Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
A. How Do People Respond to Organizational Politics?
1. For most people—who have modest political skills or are unwilling to play the
politics game—outcomes tend to be predominantly negative.
a. Exhibit 13-4 summarizes the extensive research on the relationship
between organizational politics and individual outcomes.
2. There is very strong evidence indicating that perceptions of organizational
politics are negatively related to job satisfaction.
3. The perception of politics leads to anxiety or stress. When it gets to be too
much to handle, employees quit.
a. When employees of two agencies in a recent study in Nigeria viewed their
work environments as political, they reported higher levels of job distress
and were less likely to help their coworkers.
i. Thus, although developing countries such as Nigeria are perhaps more
ambiguous and more political environments in which to work, the
negative consequences of politics appear to be the same as in the
United States.
4. Researchers have also noted several interesting qualifiers.
a. The politics-performance relationship appears to be moderated by an
individual’s understanding of the “hows” and “whys” of organizational
politics.
b. Political behavior and work moderates the effects of ethical leadership.
c. When employees see politics as a threat, they often respond with
defensive behaviors—reactive and protective behaviors to avoid action,
blame, or change. (Exhibit 13-5)
i. Defensive behaviors are often associated with negative feelings toward
the job and work environment.
ii. In the short run, employees may find that defensiveness protects their
self-interest, but in the long run it wears them down.
iii. People who consistently rely on defensiveness find that, eventually, it
is the only way they know how to behave.
iv. At that point, they lose the trust and support of their peers, bosses,
employees, and clients.
B. Impression Management
1. We know that people have an ongoing interest in how others perceive and
evaluate them.
2. Being perceived positively by others should have benefits for people in
organizations.
3. The process by which individuals attempt to control the impression others
form of them is called impression management (IM).
4. Who engages in IM—the high self-monitor. (Exhibit 13-6)
a. Low self-monitors tend to present images of themselves that are consistent
with their personalities, regardless of the beneficial or detrimental effects
for them.
b. High self-monitors are good at reading situations and molding their
appearances and behavior to fit each situation.
5. IM does not imply that the impressions people convey are necessarily false.
6. Excuses and acclaiming, for instance, may be offered with sincerity.
7. You can actually believe that ads contribute little to sales in your region or
that you are the key to the tripling of your division’s sales. (Exhibit 13-6)
8. Misrepresentation can have a high cost. If the image claimed is false, you may
be discredited.
9. Most of the studies undertaken to test the effectiveness of IM techniques have
related it to two criteria: interview success and performance evaluations.
10. Let’s consider each of these.
a. The evidence indicates most job applicants use IM techniques in
interviews and that it works.
i. Some IM techniques work better than others in the interview.
b. In terms of performance ratings, the picture is quite different. Ingratiation
is positively related to performance ratings, meaning those who ingratiate
with their supervisors get higher performance evaluations.
i. However, self-promotion appears to backfire: Those who self-promote
actually seem to receive lower performance evaluations.
ii. 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.
iii. Another study of 760 boards of directors found that individuals who
ingratiate themselves to current board members (express agreement
with the director, point out shared attitudes and opinions, compliment
the director) increase their chances of landing on a board.
c. Ingratiating always works because everyone—both interviewers and
supervisors—likes to be treated nicely.
d. However, self-promotion may work only in interviews and backfire on the
job because, whereas the interviewer has little idea whether you’re
blowing smoke about your accomplishments, the supervisor knows
because it’s his or her job to observe you.
11. Almost all our conclusions on employee reactions to organizational politics
are based on studies conducted in North America. The few studies that have
included other countries suggest some minor modifications.
a. One study of managers in U.S. culture and three Chinese cultures
(People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan) found U.S.
managers evaluated “gentle persuasion” tactics such as consultation and
inspirational appeal as more effective than did their Chinese counterparts.
b. Other research suggests that effective U.S. leaders achieve influence by
focusing on personal goals of group members and the tasks at hand (an
analytical approach), whereas influential East Asian leaders focus on
relationships among group members and meeting the demands of the
people around them (a holistic approach).
