Business & Finance I need a term assignment completed by 16 April 2025

13

Power and Politics

AFTER STUDYING THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:

Learning Objectives

Contrast leadership and power.

Explain the three bases of formal power and the two bases of personal power.

Explain the role of dependence in power relationships.

Identify power or influence tactics and their contingencies.

Identify the causes and consequences of abuse of power.

Describe how politics work in organizations.

Identify the causes, consequences, and ethics of political behavior.

Power and Leadership

In organizational behavior (OB), power simply refers to the capacity, discretion, and means to enforce one’s will over others.1

Someone can thus have power but not use it; a powerful person has discretion over

when to exercise their power. Probably the most important aspect of power is that it is

a function of dependence . 2 The more people rely or depend upon the powerful person

(who controls something the others rely on or want), the more powerful that person

becomes. When people begin to have more alternatives and options, or begin to rely on

themselves or different people, the powerful person loses power.

Power

The capacity, discretion, and means to enforce one’s will over others.

Dependence

The extent to which people depend or rely upon a powerful person.

A careful comparison of our description of power with our descriptionof leadership of

leadership in the previous chapter reveals that the concepts are closely intertwined.

How are the two terms different? Power does not require goal compatibility, just

dependence. Leadership, on the other hand, requires some congruence between the goals

of the leader and those being led. A second difference relates to the direction of

influence. Power

Unfortunately, we all too often hear about people using their power to unethical ends.

For example, people depend upon executives, managers, and even employee “superstars”

(e.g., a partner in a law firm who brings in lucrative clients) for promotions, pay raises,

or bringing in customers/clientele. These powerful leaders are thus unjustly

empowered to enforce their will over others in several ways, including sexual

harassment.3 Sexual harassment is a huge problem, adversely affecting employees’

mental and physical health and opportunities for advancement as well as costing

organizations millions of dollars in legal fees and employee turnover.4

focuses more so on the downward influence on followers. It minimizes the importance

of lateral and upward relationships, which are important in leadership. For a third

difference, leadership research often emphasizes style. It seeks answers to questions

such as: How supportive should a leader be? How much decision making should be shared

with followers? In contrast, the research on power focuses on tactics for gaining

compliance.

Power relationships are possible in all areas of life, not just leadership positions,

and power can be obtained in many ways. Let us explore the various sources of power

next.

Bases of Power

Formal Power

Formal power is based on an individual’s position in an organization. It can come from the

ability to coerce or reward, or from legitimate authority.

Coercive Power

The coercive power base depends on the target’s fear of negative results from failing to

comply, or acting in a way that would anger the power holder.6 Sales consultants may

remain silent after witnessing their supervisors falsify their team’s sales numbers for

fear of being terminated or demoted, being assigned to undesirable regions or clients,

and/or being treated in an embarrassing way in front of the rest of the team. Coercive

power comes also from withholding key information. People in an organization who

have data or knowledge others need can make others dependent on them. For example,

the sales team lead may have valuable information on client leads—anything that

might threaten obtaining this information may lead the consultant to remain silent.

Coercive power

A power base that is dependent on fear of the negative results

from failing to comply.

Reward Power

The opposite of coercive power is reward power , with which people comply because it produces positive benefits;

someone who can distribute rewards that others view as valuable will have power

over them. These rewards can be financial—such as controlling pay rates, raises, and

bonuses—or nonfinancial, including recognition, promotions, interesting work

assignments, friendly colleagues, and preferred work shifts or sales territories.7

Using the same example, the sales team lead who rewards compliant team members

with lead information is exercising reward power.

Where does power come from? We answer this question by dividing the bases (or

sources) of power into two general groupings, formal and personal, and breaking each

of these down into more specific categories.5

Reward power

Power based on the ability to distribute rewards that others

view as valuable.

Legitimate power

Power based on a person’s position in the formal hierarchy of

an organization.

Legitimate Power

The most common way to access one or more of the power bases is probably through

Personal Power

Personal power comes from an individual’s unique characteristics.11 There are two bases

of personal power: expertise and the respect and admiration of others. Some people

might only have personal power, but others can also have formal power. For example,

many consultants have personal power but have no formal power if they are not

managers. Conversely, a sales team lead may not only have formal power bases but

can also be well-liked and respected.

Expert Power

Expert power is based on influence wielded as a result of expertise, special skills,

or knowledge.12 As jobs become more specialized, we become dependent on experts to

achieve goals. It is generally acknowledged that physicians have expertise and

hence expert power: Most of us follow our doctor’s advice. Returning to our sales

consultant

legitimate power . It represents the formal authority to control and use

organizational resources based on the person’s structural position in the

organization. In general, when school principals, bank presidents, or army captains

speak, teachers, tellers, and first lieutenants usually comply. Legitimate power

includes members’ acceptance of the authority of a hierarchical position.8 We associate

power so closely with the concept of hierarchy that just drawing longer lines in an

organization chart leads people to infer the leaders are especially powerful.9

Furthermore, legitimate power can also reduce the effect of others’ power; for

example, research suggests that when an employee stands up against something

unethical, they are less likely to suffer the consequences of others’ coercive power

(e.g., sanctioning, ostracism, etc.) when they, themselves, are high in legitimate power. 10

example, some of the team members may wield expert power due to their strong sales

skills or expertise in the area.

Expert power

Power based on influence through possessing expertise, special

skills, or knowledge.

Referent Power

Referent power

Power based on identification with a person who has

desirable resources or personal traits.

Which Bases of Power Are Most Effective?

