Chapter 13 Power and Politics Questions for Review How is leadership different from power? Answer: Power refers to a capacity that A has to influence the behavior of B, so that B acts in accordance with A’s wishes. Power may exist but not be used. It is, therefore, a capacity or potential. Probably the most important aspect of power is that it is a function of dependency. The greater B’s dependence on A, the greater is A’s power in the relationship. Dependence, in turn, is based on alternatives that B perceives and the importance that B places on the alternative(s) that A controls. A person can have power over you only if he or she controls something you desire. Leadership is different from power in goal compatibility. Leadership requires goal congruence while power requires dependence not goal compatibility. A second difference relates to the direction of influence; leadership focuses on the downward influence on followers, power does not. Thirdly, the research on leadership has focused on style. Research on power has focused on tactics for gaining compliance. What are the similarities and differences among the five bases of power? Answer: Coercive power: a power base dependent on fear of negative results valuable. Reward power: compliance achieved based on the ability to distribute rewards that others view as valuable. Legitimate power: the formal authority to control and use resources based on a person’s position in the formal hierarchy. Expert power: influence based on special skills or knowledge. Referent power: influence based on possession by an individual of desirable resources or personal traits. What is the role of dependence in power relationships? Answer: Probably the most important aspect of power is that it is a function of dependency. The greater B’s dependence on A, the greater A’s power is in the relationship. Dependence, in turn, is based on alternatives that B perceives and the importance that B places on the alternative(s) that A controls. What are the most often identified power or influence tactics and their contingencies? Answer: 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 the target’s support by involving him or her in deciding how you will accomplish your plan. Exchange. Rewarding the target with benefits or favors in exchange for following 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. What are the causes and consequences of abuse of power? Answer: There is evidence that there are corrupting aspects of power. Power leads people to place their own interests ahead of others’ needs or goals. Power also appears to lead individuals to “objectify” others and to see relationships as more peripheral. Moreover, powerful people react—especially negatively—to any threats to their competence. People in positions of power hold on to it when they can. In fact, individuals who face threats to their power are exceptionally willing to take actions to retain it whether their actions harm others or not. Those given power are more likely to make self-interested decisions when faced with a moral hazard. Finally, people in power are more willing to denigrate others. Power also leads to over confident decision making. How do politics work in organizations? Answer: 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. It includes behaviors such as withholding key information from decision makers, joining a coalition, whistle-blowing, 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. In some organizations, politicking is overt and rampant, while in others, politics plays a small role in influencing outcomes. Research shows that certain situations and cultures promote politics. Specifically, politicking is more likely to surface when an organization’s resources are declining, when the existing pattern of resources is changing, and when there is opportunity for promotions. In addition, when resources are reduced, people may engage in political actions to safeguard what they have. Also, any changes, especially those implying significant reallocation of resources within the organization, are likely to stimulate conflict and increase politicking. The more an organizational culture emphasizes the zero-sum or win–lose approach to reward allocations, the more employees will be motivated to engage in politicking. What are the causes, consequences, and ethics of political behavior? Answer: It can be difficult to weigh the costs and benefits of a political action, but its ethicality is clear. The department head who inflates the performance evaluation of a favored employee and deflates the evaluation of a disfavored employee—and then uses these evaluations to justify giving the former a big raise and the latter nothing—has treated the disfavored employee unfairly. However, 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 really 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. It’s important to remember that it’s a lot easier for the powerless to act ethically, if for no other reason than they typically have very little political discretion to exploit. Experiential Exercise Comparing Influence Tactics Students working in groups of three are each assigned to a role. One person is the influencer, one will be influenced, and one is the observer. These roles can be randomly determined. To begin, students create a deck of cards for the seven tactics to be used in the exercise. These are legitimacy, rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, exchange, ingratiation, and pressure (defined in the chapter).Only the influencer draws cards from the set, and no one else may see what has been drawn. The influencer draws a card and quickly formulates and acts out a strategy to use this tactic on the party being influenced. The person being influenced reacts realistically in a back-and-forth exchange over a brief period and states whether or not the tactic was effective. The observer attempts to determine which tactic is being used and which power base (coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, or referent)would reinforce this tactic. The influencer confirms or denies the approach used. Change the roles and cards throughout the rounds. Afterward, the class discusses: 13-8. Based on your observations, which influence situation would probably have resulted in the best outcome for the person doing the influencing? Answer: Based on the observations from the influence exercise, the influence situation that likely resulted in the best outcome for the person doing the influencing would be one where the tactic of consultation was used. Consultation