Power, Politics, and Conflict: Organizational Politics Lecture PDF

Power, Politics and Conflict Organisational Politics Political behaviour Commonly conceptualised as unsanctioned behaviour - or behaviour outside of the requirements of the job exercised in order to pursue self-interested goals Behaviour enacted to increase power and other resources, rega...

Power, Politics and Conflict Organisational Politics Political behaviour Commonly conceptualised as unsanctioned behaviour - or behaviour outside of the requirements of the job exercised in order to pursue self-interested goals Behaviour enacted to increase power and other resources, regardless of alignment with organisational norms or goals – and outside of the rules Intent/motivation in self-interest – social influences strategies developed with this aim  What is organisational politics? Political behaviour in organisations Overview of the Consequences of political behaviour lecture Is political behaviour always bad? Minimising political behaviour  Mintzberg 1983: organisational politics is individual or group behaviour that is informal, Aristotle: politics ostensibly parochial, typically arises from a divisive and above all in a technical diversity of sense, illegitimate - sanctioned interests neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise" “Without political awareness and skill, we face the inevitable prospect of becoming immersed in bureaucratic infighting, parochial politics and destructive power struggles, which greatly retard organizational initiative, innovation, morale, and performance” (Kotter, 1985). Organisational Politics and Political Behaviour Academic literature conceptualises organisational politics in terms of interpersonal behaviour : - Political activities/behaviours are a means of exercising social influence - Political activities/behaviours are designed to promote or protect one's own self-interests - At least two parties must be included and have the potential to possess divergent interests Organizational politics relates to social influence attempts directed at those who can provide rewards that will help promote or protect the self-interests of the actor (Cropanzano et al., 1995) Examples of political behaviour Can encompass a broad range of activities including: - withholding key information - joining a coalition What do you think - whistle-blowing about these - spreading rumours behaviours? - leaking information Are they all inherently - exchanging favours for mutual benefit bad? - lobbying - impression management - ingratiation - building coalitions Kacmar and Ferris’ (1991) categories People in this organization attempt to of organisational politics build themselves up by tearing others down General political behaviour: behaviours of Agreeing with powerful individuals who act in a self-serving others is the best manner to obtain valued outcomes alternative in this. organization. Go along to get ahead: lack of action (e.g. remain silent) in order to secure valued It is best not to rock the outcomes boat in this organization Pay and promotion policies: organisation behaving politically through the policies it When it comes to pay raise and promotion enacts decisions, policies are irrelevant Factors which drive organisational politics Structural factors: - Low trust - Competitive reward system - Lack of formal rules - Increased scarcity - Periods of change – uncertainty and ambiguity - Democratic decision-making - Disagreements over goals/priorities Individual characteristics: - Strong need for power - Strong internal locus of control - Self-monitors - Machiavellian tendencies (willing to assertively get what you want without care for consequences to others) Consequences of Organisational Politics Research strongly suggests that organisational that organisational politics has negative effects individual and organisational outcomes Those unwilling to play political games likely to react negatively when the ‘players’ get ahead Undermines sense of fairness (organisational justice) Perceptions play a big role in how political behaviour is interpreted The perceptions that individuals hold about the political nature of their work environment influences how they feel about the organisation and colleagues Perceptions of behaviour as political can have reinforcing feedback – contributing to a culture of organisational politics Perception of acceptability or legitimacy is influenced by the outcomes of political behaviour Is political behaviour always bad? Common assumption that organisational politics is dysfunctional – everything should be ‘above board’, no ‘back room’ manoeuvring But aspects of OP that are positive for individuals, groups, and organisations – can serve a function Not all behaviours outside of organisational norms - therefore deemed political - are bad for organisations (Pfeffer, 1992) Fedor et al. (2008): whether political behaviour is negative or positive can be determined by: - intentions of the individual - outcomes associated with the behaviour Is political behaviour always bad? Fedor and Maslyn (2002): political behaviour can be considered positive when it is the only means available to get things accomplished or to raise issues that those with more power are ignoring/failing