Of the bases of power, which are most effective? This is a complicated question.

Regarding the dependents in the power relationship, different bases of power are

effective depending upon the perceptions and characteristics of the dependent. For

example, dependents view angry leaders as higher on formal power, and in turn are

more loyal toward these leaders and perceive them as more effective.16 On the other

hand, dependents are likely to perceive coercive and low-referent leaders as

ineffective, become less loyal toward these leaders, and even engage in deviant

behaviors directed at these leaders.

Referent power is based on identification with a person who has desirable resources

or personal traits.13 If I like, respect, and admire you; you can exercise power over me

because I want to please you. Some people who are not in formal leadership positions

have referent power and exert influence over others because of their charismatic

dynamism, likability, and emotional appeal.14

Referent power develops out of admiration of another and a desire to be like that

person. It helps explain, for instance, why celebrities are paid millions of dollars to

endorse products in commercials. Marketing research shows people such as LeBron

James have the power to influence your choice of athletic shoes and credit cards.15

It does appear though, that referent power can be an especially powerful motivator.

Consider Steve Stoute’s company, Translation, which matches pop-star spokespersons

with corporations that want to promote their brands. Stoute has paired Justin

Timberlake with McDonald’s, Mary J. Blige with Apple Music, and several famous rappers

with shoe companies (e.g., Jay-Z and 50 Cent).17 Translation’s approach has changed with

the times as well. As more/frequent content is needed in today’s day and age,

Translation has worked on creating an online mini-series to promote products and to

discuss culture, which has reached 42.5 million people. Partnering with Dr. Dre (Beats by

Dre), Translation created “The Shop,” a series where NBA all-stars (e.g., Kevin Durant,

LeBron James) and hip-hop artists (e.g., Future) alike, all with large bases of referent

power, discuss several topics (e.g., sneakers, music, the game) amid a barbershop

backdrop.18

Dependence: The Key to Power

The most important aspect of power is that it is a function of dependence. In this

section, we show how understanding dependence helps us understand degrees of power.

The General Dependence Postulate

Let us begin with a general postulate: The greater B’s dependence on A, the more power A has over

B. When you possess anything others require that you alone control, you make them

dependent on you, and therefore you gain power over them.19 But if something is

plentiful, possessing it will not increase your power. Therefore, the more you can

expand your own options, the less power you place in the hands of others. This explains

why most organizations develop multiple suppliers rather than give their business to

only one.

What Creates Dependence?

Importance

If nobody wants what you have, it is not going to create dependence. However, note

that there are many degrees of importance, from needing the resource for survival to

wanting a resource that is in fashion or adds to convenience.

Scarcity

When the supply of labor is low relative to demand, workers can negotiate

compensation and benefits packages that are far more attractive than those in

occupations with an abundance of candidates. For example, college administrators

have no problem today finding English instructors since there is a high supply and low

demand. The market for network systems analysts, in contrast, is comparatively tight,

with demand high and supply limited. The resulting bargaining power of

computer-engineering faculty allows them to negotiate higher salaries, lighter

teaching loads, and other benefits.

Nonsubstitutability

The fewer viable substitutes for a resource, the more power a person controlling that

resource has. Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have brought economic and

philosophical issues of labor nonsubstitutability to the forefront. For example,

employees with skilled trades are at risk for losing power as their skills become more

efficiently and

Dependence increases when a resource you control is important, scarce,

and nonsubstitutable.20

Example of a Sociogram

Exhibit 13-1

Social Network Analysis: A Tool for Assessing Resources

automatically handled by robotics: In other words, their skills are becoming

“substitutable” (see the threat of technological unemployment in the chapter on

perception and individual decision-making). Despite this fear, some economists and

theorists suggest that new jobs are created as the need arises for labor that

requires nonsubstitutable abilities, and we are merely enhancing productivity and

making work easier through AI.21

One tool to assess the exchange of resources and dependencies within an organization is

social network analysis. 22 This method examines patterns of communication among

organizational members to identify how information flows between them. Within a

social network, or connections between people who share professional interests, each

individual or group is called a node, and the links between nodes are called ties. When

nodes communicate or exchange resources frequently, they are said to have very

strong ties. Other nodes that are not engaged in direct communication with one

another achieve resource flows through intermediary nodes. In other words, some

nodes act as brokers between otherwise unconnected nodes. A graphical illustration of

the associations among individuals in a social network is called a sociogram, which

functions like an informal version of an organization chart. The difference is that a

formal organization chart shows how authority is supposed to flow, whereas a

sociogram shows how resources really flow in an organization. An example of a

sociogram is shown in Exhibit 13-1 .

Networks can create substantial power dynamics. Those in the position of brokers tend

to have more power because they can leverage the unique resources they can acquire

from different groups. In other words, many people are dependent upon brokers, which

gives the brokers more power. Data from the United Kingdom’s National Health Service

shows that change agents, people entrusted with helping an organization to make a

significant change, have more success if they are information brokers.23 However, it is

paradoxical how powerful brokers within marketing agency networks, even though

they are more willing to leverage their power, often fail to perceive opportunities to

do so.24

Some of the most powerful people within social networks are able to amass power

because of their personality traits—for example, their insensitivity to rewards

(making them resistant to others’ influence), extraversion, and even dark triad traits