involves seeking input and involvement from the target individual, thereby gaining their support through collaboration and shared decision-making. This approach tends to be more empowering and respectful of the target's opinions and expertise, leading to greater buy-in and commitment to the proposed course of action. In the exercise, if the influencer effectively utilized the consultation tactic, they would have engaged the target individual in a collaborative discussion, solicited their input and feedback, and genuinely considered their perspective in the decision-making process. This approach fosters a sense of ownership and partnership, which is likely to lead to a positive outcome where both parties feel valued and satisfied with the decision. Additionally, the power base that would reinforce the consultation tactic is the legitimate power base. Legitimate power is derived from one's position or authority within an organization or social structure. By involving the target individual in decision-making and respecting their input, the influencer reinforces their legitimate authority and strengthens their relationship with the target. Overall, the consultation tactic, when effectively employed, promotes collaboration, mutual respect, and shared ownership of decisions, making it a favorable approach for achieving positive outcomes in influence situations. 13-9. Was there a good match between the tactics drawn and the specific role each person took? In other words, was the tactic useful for the influencer given his or her base of power relative to the person being influenced? Answer: In evaluating the match between the tactics drawn and the specific role each person took, it's important to consider whether the tactic was useful for the influencer given their base of power relative to the person being influenced. 1. Influencer's Role and Power Base: • The influencer's effectiveness in using a tactic depends on their base of power. For example, if the influencer has legitimate power based on their position or authority, tactics like consultation or rational persuasion may be more effective. • The influencer's understanding of their own power base and how it can be leveraged is crucial in selecting the appropriate tactic. 2. Person Being Influenced: • The person being influenced may respond differently based on their perception of the influencer's power and the tactic used. For example, if the person being influenced respects the influencer's expertise, tactics like expert power combined with rational persuasion may be more effective. 3. Observer's Role: • The observer plays a key role in analyzing the interaction and determining which tactic is being used. They need to consider the dynamics between the influencer and the person being influenced, as well as the context in which the tactic is being employed. 4. Match Between Tactics and Roles: • The effectiveness of the match between tactics and roles depends on factors such as the influencer's understanding of their own power base, the relationship between the influencer and the person being influenced, and the context of the interaction. • Some tactics may be more naturally aligned with certain power bases. For example, ingratiation may be more effective for an influencer with referent power based on charisma and likability. Overall, the match between tactics drawn and the specific role each person took can vary depending on the individual characteristics, power dynamics, and context of the interaction. The effectiveness of the match can be assessed based on the outcome of the influence attempt and the perceived impact on the relationship between the influencer and the person being influenced. 13-10. What lessons about power and influence does this exercise teach us? Answer: The exercise of assigning roles of influencer, influenced, and observer, and utilizing different influence tactics with corresponding power bases, provides several valuable lessons about power and influence: 1. Understanding Power Bases: The exercise highlights the different types of power bases available to influencers, including coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent power. By experiencing these power bases in action through role-playing, participants gain a deeper understanding of how each type of power can influence behavior and decision-making. 2. Effective Use of Influence Tactics: Participants learn how to strategically select and deploy influence tactics based on the specific situation and their own power base. They recognize that certain tactics may be more effective in certain contexts or with certain individuals, and they gain insight into the nuances of influence dynamics. 3. Impact of Influence on Relationships: Through the exercise, participants observe the impact of influence tactics on the relationship between the influencer and the influenced. They learn that using coercive or manipulative tactics may strain relationships and erode trust, while tactics that involve collaboration and mutual respect can strengthen bonds and foster cooperation. 4. Awareness of Influence Dynamics: By assuming different roles and observing influence interactions, participants develop a heightened awareness of influence dynamics in real-world scenarios. They learn to recognize subtle cues and behaviors that indicate influence attempts, as well as the responses and reactions of those being influenced. 5. Ethical Considerations: The exercise prompts participants to consider the ethical implications of using various influence tactics and power bases. They reflect on the importance of integrity, honesty, and respect in influence attempts, and they recognize the potential consequences of abusing power or manipulating others. 