can exercise authority over other people and, in turn, can be under another’s authority. It is part of all organized group activity that results in enhancement or limitation of our ability to do. Thus, power is a part of organiza- tional concepts such as authority, control, direction, competition, conflict, coor- dination, planning, budgeting, staffing, and all other administrative functions.

Power and Self-esteem

Power is central to defining individual self-esteem within the organization. It is part of the pursuit of personal goals (Grimes, 1978). Gaining power allows the individual to place himself in the group context in specific terms, in a specific relationship to others. Adler (1956) says that power does much to explain the behavior of exceptional people. He claims that it, more than the sex drive pro- pounded by Freud, is the dominant determinant of personality. Weber (1968) also ascribes to power a dominant role in social organization.

The word power derives from the same root as the word possibility. The Roman root posse literally means “I can.” The Latin verb potere means “to be able.” Both words connote the central function of affecting something or some- one. The word power entered the English language from this Roman/Latin foun- dation at the time of the Norman conquest of England (Hunter, 1959). Over time, power has come to connote personal capacity in our English heritage. Power is a capacity, a talent, a skill resident in all of us, but developed more fully by specific individuals.

Power in Leadership

Power is the essence of leadership. It is the extra element in interpersonal relations that allows the leader to affect others and secure their willing compli- ance. Rollo May (1972) defines power as the ability to cause or prevent change. Kaplin (1964) calls it the process of affecting the policies of others. Bertrand Russell (1938) defines it as the “production of intended effects.” Power allows people to alter the behavior of others in ways they—the power user—want. The behavior can be either positive or negative (Kellerman, 2004). Power lets anyone be a leader. The source may (and does) vary, but the object appears universal.

USING POWER POLITICS IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE 33

Power allows the individual to affect, to sway, other’s behavior in desired ways; in a word, to lead them.

At one level, all interpersonal relationships are leader-follower relationships. We are constantly moving from a directive position to a follower one in our contacts with others. We see power in leadership contexts in a much larger dimen- sion. It is a personal, rather than a merely positional, concept. The operative characteristic of leadership is its intimacy. It is a personal power relationship (Safty, 2003) between one leader and one follower, reiterated in a series of one-to-one relationships. These power relationships are constituent parts of organizational and all of life.

Power in Use in Organizational Contexts

Few ideas are more basic to the study of organizations than power. It is an important and active reality in all dimensions of organizational life. We expe- rience the result of power use at all levels in the organization and by all participants. It is a constituent part of informal as well as formal organization. As Dahl (1961) said, it is as “ancient and ubiquitous as any (concept) that social theory can boast.” Power is central to both leadership theory and prac- tice. It is a primary activity of human organization. Power is central to man’s continuing concern for administration and organization.

How people organize and relate to each other to get planned goals accom- plished is central to organization and administrative theory. The overreaching problem of organization life is securing follower compliance. This compliance, however, must come without losing the long-term amicable relationship between the person desiring compliance and the person whose behavior-change we seek. And this must be done with an eye on conserving scarce resources. Machiavelli’s The Prince provides extensive advice to rulers (read, “leaders”) on how to extend and combine their power and capacity to direct compliance. Similarly, the libraries of the world are crowded with books to help us influence subordinates, raise our children, make friends, and influence others.

Few concepts are more crucial or more central than power to the under- standing of behavior in organizations. We may treat it as a prime aim or as instru- mental to other, strategic aims. Nevertheless, power is a necessary part of the interaction of people. It is a cornerstone of both leadership and management theory and practice. It is central to subordinate-to-superior interaction. It helps explain the myriad relationships we experience with the many peers and external contacts that make up the fabric of organizational life.

Power use dominates not only leadership perspectives, but also those of ordinary workers, suppliers, consumers, and other stakeholders. People in all kinds of work or in any social or hierarchical relationship share the goal of getting others to behave in ways they want them to. In agrarian societies our power usage was more personal, immediate, and limited in scope and domain. In industrial

34 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

societies, complexity has affected power use, as well as other elements of life, but has not diminished its importance. Power use now is more impersonal, anony- mous, and institutionalized. In real ways it is the primary measure of our value to the group—be it the work organization or the social group. Today, power is in many ways the measure of position. Money or possessions, although instrumen- tal, are less significant in assessing social position than is power. We are a power- oriented society—one particularized by institutions (i.e., organizational, hierarchal representations).

Using these ideas, we can see that many managerial and leadership concepts have power connotations. For example, we can define authority as a manifesta- tion of power characterized by position and relationship within the formal, hier- archical system. Authority connotes the legitimate right of the holder to command, decide, or determine the way the organization will go. It is an obvious manifestation of power, one connoting the formally granted rights inherent in the organizational position held.

Personal influence, an integral part of leadership, is another form power takes. Influence is power, often subtle and indirect, by which we impact the situ- ations and behaviors of others. We can understand influence best as a mechanism of attitude change. It uses esteem and respect to accomplish the task of changing the behavior of another. Using power as a referent helps us interpret competition and its companion concept, conflict. In competition settings both participants exercise power in trying to achieve their purpose at the expense of the other person. Competition becomes conflict when we include emotions. Conflict, too, is a power relationship.

Power has a direct connection to many of the underlying factors in all relationships. For example, power is a constituent part of organizational control systems. As individuals exert energy toward activating others to behave in orga- nizationally useful ways (i.e., to achieve organizational goals), they are exercis- ing power. Direction, control, planning, coordination, and correlation are all manifestations of power used in organizations to accomplish intended results. The process involves impacting others. The mechanism is power (Handy, 1976). In fact, we can understand all of a manager’s tasks—execution of authority, per- sonal interaction, control, direction, planning, conflict resolution, and so on— better from a power perspective. In budgeting, planning, staffing, controlling, and directing, individuals constantly engage in power exchanges. They negotiate schedules, compromise goals, marshal support, and compete for available resources. Implicit in each of these traditionally accepted managerial activities is an element of power use, of producing intended behaviors in others—of impact- ing them in some desirable way(s). While often masked, ignored, and even denied, every act of interpersonal behavior directed toward goal accomplishment results in actual or potential power use.

Using power allows us to affect another’s behavior in ways we want. This effect can result regardless of the will of the target of our power use. Leadership implies the inducement of followers to do something that the follower would not

USING POWER POLITICS IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE 35

do (Kellerman, 2004) without the leader’s intervention. At some levels, at some times, for some leaders, the operative words may be persuasion, opening of opportunity, or facilitation of the work of followers. At other times the focus may be on coercion, force, or control (Rickards, 2000). Whether the connotation is positive or negative, we are in the business of getting others to do what they would not do if left alone.

ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

An obvious conclusion from this analysis is that management is a political (power-centered) activity. It involves us in all interactions aimed at restricting resources to our special needs. Much of the existing literature on leadership, management, and organizations, in fact, describes aspects of power acquisition, legitimization, and maintenance functions (Rubinoff, 1968). Even limited experi- ence in organizational life will leave us with a realization of the importance of political negotiation in organizational systems. Our organizational laws, rules, standards, policy, and regulations are manifestations of political influence—that is, power. Power is at the heart of what Mayes and Allen (1977) call the “management of influence” throughout the organization (see also Ryan, 2000).

Organizational politics has often been undiscussed in organization theory and practice. It has only recently found its way into the formal literature of organizational behavior (Allen & Porter, 1983), although earlier writers have also made significant contributions to our understanding. Hobbes, over three hun- dred years ago, helped distinguish political power (Kaplin, 1964). He pointed out that the power of the subject impacts the sovereign as well. Since then, the debate has ranged from concern with the instrumental nature of power, to its resource qualities, to its operating impacts in group situations.

Definitions of organizational politics typically include several factors: (a) actions taken by individuals throughout the organization (Mayes & Allen, 1977); (b) any influence of one actor toward another (Dahl, 1957); (c) effort by one party to promote self-interest over that of another and, therefore, threaten that person’s self-interest (Rosen, Levinger, & Lippitt, 1961); (d) actions typically not sanctioned by the host organization, or results sought which it does not sanction (Hughes & Beatty, 2005); and, (e) organizational politics that involve some kind of exchange process with a zero-sum outcome (Frost & Hayes, 1979). These definitional elements place organizational politics in a control-of-others light. Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) suggest that many definitions ascribe “sinfulness” or “illegality” to power use. Porter, Allen, and Angle, (1981) see organizational politics in self-interest terms (also negatively connoted).

We can also see another construction of organizational politics. Allen, Madison, Porter, Renwick, and Mayes (1981) suggest that it is an important social influence process. It has the potential of being both functional and dys- functional to organizations and individuals. Nevertheless, organizational politics

36 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

is a solid part of organizational life. Its use conforms to current research suggest- ing that all group interaction has specific change purposes. Organizational politics is therefore a part of social interaction. Its positive or negative face is dependent on factors other than the mere fact of interaction for influence purposes. Organizational politics is merely a structured, purposeful, organized-group version of a universal social practice.

For Mayes and Allen (1977), organization is a process that involves formu- lating political goals, decision strategies, and tactics. It entails executing those tactics and setting up feedback loops to ensure effective results (Editor, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2005). Organizational power politics is also defined in terms of a process of change (Coenen & Hofstra, 1988). Defined in this way, we can say that organizational politics is the essence of leadership.

Organizational politics, therefore, includes actions taken to gain and use power to control organizational resources to achieve our preferred results instead of those of others. This definition places organizational politics in the classroom when a teacher teaches. It is in the home as a father asks his child to do some- thing. It is in the office as the subordinate “manages” his or her boss by couching interaction upwards in ways calculated to induce the boss to respond favorably. And it is present when the manager orders employees to adopt a new procedure.

David Bell (1975) emphasizes the “talk” aspect of organizational politics (1975). He says that traditional definitions of politics, as in who gets what, when, where and how, are not helpful. Getting control over needed resources can be, and often is, an intensely personal and private, even solitary affair, not a public one. Talk, on the other hand, always involves others and more consistently conforms to the definition of politics. Talk affects others and to that extent it is power (Duke, 1976). To the widest extent possible, organizational politics concerns how people affect each other.

Political Behavior

Given Bell’s (1975) definition of organizational politics, it is a commonplace activity in organizations. Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwich, and Maye’s (1980) research supports the idea that organizational politics is fully a part of organiza- tional life. Sixty percent of the managers he surveyed agreed that it was “frequently” or “very frequently” a part of organizational life. Most managers see organizational politics as a part of work life in the middle (Fairholm, M. R., 2002) and upper management levels and less so at the lower levels. Madison also reported that 95 percent of respondents agreed that office politics is necessary in achieving individual goals. They also were unanimous in saying that it could harm them. For Madison, engaging in organizational politics is a “crucial path” to success.

We use political action in the organization in situations of uncertainly, impor- tance, and salience to either the individual or the unit concerned. It is an old and

USING POWER POLITICS IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE 37

commonplace behavior pattern in groups. People in groups interact in a power struggle and seek to limit the exercise of power in others (Frost, Mitchell, & Nord, 1982). We use power to secure salary increases. It is part of the interplay of activity involved in resource allocation and the delegation of authority and responsibility. It is intrinsic to policy development and policy change, perform- ance appraisal, grievances, and intraorganizational coordination. Politics is part of the process of rule making and decision making in all aspects of organizational activity. Gandz and Murray (1980) ranked perceptions of political action of various common organizational activities and concluded that politics was instru- mental in determining interdepartmental harmony. Areas of organizational activ- ity where politics was a significant factor included promotions and transfers, delegation of authority, facilities and equipment allocation, and work appraisals. Less significant arenas for the exercise of organizational politics were activities such as assessing penalties, hiring, employee development, policy making, setting pay rates, and budgeting. Analysis of these data suggest that people use organi- zational politics most often in areas where individuals have some discretion in the actions open to them. We see less political behavior in those activity areas where formalized rules and systems are commonly in place.

Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwich, and Maye (1980) explored the positive or negative impacts of the use of organizational politics. His research illustrates that organizational politics can be useful in helping the organization reach its goals and cope with survival and organizational health concerns. It confirms also that organizational politics is helpful in coordinating staff and units, developing esprit de corps, and decision making. It is useful in these and all other organizational goal achievement actions. It also can result in inappropriate use of scarce resources, cause divisiveness, create tension, allow less qualified people to advance, and reduce communication flow. And, finally, it can damage the image of the organization and sully its reputation. Engaging in organizational politics can aid significantly in career advancement, getting recognition and status in the organization, and increasing our power position. It also helps in accomplishing personal goals and in allowing us to get our job done. Engaging in organizational politics can help us feel positive about our achievement and our ability to be in control of our work life.

Political activity can have both positive and negative results. Its use, however, is not in doubt. Older group members use it more than those newly inducted into the organization. It is beyond doubt an instrument for securing organizational rewards. Engaging in political activity may result in reducing perceived or actual power in the group. It can result in removal from the organization (i.e., loss of job). It can accentuate negative feelings about us by others. And political activity can result in a loss of promotion or increased feelings of guilt and interference with job performance.

All members of the organization participate in power use. Senior executives, middle managers, informal leaders, and the rank and file employee all use power. Madison’s work shows that politics is more on the superior’s mind and actions

38 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

than in lower-level employees. Although this may be true, it does not lessen the fact that all employees have some power. No one is powerless, even if it is only the power to withhold talent or energy. Workers use power to secure their desired results in the same ways that higher-level participants use their capacities.

Allen, Madison, Porter, Renwick, and Mayes (1979) assessed personal skills and traits common to politically active people in organizations. They conclude that effective political actors, (be they chief executive officers, middle-level man- agers, or workers), all share some common characteristics. They are articulate, sensitive, and socially adept. They are competent, popular, extroverted, and self-confident. They exhibit aggressive tendencies, are ambitious, can be devious, and are clearly “organization” women and men. They are also “highly intelligent and logical people.” The politically adept individual in the organization is outgoing, competent, and effective in interacting with others. They are energetic advocates of their desired results. They are willing to engage others in competi- tion for available resources and for the dominance of their ideas and ideologies.

Political Behavior versus Administration Behavior

We can distinguish organizational politics from administrative behavior in several significant dimensions. Most view administrative behavior by organiza- tional participants as consensus behavior (Frost, Mitchell, & Nord, 1982). Group members agree that the behavior in question is legitimate, that it flows from a recognized “right,” and that it fits the terms of the exchange. On the other hand, people resist political action and behaviors if power targets recognize their intent. There is a consensus feeling that such behavior is illegitimate.

Obviously, power politics is a central activity of life. We can define much of life activity as the exercise of power (Krech & Crutchfield, 1948). Our success, in part, is a function of our ability to use power in our interrelationships. Success requires that we develop power skills along with, or perhaps in preference to, functional and task skills. Power is basic to effective living in the same way that energy is basic to physics (Mueller, 1970). It is a foundation element of human interaction. Power is the ability to activate human and material resources to get work done (Homans, 1950).

USING POWER POLITICS IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE 39

This page intentionally left blank

Part I Issues and Activities

Power use is universal in our formal and informal organizational relationships. It is used by each member of the small groups within which we engage our associ- ates. Obviously, effective use of power—like the use of any other skill—is more quickly mastered if we know our personal capacities and proclivities. The follow- ing activities and discussion issues are intended to let readers get more specifically in touch with their own capabilities as a leader, a follower, and a power user.

DISCUSSION ISSUES AND QUESTIONS

1. What are some of the essential components of a definition of leadership?

2. Why is leadership, like all important aspects of life, a thing of the mind and not just a “thing” to be learned?

3. In your personal experience, what are the most effective leader skills (tech- niques) in getting other people to do what the leader wants them to do? How does your experience comport with the ideas presented in Part I? Explain. Which of the key leadership skills relate directly to power use? Which do not? Analyze your answer.

4. The core of the leader’s job is to help followers develop in their work and their life. How is thoughtful power use the key to success in this task?

5. Shared power use forms the foundation of a community and is the essential context of leadership. Analyze this statement. How—in what ways—is it correct? Incorrect?

6. Leaders create a set of values that the team members come to believe fosters their development. Is this an example of applied power use within the group? Discuss.

7. How do leaders (how do group members generally) personify the values of the group and by their actions and attitudes convey the shared values and culture of the group? Comment on the ideas contained in this statement from the perspective of power.

8. What are the essential components of the definition of power? Compare these power determinants with your assessment of your own leadership style.

9. Identify one person in your experience you would classify as a leader. Describe the main characteristics of that person’s leadership approach. How much of your leader’s actions are power-tinged? How does your leader’s power use affect his or her leadership?

10. What is the down side of practicing power use as defined in Part I?

11. List examples of each of the sources of power referenced in Part I from your present work situation. Are some sources of power more useful than others? Explain.

12. What is the risk to you as a leader in providing stakeholders with as much power as possible? Does this action risk loss of power for you? Explain.

13. Do you recognize that you can give more of your power to your coworkers and still retain all of your power? How does power multiply when the leader shares power with others?

ACTIVITIES

Activity 1: Self-assessment: Type A Leader Behavior Pattern

Instructions: Leaders are confident, self-assured, and possess what some would call a type “A” personality. The following questions might help you determine if you share these leadership personality characteristics. Indicate whether each of the following items is true (T) or false (F) for you.

___ 1. I am always In a hurry.

___ 2. I have a list of things I have to achieve on a daily or weekly basis.

___ 3. I tend to take on one problem or task at a time, finish it, then move to the next one.

___ 4. I tend to take a break or quit when I get tired.

42 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

___ 5. I am always doing several things at once both at work and in my personal life.

___ 6. People who know me would describe my temper as hot and fiery.

___ 7. I enjoy competitive activities.

___ 8. I tend to be relaxed and easy going.

___ 9. Many things are more important to me than my job.

___ 10. I really enjoy winning both at work and at play.

___ 11. I tend to rush people along or finish their sentences for them when they are taking too long.

___ 12. I enjoy “doing nothing” and just hanging out.

Scoring key: Type A individuals tend to indicate that questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 are true and that questions 3, 4, 8, 9, and 12 are false. Type B individuals tend to answer in the reverse (1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 as false and 3, 4, 8, 9, and 12 as true).

Activity 2: What Is Your Strategic Leadership Type?

Instructions: For each of the following items, rate yourself using the following scale. (You can also use the items to rate a leader in your organization or the group itself.)

___ My Ranking _________

___ My leader’s Ranking _________

___ Ranking for my Group _________

1 2 3 4

Always Never Occasionally Often

___ 1. I enjoy working on routine tasks.

___ 2. I am looking for new ways of doing things.

___ 3. I have trouble delegating tasks to my subordinates.

___ 4. I like my subordinates to share the same values and beliefs.

___ 5. Change makes me uncomfortable.

___ 6. I encourage my subordinates to participate in decision making.

PART I ISSUES AND ACTIVITIES 43

___ 7. It is hard for me to get things done when there are many contrasting opinions.

___ 8. I enjoy working on new tasks.

___ 9. I feel comfortable giving power away to my subordinates.

___ 10. I consider myself to be a risk taker.

Scoring key: Reverse scores for items 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9 (1 = 4, 2 = 3, 3 = 2, 4 = 1).

Challenge-seeking Score: Add items 1, 2, 5, 8, and 10. Your score will be between 0 and 15.

Total: _________

Need for Power Score: Add items 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9.Your score will be between 0 and 15.

Total: _________

The larger the number the stronger the tendency is toward that leader characteristic.

Activity 3: Leadership and Gender

Instructions: The leadership literature includes broad discussions about differ- ences between gender roles and leadership. This activity is designed to explore the relationship between gender roles and leadership.

1. Develop a list of your leadership characteristics. You may use specific person- ality traits or a behavioral description. Set that list aside.

2. Select another leader of the opposite gender. Develop a list of the personality traits or behaviors of this other leader.

3. Compare and contrast the two lists. Determine what, if any, differences are apparent. Discuss these differences and the reasons why men and women differ in their approach to leadership.

4. Write a brief report highlighting your findings and their implications for your future leadership actions.

Activity 4: What Does It Mean to Be a Leader?

Instructions: Leadership means many things to many people. Take a few moments and think about what leadership means to you.

44 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

1. Ask yourself the following questions:

• What responsibility does it carry?

• How do you do this kind of work effectively?

• What do you need: skills, knowledge, support from others, etc. to be a more effective leader?

2. Using the responses you developed for step 1 questions, develop specific guidelines for a leader in your organization.

3. Compare this listing to the professional leadership literature.

• Note similarities and differences.

• What conclusions can be drawn form this exercise about the true nature of top and inner leadership?

4. Analyze your research from the perspective of the power definition described in Part I. Develop a new definition of leadership from a power perspective. How does this power leadership definition compare to the ideas you developed in steps 1, 2, and 3 above?

5. Create a list of leader definitional characteristics you and/or others might use to guide their leadership.

Activity 5: Maintaining a Relationship Focus

Instructions: If information is the lifeblood of organizations, then the arteries and veins through which the information flows are relationships. Science teaches us that objects are known only as they relate to others. Leaders focus on relationships in all aspects of work community life because the work commu- nity differs from a mere collection of individuals, in that members have an influence on each other (Goldstien, 1994). Participation, inclusion, and respect for people become a natural part of inner leadership. Indeed, people hunger for that kind of community. Analyze the following issues from the perspective of power use.

Discussion Issues:

1. Your coworkers are the “parts” of your work community and your relation- ships with these people are the essential building blocks of a flexible and sustainable team.

• How do you operationalize this fact in your interactions with individual followers?

• What bases of power seem most useful in building and maintaining inter- personal relationships?

PART I ISSUES AND ACTIVITIES 45

46 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

2. Do you realize that your vision alone has little value as a descriptor of your work community’s actions and that it is the members of the work community who have values and it is they who connect with your vision if a work community is to be created/maintained?

• How does this realization translate into your specific power actions in relations with your followers regarding: Assignments of work to individu- als? Planning? Program evaluation? Etcetera?

• Describe briefly the three most helpful forms of power—that is, force, authority, manipulation, threat/promise, persuasion, influence—you think will be most helpful in getting followers to accept your values. Why did you pick these three? Explain.

3. All systems are comprised of elements that relate in meaningful ways to each other in unique, nonlinear ways. This demands that your leadership focus on developing interpersonal trust and a concern for the “whole-heart” of the people you lead.

• Do you focus as much time on developing intimate relationships with them that emphasizes shared meanings about key work community values, objectives and methods as you do assigning work to your coworkers?

• Be specific in identifying exactly how you use your power in these rela- tionships to build rapport with your followers around tasks or meaningful relationships.

Part II

Power Use: Tactical and Strategic Models

People negotiate their desires via power in a variety of circumstances and in a variety of ways. The exact method employed is, probably, a function of the per- sonality of the power user, the situation, and the issue at hand. Simple observa- tion of individuals in group interaction, however, suggests that many people use power in definable, predictable ways. In Part II, we identify and describe the com- mon tactical approaches and suggest some strategic orientations present in the workplace, which will hopefully add insight into the nature of the situation that lends itself to the effective use of power use in organizations.

Chapter 5 outlines a model of power use. This model describes conditions and situational factors important in the application and successful use of power in our normal group relationships. The power model identifies six elements of a sit- uation conducive to power use in organizational situations. Persons using power must come to the situation with three capacities. The first is determining that the event is (1) important. They must also feel a sense of (2) freedom and independ- ence in their use of power. Finally, they must feel, in some ways, (3) competent in the situation. The situation itself must be one where (4) choice is possible and, indeed, required. And the participants must be (5) interdependent, and the goals or processes of interaction and/or the resources necessary to goal-realization need to be (6) scarce. These are essential factors in the interactive power process. It highlights factors resident in the people involved, in the situation in which they find themselves, and in the essence of the decision issues that relates both situa- tional and personal factors into a coordinated action process, which achieves the results desired by the powerful at the expense of the less powerful.

Chapter 6 introduces the reader to the 22 specific behavioral tactics useful in attaining organizational objectives through the application of power. These tactics

sum up the range of power behaviors observed in the work place and in all other interpersonal group situations. They delimit the operational scope of real-world power use in group situation by a variety of organizational participants. Chapter 6 also defines and illustrates the situations in which people use power in their rela- tionships with superiors, peers, and subordinates.

Chapter 7 identifies critical factors associated with power and identifies the parameters of power that constrain and direct its use. These strategic factors represent essential elements to be considered in planning power use. Various strategies presented in the literature are analyzed to guide us as we strive to get our way in our relationships. The specific strategic orientation proposed for the reader’s use here is one that focuses on the prime target of our power use, and individual tactics are rationalized in terms of who we intend to effect.

48 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Chapter 5

A Power Use Model

We have shown that power use is a part of an organizational dynamic; that it is, at heart, political. This political process is an ingredient of planning, organizing, staffing, budgeting, goal setting, and program management. However, most pop- ular texts ignore and as a result mask the political power dimension of these func- tions (Gordon, 2002). In budgeting, to use only one example, guidelines concentrate on goals, methods, steps and criteria of the budget cycle, elements of the budget process, implementation, and control. They assume that producing a budget is as mechanical as, say, constructing an automobile. The organizational reality is that participants influence (Ryan, 2000) each other during each phase of the budget process. They negotiate schedules, they compromise goals, they marshal support, and they compete for limited resources.

Budgeting and all of these other activities are power tasks. Organization members accomplish them through the use of tactics implicit in a political power action process that many call organizational or office politics. We all continually find ourselves in situations where power negotiation is a legitimate part of our working lives. Organization members are continually in situations where they are competing with other people for dominance. They compete for the capacity to get their own way in the face of competing action by others in their intimate work group. We can describe this situation in five sentences:

1. Organizational participants react continually with other people who are in interdependent relationships with them.

2. The participant’s goals or methods (or both) differ with those of others in the relationship. This difference is such that if one person achieves his goals, the other is thwarted from accomplishing his goals or methods.

3. The participants are in competition with each other as to who will achieve their desired goals.

4. There is scarcity present in the situation to some extent. 5. The participants attach enough importance to the situation, goals, or

approach that they are willing to engage their energy in this relationship.

These five aspects of the power relationship also define ordinary organiza- tional life. Obviously, most (all) situations in which we find ourselves in organi- zations are situations where our understanding of what is happening increases by viewing the relationship in political power terms.

A POWER USE MODEL

Power use is an action concept precipitated by a situation as defined above. It is operationalized in overt action by one or more of the parties in the rela- tionship. It requires interdependent relationships where there is some difference as to what or how participants take action. A model of the power process can be described using several key elements of the interpersonal relationship situation defined.

First, there must be a decision (choice) potential present. Some problem or situation of alternative courses of action or outcome must be obvious. Power use is a problem-solving action process (Hughes & Beatty, 2005). Second, the situa- tion must be characterized by two factors. The first is that an interdependency relationship must exist among the participants, such that they cannot easily attain their goal(s) outside of the relationship. The second is that the situation in which the interdependent persons find themselves must involve scarce resources, skills, ideas, creativity, or other parameters; that is, the resources situation must be such that it cannot easily accommodate both participants’ goals economically, given the available resources.

A third essential factor in modeling the power situation deals with the par- ticipants themselves. The two or more people who come to the choice situation must display three characteristics. First, at least one (and often all) has sufficient competence to function in this environment. Second, each attaches enough importance to the goals, the methods used, or the relationship so they will expend necessary energy to engage in required interaction. Finally, each (or at minimum one participant) must be in a relative position of freedom vis-a-vis others in the relationship. That is, one or more participants should feel they have the personal capacity to achieve their desired outcome. Given these factors, the fourth element of power, action to affect other participants in the situation, will result. We use power to deal with the choice (decision) situation in relationships where these factors are present. Figure 5.1 pictures this condition. It depicts the four essential power factors, personal, decision and situational factors, and power action in a dynamic relation.

50 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

All of these factors must be present in the situation for someone to exercise power. A descriptive model, such as the Power Use Model proposed here, must make some compromise with total accuracy. Power, like any other interactive social process is complex and multifaceted. The political power process in our organizations is a dynamic, interactive, perishable process, which is effective at the moment of use and not so much in its mere potential. It is a part of all orga- nizational life. It is implicit in the idea of division of labor and in hierarchal struc- ture. It permeates social intercourse where people interact in more or less intimate relationships to influence others to behave in desired ways. It is, therefore, a com- mon element of organizational action. Leaders will find continual opportunity to sharpen their power use skills in every contact they make in the group and with relevant stakeholders.

A discussion of each of the four elements of The Power Use Model follows.

1. Power Requires a Decision Situation

Power is the ability to mobilize energy, resources, and information to support a preferred outcome. It is used in situations in which participants make choices, the purpose of which is to maximize resultant tradeoffs of energy and resources. People use power in these decision situations to secure desired results or to ensure the use of specific means to agreed-upon results. Decision situations imply a dif- ference either of outcome or of means to results, whether mutually desired or not. In this sense, conflict is merely a difference between participants. Power operates in these situations of opposition or conflict of results or means (Duke, 1976).

A POWER USE MODEL 51

Table 5.1 The Power Use Model

3 PERSONAL FACTORS Functional competence Feeling of importance relative

to other participants feelings of freedom

| 1 | 4

A CHOICE (DECISION) POWER USE IN ACTION SITUATION OR NEED

| | 2

SITUATIONAL FACTORS Participant interdependence Resource Scarcity

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

Nyberg (1981) correctly relates conflict to the whole gamut of behavior from mutual hostility, through acquiescence under threat, to commitment through informed judgment (Ryan, 2000). Conflict is a result of asymmetries of power, values, or status. It occurs out of ambiguity of jurisdiction (Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwich, and Mayes, 1980), scarce resources (Russell, 1938), or interdependence (Russell, 1938). We ameliorate these asymmetries through power behavior. It is the currency through which people resolve this kind of dif- ference (Pfeffer, 1981; Coenen & Hofstra, 1988). Viewed in this light, different choice options are a routine part of organizational life, which in essence consists of people who are competing for resources, information, status, or differing results (Cialdini, 1984). Unless there is some opposition, some difference, some uncertainty, or some choice among competing alternatives that interdependent people in the relationship must make, there is no need for organization or to use power. Powerful people use their power to reduce uncertainty in these situations (Bass, 1981). Their position (Mechanic, 1962), personality, (Winter, 1973), or expertise (Pfeffer, 1981; Hysong, 2008) give them the necessary resources to resolve differences and ambiguity.

2. Situational Factors Implicit in the Power Dynamic Model

Power use depends on two situational factors. The first is a social relation- ship in which participants are in some way interdependent and where action by one party impacts the behavior or choices of the others. Also, a condition of a scarcity of items of resource critical to achieving the group’s (and/or individual’s) purpose must be present. That is, the situation needs to be characterized by some limits on available and needed supplies of information, skills, materials, ideas, creativity, etc. Such a situation is not solely or even, in some cases, directly related to formal structural systems. It is tied in many ways to the personality of the individual participants. It is from these personality factors that the informal organization phenomenon gets its genesis (Bachrach & Baratz, 1970).

Power relationships are recurring patterns of action that link people in a hier- archy of independence-dependence (Hogan, 2008). These relationships may be formed for one-time exercise of power, or they can be relatively long-term, span- ning many situations and decision events (Bell, 1975). We can define this rela- tionship in three characteristics: (a) the scope or extent of the relationship among group participants, (b) the range of decision events in which a particular person is powerful, and (c) the degree of compliance one can exact from subjects (Zald, 1970). Seen as a factor in relationship and not as a process or event, power becomes a central factor in most interpersonal relationships where we try to induce another to a desired action, attitude, or orientation (Harward, 1982; Hughes & Beatty, 2005).

Bachrach and Baratz (1970) make a strong case for the relational character of power. They define three dimensions of this relationship. The first is the idea of

52 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

conflict or competition of values, ideas, or interests. A power relation exists only if one or more of these characteristics of competition are present. Second, a power relation exists if a group member actually conforms his behavior to that desired by the other person. Mere conflict of interest or of ideas is not enough for a power relation to occur. And, finally, a power relationship is present if one or more of the parties can invoke or threaten to invoke sanctions. In such asymmetrical (Homans, 1950) relationships, one party is more dependent upon the other or power is not in play. This dependence can include differences in values or status, which leads to power use. These factors define the modern large-scale organization: a system of nonsymmetrical roles as, for example, superior-subordinate relationships.

The tactical use of power in organizations is, therefore, inevitable. People in organizations are in relationships that call for the exercise of power in most, if not all, of their contacts. Importantly, our ability to influence another is not defined merely as proximity over time. It is the potential power to dominate the other per- son through control of resources desired by that person (Szilagy & Wallace, 1983). This domination is often diffused as a result of two factors. First, other people in the relationship can determine factors in the situation that define impor- tance or criticality (Schermerhorn, 1961; Stupak & Leitner, 2001). To the degree that we define our contributions as important or critical, to that degree our control over these contributions comprises power potential. If these controlled resources are marginal or useless, our power diminishes or vanishes.

A second factor of importance is that others in the relationship can disparage the uniqueness of our contribution. When the power target sees others as also being able to provide critical resources needed by the group, it diminishes our power. If the situation changes so that once valued resources are no longer valued by the group, or resources uniquely controlled become generally held by group members, our power (again) diminishes or is lost. The power relationship is inter- dependent, fragile, temporary, and often difficult to maintain over time. We both control and are controlled by others in our relationships, and these relationships shift over time and circumstance.

In addition to interdependence, power comes with control over scarcity. It is exercised in situations where scarce elements of the situation are needed to achieve desired results (Allen & Porter, 1983). The quality of scarcity may be real or only perceived, but it does not concentrate around abundance. People who con- trol scarce or critical aspects of the organization’s work dominate. They have a natural advantage in developing and exercising power. Scarcity might be in any of several elements of the situation: access to information, skills, or resources. Frequently, people difficult to replace will have more power than those easily replaced (Kanter, 1979).

Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) suggest that individuals and subgroups who can effectively control critical contingencies will gain relative power. Those who can- not will suffer domination by their better-endowed colleagues. People (and departments) differ in the strength of their capacity to provide needed, scarce resources appropriate to the critical contingencies (i.e., important elements) of the

A POWER USE MODEL 53

organization’s life. Interestingly, power itself has an inherent scarcity value. When one person is perceived to have more power in a relationship, others are perceived to have less. Indeed, in situations where there is an absolute equality of power, people do not use it (Szilagyl & Wallace, 1983). In this sense we use power only when there is a relative scarcity of power held by all participants.

3. Personal Factors of the Power Dynamics Model

The participants in a power exchange must partake of certain characteristics if the situation is truly one of power and not some other social activity. First, a power situation requires people who are free to act in order to achieve desired results. And, these people must think the situation is sufficiently important, or value the potential result, or the potential interaction sufficiently, to expend energy to engage in a relationship on this issue. Finally, a power situation includes people who are competent enough to have some potential to succeed. When these factors are present, we engage in power behavior. The power dynamic, although commonly found in most organized groups, nevertheless is defined in terms of these factors (along with the decision issue and situational fac- tors alluded to above).

Implicit in power use is the freedom to move, to act. A dynamic model of power must include the capacity of at least one actor to move (at least relatively) freely (O’Brian & Banech, 1969). Unless this freedom is present, power is not a part of the relationship. Emerson (1962) characterizes power use in any relation- ship where relative independence exists. Independence empowers us. Being dependent upon another person, he says, gives that other person power over us. Thus, freedom, independence, dominance, and dependence are all power-tinted ideas. They are ideas, however, that are also implicit in the structure of organized groups. Our organizational activity (indeed, all life) is a power process and power is the resource most used to accomplish our goals. Whenever we bring individu- als together to accomplish some planned activity, the power process is active.

Organizations—the firm, agency, or informal social group—are character- ized by hierarchical relationships. Each group member occupies a role, a set place in that hierarchy. That position is one that places us in a relatively independent- dependent status vis-á-vis others in the group. Being dependent gives the domi- nant person power over us. This is consistent with part of French and Raven’s (1959) work on bases of power. Part of their research defines power sources in terms of relative control (dominance) over certain fundamental materials or rela- tionships. Those who control these scarce and needed materials have power because they command resources others desire, including friendship, rewards, experience, information, and so on. (Bachrach & Baratz, 1970).

Much of current leadership literature discusses the relative power of individ- uals who are prominently placed over those lower in the pecking order. However, Mechanic (1962) cautions that not only the leaders but lower-level employees can

54 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

hold and use power. They also can dominate in a given situation. Whereas lead- ers may get and use power due to their place in the organization (and the con- comitant control they can exercise over needed desired resources) so, too, can lower-level members gain dominance using informal structures. Kotter (1977) states that because of the leader’s dependence on employees for skilled work, for information, and so on, employees also gain and use power. Indeed, the founda- tion for informal organization rests in the power exercised by these lower-level workers who dominate their superiors through their control over resources (e.g., skill) the leader needs (Krupp, 1961).

Dominance equates to leadership—and leadership with ability—to get our own way freely. Stogdill (Bass, 1981) reviewed many power and leadership stud- ies. He found that in several empirical studies, dominant members of a group were chosen to lead more often than submissive members. He also concluded that groups are more satisfied when led by people they consider dominant—that is, confident, aggressive, and outgoing. Much of Abraham Maslow’s (1971) work relating to the development of self-esteem and self-actualization motives has rel- evance here (see also Geller, 2002). He claims that organizational power is deter- mined by the magnitude, frequency, and quantity of consequences under a person’s control. Leaders go beyond consequence control to benefit the behaviors and attitudes of their colleagues and coworkers. Maslow describes dominance as an attitude-set involving such things as confidence, self-respect, pride, sureness, masterfulness. Sik Hung Ng’s (1980) comprehensive analysis of power in social psychology reviewed Maslow’s work on dominance and confirmed that the “dominance feeling” (Maslow’s term) means “an assured sense of self-power.”

Power also implies enough commitment to the desired result to spend needed energy to achieve it. We move because we desire to be in some other state more than to be at rest. Similarly, we employ power only in those circumstances where our desire for a particular outcome is stronger than for other results. Commitment is a state of being in which we become bound to a particular action(s) by a belief system that sustains those actions and our own involvement (Rubinoff, 1968; Hughes & Beatty, 2005). In this sense, we activate power as we commit to a belief system and a course of action consistent with achievement of that goal. Unless we feel a particular outcome is important to us—more impor- tant than other germane alternative results—we will not engage in power activity (Bacharach & Lawler, 1986).

Patchen (1974) concluded that the degree of involvement in a decision process relates to the salience of the decision issue to the individual. Power is a part of a relationship only when at least one person in the relationship has a plan, an agenda, or a reason for using energy (Berle, 1959). Nyberg (1981) says power is instru- mental to the individual in achieving his desired results, of realizing his plan. In this sense, power is important as an instrument to achieve some preconceived state or desire. It arises out of a felt need (important enough to cause the use of energy) and a mechanism (the control over resources needed by others) that allows for pos- sible amelioration of that need (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson,1980). Thus, power

A POWER USE MODEL 55

is intentional and instrumental. We activate it only as we value the possible out- come sufficiently to expend needed energy in power action.

A final personal factor in the power dynamic deals with participant skills. All competition is fundamentally a struggle for domination, and the most astute indi- vidual usually wins the struggle. Competence or the ability to respond appropriately in a situation is an aspect of the power model. It is instrumental in the power strug- gle situation that typifies modern life. Competence implies expertise in the task or process areas of value to the group. It also means facility in functioning in power relationships—that is, in interpersonal situations, successfully using skills of com- munication, persuasion, manipulation, and others implicit in human interaction.

