Part I: Power
A famous philosopher, Plato, once said, “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors”.
There are five bases of power, such as (i) coercive power, (ii) reward power, (iii) legitimate power, (iv) expert power, and (v) referent power (Robbins & Judge, 2013).
Coercive power derives from the fear of negative results due to failure to comply. It can appear in many forms, which includes infliction of physical and emotional pain, restriction of privileges, or controlling of basic psychological and safety needs. Coercive power does not necessarily be a downward influence, but it can take place laterally or upwards as well (Robbins & Judge, 2013). For example, if the subordinate has criminal evidence of his supervisor, the subordinate can coerce the supervisor into providing a promotion or salary increase without due cause.
Reward power, on the other hand, is the opposite of coercive power as reward power focuses on the ability to offer rewards, which often result in higher job satisfaction and improved job performance (Ward, 2001). Rewards can be tangible such as salary increases and bonuses, or intangible such as recognition, preferred work assignments and shifts (Goodwin, 2004; Robbins & Judge, 2013).
Legitimate power represents the formal authority based on the organisation’s structure hierarchy (Robbins & Judge, 2013). For legitimate power to take place, the target must believe that the powerholder has the authority or right to prescribe a specific behaviour (Carson et al., 1993).
Expert power derives from the perceived expertise, experience or knowledge of the powerholder (Humphreys et al., 2009). It is a form of personal power that comes from an individual’s unique abilities. For example, a Director of Food and Beverage depends on the expertise of the Executive Chef to design a new menu to attract new diners. Although the Director of Food and Beverage is the overall in-charge of the food and beverage operations, he may not have the expertise of creating new recipes or dishes for the restaurant. Expert power can also derive from past knowledge and experience of having done it before (Humphreys et al., 2009). Having such critical past information creates a dependency on the power holder to effectively achieve the goals.
Lastly, referent power refers to the influence of a powerholder due to his desirable resources or personal traits (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Referent powerholders frequently relies on charisma rather than authority or participation to influence (Yukl, 1989). As supported by Greenberg (2005), charismatic leaders are highly influential and inspire others to do things.
Interestingly, it is worthy to note that power and leadership are not the same (Goodwin, 2004). Power is different from leadership in three areas: (i) leadership requires a common goal while power requires dependency, (ii) leadership focuses on downwards influence while power can work laterally and upwards as well, and lastly, (iii) leadership focuses on styles while power focuses on techniques to gain compliance (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Furthermore, Goodwin (2004) explains that powerholders are not necessarily leaders, but leadership frequently implies power as they are characterised by asserting influence over the outcome.
As indicated by Robbins & Judge (2013), the most critical aspect of power is dependency, which is described as someone having to rely on another person for a unique type of support. This is further supported by Emerson (2007) who states that power is implicitly granted when there is dependence on the other. For example, in many organisations, promotions and salary increases are often dependent on the immediate supervisor’s approval. According to Robbins & Judge (2013), three factors create dependency, being the importance of the resource, the non-substitutability of the resource, and the scarcity of the resource. For example, although the General Manager of the hotel has the highest authority and legitimate power, he is also heavily dependent on the Hotel Manager to run the daily operations of the hotel in order for him to focus on the more strategic goals of the hotel.
Secondly, when a resource is non-substitutable, the organisation will have a competitive advantage over the rest (Hillman et al., 2009). Lastly, the idea of scarcity can be drawn from the seminal work of Pfeffer & Salancik (1978). According to Pfeffer & Salancik (1978), the more critical and scarce the resources are, the more power and control the holder has over others. To counter the effect of dependency, Pfeffer & Salancik (1978) suggested two methods. Firstly, a person can buffer the dependency by developing a substitute as a replacement for the resource. Secondly, a person can consider diversification to reduce the reliance on the resource.
Part II: Politicking
With power, comes politics and everyone differ in their political skill (Robbins & Judge, 2013). As explained by Robbins & Judge (2013), political behaviour consists of activities that are not required as part of an individual’s formal role but attempts to use some form of power bases to influence decision making. In a research paper by Buchanan (2008), it was reported that most managers perceive political behaviour as necessary, and political tactics such as networking, making friends with power brokers, bending the rules and self-promotion were common. On the other hand, dysfunctional behaviours were also identified such as misinformation, spreading rumours and blackmailing were rare, but not unknown. Political behaviour can be influenced by individual factors, such as high Machiavellian personality, and organisational factors, such as role ambiguity, which could lead to higher politicking outcome (Biberman, 1985; Ham & Vonk, 2011; Robbins and Judge, 2013).