6. Flexibility and Adaptability: Participants learn to adapt their influence strategies based on feedback, resistance, and changing circumstances. They understand the value of flexibility and agility in navigating influence dynamics and achieving desired outcomes. Overall, the exercise provides valuable insights into the complex dynamics of power and influence, equipping participants with practical skills and awareness to navigate influence situations effectively and ethically in their personal and professional lives. Ethical Dilemma How Much Should You Defer to Those in Power? Though it is not always easy to admit to ourselves, often we adapt our behavior to suit those in power. To some degree, it is important for organizational success that we do so. After all, people are in positions of authority for a reason, and if no one paid attention to the rules these people put in place, chaos would rule. But is it always ethical for us to defer to the powerful? More often than we acknowledge, powerful individuals in organizations push our actions into ethical gray areas, or worse. For example, managers of restaurants and stores(including McDonald’s, Applebee’s, Taco Bell, Winn Dixie, and others) were persuaded to strip-search customers or employees when an individual impersonating a police officer phoned in and instructed them to do so. What would you do if you thought a police officer, definitely a symbol of power, ordered you to do something you’d never choose to do as manager? Outright abuses aside, power is wielded over us in more prosaic ways. For example, many stock analysts report pressure from their bosses to promote funds from which the organization profits most (a fact that is not disclosed to their clients). These might be good funds that the analysts would promote anyway. But maybe they’re not. Should the analyst ever promote the funds without discussing the conflict of interest with the client? Few of us might think we would perform strip-searches. But examples of power taken to the limit highlight the disturbing tendency of many of us to conform to the wishes of those in power. For all of us, knowing that blindly deferring to those in power might cause us to cross ethical lines is enough to keep us thinking. Sources: J. Sancton, “Milgram at McDonald’s,” Bloomberg Businessweek, September 2, 2012, 74–75; and A. Wolfson, “Compliance’ Re-Creates McDonald’s Strip-Search Ordeal,” USA Today, September 1,2012, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-09-01/Compliance-strip-search-hoax/57509182/1). Questions Do you think people tailor their behavior to suit those in power more than they admit? Is that something you do? Answer: Yes, it is likely that people tailor their behavior to suit those in power more than they admit. This phenomenon, known as "power dynamics," is a common aspect of organizational behavior where individuals adjust their actions, decisions, and communication styles to align with the expectations or preferences of those in positions of authority. There are several reasons why people may engage in this behavior: 1. Fear of Reprisal: Individuals may fear negative consequences such as reprimands, demotions, or even termination if they do not comply with the wishes of those in power. This fear can compel them to conform to avoid potential repercussions. 2. Desire for Approval or Recognition: People often seek approval and validation from authority figures, and may tailor their behavior to earn favor or recognition from those in power. This can involve agreeing with their decisions, adopting their perspectives, or refraining from challenging their authority. 3. Perceived Importance of Compliance: Many individuals believe that adhering to the directives and expectations of those in power is necessary for organizational success and stability. They may rationalize their compliance as contributing to the overall functioning and effectiveness of the organization. 4. Cultural Norms and Expectations: Organizational cultures often emphasize hierarchical structures and deference to authority. Employees may internalize these cultural norms and feel compelled to conform to maintain harmony and cohesion within the workplace. 5. Limited Autonomy and Agency: In environments where decision-making authority is concentrated among a few individuals or groups, employees may feel they have little autonomy or agency to challenge the status quo. As a result, they may default to aligning their behavior with the preferences of those in power. As for whether individuals personally engage in tailoring their behavior to suit those in power, it can vary depending on the individual's values, beliefs, and personal experiences. Some individuals may consciously or unconsciously adapt their behavior to navigate power dynamics, while others may prioritize principles of integrity and ethics, even at the risk of facing backlash or disapproval from authority figures. Overall, acknowledging the prevalence of behavior adaptation to suit those in power is essential for fostering a workplace culture that values authenticity, transparency, and ethical decision-making, rather than blind conformity. Encouraging open dialogue, promoting ethical leadership, and empowering employees to voice concerns can help mitigate the negative effects of power dynamics in organizations. One writer commented that these acts of bending behavior to suit those in power reminds “anyone who is under pressure to carry out orders from ‘above’ to constantly question the validity and prudence of what they’re being asked to do.” Why don’t we question this more often? Answer: There are several reasons why individuals may not question orders from those in power more often: 1. Fear of Reprisal: People may fear negative consequences such as retaliation, demotion, or even job loss if they question or refuse to comply with orders from authority figures. This fear of reprisal can create a chilling effect that discourages individuals from speaking up or challenging the status quo. 2. Perceived Risk to Status or Relationships: Questioning the validity or prudence of orders from those in power can be seen as challenging their authority or undermining their leadership. Individuals may worry about damaging their relationships with supervisors or colleagues, or jeopardizing their standing within the organization. 3. Cognitive Dissonance: Individuals may experience cognitive dissonance when faced with conflicting beliefs or values. On one hand, they may recognize the ethical implications of certain actions or decisions, but on the other hand, they may feel pressure to conform to organizational norms or expectations. 4. Pressure to Conform: Organizational cultures often emphasize conformity and obedience to authority. Individuals may internalize these cultural norms and feel compelled to comply with orders from those in power, even if they have doubts or reservations. 5. Lack of Awareness or Empowerment: Some individuals may lack awareness of their rights, responsibilities, or ethical obligations in the workplace. They may not fully understand the potential consequences of blindly following orders without questioning or seeking clarification. 6. Sense of Duty or Loyalty: Individuals may feel a sense of duty or loyalty to their organization or superiors, leading them to prioritize organizational goals or directives over their own ethical concerns or values. 