4. Power Use Is an Action Process

Power is visible only in action. It is a dynamic, interactive phenomenon. It is manifest in the unusual. The individual who can take dramatic, visible, and appropriate action has power (Kanter, 1979; Hughes & Beatty, 2005). Above average or excellent performance alone is not power. Rather, we see power in the exceptional, the unusual, or the non-routine. And others in the group must know the action and recognize it as germane to whatever situation the group feels to be significant.

56 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Chapter 6

Power Use Tactics: Application of Power on the Job

Power has little direct utility as an abstract concept. It is a concrete phenomenon. We think about power most effectively only in terms of its use in specific rela- tionships and in specific, politically-charged situations. Yet, this tactical aspect of analysis has received little attention. While some researchers have focused on operational aspects of power use over the past 70 or 80 years (Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002), available theory is spotty and suffers from the lack of a specific lan- guage of power. In spite of this lack, tactical power use may after all be the most fruitful line of inquiry into power use and theory-building. It also holds promise for illuminating many of the dilemmas of organizational life and health. It has the potential to legitimize office politics as a potent tool that all organization mem- bers can use openly to good effect.

The power process involves a collaborative relationship between an indi- vidual and a target (Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994). In general, we perform a discrete set of functions toward the targets of our power use. These functions include intervening in the relationship to promote change from the current level to some ideal or desired level of action. Kouzes and Posner (1995) identify four tactics that managers can use to put power in the hands of their staff: ensure self- leadership by putting people in control, provide choice, develop competence, and offer visible support. Following Fairholm (1993), Stupak and Leitner (2001) also list several power tactics such as proactivity, appeal to experts, charisma, rationalization coalitions, surrogate, and disturbing group equilibrium in order to subsequently control the choice of resources or skills necessary to remedy a situation, allowing things “to go,” then stepping in with ready-made solutions that enhance the user’s power.

A study of the specific power tactics used by leaders and the led that are detailed in the first edition of Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organi- zational Leadership points to a wide range of tactics operating in our groups and organizations. Using survey techniques coupled with interview and observational data, that research identified 22 discrete sets of power behaviors—tactics—in play in small groups. It elaborated the kinds of operational and tactical power behavior routinely engaged in on the job by both leader and led. Findings about the tactics used in our relationships delimit operational power use and underlay most of what follows. Identification of these tactics provides a needed and useful addition to our “power language,” which is a new perspective from which to view organizational behavior, and to the tools power users employ given an ever- changing work situation. This perspective adds insight not available elsewhere in the literature.

Study subjects illustrated sufficiently broad-based characteristics to form a sound platform from which to describe power use in organizations and in specific work situations. Data collected were subjected to several statistical procedures, the results of which show that specific power behavior tactics are discreet and do not overlap each other in statistically significant ways. The tactics listed in Table 6.1 reflect real world behaviors that describe a wide variety of interaction-sets, which have as their main purpose getting others to behave in ways that they probably would not have adopted if left alone. These tactics have significance in both analysis and assessment of power use by each actor. This and other research have delimited the range of power behaviors displayed by persons in attaining their desires. The twenty-two power tactics constitute a use- ful paradigm within which we can view power use. They proscribe the effect of power use on personal goal attainment and the personal relationships present in the organization (Fairholm, 1985).

These tactics represent approaches to personal goal attainment available to us in specific small group situations. Each tactic defines the parameters of a range of specific actions we can take to get others to behave in desired ways— ways in which the target of power would not otherwise have behaved. Together they represent alternative patterns of behavior from which we may select to increase the likelihood of success in personal goal attainment. Table 6.1 dis- plays these twenty-two tactics in alphabetical order based on the key idea of each.

UPDATING THE POWER TACTICS

Even a cursory examination of available literature validates the continued util- ity of these twenty-two power use tactics shown in Table 6.1 (Gordon, 2002). Many studies reflect their essence. For example, Table 6.2 briefly encapsulates recent research confirming the continuing utility of one or more of the power tactics iden- tified in the first edition of Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational

58 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

POWER USE TACTICS: APPLICATION OF POWER ON THE JOB 59

Table 6.1 The 22 Power Tactics

Tactic Definition

Controlling the agenda Determining beforehand items, subjects, courses of action, or decisions.

Using ambiguity Keeping communications unclear and subject to multiple meanings.

Brinksmanship Disturbing the equilibrium of the organization to control choice options.

Displaying charisma Using the respect others have for our character traits, presence, or method of operation to affect their behavior in desired ways.

Forming coalitions Securing allies—both employees and other stakeholders in the group or associated with it.

Co-opting opposition Placing a representative of the opposition group on our members decision-making body to induce the representative to

favor, rather than oppose, our interests. Controlling decision Selecting the criteria by which decisions are made so that

criteria desired decisions result regardless of who decides. Developing others Increasing the capacities of others, thereby increasing

overall power. Using outside experts Involving congenial experts in collegial decisions, thus

allowing us to affect results without personally deciding. Building a favorable Creating an attractive persona of skills, capacities, values,

image or attitudes to which others defer. Legitimizing control Formalizing our right to decide through appeals to

hierarchy or appeals to legal precedent. Incurring obligation Placing others in debt to us so that they do what we desire. Organizational placement Placing allies in strategic positions or isolating potential

opponents. Proactivity Unilateral action to secure desired results. Quid pro quo Negotiating trade-offs with others to secure desired results. Rationalization Conscious engineering of reality to secure desired results. Allocating resources Distributing resources under our control in ways that will

increase our power in relationships with others. Dispensing rewards Rewarding or punishing others in order to win their

support. Ritualism Inducing institutionalized pattens of behavior in others

or in the organization that foster maintenance of our power role.

Using a surrogate Using an intermediary to secure compliance in others. Using symbols Reinforcing control through symbols, objects, ideas, actions. Training and orienting Transmitting knowledge, skills, values, or specific

others behaviors to others to instill our goals, values, philosophy, or desired behaviors in them.

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

60 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Table 6.2 Summary of Contemporary Research Relating to Power Use

Controlling the agenda The Business Journal, 2001; Strutton, 2004; Chandler, Cox, & Mccubbin; 2006; Yap, 2006.

Using ambiguity Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; Strutton, 2004.; Editor, 2005; Fisher, 2007.

Brinksmanship Tepper, 1993; Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; McMurry, 2000; The Business Journal, 2001; Stupak & Leitner, 2001; Strutton, 2004; Editor, 2005; Eiser, Arnold, & Parmer, 2006; Gilbert, 2006; Hysong, 2008; Miliband, 2008.

Displaying charisma Tepper, 1993; Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; Eiser, Arnold, & Sankar, 2003; Strutton, 2004; Parmer, 2006; Salacuse, 2007; McNeilly, 2008.

Forming Coalitions Tepper, 1993; Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; Stupak & Leitner, 2001; Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002; Popejoy, 2004; Barnes, 2005; Brannen, 2005; Editor, 2005; Johnson, 2005; Kuhn & Graham, 2005; Eiser, Arnold, & Parmer, 2006; Peck, 2006; Yap, 2006; McNeilly, 2008; Robison, 2008.

Co-opting opposition Tepper, 1993; Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; McMurry, members 2000; Owen, 2000; Strutton, 2004; Hughes & Beatty,

2005; Hysong, 2008. Controlling decision Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Popejoy, 2004; Petersen, 2005;

criteria Yukl & Becker, 2006; Chandler, Cox, & Mccubbin, 2006; Marquardt, 2007; Hysong, 2008.

Developing others Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Geller, 2002; Hughes & Beatty, 2005; Johnson, 2005; Kuhn & Graham, 2005; Eiser, Arnold, & Parmer, 2006; Peck, 2006; Yukl & Becker, 2006; Fisher, 2007; Hysong, 2008.

Using outside experts Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Hogan, 2008.

Building a favorable Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; Jurkiewicz & Brown, image 1995; Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002; Strutton, 2004;

Brannen, 2005; Hughes & Beatty, 2005; Johnson, 2005; Eiser, Arnold, & Parmer, 2006; Fisher, 2007; Salacuse, 2007; Hysong, 2008; McNeilly, 2008.

Legitimizing control Tepper, 1993; Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; Kouzes & image Posner, 1995; Owen, 2000; Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx,

2002; Goltz & Hietapelto, 2002; Strutton, 2004; Hogan, 2008; Barnes, 2005; Hughes & Beatty, 2005; Johnson, 2005;Kuhn & Graham, 2005; Eiser, Arnold, & Parmer, 2006; Marquardt, 2006; Chandler, Cox, & Mccubbin,; 2006; Peck, 2006; Yukl & Becker, 2006. Fisher, 2007; Hysong, 2008.

Incurring obligation Tepper, 1993; Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; McMurry, 2000; Brannen, 2005; Editor, 2005; Eiser, Arnold, & Parmer, 2006; Hysong, 2008.

Leadership. Multiple studies have been done—and are still of interest to researchers—that confirm that each of the twenty-two power use tactics are valid, currently being used by practitioners, and are valuable as indicators of the power behavior of contemporary leaders and followers. A summary of research focus- ing on each tactic follows.

POWER USE TACTICS: APPLICATION OF POWER ON THE JOB 61

Table 6.2 (Continued)

Organizational placement Coleman, 2004; Barnes, 2005; Kuhn & Graham, 2005; Eiser; Arnold, & Parmer, 2006; Wakefield, 2006; Yukl & Becker, 2006; Fisher, 2007; Helgesen, 2008: Hogan, 2008.

Proactivity Tepper, 1993; Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; Eiser, Arnold, & McMurry, 2000; Editor, 2005; Parmer, 2006; Hysong, 2008; McNeilly, 2008.

Quid pro quo Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; McMurry, 2000; Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002; Strutton, 2004; Editor, 2005; Eiser, Arnold, & Parmer, 2006; Fisher, 2007; Hysong, 2008.

Rationalization Tepper, 1993; Denis, Langley, & Cazale; 1994; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002; Popejoy, 2004; Strutton, 2004; Editor, 2005; Eiser, Arnold, & Parmer, 2006; Fisher, 2007; Salacuse, 2007; Hysong, 2008; McNeilly, 2008.

Allocating resources Tepper, 1993; Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Owen, 2000; The Business Journal, 2001; Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002; Coleman, 2004; Popejoy, 2004; Editor, 2005; Hughes & Beatty, 2005; Johnson, 2005; Kuhn & Graham, 2005; Peck, 2006; Wakefield, 2006;Yukl & Becker, 2006; Fisher, 2007; Hogan, 2008; McNeilly, 2008.

Dispensing rewards Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002; Geller, 2002; Goltz & Hietapelto, 2002; Barnes, 2005; Strutton, 2004; Johnson, 2005; Kuhn & Graham, 2005; Yap, 2006; Yukl & Becker, 2006. Editor, 2005; Hysong, 2008; McNeilly, 2008.

Ritualism Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994; Strutton, 2004. Petersen, 2005; Hysong, 2008; McNeilly, 2008.

Using a surrogate Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Stupak & Leitner,2001; Kuhn & Graham, 2005.

Using symbols The Business Journal, 2001; Geller, 2002; Strutton, 2004; Petersen, 2005; Salacuse, 2007; McNeilly, 2008; Robison 2008.

Training and orienting Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1995; others Popejoy, 2004; Hughes & Beatty, 2005; Johnson, 2005;

Kuhn & Graham, 2005; Gittlen; 2006; Yukl & Becker, 2006; Fisher, 2007; Marquardt, 2007; Hysong, 2008.

EXTENT OF USE OF POWER TACTICS

Power users often intervene in the existing power situation by means of direct interaction. They may also intervene in indirect or covert ways or through others who act as surrogates for the power user in certain circumstances. Often, power use in a relationship is from the top down, from someone higher in the group hierarchy than the target (Hogan, 2008). It is also common that the power user acts in the situation toward someone equal or superior in formal status. Regardless, the nature of any power tactic involves the interaction of four factors: (1) the nature and composition of the parties in the relationship, (2) the decision issue under consideration, (3) the tactics employed, and (4) the results intended by the power user(s).

Looking at the organization from the perspective of power is another way to view organizational behavior. This orientation adds insight on how members behave in group settings and how we drive organizational performance. People in organizations may and do use the full range of power tactics in attaining their desired results. Sometimes we control material resources, but always, we control our attention, energy, ideas, and attitudes. The facts suggest that we relate to other people in three different sets of group settings. The first setting is toward those superior to us in the hierarchy. The second is toward those on a more or less equal or peer level. And we also relate to those subordinate to us in the formal or informal pecking order. Both current and past research sheds light on the question of how we get our way in each of these group settings (Kuhn & Graham, 2005; Peck, 2006; Robison, 2008).

Some writers (e.g., Allen, Porter, Renwick, & Mays, 1979; Allen & Porter, 1983; Fairholm, 1984, 1985; Merrell, 1979; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977; Fairholm, 1993; Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002; Strutton, 2004; Eiser, Eiser, & Parmer, 2006; McNeilly, 2008) suggest that tactic choice is a function of one’s place in the group hierarchy. Thus, we determine tactic choice by a variety of factors such as: relative role-position, scope of power bases, and skill in using available tactics. The higher the status in the formal or informal hierarchy, the more direct the exer- cise of power is; that is, the higher the position, the more the power user selects tactics that use direct power forms such as force, authority, and threat. The lower the status, the more the user makes use of indirect forms such as manipulation, persuasion, and influence.

TARGETS OF POWER USAGE

Of course, we can use any of the twenty-two power tactics in any relation- ship with superiors, peers, or subordinates. Most often, however, people use spe- cific tactics toward one set of organizational coworkers. The data summarized in Table 6.3 reflects statistically meaningful uses of individual tactics toward each of the three target groups. These data summarize research findings about typical

62 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

power tactic use in each of these three settings. In selecting a specific power tac- tic the user must consider several factors. Among them are the nature of the prob- lem situation, the goals of the change effort, the cultural norms of the client target, and the expected degree of resistance.

As shown, respondents typically concentrate use of each tactic toward one target group to the general exclusion of the others. It is realistic to say that the three lists of tactics reflect the preferences of power users in securing com- pliance from each group of coworkers, with two exceptions. People find some success in using the tactics of building a favorable image and incurring obligation in others toward more than one classification or target. We use building a favorable image toward both superiors and peers. We also use incurring obligation toward both peers and subordinates. In all other cases, people typically use specific tactics toward the specific group shown, although, given the circumstances, any tactic can be used with any group.

Selecting a specific tactic involves us in comparing and testing possible tactics against some criteria. The first involves the potential results of the tech- nique; that is, will it solve the problem? Will it produce positive results in the organization and the intimate relationship? And, are there potential negative results likely to occur in its use? A second factor is the potential for successful implementation. Can the proposed tactic really work in practical application? What are the foreseeable costs in dollar and human terms? And, how do these costs compare with an alternative tactic use? The acceptance-potential of the tactic is the third factor. Is the technique acceptable to the targets? Is it benchmarked in this kind of application, this kind of situation, and with these kinds of targets? Users should consider these important factors before making a final decision about the selection of an intervention. The final selection is usually a trade-off between advantages and disadvantages, because there is no precise way to answer all the questions in advance (Fisher, 2007). After comparing the advantages and disad- vantages, the user selects a specific power intervention technique.

POWER USE TACTICS: APPLICATION OF POWER ON THE JOB 63

Table 6.3 Targeted Tactics Ranked by Frequency of Use*

Toward Superiors Toward Peers Toward Subordinates

Proactivity Quid pro quo Training and orienting others Using outside experts Allocating resources Developing others Displaying charisma Forming coalitions Dispensing rewards Rationalization Co-opting opposition Controlling decision criteria Using ambiguity Incurring obligation Legitimizing control Building a favorable image Using a surrogate Organizational placement

Controlling the agenda Ritualism Brinksmanship Incurring obligation Building a favorable image

*Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993. The statistical likelihood of relative use with the appropriate group is at least .001.

Since power use in office politics is a dynamic interactive process, the bound- aries of what is or is not power usage are ambiguous and evolving. The tactics included here provide examples of the diverse techniques that exist. However, the list is not all-inclusive. These planned actions or tactics are aimed specifically at correcting inefficiencies in the relationship of which the power user is a part. A basic assumption underlying the power relationship is that the target has the resources—personal capacities or resources—to affect change. It also assumes that the role of the power user is to energize these forces by helping the target to behave in appropriate ways.

Using power tactics make things happen. It causes changes in the behavior of people and in the allocation of resources and of the systems of which they are a part. People design organizations to use the energy and ability of individuals to perform work and achieve goals. Members bring to the organization their own values, assumptions, and behaviors (Fairholm, 1991). The effectiveness of the organization, then, is a function of how effectively we integrate the needs of the individual members with overall goals. The range of power activities discussed here is aimed at enhancing the development and functioning of the individual organization member. Essentially, the underlying assumption of these approaches is simple: if the individual becomes more effectively responsive to our needs and more skilled, we increase the potential for success.

In a general sense, power interventions aim at improving our communica- tion ability, interpersonal skill and leadership, or the behavior of organization members. If we increase interpersonal competence, we also should improve organizational performance and results. The aim is enhancing the attitude and behavior patterns within our work community. We apply these basic power tech- niques in all organizational actions.

64 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Chapter 7

Using Power in the Organization

We are often in situations with others where we are controlling people or being controlled by them. We cannot choose whether or not power will be used in our internal organizational political relationships. We can only control whether or not we will think about it and act on it from a basis of understanding. Comfort in its use can help both the practitioner and the analyst in grasping what takes place in organizational life. Power is an essential element of resource allocation, conflict, competition, decision making, planning, staff selection, and the whole range of management, supervisory, and leadership tasks. In a very real sense, power in use is merely organizational dynamics—the action of people in relationships.

Obviously, we all use power routinely. It is a central activity of mankind. For Plato, power was “being.” In The Sophist, he argues that anything that possesses any sort of power to affect another or be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause or however slight the effect, has real exis- tence. Power use resolves itself into the question of who is contending for what result and with what resources? These are, at heart, political questions. Our power behavior determines their answers.

Power is omnipresent in organizational decision making. It is critical in the selection of staff. It is a part of all resource allocation. Promotion actions, reor- ganization decisions, and the development, flow, and use of information needed by organizational members all involve power use. It is the medium of leadership. Gellerman (1963) puts the issue in motivational terms. For him, power is the critical difference between the person who seeks to control the conduct of the individual and the group and the leader who exercises control over the results they achieve. Power use earns us the right to lead (Goodstadt & Hjelle, 1973).

Effective leadership today depends on using power. Skill in its use is key to success in organizations. Basic to the act of organization (creating a homoge- neous unit from an amorphous whole) is the need to control, direct, and focus components toward planned goals that give the group purpose and coherence. This kind of goal-directed behavior necessitates using power. No one group or individual has exclusive rights to exercise power; it is a part of the behavior of all of us. It is especially significant to those who place themselves at the head of others and of our social organizations.

REASONS FOR POWER USE

People seek to exercise power for a variety of reasons. On one level, according to Plato, power use defines “self.” Some use power for the sheer enjoyment of it. Mueller (1970) said the “sheer love” of power drives some people. Russell (1938) saw power and glory as synonymous. For these people, power use is a desirable end in and of itself. Others see it as instrumental in achieving other, more valuable results, whether psychological or material (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). David Kipnis produced a list of reasons why people exercise power in organizations. His list included the following kinds of reasons:

1. To receive help in our job 2. To assign work to a target of power 3. To acquire benefits from the target of power 4. To aid in improving the target’s performance 5. To initiate change

Others have added additional reasons including:

6. For the fun of it (Mueller, 1970) 7. To meet ego needs (Alder, 1956)

LIMITS OF POWER USE

Although power is, by definition, a part of all joint action, it is constrained by a variety of factors in the situation and in the character of the participants (Sankar, 2003). We are constrained depending upon whether we see it as an end or only instrumental to other ends. Our personal characteristics or physical appearance impact our power use. Those with attractive physical or personality characteristics find it easier to exercise power than those not so well endowed. Height, intelligence, relative comeliness, and similar factors help or hinder our effectiveness as power users (Kotter, 1977).

66 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Similarly, situational factors surrounding power use also can impact effec- tiveness. Position held in the hierarchy is significant, as is socioeconomic status, the size of the group, and the nature of the task dealt with. All of these factors, individually or combined, can impact our ability to productively use power. The central factor in power use is will and resources. Unless there are enough of both, we cannot effectively exercise power. Success in achieving desired results in the face of opposition is a function of individual will and the imaginative use of avail- able, controllable resources.

RESISTANCE TO POWER USE

By definition, power is not in use unless at least two participants in the rela- tionship are at odds with each other on some issue. Resistance, therefore, is a com- mon reaction to our use of power (Goltz & Hietapelto, 2002). People resist the power tactics we use toward them by: (a) using a countervailing power tactic; (b) striving to destroy or limit the base or bases of power we control; (c) seeking to wrest power bases held by us from us; and (d) trying to disengage from the relationship, thereby destroying not only our power, but the underlying relationship itself.

Resistance can result from the inability to respond appropriately; that is, others sometimes fail to respond to our power use because they do not have the resources necessary to affect compliance, even though they want to comply. They do not have the requisite skills, time, materials, or the information needed to affect our outcome desires. Resistance also can result from an unwillingness to comply; that is, the target can but chooses not to comply with our desires. In both cases, the resistance is real and the impact on our use of power is similar: we must either increase the force or scope of our power use, or give up.

Several reasons present themselves as to why we cannot bring to bear enough power to overcome resistance. Obviously, we may not have the means available to us, as in the case when a supervisor cannot promise a promotion (or other reward) for needed performance. And, too, when we employ one means of power use, we often cannot thereafter employ some other power form in that situation. For exam- ple, a decision to use force precludes the later use of, say, persuasion by us in that situation. A supervisor whose strategy of power is authoritarian cannot easily employ within that context the power forms of persuasion or influence. Once we employ authority, targets will not easily respond in ways appropriate to other forms because of the force of the authoritarian style dominating the relationship.

RESULTS OF POWER USE

The goal of our power use is the realization of desired changes in the behav- ior, attitudes, or characteristics of others or groups. We use power in situations where goals are to be formed, resources allocated, information disseminated,

USING POWER IN THE ORGANIZATION 67

assignments of staff made, and performance improved or altered. In short, we use power when we require a choice. Its use impacts the user as well as the target of power. For example, Kipnis (1976) concludes that, psychologically, using power empowers the power holder and devalues the target of power in the power holder’s eye (see also Yukl & Becker, 2006). This situation sets up a relationship that can lead to the abuse of relatively powerless persons.

Goodstadt and Hjelle (1973) also studied this relationship and confirm Kipnis’s results. They also looked at the impacts of power use on group members previously seen as relatively powerless. When given power, these people typically resort to coercive power forms. These researchers found that the impact on personal and target self-esteem follows the Kipnis research results. Kotter’s (1977) work suggests that power use increases the speed of results attained. Power use speeds up action in the group and hastens goal accomplishment for the power holder. Kipnis also found that power use increased the assertiveness of power users. Power use has the potential for great good. Its use, however, also allows the user to impact people adversely.

Power is both an offensive and defensive tool. Most research deals with the effectiveness of power use in getting our way in the organizational relationship. There is, however, a growing body of information discussing the ways people use power to forestall someone else getting his way. People use power defensively to prevent someone from doing something we don’t like or that will hurt us. It can be effective in either offensive or defensive modes.

IMPORTANT FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL POWER USE

As we try to identify the critical factors essential to successful power use, we are caught in a dilemma created by the ubiquitousness of power in social interac- tion. Because it is so much a part of all social intercourse, it is difficult to isolate individual or situational factors essential to its use. In one very real sense, power use is possible in any circumstance and by any person. We see it in situations that facilitate its successful use and in situations where the chances for success are, by most accounts, marginal. The following factors facilitate its successful use. (Readers must recognize that they can also successfully use power in other situations.)

Discretion. (Kanter, 1977) says that people most easily use power in situa- tions that allow discretion and flexibility. Nonroutine tasks that permit alternative methods and outcomes and allow us to exercise creativity also provide an environment where we can use power.

Centrality. Kantor also identifies the critical nature of the factor of rele- vance. Her research suggests that being close to the center of activity enhances power use (Korda, 1975).

Exchange. Several writers identify the power situation as being one of exchange. A social exchange is one where both parties have something to

68 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

give and have some expectation of potentially attractive results from the interaction (Michner & Schwartfeger, 1972; Molm, 1990).

Status with supervisors. Individuals in intimate contact with people superior in the hierarchy are more effective in getting their way than those less well connected. Contact and influence with superiors is a useful factor and is effective in power use (Bass, 1981).

Conformance to group norms. People who personify the underlying group norms are more powerful in that group than those who do not (Cavanaugh, Moberg, & Velasquez, 1981).

Legitimacy. Much research supports the idea that those people we accept as legitimate authorities are more powerful than those who are not (Falbo, New, & Gaines, 1987; Kuhn & Graham, 2005). Congruence with rightful authority, traditional activities, or with accepted people endows us with credibility, and power use from that foundation is effective.

Association. We can be more effective if our power targets see us as being associated with other, like-minded people.

Personal status. According to Kipnis, (1976), people with high personal standing in the group exert more influence. Others see people who are held in high esteem as powerful and will accept their desires more than those with lower status (Bacharach & Lawler, 1986).

Personal characteristics. Some research summarized by Mechanic (1962) suggests that personal attributes are factors in successful power use. We associate commitment, high energy, interest, skill, attractiveness, and similar characteristics with the successful exercise of power.

EXPECTATIONS AND POWER USE

Organizations have certain expectations of their members. Especially in busi- ness organizations, leaders spell out member behavior very clearly. For example, the organization expects members to be on the job during certain hours of the day. It expects a level of quality and quantity of work, loyalty, appearance, and various other behaviors specific to that organization. To satisfy the organization, individual members need to comply with these expectations, at least to some degree, if there is to be a lasting and healthy relationship. These organizational cultural constraints may be friendly or unfriendly to participants (White, 1990).

Similarly, group members have expectations of the organization. They may expect to gain work experience, security, and advancement. They probably expect to meet people, make friends, and form social and professional relationships. And, workers undoubtedly expect monetary remuneration. The organization will have to meet these or other expectations to satisfy their workers. When either the organization’s or the individual’s expectations are not satisfied adequately, friction and difficulties may develop. Failure to resolve these problems may culminate in separation of the individual from the organization. Unfortunately, all

USING POWER IN THE ORGANIZATION 69

too often, the problem is solved by not solving it. It often takes too much effort to deal directly with the underlying issues, so nothing is done. Both parties continue in a tenuous and unproductive relationship.

Sometimes the relationship between the individual and the organization does not directly address key expectations. One or both parties may assume that the other agrees to some unstated expectations. Such unstated or assumed expectations can lead to an organization peopled by workers who feel cheated or to leaders who feel disappointed in their subordinates. Power is in action in both the behaviors that lead to this kind of relationship and in the steps taken to remedy the unhealthy relationship.

Our organizations must maintain a stable identity and standard operations to accomplish their goals. Consequently, they find that the way members use power is critical. They need a systematic approach in discriminating between those fea- tures that are healthy and effective and those that are not. Erratic, short-term, unplanned, or haphazard use of power may well introduce problems that did not exist before. Such haphazard power use may produce side effects that may be worse than the original problem that necessitated power use in the first place. Leaders should be aware that stability and equilibrium aids a healthy organiza- tion. Power use just for the sake of power use is not necessarily effective and often can be dysfunctional.

The important issue is whether or not we can deal effectively with the multiple uses of power present in our social life. Organization members, whether in business, governmental, educational, or nonprofit settings rely upon power. Individuals in positions of influence constitute the power structure and frequently are power-motivated (Ryan, 2000). These leaders compete for promotion, and their departments and division staff compete over resource allocations. But, importantly, all members of organizations have and use power for their own personal or institutional political purposes. Office politics is an omnipresent real- ity, though sometimes a dysfunctional factor, in our organizations. The issue is whether or not the individual can deal effectively with the power issues and situations that, in truth, make up organizational life.

STRATEGIES OF POWER USE

We can look at power research on two levels. First, we can analyze power as a series of separate and isolated empirical events that occur in organizations, but in specific and discrete situations, using limited forms, bases, and directed to specific targets. A second level of research, more universal in scope, integrates power theory with socioorganizational theory and behavior. Power use at this level of inquiry becomes part of the larger picture of human motivation and leadership. Some research at this level of inquiry have resulted in perspectives that can help us understand the overall power use context. These studies can also be helpful in clarifying the strategic dimensions of power use.

70 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Historically, the use of power has been antithetical to open, participative management systems and is admitted, but deplored, in authoritarian systems (Yukl & Becker, 2006). The common orientation is to be sure you have necessary power and people know it, but to take every opportunity not to use it. The fact is, however, that most organizations operate within some type of system that sanctions power use. The organization’s members are motivated to some extent by the perceived power they command within the organization, or the power their part of the organization commands, compared to other units or competitors in the external environment.

Coping with power use in both the internal and external environment requires increased sensitivity to changing conditions. It also asks for improved knowledge of ways to incorporate adaptive mechanisms within the organiza- tional system. Helgesen (2008) outlines three forces that have transformed organizations rendering traditional orientations obsolete: (1) economic change has shifted the balance of power away from the organization and toward the individual in its focus on human knowledge, (2) technological change in systems of communication, and (3) demographic change that has emphasized women in power roles. Sensitivity to this changed environment may mean the difference between the successful institution of corrective action or a worsening of the problem. To meet these challenges, organizations and individuals are developing coping strategies that employ power in all of its forms and which use various, specific power tactics.

The starting point for engaging in power use in organizational or office politics is the delineation of an overall power strategy (Hughes & Beatty, 2005). The specific relationship with the target, as well as the organizational climate, influences the selection of specific power tactics. These strategic orientations, which aim at improving individual and organizational effectiveness, are also relationship-specific. Another factor to consider in strategy selection is second- order consequences. This refers to the indirect or deferred results coming from the immediate impact of power use on individuals, organizations, and situations. A change in one aspect of the situation resulting from power use can impact other, indirectly concerned, parts of the organization. This can create new problems or other situations where power must be employed.

Strategy involves the overall planning and direction of power action programs. Tactics are techniques or the specific means by which people attain their power goals. For a power strategy to be successful, the user must consider the interdependencies that exist among the various subelements of the organization. Effective power tactic use assumes the user exercises power from the perspective of an overall strategy within which to guide present and future actions. And, too, the user must be alert to the special factors in the situation and select a tactic appropri- ate to the situation, rather than rely on a “favorite” tactic to the exclusion of others.

Typically, attempts to collapse power use into a few discrete strategies have used resources or bases of power as the desideratum. Perhaps the best known of these are found in the work of Max Weber and Amitai Etzioni. Weber’s (1968)

USING POWER IN THE ORGANIZATION 71

classification of power exercised in organizations includes three groupings: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. His synthesis proposed that we exer- cise traditional power against others, in one set of circumstances, because people accept our commands as legitimate and justified when they conform to traditionally accepted patterns of behavior. A simple example is in the routine orders that leaders give to employees who follow them because it is expected of someone in their position to do so. Power use is effective in this case because the leader controls either the definition of what becomes “traditional” or the means to activate traditional methods.

Weber’s second class of power use centers around the power of personality. He suggests that persons who have attractive personality characteristics— charisma—or are seen as having a special “calling” attract people to them. Targets of such power use are often willing to accept their commands as justified on the basis of the power user’s personality. Finally, Weber suggests that people accept another’s commands as authoritative because the action conforms to a known law, rule, or policy. That is, they view the rules on which the specific command is based as legal, rational, legitimate, and acceptable. Control over or conformance to the rules governing organizational life empowers the controller with effective assets in interpersonal relationships. The ubiquity and effectiveness of standard operating procedures is a simple example of this form of power use. Powerful people create procedures that perpetuate their power, and others follow them because they feel it is the legal or appropriate thing to do.

Etzioni (1961) formulated his tripartite strategic typology using bases of power as his foundation. He distinguished between coercive, remunerative, and normative power. Each corresponds to power resources of force, material reward for desired behavior, and conformance to group-recognized standards of accept- ability (legitimacy, prestige, love). Power use behaviors are, for Etzioni, founded on one or the other (or combinations of two or more) of these types of resource control. For him, power use is a transaction in which compliance is given in exchange for desired resources classified in organizational terms. His three-part typology adds to our understanding of power use.

1. Coercive power. This helps us get compliance when we have control over sanctions important to the target. The ability to reward compliance and punish noncompliance is central to the use of this strategy. The key is to control sanctions important to the target.

2. Remunerative powers. This is illustrated when we control important and needed resources and use them as rewards for compliance. Again, the exchange is compliance-for-reward.

3. Normative power. This describes a situation where we control resources having high symbolic value. Control over ideas, ideals, values, goals, or approaches that have emotional appeal to others places us in a power position vis-á-vis them. Those in the organization who want to identity with these abstract (symbolic) ideas submit to those who espouse them.

72 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

The wide appeal of Weber’s and Etzioni’s strategic topologies lies, in part, in their universality. Either of these strategies can help us understand the workings of power in organizations. They can also help us select a coherent, consistent, and predictable range of specific behaviors intended to impact others’ actions in a given situation. However, they are somewhat artificial. They fail in some real ways to rationalize power use fully and to provide a true strategic basis for its use. Seldom can one isolate a pure example of a typology. They are most often seen in combination. And, the typologies do not relate to any found in a natural or pure state such as up/down or superior/subordinate structures.

Benne and Chin’s (1961) strategic model is also in three parts and is similar to Etzioni’s. The first, empirical-rational strategy, involves a directed change with reasons provided to the affected people. Normative-reductive strategy modifies the problem-solving capabilities of a system or fosters the growth of the people making up the system. This strategy assumes a direct connection between the peo- ple making up the system and the system itself. Finally, power-coercive strategy assumes the compliance of those with less power in the situation to the will of those with more power. This typology is, perhaps, more useful, but it too suffers from a lack of purity. They are seen most often in combination, not in their pure forms. Each of these strategies of change implies a specific kind of power use. We see power in use in all human relationships. The empirical-rational kinds use power based on knowledge. The flow of power is from those who know to those who do not, through a process of education. Normative reductive strategies share power— that is, their knowledge of human behavior—with the client system.

Both of these strategies avoid coercive tactics on both moral and practical grounds. Power-coercive strategies, however, use both legitimate and illegitimate power—that is moral and unethical dimensions of power (Ryan, 2000). Thus, recognizing the dark side of power, Benne and Chin also identify three power- coercive strategies: nonviolent, invocation of political institutions, and manipula- tion of power groups. Classic nonviolent strategies are seen in the behaviors of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Achieving desired results by using political institutions is traditionally opposed in our society. Political power is widespread through all types of organizations. Nonviolent power is also a form of office politics. This form has some shortcomings. Users of power under this strat- egy often overestimate its effectiveness. Getting a law (or policy) passed does not guarantee compliance. Finally, manipulation means that power is taken from one group and redistributed to another group, often unobtrusively. Karl Marx is this method’s most famous proponent. Marx advocated bringing about change through “recomposing” power groups and used manipulation as a plan for funda- mental social change.

Other strategic orientations have also been identified. Power can be reactive; that is, we can employ it as a response to someone’s actually or assumed initial power play. It can also be proactive, employed as an initial ploy in a relationship. Power tactics also can be rationalized within a strategy of openness or, conversely, be used unobtrusively; that is, power can be exercised within either

USING POWER IN THE ORGANIZATION 73

74 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

overt or covert strategies. We can classify tactic use also according to our inten- tion to block undesired behavior of others or to extend our own power domain. Similarly, power can be exercised overall according to our desire to persuade, induce, or constrain our target.

Pfeffer (1977), Kipnis, (1976), and others have suggested that power exercised unobtrusively or even covertly may be preferable in some circum- stances and for some people. It is clear that much office politics is of this type. At least some of the negative feeling people have about office politics is traceable to its covert application. Covert tactics may include manipulation. They may also include any activity that structures reality in specific ways to meet our explicit goals. Covert tactics operate without cooperation or knowledge of the target of power (Coleman, 2004). Unobtrusive power use is common in organizational life, but need not carry negative connotations. In fact, much routine organizational activity requires us to comply without explicit explanation or understanding or the reasons for the instructions. This situation need not cause hurt to the organi- zation’s members. Nevertheless, this strategy causes many of us ethical and moral concern (Ryan, 2000).

Michner and Schwartfeger (1972) summarize some significant power strat- egy literature in developing their classification scheme. For them, a significant strategic orientation in power use is blocking. Use of many power tactics results in blocking the target from the attainment of his results. This negatively connoted strategy implies a restriction or constraining of access to desired results. It is clear as an underlying strategy in much power use. They also suggest that a common strategy in power use revolves around attempts to expand our power domain, scope, and range. Creating a need that only we can supply, widening the network of information and communication contacts, building additional support for our programs and policies—all suggest an enlargement of our power base and are viable and common strategies in organizations.

Persuasion is another strategy seen commonly in routine uses of power. Many specific tactics have as their purpose the persuasion of another to our point of view, behavior, attitude, or values. This strategy relies on another value system (logical argument) and another range of resources (ideas, values, and ideology) than those mentioned to this point.

A final strategic orientation, the one adopted here, can be identified that focuses on the targets of our power politics and is the strategic orientation cho- sen as the foundation for this book. Power use can be directed at any of three specific targets: those superior to us in the organizational hierarchy, those on an equal or peer level, and those subordinate to us. This three-part strategy empha- sizes that office politics can be directed toward any participant in the organiza- tion: bosses, colleagues, or subordinates. Managing the boss and peers is no less frequent than managing subordinates. Exercising power politics to get these several target groups to comply with our wishes is all part of organizational or office politics and asks us to become experts in using different power tactics for each target.

USING POWER IN THE ORGANIZATION 75

A caution should be recognized here: these brief descriptions of strategic power use orientations are only illustrative. There is a wide variety of strategies we may follow in exercising power in working contexts. Prior consideration of strategic factors is prudent in predicting ultimate success in just the same way that planning and consistency in any endeavor is usually more effective than random behavior. Still, our understanding of power as a key factor in organizational action is too rudimentary today to precisely advocate any given power strategy. Indeed, there is some logic to the proposition that too much specificity in early stages of understanding will hamper, not help, deeper analysis. Settling too soon on one strategy may limit wider experimentation and hamper full understanding of this critical element of group dynamics.

Of course, strategic orientation is a significant factor in applying power. It is an evolving, creative dimension of the power dynamic. It is one we should not prescribe too closely or too quickly. The several types of power use strategies reviewed here offer useful insights into the ways people use power in contempo- rary organizational life. They do not offer definitive guidance as to which strategy will be absolutely effective in a given situation. Neither do they offer significant insights into specific behaviors people use in securing their desires in competition with others in the group. None of the older, more traditional strategies described above make explicit the ways we use power in relations with our superiors, sub- ordinates, or peers. Nevertheless, these are the critical organizational relationships people engage in. They are the real focus of power use in group settings. Yet, the strategies available to us treat only implicitly this context.

The focus here is on power use from the strategic position of the initiator of power action toward superiors, peers, and subordinates. This orientation of power use according to the hierarchical role of the target will, hopefully, provide some helpful insight on the question of the workings of power in our relationships.