(see the chapter on personality and values) is positively related to their social

network position and power. 25 Stereotype threat (see the chapter on diversity),

however, can also influence the effectiveness of women in brokerage positions. Because

the agency, power, and assertiveness (that come with the brokerage position)

contradict with the feminine stereotype, women are more likely to experience anxiety

about their performance and fear of negative evaluation in these positions.26

The relationships brokers form within networks are also

extremely important. People form relationships with their leaders and coworkers,

such as friendships and partnerships, which nurture mutual reliance and obligation.27

These “ties” are important not only for getting things done in organizations, but also

for employees’ well-being—employees who do not nurture these ties or who lose them

over time are more likely to leave their organization (although these ties can remain

dormant, even after the employee leaves!).28

There are many ways to implement a social network analysis in an organization.29 Some

organizations keep track of the flow of e-mail communications or document sharing

across departments. These big data tools are an easy way to gather objective

information about how individuals exchange information. Other organizations look at

data from human resources (HR) information systems, analyzing how supervisors and

subordinates interact with one another. These data sources can produce sociograms

showing how resources and power flow. Leaders can then identify powerful brokers

who exert the strongest influence on many groups and address these key individuals.

Newer applications of AI have enabled organizations and researchers to use machine

learning algorithms to model the flow of information in social networks over time

(and learn from events).30

Influence Tactics

What

Influence tactics

Ways in which individuals translate power bases into specific actions.

LEGITIMACY. Relying on your authority position or saying a request accords with

organizational policies or rules.

RATIONAL PERSUASION. Presenting logical arguments and factual evidence to

demonstrate a request is reasonable.

INSPIRATIONAL APPEALS. Developing emotional commitment by appealing to a

target’s values, needs, hopes, and aspirations.

CONSULTATION. Increasing support by involving the target in deciding how to

accomplish your plan.

EXCHANGE. Rewarding the target with benefits or favors in exchange for agreeing

to a request.

PERSONAL APPEALS. Asking for compliance based on friendship or loyalty.

INGRATIATION. Using flattery, praise, or friendly behavior prior to making a

request.

PRESSURE. Using warnings, repeated demands, and threats.

COALITIONS. Enlisting the aid or support of others to persuade the target to agree.

Using Influence Tactics

Some tactics are more effective than others. Rational persuasion, inspirational appeal,

and consultation tend to be equally effective in influencing performance at work.32

Rational persuasion, although still effective at helping build relationships at work,

tends to not be as superbly effective as inspirational appeal and consultation.33 The

pressure tactic tends to backfire and is typically the least effective.34 Using

ingratiation can improve relational outcomes of influence at work (e.g., during job

interviews),35 but perhaps only

influence tactics do people use to translate power bases into specific action?

What options do they have for influencing their bosses, coworkers, or employees?

Research has identified nine distinct influence tactics:31

Preferred Influence Tactics by Influence Direction

when the audience does not really care about the outcome of the request or if

it is routine.36

Exhibit 13-2

Upward Influence Downward Influence Lateral Influence

Rational persuasion Rational persuasion

Inspirational appeals

Ingratiation

Rational persuasion

Consultation

Ingratiation

Let us consider the most effective way of getting a raise. You can start with a rational

approach—figure out how your pay compares to that of your organizational peers,

land a competing job offer, gather data that testify to your performance, or use salary

calculators like Salary.com to compare your pay with others in your occupation—then

share your findings with your manager. The results can be impressive. Kitty Dunning, a

senior vice president at Don Jagoda Associates, once landed a 16 percent raise when she

e-mailed her boss numbers showing she had increased sales.37 Using rational persuasion

to make a case to your supervisor about a possible raise or even an alternative work

arrangement (see the chapter on motivation applications) may be effective because it

fosters a mutual sense of respect between you and your supervisor.38

While rational persuasion may work in this situation, the effectiveness of some

influence tactics depends to some extent on the direction of influence39 and, of course,

on the audience. As Exhibit 13-2 shows, rational persuasion is the only tactic effective

at both upwardly and downwardly influencing, although it is stronger when it is used

for downward influence attempts.40 Inspirational appeals work best as a

downward-influencing tactic with subordinates.41 Ingratiation is most effective as

lateral influence, although it can also be effective in downward influence.42 Other

factors relating to the effectiveness of influence include the sequencing of tactics, a

person’s skill in using the tactic, and the organizational culture. In general, you are

more likely to be effective if you begin with “softer” tactics that rely on personal

power, such as personal and inspirational appeals, rational persuasion, and

consultation. If these fail, you can move to “harder” tactics, such as exchange and

coalitions, which emphasize formal power and incur greater costs and risks.43

Legitimacy Exchange

Legitimacy

Personal appeals

Coalitions

Cultural Preferences for Influence Tactics

Preference for influence tactics varies across cultures.46 Those from individualistic

countries tend to see power in personalized terms and as a legitimate means of

advancing their personal ends, whereas those in collectivistic countries see power in

social terms and as a legitimate means of helping others.47 Managers in the United

States seem to prefer rational appeal, whereas Chinese managers may prefer coalition

tactics.48 Reason-based tactics are consistent with the U.S. preference for direct

confrontation and rational persuasion to influence others and resolve differences,

while coalition tactics align with the Chinese preference for meeting difficult or

controversial requests with indirect approaches.

Applying Influence Tactics

People differ in their political skill , or their ability to influence others to enhance their own

objectives.49 The politically skilled are more effective users of influence tactics and

draw on their knowledge of others’ demands, resources, and preferences to do so. 50

Political skill is also more effective when social skills are required to do well in

your job, such as in leadership positions, sales consultants, real estate agents, and

other relationship- oriented occupations.51 The politically skilled can exert their

influence

As we mentioned, the effectiveness of tactics depends on the audience.44 People

especially likely to comply with soft influence tactics tend to be more reflective and

intrinsically motivated; they have high self-esteem and a greater desire for control.