With power, comes politics and everyone differ in their political skill (Robbins & Judge, 2013). As explained by Robbins & Judge (2013), political behaviour consists of activities that are not required as part of an individual’s formal role but attempts to use some form of power bases to influence decision making. In a research paper by Buchanan (2008), it was reported that most managers perceive political behaviour as necessary, and political tactics such as networking, making friends with power brokers, bending the rules and self-promotion were common. On the other hand, dysfunctional behaviours were also identified such as misinformation, spreading rumours and blackmailing were rare, but not unknown. Political behaviour can be influenced by individual factors, such as high Machiavellian personality, and organisational factors, such as role ambiguity, which could lead to higher politicking outcome (Biberman, 1985; Ham & Vonk, 2011; Robbins and Judge, 2013).
Robbins & Judge (2013) identified nine power tactics that can adopted to influence decision making being (i) rational persuasion, (ii) consultations, (iii) legitimacy, (iv) personal appeals, (v) ingratiation, (vi) inspirational appeals, (vii) coalitions, (viii) exchange, and (ix) pressure. Firstly, rational persuasion is the ability to present logical arguments and factual data to support a claim to be reasonable. Secondly, consultation involves the target in making joint decisions so as to get his buy-in in the idea. These two methods are the most effective if the target is highly committed to the outcome of the decision-making process. However, if the decision-making process is routine at best, legitimacy is often used to rely on one’s authority position. Within the nine tactics, there are softer approaches that appeal to the emotions of others. For example, personal appeal uses friendship or loyalty to ask for compliance whereby ingratiation uses praises and flattery to build rapport before making a request. Also, inspiration appeals stir the emotional aspect of the target’s needs, values and beliefs and coalition involves enlisting the help of others to persuade the target to give in. To add on, an exchange is another method that benefits the target in the exchange following a request. Lastly, the least effective method is pressure, which is to use threats and warnings to coerce the target, which could easily backfire due to the negative effect on employees’ satisfaction and commitment (Carson et al., 1993).
The outcome of political behaviour can be favourable with rewards or avoiding punishment, but for most people who have moderate or low political skills, they may be unwilling to play the political game. Based on research findings, it was concluded that perceptions of office politics could negatively affect job satisfaction, increased anxiety and stress for the employee, reduced in performance, and increase in turnover (Ferris et al., 1996). Eisenhardt & Bourgeois III (1988) further supported the claim that office politics can lead to communication barriers, creating inflexibilities, restricting information flow and consuming time. In addition, Ashforth & Lee (1990) also shared in their research that when employees see politics as a threat, they may display any of the 14 defensive behaviours such as (i) overconforming, (ii) passing the buck, (iii) playing dumb, (iv) depersonalising, (v) smoothing and stretching, (vi) stalling, (vii) buffing, (viii) playing safe, (ix) justifying, (x) scapegoating, (xi) misrepresenting, (xii) escalating commitment, (xiii) resisting change, and (xiv) protecting turf. These behaviours lead to the process of people attempting to control the impression of other through impression management techniques such as conformity, favours, excuses, apologies, self-promotion, enhancement, flattery and exemplification (Robbins & Judge, 2013).
Conclusion
In conclusion, power and politicking practices are common in the workplace but often unspoken. As the old saying goes, “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king!”. Therefore, it is essential to identify the type of power base that one has in the organisation, before deciding which politicking method to adopt to achieve one’s goal in the company. Which of the above have you encountered in your workplace? (Which is a politically correct way of phrasing, “Which of the above methods have you cleverly or unscrupulously manipulated in your workplace?) – Just kidding. =P
In conclusion, power and politicking practices are common in the workplace but often unspoken. As the old saying goes, “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king!”. Therefore, it is essential to identify the type of power base that one has in the organisation, before deciding which politicking method to adopt to achieve one’s goal in the company. Which of the above have you encountered in your workplace? (Which is a politically correct way of phrasing, “Which of the above methods have you cleverly or unscrupulously manipulated in your workplace?) – Just kidding. =P
-Richmond Kok
Hotelier by day, student by night
No comments:
Post a Comment