This page intentionally left blank

Part II Issues and Activities

Given the universal nature of power, it is important to our success that each of us understands the various ways we can apply power in our relationships. Research described in Part II has identified several strategic and tactical approaches to effective power use and has illustrated tactics that readers might adopt as they use their power in specific relationships with others. Several key issues are presented below that readers might profitably consider as they contemplate their personal approach to using power. The activities are intended to embody situations and contexts within which a given tactical approach might be helpful.

DISCUSSION ISSUES AND QUESTIONS

1. Do the work groups you create focus on maintaining and keeping power or on sharing and distributing power? Provide specific examples.

2. “Power use is critical in understanding normal work community life since both leaders and coworkers use power to secure their goals, control scarce resources, negotiate agreement, or take independent action to try to achieve their personal goals.” Is this statement true or false? Justify your answer.

3. Power is a relative concept—the leader may be relatively powerful in one cir- cumstance and not so powerful in another. What obstacles do you face in using power in your relationships with coworkers?

4. Someone has said that the leader can “create” a future for his or her organi- zation. Do you believe this is true? Why or why not? Discuss this statement in terms of its implications for effective power use. Assuming you concur, what specific power tactics seem to be the most useful in moving your small group toward your “created future?”

5. Select what seems to you to be the most universally useful of the twenty-two power tactics and develop a plan for how you would apply this tactic to a spe- cific work problem now facing you or your work team. Include in the plan how you would create situations—at least two—in which using this power tactic might facilitate success.

6. Select what seems to you to be the least useful of the twenty-two power tac- tics that you have used or have had used on you in the recent past. Briefly describe the situation and the result. How could you alter your actions to make that power tactic use successful? What other tactic(s) might you have used that would have had a greater likelihood of ensuring the accomplish- ment of your desired result?

7. Leadership success is in part a function of the power to excite, motivate, and co-opt work community members who come to share the leader’s vision, val- ues, and goals. What part does power use play in developing the leader’s strategy for accomplishing this result? Thinking of a current problem you face in your work, develop an action plan for using specific power tactics to resolve this problem.

8. Traditional leadership theory, tasks, and skills are not very useful in helping leaders use power successfully. Rather, leadership is of the mind, the soul, and the spirit and asks leaders to get in touch with themselves in intimate ways as a necessary first step in changing followers in (also) intimate ways. React to this statement. Write a paragraph or two describing your power- tinged theory of leadership based on your experiences conditioned by the information contained in Part II.

ACTIVITIES

Activity 1: Influence Lineup

Instructions: Neither the literature nor practicing leaders talk much about their use of power or that of others working with them in their work communities. Experience, however, suggests that most people most of the time are aware of their power and its relationship to the power of all others in the group. This activ- ity will help you get in touch with your relative power in their work (or other) community. (If you and your work community colleagues do this activity as a group, proceed as indicated below. If this is not feasible, mentally align your

78 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

work community along a line from the most powerful to the least powerful.) Respond to the instructions below:

1. Begin by marking one end of a line marked on the floor as the spot for the most powerful person in your work community to stand.

2. Without speaking, have each member stand in line according to how each sees him or herself, from most powerful to least powerful. The most powerful person will be at the “power end” of the line.

3. After the line has stabilized, ask if anyone wants to move himself to a differ- ent location from where he or she is now. Allow for members to realign them- selves along the line.

4. Discuss the self-perceptions and perceptions of others.

• How does your power as perceived by other members compare with how you see it?

• Were there disagreements among members about who is the most powerful?

• Does the work community have certain biases about power, such as the richest person being seen as the most powerful (or the smartest as being higher ranking member, etc.)?

• Why do you think it was relatively easy (or difficult) for you to do this?

Activity 2: What Is Your Power Personality?

Instructions: The way in which we accept and use power and influence has a direct bearing on our functioning in a work community. The items below are aimed at helping you clarify your power behavior in work communities. How aware are you of the power you have over others in the work community? How do you usually express your power in the work community? How do you react to being influenced by other members? To help answer these personal questions consider the following considerations:

1. Rank the following six items from the statement that is most important to you (1) to the statement that is least important to you (6).

When other work community members try to influence my behavior, I am likely to do the things they want me to do because:

___ I admire them for their personal qualities and I want to act in a way that merits their respect and admiration.

___ I respect their ability and good judgment about things with which they are more experienced than l am.

PART II ISSUES AND ACTIVITIES 79

___ My coworkers give special help and benefits to those who cooperate with them.

___ My coworkers apply pressure or penalize those who do not cooperate with them.

___ My coworkers have a legitimate right, considering their position, to expect that their suggestions will be carried out.

___ My coworkers have information I need in order to accomplish my goals, and, therefore, I listen carefully and use what they have to say.

2. Circle your most accurate response to the following questions:

• When I participate in a work community task, I am completely conscious of how much power I have and how I can use it to make sure my needs and wants are met.

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always

• When it comes time to set work community priorities, I seek out other work community members who have compatible goals and try to form coalitions to increase my power and, therefore, the likelihood of my influencing the priorities in the way I want.

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always

• I am quite comfortable dealing with power. I like influencing other work community members, and I enjoy being able to build enough power to get what I want from the work community.

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always

3. The way in which I would describe my power-oriented behavior in a work community is:

Answer Key: The possible responses to question one correspond to the six traditional kinds of power identified by French and Raven. They are, in order of the responses: charismatic, expert, reward, coercive, legitimate, and informa- tion power. Your response to question one suggests your preferred kinds of power use.

Responses to other questions further elaborate your preferred power per- sonality. As colleagues also complete this questionnaire, you can compare your responses with others in your group and define a work community power personality.

80 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Activity 3: Your Power IQ

Instructions: There is little discussion of power in classrooms, boardrooms, offices, or shop floors. As a result, many people are unaware of the power they routinely use and the importance of their personal power in getting their personal agendas realized on the job.

Getting in touch with your power IQ, therefore, is a necessary first step to the effective use of power. Complete the following list of questions as fully as you can. Honest responses will shed light on your present power uses, your feelings about using power and having it used toward you, and may provide guidance as to next steps in increasing your skill in power use.

1. List a few appropriate uses of power.

• What are the factors that make them seem appropriate?

• If you decided to install a new work system and one of your division heads continues to oppose it in direct and indirect ways, how might you use power to get what your want?

2. List some factors that make power use seem inappropriate.

3. Recall a time at work or at home when you used power on someone else to get them to do something they didn’t want to do.

• How did you go about using the power you had?

• How did the other person respond to this use of power?

• If you were in the same situation now, would you choose to act differently? Why? How?

4. Recall a time at work or at home when you had power used on you to get you to do something you didn’t particularly want to do.

• How did the person go about using their power?

• How did you respond to this use of power?

• If you were in the same situation now, would you respond differently? Why? How?

Activity 4: Inspirational Ideas about Leadership Power

Instructions: Inspiration is a word most commonly used in religion and the arts to describe a wave of emotional stimulation. Its use in leadership is less common.

1. Review the following quotations.

“A leader inspires his staff to believe in themselves and their ability to succeed long before they recognize their own potential.”

Sherman Hamilton

PART II ISSUES AND ACTIVITIES 81

“Leaders get followers to reach beyond themselves. The task of the leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been.”

Henry Kissinger

“True leadership must be for the benefit of the followers, not for the enrichment of the leaders. In combat, officers eat last.”

Lao-Tzu

“The institutional leader is primarily an expert in the promotion and protection of values.”

Philip Selznick

“Leadership is the ability to decide what is to be done and then to get others to want to do it.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower

“The extraordinary appeal of Mao Tse-tung is hard to identify. Some may suggest that it lies less in the man and more in the nature of the Chinese society, for the Chinese do seem compelled to make all their leaders into imperial figures.”

Lucian W. Pye

“Churchill had learned the great truth that to move other people, the leader must first move himself.”

Sir Robert Menzies

2. Study these quotations and assess their implications for the power-using leader.

• What can you learn about how to exercise power toward others by applying these statements to your practice of leadership?

• Relate each statement—insofar as is logical—to the twenty-two tactics described in Part II.

3. Write an explanatory essay that summarizes your conclusions.

82 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Part III

Power Interventions That Work

It is one thing to know that power exists and is a part of a universal, political, organizational dynamic. It is quite another to be able to make power work for us. Part III examines ways we can become effective participants in the power process. It lays the foundation for successful power use and applies the tactics to goal attainment within various types of groups (Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002).

The chapters in Part III focus the application of power tactics on three strate- gic targets: our superiors, our peers, and our subordinates. Analysis of organiza- tional power behavior, its use, theory, and ethics takes on meaning as we see it applied in work situations that help us to achieve our goals with individuals in each of these three collegial classes.

We organize to get work done. But, the focus of this action is personal. We behave in organizations in ways that we intend to achieve our goals (Telford & Gostick, 2005). Both theory and observation supports this perspective. Some- times, achieving our desires also obliges us to work to achieve the goals of the organization. At other times, our goal attainment action hinders group goal attain- ment. The fact is that we use the organization and its resources for personal goal- attainment! That we also sometimes achieve organizational objectives is, although important, secondary! This core purpose of organizational action is entirely consistent with the ideas implicit in organizational or office politics and attendant power use behavior.

Chapters 8, 9, and 10 in Part III examine the power tactics found to be most effective when used toward members in each organizational level and identifies characteristics of that use. These chapters enlarge upon the general descriptions of the 22 power tactics developed in Chapter 6 and relate them to various strategic

targets. They provide insight about context and application of each tactic when used by any group member toward their organizational associates in each strate- gic level. These chapters explore the relative success we may expect in using each tactic. This Part also provides some information about the ethical perspectives group members have about the appropriate use of each tactic.

Chapter 11 summarizes applied power use by comparing the frequency of use, effectiveness, ethics, and timing of typical use characteristics of each of the 22 tactics. The conclusion of the analyses in Chapter 11 is that regardless of strategic orientation, power is a routine part of organizational life. These chapters specify what tactics are most often used with each kind of organization colleague with whom we interact. They also spell out details of frequency of use, ethicality, and overall style of use of the power tactics commonly used toward each class of target. The implications of the data contained in Chapter 11 for power users as they begin to, first, recognize the importance of power-skill in their organizational success, and, second, to plan a strategic approach to their power use to maximize their impact are significant.

Chapters 12 and 13 are devoted to the application of the 22 power tactics in two special contexts. Chapter 12 discusses the special ways power users apply power in their work in the vast middle ranges of a large scale organization. Most of the discussion in the literature assumes that power is a feature of top executive action. Much of this work follows suit. However, the Chapter 12 discussion applies power use to the special characteristics of workers who are not the chief executive. And since most of us work in these regions, this orientation provides new, needed, and effective insight into how middle-level executives attain success in working with others.

Finally, Chapter 13 discusses recent innovative work that applies power to small groups composed of members from multiple nation states and representing multiple ethnic groups, religions, and other cultural distinctions. Obviously, most readers are aware of the cultural dimension of their work groups. Their culture discussions typically assume an American context and focus on relatively minor variations of American culture and American ethnics or other protected groups. The focus in Chapter 13 is on small groups made up of members from several dif- ferent nationalities, languages, cultural features, religions, and so on. The special ways these individuals use power in their groups presents a new perspective on power use; one which is increasingly characteristic of today’s work groups.

84 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Chapter 8

Tactics Used with Superiors

Conventional wisdom leads us to believe that power is directed downward. In fact, however, it flows up and laterally as well as downward. Some of the most important power relationships are those we have with our superiors. These rela- tionships often constitute critical relations in the sense that success here deter- mines our overall success in the group. They define much of what conventional wisdom calls “office politics.” These superior-directed contacts are critical contingencies in our overall association with the organization. Successful power behaviors toward superiors are central to attainment of our personal agendas. Our uses of power in these situations are somewhat less direct and less overt than are the tactics we use toward other organizational targets (Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981). Still, this power use strategy constitutes a critical element of organiza- tional power politics.

Porter, Allen, and Angle (1981) suggest that although every relationship between subordinates and superiors may not be power-related, the probability is that most are (Bachrach & Lawler, 1986). Obviously, normal downward-directed relationships between superiors and subordinates are power-tinged. Issuing orders, giving instructions, evaluating the work of subordinates all have power aspects. These uses of power are understandable to most. But power can be seen in most reverse relationships, that is, from subordinates upward as well as from superiors downward. Both participants have and use power routinely (Mechanic, 1962).

Any attempt to secure a favorable decision from a superior is a potential power relationship. For example, when we get a travel authorization, or secure approval to buy needed items of supply or equipment, we are using power. Getting agreement on a course of action, program changes, or budget allocations also are contexts within which power tactics are used by subordinates to secure

superior compliance (Coenen, 1988). The results may satisfy a personal or an organizational need, but the key factor is the subordinate’s desire to attain a superior’s action relevant to the outcome desired.

The notion held by some that subordinates are powerless—or even signifi- cantly less powerful than superiors—does not stand up to experience. Leaders cannot be successful without the energy, skill, talent, information, and willing- ness of their subordinates. This fact places subordinates in a favorable power position vis-a-vis their superiors. Too often superiors find themselves in the thrall of the subordinate expert or specialist. And always, they are dependent on subor- dinates to do the actual work of the organization both serve. This dependence relationship can account for some of the behavior we see in organizations where subordinates seem to direct organization affairs in ways not explainable by their hierarchical role and official prerogatives.

Subordinates are as powerful as superiors in that both can control scarce resources needed by the other. The scarce resources controlled may differ, but the result is similar. The exact balance seems to be a function of the situation and the personal capacities of the individuals involved as much as it is a function of for- mal organization structure and work systems. Organizational life is a series of intentional acts by both leader and led aimed at securing individual needs satis- faction or goal attainment. The action is in both directions—downward-directed and upward-directed. This perspective adds significant insights into the nature and purposes of power-related organizational activity. This viewpoint may be as helpful in understanding organizational dynamics as more common perspectives on organizational behavior, such as communication, competition, decision making, or conflict resolution.

A subordinate trying to “direct” the behavior of a superior sets up a situa- tional context that differs in real ways from other relationships (Kanter, 1979). Conventional wisdom suggests that subordinates are limited in the power behavior options open to them. This view suggests that this may not be fully true. It is true that there is a statistically significant leaning toward a relatively few power tactics in these relationships. They rely on aspects of personal char- acter rather than prerequisites of position. But, importantly, the data confirms that by-and-large all subordinates can—and many do—make use of all 22 of the power tactics in their contacts with superiors.

In dealing with superiors we tend to concentrate on power tactics based on personality more than, say, material resources. In these relations we tend to con- centrate on using personal skills, characteristics, and capacities to attract superi- ors to our point of view. This is understandable since subordinates normally do not control as many organizational sanctions mechanisms or legitimizing mecha- nisms. Interestingly, neither do they routinely use coalitions with others to concentrate available power in much of their power interaction with superiors. Subordinate power users rely less on force and authority power forms and more on manipulation, persuasion, threat-promise, and influence forms. The six tactics used most toward superiors are (in order of frequency of use): proactivity, use of

86 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

outside experts, displaying charisma, rationalization, using ambiguity, and building a favorable image. They are often employed in indirect, unobtrusive, and even covert ways. The superior-officer target of this power use is often unaware that power is in play.

POWER TACTICS SUBORDINATES USE TOWARD THEIR SUPERIORS

Analysis of respondent choices from the author’s study (see Appendix), how- ever, indicates that only six tactics are routinely used with our superior-oriented targets. Each of the six tactics is defined below. Some illustrative examples are given to place each tactic in the context of normal operational behavior in organ- izations. A short analysis of the nature and character of that use is provided in the next section. (See the first edition for detailed statistical analyses of these power use tactics.)

Proactivity

Proactivity is the most often used power tactic that subordinates use toward superiors (McMurry, 2000). Proactive behavior is dynamic. It concerns actions we take based on our personal capacity, not necessarily limited by the scope of our legitimate authority (Editor, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2005). It is a process of doing something first and of seeking permission afterward. It can be formally defined as taking unilateral action to secure our desired results. We may use this tactic in relations with either peers or, occasionally, with subordi- nates, but the predominant target of use is toward those in superior roles in the organization.

Proactive actions tend to bypass official system constraints as well as psycho- logical resistance. It reorders internal relationships by changing the environment,

TACTICS USED WITH SUPERIORS 87

Table 8.1 Characteristics of Tactics Used Toward Superiors

Tactics by Tactic Effectiveness Frequency of Rank with Ethical Pattern When Used Use Rank p-value* All Tactics Superiors Positive/Negative Initial/Response

1. Proactivity .0001 5 2 P I 2. Outside experts .0001 9 3 N R 3. Charisma .0001 4 1 P I 4. Rationalization .0001 13 6 N R 5. Ambiguity .0001 12 5 P I 6. Image building .0001 10 4 P I

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993. *Probability that the use of this tactic is effective.

usually before most participants are aware that a change is occurring. It is often seen as a fait accompli, a situation in which we present our bosses with a completed decision or action and seek support after the fact (Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994). But it can also be seen when projects or actions are promulgated in situations where no other solutions are readily identifiable—that is, suggest- ing ideas in a vacuum. The proactive person acts rather than reacts (Kouzes & Posner, 1995).

Proactive behavior takes many forms. An example would be when a branch manager who does not have the authority to staff a key position, say a personnel assistant, makes internal staff changes so that the person she wants for the posi- tion begins to function in an acting capacity. Only when the change becomes known does the manager request validation from headquarters. Proactivity may also be seen in purchasing actions taken without prior authorization, internal reor- ganizations, initiation of new programs, and similar actions. It is also seen in blaming or attacking behaviors directed toward other persons in the organization in an effort to reduce competition for scarce resources (promotions, status, budgets, space, etc.). It often includes action taken “outside” the normal organi- zation structures or communications channels.

Since many organizations are in some ways obsolete, proactive power users often operate outside official authority parameters in securing their desired results. Thus proactive action can be productive of significant accomplishment. Both McMurray (1973) and Merrell (1979) propound the virtues or proactive behavior for, in the one case, the maverick executive and in the other the suc- cessful huddler. Merrell describes the proactive individual in terms of assertive- ness. Those with assertive authority, he contends, assume a dynamic posture, one involving initiation of action to cause something to happen.

Proactivity is a very frequently used power tactic by business people, government workers, and those in nonprofit organizations. People in both larger and smaller organizations and those in service, product-oriented, and professional-technical-clerical occupations use this tactic frequently. Proactivity appears to be the tactic of choice for both men and women. Both genders use it more or less equally. Both older and younger group members rate this tactic as used most often. Supervisors often use it toward their bosses. Nonsupervisors use two other tactics more often, but also make great use of proactivity. Length of service does not appear to be a factor either; people with both short and long tenure in their organizations use proactivity more frequently than any other power tactic. And, finally, relative boredom or excitement about the work does not affect frequency of use.

Many people use proactivity in relationship to their peers. For example, employees in higher education and persons in professional-technical-clerical occupations find this a useful tactic in peer relations. A few people use proactiv- ity toward subordinates, none in remarkable ways, although older employees will use this tactic with subordinates sometimes, as well as those with less than a year of service in their unit.

88 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Using Outside Experts

Subordinates frequently use outside experts to help them secure their objec- tives with superiors. Using outside experts is a power tactic of support (Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002). It uses respected “significant others” to help convince supe- riors that a choice alternative is the correct one. Using outside experts is an open tactic, one easily recognized by superiors and other observers. Nevertheless, while the fact of use is easily known, the expert’s professional bias or philosoph- ical leaning may not be. Hence, use of this tactic is felt by many to be unethical.

Most people do not select this behavior option when considering approaches to impacting a superior’s actions. Four reasons can be cited: first, the use of this tactic is often expensive; second, appropriate experts may not always be readily available; third, timing is often a factor and arrangements to employ experts take time that is sometimes not available (Barnes, 2005); and four, many of us appear to regard using outside experts to be an unethical power behavior. People may not use it very often for these reasons, even though they find it to be relatively more effective than most other power options open to them when dealing with their bosses.

Involving experts in organizational choice determinations allows the power- ful person to indirectly and inconspicuously impact decisions being made. Judicious selection of the expert who will provide the “right” recommendation is an effective way to predetermine our target’s decision results. To be useful as a power tactic, using outside experts must respond to a felt need; that is, the expert’s special capacities must be relevant to the needs of the individuals or group members toward whom it is directed. It must be apparent to members of the target population and must be seen as contributory to problem solutions. Given these criteria, the outside expert can be effective in directing the group toward results desired by the person who brings the expert into the situation. For example, teachers are respected, obeyed, and deferred to by students (and the society at large) because of the feelings others have that they know something others do not know (McKeachie, 1969). Their power in any group is a function of the respect and deference others have for their special expertise. Educators are, therefore, often employed by power users because of their expertise.

Modern organizations are complex, multidisciplinary structures requiring many special skills and knowledge (Barnes, 2005). Besides educators, experts can be regularly established consultants, persons with recognized status within the larger organization, or experts from any of the various organizations in the contextual environment of the host organization. Control over the expert is help- ful in power terms when the expertise is specific to the problem at hand. It is also often helpful when an expert in a given field is employed to endorse our desired results. Regardless of the specialty of the expert, if his or her expertise is recog- nized as legitimate, the members of the group will be influenced by his or her recommendations. It is, for example, a common occurrence for people to perceive an individual who is powerful in one context, say the theater, to be powerful in

TACTICS USED WITH SUPERIORS 89

another, say politics—hence, for me, the otherwise inexplicable power of the popular singer-activist Bono. Although the influence of experts may vary over time, while they are recognized as expert, they represent a power base, and we can enhance compliance in others by involving these outside experts.

This power tactic toward superiors is used almost as much as proactivity. This is especially the case with women who use this tactic. On the other hand, men find using outside experts a little less helpful than using proactivity or dis- playing charisma. Both older and younger members see this tactic as useful. Supervisors use outside experts a little more often than nonsupervisors when using power with their bosses. Those who find their work exciting use this tactic more than those who see their work as boring. Workers in smaller work units and organizations find this tactic more useful than those in larger units. People in higher educational institutions find using outside experts to be the most used superior-directed tactic. Government workers rate it as the second most useful, but business and nonprofit organization members rate it relatively low. Members of product-oriented organizations find this tactic to be the least useful tactic of those employed in this superior-oriented strategic orientation. Service-oriented organization workers see it relatively more useful than all other tactics except proactivity.

Displaying Charisma

Many of us make use of our special attributes and characteristics of person- ality in relations with others (Sankar, 2003). Charisma is employed mostly in superior relations. Some people also use it in peer contacts. Only a few people employ displaying charisma as a power tactic toward subordinates—it apparently is not needed in these organizational relationships since other approaches are available and are surer. Charisma relies on the personal traits of character, special presence, attractiveness, idiosyncratic approaches, or methods of dealing with personnel or program elements of our relationships. Displaying charisma is seen in forms of power usage such persuasion, threat-promise, and influence. Other forms (i.e., force, authority, and manipulation) are not typically a part of this system of power relationships. As Table 8.1 shows, displaying charisma is the most effective power tactic in superior relations. People who use it see it as ethically positive. It is a tactic used in initial power contacts with others.

Sometimes we can garner power by fostering in others an almost uncon- scious identification with our ideas and values. A Freudian concept, this behavior set is most clearly seen in the way people look up to charismatic people. Max Weber introduced Western civilization to the concept of charisma. Charismatic people, he said, are those who have a “mysterious” “gift of grace” that irresistibly attracts followers. Charisma originally had a sense of the supernatural or the superhuman: followers recognizing this characteristic feel empowered, loyal, devoted, and obedient.

90 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

While possession of this characteristic is relatively uncommon in the popu- lation, displaying charisma is, nevertheless, a useful tactic in getting others to help us attain our desired result. Displaying charisma works because others are attracted to something about our personality, our ideas, or ideals (Sankar, 2003). That something may be a magnetic personality or a gift for persuasion may be based on the fact that we arouse confidence in followers to the extent that they want to comply. Some charismatic people attract followers because they make them feel stronger about themselves. Charismatic people inspire us to do our best. They define a situation in which followers are presented with a goal or task and feelings that they are capable of being successful in its performance.

There is some logic to the proposition that power use based on charisma is genetic—you either have it or you don’t. Others suggest that individuals can develop power based on others’ idealized views of them (Kotter, 1977). Much of the self-help literature deals with “how to” behave in ways that others respect, become visible in the organization, improve communications skills (Magnun, 2005) and persuasiveness, identify with, and shape organization goals and simi- lar skills. Yukl (1981) lists several factors that, he says, can be used to assess leader charisma. The following listing incorporates his ideas and can be used to describe behavior objectives we can adopt to exert power in our cultural situa- tions. If we would be powerful we should:

• Behave in ways that develop follower trust in us • Show followers how their goals can become congruent with ours • Foster unquestioned obedience to our instructions • Foster affection for us personally • Challenge others to high performance • Relate task accomplishment with the follower’s own ideals, values, and

aspirations • Show followers how doing what we want will contribute to group goals

accomplishment • Develop emotional attachments between followers and us • Recruit people over whom we can exert emotional impact • Develop communications and persuasive skills, including story-telling

skills (O’Day, 1974) • Personify group goals • Dramatize ourselves • Be assertive • Articulate and live an acceptable moral standard

Displaying charisma is based on emotional appeal—an almost visceral connection between the powerful and the relatively powerless. This power tactic is based on our personality and character and involves us in any of a wide variety of behaviors that elicit follower compliance. Those listed above illustrate only some of the range of options open to us in using this tactic.

TACTICS USED WITH SUPERIORS 91

Overall, the displaying charisma tactic is employed by all categories of organ- ization members. Women use this power tactic relatively infrequently, reserving their use of charisma mostly with peers. Older employees use displaying charisma more than those under the age of 40. Both supervisors and nonsupervisors often use displaying charisma in their relations with supervisors. Those who find their work exciting use it frequently, whereas bored workers seldom use it, restrict- ing its use to their peer relationships. People in higher educational institutions, government, business, and nonprofit organizations use it frequently, whereas government workers seem to rely on this tactic less often. Those employed less than one year appear not to rely on displaying charisma very much when work- ing with their bosses. Rather, they use this tactic in behavior toward peers. Those with longer service and in either large or small organizations find this tactic helpful. It is also often used by workers in service, product, and clerical- professional-technical organizations in dealing with their bosses.

Rationalization

The rationalization tactic involves the conscious engineering of reality to justify decision results or specific points of view (McMurry, 2000; Editor, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2005). Often, in using rationalization, we mask the real purposes of the action or appeal to “higher” values, motives, norms, or customary modes of thinking. Subordinates use this power behavior cluster frequently in swaying superiors to their desires. It appears to be primarily used when superiors encounter initial resistance. Most power users find this tactic to be effective, although it is the least effective of those tactics used mostly in supe- rior relations. Some people see rationalization to be ethically negative.

The rationalization tactic uses language or symbols to construct a particular- ized view of reality that legitimizes our decisions (Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002). We “engineer” consent (Pelz, 1952) by manipulating the process by which our action is given meaning and purpose. In using this power tactic we make our point by projecting a desired perspective, one that assumes our desired orientation or actions are accepted and valued (Nyberg, 1981). The rationalization tactic runs the gamut from education, to propaganda, to outright deception. Even such lofty activities as theory building involve describing reality from new perspectives and/or introducing new constructs of reality that emphasize one or a few elements over other possibilities.

Our interpretation of actions or events or facts can define the effective param- eters of the analytical processes others use and keep them from raising undesir- able alternatives (Pfeffer, 1981). In a leadership context, this tactic is seen when individuals use words to give a particular sense of meaning and focus to events or facts. Misrepresenting reality can be part of this tactic, but so can motivation and inspiration (Pfeffer, 1977; Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002). Budget justifications and program planning rationales are examples of using language to inculcate ideals,

92 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

values, and an overall point of view among decision makers that foreclose alter- native constructions of reality. The rationalization tactic is frequently seen in labor negotiations. Both sides attempt to construct a definition of reality that favors their position and closes the door on the consideration of alternatives. The decision constraints are couched in terms (e.g., demands) that forestall argument. And, obviously, rationalization is a given in politics.

A description of some of the forms the rationalization tactic takes in opera- tional use may help illustrate the impact of this set of power behaviors.

1. Persuasion. Persuasion is perhaps the most common form of the rational- ization tactic. Persuasion can be effective in situations where there is a mutuality of interest and where both parties care about the result in simi- lar ways. Persuasion is an egalitarian technique that leaves intact the free choice of the person persuaded. Because of this fact, some have not defined persuasion as a part of power. In fact, it is both a major form of power and a strong technique in securing compliance to our point of view (Wrong, 1979). Persuasion, if effective, requires little expenditure of resources and, given a skillful orator, involves little risk. It is, therefore, a reliable technique of the rationalization tactic.

2. Structuring reality. The rationalization tactic can also include action to selectively present factual material and/or physical objects in order to emphasize one view over other possible perspectives (Editor, Academy of Management Proceedings 2005). This technique may run the gamut from selective emphasis, to distortion, to presentation of false material. At one level, it is logical to say that all people all of the time select from available “information” those items they favor and present them to the world as true. Certainly, there is an element of selectivity and decision in any action we take. More to the point is the action we sometimes take to consciously structure reality to make our case to the world. Editing out “irrelevant” material is one form; another is selective use of statistics, directing only some information to targets or outright lying.

3. Emotional appeal. The rationalization tactic is also used when we present information in a way to appeal to the emotions and sentiments of our targets. Inspirational appeal occurs when we induce the target of power to do something that appears to be a necessary expression of his values or ideals (Wrong, 1979; Marquardt, 2007). The key to this technique is link- ing desired performance (Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002) to a target’s value system or emotional makeup.

4. Humor. This technique involves any action we take to cause the proposals, ideas, or values of another to be rejected in favor of our own by getting group members to laugh at, ridicule, or scorn the other person’s proposals (Duncan, Smiltzer & Leap, 1990). Rationalization (Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002) is founded on trust and respect; if respect is lost, so too is much of our power. Although power may abhor a vacuum, it really abhors

TACTICS USED WITH SUPERIORS 93

scorn. Without respect, dominance cannot be maintained. Getting others to laugh at or denigrate in any way the proposals of others that we oppose is another way to exercise power in the organization.

Perhaps the ultimate in withdrawal of consent is laughter. Nyberg (1981) proposes that laughter, not revolution, is more common in over- throwing a regime. Authority fears rejection more than any other threat to its legitimacy. Especially in informal organizations, if we lose the respect of our fellows, we are incapable of securing their compliance in even nominal organizational transactions.

Regardless of personal characteristics—male-female, older-younger, bored-excited by work, supervisor-nonsupervisors—all of us routinely use rationalization toward our superiors. Statistically, rationalization is a part of the behavior of people in dealing with superiors in government, higher education, and nonprofit organizations, but it is not a significant means of securing com- pliance in business settings. It is used by people in product-oriented, service, and clerical-technical-professional organizations. It is also a part of routine behavior toward superiors in organizations regardless of overall size or the size of the worker’s immediate work system.

Using Ambiguity

Sometimes keeping information, instructions, and policy obscure and vague can be used to insure that our personal alternative has a chance of being achieved (Strutton, 2004). By definition, ambiguous situations are situations of multiple, chaotic interactions, where understood norms of human interaction are broken down and new standards have not been solidified. It is difficult in these situations for us to exert control over others. But, there are times of power vacuum when people with a strong desire and a plan have an opportunity to advance their posi- tion, accumulate power bases, and otherwise take action to enhance their power position vis-a-vis others.

We are limited in the results we can achieve by the “rules” under which we work. The more vague we can keep those rules, the more options we have. Keeping the situation ambiguous allows us to maintain a central position in the communications systems and flexibility in negotiation and decision making (Fisher, 2007). By keeping communications unclear we can often find ways to attain our desired objectives over the objections of others. Using ambiguity allows for several alternative constructions of a particular situation or decision event that, in effect, keeps open a choice that would be closed if the problem, situation, or lan- guage were made more explicit. In effect, whenever we can do something and then say, “You didn’t tell me I couldn’t do it,” we are using the ambiguity tactic.

In power terms, then, it is to our advantage to have instructions from above made explicit when we want to do what others want us to do (Editor, Academy of

94 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Management Proceedings, 2005). It is also to our advantage to attempt to keep them vague when others are opposed to our preferred course of action. Ambigu- ous goals, jurisdictions, performance criteria, or instructions tend to breakdown behavior patterns and procedures that govern formal interaction and allow us to function independently. While conflict may be a part of this relatively unstruc- tured environment, it is a precondition of power use and is instrumental in increasing the power use options open to us. Using ambiguity allows us to expand or maintain maneuverability (Yukl, 1981). It contributes to the flexibility of response that Kanter (1979) and others suggest is important in the environment, if power is to be used effectively.

From a power perspective, ambiguity is opportunity. It may be difficult to assign credit for good work in ambiguous situations. But it is also a time that allows us viability and opportunity for doing good work. And ambiguity masks our specific responsibilities and allows us to assume power in ways and to degrees not possible in a routine, highly structured environment. Indeed, one explanation for why leaders emerge in newly created organizations may in part be ascribed to their ability to function in fluid situations. The capacity to operate in ambiguous, changing situations is a commonly accepted mark of leadership. It is directly related to power use and the opportunity that ambiguous situations allow for inno- vation in method, policy, program, or individual leadership.

The ambiguity power tactic is used frequently by men and women, older and younger group members, those who find their work boring, those who find it exciting, and by supervisors. Nonsupervisors also find this tactic effective. Indeed, it is the most often used power tactic of any that is employed by non- supervisors. Those who find their work boring use this tactic more often than those excited about their work. Ambiguity is also a part of the behavior of people in all kinds of organization members.

Building a Favorable Image

The tactic of building a favorable image refers to attempts we make to change the perception others have of our skills, capacities, values, or attitudes in order to enhance our power among followers (McNeilly, 2008). Akin to display- ing charisma, it builds power through augmentation of the personal resources we bring to our relationships (Bass, 1981). Although not used as often as some other tactics, and considered by some to be less effective, persons using this tactic find it useful in superior-directed power uses, as well as toward peers. This tactic involves attempts to attract follower support based on our perceived qualities of personality rather our authentic personality, or on the quality of our decisions. Any attempt to induce another to accept a decision or a position on an issue because we ask—as an alternative to independent analysis—is an example of this tactic. Prestige can come from talent, position, control over key information, or other resources whether true or manufactured by us. The result is that people with

TACTICS USED WITH SUPERIORS 95

prestige are listened to first, and their message is considered more fully than those without such prestige.

People using this tactic may project a particular image ranging from the honest, upright “nice guy.” to the ruthless, cunning tyrant, or they may appear confident, develop a flair for the dramatic, or acquire a persuasive approach. On another level, they may adopt methods of interaction that include such things as giving and taking advice, maintaining aloofness, keeping secrets, being flexible (judiciously bending the rules), and similar actions. The methods are as varied as the individuals involved, but they all have in common the aim of substituting an emotional response to our personality for rational action on the part of the follower. McNeilly (2008) illustrates this tactic by reviewing George Washington’s innovative leadership style, including using stagecraft to project the image of leadership and gaining power by sharing power.

Any of a wide variety of techniques to change others’ perceptions qualifies as a use for the building of a favorable image tactic. One lower-level bureau man- ager attempted to improve her image as a hard worker and creative system designer by requiring all bureau reports and systems change recommendations to be distributed only over her signature, regardless of who did the work. Her image among higher managers, at least, was enhanced by this move. Similarly, another leader insured that external reports, including news items reporting agency action, always included his name as the “announcer” of the innovation, thus implying a direct role in creating the changes reported. Both built an image of power that differed from real power held (Kouzes & Posner, 1995).

Building a favorable image also includes efforts to enhance our organization as an effective (influential, innovative, hard-working, etc.) unit. Publicity pro- grams that advertise the accomplishments of one unit over other units in the organization imply more power is resident in that unit and its key people. Image is enhanced—our own and our unit’s reputation—for the individual who effec- tively places his or her unit in the forefront of action.

Building a favorable image is the least-used power tactic when working with our superiors in the organization. Typically, men do not use this as much as do women. Both older and younger workers use this tactic in their relationship of superiors to nonsupervisors, whereas supervisors do not use it very often. Those who find their work exciting use building a favorable image; those who find their work boring seldom do. Nor is this tactic used frequently by those in higher edu- cation, government, and nonprofit organizations. It is often used by business organization workers. People use building a favorable image regardless of time in service. Those in product-oriented organizations use this tactic, whereas those in service or clerical-technical-professional units do not.

Effectiveness of Use

Each of the six power tactics people use in their relationships with their supe- riors in an organization are effective. Table 8.1 presents these tactics in the order of

96 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

their perception of effectiveness by respondents. Analysis of each tactic reveals a few special deviations from perceived effectiveness as shown by various actors. Nothing is presented to challenge the overall effectiveness of these power behaviors.

Overall, displaying charisma is the most effective of those tactics related to superior relationships. Women power users are the only exception to this state- ment. They find this tactic more effective when used toward peers rather than superiors. Nevertheless, they rate displaying charisma as the most effective of all 22 power tactics. Men find this tactic to be the most effective of those directed toward superiors. Power users under the age of 40 find displaying charisma as the most effective of all power behavior sets. Those over the age of 40 rate its effec- tiveness about average. Both supervisors and nonsupervisors think this tactic is effective, as do those who define their jobs as either boring and routine or excit- ing and varied. Indeed, most people in most kinds of organizations rate display- ing charisma as effective and as a significant power use tactic.

Proactivity is generally as helpful as displaying charisma in securing our desired results with our bosses. Here, too, most classes of organization members feel that proactivity toward our bosses is effective. Those bored with their work, those in higher education, and nonprofit organization members find this power tactic a little less effective. However, all workers agree that proactivity is an effec- tive power tactic.

Following closely is the tactic of using outside experts. Most categories of workers rate this tactic about average insofar as effectiveness is concerned. Non- supervisors find this tactic less effective than do supervisors. The likely cause is in the resources and experience differences in these types of organizational coworkers. Those working in smaller (less than 100 employees) units find using outside experts a less effective tactic than workers in larger organizations. Higher education workers rely on using outside experts more than any other class of workers, but see it as only generally effective. This position is shared by most of the general organizational population. Business people find this tactic somewhat less effective than the average worker. Product-oriented workers find this tactic to be marginally useful, whereas service-oriented workers rate it as very effective. On balance, employment of outside experts to assist in getting our way is a use- ful, effective tactic, albeit one that is not used often.

Rationalization is an effective power use tactic, which is seen as generally effective by most organizational members in dealing with superiors. Nonsupervi- sors, however, find rationalization generally ineffective. Using ambiguity is also seen by most organizational workers as an effective power tactic. Without devia- tion, people in all kinds and types of organizations find it works in getting their way with their bosses. Understandably, supervisors do not find ambiguity as effective as some other classes of worker, nor do government workers, nonprofit, or service-oriented workers.

While fundamentally useful, building a favorable image is the least effective of the power tactics we use to get superiors to do what we want. However, all persons in organizations surveyed rated this power tactic as at least somewhat effective. Higher educational workers see this tactic as relatively more effective

TACTICS USED WITH SUPERIORS 97

than most of the other 22 power tactics. Those older than the age of 40 see it as relatively less effective than most other tactics, as do those in business organiza- tions, product-oriented organizations, and those working in organizational work terms of 50 or more people.