Those likely to comply with hard influence tactics are more action-oriented and

extrinsically motivated and are more focused on getting along with others than on

getting their own way. Interestingly, prior research does not support differences

between men and women in the effectiveness of use of influence tactics—both men and

women benefit from soft or neutral tactics, as opposed to harder tactics.45

Political skill

The ability to influence others in such a way as to enhance

one’s objectives.

without others detecting it, a key element in effectiveness (it is damaging to be

labeled political).52

We know cultures within organizations differ markedly; some are warm, relaxed, and

supportive; others are formal and conservative. Some encourage participation and

consultation, some encourage reason, and still others rely on pressure. People who fit

the culture of the organization tend to obtain more influence.53 Specifically,

extraverts tend to be more influential in team-oriented organizations, and highly

conscientious people are more influential in organizations that value working alone

on technical tasks. People who fit the culture are influential because they can

perform especially well in the domains deemed most important for success. Thus, the

organization itself will influence which subset of influence tactics is viewed as

acceptable for use. Regardless of the cultural fit, however, evidence suggests that in

general, extraverts tend to be more prone to develop political skills, although

agreeableness and conscientiousness are also important to some degree.54 But beware:

political skill has been found to camouflage some negative dark triad traits, such as

Machiavellianism (see the chapter on personality and values).55

Overall, political skill leads to several positive individual outcomes for employees.56

Developing political skill can help you build self-efficacy and become more satisfied

with your job and committed to your organization, and lead you to experience less

stress, to a small degree. Furthermore, developing political skill can boost your

performance and productivity, as well as enable you to engage in more organizational

citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Probably the most important are the career outcomes:

Being politically skilled can improve your reputation and career success as you earn a

higher income and a more prestigious position and are more satisfied with your career.

Research suggests the reasons why political skill leads to these positive outcomes are

through the reputation and confidence boosts that come along with building these

skills.57

How Power Affects People

To this point, we have discussed what power is and how it is acquired. But we have not

yet answered one important question: Does power corrupt? For one, it is clear that

power affects the power holder: It energizes people, on the one hand, but can cause the

power holder to rely more on gut feelings and to become self-serving and potentially

more corrupt.58 So all forms of power can lead to the downside of getting “caught up”

in the feeling of power.

What We Can Do About Power

There is certainly evidence that there are corrupting aspects of power. Power leads

people to place their own interests ahead of others’ needs or goals.59 Why does this

happen? Interestingly, power not only leads people to focus on their self-interests

because they can; it also liberates them to focus inward and thus come to place

greater weight on their own aims and interests. Power also appears to lead

individuals to “objectify” others (to see them as tools to obtain their instrumental

goals) and to see relationships as more peripheral.60

That is not all. Powerful people react—especially negatively—to any threats to their

competence. People in positions of power hold on to it when they can, and individuals

who face threats to their power are exceptionally willing to take actions to retain it

whether their actions harm others or not.61 Possessing formal power can alter how

you perceive others’ emotions (e.g., the powerful are quicker to detect anger because

this threatens their power) and cause you to behave in an ineffective way. 62 Those

given power are more likely to make self-interested decisions when faced with a moral

hazard (such as when hedge fund managers take more risks with other people’s money

because they are rewarded for gains but punished less often for losses). People in

power are also more willing to denigrate others. Power also leads to overconfident

decision making (although firm leader overconfidence may actually result in positive

firm outcomes).63

Power does not affect everyone in the same way, and there are even positive effects of

power. Power can cause others to view you more positively.64 Power energizes and

increases motivation to achieve goals. It also can enhance our motivation to help

others. One study found, for example, that a desire to help others translated into

actual work behavior when people felt a sense of power. 65 In general, power has been

studied based on how it affects peoples’ thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.66

Power affects the cognition, or thought, as the powerful tend to simplify how they

process information, rely on single sources, and use information that is easier to

retrieve.67 This means that the powerful are more likely to rely on stereotypes and

heuristic forms of processing. For example, a start-up founder who has built several

successful businesses in the past may look past certain aspects of the market or the

process because of the previous successes enjoyed. Although not much research has been

conducted on how power affects emotions, some work suggests that the powerful are

more inclined to express genuine positive emotions without repercussions, but less

likely to “mirror” others’ emotions (e.g., not feeling distressed at witnessing another

person’s distress).68 Finally, powerful people (due to enhanced confidence and a sense of

volition) tend to display personal initiative and be more sensitive to potential rewards

or benefits (e.g., are personally selfish), and are less sensitive to normative behaviors.69

For example, graduate students at professional academic conferences often note that

they can tell who has “made it” in their careers, because they are the ones showing up

to presentations in jeans, rather than business attire.

Sexual Harassment: Unequal Power in the Workplace

So, what can we do about power? Are we “powerless” in its wake? First, the toxic effects

of power depend on the wielder’s personality. Research suggests that if you have an

anxious personality, power does not corrupt you because you are less likely to think

that using power benefits yourself.70 Second, the corrosive effect of power can be

contained by organizational systems. For example, one study found that while power

made people behave in a self-serving manner, the self-serving behavior stopped when

accountability for the behavior was initiated. Third, we have the means to blunt the

negative effects of power. One study showed that simply expressing gratitude toward

powerful others makes them less likely to act aggressively against us. Finally,

remember the saying that those with little power abuse what little they have. There

seems to be some truth to this in that the people most likely to abuse power are those

who start low in status and gain power. Why is this the case? It appears that having low

status is threatening, and the fear this creates is used in negative ways if power is given

later.71

Sexual harassment

Any unwanted activity of a sexual nature that affects an

individual’s employment and creates a hostile work environment.