7. Diffusion of Responsibility: In hierarchical organizations, individuals may assume that someone higher up the chain of command has already vetted or approved the orders they receive. This diffusion of responsibility can lead individuals to abdicate their own moral agency and defer decision-making to those in higher positions. Overall, questioning orders from those in power requires courage, critical thinking, and a commitment to ethical principles. Overcoming the barriers to questioning authority often involves fostering a culture of open communication, empowerment, and ethical leadership within organizations. Encouraging individuals to speak up, providing channels for reporting concerns, and promoting ethical decision-making at all levels can help mitigate the risks associated with blind deference to authority. What factors influence how we respond to those with power? Answer: Several factors influence how individuals respond to those with power: 1. Perceived Authority: The perceived authority or legitimacy of the individual in power significantly influences how others respond. Factors such as formal position within the organization, expertise, experience, and reputation can shape perceptions of authority. 2. Organizational Culture: The prevailing norms, values, and expectations within an organization play a crucial role in determining how individuals respond to those in power. In hierarchical cultures, there may be a greater emphasis on deference to authority, while in more egalitarian cultures, individuals may feel more comfortable challenging or questioning those in power. 3. Social Influence: Social dynamics and group norms can influence how individuals respond to power. Peer pressure, social comparison, and conformity may lead individuals to align their behavior with the responses of others, particularly when faced with authority figures. 4. Personal Values and Beliefs: Individual values, beliefs, and ethical principles shape how individuals respond to authority. Some individuals may prioritize integrity, autonomy, and justice, while others may prioritize loyalty, obedience, and conformity. 5. Past Experiences: Previous experiences with authority figures, both positive and negative, can influence how individuals respond to those in power. Traumatic or negative experiences may lead to distrust or resistance, while positive experiences may foster trust and cooperation. 6. Cognitive Biases: Cognitive biases such as the halo effect (attributing positive qualities to authority figures), the fundamental attribution error (attributing behavior to internal characteristics rather than external factors), and the authority bias (assuming that authority figures are always right) can influence how individuals perceive and respond to those in power. 7. Fear of Consequences: Fear of reprisal, punishment, or negative consequences for challenging or questioning those in power can influence how individuals respond. This fear may lead individuals to comply with directives or orders, even if they have doubts or concerns. 8. Cultural and Societal Factors: Cultural and societal norms, traditions, and expectations regarding authority and hierarchy can shape how individuals respond to power. Cultural factors such as collectivism vs. individualism, power distance, and egalitarianism influence attitudes towards authority and obedience. Overall, the interplay of these factors contributes to the complex dynamics of power and influence within organizations and society, shaping how individuals respond to those with power in various contexts. Case Incident 1 Re-shaping the Dubai Model In early 2013, analysts were warning that Dubai was suffering from global downturn. Managers and employees across all sectors were worrying about their jobs. Property owners were seeing spectacular falls in the value of their investments. Dubai had been renowned for its extravagant projects and schemes. What had been seen as a glowing example of growth and prosperity was now being cited as an example of a country in crisis management. Dubai’s debt burden had reached US$100 billion. Dubai has always been a magnet for investors. It went tax-free at the beginning of the twentieth century, but by the 1960s, oil revenue funded huge infrastructure projects. Dubai does not have significant oil reserves, so the focus has been on commerce, tourism and aviation. To some extent it has embraced western lifestyles, and courted multi-nationals. Whilst the UAE as a whole, with its rich reserves of oil had the capacity to ride out the global downturn, Dubai itself would need a radical rethink. The rethink would come in the shape of new leadership. Out went the ambition to be the regional hub for 2 billion people. Just nine years before, Dubai had been able to confidently state that investors in Dubai would see greater returns on their capital (then around 18 per cent), than leaving their funds in the bank. Dubai could boast that no one who had invested in the city had ever gone bankrupt. Key decision makers like the chairman of Dubai World, Sultan bin Sulayem, chairman of Dubai Holdings, Mohammed al-Gergawi and chairman of Emaar Properties, Mohammed Alabbar had all lost influence. New, more conservative decision-makers were on the rise such as Mohammed al-Shaibani, Ahmed al-Tayer and Abdulrahman al-Saleh. The new decision-makers already had a reputation for careful mergers and acquisitions, cost-cutting exercises and dealing with financial problems. The “new” men are a combination of close advisers to the ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, members of old merchant families and above all, more conservative in their financial approach. Sources: Reinventing Dubai, Roula Khalaf, Simeon Kerr and Andrew England, Business Spectator, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/2/22/global-financial-crisis/reinventing-dubai (accessed 23/01/2014) Questions 13-14.How would you prioritize and delegate the tasks of the new key decisions-makers in Dubai? Answer: The priorities need to be to support viable businesses in Dubai. The city may lack the funds to be able to prop up businesses that are technically bankrupt. In delegating the work to “down-size” Dubai, the conservative approach to financial decision making is geared up to deliver a stable economy. In many respects, Dubai can be seen as being a vast organization with its own specific organizational behaviors. Power and politics are intertwined within Dubai and across the broader UAE. The exercise of power and decision-making rests on the choices of the ruler to delegate key roles to trusted individuals. It can be see that the previous group of decision-makers have been much reduced in terms of power as a result of the financial difficulties Dubai finds itself in. 13-15.Control of decision-making and financial expenditure was the root cause of the debt situation in Dubai. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum has delegated to people who can make decisions on his behalf. Would a more “hands on” approach be more effective or would this hinder progress? Answer: The ruler of Dubai came to power in 2006, he had been the de facto ruler for ten years prior to this. He has overseen many of the prestige infrastructure projects in Dubai and owns over 99 per cent of the debt troubled Dubai Holdings. It does appear, despite his other interests, that he does take a fairly hands on approach to decision making and the exercise of power and authority in Dubai. This can be seen in his involvement in political, economic and social decision-making over the course of the past decade or more. 13-16.Abu Dhabi provides much of the funding for the UAE central bank. They have bankrolled Dubai at cost in terms of political and economic freedom. To what extent do you think Dubai is losing its ability to make its own decisions? Answer: Many analysts who are concerned that Dubai’s indebtedness is already too big with the likelihood that it will grow (as they are exposed to several other projects that may well be technically bankrupt – such as Dubai World), welcome the involvement of Abu Dhabi. Comparatively, Dubai is a far more open society, for example it does allow foreign nationals to own property. However, with modest oil reserves, compared to the vast future wealth of Abu Dhabi, Dubai may well find itself having to moderate its policies and inevitably lose some control over decision-making. Case Incident 2 Barry’s Peer Becomes His Boss As Barry looked out the window of his office in Toronto, the gloomy October skies obscured his usual view of CN Tower. “That figures,” Barry thought to himself – his mood was just as gloomy. Five months ago, last May, Barry’s company, CTM, a relatively small but growing technology company, reorganized itself. Although such reorganizations often imperil careers, Barry felt the change only improved his position. Barry’s coworker, Raphael, was promoted to a different department, which made sense since because Raphael had been with the company for a few more years, and had worked with the CEO on a successful project. Because Raphael was promoted and their past work roles were so similar, Barry thought his own promotion was soon to come. However, six weeks ago, Barry’s boss left. Raphael was transferred back to the same department, and became Barry’s boss. Although Barry felt a bit overlooked, he knew he was still relatively junior in the company, and felt that his good past relationship with Raphael would bode well for his future prospects. The new arrangement, however, brought nothing but disappointment. Although Raphael often told Barry he was doing a great job, drawing from several observations, Barry felt that opinion was not being shared with the higher-ups. Worse, a couple of Barry’s friends in the company showed Barry e-mails in which Raphael had failed to make Barry look good. “Raphael is not the person I thought he was,” thought Barry. What was his future in the company if no one understood his contributions? He thought about looking for work, but that prospect only darkened his mood further. He liked the company. He felt he did good work there. As Barry looked again out his window, a light rain began to fall. The CN Tower was no more visible than before. He just didn’t know what to do. Sources: Based on M. G. McIntyre, “Disgruntlement Won’t Advance Your Career,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (September 23, 2012), downloaded May 14, 2013, from www.post-gazette.com/; and S. Shellenbarger, “What to Do with a Workplace Whiner,” The Wall Street Journal (September 12, 2012), pp D1, D3. Questions Should Barry complain about his treatment? To whom? If he does complain, what power tactics should Barry use? Answer: Barry is facing a challenging situation where he feels overlooked and unappreciated despite his contributions to the company. Whether or not he should complain about his treatment depends on several factors, including the company culture, his relationship with Raphael, and his own career goals. Here are some considerations for Barry: 1. Evaluate the Situation: Barry should take a step back to objectively evaluate the situation. He should consider whether his perceptions of being overlooked are based on concrete evidence or if they might be influenced by emotions or misunderstandings. 2. Seek Clarification: Before resorting to complaining, Barry should consider having an open and honest conversation with Raphael to clarify his concerns. He can express his feelings of being undervalued and inquire about Raphael's perspective on his performance and contributions. 3. Document Evidence: If Barry decides to proceed with a complaint, he should gather evidence to support his claims. This may include performance reviews, emails, or feedback from colleagues that demonstrate his contributions and the discrepancies in Raphael's communication about his performance. 4. Choose the Right Forum: Barry should carefully consider whom to approach with his complaint. Depending on the company's structure and policies, he may choose to raise his concerns with HR, a higher-level manager, or an ombudsman if available. 5. Use Constructive Communication: When addressing his concerns, Barry should maintain a professional and constructive tone. He should focus on specific instances and behaviors rather than making generalized accusations. Framing his complaint as a request for support and clarification may yield more positive results. As for power tactics Barry can use in his complaint: 1. Rational Persuasion: Barry can present logical arguments and evidence to persuade management or HR of the validity of his concerns and the importance of addressing them. 2. Ingratiation: Barry can leverage his positive relationships with other colleagues or managers who may support his complaint or advocate on his behalf. 