II. The Ethics of Behaving Politically
A. Although there are no clear-cut ways to differentiate ethical from unethical
politicking, there are some questions you should consider.
1. For example, what is the utility of engaging in politicking?
a. Sometimes we engage in political behavior for little good reason. Major
league baseball player Al Martin claimed he played football at USC when
in fact he never did.
b. As a baseball player, he had little to gain by pretending to have played
football.
c. Outright lies like this may be a rather extreme example of impression
management, but many of us have distorted information to make a
favorable impression.
B. One thing to keep in mind is whether it’s really worth the risk. Another question
to ask is this:
1. How does the utility of engaging in the political behavior balance out any
harm (or potential harm) it will do to others?
a. Complimenting a supervisor on his or her appearance in order to curry
favor is probably much less harmful than grabbing credit for a project that
others deserve.
C. Finally, does the political activity conform to standards of equity and justice?
1. Sometimes it is difficult to weigh the costs and benefits of a political action,
but its ethicality is clear.
a. 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 nothing
to the latter—has treated the disfavored employee unfairly.
b. Unfortunately, powerful people can become very good at explaining
self-serving behaviors in terms of the organization’s best interests.
i. They can persuasively argue that unfair actions are really fair and just.
ii. Our point is that immoral people can justify almost any behavior.
iii. Those who are powerful, articulate, and persuasive are most
vulnerable to ethical lapses because they are likely to be able to get
away with unethical practices successfully.
D. 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.
E. If you have a strong power base, recognize the ability of power to corrupt.
1. 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.
XI. Mapping Your Political Career
A. One of the most useful ways to think about power and politics is in terms of your
own career.
B. Think about your career in your organization of choice. What are your ambitions?
Who has the power to help you get there? What is your relationship with these
people?
C. The best way to answer these questions is with a political map, which can help
you sketch out your relationships with the people upon whom your career
depends.
D. Power and politics are a part of organizational life.
E. To decide not to play is deciding not to be effective.
F. Better to be explicit about it with a political map than to proceed as if power and
politics didn’t matter.
XII. Summary and Implications for Managers
A. Few employees relish being powerless in their job and organization.
B. People respond differently to the various power bases.
C. Expert and referent power are derived from an individual’s personal qualities.
D. In contrast, coercion, reward, and legitimate power are essentially
organizationally derived.
E. Competence especially appears to offer wide appeal, and its use as a power base
results in high performance by group members.
F. An effective manager accepts the political nature of organizations. Some people
are significantly more politically astute than others, meaning that they are aware
of the underlying politics and can manage impressions.
G. 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.
H. The politically astute are also likely to exhibit higher job satisfaction and be better
able to neutralize job stressors. Specific implications for managers are below:
1. To maximize your power, you will want to increase others’ dependence on
you. You can, for instance, increase your power in relation to your boss by
developing knowledge or a skill she needs and for which she perceives no
ready substitute.
2. You will not be alone in attempting to build your power bases. Others,
particularly employees and peers, will be seeking to increase your dependence
on them, while you are trying to minimize it and increase their dependence on
you. The result is a continual battle.
3. Try to avoid putting others in a position where they feel they have no power.
4. By assessing behavior in a political framework, you can better predict the
actions of others and use that information to formulate political strategies that
will gain advantages for you and your work unit.
5. Consider that employees who have poor political skills or are unwilling to
play the politics game generally relate perceived organizational politics to
lower job satisfaction and self-reported performance, increased anxiety, and
higher turnover. Therefore, if you are adept at organizational politics, help
your employees understand the importance of becoming politically savvy.
Career OBjectives
Should I become political?