ETHICS OF USE

Four of the six power use tactics are seen by users as ethically positive (see Table 8.1). Most people assume it is ethically permitted to use ambiguity, display- ing charisma, a constructed image, and proactive behavior to induce our superiors to behave in ways we desire. They feel that the other two, rationalization and use of outside experts, are ethically wrong. As we look at each tactic, some interesting variations are evident. For example, men find using ambiguity ethically neutral, whereas women find it a positive approach. Those over the age of 40 see it as pos- itive, whereas those under age 40 see it as neutral. Nonsuperiors see it as positive, but supervisors as neutral. For those excited by their work, using ambiguity is neutral; those bored with their job find it positive. Workers in higher educational institutions find using ambiguity positive, as do business and nonprofit workers. Government employees find this tactic ethically neutral. Product-oriented workers also see using ambiguity as positive, as do clerical-technical-professional workers. Service-oriented workers see it as neutral. No one sees using ambiguity as negative.

Both genders see displaying charisma as a power tactic toward superiors (or toward others) to be ethical, as do those of any age, supervisors, nonsupervisors, and those who find their work either boring or exciting. Workers in government, business, higher education, and nonprofit institutions also feel displaying charisma is ethical. Both service- and product-oriented organization workers find this tactic to be ethically okay. People working in small work units (10 or less workers) do not rate displaying charisma as ethically positive, nor do those work- ing in organizations of less than 100 workers. Workers in all other organizations find displaying charisma an ethically positive power tactic.

Most people view building a favorable image as ethically positive. No cate- gory of worker ranked building a favorable image as unethical or even as ethically neutral. Men find this tactic generally more positive than women. Nonsupervisors find this tactic more ethical than superiors. People working in all kinds of organizations rated building a favorable image as ethical at about the same level. Neither size of organization nor size of work group is indicative of a difference in ranking the ethicality of this tactic.

Overall, the proactivity tactic is the most ethical tactic reported for this group. No one rates proactivity as unethical. Two tactics that are seen as ethically negative are rationalization and using outside experts. Men find these tactics to be neutral; women rate them as unethical. Both older and younger people see them as unethical. Other breakdowns of worker personal characteristics see rationali- zation as ethically neutral. Only nonprofit organization workers see rationalization

98 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

as ethically positive. The others—business, government, higher education—rate it as neutral.

Only some workers find the use of the outside expert tactic as ethically positive. For most people this tactic is used, but is considered ethically neutral or negative. Indeed, the probability is that this tactic is seen as unethical by most people engaged in power use. Perhaps the reason for this negative feeling relates to the occasional use of consultants to validate a decision result that has not been successfully processed via normal relationships. Apparently, its effectiveness dictates its use regardless of the moral overtones it carries (Ryan, 2000). Only nonprofit organization members and people with over five years of work experi- ence in their immediate work unit find this tactic to be an ethical behavior pattern. In the nonprofit situation, the use of experts—often unpaid volunteers—is common and may account for this rating among these workers. Those people with relatively long-term connections with the same organization may also see past successes in using this tactic and other tactics as a basis for their ethical stand. In nonprofit organizations this tactic is used often and is felt to be effective. Success over time may, indeed, be a conditioning factor in determining ethicality here.

STYLE FACTORS

Proactivity, displaying charisma, using ambiguity, and building a favorable image are all used typically in initial power contacts with superiors (see Table 8.1). It is interesting to note that these tactics are the same ones organization members identified as being ethically okay. We appear to use ethically acceptable tactics ini- tially and move to less ethically acceptable tactics when resistance is encountered. People generally find these four tactics appropriate when no effective resistance is encountered from superiors. These are power tactics centered mostly in the person- ality of the power user. Most people surveyed followed this style of power tactic use in their relationships with superiors. Displaying charisma is almost uniformly used exclusively as an initial power ploy. This is also the case with using ambiguity.

Several classes of people find building a favorable image to be important in their initial contacts: females, nonsupervisors, people in larger organizations, those in service-oriented organizations, and those in work groups of 50 or more. Others find it generally useful as one of several initial behavior tactics. There is also some deviation in style in the use of the proactivity tactic. Most people employ this tactic in routine contacts. They do not employ it typically when the target of their power tries to resist their overtures. In two cases, we see significant deviation. Those over 40 years of age typically do not use this tactic in those cases where there may be opposition. People in higher education and those with only a year or less of service in their organization use this power intervention about equally initially and as a response to resistance.

Two superior-oriented tactics—using outside experts and rationalization— are most used as a counter to resistance from their superiors to their use of power.

TACTICS USED WITH SUPERIORS 99

100 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Resorting to the use of outside experts is often used as a reaction behavior when other tactics have not proven successful. Most people find this tactic to be appro- priate when they have encountered resistance to their use of other power tactics. Those over 40 years of age are an exception. They find using outside experts to be useful as an initial—not a resistance—power behavior pattern. So do those who find their work routine and boring, those who work in smaller organizations, those with less than one year of service in their immediate work team, and those work- ing in product-oriented organizations. Business workers also use this tactic as an initial contact tactic, as do nonprofit workers. Higher education and government workers do not, but they do employ this behavior pattern in resistance situations.

People also use rationalization when they encounter resistance in applying another power tactic. Those over the age of 40 use it as an initial power behavior. No other category of organization member deviates from the general norm of use, that is, to use rationalization to counter resistance.

SUMMARY

Generally speaking, these six behavior characteristics of this superior strategy—with variation in specific ranking—are regularly used in contacts with superiors. Some preliminary conclusions can be elicited from the above analysis. These conclusions constitute possible guidelines for the use of these power tactics in our efforts to get superiors to comply with our wishes.

• Proactivity is the most frequently used power tactic toward superiors by almost all types of organizational workers researched.

• Education workers use outside experts more often than proactivity. Thus, using outside experts to help validate our desired choice options is also a powerful tactic.

• Since using outside experts requires resources, only those persons who control relevant resources resort to its use.

• Displaying charisma is a very effective power tactic in superior relation- ships and in other contexts in which it is used to secure target compliance. This tactic is less risky than some other tactics.

• Rationalization encompasses a major cluster of power behaviors. It includes much normal communication behavior in which we engage. It is used primarily toward superiors in power situations (Editor, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2005).

• Using the ambiguity sometimes found in the situation often makes it easier for subordinates to induce superiors to desired actions.

• An attempt to build a favorable image of our self in the minds of our superiors is an effective and frequently used power behavior in our contacts with them.

Chapter 9

Power Tactics Used with Peers

Much of our thinking about organizational interaction concerns hierarchical relationships. However, organizational interaction also occurs between peers— between people in lateral relationships such as manager-to-manager or worker- to-worker. Similarly, when members of a group (either formal or informal) try to socialize a new member with habitual patterns of behavior, accepted mores, or group values, we have another example of peer power at work. A peer relation- ship is one between persons who do not have a clear, unambiguous hierarchical relationship defining their association. That is, a peer does not report directly to another peer. These contacts describe another arena within which to engage in power use in intergroup relations. Peers need not be equal in power or capacity or resources. All a peer relationship requires is a nonhierarchal formal or informal relationship (Szilagyl & Wallace, 1983).

Peers are interdependent and relate to other peers in ways that acknowledge this interdependence. As a result of this fact of the relationship, power behavior in the peer strategy is not typically characterized by force or authority forms of power. Nor do peer power relationships typically use persuasion forms. Although they employ all 22 power tactics, peers rely most on more indirect and subtle forms and use interventions that show manipulation, threat, or influence forms of power. The peer strategy tactics described here fall generally into these forms of power. Thus, it is natural for them to exert power by forming coalitions and co-optation of opposing peers. They also use selective allocation of resources needed by others in exchange for desired behavior. And, they use brinkmanship.

Typically, peers use nine tactics in their relationships with others. The nine are: quid pro quo, allocating resources, forming coalitions, co-opting opposition

members, incurring obligation, using a surrogate, controlling the agenda, brinkmanship, and building a favorable image. Only infrequently will peers employ these interventions toward superiors or subordinates. Table 9.1 compares these tactics on several dimensions—frequency of use, effectiveness, ethicality, and style of use.

These rankings are significant. As a general statement, peers use trade-off behaviors most often. However, some classifications of workers—for example, men—lean more toward the use of group-oriented behaviors such as building coalitions, co-opting others to their position, and similar behaviors. Women rely a little more on personal tactics such as placing others under obligation to them, controlling the action agenda, and allocating resources. Business people use trade-off tactics especially often. They then move to some of the more risky tactics such as co-optation, brinkmanship, and the use of surrogates. Peers in gov- ernment rely somewhat more on the use of resources available to them to get their way. They also regularly use tactics such as coalitions, obligation, co-optation, and the use of others as surrogates.

Peers do not use rational, logical tactics such as rationalization, ritualism, legitimizing control, and setting of decision criteria as much as superiors or sub- ordinates do, with the sole exception of higher educational institution members. These people find rationalization a viable behavior set, whereas peers in other types of organization do not. Maybe it is a function of the “mind-set” of the typical academic. The fact is, however, that university politics is as complex as reputed and they routinely structure reality to suit their particular frame of reference.

Research supports the fact that peer power relations rely on power bases that ease exchange transactions. Peers engage in transactions that require control over

102 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Table 9.1 Characteristics of Tactics Used Toward Peers

Tactics by Tactic Effectiveness Frequency of Rank with Ethical Pattern When Used Use Rank p-value* All Tactics Peers Positive/Negative Initial/Response

1. Quid pro quo .0001 15 6 P I 2. Resources .0001 1 1 P N I R 3. Coalitions .7414 7 2 P R 4. Co-opting others 1.0 8 3 P R 5. Obligation .0001 20 8 N R 6. Surrogates .0001 11 5 P R 7. Control agenda .0001 18 7 N R 8. Brinkmanship .0238 22+ 9+ N R 9. Image building .0001 10 4 P I R

+ = Not effective * = Probability that the use of this tactic is effective Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

and manipulation of material or psychological resources. They also identify with powerful others and control critical situational factors or the ambience of the situation. Peers also use power bases of solidarity and centrality. Obviously, these bases of power are logically related to peers. Not having authority over their peers, peers do not make much use of authority, legitimizing control, or force power forms. Rather, they rely more on material, informational, and psychologi- cal resources that they can hold in varying quantities. Interestingly, peers do not make use of power behavior that relies on personal characteristics, capacities, or those targeting superiors or subordinates.

UNDERSTANDING THE POWER TACTICS PEERS USE MOST OFTEN

Quid Pro Quo

Peer power relations are transactions between equally powerful people (McMurry, 2000). Peers spend much of their time in exchange relationships where one person has comparably more of desired resources and is willing to trade it for specified behavior or support. The quid pro quo tactic epitomizes this kind of power behavior. This tactic is used most frequently in peer relations and, typically, is an initial approach in power contacts. It is, as are other peer tactics, often covert in nature. Quid pro quo is characteristic of a wide variety of efforts to negotiate tradeoffs with others to secure desired results. Salacuse, (2007) says leaders negotiate program and values issues in order to improve their power and persuasiveness. He advocates persuasive communication as a key to effective leadership in peer situations. The best example of quid pro quo is in direct bar- gaining where individuals use needs and resources to negotiate mutual agreement (Fisher, 2007). Labor negotiations would be an example of this kind of behavior. Other examples include budget negotiations, policy development and implemen- tation, and similar kinds of intraorganizational balancing of resources held by different parties at interest.

Quid pro quo is straightforward bargaining for material resources, but it can also use nonmaterial, emotionally based resources. Accordingly, attention is a negotiable resource, as is time and skill, as well as association, recognition, and praise or blame. Quid pro quo is in play whenever we do a favor for another person in exchange for a specific action by that other person. Saying “you do this for me and I will help you with your (whatever)” is typical of this kind of trade-off of personal capacities for desired target behavior. The quid pro quo power tactic is the single most frequently used cluster of power behaviors used by peers toward peers. It is an often used power tactic by both genders, older and younger workers, and supervisors and nonsupervisors. Those who find their work exciting also use quid pro quo most frequently. People bored with their work prefer brinkmanship or using a surrogate more than quid pro quo.

POWER TACTICS USED WITH PEERS 103

When analyzed by organizational environment, we find that business, gov- ernment, and higher educational institution leaders frequently use this tactic, whereas those in nonprofit organizations use it less often. People with less than one year in their jobs use this tactic less frequently than do those with longer tenure. Quid pro quo is effective in achieving target compliance in most situations and for most kinds of workers. Leaders older than 40 years of age appear to value its effectiveness more highly than most other kinds of people surveyed. While a solidly effective tactic, quid pro quo is seen as less effective than over half of the 22 tactics identified. When looked at in terms of the organizational situation within which people operate, it is the case that people with more than five-years service favor this tactic more than other classes of people.

As a general statement, most people who use quid pro quo find it to be eth- ically neutral—neither fully ethical nor unethical. Only workers in nonprofit organizations, those with work groups of more than 50 people, and professional- technical-clerical workers find this tactic to be ethical. People use quid pro quo most often in initial contacts with others. Most workers use this tactic in initial contacts, rather than as a response to resistance. Of the organizations studied, only business leaders use this tactic as a typical response to resistance to the earlier exercise of other power tactics. Quid pro quo is effective, ethically neu- tral, and most often, used as an initial power behavior in our peer relations.

Allocating Resources

This tactic refers to the conscious use of organizational or other resources (including information) to increase our power position vis-a-vis others (Popejoy, 2004; Wakefield, 2006). While not used as much as some other tactics, it is the most effective cluster of power behaviors peers use. People feel this approach is ethical and use it in initial contacts with those they wish to influence. This power tactic is explicit in routine assignment of duties and responsibilities, budgeting, information processing, networking, and other organizational activities. Using this tactic involves allocation of needed resources to others in exchange for their compliance and is common in today’s organizations. Control over and judicious allocation of needed resources (both psychological and material) make up much of the work peers do. Resources may be institutional—controlled by virtue of position held in the organization—or personal—fashioned out of our unique qualities (Kipnis, 1976; Coleman, 2004). The providing or withholding of resources places the controller in a power position relative to those who need or desire the controlled resource (Kouzes & Posner, 1995).

Examples of use of this power tactic in peer contacts are common. They range from giving or withholding needed or desired space, material, information, financial resources, skills, or work assignments, to participation in decision or policy activity or access to powerful, influential, or attractive people. These or similar resources can and are tactics routinely used to aid one peer to gain

104 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

compliance from another. Several kinds of resources that are identifiable as they relate to power use are described below:

1. Use of information. Control of access to information is an especially effective iteration of this tactic. The conscious impedance, acceleration, or frustration of the official flow of information to specific individuals or units can help or hinder achievement of their goals (Hogan, 2008). This tactic can take any form. For example, delaying information without alter- ing its form or content can disrupt achievement goals of the recipient. Similarly, burying critical information in a mass of extraneous data may accomplish the same result. Intentional distortion (ranging from lying or judicious structuring of information in order to emphasize a given perspective) is also a common way to get desired results. Limiting distri- bution of information is another example of the use of this tactic. This technique is also seen in rationalization tactic behavior. Each example represents a particular form of the control of resources with the intention of securing our desires over other possible results.

2. Use of financial resources. Control over financial resources is also a common version of this tactic. The regular budget allocation exemplifies the use of this power tactic. Other examples include requiring individuals to submit to repeated and extended reviews, audits, and other controls over their use of monies to insure compliance with personal goals (as dis- tinguished from goals of the peer or even the overall organization both serve). Extensive approvals, audits, and sign-offs common in some budget offices also exemplify this tactic as a prerequisite to the allocation or expenditure of funds. And requiring special treatment to authorize over- time payments (or any special handling) places the peer colleague requir- ing this extra work in a power position vis-a-vis those whom they ask to conform. Some cost accounting procedures fall into this grouping in that the procedures applied discriminate in order to force the individual peer to obey. Excessive security procedures also arrogate power to the instiga- tor of these security measures.

3. Use of physical facilities. In using this tactic we may make use of items in the physical environment in order to emphasize our power and reduce that of others. Items such as dress, furniture, office size and location, work space layout, and other accouterments of the physical work place add or detract from others’ perceptions of our power and our ability to be effec- tive. The physical structure of the environment is important and as we control access to these physical features, we gain power not otherwise available to us.

4. Use of energy. Another resource helpful in gaining and maintaining power has to do with the personal energy we are willing or capable of bringing to bear. Expenditure of high energy levels on a task affects the perceptions of others and can help us achieve compliance from them. The allocation

POWER TACTICS USED WITH PEERS 105

of personal or unit energy to a given task has a direct relationship to task accomplishment. Setting up of exchange relationships where we trade work effort for some desired benefit is an example of this tactic. Used in this way, allocation of energy for salary becomes a common power relationship in organizations. Willingness to help peers in exchange for desired behavior is another way we can use this tactic to gain peer compliance.

Workers of all classes often find this a very useful and effective tactic and make significant use of it in their peer contacts. There is no material deviation in frequency of use when we look at workers in terms of their organizational situa- tion. Higher educational institution workers find this tactic a little less effective than other tactics such as developing others, training and orienting others, and using a surrogate. People in organizations also find this tactic to be ethically okay. None find it to be unethical in peer relations, except that persons employed in institutions of higher education do not see allocating resources as an ethical means of swaying peers to their desires. Allocating resources is seen mostly as a proper cluster of behaviors to use on initial contact with peers, rather than as a fall back approach if one meets resistance. Those with less than a year of service in their work group use it more often as a counter to resistance. All other classifica- tions of worker use it in initial peer contacts. Allocating resources to our peers to get them to behave in desired ways is used often because it is very effective. It is an ethical tactic, one used primarily as an initial approach to peers.

Forming Coalitions

Organizations are clusters of interdependent people. This tactic involves allying with certain members of the organization, and sometimes with persons outside the organization, in order to add to our perceived influence (McMurry, 2000; Stupak & Leitner, 2001). Coalition building is a commonly used power tac- tic in peer relations. Coalitions bring people with similar concerns together and combine their power on an issue. Examples of this power tactic include office cliques, informal alliances of people, and groups of people who belong to certain professional associations. Coalitions unite independent, but interdependent peo- ple on specific issues or actions (Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994).

Coalitions are often fragile. Typically, we form a coalition for each given power issue. One approach involves conscious efforts by leaders to merit the support of followers for a decision or action (Rosen & Lippitt, 1961) by trying to integrate the follower core into a supportive force behind the leader’s per- sonal organizational goals (as distinct from informal or formal organizational goals). This can involve such disparate iterations as “being one of the boys,” developing mentor-protégée relationships, or offering support in return for personal loyalty.

106 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Developing friendships with peers through research and contact to learn about their attitudes, values, and priorities is helpful in securing their support for our outcomes. In the friendship version of the coalition tactic we try to ingratiate ourselves with peers to gain their support. It is an effort to manipulate the peer to achieve our goals by becoming essential in a primarily personal, rather than organizational way.

We also commonly form coalitions with individuals and groups outside the immediate organization. Establishment of good relations with persons in the larger organization can lead to increased power within the organization. These external contacts may enhance our prestige or provide innovative sources of information, ideas, or approaches. They are alliances that help us internally to cope with spe- cific situations and induce others to our point of view (Popejoy, 2004). According to Stogdill’s research, these multiorganization individuals are seen by coworkers as more influential on specific issues of interest to the organization. Coworkers list their names more often as social and business friends by their coworkers. The contact network is an important source of power (Bass, 1981).

Men use coalition building a little more frequently than women, but both find it effective. Interestingly, supervisors find this tactic helpful more frequently in their peer relations than nonsupervisors. Power users in business, government, higher education, and nonprofit organizations make this an often used power tactic in peer-to-peer situations. Those with little time in their work unit use coali- tions more than any other tactic. Coalition formation is a positive power use in peer relations. This tactic is ethically positive. No classification of worker found this tactic to be unethical. Coalition building is useful most often in responding to resistance by other people. Nonprofit organization members differ from the norm here. They prefer to use coalition building as an initial power use effort. Persons working in work groups of more than 50 people also use this tactic in ini- tial peer contacts.

Co-opting Opposition Members

This tactic entails giving a representative of the organization or subunit whose support we seek, a position on our decision-making body (Fisher, 2007). Co-opting opposition members involves an attempt to change the position of powerful actors so they favor, not oppose, our interests. Obviously this tactic presents a risk to the user. By co-opting another we may gain a powerful ally— and eliminate a powerful foe. The risk is that the target of co-optation may sway us instead. A form of coalition building, this tactic attempts to add key individu- als from opposing forces or potentially powerful individuals whose support would aid in goal attainment, or whose opposition would hamper the realization of goals, into our decision group.

A recent example of co-opting opposition members by trying to involve opposition group leaders in an organization’s policy formation forums comes

POWER TACTICS USED WITH PEERS 107

from a state governor. This governor used co-opting opposition members to create an urban development unit to represent local elected officials in his office. This involved giving a vocal local government association leader opposed to the governor’s urban policy a place on the gubernatorial urban advisory council. In so doing, the governor gave this opposition leader status and some sense of legit- imacy in the administration. The new council member found her new status and position in the administration attractive and became wary of risking her new position by too vocal an opposition. She also became privy to the overall policy environment of the administration and came to see her one-issue concerns in a more balanced light. The policy rationale of the administration became a part of her value system. As a member of the governor’s advisory staff, she came to accept some of the administration’s policy as reasonable.

Another example comes to us from the recent presidential campaigns. Many media organizations embedded a senior reporter within the camps of the two candidates. It was easy for any serious watcher to see that, over time, these pur- portedly objective reporters come to reflect the main points of “their” candidate’s message and, in many overt as well as subtle ways, promulgate that point of view to their audiences rather than manifest the nonpartisan expectation we have of reporters in general. Indeed, there are those that contend that the majority of the general news media was co-opted by the Obama campaign.

Co-opting opposition members results in the co-opted members becoming associated with the position and rationale of their former opponent, even to the point of defending it (or, at least not opposing it) in public forums. Co-opted lead- ers have information, perspective, access, and logic that they otherwise would not have and, therefore, would not be required to understand or defend. They also become a part of the new group, and in this new role they are labeled as associ- ated in formal ways with what might formerly have been the opposition point of view. Co-opted individuals are conditioned by new information and by socializa- tion and organizational pressures to conform to the perspectives of the co-opting agent. They are placed in a position where they must justify their position in an environment antagonistic to their former stand on the issues. It gives them a stake in the organization they join and it motivates them to take interest in that organi- zation’s survival and success, as well as that of their parent organization. This is an old and time-honored stratagem which occurs across organizational lines.

Co-opting opposition members is an often-used power behavior cluster in peer relations. Women use this tactic, but less frequently than do men. Business workers find this especially useful, using it more frequently than any other power tactic except quid pro quo. Other classifications of organization members use this tactic relatively often. Co-opting opposition members is effective in peer contacts. There are no special situations or kinds of organization participants who find co-opting opposition members either more effective than the average or less so. Co-opting opposition members is ethically acceptable to most people. No cate- gory of organization member found this tactic to be unethical, although workers in higher education see it as ethically neutral. A risk tactic of some significance,

108 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

co-opting members of opposing groups nevertheless is seen as an effective method of power use with peers. People who use this cluster of specific power behaviors do so most often in situations where others have offered resistance to earlier overtures.

Incurring Obligation

This tactic involves us in developing a sense of obligation in others to induce them to do what we want (Editor, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2005). A feeling of obligation to another is a frequent part of peer relations. Power users also use this tactic on occasion with other organizational power targets, most often toward subordinates, not superiors. It is a common perception in leadership practice that participation in decision making increases the likelihood that partic- ipants will support the decision when executed. This idea is a version of this pow- erful, yet subtle principle. We often insure compliance with our desires if we can make the target feel indebted to us. Bell (1975) identifies obligation as a specific base of power. It is more appropriate to classify obligation as a tactic in power use, since it is an aspect of a relationship, not a resource in the classical sense.

We create obligation out of an unequal exchange between two or more peo- ple (Szilagyl & Wallace, 1983). The statement that “there is no such thing as a free lunch” suggests the nature of the obligation tactic. Power users may provide information, money, materials, psychological support, friendship, or other needs to the target, and then use the sense of obligation incurred to later induce com- pliance. Several versions of obligation as a power tactic in peer relations are clear. We incur obligation when we promise another person specific action or reward for current cooperation. Obligation is a kind of conditioned compliance founded upon a specific or implied expectation. It is generally similar to quid pro quo. The distinction is that in this trade off, obligation (a psychological action) is the stock- in-trade, not some intrinsic commodity.

Friendship, too, can be a form of debt. Most people prefer to deal with friends. Friendship helps reduce tension, encourages trust, and eases communi- cation in social situations. As we develop friendships with others, they want to obey our wishes to maintain friendly relations. While friendship, of course, may be present without overt power implications, it is nevertheless a common form of power peers use.

Self sacrifice may seem altruistic and moral, but it can also be a power behav- ior. Peers use the superior moral position of having sacrificed self in some way to dominate others in direct ways. As an example: Ghandi’s self-sacrificing acts pro- duced a powerful need in millions of Indians who conformed with his wishes in partial repayment. Finally, we incur obligation through praise. Most people want our good wishes. They will follow our orders as we continue to value their behav- ior and are willing to express that value in commendation and compliment. This is a subtle, but powerful principle of action in which peers engage regularly.

POWER TACTICS USED WITH PEERS 109

Incurring obligation is useful in relationships with all three strategic target groups, but it is especially useful with peers and subordinates. In both, obligation is a statistically significant power behavior pattern. Women use it more than men, supervisors more than nonsupervisors, and government, business, and nonprofit organization workers more than higher education workers. However, those in organizations with less than 100 employees use this tactic only infrequently. Nor do workers in larger work groups or service organization members use this tactic often. Incurring obligation is uniformly seen as unethical. This is an interesting finding, given the ubiquity of use and the many innocuous situations in which we can envision it in operation. One reason for the negative moral valuation may lie in the use of friendship and the potential for manipulation. And, too, it is often not very effective.

Many people use incurring obligation to get others to follow their wishes as a response to resistance more than as an initial tactic. Some, however, use this tac- tic as an initial power approach. For example, men use it as a resistance-countering tactic and women as an initial behavior approach. Similarly, those under the age of 40 use it as a fall back behavior approach, and older group members find it use- ful in initial contacts. People in organizations with less than 100 employees also use it most often as an initial approach to peers. So too do workers with more than five years in their work unit, as well as professional-clerical-technical workers, those in product-oriented organizations, higher education, and business organiza- tions. Other groups of workers use it to respond to peers who offer resistance to initial power use.

Using Surrogates

This tactic describes situations in which we employ a third party (or parties) through which we exercise power. When we substitute another person for our- selves to get others to do what we want, we are using a surrogate in the sense meant here. Surrogates “stand in” for the power user and do the work of influ- encing others as an instrument of the power wielder—often without our power targets knowledge that we are even involved. While an indirect power tactic, it is used commonly in most organizations. Gaining compliance from others by hav- ing the proposal for action presented by a popular (or otherwise acceptable) indi- vidual can help us accomplish our results.

The literature on local government illustrates this power tactic. Much of early local government literature deals with relatively obscure “powers behind the throne.” These individuals were very influential, yet largely unknown by the general population. These elites, nevertheless, exerted significant influence over community decisions through less powerful intermediaries (surrogates). We use surrogates to mask the real identity of powerful people in order to reduce opposition, or merely because we desire anonymity. Peers also use surrogates as scapegoats to dissipate negative energy in target groups and to allow real power

110 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

holders to preserve their power. This tactic is comparatively effective. Users see it as ethically neutral. It is a second-level response to peers when earlier behav- ior fails to achieve desired results. No unique difference in the overall frequency of use of this tactic is evident. Those more than 40 years of age find it more effective than younger workers. And people working in higher education see it be more effective than their government, business, or nonprofit counterparts. Women find it ethically positive and men ethically neutral. Those more than 40-years-old also find it ethical, as do supervisors and people who find their work boring and routine.

Government workers and those in nonprofit organizations also see this cluster of power behaviors as ethical. Members of business and higher education organi- zations rate this tactic as neutral. Workers in product-oriented jobs find this tactic unethical. People find most success in using surrogates to counter initial resistance of peers to our power actions. Interestingly, people in nonprofit organizations do not use this tactic. Leaders in these kinds of organizations did not rank this tactic at all on its ethicality. Using intermediaries as substitutes to act for us is a common power behavior pattern. It is effective in achieving desired results and a fall back tactic that is most helpful in countering resistance from peer targets.

Controlling the Agenda

An infrequently used power tactic, controlling the agenda, involves planned and structured behavior that allows us to control the topics for discussion, their timing, their content, and context (Yap, 2006). The purpose is to attain our desires in the face of possible opposition from peers. Controlling the agenda for action (Pfeffer, 1981) is a simple—maybe, even, simplistic—tactic. Whether or not the schedule we control is innocuous or critical, if we can determine issues for discussion or decision and/or their timing, we have power (Chandler, Cox, & Mccubbin, 2006). This tactic involves us in setting agendas for action, placing an item or items on the agenda, and, equally important, keeping items off of action agendas (Popejoy, 2004). We frequently exercise power in determining that a particular issue should not reach the action stage and therefore not be con- sidered for decision action. The ability to limit what goes on and what stays off the organization’s action agenda is equally an element of power use (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962).

Sometimes even the simple act of typing the agenda and setting the order of items for consideration gives us a potential for influence. Selecting agenda items insures that the issues discussed are those we want and have prepared for. Obvi- ously, placing an item on the agenda when we are ready increases the likelihood that our arguments will, at the least, receive a hearing. Withholding an item until we are prepared, or placing it on the agenda when others are not expecting it, and therefore are not prepared to deal with it, enhances our relative power position. Controlling the agenda includes taking control over the formal mechanism for

POWER TACTICS USED WITH PEERS 111

accepting items for an action agenda. Making it difficult, complicated, and time consuming to place an item on the agenda limits the number of items so placed. It also limits the number of people who will take the time to follow these proce- dures. Arbitrary deadlines, strict procedural steps, and similar requirements fall under this tactic or power use.

An interesting aspect of the mechanics of controlling the agenda has to do with the order of placement of items on the agenda (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977). Apparently, when a decision body considers an item can influence results. Research shows that the special placement of action items vis-a-vis other items impacts results (Plott & Levine, 1978). While available research data is spotty and specific, recommendations are as yet inconclusive. Nevertheless, depending on local organizational customs and the nature of the issue under consideration, the specific placement of an item on the agenda may bear on power use and attendant results. Additionally, once we establish an agenda, it becomes a fixed political environment within which the power actors operate.

Additionally, location on the agenda may increase (or decrease) our risk of an unwanted decision. The specific items on an agenda for decision constitute the context within which we decide which results we prefer and which we can trade off for advantage elsewhere. For example, those in control of agenda preparation can place unimportant items first on the agenda to build support for later, more critical items, that we especially desire (Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981). Or, we may place “throw-away” items on the agenda and let others defeat them and thus dissipate our opponent’s negative behavior before important (to us) items are considered. And too, placing our important topic first, might contribute to posi- tive outcomes before the opposition can mount an effective opposite argument. Alternatively, placement later in the agenda will allow us to assess voting patterns of the group and adjust persuasion strategies to suit.

Caution must be taken in using these data. Success in using item placement depends on the characteristics of the decision-making process routinely present in each organization. Precise guidelines about special placement must consider these local customs. In some organizations, customs and the characteristics of the people involved might dictate early placement of important items and later consideration of nonimportant ones. In other organizations, the reverse or some other arrangement of action items might yield advantages. Until others complete further research in a wide variety of circumstances, it is best to caution care in dealing with the controlling-the-agenda tactic. This power tactic, however, warrants our attention and, properly used, may increase the frequency with which we achieve our goals.

Controlling the agenda is a less frequently used power tactic in peer contacts. Women use this tactic a little more than men do, as do persons older than the age of 40. Several kinds of workers do not use this tactic in statistically significant ways, such as workers in organizations with less than 100 employees and people with more than five years of service in their immediate work group. Other kinds of organization leaders find this tactic often useful in their peer relations. People

112 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

generally use controlling the agenda in countering resistance from peers. Some people use it in initial contacts. For example, those people more than 40 years of age, people in work groups smaller than 100 employees, and those in product-ori- ented organizations. The rest of us continue to find this tactic helpful as a tactic when others resist us.

Controlling the agenda is an effective power tactic, but not exceptionally so. Only employees in units with more than 1,000 workers, or in immediate work teams of more than 50 people, rate this tactic as ineffective. Most people do not consider this tactic to be ethically acceptable. Nonsupervisors rate it as neutral ethically, as do government workers, those in service-oriented organizations, and those in units with less than 100 employees. People with less than one year service in their unit also see this tactic as ethically neutral. Other kinds of leaders surveyed find this tactic to be ethical in peer usage.

Brinksmanship

This tactic includes any effort directed toward disturbing the equilibrium of the organization as a prelude to other action we might take to control others’ choice (Stupak & Leitner, 2001). Brinksmanship behavior has the purpose of creating organizational crisis (even chaos) preparatory to direct action to attain our goal. It is a risk tactic of some magnitude and appears to be not very effective in most circumstances. The process of use of this tactic is to create or reinforce an intolerable situation so we can then step forward with a ready solution. Brinksmanship entails allowing the situation to deteriorate to a point where colleagues will favorably receive any action we suggest (Pelz, 1952; Miliband, 2008). The key element for success lies in proper timing in introducing our pre- ferred action in order to ameliorate the crisis that we have allowed to develop.

Examples of brinksmanship with which many will be familiar include the following. Sometimes a program manager’s desire to have and use the “hotest” hard- or software will allow inordinate backlogs to accumulate in order to show their bosses that existing equipment or systems are inadequate to meet their needs. When these workload stresses reach a critical mass—whether or not obso- lete equipment or systems are truly at fault—top leaders are compelled to make the change advocated, even in the face of tight budgets.

A recent iteration of brinksmanship comes from the state of Michigan (Hysong, 2008). Faced with a billion-dollar deficit and the threat of a government shutdown, the legislature passed a new business tax in 2007 that eventually included an incomprehensible, inexplicable, and unenforceable tax on a bizarre assortment of services. The business community rebelled, fearing unrestrained legislative incursion on business life. Faced with this opposition, the governor got the existing tax law amended, but with changes which tripled business taxes. Other examples include: demanding stances; confrontation; forceful, assertive (even aggressive) argument; demands for our specific result in opposition to all

POWER TACTICS USED WITH PEERS 113

other possible results/shows of extreme confidence in risky situations; threats to resign (Gilbert, 2006); and similar actions. Any purposely created situational crisis that we intend to work to our advantage falls under this tactic’s definition. Winter (1973) also includes purposeful violence and brigandage as examples of power behavior falling under the brinksmanship umbrella.

Brinksmanship is risky! Users risk being perceived as incompetent and, subsequently, being fired. The risk for our peer targets is that failure to follow our recommendations will result in the collapse of their system. Use of the brinks- manship tactic can often be seen in labor negotiations, structural reorganizations, and in budget implementation (Salacuse, 2007). Peers use it in many situations where the stakes are high enough and the calculation is that success may result. When people use it, they use it as a fall back behavior when targets resist our other attempts to get our way.

Obviously, brinksmanship is not often used. Both men and women use this tactic about equally often. Older workers seldom, if ever, use this tactic. Younger workers use it a little more often. Interestingly, superiors use brinksmanship very infrequently (not at a statistically significant level), whereas nonsupervisors use this tactic more than any other against their peers. There may be something in the lack of formal authority that induces us to use this risk tactic. Those of us in routine or boring work also use brinksmanship more frequently than any other tactic. People in exciting jobs rate its frequency as the ninth most frequently used.

This tactic is seen as ineffective by most people. In only two cases is this tactic found to be effective. Workers in organizations with 100 or less total employees and those in higher educational institutions use it. Both kinds of organizations contain situational elements that require risk tactics to achieve desired ends. Higher education peers do not have much formal authority and the opportunity for brinksmanship behavior is plentiful. Brinksmanship is seen by most peers as the most unethical of the power use tactics they work with. Dispensing rewards runs a close second. In fact, dispensing rewards is the most unethical tactic for workers in work teams of more than 50 people and for professional-technical-clerical workers. Many people also regard brinksmanship as the most unethical power tactic if used toward superiors and subordinates.

Peers use this tactic most often to counter resistance in the peer target. People with less than one year in their immediate work group find this tactic sometimes useful in initial power behavior toward peers. No other classification of worker uses it significantly, except as a resistance-countering tactic.

Building a Favorable Image

Being perceived as being somehow “special” allows us to influence peers’ behavior and aids in personal goal attainment. As noted in the chapter on tactics used toward superiors, many of us find it helpful in achieving our goals in peer relationships to use the tactic of building a favorable image. (See Chapter 8 for a

114 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

more complete definition of this tactic.) It is the fourth most effective power tactic used in peer relations. A carefully cultivated reputation can attract peers to us and place them under our power. This is a frequent power ploy in peer relationships (Strutton, 2004). When we try to attract people to us or our point of view based on reference to personal qualities, we are – or appear to be—using this tactic. The image can be any of a wide variety of personas such as having superior knowl- edge, status, prestige, presence, or specialization. Helgesen (2008) outlines three forces that have transformed organizations rendering traditional organization obsolete: (1) economic change has shifted the balance of power away from the organization and toward the individual since it focuses on human knowledge, (2) technological change in systems of communication, and (3) demographic change that has emphasized women in authority and influence.

Building a favorable image is a tactic used frequently by peers toward peers. Men use this tactic frequently (statistically), but women do not. Supervisors find this tactic useful but nonsupervisors do not. Nor do workers under the age of 40 find building a favorable image a frequently used tactic, although their older colleagues do. This tactic is used frequently in educational, government, and nonprofit organizations, but not so much in business organizations. Work tenure is not a factor determining use of this tactic. People with short or longer term tenure in their work team both find this tactic to be infrequently used.

Building a favorable image is an effective tactic with peers (as it also is with superiors). It is seen to be ethically okay. Its use with peers follows the parame- ters outlined for superior target uses: all respondents find this tactic ethical. Men find it a little more ethical than do women. Nonsupervisors see it as more ethical than supervisors. Building a favorable image is most often an initial power tactic used to open power relationships with peers. Women, nonsupervisors, service- oriented workers, and those working in immediate work groups of more than 50 people especially favor its use. Our image is a power resource. Building a good one gives the individual an entrée with peers.

POWER TACTICS USED WITH PEERS 115

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 10

Tactics Used with Subordinates

Leaders rely most often on nine power tactics in employing their subordinate- oriented power strategy. The subordinate-directed tactics involve less risk than those used with other strategic target groups (Editor, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2005). Typically, these nine tactics center not on personal aspects of the situation, but on traditional organizational systems such as: (1) legitimacy in the hierarchy, (2) routine behavior patterns and relationships common in a given organization environment, (3) control of resource-based rewards or the promise of reward, (4) control over decision parameters, (5) formal relationships, and (6) hierarchy and similar aspects of organizational life (see Barnard, 1948; Bell, 1975; Etzioni, 1961; Winter, 1973). These cultural factors are most often sup- ported by traditional forms of power such as force, authority, and manipulation, although leaders sometimes make limited use of the other power forms—that is, persuasion, threat-promise, and influence. The effect is to allocate power among subordinates.