to acknowledge  Behaviour is not sanctioned - and may be pursued for self- interest - but outcomes are beneficial Positive and negative political behaviour may be similar in form - unsanctioned and self-serving – but have different outcomes  Dual nature of politics Positive political behaviour is conceptualised as legitimate influencing tactics rather than ‘political’ behaviour How to minimise political behaviour Clear rules and regulations in terms of resources All channel comms Good change management practices - comms and participation - to minimise uncertainty Highlight big picture - mutual benefit Reduce uncertainty Encourage openness, trust and mutual respect to discourage norms that enable or support self-serving behaviour Leaders as role models Ethics of political behaviour Questions to consider: What is the utility of engaging in politicking? Is the political behaviour: Offensive (attacking, making How does the utility of engaging others look bad) in the political behavior balance out any harm (or potential harm) Defensive (protecting self – or it will do to others? others) Does the political activity conform to standards of equity and justice? What type of political animal are you? Baddeley and James (1987) References Baddeley, S., & James, K. (1987). Owl, Fox, Donkey or Sheep: Political Skills for Managers. Management Education and Development, 18(1), 3-19. Cropanzano, R.S.. Kacmar. K.M. & Bozeman, D.P. (1995). Organizational politics, justice, and support: Their differences and similarities, in R.S. Cropanzano & K.M. Kacmar (Eds.). Organizational Politics, Justice and support: Managing social climate at work. Westport, CT: Quorum Book Fedor, D. B., & Maslyn, J. M. (2002). Politics and political behavior: Where else do we go from here? In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. 1, pp. 287–294). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science/JAI Press. Fedor, D., Maslyn, J., Farmer, S. and Bettenhausen, K. (2008), The Contribution of Positive Politics to the Prediction of Employee Reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38: 76-96. Kacmar, K. & Ferris, Gerald. (1991). Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development and Construct Validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement - EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS. 51. 193-205. Kotter, J. (1985). Power and influence. New York: Free Press Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press  POWER, POLITICS AND CONFLICT POWER, POLITICS AND ETHICAL B E H AV I O U R L E C T U R E Learning objectives  Appreciate the link between ethics, power and politics  Understand how to manage corporate ethics and values  Examine the role of Ethics officers and committees  Understand how whistleblowing can help in some situations  Appreciate the need for leaders to set an ethical example  Overview Much undesirable behaviour by organizations is regulated by the law; BUT:  The law can be a blunt tool  Might be limited in reach  Might not be effectively enforced  Might be circumvented  Might be blind to damaging events  Therefore, a gap exists between how we might want organizations to behave and how they must behave according to the law  This gap concerns ethics Philosophical frameworks  Utilitarianism ◦ ethical value of an act based on its consequences  Stakeholder theory ◦ considers the interests of different groups  Deontology ◦ ethical duties can be worked out through logic and reason  Justice ◦ focus on rights and fairness  Virtue ◦ focus on the character of the person who acts Business ethics  The academic study and promotion of CSR  Mainstream approaches share: ◦ A pro-business agenda ◦ A free market agenda ◦ A belief in the compatibility of profits and ethics Key problems  To justify its existence the field of business ethics must address:  The problem of relevance  The problem of conscience  The problem of translation (Knights and Willmott, 2012) Is the concept of ‘Ethics’ and ‘business’ a contradiction?  Friedman (1970):  The only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits  Social responsibility a personal issue  Countering Friedman:  Stakeholder (rather than shareholder) model (e.g. Freeman, 1984)  Ethical business is good business (e.g. Carroll, 1991) Who should decide what ethics is relevant and how to enforce them?  Organizations appear to lack mechanisms to encourage ethical behaviour (e.g. fear of God, karma, salvation, etc.)  Management as the ethical conscience, which includes: ◦ The right to define and enforce the organization’s ethics. Are the languages of ethics and business reconcilable?  Ethics is philosophical, abstract  Business is practical, rational  Overcome by simplifying ethics to that which can be easily managed (e.g. ethical codes/policies) How organizations manage Ethics internally Ethics Officers and Committees  In many instances an ethics officer is less about enhancing values than it is about avoiding legal proceedings.  An Ethics officer may also operate as a public relations role.  Senior management commitment is not guaranteed by giving an ethics officer a place on the board.  Ethics committees are a more substantial item to ensure responsible behaviour than ethics officers.  