Sexual harassment is defined as any unwanted activity of a

Most studies confirm that power is central to understanding sexual harassment.79

This seems true whether the harassment comes from a supervisor, coworker, or

employee, although it is especially pronounced for employees who have newly

acquired power.80 Sexual harassment is more likely to occur when there are large

power differentials. The

sexual nature that affects an individual’s employment or creates a hostile work

environment.72 According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),

sexual harassment happens when a person encounters “unwelcome sexual advances,

requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”

on the job that disrupts work performance or that creates an “intimidating, hostile,

or offensive” work environment.73 Worldwide, 35 percent of women have experienced

physical or sexual violence, and even larger numbers (for some countries, well over

50 percent) across the world have experienced sexual harassment.74 For example, a

study in Pakistan found that up to 93 percent of female workers were sexually

harassed.75 Although the definition changes from country to country, most nations

have at least some policies to protect workers. Whether the policies or laws are

followed is another question, however. Equal employment opportunity legislation is

established in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Oman, for example, but studies suggest it

might not be well implemented.76 Sexual harassment is disproportionately prevalent

for women in certain types of jobs. In the restaurant industry, for instance, 80 percent

of female waitstaff in a study reported having been sexually harassed by coworkers

or customers, compared to 70 percent of male waitstaff.77 It goes without saying that

the effects of sexual harassment are deplorable and nefarious and, in large part, due

to the prevailing climate in the team, organization, or region.78

Sexual harassment can have a detrimental impact on individuals and the

organization, but it can be avoided. The manager’s commitment to the process and

responsibility is critical:83

Make sure an active policy defines what constitutes sexual harassment, informs employees they can be

fired for inappropriate behavior, and establishes procedures for making complaints.

Reassure employees that they will not encounter retaliation if they file a complaint.

Investigate every complaint and inform the legal and HR departments.

Make sure offenders are disciplined or terminated.

Set up in-house training to raise employee awareness of sexual harassment issues.

supervisor–employee dyad best characterizes an unequal power relationship, where

formal power gives the supervisor the capacity to reward and coerce. Because

employees want favorable performance reviews, salary increases, and the like,

supervisors control resources most employees consider important and scarce. When

there are not effective controls to detect and prevent sexual harassment, abusers are

more likely to act. Relatedly, if there are not effective controls to give voice to

whistleblowers and protect them from retaliation, abusers are more likely to act and

continue to act.81 The #MeToo and Time’s Up movements were formed to establish a

coalition giving voice to sexual harassment and abuse survivors to quell the tide of

sexual harassment in organizations and communities.82

Politics: Power in Action

Whenever people get together in groups, power will be exerted. People in organizations

want to carve out a niche to exert influence, earn rewards, and advance their careers.

If they convert their power into action, we describe them as being engaged in politics.

Those with good political skills will likely use their bases of power effectively.84

Politics are not only inevitable; they might be essential, too.

Political Behavior

Essentially, organizational politics focus on the use of power to affect decision making in an

organization, sometimes for self-serving and organizationally unsanctioned

behaviors.

Political behavior

Activities that are not required as part of a person’s formal role in

the organization but that influence, or attempt to influence, the

distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the

organization.

Political behavior is outside specified job requirements. It requires some attempt to

use power bases. It includes efforts to influence the goals, criteria, or processes used

for decision making. Our definition is broad enough to include varied political

behaviors such as withholding key information from decision makers, joining a

coalition, whistleblowing, spreading rumors, leaking confidential information to

the media, exchanging favors with others for mutual benefit, and lobbying on behalf

of or against a particular individual or decision alternative.87 In this way, political

behavior is often negative, but not always.

The Reality of Politics

Research has demonstrated that there are multiple ways people

construe politics: (1) some are reactive, believing that it involves

engaging in destructive and manipulative behavior; some are (2) reluctant,

viewing it as a necessary evil; still, others are (3)

85 For our purposes, political behavior in organizations consists of activities that are

not required as part of an individual’s formal role but that influence, or attempt to

influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization.86

strategic, and view politics as a useful way of getting things done; and finally, some have

more of an (4) integrated perception, viewing politics as central to the reality of decision

making.88

Maybe the most important factor leading to politics within organizations is the

realization that most of the “facts” used to allocate limited resources are open to

interpretation. When allocating pay based on performance, for instance, what is good

performance? What is an adequate improvement? What constitutes an unsatisfactory job? It

is in this large and ambiguous middle ground of organizational life—where the facts

do not speak for themselves—that politics flourish.