Leaders using these tactics behave in many ways that most of us would find common and acceptable. Two tactics used here, however, break from this pattern. When leaders use developing others and training and orienting others tactics, they use power behaviors founded on psychological relationships and principles of human development to insure compliance (Kuhn & Graham, 2005). These tactics are two ways of sharing power, rather than of rationing it out to others to get what we want from them. Developing others is a tactic of distribution of power from the powerful to the less powerful. The result is a real transfer of power—a change in the power equation existing between the parties involved. Training and orienting others also entails a sharing of skills, facts, ideas, and attitudes. These power

tactics are effective and are used significantly more often than any of the others directed toward subordinates.

Table 10.1 summarizes cogent characteristics about the use of these nine clusters of power behavior directed toward those subordinate to us.

Conventional wisdom suggests that subordinates are effectively powerless in relationships with superiors. This research refutes this view and confirms Mechanic’s (1962) finding that everyone in the organization has and uses power. In power terms, the distinction between supervisor and subordinate is one of degree, not the absolute presence of absence of power. Surely, subordinates are dependent on superiors. So too is the superior dependent on the subordinate in achieving individual and group goals. Leaders often use power by sharing their power, not husbanding it. Plott and Levin (1978) suggest that when we act in this sharing-of-power role, we are in a leadership mode. When we use power with other intent, we function in a managerial role. They try to add to the power sub- ordinates have so that subordinates can be more effective in achieving the leader’s goals. While we assume that the primary reason for this sharing is to enhance group productivity (Marquardt, 2007), evidence marshaled here neither supports nor refutes that classical reason. Rather, we conclude that superiors share with others to accomplish their (the leader’s) personal goals.

Discussion of each of the nine subordinate-directed tactics follows.

TRAINING AND ORIENTING OTHERS

This tactic involves the transferring to subordinates of specific behavior, skills, information, attitudes, or values to others to inculcate our goals, value system, or philosophy (Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Gittlen, 2006). This is a frequently used,

118 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Table 10.1 Characteristics of Tactics Used Toward Subordinates

Tactics by Tactic Effectiveness Frequency of Rank with Ethical Pattern When Used Use Rank p-value* All Tactics Subordinates Positive/Negative Initial/Response

1. Train./Orienting .0001 3 2 P I 2. Develop Others .0001 2 1 P I 3. Rewards .7414 21+ 9+ P N R 4. Control decision .0001 16 5 P I 5. Legitimizing .0001 14 4 P R 6. Org. placement .0001 19 7 N I 7. Symbols .0001 17 6 N I 8. Ritualism .001 6 3 P R 9. Obligation 1.0 20 8 N R

+ = Not effective * = Probability that the use of this tactic is effective Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

effective, and ethically acceptable power tactic for those working in superior- to-subordinate relationships. Two separate versions of this tactic are seen in practice. In the first, the emphasis is on changing targets of our power so that they accept our result desires. In the second, the focus is on attitude change. Subordinates possessing the values, information, and skills needed to do the job desired are likely to behave in desired ways. When we inculcate our values in ways that change the subordinate’s attitude, we exert more influence toward goal achievement than any other single action we can take, because our power targets come to think that doing work our way is also their way.

The purposes of organizational training and orienting others programs are to acculturate the individual member to desired modes of thought and action. Extraneous education and training only dilutes the purity of our relationship with our targets. This, as much as any other factor, accounts for the general concern over employing over-qualified people. Specific techniques of training and orient- ing others cover the gamut of educational methodology (Hughes & Beatty, 2005). They include behavior modification, classroom lectures, coach-student systems, mentor-protégé systems, and selective dissemination of information within the organization. They also include gate keeping into higher levels of power, displacement of values, role definition, integration, instruction, indoctrination programs, counseling systems, and many more. These are actions we might take to change a subordinate’s knowledge, skills, or attitudes and, therefore, behavior to conform to our needs.

Training and orienting others is the most often used power tactic by superi- ors toward their subordinates to change their behavior. People use this tactic occa- sionally in contacts with peers, but rarely with superiors. Most participants ranked this as a prime approach in using power toward those lower in the hierar- chy. We find that both men and women use this tactic; however, women report using dispensing rewards behaviors a little more often. Age apparently makes little difference. Both older and younger workers rank this tactic as either the most frequent tactic used or the second most used. As expected, this is a fre- quently used tactic by supervisors. As expected, nonsupervisors report using both dispensing rewards and developing others tactics more often. The fact that they use this tactic at all is a finding of some significance and interest. People excited about their work ranked training and orienting others as the most often used tactic. People bored with their work rate it as the fifth most often used tactic.

When compared to the characteristics of the organization worked for, we see that leaders in business organizations use this tactic more often than any other classification. Government and higher education institution leaders ranked this tactic as their second most often used tactic with subordinates. People working in small work units and in organizations of less than 100 people use training and orienting others very frequently. It is less frequently resorted to by members of organizations with opposite characteristics. It is a favorite tactic for service-oriented organization members, but less so for professional-technical- clerical workers.

TACTICS USED WITH SUBORDINATES 119

This tactic—along with the developing others tactic—is the single most effective power tactic used by superiors toward subordinates. Women find train- ing and orienting others to be a little more effective than their male counterparts. Persons of all ages find this tactic to be effective, as do supervisors and non- supervisors and both bored and excited workers. These findings are also present when we analyze the respondent pool for characteristics of the organizational environment of the power users.

Too often, neither researchers nor practitioners have recognized the power dimension of training and orientation. Nevertheless, it, along with developing others, is the most ethical of all the power tactics used toward subordinates. No one responding found training and orienting others to be unethical, and only a few saw it as ethically neutral. Indeed, those working in all organizational situations find this tactic to be ethically okay. Supervisors typically use this tactic as an initial behavioral approach to alter subordinate actions. This is a uniform finding. Persons using this tactic do so primarily as an initial, not a fall-back, method of impacting subordinate behavior to achieve their desired results.

DEVELOPING OTHERS

This tactic involves efforts to increase the individual capacities (as opposed to skills) of others, thereby increasing the overall capability of the group (Helgesen, 2008). Developing others is one of the two most frequently used power tactics with subordinates. It is the single most effective tactic within this classification of power use targets. It defines a positive cluster of behaviors that try to build up the total power of the individual and in the group. Developing others assumes the premise that as follower capacity, skill, and ability increase, this added energy will be directed toward mutually accepted goals, Better prepared and qualified people working with us increases our power (Kouzes & Posner, 1995).

The development-of-others tactic includes efforts we make to enhance the capacities and self-confidence of our associates (Hughes & Beatty, 2005). We can find examples when leaders delegate formal authority widely, share information, and encourage participation in policy and decision making. As leaders share power in these ways they increase the power in that group. Fellow workers also grow. They see in conformity an opportunity to develop their individual talents and skills. Using this tactic lets followers feel protected and comfortable. And, armed with this assurance, they can apply their capacities energy to the plan of action the leader promulgates. They need not reserve some energy and talent to protect themselves from possible negative actions. This is power use in its most effective socially positive dimension.

Developing others is part of a cluster of three tactics (with training and orienting others and dispensing rewards) that dominate downward power use. Most leaders report frequent use of each of these three tactics. This fact adds

120 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

support to the prevalent orientation toward participative leadership styles. Apparently, many people engage in behavior that is at least partially aimed at increasing the overall (general) capacity of subordinates. This is quite apart (or, at least, in addition to) efforts to get them to perform the required organizational tasks. They report frequent and effective use of this kind of power behavior. Data suggest that people use the developing others power tactic also in some peer-peer relations, but rarely in subordinate-to-superior relations.

Men engage in developing others activities most frequently. Women also use this tactic, but use both dispensing rewards and training and orienting others more often. Those more than 40 years old use this tactic most frequently in subordinate relations. Those under the age of 40 follow the women in using training and orienting others and dispensing rewards more often. Supervisors use this tactic frequently, as do those workers who are either bored or excited about their work. Government, business, and higher education institution workers all use develop- ing others as a favorite power tactic. In each case, however, they report using several other tactics more often. Not-for-profit organization members do not use this tactic in statistically frequent amounts. They report use of only three power tactics toward subordinate targets, those of: controlling decision criteria, training and orienting others, and legitimizing control. Members of larger organizations and those with longer tenure in their work groups report frequent use of this tactic. Perhaps it takes time and the accumulation of trust-building associations (Kuhl, Schnelle, & Tillman, 2005) in order for people to use this tactic with comfort and assurance.

Developing others is the most effective tactic identified in those tactics used toward subordinates. Men find this to be the case, but women report developing others as a little less effective. Both older and younger organization members find the developing others tactic to be very effective. So, too, do both supervisors and nonsupervisors and those with bored, as well as excited, attitudes about their work. Members of all types and kinds of organizations analyzed find this tactic to be effective.

Uniformly, both superiors and subordinates find this tactic to be ethical. No one found it unethical. We find more consensus on the ethics of the devel- oping others tactic than for any other single power tactic studied. Looked at in the aggregate, the developing others tactic is seen as an initial approach mech- anism to secure subordinate compliance. All classifications of people and orga- nizational situations reflect this position. No significant variations from this norm can be seen. The developing others tactic is enhancing of the subordinate and of the power user’s positions and goals. This tactic differs in at least one critical dimension from other power tactics: development defines a set of behaviors that aim at sharing available power and of multiplying its impact. Most other tactics treat power itself as a limited resource that we should hus- band and control. This is a positive, popular, and effective cluster of power behaviors that is favored and almost universally sanctioned by participants in organizational life.

TACTICS USED WITH SUBORDINATES 121

DISPENSING REWARDS

This tactic is similar to allocating resources. Individuals can use a variety of rewards, some resources-based, some psychological, and either positive or nega- tive to gain influence over and receive support from others (Yap, 2006). Dispens- ing rewards is a very frequently used and effective power tactic. It, along with developing others and training and orienting others, enjoys wide popularity among superiors in working with their subordinates to sway them to desired behavior. There is some ambiguity, however, in its use. Many people report that dispensing rewards is unethical. And people often use it as a response to failed earlier tries to influence subordinate behavior (Hartsock, 1983). The use of prox- emics and other size and distance factors of the physical situation (such as office size) is an application of this tactic. Also included here is the allocation by the power holder of accouterments such as windows, furniture, cars, and other facil- ities and symbols of status. It also includes the more obvious raise in salary or promotion.

Space and time/space factors can add to or detract from our perceived power. When leaders reward a follower in this way they enhance that follower’s perceived power as well as that of the leader. This tactic, then, can be enhancing to all the individuals involved as well as to their group. The use of rewards to induce com- pliance because of the threat (or imposition) of punishment for noncompliance is as old a management behavior pattern as any. It is at the heart of management com- pensation systems, productivity improvement programs, and most other manage- ment systems, methods, and techniques. The fact that leaders use this tactic frequently does not lessen its importance as a power tactic. Rather, the utility of this tactic in society is testimony of the ubiquity of power in organizational life.

Dispensing rewards is the third of the cluster of three subordinate power tactics employed most often by leaders who want subordinates to deliver desired results. Women use this power tactic most often, but men rank it fourth in subor- dinate power relationships. Supervisors also use this tactic about half of the time, but nonsupervisors use it most frequently. Maybe nonsupervisors find they can dispense psychic and other rewards in situations where they cannot undertake training, developing others, or many of the resource-based power behavior clus- ters that supervisors can employ.

Government, higher education, and business organization members also use dispensing rewards very often. Their nonprofit colleagues, however, do not use this tactic very much with their subordinates. This is an interesting finding in the face of conventional wisdom that suggests that psychic rewards would be a part of the compensation system in human service, religious, and eleemosy- nary institutions. The use of this tactic in other organizational situations does not reveal significant deviations from the overall ranking of this tactic as an often used power tactic.

However, dispensing rewards is not seen as a particularly effective method of using power. Men find it effective, but women do not. Younger workers rate it as

122 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

effective; older ones do not. Supervisors see it as effective with their subordinates. Nonsupervisors do not. Neither those excited about their work, nor those bored with it find this tactic effective in a statistically significant sense. Education, gov- ernment, and nonprofit organization leaders report it to be effective in their work, but business people do not, and neither do leaders working in product-oriented organizations, professional-technical-clerical workers, those with five or more years seniority in their work, or those in small work teams.

Dispensing rewards is not seen as an ethical pattern of behavior either. Both men and women rate it as unethical. Older and younger people, both supervisors and nonsupervisors, and those with attitudes of excitement or boredom about their work also see it as ethically negative. Members of organizations of all clas- sifications and kinds are unanimous in rating this tactic as unethical. People bring dispensing rewards into play most often as a response to failing in earlier tries to influence subordinate behavior. No classification of either the individual or organizational situation showed variation from this overall style of use position. These findings of ineffectiveness and ethical impropriety provide another per- spective on this cluster of behaviors, one that questions some longstanding assumptions about management and human dynamics schema.

CONTROLLING DECISION CRITERIA

People exercise power in situations of competing choice. This tactic is an indirect expression of power (McMurry, 2000) that involves the promulgation of parameters in the decision process that favor our position. This tactic is an unob- trusive tactic of power use that describes leader actions in instituting problem solving or problem evaluation criteria that organizational participants will use in analyzing and deciding group issues and prohibiting other desiderata.

Controlling the criteria and not the decision itself is a commonly used tactic in securing subordinate compliance. The idea is that if the parameters of problem analysis are set in specific ways, the resultant decisions (or recommendations) will conform to our desires. Setting decision criteria removes the need that the leader personally makes the decision. Determining the criteria others will use is less threatening to others than is engaging in a conflict over specific decisions or solutions. Selecting this tactic assures control over the decision result without the risk inherent in confrontation or the appearance of domination.

An application of this tactic can be seen, for example, when a leader wants to buy a particular item of equipment or service. If she develops specifications (goals) that only one supplier can meet, it is not possible for subordinates to choose any but the desired item. The leader has exercised power in this decision process without direct involvement in the purchase decision and without the risk of confrontation. Another iteration of this tactic is when leaders design work procedures that reduce the discretion of lower level participants. Bachrach and Baratz (1970) suggest that one of the significant advantages superiors have is the

TACTICS USED WITH SUBORDINATES 123

power of nondecision—the ability to suppress or thwart challenges by preventing consideration of an issue. Salancik & Pfeffer (1977) conclude that we determine decisions largely by the premises used in making them. Control over the basis for decision making can affect results as surely as direct action in the decision process itself. Wakefield (2006) points out that decisions are impacted by various factors such as judgment, timing, and resources (see also Coleman, 2004; Yukl & Becker, 2006: Fisher, 2007), along with judicious control of information and analytical resources.

This power tactic is frequently used toward subordinates. Peers use it infre- quently in their interrelationships and subordinates only rarely toward superiors. Both genders use this tactic often, as do supervisors and nonsupervisors. Those bored with their work find this the most often used tactic engaged in. Those excited about their work find frequent occasion to use control over decision criteria also, but find three other tactics more useful. Setting decision criteria is frequently used by all classifications of people and types of organization mem- bers. Users also find this tactic to be effective. Both genders, older and younger workers, supervisors and nonsupervisors, and workers in all kinds of organiza- tions surveyed report that efforts to control decision criteria works well in subor- dinate relationships.

Controlling the criteria subordinates use to decide is seen by most respon- dents to be entirely ethical. Only a few classifications of workers disagree. Under- standably, nonsupervisors did not find this cluster of behaviors ethical, nor did those workers less than 40 years old. And only government employees found this tactic ethical; the remainder rated it as neutral. Most classifications of organiza- tion members use this tactic as an initial approach to subordinates. It apparently conforms to current norms of superior-subordinate behavior and produces expected results enough of the time to make it an often-used cluster of power behaviors toward subordinate targets.

LEGITIMIZING CONTROL

This tactic includes leader efforts to formalize their right to decide through reliance on organizational hierarchy or to the legal right (authority) associated with either their position or that of another (Tepper, 1993). The basis of the legit- imizing control tactic is legal, organizational, procedural, moral, ethical or customary values, proscriptions, laws, or mores (Molm, 1990; Ryan, 2000). It adds the “force of law” or custom to our decisions or behavior proscriptions. Reducing organizational relationships to official organization charts is a common example of this power behavior by superiors toward subordinates. The legitimizing control tactic is an effective and routinely used tactic in subordinate relationships (as many would expect). Most of the tactics in this power strategy are used more often than legitimization and are based on power sharing behavior (McNeilly, 2008), rather than system-based tactics like this one.

124 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Promulgation of standard operating procedures, requiring prior (or post) approval of subordinate decision or actions and an over-adherence to organiza- tional traditions, exemplify ways to apply this tactic. Weber (1968) emphasized legitimacy as a power base. Legitimizing control uses this base of power in a wide variety of ways. The application of legitimizing control aims to insure the com- pliance of others because they come to see the leader as acting appropriately and legally, in “the right manner.” Examples of legitimizing control include any of the following specific behaviors. They serve to illustrate this power tactic and are by no means presented as an inclusive list of this very commonly used tactic. In using the legitimizing control tactic we:

• Command others to obey our directives • Use rules to insure compliance • Install procedural processes that insure maintenance of our power position • Check other’s work regularly • Require people follow specified channels • Appeal to higher organizational authority • Justify our orders on the basis of regulation, tradition, or law • Relate our orders directly to organizational purpose • Use rules as a way to watch subordinates • Require sign-offs prior to or after performance of assigned tasks • Require justification in writing

Legitimizing control ascribes our orders to someone or something else—we present ourselves as acting for some higher authority that all members of the organization respect and obey (Kuhn & Graham, 2005). People often use legit- imizing control in situations where our targets perceive themselves and us as part of some encompassing organization. We do not use legitimizing control often when we act independently (McKinney & Howard, 1979). Obviously, the legit- imizing control tactic is most in evidence in delegations, since much of the assignment of work and energy to activity is via delegation.

Legitimizing control defines a set of power behaviors that find their basis in the formal authority and traditions of the organization (Stupak & Leitner, 2001). For many, this tactic represents (erroneously) the sum total of power use in orga- nizational life (Tepper, 1993). It is routinely used, although there are at least four other tactics more often used. Indeed, legitimizing control is just one of nine tactics that this research discovered to be significant in getting subordinates to alter their behavior in desired ways. When not used toward subordinates, we use legit- imizing control in peer relations and, to a limited extent, in relations with superiors. Both men and women find this tactic useful, as do participants of all age groups. Understandably, nonsupervisors do not find significant opportunities to use this tactic. People in all kinds of organizations and most situations use legitimizing control, except workers in product-oriented organizations. In this case, although their use is frequent, it did not meet statistical tests of significant use.

TACTICS USED WITH SUBORDINATES 125

About as many tactics are seen as more effective than as are seen less effec- tive than legitimizing control. There is no major difference in this finding among the several classifications of people or kinds of organizational environment stud- ied. Surprisingly, most respondents do not feel the legitimizing control tactic to be fully ethical. By the same token, none see it as unethical. The neutral rating on the ethical scale is unusual given its extensive use and the theoretical and experi- ential support this kind of behavior enjoys. Men do not find this tactic ethical. For women it is an ethically neutral behavior set. Both supervisors and nonsupervi- sors see legitimizing control as ethically neutral, although some supervisors rank it as being ethical. Neither age nor attitude about our work affects the overall eth- ically neutral ranking of this tactic. Of the four kinds of organizations considered, only nonprofit organization members, those working in organizations with more than 1,000 people, and those working in professional-technical-clerical organiza- tions see this tactic as ethical. Others confirm that it is a neutral behavior set.

Legitimizing control is a power tactic most people use to counter resistance in subordinates. Only for people working in nonprofit organizations is this a tactic of choice for initial power action toward subordinates. It is seen as effective, ethically neutral, and as a way to respond to resistance in subordinates. Legitimizing control is a fully useful tactic in subordinate relations. It is often identified in the literature as a typical supervisory approach to subordinates. This research suggests that it is only one of several available options we have to influence a subordinate’s behavior and direct it in desired ways. It uses force and authority forms of power more than any of the others.

ORGANIZATIONAL PLACEMENT

Organizational placement involves the conscious manipulation of the struc- ture of the organization by a power wielder in order to place his delegates in strategic positions (Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Miliband, 2008). Another version of this is to restructure the organization system to isolate our potential opponents (Grimes, 1978) from effective exercise of power. When accomplished, persons who owe us allegiance are in a position to provide us with needed program infor- mation or control over other important resources. Leaders use this tactic often and find it effective, even though some organization members view it as unethical, partly because dislocation can affect people in threatening ways.

One example of this occurred when the chief engineer of a large state high- way organization was effectively isolated from key decisions. When efforts to reorient the decision-making proclivities of the chief engineer about highway construction priorities failed, the administrative officer took other steps. She initiated a low key and unpretentious project to automate the mechanics of the project decision work flow system. This system monitored the flow of a project through the department from initial plans to final construction. On initiation, it effectively removed the chief engineer from decisions of consequence on all new

126 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

projects. These decisions were automated and controlled by underlings employed and guided by the administration officer. The ostensible reason for this was that minor changes in procedures would “improve productivity.” It resulted in remov- ing the chief engineer from effective control over project initiation, progress, design changes, and timing.

While isolation of an opponent is a common version of this tactic, another involves placing allies in strategic positions throughout the organization. Persons with similar philosophies and similar skills, or who are under obligation to us, can be helpful in securing compliance from other individuals or subunits. Research supports the idea that allies strategically located throughout the organization can ease communication, provide critical information, and otherwise increase our power potential (Yukl, 1981). Placing ourself in specific positions in the organi- zation is also a power behavior falling under this tactic.

As we analyze organizations, we can identify critical positions in the hierarchy and occupy those positions to increase our power. In the competition for power, physical settings often represent a critical resource because of its position in a work process or communication network, its physical proximity to powerful peo- ple, its control over critical resources, or its symbolic impact potential (Popejoy, 2004). Centrality, in this sense, is seen in competition for office location, selection of prestigious neighborhoods, the popularity of upper floor building locations, and similar facts of contemporary organization life.

An interesting version of this tactic is the conscious reordering of the envi- ronment of the target of power. Kotter’s (1977) research confirms that changing the job surround, redefining jobs, and similar structural adaptations can affect our influence over those affected by the changes. Other research (Siu, 1979) is explicit in suggesting that the restructuring of the environment is an important element of leader-follower systems. Several examples where power is lost because of work design changes are clear. Location impacts our ability to govern when employees move from or toward our direct control. It can entail loss of power through dis- persal of employees geographically or spatially, or by changing the tasks we ask someone to do in order to make them beyond their capabilities. These examples illustrate the range of behaviors we can draw from in structuring the environment to increase or maintain our power position vis-a-vis colleagues or competitors.

Placing self or allies in central or critical positions within the organization structure is a commonly used tactic many find effective (Miliband, 2008). How- ever, most see this power behavior as unethical. When used it is most effective as an initial, rather than a fall back power action. Having our confederate on the spot in a critical part of the organization enhances our capacity to know about and to do what is necessary to attain personal success. The literature often references this behavior set and its historical precedent. Leaders also often use this tactic in peer, as well as occasionally in superior, relations. Men find this tactic useful and resort to its use often. Women do not; they do not often use this tactic. Understand- ably, supervisors use this tactic, whereas nonsupervisors find little opportunity for its frequent use.

TACTICS USED WITH SUBORDINATES 127

Placing self or organizational colleagues in central positions in the organiza- tion is an effective power tactic. Only nonsupervisors and people working in product-oriented organizations found this tactic to be ineffective. Other organiza- tional situations did not influence the overall ranking of organizational placement as an effective tactic in power use with subordinates. Leaders of governmental organizations use this tactic, though neither business, higher education, nor nonprofit workers use it often. Workers in their immediate work team more than five years use this tactic frequently. Those with shorter tenure do not, nor is it used often by professional-technical-clerical workers.

Many people who use this tactic consider it to be unethical. This is the case with men, nonsupervisors, those under 40 years of age, and those excited by their work. Women, supervisors, older workers, and those people bored by their work find it ethically neutral. These findings are reasonable given the different orienta- tions about their work and the general work environment of the kinds of people reporting. Placing self or others in critical positions requires some command of organizational resources and systems. Those without that authority or resources risk subjugation to those who do. Those with such resources at their command can take a more positive position. Only persons working in business see this tactic as unethical; the others see it as neutral. Most other people see this tactic as neutral.

When used, people apply organizational placement most often in initial contacts to influence subordinate reactions. Workers in nonprofit organizations use it most often to counter resistance from subordinates.

USING SYMBOLS

This tactic employs physical or psychological objects, ideas, or actions to advertise our power, authenticate our power position, or expand it (Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994). A cross section of organizational workers sees this power tactic as unethical. They use it as an initial contact approach to influence subordinate behavior, find it effective, and therefore use it frequently. Some of the ambiguity of these findings may stem from the ambiguity of this concept. Symbols rarely have precise and universal meanings for all participants in a given situation. That many workers resort to using symbols to help them in swaying subordinates is not unusual. Nor, given the complexity and multiple meanings potential in using sym- bols of power, is it unusual that many find its use unethical. Symbols can be used to indicate or amplify power. For instance, commitment to organizational or per- sonal goals is sometimes facilitated when managers “involve” followers in discus- sion or decision events, whether or not the decision outcome is changed as a result of the process. The symbolic value of “participation” (even without real impact) can enhance cooperation and commitment to decision outcomes (Coleman, 2004).

This tactic is used in a variety of contexts. For example, a new executive developed the appearance of power though the simple mechanism of a signature. By signing his name on all kinds of correspondence in large, bold letters with a

128 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

black felt tip pen, he made his signature recognizable and ubiquitous. People throughout the organization recognized the signature on papers crossing their desks and that of others. They perceived him to be involved and influential in all aspects of the organization. He added to his formal power simply by making his signature a perceived and omnipresent symbol of power.

Symbols also play an important part in communication, personal interaction, and organizational relationships. Sharing a language is the most powerful of all symbol systems. Berlo (1960) makes a strong case that all language communica- tion is effective, intended to influence the actions or thoughts of the communication targets, and that symbols play a significant part in these communications. Indeed, words themselves are symbolic of the reality they are coined to depict. Language is perhaps the most effective symbolic medium that we routinely employ to secure compliance from our coworkers.

Symbolism in organizations takes many forms in addition to language. Window offices, carpet, special deference, automobiles, stock options, retirement packages, and other perquisites of rank play a role in the power hierarchy in all organizations—both formal and informal—and can represent status, identify the playing field and the human and material “pieces” of the power game. They also represent the rewards of effort. Many symbols—notably, money—can be counted to determine relative status vis-a-vis competitors. Careful observers of the orga- nizational scene can interpret these kinds of symbols and determine where group members stand in the power ranking system.

Manipulation of symbols as a power tactic operates primarily in the realm of the intellect. Symbols impact on attitudes, emotions, sentiments, beliefs, mores, and values more than they do on realities of position or control over tangible resources. Although there is a link between substantive reality and the symbols used in social intercourse, the connection is often tenuous and subject to individual interpretation. Power users adept in the use of this tactic find that to succeed they must be sensitive to the perceptions of power targets as much as to any other factor.

The symbol tactic is an often used power tactic with subordinates. People also use this tactic occasionally with peers and in relationships with their superi- ors. Men use this tactic, but it is not a particularly significant female behavior pat- tern. Older workers use it more than younger ones. Interestingly, both supervisors and nonsupervisors use this tactic often, as do workers, whether or not they find their work exciting. Only business organization members do not make statisti- cally significant use of this tactic. When used, however, most find this an effec- tive power tactic. Women rank it more effective than do males. This is the second most effective tactic women reported using. Men ranked it much lower relative to other subordinate-related tactics. Other classes of workers generally felt it to be effective, except for workers in governmental institutions.

While often and effectively used, the use of symbols power tactic is seen by most people to be unethical. Perhaps the element of manipulation present in perceptions of this tactic account for this fact. When it is used, it is seen in initial

TACTICS USED WITH SUBORDINATES 129

contacts with power targets. There is no significant deviation from this pattern of use seen in the survey data.

RITUALISM

Ritualism is the name coined here for any attempt to induce ceremonial patterns of behavior in people or in organizational unit practices that enhance our individual power. Any collective experience can fall victim to rigidities. As organizations evolve, formal practices, relationships, procedures, and work processes develop and become institutionalized—habitual. When these almost ceremonial modes of behavior are consciously developed and pressed on the organization’s workers to institutionalize action patterns that consolidate our power, the ritualism tactic is in use. The rituals developed can also have the effect of diluting available energy that might otherwise be used to counter our power use. Or, it can be used to counter the competing behavior of other powerful organizational actors.

Examples of the use of the ritualism tactic can be seen in the operation of most organizations. For instance, in one agency the chief executive officer consistently refused to consider any issue for discussion in staff meetings until he initiated the topic in some way. Once this ritual was completed, anyone was free to comment on the issue, support it, disagree, or suggest alternatives. But if the CEO had not introduced the subject, it would not be recognized if raised by another person. It is also common in many organizations to subject every suggestion for change to a complex system of sign-offs and clearances. This ritual insures that customarily powerful people continue to exercise power. It also has the effect of dissipating the available energies of organization members not a part of the power structure. Part of the red tape of government is due to the ritual of clearances that intends that the initiation of and the approval of change stay in designated hands.

Most organizations have several ceremonies that serve to mobilize support for the powerful or to quiet opposition. These rituals serve to retain power in the hands of the already powerful. Several forms of this tactic are evident:

• Intimidation of opponents. O’Day (1974) describes four intimidation rituals he observes in organizations that power users progress through in their efforts to silence opposition: (a) nullification of the target’s initia- tives, (b) isolation of the target from the action, (c) defamation of the power target on a personal and/or professional level to denigrate their action alternatives, and (d) expulsion from the group as a last-step ritual. Both the individual steps in this escalating process and the process itself constitute organizational ritual.

• Standing rules. The design and promulgation of standing operating procedures that maintain the leader’s relative power position is another iteration of this tactic. Making decision and policy approval mechanisms routine procedure solidifies our power and makes alternative power

130 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

relationships more difficult to establish. It should be noted that Crozier (1964) describes a situation where a unit not routinized in its work systems gained power over those who were. Crozier appears to be describing the proactive tactic, not the ritualism tactic. Of course, one power tactic might be used to counter another power tactic.

• Information control. Specifying the general flow of and/or the specific dis- semination patterns for selected items of information is often ritualized. The leader’s actions to set up committees to investigate deviations from the norm, establish requirements to report to specified individuals in the power structure, and routing information through prescribed channels serially, all represent possible ritual behavior aimed in part at maintaining extant power relationships—sometimes beyond their useful, productive lives.

• Organizational structuring. This power tactic is also often used in ritual- ized ways. Designing and maintaining an organization structured in a certain way perpetuates certain patterns of power over other possibilities. Any form of structure favors one power system over competing possibil- ities and in this way constitutes a ritual pattern of behavior, work flow, and action relationship.

• Customary behavior. Custom and tradition also can have a powerful impact on performance. A conscious attempt to formalize practices or relationships that favor the leader’s power potential and that subordinate others represents use of this tactic (Molm, 1990). John Gardner (1964) says that vested inter- ests exist and are among the most potent factors producing rigidity in our organizations. This is the essence of the ritualism power tactic.

Ritualism is used frequently by superiors toward subordinates, but is used less than other tactics in this power strategy. It is only occasionally used toward our peers or superiors. Men and people in all kinds of organizations use this tactic more than women, who do not find it relevant to their work. Neither do nonsupervisors use this tactic, perhaps because of their lack of formal authority over work systems. Other group members use this tactic relatively frequently. People who use this tactic find it effective in getting their way. They generally see it as ethical—except for workers in higher education and nonprofit organizations who rate it as neutral. The ritualism tactic is most commonly used in initial, not resistance, power relations. Ritualism describes a common cluster of behaviors people use toward subordinates to sway them to desired actions. Common in all organizations, it is an effective power intervention, used routinely by most organization members.

INCURRING OBLIGATION

The tactic of incurring obligation relies on the development of indebtedness in others as the basis of our power. Obligation is a kind of conditioned compli- ance founded upon a specific or implied promise or expectation of reward. This tactic is frequently witnessed in superior-to-subordinate and peer relationships

TACTICS USED WITH SUBORDINATES 131

(Editor, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2005). Obligation is created out of an unequal exchange between two or more people or groups. Leaders may provide information, money, material things, psychological support, friendship, or other needs to others and then use the sense of obligation—debt—incurred to insure that other persons comply with our demands in another context. Several versions of obligation as a power tactics can be identified:

• Obligation is incurred when a person promises a specific action or reward for current cooperation.

• Most people prefer to deal with friends. Friendship helps reduce tension and encourages trust, facilitates communication, and eases discomfort in social situations. As leaders develop office friendships, the new friends tend to want to comply with their wishes in order to retain friendly relations (Siu, 1979). Theoretically, friendships may be present without overt power implications. This is, nevertheless, a widespread form of power use.

• Exchange of favors is also an example of the obligation tactic. Many peer relationships are, in fact, based on this kind of exchange of energy, information, and skill. It is also common in superior-to-subordinate relationships.

• Self-sacrifice may seem altruistic and moral, but it can also become a power behavior. The superior moral position of having sacrificed self in some way can be used to dominate the other person in direct ways.

• Finally, obligation can be incurred through praise. Most people want the good wishes and respect of others and will comply with the orders or requests of the person who continues to find value in their behavior and is willing to express that value in praise and compliment.

A complete discussion of the incurring obligation tactic is part of Chapter 9. It is sufficient here to remind the reader that this tactic is operationalized with subordinates in about the same way it is with peers. The essence of this tactic is not on the formal elements or resources or structure, but on the nature of the personal relationship extant. It is a personal power tactic that insures target compliance though reliance on personal favors or debts and the resultant need to pay back past favors. Incurring obligation is used least often of the significant subordinate-oriented power tactics. When analyzed in terms of specific charac- teristics of users, we find the context of use similar to that employed with peers. It is used frequently, but is not considered fully ethical. There is a manipulation element in this tactic that puts people off. And, also, many organizational actors do not see it as an effective tactic when compared to the other power use options open to them in their dealing with their subordinates.

132 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Chapter 11

Comparing Tactics

This chapter is divided into three sections that together illustrate the range of power tactics use. Research and observational findings are described as they relate to various characteristics of power users and their organizational context. Although people in all types of organizations make use of all 22 power tactics in their office politics, they use different clusters of tactics toward each strategic target group. Also, they differ in their perception of the effectiveness, ethicality, and in what situations they employ each tactic. Still, there appears to be general similarity in power use among workers in the four kinds of organizations studied.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, nonsupervisors use power about as much as supervisors. The general frequency of power use and the range of power tactics each use attest to the fact that both are prepared and active power participants in all organized relationships. The conclusions reached in this section suggest that supervisors use power tactics in expected ways: based on control over physical or institutional resources rather than personal aspects of self. They rely mostly on power tactics based on traditional ideas of authority and official ceremonies and rituals. Understandably, nonsupervisors make more use of power behaviors that rely on personal power factors. Also, they employ trade off tactics, ritual-building tactics, and risk tactics a little more than their supervisors; they engage in coalition formation, building favorable images, quid pro quo, controlling decision criteria, and the use of surrogates and symbols more than do supervisors.

And counter to some contemporary research, both men and women use all of the identified tactics and find them useful and effective in about the same ways. Where there is a difference, it is mostly in degree of use or in their perception of the correct context in which to use a specific tactic. Men appear to

use consent-based tactics, such as developing others and training and orienting others, more frequently than do women. Women, while involved in sharing and collaborative power behavior, do not commit to these behaviors quite as much as some have thought (Denis, Langley, & Cazale, 1994). Most of the difference between women and men concerns feelings about the effectiveness and ethicality of specific power tactics. Women rate system-based tactics such as using symbols and surrogates, quid pro quo trade-offs, displaying charisma, and using outside experts as being more effective than do men, which suggests the possibility of a discrete female pattern of perception of the proper use of power.

Understanding how we use power in relationships is interesting, even essen- tial. Gaining insight into which tactics work best with colleagues in day-to-day practice at work and in other social situations is also instructive. While preliminary at best, the following analysis points in intriguing directions. The “cross-grain” findings presented herein are valuable for their illustration of a political perspective about what goes on in the organizations in which we spend so much of our time and personal energy. As we think of our relationships in groups in power terms, we can forecast significant growth in our understanding of the specifics of this political process of energy exchange in return for needs satisfaction—a dimension of intra- organizational interaction not heretofore adequately developed.

POWER USE IN BUSINESS, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT, AND NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Everyone in our organizations and groups use power frequently. This is true whether or not the formal organization is for-profit, educational (Azim & Boseman, 1975), governmental, or has a community-service orientation. These organiza- tions define a cross-section of American organizational life The specific power orientations workers routinely display are discussed in terms of four organizational classifications: business, higher education, government (including personnel representing local, state, and federal agencies), and nonprofit organizations. Table 11.1 shows this breakdown and gives data about the size of each cohort. Persons who work in these organizations differ in the frequency with which they use a given power tactic, as well as in the kinds of power behavior they see as effective or ethical and in the timing of tactic use.

Frequency Comparisons

Members of organizations, regardless of classification, find occasion to use each of the 22 identified tactics. The following tactics are the ones used most often by workers regardless of class of organization: developing others, proactivity, ritu- alism, training and orienting others, displaying charisma, and the use of resources. Similarly, brinksmanship is used infrequently, if at all, by all classes of organization members. And they do not use the tactic using outside experts, incurring obligation,

134 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

use of rewards, controlling the agenda, or organizational placement very much in their power relationships with colleagues. Table 11.1 displays the most and least frequently used power tactics. There is overall similarity in the tactics most used by people in each kind of organization studied. The differences in the rankings shown may be instructive for the individual working in each kind of organization. For example, government workers may do well to recognize that their colleagues have an orientation toward independent (unapproved) action, but it is generally directed toward helping the coworker grow. And business people will note a tendency on the part of their colleagues toward the development of others, but it is done within the context of a system (i.e., ritual and legitimizing control).

Similarly, the data summarized in Table 11.1 suggest that workers in higher education tend to use ambiguity as a way to get their way and also rely a little more than others on the use of allocating resources. Members of not-for-profit

COMPARING TACTICS 135

Table 11.1 Comparison of Frequency of Power Use by Organizational Class

Business Higher Ed. Gov’t Not-for-Profit Tactics Rank (n = 30) (n = 13) (n = 55) (n = 10)

Developing others 1 1+ 2+ 2+ 2 Proactivity 2 3* 2 1 1 Ritualism 3 2 4 4 1 Training/Orienting 4 3* 3 3 2 Displaying charisma 5 3* 3 5 2 Allocating resources 6 4 2 4 3 Legitimizing control 7 3* 5 4 2 Building image 8 6 4 6 2 Using ambiguity 9 8 2 8 3 Forming coalitions 10 4 6 7 4 Co-opting others 11 6 4 8 3 Rationalization 12 7 3 7 4 Quid pro quo 13 8 4 8 3 Controlling decision 14 7 5 10 4 Use of surrogates 15 9 4 9 4 Using symbols 16 6 7 10 5

Less Frequently Used Tactics

Organizational placement 17 10 6 11 5 Controlling the agenda 18 12 8 12 4 Dispensing rewards 19 11 8 12 4 Incurring obligation 20 9 8 13 6 Using outside experts 21 14 5 14 5 Brinksmanship 22 15 8 15 7

+Numbers indicate rank order of frequency of use by a given class, with “1” equaling the most frequently used tactic, etc.