Ethics officers and committees does not guarantee that an organization will be effective at managing ethics or values Corporate Codes of Conduct Trade and employment legislation mandate certain issues Corporate codes of conduct are largely voluntary Often developed in response to a particular crisis in their supply chain ‘Corporate gloss’ or a PR exercise? Sometimes failure to monitor and enforce the code Whistleblowing  Information is not in the public domain.  ‘Blowing the whistle’ is with good intentions. Ethical change management This attempts to change behaviour of an organization as a whole, and includes:  An explicit statement of values  A code of conduct converging a range of different areas of activity  Identification of an ethics champion at a senior level  Corporate communication, training and development  Reporting and whistle-blowing systems  Monitoring and remedial systems. Critical approaches 12/14/2024 SAMPLE FOOTER TEXT 15 Ethics as a political tool  Many organizations seek to link business interests, employee ethics and legal compliance informal codes that enhance corporate reputation.  In context, ethics exist in concrete practices: it is not what the rules stipulate but what the actors do that is important daily practices by organizational members, rather than executive management’s dictats, frame mundane organizational behaviour. codes minimize business risk rather than produce ethicality; auditing compliance to enforce ethical rules is a form of insurance, allowing deviance to be stigmatized individually. (Clegg et al., 2021) Ethics of organization Bauman: ◦ Assigning ethical responsibilities to organizations can increase unethical organizational practices ◦ Pressures for conformity and uniformity can squeeze out individual ethical responsibility ◦ “the organization as a whole is an instrument to obliterate responsibility” Ethics of obedience Suggests that one person’s subordination to another is unethical (e.g. subordination of employee to manager) Marxist critique of capitalist working relations ◦ Alienation and exploitation Forms of resistance can be ethical Ethics can be: Fundamental values ◦ often religious Individual choices ◦ becoming a whistle-blower Bureaucratic framing ◦ treating each case as the same, with the same rules, sticking to the rulebook Regulation ◦ are business ethics even possible in a system that is driven by the pursuit of profits? Centrality of Ethics to Leadership Influence dimension of leadership requires the leader to have an impact on the lives of followers Power and control differences create enormous ethical responsibility for leaders Respect for persons – sensitive to followers’ own interests, and needs Leaders help to establish and reinforce organizational values – an ethical climate (Northouse, 2021) Summary  The nature of business ethics and CSR  Reconciling the aims of business with ethics  How corporations manage ethics internally  Critical approaches to ethics  Importance of ethical leadership Finally… Following on from the Challenger Shuttle disaster from last week’s seminar: https://freakonomics.com/2011/06/launching-into-unethical-behavior-lessons-from-the- challenger-disaster/ References Clegg S, Pitsis, T and Mount, M (2021) Managing and Organisations: and Introduction to Theory and Practice, London: Sage Griseri, P. and Seppala, N. (2010) Business ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility, Cengage. Knights, D., Willmott, H. (2017) Introducing organizational behaviour and management. London: Thomson. Northouse, P.G. (2021) Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.  POWER, POLITICS AND CONFLICT LECTURE WEEK 5: POWER SOURCES AND TACTICS LEARNING OBJECTIVES Definition of power. Understand the five bases of power. Explain the role of dependence in power relationships. Identify power or influence tactics and their contingencies. Understand the strategic contingency theory. Identify the causes and consequences of abuse of power. DEFINITION OF POWER Power refers to a capacity that A has to influence the behaviour of B, so that B acts in accordance with A’s wishes. ◦Power may exist but not be used. Probably the most important aspect of power is that it is a function of dependence. ◦A person can have power over you only if he or she controls something you desire. (Robbins and Judge, 2019) POWER AS PROPERTY BASES OF POWER  Formal Power  Coercive power  Reward power  Legitimate power  Personal power  Expert power Referent power  (French and Raven, 1959) Negative power (Handy, 1993)  BASES OF POWER Sources of Formal Power: Coercive power the ability to exert influence based on the other’s belief that the influencer can administer unwelcome penalties or sanctions. Reward power the ability to exert influence based on the other’s belief that the influencer has access to valued rewards which will be dispensed in return for compliance. Legitimate power the ability to exert influence based on the other’s belief that the influencer has authority to issue orders which they in turn have an obligation to accept. Bases of power Sources of Personal power:  Expert power: the ability to exert influence based on another’s belief that the influencer has superior knowledge relevant to the situation or task.  