3. Coalition Building: Barry can seek support from other colleagues who may have similar concerns about Raphael's leadership or communication style. Presenting a unified front can strengthen his case and increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome. 4. Legitimacy: Barry can emphasize his own expertise, experience, and contributions to the company to assert the legitimacy of his complaint and position himself as a valuable asset deserving of fair treatment. Ultimately, whether Barry decides to complain or explore other options, it's important for him to advocate for himself in a professional and strategic manner while considering the potential consequences for his career and working relationships. Studies have shown those prone to complaining or “whining” tend to have less power in an organization. Do you think whining leads to diminished power and influence, or the other way around? How can Barry avoid appearing to be a “whiner”? Answer: The relationship between complaining, power, and influence in an organization is complex and multifaceted. While it's true that individuals perceived as constant complainers may experience diminished power and influence, it's also possible that a lack of power and influence can lead to feelings of frustration and a tendency to complain. In Barry's case, it's essential for him to navigate this situation carefully to avoid being perceived as a "whiner" while still addressing his legitimate concerns. Here's how Barry can avoid appearing to be a "whiner" and maintain his credibility and influence in the organization: 1. Choose the Right Timing and Forum: Barry should carefully select the timing and setting for expressing his concerns. Complaining in public settings or during inappropriate times can undermine his credibility and be perceived as unprofessional. Instead, he should seek private conversations with relevant stakeholders, such as Raphael or HR, to address his concerns constructively. 2. Focus on Solutions: Rather than simply venting frustrations, Barry should focus on proposing solutions or actionable steps to address the issues he's facing. By presenting himself as someone who is proactive and solution-oriented, Barry can demonstrate his commitment to improving the situation rather than merely complaining about it. 3. Frame Concerns Professionally: When raising concerns, Barry should frame them in a professional and objective manner. Avoiding emotional language or personal attacks and instead focusing on specific instances, observations, and their potential impact on the organization's goals and objectives can help Barry maintain credibility and avoid being perceived as a complainer. 4. Seek Constructive Feedback: Barry can seek feedback from trusted colleagues or mentors to gain perspective on his concerns and approach. By engaging in constructive dialogue and seeking input from others, Barry can refine his communication style and ensure that his concerns are conveyed effectively and professionally. 5. Demonstrate Results and Contributions: Barry should continue to focus on delivering high-quality work and demonstrating his value to the organization. By consistently producing results and highlighting his contributions, Barry can bolster his credibility and influence, making it more likely that his concerns will be taken seriously. 6. Build Relationships and Allies: Cultivating positive relationships with colleagues, managers, and other stakeholders can strengthen Barry's support network within the organization. By building rapport and trust with others, Barry can enlist allies who can support him in addressing his concerns and advocating for positive change. By taking a proactive and constructive approach to addressing his concerns, focusing on solutions rather than complaints, and maintaining professionalism in his interactions, Barry can avoid being perceived as a "whiner" and instead position himself as a credible and influential member of the organization. Do you think Barry should look for another job? Why or why not? Answer: Whether Barry should look for another job depends on several factors, including his career goals, the company culture, and the potential for addressing his concerns within the current organization. Here are some considerations for Barry: 1. Assess Career Goals: Barry should evaluate his long-term career goals and whether staying at CTM aligns with those objectives. If he feels that his current role and prospects for advancement are limited or if he's no longer satisfied with the company culture, it may be worth exploring opportunities elsewhere. 2. Evaluate Company Culture: Barry should consider the overall company culture and how well it aligns with his values and work preferences. If he feels that the culture fosters transparency, recognition of employee contributions, and opportunities for growth, he may be more inclined to stay. However, if he perceives a toxic or unsupportive culture, it may be better for his well-being and career growth to seek opportunities elsewhere. 3. Address Concerns Directly: Before making a decision to leave, Barry could consider addressing his concerns directly with Raphael or higher-level management. He can express his feelings of being overlooked and undervalued, provide examples of his contributions, and inquire about opportunities for advancement or recognition within the company. This conversation may provide clarity on his future prospects and whether the issues can be resolved internally. 4. Explore Internal Opportunities: Barry could explore internal opportunities for growth and development within the company. He could seek out projects or initiatives that align with his skills and interests, network with other departments or teams, and pursue professional development opportunities. If there are avenues for advancement or career growth within CTM, it may be worth staying and exploring these options further. 5. Consider External Opportunities: If Barry feels that his concerns are unlikely to be addressed or if he's reached a plateau in his current role, he may decide to explore external job opportunities. He can update his resume, network with professionals in his industry, and actively search for positions that offer better prospects for career advancement, recognition, and job satisfaction. Ultimately, the decision to look for another job should be based on a careful assessment of Barry's career goals, the company culture, and the potential for addressing his concerns within CTM. If he believes that staying at the company aligns with his career objectives and there are opportunities for improvement or advancement, he may choose to stay and work towards resolving his concerns internally. However, if he feels that his concerns are not being addressed or if he sees better opportunities elsewhere, he may decide to explore external job opportunities for his future career growth and fulfillment. My Management Lab Go to my management lab.com for Auto-graded writing questions as well as the following In Case Incident 1, how would you expect employees who have to sign over their rights to their creative projects react in the short term? In the long term? Answer: In Case Incident 1, employees who are required to sign over their rights to their creative projects may react in various ways in the short and long term: Short Term: 1. Frustration and Resentment: Employees may feel frustrated and resentful about being required to sign over their rights to their creative work. They may perceive it as unfair or restrictive, especially if they feel strongly attached to their creations. 