*Duplicate numbers in a column indicate equal frequency of use. Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

organizations differ the most from their colleagues in other organization classes as they rely on proactivity, building a favorable image, ambiguity, and co-opting opposition member tactics a little more than other tactics. Understandably, they also use the trade-off tactic and quid pro quo frequently, as these kinds of tactics are appropriate in their less hierarchical organizations. Finally, it appears that brinksmanship is the least frequently used power tactic by workers in all organi- zation types. Table 11.1 shows that there is a general similarity in the frequency of use—whether frequently or not very frequently—of several power tactics among members of each of the four classes of organization studied.

Effectiveness Comparisons

Members of all four organization types rate all the tactics as effective, with a few caveats. For example, research summarized in Table 11.2 suggests that business people think dispensing rewards is not effective for them. Both business

136 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Table11.2 Comparison of Effectiveness of Power Tactics by Organization Class

Business Higher Education Government Not-for-Profit

Allocate resources *Develop others Allocate resources *Develop others Form coalitions *Favorable image Develop others *Train/Orient Ritualism *Train/Orient Train/Orient Display charisma *Display charisma *Use surrogates Proactivity Allocate resources *Develop others Allocate resources Display charisma Form coalitions Proactivity Display charisma Ritualism Use symbols Use symbols Co-opt opposition Use outside experts Legitimize *Train/Orient *Legitimize Use surrogates Ritualism *Legitimize *Use outside experts Form coalitions *Favorable image Co-opt opposition Org. placement Favorable image *Quid pro quo Use ambiguity Use symbols *Co-opt opposition Co-opt opposition Control agenda Use ambiguity *Quid pro quo Rationalization Control criteria Proactivity Control criteria Outside placement Favorable image Rationalization Use ambiguity Proactivity *Use outside experts Quid pro quo Org. placement Use surrogates *Rationalization Control criteria Control agenda *Control agenda Use surrogates Ritualism Legitimize control *Control criteria Quid pro quo *Form coalitions *Rationalization *Legitimize control Incur obligations *Control agenda *Use symbols Use ambiguity Org. placement Incur obligations Dispense rewards Dispense rewards Dispense rewards Brinksmanship Incur obligations Brinksmanship !Brinksmanship Dispense rewards !Brinksmanship

! Not effective *Same Ranking Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

and government workers find brinksmanship and incurring obligation to be inef- fective. Nonprofit organization members agree only in finding brinksmanship to be ineffective.

Higher education workers find ambiguity more effective than those in other classes. They also rate co-opting opposition members as highly effective. Higher education workers say that building a favorable image is one of their most effective tactics. Other classes of worker rate it near the bottom on this measure. Higher edu- cation workers also see legitimizing control organizational placement and rational- ization as more effective than is average for the other worker groups. Finally, workers in higher education think the use of surrogates is one of the most effective clusters of power behavior available to them. Workers in all other organization classes found this tactic to be only one among several effective power tactics.

Some interesting facts about business organization members are clear. Business workers use coalitions frequently since they find this tactic effective. Nonprofit organization workers concur. Both see this tactic to be more effective than do government or higher education workers. Interestingly, business people do not rate developing others as particularly effective. This is in sharp contrast with workers in the other classes of organizations and with much of the rhetoric about managerial participation common in the literature and in training programs.

Business workers do not find using outside experts as effective as do those in other classes of organizations. They rate this power tactic very low (Rickards, 2000), while other organization members rank it high. Neither do they find training and orienting others particularly effective compared to their counterparts. They do, however, see proactivity as a highly effective power tactic. These findings go against conventional wisdom. Nonprofit organization workers rank quid pro quo as more effective than do the members of other kinds of organizations–especially business workers. Both business and nonprofit workers rank forming coalitions as very effective.

Government workers appear to value the effectiveness of most tactics in ways that are similar to the average of the other classes of worker. They rank the use of rewards, developing others, and training and orienting others about the same as the average of all workers. They are alone in ranking proactivity as more effective than other tactics, although business people think this tactic is a highly effective way to achieve their goals. Government workers are also unique in their effectiveness ranking of incurring obligation. This finding doesn’t jibe with the literature ascrib- ing a political orientation to government service, which is an orientation typically involving workers in multiple trade-off situations. The five most effective tactics identified by workers in each class or organization are shown in Table 11.2.

Ethical Comparisons

Members of all organization classes find developing others to be ethical, along with the tactics of training and orienting others, proactivity, displaying charisma,

COMPARING TACTICS 137

coalition formation, and building a favorable image. They also uniformly find brinksmanship and dispensing rewards to be unethical power behaviors. Table 11.3 shows these and other comparisons on this measure and highlights the organiza- tion types and their ranking of each tactic as most or least ethical.

Most differences in ethical findings are seen in the following:

1. Government workers find ambiguity unethical power behavior. Workers in higher education see it as very ethical, but other classes of organization workers rate it above average on this measure.

2. Higher education and business workers rank control over agenda as ethical, but government and nonprofit workers see it as ethically neutral.

3. Higher education workers find dispensing rewards to be neutral. Others find it unethical.

138 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Table11.3 Most Ethical Tactics by Organization Class

Higher Not-for- Tactics Business Education Government profit All

Controlling agenda Most Most Using ambiguity Most Least Brinksmanship* Most Displaying charisma Same Forming coalitions Most Co-opting opposition

members Most Controlling decision

criteria Same Developing others Same Using outside experts Same Building a favorable

image Same Legitimizing control Same Incurring obligation* Most Organizational placement Most Proactivity Most Quid pro quo Same Rationalization Same Allocating resources* Same Dispensing rewards Most Ritualism Most Using a surrogate Most Using symbols Same Training and orienting

others Same

*Not ethical Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

4. Higher education people also find incurring obligation ethically neutral, while others see it as unethical.

5. Controlling decision criteria is seen as ethical in government and higher education workers’ relationships and unethical by those in business and nonprofit organizations.

6. Controlling the agenda is unethical for business and nonprofit workers and ethically neutral for the other two.

7. No one in higher education ranked brinksmanship as ethically positive. 8. On the other hand, no one in higher education organizations ranked ritu-

alism, using ambiguity, training and orienting others, developing others, using a surrogate, or quid pro quo as unethical.

Style Comparisons

All four classes of organization workers find using ambiguity, displaying charisma, developing others, building a favorable image, proactivity, allocating resources, ritualism, and training and orienting others to be initial-use behaviors. Some difference is seen Tables 11. 4 and 11.5 in other tactics, but the preponder- ance of use is as an initial power behavior. This is also the case with controlling decision criteria organizational placement and quid pro quo.

Power tactics used to counter resistance for all four classes of organization workers include: controlling the agenda, brinksmanship, co-opting opposition members, rationalization, dispensing rewards, and using a surrogate. Most people in most classes also see forming coalitions, using outside experts, and legitimiz- ing control as resistance-coping behaviors.

Comparing the tactics used initially with those used most often to counter resistance reveals some interesting findings. Not-for-profit organization work- ers use forming coalitions as an initial behavior tactic. The other three classes of workers use it mostly to help overcome initial resistance. Similarly non- profit workers are unique in selecting legitimizing control and rationalization as initial power options. Their counterparts in other kinds of organization use these tactics as fall back approaches. And, business workers use quid pro quo as a fall back approach. The others use it most often as an initial cluster of power behaviors.

It appears that initial-use tactics rely most upon resources controlled directly by the power user. These tactics rely for their success on the image others have of the power user, the general perception of resources controlled, the in-place oper- ating systems used, and extant interpersonal relationship patterns. Importantly, two power tactics used initially focus on the personal needs of the power target. Developing others and training and orienting others focus on getting the other person to do what we want because of what we do for them, as well as the envi- ronmental resources or situational context we control. Resistance-coping tactics rely more on secondary resources and subterfuge. The resistance-coping tactics

COMPARING TACTICS 139

are more risky and generally less effective, although use of rewards and co-opting opposition members are two exceptions to this state of affairs. The resistance tactics also appear to be generally seen as a little less ethical and are only ordi- narily effective. Nevertheless, they are well within the range of normal power behavior of those people surveyed.

Summary

As a summary statement we can say that the way people use power in carry- ing out organizational political action in the four different classes of organization is similar. Members of each class use all the power tactics. They vary somewhat in frequency of use, but find developing others, proactivity, training and orienting others, allocating resources, and displaying charisma often-used modes of power

140 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Table11.4 Initial Style of Tactic Use by Organization Class

Higher Tactics Business Education Government Not-for-profit

Co-opt others * * * 2 Brinksmanship * * * 3 Train/Orient 3 1 2 5 Developing others 2 7 3 * Decision criteria 6 4 3 * Using symbols 1 6 6 8 Ritualism 10 11 7 1 Building a favorable image 7 3 5 9 Using ambiguity 5 2 11 11 Proactivity 9 13 4 2 Deplaning charisma 4 9 9 13 Legitimizing control * * 12 4 Forming coalitions * * 10 6 Allocating resources 8 8 8 7 Controlling the agenda * * * 9 Organizational placement 12 5 10 * Using outside experts 11 * * * Incurring obligation 13 12 * * Quid pro quo * 10 12 6 Rationalization** Dispensing rewards** Using surrogates**

*Tactic not used as an initial style. **Tactic not used at all by this group. Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

action. They agree also that brinksmanship is only very infrequently used and when it is used is not effective in swaying others Business and nonprofit organi- zation members are the most divergent from the norms. Business and higher education workers are the most similar in their uses of power.

The few differences present tend to be scattered; that is, workers in each classification of organization differ in their specific uses of individual tactics. For example, several findings are counter to the “conventional wisdom”:

1. Business people find dispensing rewards as ineffective. 2. Government workers use incurring obligation only infrequently and see it

as unethical when used. 3. Controlling the agenda is generally seen as unethical. 4. Higher education and government workers find coalition building a less

effective power tactic than do those people in business organizations.

COMPARING TACTICS 141

Table11.5 Resistance Style of Power Use by Organizational Class

Higher Tactics Business Education Government Not-for-profit

Brinksmanship 1 1 2 * Forming coalitions 4 3 * * Co-opting others 3 2 5 * Dispensing rewards 1 2 4 3 Using a surrogate 5 5 5 1 Controlling decision criteria * * * 6 Building a favorable image 7 3 5 9 Legitimizing control 6 7 * * Incurring obligation 9 4 * * Rationalization 4 7 8 6 Using outside experts 7 10 7 * Organizational placement * * * 8 Quid pro quo 8 * * * Controlling the agenda * 9 8 9 Training and orienting others 8 * * * Using ambiguity** Displaying charisma** Developing others** Proactivity** Allocating resources** Ritualism** Using symbols**

*Topic not used in this style. **Tactic not used at all by this group. Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

HOW SUPERVISORS AND NONSUPERVISORS USE POWER

Much of our thinking about power is in terms of formal organizational authority—based on a superior hierarchical position. There is a large body of information to guide supervisors in their power use, but little about how non- supervisors exercise power. Both rely on several power forms. including, but certainly not limited to, authority-power. Often at a disadvantage in terms of the relative authority they hold when compared with supervisors, nonsupervisors rely more on personal forms of power. Mechanic’s (1962) work suggests that non- supervisors employ persuasion, manipulation, threat-promise, and personal influ- ence forms more than force or authority power forms.

The work of Allen, Madison, Porter, Renwick, and Myers (1979) suggests that much of what we call organizational politics describes the power activities of nonsupervisors as they try to get others to alter their behavior to enhance the non- supervisor’s personal or organizational aims. Research reported in the first edition confirms that nonsupervisors are routinely involved in power activity. It suggests that nonsupervisors use the same power tactics supervisors use, but with some unique variations. This research helps validate a growing literature suggesting that persons not in high-level positions in the hierarchy have and use power to get their way. It also suggests that supervisors and nonsupervisors, although using all the tactics, do not always do so in similar ways.

Frequency Comparisons

Both groups use all 22 power tactics. Supervisors use proactivity most frequently; nonsupervisors use developing others most often. The five most frequently used power tactics for both groups are displayed in Table 11.6. Both use many of the tactics in very similar ways. Supervisors use only two tactics very frequently; nonsupervisors use fifteen more often than any others. The rest of the power tactics are employed in about the same level of frequency by both groups of workers. Analysis of the data in Table 11.6 reveals some interesting findings in this connection. For example, both groups use the tactics of co-opting opposition

142 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Table 11.6 Most Frequently Used Power Tactics by Supervisors and Nonsupervisors

Supervisors Rank Nonsupervisors

Proactivity 1st Developing others Allocating resources 2nd Proactivity Training/Orienting others 3rd Training/Orienting others Developing others 4th Ritualism Building a favorable image 5th Legitimizing control

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

members, legitimizing control, proactivity, ritualism, and training and orienting others at about the same level of frequency.

A major difference in routine use is seen in the use of the symbols tactic. Nonsupervisors use this tactic much more often than do supervisors. This finding is counter to the generally held feeling that supervisors possess more power- oriented symbols than the people they supervise. A similar wide variation in use of a few other tactics can be noted in the tactics using outside experts, incurring obli- gation organizational placement, quid pro quo, allocation of rewards, and use of surrogates. Supervisors use these tactics much more than do nonsupervisors. It appears that nonsupervisors use trade-off tactics—such as incurring obligation organizational placement, quid pro quo, and allocating resources—significantly more than supervisors. They also employ a variety of tactics that have the general result of involving others in direct and indirect ways. These tactics include those of forming coalitions, rationalization, and controlling decision criteria. And they make significantly more use of displaying charisma than superiors do in getting their way in the organization.

Nonsupervisory workers in our organizations are fully engaged in power activity. It is a part of their organizational life, one in which they get considerable practice. This finding casts the nonsupervisory worker in a new, more proactive role in our organizations. It represents a major change in our thinking about organizational direction and control. Leadership to integrate this independent behavior becomes a more critical element in the dynamics of organizational life. Our traditional management and leadership theory must accommodate this new reality (Fairholm, 1991, 2003).

Effectiveness Comparisons

Developing others is the supervisor’s most effective tactic. Nonsupervisors rated allocating resources as their most effective tactic. The listing in Table 11.7 compares the five most effective tactics for each group. Both groups see develop- ing others, allocating resources, training and developing others, and displaying charisma as among their most effective power tactic options. Supervisors rate

COMPARING TACTICS 143

Table 11.7 Most Effective Power Tactics by Supervisors and Nonsupervisors

Supervisors Rank Nonsupervisors

Developing others 1st Allocating resources Allocating resources 2nd Ritualism Training/Orienting others 3rd Training/Orienting others Displaying charisma 4th Developing others Proactivity 5th Displaying charisma

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

proactivity as a very effective tactic, whereas nonsupervisors see ritualism as a very effective tool in attaining their individual agendas.

Both supervisors and nonsupervisors demonstrate some uniqueness and similarity in their perception of individual tactic effectiveness. When expanding our interest to all 22 tactics, data confirms a general uniformity in a few other tactics also, such as brinksmanship, co-opting opposition members, decision criteria, legitimizing control, incurring obligation organizational placement, and the use of surrogates. Most differences in effectiveness rankings involve the using ambiguity tactic. Nonsupervisors find it more effective than do supervi- sors. Using symbols is also a highly effective tactic used by nonsupervisors in their group relations, as is controlling the agenda and building a favorable image Nonsupervisors find those kinds of tactics that involve personal sources of power and those involving manipulation and persuasion power forms to be most effective.

The supervisor counterparts, however, rated the effectiveness of some other tactics more highly—for example: forming coalitions, developing others, using outside experts, quid pro quo, and rationalization. These are also indirect forms of power use, but they seem to favor tactics that involve control over organiza- tional resources for their success. This difference pattern is reasonable and expected given the relative control over institutional resources available to each kind of worker surveyed. The two cohorts also disagreed about which tactics are ineffective. Supervisors found that only the brinksmanship tactic was ineffective in their power use experience. Nonsupervisors agreed, but they added incurring obligation organizational placement, rationalization, and dispensing rewards to their list of ineffective tactics.

Ethical Comparisons

The fact that a given power tactic may be used often and considered effective does not determine its moral or ethical vitality. Study findings suggest that even given effective use, some tactics are considered unethical. Both supervisors and nonsupervisors find nine power use tactics ethically negative:

Controlling agenda Using outside experts Organizational placement Rationalization Using symbols Brinksmanship Incurring obligation Quid pro quo Allocating rewards

Supervisors add to this list of unethical tactics the using ambiguity tactic. Nonsupervisors agree and also see controlling decision criteria and legitimizing control as ethically negative. Perhaps this is because of the element of manipu- lation they see in the use of these tactics by their bosses. These perceived nega- tive tactics are nevertheless used on occasion by both supervisors and nonsupervisors. Both groups find rationalization, using outside experts, and quid

144 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

pro quo unethical but relatively effective in getting their way with others. The other tactics they rate as unethical are used relatively infrequently and found to be only marginally effective.

Nonsupervisors find a few tactics significantly more ethical than supervi- sors. For example, nonsupervisors see using symbols as ethical, whereas supervisors do not. Supervisors, on the other hand, find ritualism a little more ethical than do nonsupervisors. They also find using a surrogate to be ethical in differentiation from nonsupervisors who find it ethically neutral. Supervi- sors find five power tactics more ethical then nonsupervisors: forming coali- tions, controlling decision criteria, legitimizing control, ritualism, and the use of surrogates. These are power tactics closely associated with the supervisor’s hierarchal position and prerogatives. It is logical that they would use these tac- tics more than their colleagues and find them ethically okay. Nonsupervisors, on the other hand, find seven power tactics more ethical than their bosses. These include displaying charisma, co-opting opposition members, using outside experts, building a favorable image, incurring obligation, rationaliza- tion, and using symbols. The pattern here is logical. Nonsupervisors lack the formal authority and control over organizational resources of their counter- parts. It is natural that they typically use this tactic more and find it morally supportable.

Table 11.8 arrays the most ethical tactics by supervisors and nonsupervisors.

Style Comparisons

Supervisors and nonsupervisors are unanimous in their feelings about the timing of specific tactic use. Both groups selected the same list (see Table 11.9) of initial approaches and of resistance-countering tactics, although there is variation in the frequency of use rankings in the style factors. Both groups see each tactic in about the same way. Both find system-based power tactics (those requiring organizational support for success) to be most effective on initial con- tacts. They are similar also in their use of some of the unethical and ineffective

COMPARING TACTICS 145

Table 11.8 Most Ethical Tactics as Seen by Supervisors and Nonsupervisors

Supervisors Rank Nonsupervisors

Developing others 1st Developing others Proactivity 2nd Building a favorable image Training/Orienting others 3rd Proactivity Ritualism 4th Training/Orienting others Building a favorable image 5th Co-opting opposition

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

tactics when countering resistance. Apparently, some power behaviors are used because of the need to “do something,” even though they are felt to be ineffec- tive or unethical.

Summary of How Supervisors and Nonsupervisors Use Power

The sum of the findings presented in this section confirms that political behavior by supervisors and nonsupervisors normally conforms to both experi- ence and the literature. Supervisors use power tactics based on control over resources. They do not often use tactics that require indirection, personal involve- ment, or use of personal aspects of self (such as displaying charisma, rationaliza- tion, or using symbols). Nor do they find the need to get others to do what they want them to do by employing expensive tactics such as the allocation of rewards, using outside experts, or incurring obligation in their subordinates. The simplest and most economical power tactics for them are those based on traditional ideas of authority and customary ceremonies and rituals.

Nonsupervisors, understandably, make use of power that doesn’t require for- mal authority or institutional mechanisms. Nevertheless, they are fully involved in power use. Nonsupervisors use developing others more than their counterparts. They also employ trade off tactics such as ritualism and risk tactics a little more than do supervisors. We can characterize nonsupervisors’ uses of power as more indirect than are those of supervisors. Thus, they use tactics such as coalition for- mation, building favorable images, quid pro quo, controlling decision criteria, and the use of surrogates and symbols more than do supervisors. This is logical given the general paucity of control nonsupervisors exercise over formal institutional systems and resources.

146 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Table 11.9 Initial and Resistance-Countering Tactics by Supervisors and Nonsupervisors

Initial Power Use Tactics Resistance-countering tactics

Using ambiguity Controlling the agenda Displaying charisma Brinksmanship Controlling decision criteria Co-opting opposition members Developing others Using outside experts Building a favorable image Legitimizing control Organizational placement Incurring obligation Proactivity Rationalization Quid pro quo Dispensing rewards Allocating resources Using surrogates Ritualism Using symbols Training/Developing others

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

Nonsupervisors find a few tactics, such as using symbols, to be more ethical than do supervisors. They also differ from supervisors who find ritualism and the use of surrogates as ethical power behavior. Solidifying power through the manipulation of organizational resources is commonly seen as ethical by super- visors. These tactics are not viewed quite as ethically okay by nonsupervisors. Nonsupervisors reflect aspects of power use founded on their general lack of control over positional bases of power. Yet, both supervisors and nonsupervisors are active power participants in organizational relationships.

COMPARING HOW MEN AND WOMEN USE POWER

Research evidence furnishes some interesting insights when we compare how men and women use power. Gender-based perspectives of power relation- ships may offer guidance to both men and women as they interact in their inter- personal relations. How each uses power, what tactics each emphasize, and when and in what contexts they use it are critical to a full understanding of power use (Abrahams, 1989) and organizational life in general. How men and women differ in how they value its use may help us clarify some of the knotty problems now facing participants in the work place as more women assume prominent positions.

Although some writers have tried to distinguish methods, results, or situa- tional constraints on power based on sex, McClelland’s work (1975) in power motivation concluded there is little evidence to support the idea that women have different power needs than men. He does conclude, however, that women express their needs for power in different ways. Winter (1973) verifies this over- all finding. He found that, contrary to myth, women also want and seek power and once obtained, they use power differently than men do. White’s (1990) work suggests that women spend more time in culture-coping activity (see also Popejoy, 2004) than do men in order to overcome a male-dominated culture in order to perform their work. This need may entail a significant extra-energy expenditure. The sum of this research provides empirical evidence supporting some differences in tactic use.

Wagner and Swanson (1979) support these findings when they argue that women need power as much as men, but women express power in internal ways. They too use power to build inner strength more than to seek external power bases. They found that women are less intense than men in their use of power. Women exercise power in different ways depending on the situation (Popejoy, 2004). Their uses of power are eclectic, focused, and situational. Women do not see it as an aspect of developing others, which, Wagner and Swanson conclude, is the primary way men use power. Women vary power use according to the context within which they find themselves. Women’s use of power, they found, is more relationship-oriented, whereas that of men is more task-oriented.

COMPARING TACTICS 147

It is clear from the findings reported in the first edition that women behave differently from men in their application of power (Popejoy, 2004). Review of these and more recent data highlight, for example, that both men and women workers make routine use of all twenty-two power tactics. It is also clear that both genders use many tactics in similar ways. Both use more than half of the tactics about equally and are in general agreement as to their effectiveness and whether or not they are ethical. Finally, they agree on whether it is best to use them in ini- tial contacts or when they encounter resistance.

Analysis of these findings also points up some important differences in power tactic use, effectiveness, ethics, and timing patterns. This comparison follows.

Frequency of Use Comparison

As a general statement, both genders report frequent use of all 22 power tactics. Specific approaches to the use of the individual power tactics varies some- what. For example, men use (in rank order of frequency) developing others, train- ing and orienting others, proactivity, ritualism, and legitimizing control most frequently. Women use (also in rank order) proactivity, ritualism, allocating resources, developing others, and displaying charisma most often. Both use brinksmanship least, along with incurring obligation, dispensing rewards, and controlling the agenda.

Table 11.10 highlights the tactics most frequently used by men and those most often employed by women, along with those used about equally. Men and women differ significantly in how often they use the developing others tactic. Men use this cluster of power behaviors most frequently, whereas women use three other tactics more often. One the other hand, women favor using outside experts by three rankings. Men use building a favorable image more frequently (eighth most often used) to women (fourteenth most often used). Women use quid pro quo more frequently than do men (by four rankings). Women also opt for allo- cating resources by four rankings. Men favor training and orienting others much more than women—a difference of five rankings.

148 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Table 11.10 Comparison of Frequency of Power Use by Men and Women

Men Rank Women

Developing others 1st Proactivity Training/Orienting others 2nd Ritualism Proactivity 3rd Allocating resources Ritualism 4th Developing others Legitimizing control 5th Displaying charisma

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

Men appear to favor power tactics associated with enhancing followers, along with traditional tactics associated with authority and system. Women, con- trary to some popular wisdom, find reasons for more frequent use of proactivity, system, and allocation of organizational resources. They also employ power in personality terms more frequently than to their male counterparts.

Effectiveness Comparisons

Women rate all tactics except brinksmanship and dispensing rewards as effective. Men follow suit; they rate only two tactics as ineffective: brinksman- ship and incurring obligation. Women and men find the following tactics (Table 11.11) most effective.

The above comparison shows that, whereas both men and women use dis- playing charisma, women use it more often and find it more effective. We also find significant difference in the effectiveness rankings between men and women in their use of displaying charisma. Women find this tactic most effective; men found it effective, but found four others to be even more effective. Men, on the other hand, use developing others more often than do women and find it more effective than their female counterparts. They also value ritualism, rationaliza- tion, and building a favorable image as significantly more effective than do women. In addition to displaying charisma, women ranked using symbols, quid pro quo, using outside experts, and incurring obligation significantly more effec- tive than men. These are interesting shades of difference between men and women in their use of power tactics.

Both sexes similarly rank the effectiveness of the tactics using ambiguity, forming coalitions, proactivity, and dispensing rewards. We note that women rely a little more on institutional bases of power and authority forms than men do. Aside from the developing others power tactic, men seem to focus most on tradi- tion, logic, and image as the basis for power success. Women gravitate more toward tactics that involve others, the organizational structure, personality, and symbolic references. Both find power use based on legitimacy and personal competence effective at about the same level of intensity.

COMPARING TACTICS 149

Table 11.11 Comparison of Effectiveness of Tactic Use by Men and Women

Men Rank Women

Developing charisma 1st Developing others Training/Orienting others 2nd Allocating resources Using symbols 3rd Training/Orienting others Allocating resources 4th Ritualism Developing others 5th Displaying charisma

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

Comparison of Ethicality

When looked at in ethical terms we see that men ranked eleven tactics as eth- ical in normal usage, whereas women listed twelve. Both sexes included the fol- lowing tactics in their lists of ethical clusters of power behavior:

• Developing others • Train/orient • Building a favorable image • Displaying charisma • Co-opting others • Proactivity • Ritualism • Allocating resources • Controlling decision criteria

Women added using ambiguity and using a surrogate, which men did not list, as being ethically positive tactics. Men found legitimizing control an ethical tactic; women did not. Both sexes agreed on four unethical power tactics:

• Brinksmanship • Dispensing rewards • Incurring obligation • Controlling agenda preparation

Men added organizational placement as another unethical tactic, whereas women think the rationalization tactic is unethical.

Major differences in ethical rankings between men and women are seen in several tactics, for example, using ambiguity. Women find this tactic more ethical than men do. Women also differ with men in their ranking of the ethics of using outside experts. Men find the following a little more ethical than do women.

• Building a favorable image • Legitimizing control • Rationalization • Allocating resources,

Style Comparisons

Both sexes see some tactics as being most effectively used in an initial power approach in order to impact others. They also agree on which tactics to use to counter resistance to their power ploys. Table 11.12 shows details of these common choices. Women also see incurring obligation and using outside experts

150 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

as initial power use behaviors. Men listed using outside experts and incurring obligation as resistance-countering clusters of power behavior.

SUMMARY

Both men and women use all 22 tactics. Both sexes find them effective (with a few exceptions, notably brinksmanship). Both use about the same tactics as ini- tial approaches to influencing target behavior, and both use about the same tactics in countering resistance from targets. Where there is difference, it is mostly a difference in the degree of use. The difference may also be one of perception of the correct time and place in which to use a specific tactic. These differences are significant and define demonstrably different orientations to power use. For instance, men appear to use developing others and training and orienting others more frequently than do women. These are tactics based much more on consent than coercion (Rickards, 2000). They represent a variance from many stereotyp- ical orientations about men and women now current in our literature and think- ing. White (1990), for example, concluded that women and men differ in overall management approach. She concludes that women are more indirect than men and more participative and people-oriented. Wagner and Swanson (1979) found that women were more internal, preferring to share, rather than to aggregate per- sonal power. Their work, like White’s, has its base primarily on attitudes, not the examination of actual power behavior.

It may be that role stereotypes have left us with a conventional wisdom at some variance with actual power use experience. Women, although involved in sharing and collaborative power behavior, do not commit to these behaviors quite as much as thought. And they do so a little less than their male counterparts.

COMPARING TACTICS 151

Table 11.12 Comparison of When Tactics are Used by Men and Women

Initial Use Used Upon Resistance

Using ambiguity Controlling the agenda Developing charisma Brinksmanship Controlling decision criteria Forming coalitions Developing others Co-opting opposition members Building a favorable image Legitimizing control Organizational placement Rationalization Proactivity Dispensing rewards Quid pro quo Using surrogates Allocating resources Ritualism Using symbols Training and orienting others

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

Women are also a little less like men in their behavior in seeking to develop others through sharing to enhance colleagues, the organization, and them- selves. The greatest difference in power tactic use between women and men is in their feelings about effectiveness and ethicality. Both find about the same cluster of power behaviors to be effective. Nevertheless, women rate system- based tactics, such as using symbols and surrogates, quid pro quo trade-offs, and the use of outside experts as more effective than do men. They also rely on displaying charisma more than men do. Whether this shows a sex-based tendency or is merely a function of their relative newness in organizational environments is not clear. It does represent a definable pattern of perception and use of power by women.

Men find the most effective power use tactics to be those based on person- ality. They rate tactics such as developing others, building a favorable image and ritualism as being more effective than women do. They also find displaying charisma, forming coalitions, proactivity and training, and orienting others as very effective. These findings imply a reversal of current stereotypes that have women being more personal and men more system (structure) based. On

152 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Table 11.13 Differences in Male-Female Uses of Power

Factor Women Men

Motive base No real difference in this factor noted

Cultural pressure To be submissive toward To be aggressive toward power use power use

Bases of power Internal: self External: situational Autonomy To control own life To control environment and

others and through that to control own life

Proactivity Internal: building self, Aggressive: find find strength as a strength in action resource

Sociability More involved in clubs; associate More involved in formal with others for the intrinsic Organizations; associate benefits; others for the intrinsic with others because it is benefits the “thing to do”

Values People. Things. Decision style Both have a generally

similar style. Power forms used Authority—and then Persuasion and then

manipulation/persuasion. manipulation and in fluence.

Power tactics used system-based Personal.

Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

balance, both genders agree on ethical questions of power tactic use. They also agree on questions of the timing of tactic use. They report similarities in style of use, while exhibiting some variation in specific use of individual power tactics (Popejoy, 2004).

Available research is beginning to clarify the nature of differences in male and female uses of power. The summary in Table 11.13 may be helpful in ana- lyzing these differences.

COMPARING TACTICS 153

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 12

How Inner Leaders Get Willing Compliance

Implicitly, if not explicitly, most power studies assume the primary power user is the chief executive, the director, president, or another person occupying the top box in the organization chart. Operationally, this is not the case. Numerically, most power users are the so-called inner leaders (Fairholm, 2003) in the vast middle ranges of the organization—those positioned below the CEO and above the line worker. Like all of us, they use power to get their way in the organization— sometimes to further the CEO’s orders or corporate objectives, but always to achieve their own desires. The thing that separates the inner leader’s power use from its use by top leaders is that inner leaders get followers to willingly comply with their wishes rather than to merely obey orders.

Power has utility for the inner leader most often as an intermediary tool to achieve some personal desired end-state. It is a critical component of the inner leader’s social interactions and is a helpful tool to describe that interaction and measure its success (Robison, 2008). These leaders routinely engage in efforts to increase their situational power. They also expend energy to empower their followers to act within the constraints the inner leader sets (Yukl & Becker, 2006). Two essential descriptive characteristics of inner leaders are, first, to foster rela- tionships, and second, to use power to make those relationships work to the inner leader’s advantage. It involves both learning the parameters of power, teaching that technology to followers, and creating opportunities for its synergistic use in accomplishing agreed-upon goals. These are skills inner leaders acquire that are not routinely used by the CEO. These techniques circumscribe a part of the inner leader’s work environment—an environment pregnant with power, competition, conflict, and opposition, and yet redolent with potential satisfactions not attainable in many other activities. These techniques include using power, empowering

others, teaching and coaching stakeholders, and encouraging followers self- governance (Fairholm, 2003; Fisher, 2007).

USING POWER

Power use is a cornerstone of both inner leadership theory and its practice. It is the heart of leadership behavior. Learning to comfortably use power in the communities in which they work is central to every inner leader’s tasks. In very real terms, all organized interaction is a competition between members for status, material acquisition, or ideological advantage (Serven, 2002). Office politics or organizational power politics (Fairholm, 1993) is a part of all routine relationships. Yet the idea of using one’s personal power in social contexts has strong emotional overtones and carries both positive and negative ethical connotations (Ryan, 2000).

Some see power as manipulation, coercion, control, or force. For these peo- ple, using power is “Machiavellian” (McMurry, 2000). A more balanced per- spective sees power as ethically neutral. A leader can use power without destructive result to either self or others. Results attained depend on the motives and skill of the particular leader. Inner leaders’ power effects also are conditioned by their skill in using their power and that of all others involved in a particular power exchange. A leader may be relatively powerful in one circumstance and not so powerful in another. The energy expended in any given power use situation is a function of its importance, the presence or absence of needed resources and the leader’s skill in using appropriate power tactics or techniques.

Power is, as noted elsewhere, central to leadership, planning, directing, controlling, and performance evaluation. Leaders use power to secure their goals, control scarce resources, negotiate agreements among individuals, or take autonomous action to try to achieve their personal outcomes. It is to influence these processes that most inner leaders use their power, and it is in this context that power use has it most telling impact on the inner leader’s personal and work community success. Conventional top leadership techniques such as participative management, decision making, and system change or conflict resolution are no longer enough to fully explain action in the various subunits of the corporation. An applied power perspective provides better analytical tools, new skills and competencies, and the motivation to alter ineffective patterns of individual and collective behavior. The judicious use of power increases the inner leader’s ability singly and as a part of a unified work community to respond to a constantly changing environment.

Methods of Using Power

Inner leadership success is not simply a result of a grant by others of the powers of command claimed and exercised by them (Johnson, 2005). They acquire power only when they appeal to followers by stimulating their emotions

156 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

and offering suggestions that followers see as helpful in attaining their personal and professional goals. This explanation of the inner leader’s source of power is counter to the authority basis for top leader power. The inner leader’s use of follower emotions and personal motives to insure commitment to work community purposes is also distinct from traditional top leadership theory (Yukl & Becker, 2006). Mastering the techniques of power use in the interior regions of the cor- poration centers on developing skill in intimate interaction by the inner leader who is in a kind of competition with stakeholders over who gets control and use of needed and scarce resources. These skills take the form of a variety of tasks centering in the intimate, one-on-one relationships constituting the conventions of inner leadership relationships.

Power Use Techniques

Inner leaders prepare themselves to exercise power within their work com- munities in the following ways:

1. Creating (or make use of existing) power situations. Inner leaders under- stand that the component parts of a power relationship are normally pres- ent in most work relationships. The components of such a power situation include: interdependence, differing goals, and competition to see who will achieve desired goals. A power situation is also characterized as a zero- sum game—a situation of scarcity, where if one participant achieves his or her goals, the others do not. It is a situation where at least one partici- pant in the relationship attaches enough importance to the situation, goals, or approach to be willing to expend energy in the relationship. Unless all of these factors are present, operational power use need not be used to get one’s way. But the fact is that almost every interpersonal situation in a work community can be defined in terms of these characteristics.

2. Using power to increase power. Using power increases one’s total power. Failure to exercise it can result in its loss. This characteristic of power use places the inner leader in a complex interactive and dynamic power relationship with everyone with whom they interact; a purpose of which is to gain, maintain, and increase their relative power position in the work community.

3. Facilitating power use by creating conditions that foster it. Inner leaders insure the presence of the following factors in their work culture, as these factors increase their relative power in the work community and further the potential for its productive use. • Discretion. They structure the work community to maximize their

discretion. • Centrality. They manipulate relationships to insure that they are at the

center of activity.

HOW INNER LEADERS GET WILLING COMPLIANCE 157

• Exchange. Inner leaders create situations where both parties have something to give and some expectation of potential attractive results from engaging in communal relations.

• Status vis-a-vis superiors. Inner leaders endeavor to have multiple inti- mate contacts and influence with people above them in the hierarchy.

• Conformance to work community norms. They take actions to insure that followers see them as the personification of work community norms. They model desired behavior.

• Legitimacy. Inner leaders insure that followers see them as having law- ful authority (Kuhn & Graham, 2005).

• Association. They associate in friendly ways with work community members.

• Personal status. Inner leaders try to present themselves in ways that induce followers to hold them in high esteem.

• Personal characteristics. They try to get others to think of them as pos- sessing personal attributes such as integrity (Ryan, 2000; Telford & Gostick, 2005), commitment, high energy, interest, skill, and personal and professional attractiveness.

4. Accommodating the limits of power use. Power use is constrained by a variety of factors both in the situation and the character of participants (Telford & Gostick, 2005). For example, effective inner leaders are constrained by whether they see power per se as an end or only instru- mental to other ends. Their character and physical appearance may also impact their effective use of power. Position held in the hierarchy may help or hurt their capacity to use power, as also will their socioeco- nomic status, the size of the work community, or the nature of the tasks dealt with.

5. Overcoming resistance to the inner leader’s power use. Using power can, and often does, produce a countervailing power use by coworkers, the intent of which is to: (1) destroy or limit inner leaders’ power, (2) wrest from them the sources of power held, or (3) disengage from the relation- ship. Of course, resistance sometimes results from the follower’s inability to respond appropriately. Followers may also fail to respond to power use because they do not have the requisite skills, time, materials, or the infor- mation needed to achieve desired outcomes. Resistance can result from an unwillingness to comply. In any case, the resistance is genuine and the impact on the inner leader is similar. They must increase the force or scope of their power use or give up. Inner leaders understand that using power is a risk relationship that can produce resistance and failure if improperly applied.

6. Using power is both an offensive and a defensive tool. We use power whenever the situation requires a choice. Using power speeds up work community member action and hastens goal accomplishment. It also increases the assertiveness-quotient of the inner leader.

158 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

7. Controlling as many sources of power as possible. The essence of power is control over needed and scarce resources. The more scarce resources the inner leader controls, the more powerful that leader is in the eyes of followers. Resources include anything physical or psychological the inner leaders own, control, or can exclusively make available to others and that are valuable to them in meeting their perceived needs. To be useful from a leadership perspective, the target of the leader’s power action must see the resources as available only (or most economically) from the inner leader. In effect, inner leaders have power when others perceive them as having desired resources in some kind of monopoly. Examples of power sources include: • Controlling tangible or intangible rewards followers need or want • Control over critical information, time, expertise, or other resources

(Hysong, 2008) • Alliances with groups of powerful people that increase their critical

power mass • A perception of legitimate right to command, whether actual or not

(Fisher, 2007) • Affiliation with others that their followers perceive as important

(Covey, 2001) • The leader’s own expertise, which becomes a base of power if their

power targets come to depend on his or her expertise in needed skill areas

• The act of using power, which tends to increase ones power • As inner leaders make themselves different from their colleagues

(positively, as, for example, being charming but also negatively, for example, as a curmudgeon), they are more likely to have and exer- cise power

• Physical location in the center of work operations or close in proxim- ity to powerful people

8. Wielding power in relationships with top leaders. Inner leaders continu- ally engage in power politics with those people who are superior to them in the formal structure. The specific tactics identified in Chapter 8 are all relevant here. Of these, inner leaders make frequent use of proactivity, building a favorable image, charisma, rationalization, and use of ambigu- ity (Fairholm, 1993, 2003).