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Identify the causes, consequences, and ethics of political behavior
Learning Outcome: Explain the effects of power and political behavior on organizations
AACSB: Written and oral communication; Diverse and multicultural work environments; Reflective
thinking
My office is so political! Everyone is just looking for ways to get ahead by plotting and
scheming rather than doing the job. Should I just go along with it and develop my own
political strategy? — Julia
Dear Julia:
There’s definitely a temptation to join in when other people are behaving politically. If
you want to advance your career, you need to think about social relationships and how to
work with other people in a smart and diplomatic way. But that doesn’t mean you have to
give in to pressure to engage in organizational politics.
Of course, in many workplaces, hard work and achievement aren’t recognized, which
heightens politicking and lowers performance. But politics aren’t just potentially bad for
the company. People who are seen as political can be gradually excluded from social
networks and informal communication. Coworkers can sabotage a person with a
reputation for dishonesty or manipulation so they don’t have to deal with him or her. It’s
also likely that a political person will be the direct target of revenge from those who feel
they’ve been wronged.
If you want to provide a positive alternative to political behavior in your workplace, there
are a few steps you can take:
• Document your work efforts, and find data to back up your accomplishments. Political
behavior thrives in an ambiguous environment where standards for success are subjective
and open to manipulation. The best way to shortcut politics is to move the focus toward
clear, objective markers of work performance.
• Call out political behavior when you see it. Political behavior is, by its very nature,
secretive and underhanded. By bringing politics to light, you limit this capacity to
manipulate people against one another.
• Try to develop a network with only those individuals who are interested in performing
well together. This makes it hard for a very political person to get a lot done. On the other
hand, trustworthy and cooperative people will be able to find many allies who are
genuinely supportive. These support networks will result in performance levels that a
lone political person simply cannot match. Remember, in the long run a good reputation
can be your greatest asset!
Based on: A. Lavoie “How to Get Rid of Toxic Office Politics,” Fast Company, April 10, 2014,
http://www.fastcompany.com/3028856/
work-smart/how-to-make-office-politicking-alame-duck; C. Conner, “Office Politics: Must You Play?” Forbes, April 14, 2013, http://
www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2013/04/14/office-politics-must- youplay-a-handbook-for-survivalsuccess/; and J. A.
Colquitt and J. B. Rodell “Justice, Trust, and Trustworthiness: A Longitudinal Analysis Integrating Three Theoretical Perspectives,”
Academy of Management Journal 54 (2011): 1183–206.
Myth or Science?
“Powerful Leaders Keep Their (Fr)Enemies Close”
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Identify the causes, consequences, and ethics of political behavior
Learning Outcome: Explain the effects of power and political behavior on organizations
AACSB: Reflective thinking
This statement appears to be true.
We all have heard the term “frenemies” to describe friends who are also rivals, or people
who act like friends but secretly dislike each other. Some observers have argued that
frenemies are increasing at work due to the “abundance of very close, intertwined
relationships that bridge people’s professional and personal lives.”
Keeping enemies close may be one reason why Barack Obama appointed Hillary Clinton
secretary of state after their bitter battle for the presidency. Or, in the business world, why
one entrepreneur decided not to sue a former college classmate who, after working for
her start-up as a consultant, took that knowledge and started his own, competing
company.
Is it really wise to keep your enemies close? And, if so, why?
New research suggests answers to these questions. Three experimental studies found
individuals chose to work in the same room as their rival, even when instructed that they
would probably perform better apart; sit closer to rivals when working together; and
express an explicit preference to be closer to the rival. The researchers further found that
the primary reason for the “being closer” effect was the desire to monitor the rival’s
behavior and performance.
The researchers also found that the “keeping enemies closer” effect was strong under
certain conditions – when the individual was socially dominant, when the individual felt
more competition from the team member, and when rewards and ability to serve as leader
were dependent on their performance.
These results suggest that the concept of frenemies is very real and that we choose to
keep our rivals close so we can keep an eye on the competition they bring.
Sources: M. Thompson, “How to Work with Your Startup Frenemies,” VentureBeat (December 22, 2012), downloaded May 9, 2013,
from http://venturebeat.com/; and on May 9, 2013. N. L. Mead and J. K. Maner, “On Keeping Your Enemies Close: Powerful Leaders
Seek Proximity to Ingroup Power Threats,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102 (2012), pp. 576–-591.