2. Loss of Motivation: Knowing that they won't have ownership or control over their work may lead to a decrease in motivation and engagement. Employees may feel demotivated to invest their time and effort into creating innovative and impactful projects. 3. Decreased Morale: The requirement to sign over rights to creative projects may negatively impact morale within the organization. Employees may feel disillusioned and disheartened, which can affect team dynamics and overall workplace culture. 4. Potential Resistance: Some employees may resist or push back against the requirement, especially if they believe it infringes on their rights or stifles their creativity. This resistance could manifest in various forms, such as seeking legal advice, voicing objections to management, or exploring alternative employment opportunities. Long Term: 1. Loss of Talent: Over the long term, the requirement to sign over rights to creative projects may result in the loss of talented employees. Those who feel strongly about retaining ownership and control over their work may choose to leave the organization in search of more favorable conditions elsewhere. 2. Impact on Innovation: If employees feel constrained or restricted in their ability to create and innovate, it may have long-term implications for the organization's ability to remain competitive and innovative in the marketplace. The loss of creative talent and motivation can hinder the development of new products, services, and solutions. 3. Cultural Impact: The requirement to sign over rights to creative projects can shape the organization's culture over time. If employees perceive a lack of respect for their creative contributions or feel that their intellectual property rights are undervalued, it may erode trust and loyalty within the workforce. 4. Legal Ramifications: In the long term, the organization may face legal challenges or disputes related to intellectual property rights if employees feel that their rights have been violated or if there are ambiguities in the terms of the agreements they've signed. Overall, the short-term and long-term reactions of employees to the requirement to sign over rights to their creative projects can have significant implications for employee morale, organizational culture, talent retention, and innovation capabilities. It's essential for organizations to carefully consider the impact of such policies and ensure that they balance the need to protect intellectual property with the need to support and empower their employees. After reading the chapter and Case Incident 2, what impression management techniques would you say Raphael is using? Answer: In Case Incident 2, Raphael appears to be using several impression management techniques to maintain a positive image and exert influence within the organization. Some of the impression management techniques exhibited by Raphael include: 1. Ingratiation: Raphael frequently tells Barry that he is doing a great job, which can be seen as a form of ingratiation. By praising Barry's work and providing positive feedback, Raphael seeks to build rapport and goodwill with Barry, potentially influencing his perception of their relationship and Raphael's leadership abilities. 2. Self-Promotion: Raphael may engage in self-promotion by highlighting his own successes or achievements within the organization. While not explicitly mentioned in the case, Raphael's actions of failing to make Barry look good in emails could be interpreted as a form of self-promotion, where Raphael prioritizes his own image and interests over Barry's. 3. Assertiveness: Raphael's assertive behavior, such as transferring back to Barry's department and assuming a leadership role over him, can be viewed as a tactic to assert his authority and establish dominance within the organization. By taking on a leadership position, Raphael may seek to project confidence and competence, influencing others to perceive him as a capable leader. 4. Selective Disclosure: Raphael may selectively disclose information or feedback to Barry in a way that serves his own interests or agenda. By providing positive feedback to Barry directly but failing to advocate for him in emails or communications with higher-ups, Raphael may strategically manage the information he shares with Barry to maintain control over their relationship and influence Barry's perceptions. 5. Networking: Raphael's past successful project with the CEO and his subsequent promotion to a different department may indicate that he is skilled at networking and building relationships with key stakeholders within the organization. By cultivating connections with influential individuals, Raphael may enhance his visibility, credibility, and influence within the company. Overall, Raphael appears to employ a combination of impression management techniques to shape perceptions, establish authority, and influence others within the organization. By strategically managing his interactions and communication with Barry and other colleagues, Raphael seeks to maintain a positive image and advance his own interests within the company. 13-22. My Management Lab Only – comprehensive writing assignment for this chapter. Answer: Definition of Power and Politics: Power can be defined as the ability to influence others' behaviors, decisions, and outcomes. It is not inherently negative but can be used for both constructive and destructive purposes. Politics, on the other hand, refers to the process of acquiring, using, and managing power within organizations. It involves the distribution of resources, the resolution of conflicts, and the pursuit of individual or group interests. Sources of Power: Power in organizations can stem from various sources, including: 1. Formal Authority: Derived from one's position in the organizational hierarchy, such as managers or executives. 