Referent Power: the ability to exert influence based on another’s belief that the influencer has desirable abilities and personality traits that can and should be copied.  Negative power: (see Handy, 1993).  FORMAL POWER AND PERSONAL POWER Which bases of power are most effective?  Personal sources are most effective.  Both expert and referent power are positively related to employees’ satisfaction with supervision, their organizational commitment, and their performance, whereas reward and legitimate power seem to be unrelated to these outcomes.  Coercive power can be damaging. Role of Dependence in Power Relationships This dependence can be evident when you possess anything that others require, but that you alone control, therefore you make them dependent upon you and thus you gain power over them. Dependence, then, is inversely proportional to the alternative sources of supply. WHAT CREATES DEPENDENCE? Importance  Scarcity  Non-substitutability Power or Influence tactics POWER OR INFLUENCE TACTICS POWER OR INFLUENCE TACTICS AND THEIR CONTINGENCIES Upward Influence Downward Influence Lateral Influence Rational persuasion Rational persuasion Rational persuasion Inspirational appeals Consultation Pressure Ingratiation Consultation Exchange Ingratiation Legitimacy Exchange Personal appeals Legitimacy Coalitions  INFLUENCE MECHANISMS Cialdini (2008) Identifies six central influence mechanisms:  Reciprocity; based on the social exchange norms  Consistency and commitment  Social proof  Liking  Authority  Scarcity POWER OR INFLUENCE TACTICS IN ACTION People differ in terms of their political skill: their ability toinfluence others to enhance their own objectives. ◦ The politically skilled are more effective users of all the influence tactics. Cultures within organizations differ markedly: some are warm, relaxed, and supportive; others are formal and conservative. ◦ People who fit the culture of the organization tend to obtain more influence. People in different countries prefer different power tactics*. POWER OR INFLUENCE TACTICS IN ACTION Some tactics are more effective than others. ◦ Rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, and consultation are most effective when the audience is highly interested in the outcomes. ◦ Pressure tends to backfire. ◦ Both ingratiation and legitimacy can lessen the negative reactions from appearing to “dictate” outcomes.  STRATEGIC CONTINGENCIES THEORY Strategic contingencies theory a perspective which argues that the most powerful individuals and departments are those best able to deal effectively with the issues that are most critical to the organization’s survival and performance. A department’s ability to deal with strategic contingencies depends on five factors: 1. Dependency creation 2. Financial resources 3. Centrality 4. Non-substitutability 5. Uncertainty reduction Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) Contingency Approaches to Power CONTINGENCY APPROACHESTO POWER Pfeffer argues that power comes from being in the right place. The right place is where you have: Control of resources Control over access to information Can make your own authority legitimate Salancik and Pfeffer (1977)  CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF ABUSE OF POWER Does power corrupt? – Power leads people to place their own interests ahead of others. – Powerful people react, especially negatively, to any threats to their competence. – Power leads to overconfident decision making. – Power does not affect everyone in the same way, and there are even positive effects of power. CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF ABUSE OF POWER Sexual harassment: any unwanted activity of a sexual nature that affects an individual’s employment and creates a hostile work environment. ◦ Organizations have generally made progress in the past decade toward limiting overt forms of sexual harassment. Managers have a responsibility to protect their employees from a hostile work environment, but they also need to protect themselves.  SUMMARY  Definition of power.  Understand the five bases of power.  Explain the role of dependence in power relationships.  Identify power or influence tactics and their contingencies.  Understand the strategic contingency theory.  Identify the causes and consequences of abuse of power.  REFERENCES Buchanan, D.A. and Huczynski, A.A. (2019) Organizational behaviour, Pearson UK. Cialdini, R. B. (2008) Influence: Science and Practice, New York: Allyn and Bacon. Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T. and Mount, M. (2022) Managing and organizations : an introduction to theory and practice. Sixth edition / edn. London: SAGE. French, J.R., Raven, B. and Cartwright, D., (1959) The bases of social power. Classics of organization theory, 7, pp.311-320. Handy, C. B (1993) Understanding Organisations, Penguin Martin, J. and Fellenz, M. R. (2017) Organizational behaviour and management. Fifth edn. Australia: Cengage Learning Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. (2019) Organizational behavior, 18th edn. New York, NY: Pearson. Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J., (1977) Who gets power—and how they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational dynamics, 5(3), pp.3-21.