Indeed, interviews with experienced managers show most believe political behavior is

a major part of organizational life.89 Many managers report some use of political

behavior is ethical, if it does not directly harm anyone else. They describe politics as

necessary and believe someone who never uses political behavior will have a hard

time getting things done. Although those with lower incomes also believe political

behavior is necessary, they are more reluctant to engage in it and thus have a harder

time of advancing their careers.90

But why, you may wonder, must politics exist? Is it not possible for an organization to

be politics-free? It is possible—if all members of that organization hold the same goals

and interests, if organizational resources are not scarce, and if performance outcomes

are completely clear and objective. But that does not describe the organizational

world in which most of us live. Regardless, it appears as if people, although often

reluctant to politick, will do so when it is done through prosocial means and with the

goal of helping others.91

Finally, because most decisions must be made in a climate of ambiguity—where facts are

rarely objective and thus are open to interpretation—people within organizations will

use whatever influence they can to support their goals and interests. That, of course,

creates the activities we call politicking. One person’s “selfless effort to benefit the

organization” is seen by another as a “blatant attempt to further his or her interest.”92

Antecedents and Outcomes of Political Behavior

Causes and Consequences of Political Behavior

Now that we have discussed the constant presence of politicking in organizations, let

us discuss the causes and consequences of these behaviors.

Factors Contributing to Political Behavior

Not all groups or organizations are equally political. In some organizations,

politicking is overt and rampant, while in others, politics play a small role in

influencing outcomes. What causes this variation? Research and observation have

identified several factors that appear to encourage political behavior. Some are

individual characteristics, derived from the qualities of the people the organization

employs; others are a result of the organization’s culture or internal environment.

Exhibit 13-3 illustrates how both individual and organizational factors can

encourage political behavior and provide favorable outcomes (increased rewards and

averted punishments) for individuals and groups in the organization.

Exhibit 13-3

Individual Factors

At the individual level, researchers have identified certain personality traits,

needs, and other factors likely to be related to political behavior. In terms of

traits, we find that

employees who are high self-monitors, possess an internal locus of control, and have a

high need for power (nPow; see the chapter on motivation concepts) are more likely to

engage in political behavior. The high self-monitor is more sensitive to social cues,

exhibits higher levels of social conformity, and is more likely to be skilled in

political behavior than the low self-monitor. Because they believe they can control

their environment, individuals with an internal locus of control are more prone to

take a proactive stance and attempt to manipulate situations in their favor. Not

surprisingly, the Machiavellian personality (see the chapter on personality and

values)—characterized by the will to manipulate and the desire for power—is

consistent with using politics to further personal interests.

An individual’s investment in the organization and perceived alternatives influence

the degree to which they will pursue illegitimate means of political action.93 The more

a person expects increased future benefits from the organization, and the more that

person has to lose if forced out, the less likely they are to use illegitimate means.

Conversely, the more alternate job opportunities an individual has—due to a favorable

job market, possession of scarce skills or knowledge, prominent reputation, or

influential contacts outside the organization—the more likely the person is to employ

politics.

Finally, some individuals engage in political behavior simply

Organizational Factors Although we acknowledge the role individual differences can play, the evidence more

strongly suggests that certain situations and cultures promote politics. Specifically,

when an organization’s resources are declining, when the existing pattern of

resources is

because they are better at it. Such individuals read interpersonal interactions well, fit

their behavior to situational needs, and excel at networking.94 These people are often

indirectly rewarded for their political efforts. For example, a study of a construction

firm in southern China found that politically skilled subordinates were more likely to

receive recommendations for rewards from their supervisors, and politically oriented

supervisors were especially likely to respond positively to politically skilled

subordinates.95 Other studies from countries around the world have similarly shown

that higher levels of political skill are associated with higher levels of perceived job

performance.96

For most people who have modest political skills or who are unwilling to play the politics

game, outcomes tend to be predominantly negative in terms of decreased job satisfaction,

increased anxiety and stress, increased turnover, and reduced performance. Research has

demonstrated that the more politics play a role in one’s environment, organization, or team,

the more negative outcomes will be experienced (e.g., increased stress and

turnover intentions as well as decreased morale and performance), regardless of how

changing, and when there is opportunity for promotions, politicking is more likely to

surface.97 When resources are reduced, people may engage in political actions to

safeguard what they have. Also, any changes, especially those implying a significant

reallocation of resources within the organization, are likely to stimulate conflict

and increase politicking.

Cultures characterized by low trust, role ambiguity, unclear performance evaluation

systems, win–lose reward allocation practices, democratic decision making, high

pressure for performance, and self-serving senior managers will create breeding

grounds for politicking.98 Because political activities are not required as part of the

employee’s formal role, the greater the role ambiguity, the more employees can engage

in unnoticed political activity. Role ambiguity means the prescribed employee

behaviors are not clear. In this situation, there are fewer limits to the scope and

functions of the employee’s political actions.

Additionally, the more an organizational culture emphasizes the zero-sum or

win–lose approach to reward allocations (which often begins as a result of financial

vulnerability), the more employees will be motivated to engage in politicking.

approach treats the reward “pie” as fixed, so any gain one person or group achieves comes at the expense

of another person or group. For example, if fifteen thousand dollars is distributed among five

employees for raises, any employee who gets more than three thousand dollars takes money away from

one or more of the others. Such a practice encourages making others look bad and increasing the

visibility of what you do.

Zero-sum approach

An approach to reward allocation that treats the reward “pie” as

fixed, so any gain one person or group achieves comes at the expense

of another person or group.

How Do People Respond to Organizational Politics?

Defensive Behaviors

necessary people perceive them to be.100 Politics may lead to self-reported declines in

employee performance, perhaps because employees perceive political environments to be

unfair, which demotivates them.101 Other research suggests that it may be a

“double-edged sword” (e.g., beneficial on the one hand, but detrimental on the other),

meaning that political behaviors can empower people to do well, while at the same time

draining them from emotional exhaustion.102

When employees see change as a threat, they may respond with defensive behaviors — reactive and protective behaviors to avoid action, blame, or

change.105 (Exhibit 13-4 provides some examples.) These behaviors can be a part of

politicking, but in a destructive, negative sense. Instead of attempting to influence people

in “soft,” bond-affirming ways, these behaviors protect self-interests through aggressive

or avoidant means, such as withholding ideas or contributions.106 In the short run,

employees may find that defensiveness protects their self-interests, but in the long run it

wears them down.