9. Exerting power in relationships with peers. Save for their subordinates, inner leaders interact most with their peers. Peer relationships ask inner leaders to use nonhierarchal relationships, since force or authority forms of power are inappropriate with peers who may share their level of author- ity. Working with their peers, inner leaders exert power through the fol- lowing kinds of power tactics: • Power-related exchange relationships where they trade off specified

peer behavior, support, or access to another scarce resource.

HOW INNER LEADERS GET WILLING COMPLIANCE 159

• Providing or withholding needed resources such as space, material, information, financial resources, skills, association, cooperation, or work assignments to allow a competitor to participate in decision or policy activity or have access to other powerful, influential, or attractive people.

• Coalition building where inner leaders ally themselves with certain peers to add to their perceived influence, such as creating informal work groups or associations of people who belong to professional associations or other work community clusters of like-minded people.

• Attempting to add potentially powerful individuals from opposing forces whose support would aid in goal attainment or whose opposition would hamper goal realization to the inner leader’s decision councils.

• Developing a sense of obligation in others to induce them to do what the leader wants.

• Making use of a third party (often a powerful, talented, or popular person) through whom to exercise power.

• Using the simple expedient of controlling meeting agendas to insure that the issues discussed are those the inner leader wants to discuss and has prepared for.

EMPOWERMENT

Inner leaders are in relationships with people who are essentially volunteers. Today’s followers are better educated and far more independent, aware, and want- ing. Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) confirm that workers today want to achieve con- trol over their environment and will take action to realize this desire. They want power. Inner leaders know this and take steps to empower coworkers. Empower- ment appeals to the human values of independence, self-reliance, and individual- ism (Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002). It is allowing people to self-actualize on the job via interesting, challenging work and responsible assignments. People want to make a difference and when inner leaders empower them to do so they support deep psychological needs in their followers. Empowered people are more self- confident, self-controlled, and self-motivated. In the act of empowerment, inner leaders gain willing followers (Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002).

In its simplest definition, empowerment means “to enable.” It is freeing fol- lowers to act independently, controlled only on the basis of their results, not activ- ity, events, or methods. Empowerment endows followers with the power required to perform a given act or set of actions. It contributes directly to job success or the reverse (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005; Yukl & Becker, 2006). It does not mean that leaders give away their power; rather, it involves adding to the power of the whole group. Empowering others is developmental of the leader’s human assets. Empowerment is liberating them to respond accordingly (Fairholm, 2003).

Several ideas underlie empowerment. First, people achieve more when they feel the job is worth doing and is challenging enough to arouse their interests.

160 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Second, they need to be able to see how their work contributes to the final result. Third, people work harder and more consistently when they feel the result is morally worthwhile and valuable. Finally, they work harder when there is mutual respect and concern for each other as human beings, and there is mutual integrity among the work community members (Ryan, 2000). These ideas are appropriate for the chief executive of the work community as well as the lowest worker. Unfortunately, since most CEOs can use other techniques to get workers to do what they want, they do not empower their employees as much or as fully as inner leaders do. Rather, inner leaders are innovative, upward influencing, inspirational, and less focused on monitoring to maintain the status quo (Fairholm, 2003).

There is some risk inherent in the empowerment of others. It requires us to trust in the essential goodness of followers (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1995). Inner leaders exercise trust in their followers, in their talent, commitment, and capacity to work independently in different ways than do leaders. This is a different mind- set than traditional leadership models. It requires leaders to be teachers of others as they communicate understanding of and commitment to a common vision of the work community’s future. This kind of trust, preceded by effective, appropri- ate training and values displacement, assures cooperative action even when the leader is not physically present.

Although powerful roadblocks to change exist, successful inner leaders act on the belief that broad participation by all stakeholders is the most compelling strategy for designing and implementing lasting change in organizations. It is increasingly clear that participation improves organizations. Research shows workplace participation results in greater political participation (Plas, 1996). Increased participation in the workplace will better align both leader and led with the inner leader’s vision of freedom and democracy, helping to create the genuine organizational democracy that nurtures human progress and that increases bottom line results.

Enabling others involves the inner leader in creating situations where work community members can self-motivate. The techniques may be as simple as pro- viding as much information as possible to as many stakeholders as possible about what they and others are doing and need to do. When leaders enable their fol- lowers, they allow them room to take risks without mindless controls. It is help- ing workers find a place in the work community where they can make full use of their strengths for the benefit of themselves and the work community. It is fol- lowing Peter Drucker’s (1999) advice to emphasize the strengths of employees in job assignments.

Empowerment is intellectually connected with ideas such as teaming and community building. Use of team or other participative action structures imply empowerment, although few theorists identify it explicitly. Empowerment is also part of transformational leadership theory (Tepper, 1993; Ryan, 2000; Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002). The underlying idea behind this concept of leadership is to choose purposes and visions based on follower strengths and interests and to create a structures supporting them. Transformational leadership implies changing the

HOW INNER LEADERS GET WILLING COMPLIANCE 161

individual as well as the work community. Transformational leadership enables both leaders and followers to reach higher levels of accomplishment and moti- vation. It releases human potential for the collective pursuit of common goals. Consequently, it is empowering. McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y is another intel- lectual foundation of empowerment. People who fundamentally believe that others are good, want to work, and will accept responsibility will give others the opportunity to use these capacities. That kind of behavior is empowering (Magnun, 2005).

Empowerment engages the inner leader in the following kinds of actions:

1. Goal setting. The fundamental mechanism in goal setting is the vision statement, which is a concise amalgam of the basic purpose for which the work community exists. An effective vision relates directly to both indi- vidual and work community ideas of purpose and articulates the value of joint effort. The inner leader sets the vision, communicates it broadly, and informs coworkers about the work community, its purposes, processes, accomplishments, and shortcomings. In effect, inner leaders go to work for the follower—they provide necessary authority and the physical, oper- ational, and psychological resources and services the follower needs to be effective. Inner leaders must be prepared to have the work done in ways different from how they would do it. It is possible that the work will be done better, and it is conceivable, at least in the beginning, that it will be done worse. It will almost always be done differently. Acceptance of the need for flexibility in method and even in results is part of the preparation of the leader in the empowerment of his followers.

2. Challenging followers. Empowerment challenges followers to want to become involved. It is accomplished via participative efforts between leader and worker (Yukl & Becker, 2006). It asks leaders to use innate val- ues of independence, self-reliance, and individualism to challenge work- ers to sacrifice for the leader and for the work community as a way to self-actualize on the job (Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002).

3. Delegating to followers. Key in empowering others is the delegation of job assignments and decisions to the lowest possible level and allowing room for coworkers to take risks without undue controls or tight account- ability. Inner leaders create job situations where workers can be self- motivated, and not intimidated, by providing as much information as possible to as many people as possible about what they and others are doing and their degree of success. They take the time and effort to recog- nize individual differences and use them constructively (Truskie, 1999) through delegations that focus on individual member strengths.

4. Focusing on workers. Empowerment focuses primarily on the members of the work community (Plas, 1996). Inner leaders actively encourage their coworkers to acknowledge their true feelings and values and their per- sonal goals and aspirations and help them learn who they are in order to

162 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

then use that knowledge in joint work activity. This expression of their authentic self can only occur in an environment where workers feel secure enough to do so.

5. Encouraging participation. Inner leaders take advantage of the power of the individual by transforming it and create an environment where indi- viduals can work together—exploiting their differences to the benefit of the work community and themselves (Plas, 1996). This happens in a work community where mutual cooperation and interdependence are built into the structure of work assignments. Perhaps the most beneficial contribu- tion of participatory inner leadership is its fundamental role in making workers into an effective community (Millet & Sandberg, 2005).

6. Specifying follower roles. Plas (1996) recommends that work communi- ties be structured (like a sports team) with a specific role for each mem- ber. This role specialization enables each member to make unique contributions and permits the personal recognition needed to satisfy the individualist spirit that typifies many Americans. When each work com- munity member has a unique role to play, the emphasis shifts the focal point from the group to the individual.

7. Encouraging self-reliance. Inner leader-led work communities have to rely on the willingness and capacity of members to manage themselves for their professional and work goals to be met, because a large part of work community life involves members making decisions on their own (Kulwiec, 2001). Self-reliant work communities represent a major para- digm shift from classical hierarchal structures. Self-reliant work struc- tures include the overarching culture that provides grounding for all that is done and all relationship systems used. Centered in a vitalizing vision, self-reliant cultural systems allow workers maximum independence of action within the context of an interdependent system of values, rules of behavior, and standards for measuring success.

8. Other empowerment techniques. A review of the literature reveals other ways to empower members of work communities to help the inner leader attain his or her goals for the community. They include letting members interact with anybody to resolve problems and get the job done and ask- ing members for their contributions and ideas. It includes giving members full control of their own operations and getting members to select and train new recruits, as well as giving every member responsibility for assets and aspects of the common work.

TEACHING AND COACHING STAKEHOLDERS

A key task for leaders in the vast middle reaches of the organization is teach- ing. Unlike their order-giving, policy-promulgating CEOs, inner leaders commu- nicate with, inform, and ultimately persuade followers to cooperative joint action.

HOW INNER LEADERS GET WILLING COMPLIANCE 163

This role involves the leader in teaching stakeholder colleagues (employees, clients, constituents, citizen-customers, others) the principles, values, and tech- niques of excellent performance. The teaching method used most often resembles coaching (Hughes & Beatty, 2005). Coaching is based on observing workers, exciting them, teaching them individually, encouraging them, creating situations, and giving each worker opportunity to take independent action in accomplishing group goals. Coaching lets inner leaders give followers continuing support so that they can act for and on behalf of the work community. Coaching includes pro- viding valuable feedback crucial to personal motivation and performance improvement.

Coaches do not so much coordinate the work of their players (workers), as they train, inspire, and perfect the workers’ full capacity so that they can play their part (do their segment of the work). A result of good coaching is that recipients are enabled to act for the common good. Coaches encourage teamwork, inspire cooperation, mentor, and otherwise shape member behavior, often one member at a time (Kulwiec, 2001). It is personalized leadership that pulls people together with diverse backgrounds, talents, experiences, and interests and treats them as full partners. It is a process of building on their strengths. At its heart coaching involves caring enough about followers to take the time to build a personal rela- tionship with them. It is finding a reason every day to meet with them to under- score that both leader and follower are really linked in the common endeavor. It is the power of personal attention that communicates by only one way: physical presence (Fairholm, 1993). Coaches change behavior (skills), but their most important task is to change the attitudes and values of members to conform to those of the work community.

Coaching is a new conception of the role of the leader—one leaders in the middle of the organization intuitively grasp. Few writers suggest this observable fact about many executives, but leaders are primarily teachers of their followers. Henry Levenson (1968) is an exception. Inner leader coaches are good role mod- els. They are supportive—not overpowering. Thus, coaches listen to and under- stand their followers. They are visible, set limits, shape values, stretch their followers, accept difference, and capitalize on them. And they let their follower’s specialty be seen, perfected, and recognized.

Coaching pulls together people with diverse backgrounds, talents, experi- ences, and interests and treats them as full partners (Lombardi, 2000). Coaches spend time—sometimes lavish time—on followers. Coaching is a real-time effort, taking place in the instant of interactivity. It is not a cerebral but an action process. You have to be out of your office to coach. The best coaches spend as much time strengthening the work community’s capacity to operationalize shared values, as they do with developing an individual member’s ability to do needed work. The best coaching result is getting people personally involved with how the leader does his or her own job. It is showing followers that what they do moves the work community a little farther toward their personal preset goal(s) and at the same time moves the work community closer to its goals.

164 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Coaching Methods

Coaching is a leadership style based on exciting workers, teaching them, and encouraging them to personal and team (work community) excellence. Coaching involves leaders in five activities or roles: educator, sponsor, counselor, comforter, and coach.

1. Educator. Inner leaders educate their stakeholders to feel a part of the work community, to take ownership of the collective work methods and sought- after results, and otherwise to commit fully to its work. Full access to infor- mation about how things are going in the work community and with each individual member is an essential part of this education process. Inner lead- ers make their assignments and expectations clear, simple. and concrete and communicate them broadly and often. They drill followers in the basics of their work. Feedback on progress is a part of this education process.

A part of this educating, coach-leader component is experimentation. In many respects, interesting and inspiring work is often a perception in the imagination, rather than an intrinsic characteristic of the work itself. Inner leaders get followers to bring to their work an inquiring mind, a readiness to experiment in applying vision-centered principles, and an openness to inspiration. They find their followers will accept the challenge and grow both as coworkers and coleaders of the joint enterprise. Inner leaders cre- ate situations within which followers can test their budding knowledge and skill in controlled (by the leader) situations until they gain the confidence to practice their new knowledge and skill in routine work community tasks.

2. Sponsor. Inner leaders sponsor their workers as they take charge of their work lives and of the tasks of maturing and developing their skills and acquiring a useful base of information about their work situation. These leaders act as advocates for individual followers as their maturing compe- tence prepares them for increased responsibilities and more varied and comprehensive work assignments. Sponsoring followers includes grant- ing them guided autonomy as they grow in their work skills. Sponsoring a follower has an element of risk attached. When leaders champion their followers’ skills, knowledge, and abilities and recommend them for advancement, they place their own reputations on the line. Subsequent follower success redounds to the leader’s benefit. Follower failure, how- ever, can hurt the sponsoring leader’s reputation.

3. Counselor. Timely, complete, and compassionate explanation and evaluation of their conduct and contribution to the success of the work community is constructive. It lets people discover where they are helping most. It also helps them understand where they can contribute further (or differently) in the future. Confronting low performance is difficult. The alternative—ignoring the situation—is worse. Unaddressed low perform- ance can destroy an otherwise effective community. One-to-one counseling

HOW INNER LEADERS GET WILLING COMPLIANCE 165

contacts with followers is the opportunity for the inner leader to be of specific service to them in order to aid in their personal change. Change is accomplished only by the individual. Inner leaders act as catalysts, not always decision makers, in this personal change process.

The purpose of counseling is to have the counseled person experience a change of attitude and action. Counseling sessions should result in the development and progress of the person counseled. Followers must be willing to sacrifice—to forego personal convenience and invest time—for their coworkers. In achieving this, inner leaders are willing listeners to the thoughts and emotions, as well as words, of followers. And they need to share with them their own feelings about their personal, intimate self and about the place of the work community’s values and vision in their lives. The counseling contact is personal, intimate, and open. Leaders express their true feelings. Finding the right words are essential; it is part of the art and creativity of inner leadership. The following steps constitute some of the main principles supporting counseling:

Be compassionate Be non-blaming Be nonjudgmental Be committed to the message delivered Be patient, sincere, and temperate in demeanor

Counseling gives inner leaders an unparalleled opportunity to develop close- ness and unity with followers. Silence and distance do not bring safety or protec- tion and peace. Foregoing counseling and the resultant opportunities for change is foolhardy. Indeed, counseling followers makes it possible for the leader to know followers as individuals and to understand their level of professional matu- rity, the extent of their commitment, and their personal and professional goals and values. Armed with this knowledge, the leader can select a set of tasks and responsibilities to fit the current and evolving needs of each follower and relate their amelioration to work needed by the work community.

4. Comforter. Leadership is also a task of securing and maintaining a safe workplace, an important part of which includes insuring that the work- place is emotionally safe and comfortable. As personal, family, or social issues arise, inner leaders are often called on to assist in their resolution, to provide moral support, and to soothe emotions. As performance in either is less than desired, the leader’s job is to resolve the problem, which often involves sustaining and nurturing their coworkers. Similar interac- tion is appropriate when the worker’s performance is above the standard. These people often need nurturing too, in order to help them sustain their high performance over time. Comforting followers is an inner leadership task that depends on the leader’s capacity to authentically care for his or her followers. This kind of leadership is based on love—love for the mem- bers served and, importantly, love for those who serve with the leader.

166 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Leading through authentic caring—love—is the only approach to the con- duct of the work community’s work today that will be fully successful. It is this kind of leadership that guarantees continued success.

5. Coach. Just like coaching a sports team, leading the workers who inhabit the middle ranges of the corporation depends for success on a base of val- ues that include motivating players, encouraging teamwork, inspiring cooperation, mentoring and shaping others’ behavior. Like sports coaches, inner leaders need to be able to inspire and empower others to develop goals and achieve their personal and group objectives as efficiently and effectively as possible. Inner leaders also project a vision of the mission to be accomplished and elicit the commitment and dedication needed to achieve this vision (Lombardi, 2000).

FOLLOWER SELF-GOVERNANCE

Several traditional leadership theorists each argued that his brand of leader- ship would result in enhanced productivity (Marquart, 2007). They sought improved follower performance measured in tangible goal terms. In each of these models the follower remains subservient to the CEO, in effect, as a tool to help achieve the leader’s personal or institutional goals. Past theory casts followers as targets of power, rather than wielders of power in the work community. Unlike traditional theory, leaders in the midranges of the organization have the dual goal of producing both high performance and highly developed, self-led leaders of other followers within the constraints of the middle leader’s preset values and vision. This double objective energizes all facets of the inner leader’s role (Fairholm, M. R., 2002). So, too, does the vision they create and so, too, the power skills and techniques they use. The job is to create a climate and the con- ditions that foster follower autonomy and task development. The direction of the follower life-change sought is toward a more empowered follower who is inde- pendent, free. and self-governing (Fisher, 2007).

The Nature of Success

As both leaders and followers share governance, this action has a tremen- dous impact on both. This kind of shared governance surely changes their measures of success. As inner leaders work toward goal accomplishment and follower development, the conventional definition of success, as being “in charge,” is discounted. Being in charge is as dependent on factors outside the individual’s control—for example, luck, the whims of others, office politics, and so on—as on personal capacity. The idea that leaders alone guide and focus the work community may be true in theory for leaders at the top of the hierarchy, but not in practice. Nonetheless, this definition of success is a seductive lure. Society is preoccupied with winning and personal prominence,

HOW INNER LEADERS GET WILLING COMPLIANCE 167

and these have become accepted and expected outcomes of the leader’s work. Certainly, they have come to be central in the conventional textbook definitions of leadership success.

Inner leaders are guided by an alternative value system that shares power, even the power to lead. They resist allowing the terms of their success to be deter- mined by others or by anything outside themselves. Instead of being successfully in charge, inner leaders come to think about success as a personal, intimate feel- ing of satisfaction in seeing themselves, as well as their work colleagues, put to use more of their whole self through their work. Success for the inner leader results from nurturing followers’ talent and letting them practice it in a variety of satisfying ways in varying venues (Heenan & Bennis, 1999). Block (1993) and others have effectively refocused the relationship between leader and follower to one that can be conveniently encapsulated in the ideas of service and steward- ship—the idea of holding something in trust for another (Fisher, 2007). Inner leaders are trustees (stewards) as they see their organization as a shared commu- nity and each stakeholder as a coequal leader.

Preparing Followers for Self-Governance

Follower-shared governance asks inner leaders to change themselves and get followers to also change on several levels: attitude, skills, and philosophy. Con- ceivably, learning to accept the philosophy of shared governance is the most important phase of initial follower preparation to lead. Inner leaders are guided by a value system that shares power—even the power to lead. They accept that a values foundation highlighting follower growth and development to their full capacities is implicit in this leadership model (Kuhn & Graham, 2005). These leaders recognize that their own professional maturation is a life-long learning process that includes, among other things, learning to sacrifice, serve, and some- times even following their followers.

Inner leadership defines leadership as helping followers to participate in defining and shaping their joint future. Inner leaders pay attention to what is important about tasks and values both now and for the future and encourage this kind of forward-thinking leadership behavior in followers. Inner leaders possess personal maturity (Metzger, 1987). They know their personal role within the work community—a significant part of which is being teachers of their followers. Learning to lead in a shared governance situation involves leaders in increasing their skills in goal-directed action to enlarge their followers. Geller (2002) claims that organizational power is determined by the magnitude, frequency, and quan- tity of consequences under a person’s control. Leaders go beyond consequence control to benefit the behaviors and attitudes of their colleagues and coworkers. It is a task of continual personal and follower learning and growth.

Sharing authority and responsibility for governance and staff development asks leaders in the middle to engage in at least the following kinds of activities:

168 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

1. Correcting bad habits. Inner leaders help followers rectify bad habits—the things they do or fail to do that inhibit their effectiveness and performance (Bennis & Townsend, 1995). They get followers to waste as little effort as possible on distracting values, attitudes, and actions and assist them to maximize their competencies.

2. Using follower talents wisely. Inner leaders position followers where they can make the greatest contribution consistent with their innate capacities. They also encourage follower changes in the way they work and even the work they do to maximize their contribution potential.

3. Fostering self-control. The leadership task of fostering follower self-con- trol may be an even more important task than evaluating their personal and professional assets. Inner leaders learn to manage themselves (Drucker, 1999) and help followers do likewise. In essence, this is a val- ues and ethical issue. To be effective in the corporation, followers’ per- sonal values must be (or come to be) compatible with the work community’s. The inner leader’s task is to facilitate values displacement and, thus, appropriate follower responses.

4. Developing personal self-confidence. The inner leader’s task is to encour- age followers to be centered and balanced in the midst of action. Centered followers know where they stand and what they stand for. It is having a confident sense of self that comes with the acceptance of responsibility (Bennis & Nanus, 1985).

5. Promoting goal-direction. The essence of a leader is fostering unity toward common goals and high personal performance. The primary mech- anism inner leaders use for assuring goal-implementation and application in followers, however, is not exercising authority, but promulgating their attitudes and behavior. The task of conforming follower values and actions with the leader’s horizon goals is a critical, if simple process of defining goals and prioritizing values that support goal-accomplishment.

6. Developing follower skills. A key responsibility of any leader, including inner leaders, is in insuring that all followers are aware of and competent to do needed work. This is a task of informing and training all followers in their duties and, in doing their work, to use their personal and corpo- rate resources effectively to bring about preset goals. On the principle that you cannot teach what you do not know, leaders first have to portray desired behavior before they can expect followers to behave that way. Thus, staff development becomes a mutual process of growth and change toward independent action.

7. Thinking strategically. Leaders pay attention not so much to what is important today, as they do to what will be significant tomorrow. They take action—and get followers to take action—today that helps create a future that corresponds with the leader’s vision and aspirations. Inner leaders spend their time preparing followers to function effectively in the future, a place where they will spend the rest of their productive work lives.

HOW INNER LEADERS GET WILLING COMPLIANCE 169

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 13

Using Power in Multinational Groups

We all have and use power in varying degrees. Our perceived power or lack thereof is inextricably linked to our sense of identity. But, as a resource, power is like any other resource—it must be shared. One need only to review human history to see that when power has been concentrated in the hands of the few, injustice and conflict—even violence—results. Conversely, the ability to share power is an indication of proper social and psychological adjustment and moral and spiritual health.

Power sharing in organizations is the wave of the future. It has always been a necessary part of life. It is even more important as the numbers of human beings increase on the planet and globalization shrinks our interactive “world” as a result of the technology explosion that has contracted operational time and space. This is rapidly becoming a fact whether one welcomes it or not. It is especially critical in multinational groups; that is, social groups composed of members representing several cultural, ethnic, or national entities. Those who learn to share power in any context, but particularly multinational groups, will survive and increase, and those organizations that do not will ultimately fade in significance or even disappear.

An innovative and helpful tool to analyze and assess power usage in small groups is found in the recent work of David Swarr (2005). He identified the elements of individual power in small groups and devised a means of quantifying and mapping members’ power in these culturally complex organizations. For Swarr, “intercultural” denotes context, particularly organizational contexts, where persons from several nation states interact. The challenge facing leaders in these kinds of multinational—intercultural—small groups, whether in business, government, or the private sector, is to understand the elements of power use engaged in between individuals and to successfully practice the principles of

effective intercultural power sharing. Upon the leader’s success in this endeavor hangs his or her personal success and the health and productivity of their organi- zation. While there is a growing body of research relative to organizational cultural issues, there is relatively little discussing the impact of the perceptions that interculturally diverse individual members hold in making or breaking the success of an organization (Petersen, 2005).

Swarr’s work identifies and correlates power as a critical dynamic force that affects not only leadership (see Brannen, 2005), but the overall health and progress of the organization and its members. Power is especially vital in multi- national groups, but (until now unexamined) Swarr’s work reminds us that in order to understand the nature of individual power, it is necessary to identify the components of that power and to have a means of quantifying and mapping these individual power components. Without these “tools,” attaining success in leading intercultural groups is made immeasurably more difficult and assessing leader- ship success is frustrated (Swarr, 2005).

GLOBALIZATION

A key role leaders assume is that of handling the dynamics of interpersonal power within the organization. Communication has made our world simultane- ously bigger (we now interact with people thousands of miles distant from us as much or more than we do with our neighbors next door) and smaller (our circle of intimate friends and neighbors are not defined by proximity). Operating in this new era of globalization, however, may require a paradigm shift for many, because globalization is a function of the mind, not geography. Lodge (1995) defines this aspect of social living as a process whereby the world’s people are becoming increasingly interconnected in all aspects of their lives—culturally, economically, politicly, technologically, and environmentally. Globalization divides as much as it unites—the causes of division being identical to those which promote uniformity of the globe (Bauman, 1998).

Of course, we have always been part of a culture, actually, multiple cultures. For example, in our work context each of us is a member of a work team culture as well as bureau, division, department, corporate, and industry cultures. And simultaneously, we hold membership in ethnic, national, spiritual, social, profes- sional, friendship, and other cultures. The professional literature has done much to illuminate this part of group interrelationships, but little attention has been given to the special aspects of culture present in small groups composed of mem- bers from several different ethnic or nation states. And almost no research has been reported that considers the special power dynamics incident to multicultural group relationships.

Globalization is making intercultural (multinational) interaction in organiza- tions an increasing fact of life. Recent research has demonstrated that intercul- tural teams once settled have out-performed single-cultural ones in various areas.

172 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

The evidence suggests that heterogeneous teams perform better than homogenous ones in areas such as marketing, problem solving, creativity, systems flexibility, and innovation, to mention but a few (Schneider & Barsoux, 1998). Given this finding, leaders must deal with intercultural power sharing within the context of the dual realities: on the one hand, of vast internal cultural diversity within the nation itself, and on the other the necessity of living in constructive interface with its external neighbors and the rest of the world upon which it depends for economic viability and progress. And, too, globalization has simultaneously unleashed the forces of homogenization and fragmentation; that is, the globaliza- tion of the media, marketing, entertainment, and goods produces a homogenizing effect on local cultures. Simultaneously, this fact creates a sense of the loss of identity and the tendency to withdraw into the local or traditional culture we once used for security that provides our identity.

The complexities group members face in using power in this context are obvious. The nature and scope of interpersonal power available to participants for such use—and even for serious discussion of applied power—are not obvious. Yet, given the global nature of the worlds’ social organizations, understanding how power might be shared and the foundations upon which group members exercise power is vitally important. It represents a new dimension in understand- ing generic power, as well as enlarging our perception of how leadership is practiced in the twenty-first century.

POWER SHARING IN INTERCULTURAL GROUPS

The natural inclination is to think that power sharing occurs when those with the power grant power or access to power to others. This assumes a top-down approach to power, rather than a multidimensional image of power. It assumes that the only power to be had comes from the organization and is ipso facto a uni- lateral perception of the flow of power. This perspective may be useful in some settings, but it is an inaccurate and very limited view of power. Power sharing is sharing of the means for the exercise of power. It occurs in organizations when members each have at least some access to available power resources and the means to utilize those resources. Working from a multidimensional and multilat- eral perception, we can view power sharing taking place in organizations where members of the group each have access to contextually defined, appropriate, and available power resources, as well as the means to utilize those resources.

Power sharing in intercultural settings takes place when power is appor- tioned across cultural lines or between members representing different cultures—that is, different nationalities, genders, ethnicity, and so forth. Inter- cultural power use takes place within the constraints of the organizational goals and purposes and the differences in power accessibility appropriate to roles, skill sets, and specializations—that is, power sharing is made possible when group members have equal access and potential use of power, regardless of their

USING POWER IN MULTINATIONAL GROUPS 173

cultural or ethnic identity. Implementation of power sharing in this context, how- ever, is a problem. Notwithstanding the surfeit of power studies and—until now—given the scarcity of specific studies dealing with applied power use, no one has undertaken to frame their research in a multinational context. Swarr (2005) has done this. He outlines three power domains that delimit individual power—personal, organizational, and societal power fields—and lists a range of specific power units that delimit each of these three fields. As we exercise power in groups composed of members representing distinct national, ethnic, or reli- gious entities, understanding the composition of these three power fields and their descriptive characteristics will aid in our successful power use.

THE THREE POWER FIELDS

The power fields incorporate the two broad sources of power: personality and position, discussed in Chapter 4, and add another, societal or cultural. Per- sonal power is based upon the qualities or characteristics attributed to an indi- vidual that motivates others to submit to or follow his or her leadership. Position or organizational power is based in the office or role that the individ- ual holds apart from the characteristics of the person. Position is a source of power in that it makes available the institutional instruments of power usage within the organization. What these two frames of reference leave out are the broad cultural or societal factors which impact the power relationships charac- teristic of multinational groups. While previous models include sociocultural factors under the umbrella of position, aspects of the power situation such as gender and ethnicity have added weight in multinational groups. They, along with traditional personality and position frames of reference, help shape the power use dynamic.

Intercultural group members may show preference to those of their col- leagues who demonstrate a particular bias toward gender or ethnicity or some other factor peculiar to their culture. Given this situation, these cultural factors, when applied to the power user’s personality and place in the organization, may add something extra to, or detract from, members’ success in getting their way. The unique characteristics of a given social culture describe an additional field of potential power both practitioners and academics might use to assess power usage and measure individual success within the group.

Each of these three power fields influence the power dynamics between individuals within intercultural—and perhaps all—organizations. Each generic power field consists of a group of power factors that specifically characterize each individual in the power relationship. The combined effect of the individual power factors comprising the three power fields is analogous to the power field of a magnet or that caused by the orbits of the elements of an atom. Together, the three power fields constitute an integrated whole and present a total description of the factors contributing to individual power in organizations. Each field is

174 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

unique unto itself with its own characteristics. Yet each of these unique fields is in continuous interaction with the others so that together they compose an iden- tifiable whole.

POWER FACTORS

Understanding the sources of power is one thing; being able to analyze, meas- ure, and rate relative power use among participants is quite another. The job of breaking down each into its component factors has been the subject of some debate as to whether or not power can be divided into fields, the descriptive factors within each field, and how these factors can be used to measure power operationally. Some say this task is impossible (Crozier, 1964). Others suggest that, while it may be hard, it is essential to a full understanding of power in action (Pugh, 1984; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1981). This task asks the analyst to look beneath the generali- ties of each power source field and identify constituent parts of each field, quan- tify them, and then find at least a general method of rating relative possession of each power. The following power factors associated with each power field delimit and interpret each field in terms of measurable factors associated with individuals, the group in which they hold membership, and their intercultural character.

Identifying the power factors held by each member of a given intercultural group, quantifying how much of each factor each person possesses, and compar- ing their relative power provides members with a gauge of their relative power and suggest areas they may want to change—adding, strengthening, or lessening given factors—in order to increase the potential for personal or group goal attain- ment. This technology will also facilitate research to further elucidate power use. While not entirely precise—the process is subjective at each level—it holds promise for moving power study farther toward a precise determination of suc- cess in its use. In the meantime, it is a useful tool to let leaders and the led think more specifically about their power practices and to create strategies for improv- ing their expertise for themselves and for their organization.

Field testing of the following power factors associated with each power field validated their accuracy as descriptors of each field, the ability of group members to identify each fact in their own and their colleagues’ behaviors, and their utility as a basis for discussion aimed at improving individual and collective success. The power factors serve as indicators of the relative power of each group mem- ber and their power ranking vis-a-vis others.

Personal Power Factors

The personal power factors—and those of the other power fields—are derived form observation and surveys of the literature on power and on leadership attributes. The personal power factors listed below are presented in no particular

USING POWER IN MULTINATIONAL GROUPS 175

order of priority, since the priority will change from one cultural context to the other and from one power relationship to the next. It is, therefore, both unneces- sary and fruitless to array what obviously is an arbitrary and untrustworthy prior- ity ranking. The power factors in the personal power field include the following:

Judgment Competence People-friendly Education/training Confidence Expertise Physical appearance Articulate Motivation to lead Skilled in using power Trustworthy Personal dynamism Personal drive or initiative

The more an individual possesses of these power factors, the stronger his or her personal power. For example, if a person is perceived as trustworthy, it will increase their power base. However, the person may be trustworthy, but incompe- tent. The perceived incompetence will diminish the power base. Although in a given power situation any factor might be critical to success, each identifies a vital personality characteristic useful in exercising power. For example, judgment is the ability to know what ought to be done and when to do it. This is an important power determinant, because being perceived as having good judgment is essential to projecting another factor, say, trustworthiness. People will not follow those they do not see as honest and trustworthy enough to be able to make good decisions. Similarly, people trust competent people. The corollary is also true. People are more likely to follow and submit to someone they believe to have a high level of competence, who present him or herself as self-confident, and who inspire respect.

Several of these personality factors also potentially contribute to an individ- ual’s power capacity. Thus, socially adept people, those who are physically attrac- tive, articulate, and have the skills to convey that they value colleagues, draw power to themselves. These attributes are not to be confused with approachability because approachability and power do not necessarily go hand in hand. In some instances, lack of approachability may in fact increase ones perceived power. But a perceived inclination to get others to follow or to get others to work together toward a goal attracts power. Added to the above power factors, the ability and desire to take initiative—to act rather than react—to make things happen increases our power. People tend to follow us when they think we are ahead of them.

Finally, we can include in this cluster of personality factors the idea of personal dynamism. Different from either confidence or personal appearance, it is possible to have either of the others without having personal dynamism or presence. Per- sonal dynamism is the power to project ourself upon the situation and upon others in ways that communicates personal strength and leadership. Presence conveys not only vitality and intensity, but the ability and inclination to be in command.

Skill and expertise are also personal factors that, when needed and used skill- fully, help aggrandize power. Whether the education and/or training is actual or only perceived, when others see us as knowing more than they do, or possessing qualifi- cations they do not, it will increase our power potential. People are generally more

176 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

inclined to follow the lead of someone whom they think knows more or is more qual- ified than they are themselves. As discussed in Chapter 3, having a specialty or spe- cial expertise that is in demand is a power base in the same way that having access to financial resources is. This is also true for having skill in using power.

Organizational Power Factors

The following list of factors related to position or place within the organization is also taken from across the spectrum of literature, as well as from observation and logic. These are common sense categories in that they are obvious when one exam- ines them. However, they do not often fall into the category of common knowledge because they are not necessarily generally known. These factors include:

Possession of leadership positions or titles Access to information Access to persons in positions of power Freedom to allocate

resources Formal or informal access to communication Access to expertise

mechanisms Authority or freedom to make and implement Visibility

decisions Access to financial, material, or human Access to power symbols

resources Freedom to dispense rewards and consequences

Organization-related power factors, like the other field factors, do not lend themselves to priority ranking. Each can be critical to successful power use given the situation. Some factors seem logical and, when presented, obvious. Among these are factors such as access to leadership titles or roles, holding decision mak- ing authority, and being seen as having the freedom to make choices. Also, being accepted as a useful source for information or for allocating of resources or rewards supports our power use attempts. Having access to the instruments of communication or possessing a needed expertise gives their possessor a power “currency of trade” without which others cannot obtain their goals. Having con- trol of any or all of these factors makes the possessor powerful.

Being accepted as capable of exercising influence by virtue of these factors in our public persona—whether they are used or not—adds to our power. Merely being seen as having these factors, or even being recognized as the prime intermediary to others who are accepted as leaders, decision makers, experts, communication gatekeepers, or controlling symbols of power—such as access to a vehicle, a parking space, size or placement of office, access to keys, a clerical collar or garments, level of accommodation when traveling, position at a table, and so forth—conveys power. These vary from culture to culture and organization to organization, but are commonly recognized among colleagues.

USING POWER IN MULTINATIONAL GROUPS 177

Finally, visibility is an important power determinant. Being consistently at the right place at the right time so as to benefit from information, relationship with decision makers, allocation of resources, or formal and informal channels of communication communicates power. Memberships in committees, boards, clubs, and so forth also create the opportunity for visibility and name recognition and, hence, power.

Societal Power Factors

There are several factors in the societal power field that are unique to multi- national or intercultural groups. Although this cultural group shares the power potential in things such as customs and traditions, values, idiosyncratic behavior patterns and so forth, there is a special emphasis vis-a-vis power in characteristic factors such as the following:

Ethnicity Language Gender Background Age Societal structure Management position in a patriarchal hierarchical setting

Belonging to the dominant societal, ethnic, or national group in an interna- tional organization is a source of power. Those belonging to that group are gen- erally perceived and perceive themselves to be entitled to certain rights and leadership roles. Often, a subconscious understanding based in their society’s socialization process, affects individuals who may not be consciously aware of their special power status, but they behave in accordance with this subliminal fact. Those outside the inner circle or “in-group” are most often overtly aware of its reality. In North America, for example, Caucasians expect to have their rights honored and to be treated with respect and dignity. Minorities in America may desire and even demand to be treated in like manner, but they do not necessarily depend on being treated that way. The weight of the societal bias is in favor of the dominant group. It is important to note that the dominant group in the organiza- tion may not be the majority.

Factors other than ethnicity may provide the in-group with similar expecta- tions and deference conditioning their power success. Gender is one such factor. For example, being a Caucasian male in a group of African American females in North America can be a power detriment. Alternatively, effort to compensate for this kind of cultural bias results in the culturally subordinate group having the greater advantage. It is, therefore, necessary to determine which of these biases is in effect in the given setting. Similarly, age is a conditioning factor in intercultural groups. Cultures esteem age in different ways. In the East, as one advances in age, so does the esteem in which they are held. In North America youth is idolized. A key to power is being part of the age group most esteemed by the dominant group culture. And, obviously, being fully fluent in the language of the dominant culture is an important power determinant.

178 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Every society honors certain backgrounds more than others. Distinctions are often made on the basis of family background, social class, rank, titles, level of education, attending the “right” schools, religious affiliation, and so forth. For example, to be a Shiite Muslim in a Sunni-dominated organization, or to be a sec- ular Jew in an Orthodox Jewish organization, would be a useful background. In England or India, social rank or titles are strong cultural power determinants. Being from one of these minority backgrounds can, therefore, be enhancing our power potential, as does possessing a leader-like title, being the offspring of the “right” family, or having a place in a social, economic, or familial hierarchy. In life, societies range along a continuum, but the two ends of that continuum influ- ence individual power. In an egalitarian society all people are considered to be equal, and there is the opportunity for significant mobility within the social order. In the patriarchal or other hierarchical society, certain persons are more equal than others, such as royalty, nobility, the ruling elite, a certain tribe or ethnic group, and there is little opportunity for mobility between these social classes. An extreme example of the latter would be the caste system. But, given the societal situation, power flows to those possessing the dominant power factors. Just as in the two foregoing fields, not all of the factors in the societal power field will necessarily be present in every situation. It is important therefore to determine which are contex- tually applicable and which are not.