2. Expertise: Based on knowledge, skills, or expertise in a particular domain, allowing individuals to influence others through their competence. 3. Control of Resources: Control over valuable resources, such as budgets, information, or technology, can confer power within an organization. 4. Relationships and Networks: Strong interpersonal relationships and networks can enhance one's influence and access to resources. 5. Personal Attributes: Charisma, persuasion, and personal characteristics can also contribute to an individual's power base. Effects of Power and Politics: Power and politics can have both positive and negative effects on organizations: 1. Positive Effects: Effective use of power can facilitate decision-making, drive innovation, and foster collaboration among employees. 2. Negative Effects: Misuse of power or unethical political tactics can lead to conflicts, mistrust, and organizational dysfunction. It can also create disparities in resource allocation and undermine organizational goals. Strategies for Managing Power and Politics: To navigate power and politics effectively, managers and employees can employ several strategies: 1. Build Strong Relationships: Cultivate positive relationships with colleagues, stakeholders, and decision-makers to enhance influence and cooperation. 2. Enhance Expertise: Continuously develop skills, knowledge, and expertise to increase personal power and credibility within the organization. 3. Maintain Ethical Standards: Uphold ethical principles and integrity in all interactions, avoiding unethical political tactics that may harm individuals or the organization. 4. Foster Transparency: Promote transparency in decision-making processes, communication, and resource allocation to minimize perceptions of favoritism or bias. 5. Address Conflict Constructively: Resolve conflicts and disagreements through open dialogue, negotiation, and conflict resolution techniques to mitigate the negative impact of organizational politics. Conclusion: Power and politics are inherent features of organizational life, influencing dynamics, and outcomes at all levels. By understanding the sources, effects, and strategies for managing power and politics, individuals can navigate organizational complexities more effectively, foster collaboration, and contribute to the achievement of organizational goals. Embracing transparency, ethical conduct, and constructive conflict resolution can help create a positive organizational culture where power is wielded responsibly, and politics serve the collective interests of the organization and its members. Instructor’s Choice Applying the Concepts For a number of years, Scott McNealy has been Sun Microsystems’ leader and champion. Mr. McNealy carried the company through the wild 1990s and made profits for shareholders. Sun produced products that the industry wanted and needed and McNealy’s presence and vision kept Sun on the correct path. What happened to derail the Sun Express? Instead of listening to those who preached conservatism as the dot.com bubble burst in the early 2000s, McNealy conducted business as usual and with this approach made a big and costly mistake. Sun stock went from a high of $64 in 2000 to roughly $4 today. McNealy’s leadership style—optimism, daring, humor, and even outrageousness—that served Sun so well in the 1990s do not seem to be what Sun needs in the more cost-conscious 2000s. Friends have pleaded with McNealy to back off of his old approach a notch or two, but have failed to sway him. Is there any way out for Sun and Scott McNealy? Do an online search of Sun Microsystems current status (or see www.sun.com) and review Sun’s history. Write a short one- to two-page paper reviewing management practices that have helped and hurt Sun in the past few years. Review current periodicals to determine views on Mr. McNealy’s leadership style and managerial decisions at Sun. Summarize your findings. Assuming that you were hired as a consultant to the Sun board of directors, write a one-page brief describing what should be done with the Sun management team. Make it clear whether the management team should be changed or whether economic and technological circumstances have caused the problems at Sun, meaning the current management team can still lead Sun to success. Instructor Discussion Students will find an abundant amount of material on the Internet and in current periodicals about Sun and Scott McNealy. The difficulties will also be reported. An excellent source is “A CEO’s Last Stand” by Jim Kerstetter and Peter Burrows in Business Week, July 26, 2004, on pages 64–70. Students can also see a Q&A with Scott McNealy by going to www.businessweek.com/magazine/extra.htm. (These interviews are normally carried for some time on the magazine’s website.) Students should also appreciate the rich history of Scott McNealy and his leadership of Sun. This activity is a good study of how a senior executive can have difficulties in retaining power when economic and managerial decisions become difficult. Exploring OB Topics on the Web
Knowing about “personal power” is one thing—applying it to everyday work life is another. Learn how Craig Ohlson of Activation applies personal power to be the top salesperson in a featured article in Inc. Magazine. Go tohttp://www.inc.com/magazine/19950201/2142.html to read the article. Write a short reaction paper describing the power tactics he uses to influence his customers. Could any of his methods be applied to an activity you are involved in—why or why not? For a wide variety of resources on business ethics (articles, cases, corporate ethics codes, publications, and organizations visit: http://www.web-miner.com/busethics.htm. Browse through the various resources. Select one or two articles to read, print them out, and bring to class to discuss during the next class session. Are smart people overrated? That was the question put forth by New Yorker Magazine in the article, The Talent Myth. Read this article at: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/07/22/020722fa_fact. Make a list of every impression management behavior you spot in the article. Then make a list of impression management techniques you plan to develop in the next years. Bring both lists to class for discussion. Go tohttp://www.itstime.com/oct97map.htm and develop your own personal power map for an organization you’re involved (or have been involved) with. Bring it to class for discussion. Solution Manual for Organizational Behavior Timothy A. Judge Stephen P. Robbins 9781292146300, 9780133507645, 9780136124016
Download
Close
Close