Exhibit 13-4

Avoiding Action

OVERCONFORMING. Strictly interpreting your responsibility by saying things like “The

rules clearly state ...” or “This is the way we’ve always done it.”

BUCK PASSING. Transferring responsibility for the execution of a task or decision to

someone else.

The politics–performance relationship appears to be moderated by an individual’s

understanding of the “hows” and “whys” of organizational politics. Researchers have

noted, “An individual who has a clear understanding of who is responsible for making

decisions and why they were selected to be the decision makers would have a better

understanding of how and why things happen the way they do than someone who does

not understand the decision-making process in the organization.”103 When both politics

and understanding are high, performance is likely to increase because these

individuals see political activity as an opportunity. This is consistent with what you

might expect for individuals with well-honed political skills. But when understanding

is low, individuals are more likely to see politics as a threat, which can have a negative

effect on job performance.104

PLAYING DUMB. Avoiding an unwanted task by falsely pleading ignorance or

inability.

STRETCHING. Prolonging a task so that one person appears to be occupied—for

example, turning a two-week task into a four-month job.

STALLING. Appearing to be more or less supportive publicly while doing little or

nothing privately.

Avoiding Blame

BLUFFING. Rigorously documenting activity to project an image of competence and

thoroughness, known as “covering your rear.”

PLAYING SAFE. Evading situations that may reflect unfavorably. It includes taking on

only projects with a high probability of success, having risky decisions approved by

superiors, qualifying expressions of judgment, and taking neutral positions in conflicts.

JUSTIFYING. Developing explanations that lessen one’s responsibility for a

negative outcome and/or apologizing to demonstrate remorse, or both.

SCAPEGOATING. Placing the blame for a negative outcome on external factors that are

not entirely blameworthy.

MISREPRESENTING. Manipulation of information by distortion, embellishment,

deception, selective presentation, or obfuscation.

Avoiding Change

PREVENTION. Trying to prevent a threatening change from occurring.

SELF-PROTECTION. Acting in ways to protect one’s self-interest during change by

guarding information or other resources.

Defensive behaviors

Reactive and protective behaviors to avoid action, blame, or change.

Impression Management

Impression Management (IM) Techniques

We know people have an ongoing interest in how others

perceive and evaluate them. Being perceived positively by others has benefits in an

organizational setting. It might, for instance, help us initially to get the jobs we want

in an organization and, once hired, to get favorable evaluations, superior salary

increases, and more rapid promotions. Managing how others perceive you is especially

important, for example, to expatriates representing their organizations in other

countries, and requires them to adapt to cultural norms.

Exhibit 13-5

Conformity

Agreeing with someone else’s opinion to gain his or her approval is a form of

ingratiation.

Example: A manager tells his boss, “You’re absolutely right on your reorganization plan

for the western regional office. I couldn’t agree with you more.

Favors

Doing something nice for someone to gain that person’s approval is a form of

ingratiation.

Example: A salesperson says to a prospective client, “I’ve got two tickets to the theater

tonight that I can’t use. Take them. Consider it a thank-you for taking the time to talk

with me.”

107 The process by which individuals attempt to control the impression others form

of them is called impression management (IM) . 108 See Exhibit 13-5 for examples. This

process can be conscious or unconscious and can be perceived as authentic or

disingenuous. When perceived as inauthentic or disingenuous, IM can lead to

decrements in performance, increased anxiety, and negative feelings.109 When

perceived as modest, authentic, and genuine (e.g., disclosing something negative and

humorous about yourself to relate with another person), IM can lead others to see

you more positively and lead to better relationship outcomes.110

Claiming that something you did is more valuable than most other members of the

organizations would think is a self-focused IM technique.

Excuses

Explaining a predicament-creating event aimed at minimizing the apparent severity of the

predicament is a defensive IM technique.

Example: A sales manager says to her boss, “We failed to get the ad in the paper on time,

but no one responds to those ads anyway.”

Self-Promotion

Highlighting your best qualities, downplaying your deficits, and calling attention to your

achievements is a self-focused IM technique.

Example: A salesperson tells his boss, “Matt worked unsuccessfully for three years to try

to get that account. I sewed it up in six weeks. I’m the best closer this company has.”

Enhancement

Example: A journalist tells his editor, “My work on this celebrity divorce story was really a

major boost to our sales” (even though the story only made it to page 3 in the

entertainment section).

Flattery

Complimenting others about their virtues in an effort to make yourself appear

perceptive and likeable is an assertive IM technique.

Example: A new sales trainee says to her peer, “You handled that client’s complaint so

tactfully! I could never have handled that as well as you did.”

Exemplification

Doing more than you need to in an effort to show how dedicated and hardworking you are

is an assertive IM technique.

Impression management (IM)

The process by which individuals attempt to control the

impression others form of them.

Example: An employee sends e-mails from his work computer when he works late so

that his supervisor will know how long he’s been working.

Source: Based on B. R. Schlenker, Impression Management (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1980); M. C. Bolino, K. M. Kacmar, W. H. Turnley, and J. B. Gilstrap, “A Multi-Level Review of Impression Management Motives and Behaviors,” Journal of Management 34, no. 6 (2008), 1080–109; R. B. Cialdini, “Indirect Tactics of Image Management Beyond Basking,” in R. A. Giacalone and P. Rosenfeld (eds.), Impression Management in the Organization (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989), 45–71.