Class Exercise
1. Divide the class into paired teams of three to five students each.
2. Ask the students to read two articles on frememies – the first on the notion of
China as a frenemy of the United States, and the second on the frenemy aspect of
college rivalries.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/05/03/frenemy-china-helping-am
erican-job-market/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/specialfeatures/2013/07/29/college-frenemies-rea
l-rivalry-or-just-friendly-competition/
3. Using these articles as a starting point, ask each team to develop an argument on
the benefits and drawbacks of having frenemies.
4. Students should present their ideas to the class.
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.
An Ethical Choice
How Much Should You Manage Interviewer Impressions?
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Identify the causes, consequences, and ethics of political behavior
Learning Outcome: Explain the effects of power and political behavior on organizations
AACSB: Written and oral communication; Diverse and multicultural work environments; Reflective
thinking
Almost everyone agrees that dressing professionally, highlighting previous
accomplishments, and expressing interest in the job are reasonable impression
management tactics to improve your presentation in an interview. Strategies like
flattering the interviewer and using positive nonverbal cues like smiling and nodding are
also often advised.
Is there an upside to such impression management? Research generally shows there is.
The more effort applicants put into highlighting their skills, motivation, and admiration
for the organization, the more likely they are to be hired. A recent study in Taiwan
examined this relationship, finding that interviewers saw applicants who talked
confidently about their qualifications as a better fit for the job, and applicants who said
positive things about the organization as a better fit for the organization. Positive
nonverbal cues improved interviewer moods, which also improved the applicant’s ratings.
Despite evidence that making an effort to impress an interviewer can pay off, you can go
too far. Evidence that a person misrepresented qualifications in the hiring process is
usually grounds for immediate termination. Even “white lies” are a problem if they create
unfounded expectations. For example, if you noted you managed budgets in the past
when all you were doing was tracking expenditures, you lack skills your boss will expect
you to have. When you fail to deliver, it will look very bad for you. However, if you
describe your experience more accurately but note your desire to learn, the company will
know you need additional training and that you’ll need a bit of extra time.
So what does an ethical, effective interview strategy entail? The key is to find a positive
but truthful way to manage impressions. Don’t be afraid to let an employer know about
your skills and accomplishments, and be sure to show your enthusiasm for the job. At the
same time, keep your statements as accurate as possible, and be careful not to overstate
your abilities. In the long run, you’re much more likely to be happy and successful in a
job where both you and the interviewer can assess fit honestly.
Sources: C. Chen & M. Lin, “The Effect of Applicant Impression Management Tactics on Hiring Recommendations: Cognitive and
Affective Processes,” Applied Psychology: An International Review 63, no. 4, (2014): 698–724; J. Levashina, C. J. Hartwell, F. P.
Morgeson, & M. A. Campion “The Structured Employment Interview: Narrative and Quantitative Review of the Research Literature,”
Personnel Psychology, Spring 2014, 241–93; and M. Nemko, “The Effective, Ethical, and Less Stressful Job Interview,” Psychology
Today, March 25, 2014, https://
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-dolife/201503/the-effective-ethical-and-lessstressful-job-interview.
Personal Inventory Assessments
Gaining Power and Influence
Do you like power and influence? Take this PIA to learn more about gaining both.
Point/Counterpoint
Everyone Wants Power
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Identify the causes, consequences, and ethics of political behavior
Learning Outcome: Explain the effects of power and political behavior on organizations
AACSB: Reflective thinking
Point
We don’t want to admit to everything we want. For instance, one psychologist found
people would seldom admit to wanting money, but they thought everyone else wanted it.
They were half right – everyone wants money. And everyone wants power.