MEASURING POWER IN MULTINATIONAL GROUPS

Identifying specific factors affecting power use in multinational groups is a major step in fostering a better understanding of the power dynamic in such groups—and perhaps any group—since globalization has made almost all work groups at least partly intercultural. Determining who in a group possesses which power factors, and quantifying them in order to determine the more powerful from the less powerful, is another matter. It is obvious that each member in an organization has a certain repertoire of power factors within their control. By determining the presence or absence of these power factors in the individual’s repertoire, and the comparative strength of each power determinant, we are able to assess the relative power of that player in relation to others in the organization.

The Power Circle

David Swarr (2005) developed an interesting and useful analytical instru- ment in which group participants are questioned about their use or nonuse of each of the power factors in each of the three power fields. Participants completed a questionnaire for themselves and for each colleague. Individual power factors were given a numerical value. By averaging the values of all the participants’ responses regarding each individual, it was possible to determine the group’s per- ception of the overall power of that individual. This information was displayed

USING POWER IN MULTINATIONAL GROUPS 179

graphically on a chart composed of a series of concentric circles representing rel- evant power factors in each of the three power fields.

Segments of the circular chart are assigned to each group member and his or her self-ranking as well as their composite ranking vis-à-vis other group members; that is, the Power Circle shows and compares the power profile of each group mem- ber relative to his or her colleagues. In one place, participants and power use ana- lysts can see the characteristic of power used by an individual group, both the individual’s and the group’s rankings of each person’s power status, and the relative differences in power factors used within the group by each member. Extensively validated and field tested, this instrument provides practitioners with a useful tool for self- and group assessment. It is also a valuable aid for researchers to more pre- cisely quantify individual and group power in complex multinational organizations.

The circle also depicts the nonhierarchal nature of power. Since power is multifaceted, multilayered, and multidirectional within the social context of the organization, an organizational chart cannot adequately describe all the power dynamics of even a very small group. A circle is a better symbol to illustrate the social context and the multiple, interconnected power dynamics at work in any organizational context because it does not rank the participants solely by struc- tural factors. The Power circle displays all of the power factors at work within each of the power fields. It focuses and clarifies the power relations in the group graphically. This is done in a two-stage process. The first stage identifies each of the power players in the group, and the second stage relates each participant to their specific range of power factors.

This analytical tool has value both in the information contained in the com- pleted Power Circle and in the questioning process leading to its development. Additionally, the group interaction during the data collection phase breaks down barriers by bringing into the open issues that are normally not seriously examined even if they are mentioned. Several ancillary strengths of this innovative tool can be identified:

1. It provides a more complete theoretical framework to integrate individual power in organizations than any other instrument currently available, thus enabling organizational personnel, theoreticians, and practitioners to bet- ter understand the specifics of individual power in organizations.

2. The Power Circle provides a common language for discussing, analyzing, and interpreting individual power use in organizations.

3. It highlights specific power factors in play by each participant and devel- ops a specific, individual power profile for each actor in the group.

4. It brings to the discussion table the facts of individual power use and aids in understanding group power dynamics.

5. It points to specific remedial action participants can take to improve the overall effectiveness of individuals and the full group.

180 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Part III Issues and Activities

DISCUSSION ISSUES AND QUESTIONS

1. Based on your experience, what percentage of total recent power use is directed to coworkers who are subordinate to you? On a peer level? Above you on the organization chart? (The total should equal 100 percent.) Briefly, describe one or two situations in which you exercised power toward that group of targets with whom you used power least.

2. Of the nine power tactics used mostly by us toward peers—quid pro quo, allocating resources, forming coalitions, co-opting opposition members, incurring obligation, using a surrogate, controlling the agenda, brinkman- ship, and building a favorable image—select one and describe in detail how you used this tactic in a recent power interaction. What was the background situation? Why did you select this tactic from others? How did the target react? Overall, was this power use successful? If you had it to do again, would you select this tactic or another? Which? Why? Explain.

3. Refer to the data contained in Table 11.3 in Chapter 11. Based on the class of organization for which you work, compare and analyze these data against your overall experience in using power in that type of organization. Does this statistical data comport with your experience? Why? Why not?

4. Given your sex, analyze the data in Part III from the perspective of your expe- rience. What insights have you developed as a result of the information pro- vided in Part III?

5. The inner leader’s task is to allow the human “assets” with which they work to appreciate in value. Do you relate to coworkers with the understanding that self-directed action supports deep psychological needs people in work com- munities have?

6. Do you make use of all of the techniques of power usage in your relationships with your superiors? With your peers? Try to think of your personal uses of power—as opposed to the description found in Part III—and then answer the following questions: Which power techniques do you use most? Which are most consistently successful for you? Why?

7. How do you think your CEO feels about the idea of power being exercised in the middle of the organization and with the objective of securing the inner leader’s goals, not just corporate ones? Assuming the boss asked you about this “fact of organization life,” what would be your response? Use informa- tion from Part III in formulating your response.

8. Provide one example from your experience of an effective inner leader’s use of power in relationships with bosses, peers, and subordinates. Describe briefly one example of how that inner leader used his or her power to get you (or another person) to behave in ways he or she desired.

9. Do you recognize that coworkers will follow your lead if you empower them, teach them to do the community’s work, and let them govern themselves?

10. Inner leaders routinely engage in empowering techniques that support deeply held needs of people to be involved. Do you make specific effort to increase independent action of employees, expand their decision- making capacities, and more fully use their unique abilities in task accomplishment?

11. To be effective, the inner leader must develop the techniques of effective teaching: communicating to inform and persuading followers to cooperative, joint action. Are you willing to invest the time to develop professional, qual- ity, face-to-face, and other relationships with your coworkers?

12. Leaders learn to understand how people see the world, how they process information, and their preferred approach to problem solving and then use that information in their leadership. Do you use individual follower’s skills, knowledge, and other assets to their best advantage?

13. In coaching followers, leaders are in face-to-face relationships with follow- ers who are in the middle of work activity, so they can see what followers do, how they think, and what their problems are. Do you understand the peculiarities of your followers? Select a subordinate in your current work group and describe in detail the special skills, attitudes, and talents of that coworker. Prepare a work plan outlining how you plan to use your power

182 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

and his or hers to help that person become more valuable to you and your organization.

14. Do you take every opportunity to delegate to followers to the maximum degree of their competence? Why? Why not?

15. What is there in the act of delegation that might redound to your detriment and undermine your place in the firm? Are these unfounded fears or potential risks to your status? Explain.

16. Leading self-governing work communities requires a kind of leadership orientation particularly adapted to leadership in the middle—one that priori- tizes the idea of service and stewardship.

ACTIVITIES

Activity 1: Dimensions of Inner Leadership

Instructions: Understanding inner-level leadership is more difficult than under- standing some past models. As a way to get in touch with the dimensions of this model, complete the following activity.

1. Concentrate on those elements and feelings involved in the inner-leadership model.

2. After you have analyzed your understanding of this method of leadership, make a drawing depicting inner leadership.

• Use pictures, diagrams, colors, words, numbers, and so on to create a visual object that represents what you know about inner leadership.

• Be expressive and creative in your drawing so that what they indicate will aid you and, perhaps, others to understand the dimensions of inner leader- ship more fully.

3. After you have completed the “creative” aspect of this assignment, prepare a written analysis and explanation of what you have drawn.

4. Share both the drawing and your analysis with a professional colleague or friend.

Activity 2: Blocks to Empowerment

Introduction: This activity is designed to help participants recognize the readi- ness of the work community and its members to accept empowerment and to recognize the potential blocks to its implementation.

PART III ISSUES AND ACTIVITIES 183

1. Complete the following questionnaire.

2. For each question, think about the current state of your work community or department and tell what it is.

3. Check the appropriate box.

Yes No

1 Is your work community undergoing major change and transition?

2 Is your work community a startup or new venture?

3 Is your work community facing increasing competitive pressures?

4 Is your work community a hierarchical bureaucracy?

5 Is the predominant leadership in your work community authoritarian and top down?

6 Is there a great deal of negativism, such as rehashing and focus on failure?

7 Are employees provided with reasons for the work community’s decisions and actions?

8 Are performance expectations and goals clearly stated?

9 Are goals realistic and achievable?

10 Are rewards clearly tied to performance or the accomplishment of work community goals and mission?

11 Are rewards based on competence and accomplishments?

12 Is innovation encouraged and rewarded?

13 Are there many opportunities for participation?

14 Are most tasks routine and repetitive?’

15 Are resources generally appropriate for performing the tasks?

16 Are opportunities for interaction with senior management limited?

Scoring key: For questions 1–6, 14, and 16, score a 1 if you have marked “Yes,” and a 0 if you have checked “No.” For question 7–13 and 15, give a score of 0 to “Yes” responses and a 1 to “No.”

Analysis: The maximum possible score is 16. The closer you have rated your work community to that maximum score, the less ready it is for implementation

184 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

of empowerment. An analysis of individual items can point to specific blocks to the implementation of empowerment.

1. What are the key blocks to empowerment in your workplace?

2. What is the role of the leader in empowering the team? List as many empow- erment tasks as you can.

3. How is expertise in using power part of this task?

Activity 3: Coaching

Instructions: Coaching includes training and developing followers to both accept and apply the leader’s vision and values connotations into the work they do (O’Toole, 1996). Coach-leaders focus on helping followers understand the vision and its values context, to accept these values as their own, and to apply the goals inherent in the vision as they perform their work. The result is that the work com- munity becomes more cohesive and the order, productivity, and unity that emerges becomes a practical extension of the leader’s values context. If leaders do not teach their values and vision, other values and a different vision will guide the organization and work against the leader’s purposes.

1. Respond to the following questions:

• Do I understand my role as a coach in the work community? Explain.

• Have I developed the skills to share power with coworkers in ways that others can understand and adopt? Give several examples of your power sharing behavior that illustrate your perspectives here.

• Do I take the time and the many opportunities I have to train and develop my coworkers to use their power, collaborate with others in joint power use, and accept coworkers’ actions even though they may produce a different result than I intended?

• Do I encourage shared power use among my coworkers?

2. Develop an action plan to increase your skill as a coach-leader, focusing on how you can better share power with coworkers, whether bosses, peers, or subordinates.

Activity 4: Delegation for Self-governance

Introduction: A key to self-governance is for leaders to learn to delegate parts of the leadership task to followers. This task is more a psychological exercise than the procedural one, but implicit in any delegation is the leader’s attitude toward power.

PART III ISSUES AND ACTIVITIES 185

Using the following scale, rate yourself to indicate how much you agree with the following items:

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

___ 1 I can do most jobs better and faster than my coworkers.

___ 2 Most of my tasks cannot be delegated to my coworkers.

___ 3 Most of my coworkers do not have the appropriate skill levels to do the tasks that I could delegate to them.

___ 4 I feel uncomfortable delegating many of my tasks to coworkers.

___ 5 I am responsible for my coworkers’ mistakes, so I might as well do the task myself.

___ 6 If my coworkers do too many of my tasks, I may not be needed any longer.

___ 7 Explaining things to coworkers and training them often takes too much time.

___ 8 My coworkers already have too much work to do; they can’t handle any more.

___ 9 If my coworkers do the tasks, I will lose touch and be out of the loop.

___ 10 I need to know all the details of a task before I can delegate to my coworkers.

Total ______

Scoring key:Your total score should be between 10 and 50. The higher your score, the less inclined you are to encourage self-governance, since you agree with many of the common excuses used by managers to not delegate tasks to their coworkers.

1. If feasible, compare your raw score with that of other colleagues.

2. What conclusions can you draw from this comparison about your capacity to promote self-governance within your work community?

3. What conclusions can you draw from this comparison about your capacity to share power with coworkers?

4. What are some of the most important elements of delegation for self- governance? How important is your willingness (or lack of willingness) to share power? Discuss.

186 ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

Activity 5: Images of Self Governance Leadership

Introduction: One way to clarify our assumptions about shared governance lead- ership is to use images to describe an ideal leader. Through the use of pictures, diagrams, or other physical representations, we can visualize this concept as a way to help us understand our views of the role of leaders in self-governing work communities. Making a pictorial image also helps us solidify our expectations and image of leadership generally, and shared governance leadership in particu- lar. These images reflect our personal theories of self-governing leadership. For example, viewing leaders as facilitators presents a very different image from viewing them as parents. Thinking of the leader’s as being “in charge” conjures up ideas far different than thinking of our leadership in service terms.

1. Choose an image to represent your ideal of self-governing leadership. After drawing the image, list the most important factors guiding your thought about that image. Be sure to include ideas about the relative power of both leader and led—possession, use, effectiveness, and so on.

2. Using any available art form, draw a picture or diagram of your preferred image of a leader.

3. Think about the images you have just drawn. Share your images with others as a way to clarify its implication about your view of self-governing leadership.

4. Discuss implications of your images on:

• Your leadership style

• Your underlying attitude toward sharing power

• The impact on your work community culture and structure of these attitudes

• Your compatibility with current or past leaders in your work community

• Potential shortcomings of each image

PART III ISSUES AND ACTIVITIES 187

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix

The following table summarizes the demographic details of the questionnaire respondents completed that formed the basis—along with observations and interviews—of the first edition. Additional materials from contemporary research are reported on in the chapters forming this second edition of Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership.

Table A Demographics of Power Study Respondents*

Total Respondents: 109

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS Sex: male 71 female 36 Age: >40 <40 Years of experience: >1 yr 11 1–5 yrs 46 <5 yrs 56 Supervision some 86 none 23 Job attitudes boring 17 exciting 90

ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT Organization kind business 30 education 11

government 55 nonprofit 10 Type of organization product 21 service 70

professional-clerical-technical 15

Organization size >100 workers 101–1000 workers <1000 workers Size of work unit >11 people 11–50 people <50 people

*Source: Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, Praeger, 1993.

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

Abrahams, R. (1989). Maria’s macho: Demythologizing power in male-female relations: A critique of machismo-marianismo complex. Vakgroep CANSA Culturele Antropologie, University of Amsterdam, 8(3), 42–52.

Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. In H. L. Ansbacher, & R. R. Ansbacher (Eds.). New York: Basic Books.

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 90(5), 945–955.

Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P., & Mayes, B. T. (1979). Organi- zational politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors. California Management Review, 22(1), 475–483.

Allen, R. W., & Porter, L. W. (1983). Organizational influence processes. New York: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Arndt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Azim, A., Boseman, N., & Glenn, F. (1975). An empirical typology of power and involve-

ment within a university setting. Academy of Management Journal, December, 18. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1972). Two faces of power. American Political Science

Review, 56, 947–952. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and poverty: Theory and practice. New York:

Oxford University Press. Backerach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1986), Power dependence and power paradoxes in

bargaining, Negotiation Journal, 2(2), 167–174. Barbuto, J. E. Jr., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. (2002). A field examination of two measures of

work motivation as predictors of leaders’ influence tactics. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(5), 601–616.

Barnard, C. I. (1948). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Barnes, K. (2005). Active influence. Leadership Excellence, 22(3), 12–13. Bass, B. (1981). Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B., Wurster, C. R., & Alcock, W. A. (1963). A test of the proposition: We want to be

esteemed most by those we esteem most highly. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 63, 650–653.

Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization—The human consequences. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bennis, W. G. (1966). Changing organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper

& Row. Bennis, W., & Townsend, R. (1995). Reinventing leadership. New York: William Morrow

and Company. Bell, D. V. J. (1975). Power, influence and authority: An essay in political linguistics. New

York: Oxford University Press. Benne, K., & Chin, R. (Eds.). (1961). The planning of change: Readings in applied

behavior science. New York: Holt. Berle, A. (1959). Power. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bierstadt, R. (1950). An analysis of social power. American Sociological Review, 15,

730–733. Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-Interest. San Francisco:

Berrett-Koehler. Brannen, L. (2005). The tone at the top. Business Finance, 11(3), 14–15. Cartright, D. (1965). Influence, leadership, control. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of

organizations. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Cavanaugh, G. F., Moberg, D. J., Velasques, M. (1981). The ethics of organizational

politics. The Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 423–439. Chandler, W. M., Cox, G. W., & McCubbin, M. D. (2006). Agenda control in the

Bundestag (1980–2002). German Politics, 15(1), 89–111. Cialdini, R. (1984). The triggers of influence. Psychology Today, September, 1984, 40–45. Coenen, L., & Hofstra, N. A. (1988). Informational choice: The development of systems-

related power in organizations. Sociological Abstracts, Association Paper. Coleman, P. T. (2004). Implicit theories of organizational power and priming effects on

managerial power-sharing decisions: An experimental study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 297–321.

Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2, 201–215. ______. (1961). Who governs? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., & Cazale, L. (1994). Leadership and strategic change under

ambiguity. Academy of Management Proceedings, 14, 203–207. Desmond, Morris. The Human Zoo. New York: McGrawHill. 1969. Doktor, K. (1982). Power, management and leadership in organizations. Studia Socjologiczne,

1–2(84–85), 195–210. Drucker, P. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York:

HarperBusiness.

192 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dunn, R. L. (2000). A special trust, plant engineering. Barrington, 54(1), 10. Duke, J. T. (1976). Conflict and power in social life. Provo, UT: Brigham Young Univer-

sity Press. Duncan, W. S., Smiltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. (1990) Humor and work: Applications of jok-

ing behavior in management, Journal of Management, 16(2), 255–78. Editor. (2005). Organization development & change conference paper abstracts. Academy

of Management Proceedings, January, 2005, 1–33. Eiser, B. J. A., Eiser, A. R., & Parmer, M. A. (2006). Power of persuasion: Influence tactics

for health care leaders. Leadership in Action, 26(1), 3–7. Emerson, R. M. (1962), Power dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 43,

31–41. Etzioni, A. (1961). A comprehensive analysis of complex organizations. New York: The

Free Press. Fairholm, G. W. (1984). Sixteen power tactics principles can use to improve management

effectiveness. National Association of Secondary Schools Principals, Bulletin. 68, 68–75.

______. (1991). Values leadership: Toward a philosophy of leadership. New York: Praeger Publishers.

______. (1993). Organizational power politics: Tactics in organizational leadership. Westport, CT:Praeger.

______. (1994). Leadership in a culture of trust. New York: Praeger. ______. (2001). Mastering inner leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. ______. (2003). Techniques of inner leadership. Westport, CT. Quorum Books. Fairholm, M. R. (2002). Conceiving leadership: Exploring five perspectives of leadership

by municipal managers. Washington, DC: The George Washington University. Falbo, T. (1977). Multi-dimensional scaling of power strategies. Journal of Personnel

Social Psychology. 35, 537–547. Falbo, T., New, B. L., & Gaines, M. (1987). Perceptions of authority and the power strate-

gies used by clergymen. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26(4), 499–507. Fisher, F., (2007). The twelve competencies: Leadership training for local government

officials. National Civic Review, 96(2), 28–35. Follert, V. (1983). Supervisors’ power: An exchange model of leadership. Psychological

Reports, 52(3), 740. Follett, M. P. (1942). Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker

Follett. In H. C. Metcalf, & L. Urwick (Eds.) New York: Harper & Brothers. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). Studies in social power (pp. 150–165). D.

Cartwright (Ed.) Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Frost, P. J., & Hayes, D. C. (1979). An exploration in two cultures of a model of political behavior in organizations. Organizational functioning in a cross-culture perspective. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Frost, P. J., Mitchell, V. E., & Nord, W. R. (1982). Organizational reality: Reports from the firing line. New York: Scott, Foresman and Co.

Gandhi, R. (2001). Management of power: The approach of Mahatma Gandhi (pp. 148–165). In S. Chakraborty, & P. Bhattacharya (Eds.), Leadership and power. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Gardner, J. W. (1964). Self-renewal: The individual and the innovative society. New York: Harper Colphon Books.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 193

Geller, E., S. (2002). Leadership to overcome resistance to change: It takes more than con- sequence control. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(3), 47–55.

Gellerman, S. W. (1963). Motivation and productivity (p. 109). American Management Association. New York: AMACOM.

Gittlen, S. (2006). Three easy ways to get more powerful. Network World, 23(50), 32–42. Goldhammer, H., & Shils, E. A. (1972). Types of power and status. American Journal of

Sociology, 45, 171–182. Goltz, S. M., & Hietapelto, A. (2002). Using the operant and strategic contingencies

models of power to understand resistance to change. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(3), 3.

Goodstadt, B. E., & Hjelle, L. A. (1973). Power to the powerless: Locus of control and the use of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(2), 144–154.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

Gordon, R. D. (2002). Conceptualizing leadership with respect to its historical-contextual antecedents to power. Sydney, Australia: School of Management, University of Technology.

Grandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980) The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 23(2), 237–251, 440–454.

Gragnolati, B., & Stupak, R. (2002). Life and liberty: The power of positive purpose. Journal of Health & Human Services Administration, 25(1/2), 75–88.

Grimes, A. J. (1978). Authority, power, influence and social control: A theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, October, 1978, 724–735.

Handy, C. B. (1976). Understanding organizations. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. Hartsock, N. C. M. (1983). Money, sex and power. New York, Longman. Helgesen, S. (2008). New sources of power. Leadership excellence, 25(5), 6. Heenan, D. A., & Bennis, W. (1999). How to be a great no. 2. Across the Board, 36(7),

38–42. Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. R., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings, J. M. (1971).

A strategic contingencies’ theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 16(2), 33–52.

Hogan, R. (2008) The paradox of power. Conference Board Review, 45(3), 10. Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relationships.

New York: The Free Press. Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace. ______. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63,

597–606. Howard, D. W. (1982). Power: Its nature, its use and its limits. Cambridge, MA:

Schenkaran. Hughes, R., & Beatty, K. (2005). Five steps to leading strategically. T+D, 59(12), 46–48. Hunter, F. (1959). Top leadership, USA. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina

Press. Hysong, S. J. (2008). The role of technical skill in perceptions of managerial performance.

Journal of Management Development, 27(3), 275–290. Jurkiewicz,, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1995). The p/e ratio that really counts, Charlotte, NC:

Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Johnson, L. K. (2005). How to lead when your influence goes off the (org) chart. Harvard

Management Update, 9(5), 3–4.

194 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kaplan, A. Power and conflict in organizations. New York: Basic Books. 1964. Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review,

July/August, 1979. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston:

Harvard Business School Press. Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics:

Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440–452. Korda, M. (1975). Power! How to get it, how to use it. New York: Ballantine Books. Kotter, J. P. (1977). Power, dependence and effective management. Harvard Business

Review, July/August, 125–136. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1995). 4 ways to share power and strengthen your staff, Execu-

tive Female, 18(5), 16. Krech, D., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1948). Theory and problems of social psychology. New

York: McGraw-Hill Co. Kreiger, L., & Stern, F. (Eds.). (1968). The responsibilities of power. London: MacMillian. Krupp, S. (1961). Pattern in organization analysis. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Kuhl, S., Schnelle, T., & Tillman, F. (2005). Lateral leadership: An organizational

approach to change. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 177–189. Kuhn, T. R., & Graham, J. H. (2005). Let leadership be your guide. Association Manage-

ment, 57(1), 8. Kulwiec, R. (2001). Self-managed work teams–reality or fad? Material Handling

Management, January, 2001, 15–22. Laeyendecker, L. (1989). Resistance to change in the religious institution. The Netherlands

Journal of Social Sciences, 25(1), 4–17. Lasswell, H. D., & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press. Leavitt, H. J. (1980). Managerial Psychology (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago

Press. Lee, J. A. (2000). Perspectives in leader effectiveness. In P. Hersey, & J. Stinton (Eds.),

Leader Power. The Center for Leadership Studies. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Levenson, H. (1968) The exceptional executive: A psychological conception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lodge, G. C. (1995). Managing globalization in an age of interdependence. San Diego: Pfeiffer and Company.

Lombardi, V. H. (2000). Coaching for teamwork, Financial Services Advisor, 143(4), 40–41.

Maccoby, M. (1981), The leader. New York: Simon and Schuster. McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power, the inner experience. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. McKeachie, W. J. (1969). Teaching tips: A guidebook for the beginning college teacher.

Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. McKinney, J. B., & Howard, L. C. (1979). Public administration: Balancing power and

accountability. Oak Park, IL: More Publishing Co. McMurray, R. N. (1973). The maverick executive. New York: AMACOM. McMurray, R. N. (2000), Power and the ambitious executive. Harvard Business Review,

5(6).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 195

McNeilly, M. (2008). George Washington’s innovative leadership: Lessons executives can learn from America’s first commander-in-chief. Strategy & Leadership, 36(2), 51–53.

Madison, D. L., Allen, R. W., Porter, L. W., Renwich, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1980). Organizational politics: An exploration of managers’ perceptions, Human Relations, 33(2), 455–474.

Magnun, M. (2005). People power. Canadian Business, 78, 125–126. Maslow, A. (1971). The further reaches of human nature. Middlesex, England: Penguin

Books. Marquardt, M. (2007). The POWER of great questions. T+D, 61(2), 92–93. May, Rollo. (1972) Power and innocence. New York: W. W. Norton. Mayes, B. T., & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. The

Academy of Management Review, 2(4), 672–678. Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 7(2), 349–364.. Merrell, V. D. (1979). Huddling: The informal way to management success. New York:

AMACOM. Metzger, N. (1987). Beyond survival to excellence. The Health Care Supervisor, 5(2),

102–113. Michner, A., & Schwartfeger, M. (1972). Liking as a determinant of power tactic prefer-

ence. Sociometry, 35, 190–202. Miliband, D. (March 4, 2008). Speech, at the FCO Leadership Conference in London. Millet, P., & Sandberg, K. W. (2005). Time for change: Can empowerment be a solution to

meet the perils of modern-day working life? Work, 24, 291–295. Mills, C. W. (1957). The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Molm, L. D. (1990). Structure, action and outcomes: The dynamics of power in social

exchange. American Sociological Review, 55(3), 427–447. Morris, D. (1969). The human zoo. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Moscovici, S. (1974). Social influence I: Conformity and social control (pp. 179–216). In

C. Nemeth (Ed.), Social psychology: Classical and contemporary integrations. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Mueller, R. K. (1970). Risk, survival and power. New York: AMACOM. Neustadt, R. E. (1960). Presidential power: The politics of leadership. New York: John

Wiley & Sons. Nord, W. R. (1978). Dreams of humanization and the realities of power. The Academy of

Management Review, 3(3), 674–679. Nyberg, D. (1981). Power over power. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press. O’Brian, C., & Banech, W. D. (1969). Power and consciousness. New York: New York

University Press. O Day, R., (1974). Intimidation rituals: Reaction to reform, The Journal of Applied Behav-

ioral Science, 10(3), 373–386. Owen, A. (2000). Reconsidering the higher-order legitimacy of French and Raven’s bases

of social power in the information age. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. Peck, M. (2006). Leadership and relationship. Journal of Financial Planning, 19(8)8. Pelz, D. C. (1952). Influence: A key to effective leadership in the first-line supervisor.

Personnel, 209. Patchen, M. (1974). The locus and basis of influence on organizational decisions.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 11, 195–221. Petersen, D. (2005). The power of perceptions. Industrial Safety & Hygiene News, 39(12), 50.

196 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104–112.

______. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pittman Publishing Co. Plas, J. M. (1996). Person-centered leadership: An American approach to participatory

management. London: Sage. Plott, C. R., & Levine, M. E. (1978). A model of agenda influence on committee decisions.

American Economic Review. 68, 146–160. Popejoy, B. (2004). A question of leadership. Leadership in Action, 24, 32–51. Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in

organizations (pp. 408–422). In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Shaw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 3. Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.

Pugh, D. S. (1984). Organization theory. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. Rickards, T. (2000). Trust-based leadership: Creative lessons from intelligent horseman-

ship. Creativity & Innovation Management, 9(4), 259–266. Robison, J. (2008). The five stages of workplace tribes. Gallup Management Journal

Online, 5, 7–11. Rose, A. M. (1967). The power structure. New York, Oxford. Rosen, S., Levinger, G., & Lippitt, R. (1961). Perceived sources of social power. Journal

of Abnormal Social Psychology, 62, 439–441. Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger. Rubinoff, L. (1968). The pornography of power. New York: Ballantine Books. Russell, B. (1938). Power: A new social analysis. New York: Norton. Ryan, L. (2000). Moral aspect of executive leadership. International Journal of Value

Based Management, 13(1), 109–122. Safty, A. (2003). Moral leadership. Harvard International Review, 25(3), 84–89. Salacuse, J. W. (2007). Real leaders negotiate. Harvard Management Update, 12(6), 2–3. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1981). Who gets power—and how they hold on to it.

A strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 52, 71–79. Sankar, Y. (2003). Character not charisma is the critical measure of leadership excellence.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 45–55. Schermerhorn, R. A. (1961). Society and power. New York: Random House. Schneider, S. C., & Barsoux, J. L. (1998). Managing across cultures. London: Prentice

Hall. Serven, L. M. (2002). The end of office politics as usual: A complete strategy for creating

a more productive and profitable organization. New York: AMACOM. Sik Hung, N. (1980). The social psychology of power. New York: Academic Press. Simon, H. A. (1957). The models of man. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Siu, R. G. (1979) The craft of power. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Smith, C. G., & Tannenbaum, A. S. (1963). Organizational control structure and member

consensus. Human Relations, 16, 265–272. Strutton, D. (2004). The courtly path to managerial leadership. Business Horizons, 47(1), 7. Stupak, R. J., & Leitner, P. M. (2001). Managers and leaders: An active strategy for under-

standing and using power. Journal of Power and Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Review, 2(2), 130–143.

Swarr, D. E. (2005). Individual power in organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wales.

Szilagyl, A. D., & Wallace, M. J. Jr. (1983). Organizational behavior and performance. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 197

Telford, D., & Gostick, A. (2005). The real power of integrity. Electric Light & Power, 83(5), 38.

Tepper, B. J. (1993). Patterns of downward influence and follower conformity in transac- tional and transformational leadership. Academy of Management Proceedings, December, 1993, 267–271.

Truskie, S. D. (1999). Leadership in high performance organizational cultures. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Wagner, K. V., & Swanson, C. (1979). From Machiavelli to ms: Differences in male-

female power styles. Public Administration Review, Jan/Feb. Wakefield, M. (2006). New views on leadership coaching. Journal for Quality & Partici-

pation, 29(2), 9–12. Witham, D. C., & Glover, J. D. (1987). Recapturing commitment. Training and Development

Journal, 4(4), 42–45. Weber, M. (1968). On charisma and institution building. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press. White, J. (1990). Helping themselves to power: The burgeoning of women in leisure

management. Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Birmingham, England: University of Birmingham, B-15.

Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: The Free Press. Wrong, D. H. (1970). Power: Its forms, bases and uses. New York: Harper. Yap, O. F. (2006). Agenda control, intraparty conflict and government spending in Asia:

Evidence from South Korea and Taiwan. Academy of Management Proceedings 2005, 10.

Yukl, Gary A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Yukl, G. A., & Becker, W. S. (2006). Effective empowerment in organizations. Organization

Management Journal, 3(3), 210–231. Zald, M. N. (Ed.). (1970). Power in organizations. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

198 BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

Action idea, 5, 8, 56 Administrative behavior, 39 Agenda, control of, 111 Alignment theory, xxiii Allocating resources, 59, 61,104 Ambiguity, 59, 61, 94 Ambivalence, xxviii Archetypical power forms, 24

authority, 16 force, 17 influence, 21 manipulation, 18 persuasion, 20 threat/promise, 19

Association, 69 Authority, 12, 16, 17, 32

Bases of power, 24–30 centrality, 29, 68 charisma, 5, 9, 29, 60 coercive power, 25 control over rewards, 24 criticality, 27 expert power, 26 identification with powerful others, 26 legitimate power, 25 referent power, 24

reward power, 24 right to command, 25 social organization, 28 use of power, 29. See also Power

Basic power model, 12, 47, 56 Behavior in organizations, 24, 34 Brinkmanship, 59, 61, 113 Building a favorable image, 59, 61,

95–96, 114

Centrality, 29, 68 Change, 64, 66, 67, 71, 73, 85, 88, 96, 101 Charisma, 29, 59, 60 Coaching, 163–164

methods of, 165–167 Coalitions, 106 Coercion, 12, 15 Coercive force, 25 Compliance, 15 Conformance to group norms, 69 Consent, 12, 15 Contingency theory, xxiii, xxiv, xxvii Control

over agenda, 59, 60 111 of decision criteria, 59, 60 over rewards, 24 over scarcity, 53

Co-opting, 59, 60, 107 Criticality, 27 Culture, multinational, 173–180 Customary behavior, 131

Decision criteria, controlling, 59, 60 Decision situation, 51, 59 Definition of power, 1, 3–10, 11, 36 Delegation, 162 Demographics of power users, 189 Dependency, 5, 8, 32 Developing others, 59, 60, 120 Discretion, 68 Dispensing rewards, 59, 61, 122 Displaying charisma, 59, 60, 70–72,

90–92 Domination, 55

Effectiveness comparisons, 84, 136–137, 141–147

Empowerment, 160 challenging work, 162 delegating, 162 energizing, 163 follower roles, 163 goal setting, 162 self-reliance, 163 techniques, 163 workers, 162

Energy, 105 Ethical comparisons, 136, 137, 141, 147 Ethics, xxiv Exchange, 68 Exchange theory, xxii Expectations, 69 Expert power, 26 Expertise, 26

Financial resources, use in power, 105 Finite, 5, 9 Follower self-governance, 167 Force, 12, 16 Formal organizations, 32 Forming coalitions, 59, 60, 106 Forms of power, 11, 12, 16

authority, 12, 16, 17, 32 force, 12, 16 influence, 21

manipulation, 18 persuasion, 24 threat/promise, 19

Frequency comparisons, 134–136,142, 148

Friendship, 107, 132

History, xvii, 71 Humor, 73

Identification with powerful others, 26 Image, 95–96, 114 Impact process, 12, 13

coercion, 15 compliance, 15 consent, 15 personality, 14 position, 13 power as an, 12

Incurring obligation, 59, 60, 109, 131 Information control, 131 Information use in power, 105 Influence, 4, 12, 23, 35 Inner leadership, 84, 155–169

coaching, 163 coaching methods, 165 empowerment, 160 techniques, 157 using power, 156

Instrumental, 5, 6 Intentional, 5 Interdependent relationships, 6, 33 Interventions, power, 36, 62, 63, 64, 83,

102, 131 Intimidation, 130

Leadership, ix, 4, 33, 35, 36, 66. See also Inner leadership

Legitimacy, 69, 94, 108, 117, 125, 149, 158

Legitimate power, 25 Legitimate right to command, 59, 60 Legitimizing control, 59, 60

Manipulation, 12, 18 Men, how they use power, 97, 133,

147–153 Multicultural, 84, 173–180

200 INDEX

Multinational group, power, 84, 173–180

measuring of, 179 power circle, 179 power fields, 174 power factors, 175–179 power sharing, 173

Neglect, xxxi Non-supervisors, 88, 90, 94, 97, 98, 104,

110 Normative power, 72

Obligation, 59, 60, 132 Office politics, 1, 2, 134, 156, 167. See

also Organizational politics Opposition, 5, 7 Organizational placement, 59, 61, 126 Organizational politics, ix, 31, 36, 37, 71,

85 Organizational structuring, 34 Organizational theory, xx Outside experts, using, 59, 60, 88

Peers, 63, 84, 101–144 Personal characteristics, 69 Personal factors, 51, 54

freedom, 33, 54 functional components, 56 importance, 54

Personal status, 89 Personality, 14 Persuasion, 12, 20, 93 Planning, 71 Political behavior, 38, 39 Position, 13 Power. See also Bases of power; Forms of

power; Targets of power archetypical forms, 24 coercive, 12, 15, 72 emotional impacts, xiv ethics of, xiii, xxiv expectation, 69 faces of, xii history of, xiv, xxx an impact process, 12, 13, 42, 73 importance of, vii, xxxii, 3 interventions, 36, 63, 64, 82, 83, 102,

131

issues and activities, 41–46, 77–82, 181–187

legitimate, xiv limits, 66 and organizational politics, 36, 37 political, xvii, 31 practical, ix purposes of, xvi reasons for use, 66 in religion, 31 self–esteem, 33 situation, 5, 7, 51, 52 theory, viii ubiquity, xii, xxx, 65 use, viii, 156

Power in political theory, 31 Power interventions, 83 Power theory, xiv Power use

effectiveness of use, 96, 98 ethics of use, 98 extent of, 62 by gender, 147–153 in inner leadership, 155–169 model, 49–51 in multinational groups, 171 by organizational type, 134, 141 resistance to use, 67 strategy, 47 styles of use, 99–100 tactics, 47

Praise, 25, 103, 109, 132 Proactivity, 59, 61, 87–88

Quid pro quo, 59, 61, 103

Rationalization, 59, 61, 92–94 Referent power, 24–25 Relationships, 35, 85, 134 Remunerative power, 72 Resistance to power use, 67 Resources, allocating, 59, 61, 104 Results of power use, 5, 10, 67 Reward, dispensing of, 59, 61, 122 Reward power, 24 Ritualism, 59, 61, 130

Scarcity, 7, 30, 50–53, 157, 174

INDEX 201

Self-esteem, xx, 33 Situational factors, 5, 7, 51, 52, 67 Social organization, 28 Social theory, xv, xviii Status, 69 Strategy, 70–75 Style comparisons, 133–141, 145–153

classification by organization, 141 by gender, 147–153 by supervisors and non-supervisors,

142, 146 toward peers, 63, 87, 92, 97, 101–115 toward subordinates, 63, 86 toward superiors, 63, 85–100

Subordinates, 63, 86, 117–132 Successful use of power, vii

association, 69 centrality, 68 discretion, 68 exchange, 68 group norms, 69 legitimization, 69 personal characteristics, 69 personal styles, 69

Superiors, 63, 85–100, 117–132 Surrogates, using of, 59, 61, 110 Symbols, using, 59, 61, 128

Tactic use by supervisors and non-supervisors, 133–141

Tactics, 57, 58–60, 87–100, 102, 118, 133–141

extent of use, 62, 63 Tactics used toward peers, 63, 84,

101–144 Tactics used toward subordinates, 63, 84,

117–132 Tactics used toward superiors, 63, 84,

85–100 Targets of power, viii, 62, 74, 83 Techniques, 134, 157, 163 Threat/promise, 12, 19 Training and orienting others, 59, 61, 118 Twenty-two power tactics, 59, 60–61, 136 Two faces of power, xii, xxviii, 33

Understanding of power use, vii Use of power, 3, 29, 65, 72, 156 Use of rewards, 59, 61 Use of surrogates, 59, 61, 110 Using ambiguity, 59, 60, 94–95 Using outside experts, 59, 61, 88 Using symbols, 59, 61, 128

Women, 97, 133, 147–153

202 INDEX