IM research has linked IM to two criteria: interview success and performance

evaluations. Let us consider each of these.

Interviews and IM

The evidence indicates most job applicants and interviewers alike use IM techniques in

interviews and that they work, in part because they increase interviewer perceptions

of the applicants’ warmth and competence.111 To develop a sense of how effective

different IM techniques are in interviews, one study grouped data from thousands of

recruiting and selection interviews into appearance-oriented efforts (efforts toward

looking professional), explicit tactics (such as flattering the interviewer or talking

up your own accomplishments), and verbal cues (such as using positive terms and

showing general enthusiasm).112 Across all the dimensions, it was quite clear that IM

was a powerful predictor of how well people did. However, there was a twist. When

interviews were highly structured, meaning the interviewer’s questions were written

out in advance and focused on applicant qualifications, the effects of IM were

substantially weaker. Manipulative behaviors like IM are more likely to have an

effect in ambiguous and unstructured interviews.

Performance Evaluations and IM

In terms of performance evaluations, the picture is quite different. Ingratiation is

positively related to performance ratings, meaning those who ingratiate with their

supervisors get higher performance evaluations. However, self-promotion appears to

backfire: Those who self-promote may receive lower performance ratings.113 There is an

important qualifier to these general findings. It appears that individuals high in

political skill are able to translate IM into higher performance appraisals,

whereas those lower in political skill are more likely to be hurt by their IM

attempts.114 One study of 760 boards of directors found that individuals who

ingratiated themselves to current board members (expressed agreement with the

director, pointed out shared attitudes and opinions, complimented the director)

increased their chances of landing on a board.115 Another study found that interns

who attempted to use ingratiation with their supervisors were usually disliked—

unless they had high levels of political skill. For those who had this ability,

ingratiation led to higher levels of liking from supervisors, and higher

performance ratings.116

The Ethics of Behaving Politically

Although there are no clear-cut ways to differentiate ethical from unethical

politicking, there are some questions you should consider. For example, what is the

utility of engaging in politicking? Sometimes we do it for little good reason.

Another question is this: How does the utility of engaging in the political behavior

balance out the harm (or potential harm) it will do to others? Finally, does the

political activity conform to justice and fairness standards?

Unfortunately, powerful people can become very good at explaining self-serving

behaviors in terms of the organization’s best interests. They can persuasively argue

that unfair actions are fair and just. Those who are powerful, articulate, and

persuasive are most vulnerable to ethical lapses because they are more likely to get

away with them. When faced with an ethical dilemma regarding organizational

politics, try to consider whether playing politics is worth the risk and whether

others might be harmed in the process. If you have a strong power base, recognize the

ability of power to corrupt. Remember it is a lot easier for people who are in a

powerless position to act ethically, if for no other reason than they typically have

very little political discretion to exploit.

Mapping Your Political Career

As we have seen, politics are not just for politicians. You can use the concepts

presented in this chapter in some very tangible ways we have outlined in your

organization. However, they also have another application: You.

One of the most useful ways to think about power and politics is in terms of your own

career. 117 What are your ambitions? Who has the power to help you achieve them? What

is your relationship to these people? The best way to answer these questions is with a

Drawing Your Political Map

Exhibit 13-6

131–134. Source: Based on D. Clark, “A Campaign Strategy for Your Career,” Harvard Business Review, November 2012,

political map, which can help you sketch out your relationships with the people

upon whom your career depends. Exhibit 13-6 contains such a political map.118 Let us

walk through it.

Assume your future promotion depends on five people, including Jamie, your immediate

supervisor. As you can see in the exhibit, you have a close relationship with Jamie (you

would be in real trouble otherwise). You also have a close relationship with Zack in

finance. However, with the others you have either a loose relationship (Lane) or none

(Jia, Marty). One obvious implication of this map is the need to formulate a plan to gain

more influence over, and a closer relationship with, these people. How might you do

that?

One of the best ways to influence people is indirectly. What if you played in a tennis

league with Mark, Jamie’s former coworker who you know remains friends with

Jamie?

To influence Mark, in many cases, may also be to influence Marty. You can complete a

similar analysis for the other four decision makers and their networks.

All of this may seem a bit Machiavellian to you. However, remember that only one

person gets the promotion, and your competition may have a map of their own. As we

noted in the early part of the chapter, power and politics are a part of

organizational life.

Summary

Few employees relish being powerless in their jobs and organizations. People respond

differently to the various power bases. Expert and referent power are derived from an

individual’s personal qualities. In contrast, coercion, reward, and legitimate power

are essentially organizationally granted. Competence especially appears to offer

wide appeal, and its use as a power base results in high performance by group members.

An effective manager accepts the political nature of organizations. Some people are

more politically astute than others, meaning they are aware of the underlying

politics and can manage impressions. Those who are good at playing politics can be

expected to get higher performance evaluations and, hence, larger salary increases

and more promotions than the politically naïve or inept. The politically astute are

also likely to exhibit higher job satisfaction and be better able to neutralize job

stressors. However, politics may be a double-edged sword, leading to both positive

and negative outcomes.

A political map can provide a good schematic from which to identify positive

politicking opportunities. Finally, power and politics present significant ethical

considerations. To accept the reality of these dimensions in organizations is to accept

the responsibility for awareness and ethical behavior.