Harvard psychologist David McClelland was justifiably famous for his study of
underlying motives. McClelland would measure people’s motivation for power from his
analysis of how people described pictures (called the Thematic Apperception Test, or
TAT). Why didn’t he simply ask people how much they wanted power? Because he
believed that many more people really wanted power than would admit it, or even
consciously realize. And that is exactly what he found.
Why do we want power? Because it is good for us. It gives us more control over our own
lives. It gives us more freedom to do as we wish. There are few things worse in life than
feeling helpless, and few better than feeling in charge of your destiny. Research shows
people with power and status command more respect from others, have higher
self-esteem (no surprise there), and enjoy better health than those of less stature.
Take Steve Cohen, founder of SAC Capital Advisors and one of the most powerful men
on Wall Street. Worth $11.1 billion, Cohen buys Picassos, lives in a mansion, has
white-gloved butlers, and travels the world first class. People will do almost anything to
please him, or to even get near him. One writer notes, “Inside his offices, vast fortunes
are won and lost. Careers are made and unmade. Type A egos are inflated and crushed,
sometimes in the space of hours.” All of this is bad for Steve Cohen, how?
Usually, people who tell you power doesn’t matter are those who have no hope of getting
it. Wanting power, like being jealous, can be one of those secrets people just won’t admit
to.
Counterpoint
Of course it is true that some people desire power - and often behave ruthlessly to get it.
For most of us, however, power is not high on our list of priorities, and for some, it’s
actually undesirable.
Research shows that most individuals feel uncomfortable when placed in powerful
positions. One study asked individuals, before they began work in a four-person team, to
“rank, from 1 (highest) to 4 (lowest), in terms of status and influence within the group,
would you like to achieve.” You know what? Only about one-third (34 percent) of
participants chose the highest rank. In a second study, researchers studied employees
participating in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk online service. They found that the main
reason people wanted power was to earn respect. If they could get respect without
gaining power, that was preferred. In a third study, the authors found that individuals
desired power only when they had high ability – in other words, when their influence
helped their groups.
These studies suggest that we often confuse the desire for power with other things—like
the desire to be respected and to help our groups and organizations succeed. In these
cases, power is something most of us seek for more benevolent ends—and only in cases
when we think it does good.
Another study confirmed that most people want respect from their peers, not power.
Cameron Anderson, the author of this research, sums it up nicely: “You don’t have to be
rich to be happy, but instead be a valuable contributing member to your groups,” he
comments. “What makes a person high in status in a group is being engaged, generous
with others, and making self-sacrifices for the greater good.”
Oh, and about Stevie Cohen…you realize that he pleaded guilty and paid a $1.2 billion
fine for failing to prevent insider trading and then had to shut down SAC, right?
Sources: B. Burrough and B. McLean, “The Hunt for Steve Cohen,” Vanity Fair, June 2013, http://www.vanityfair.com/news/
business/2013/06/steve-cohen-insider-trading-case; C. Anderson, R. Willer, G. J. Kilduff, and C. E. Brown, “The Origins of
Deference: When Do People Prefer Lower Status?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102 (2012): 1077–88; C. Anderson,
M. W Kraus, A. D. Galinsky, and D. Keltner, “The Local-Ladder Effect: Social Status and Subjective Well-Being,” Psychological
Science 23(7) (2012): 764–71; S. Kennelly, “Happiness Is about Respect, Not Riches,” Greater Good, July 13, 2012,
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/happiness _is_about_respect_not_riches; and P. Lattman and B. Protess, “$1.2 Billion Fine
for Hedge Fund SAC Capital in Insider Case,” The New York Times Dealbook, November 4, 2013,
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/sac-capital-agrees-to-plead-guilty-to-insider-trading/?_r=0.
Class Exercise
1. Divide the class into paired teams of three to five students.
2. Ask students to identify several business leaders whom they believe are very
powerful.
3. Then ask students to identify the similarities among these leaders.
4. Next, students should identify the type(s) of power these leaders have, and discuss
what their responses tell them about the leaders.
5. Finally, ask students to discuss which side the of point/counterpoint debate their
leaders would probably support, and why.
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.
