POD3

ORGANIZATIONAL POWER POLITICS

This page intentionally left blank

ORGANIZATIONAL
POWER POLITICS

Tactics in Organizational Leadership

Second Edition

GILBERT W. FAIRHOLM

PRAEGER
An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC

Copyright © 2009 by Gilbert W. Fairholm

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a
review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Fairholm, Gilbert W.

Organizational power politics : tactics in organizational leadership / Gilbert W.
Fairholm. — 2nd ed.

p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-313-37976-5 (alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-313-37977-2 (ebook)

1. Office politics. 2. Leadership. 3. Power (Social sciences) I. Title.
HF5386.5.F35 2009
658.4’095—dc22 2009018808

13 12 11 10 09 1 2 3 4 5

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook.
Visit www.abc-clio.com for details.

ABC-CLIO, LLC
130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911
Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911

This book is printed on acid-free paper
Manufactured in the United States of America

Contents

Preface vii

Acknowledgement xi

Introduction: The History and Theory of Power xiii

Part I: Defining Power in Work Group Operations 1

Chapter 1: Elements of a Definition 3

Chapter 2: Defining the Forms of Power 11

Chapter 3: Bases of Power 23

Chapter 4: Using Power Politics in Organizational Life 31

Part I Issues and Activities 41

Part II: Power Use: Tactical and Strategic Models 47

Chapter 5: A Power Use Model 49

Chapter 6: Power Use Tactics: Application of Power on the Job 57

Chapter 7: Using Power in the Organization 65

Part II Issues and Activities 77

Part III: Power Interventions That Work 83

Chapter 8: Tactics Used with Superiors 85

Chapter 9: Power Tactics Used with Peers 101

Chapter 10: Tactics Used with Subordinates 117

Chapter 11: Comparing Tactics 133

Chapter 12: How Inner Leaders Get Willing Compliance 155

Chapter 13: Using Power in Multinational Groups 171

Part III Issues and Activities 181

Appendix 189

Bibliography 191

Index 199

vi CONTENTS

Preface

Everyone uses power. Whether we think about it or not, using power is a normal
and universal part of life. It pervades what we do and how we relate to others and
it dictates much of our success (Johnson, 2005). Power use is integral to our rela-
tionships (Telford & Gostick, 2005). It is a central element in leadership. For very
many people, the idea of power has negative overtones (Goltz & Hietapelto,
2002). This attitude stifles full effectiveness on the job and limits our success in
all other dimensions of life. Perhaps the lack of prethought associated with much
organizational politics accounts for its failure and therefore its negative image in
the eyes of many group members.

Understanding power and power use, along with sensitivity to cultural
values, provide the best means of understanding leadership and what leaders do
(Fairholm, 1994; Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002). It helps us understand how leaders
lead, what they do in exercising leadership, and why some people are leaders and
other are not—even though they occupy similar positions in our economic and
social communities. Familiarity with how power is acquired and used in our rela-
tionships is critical in understanding our own and our followers’ behavior.
Applied power use is also a critical element of follower behavior. Engagement in
power use—practicing organizational power politics—therefore, becomes a
crucial part of our quest for success in life regardless of the role played in the
group hierarchy (Hogan, 2008).

The pioneering research the author reported on in the first edition of
Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership continues to
provide a solid foundation upon which to analyze this phenomenon. In the inter-
est of readability, the details of methodology and statistical proofs adduced in the
first edition are omitted from this volume. The reader is directed to that resource

for details of this research, its methodology, and statistical findings. This second
edition assumes the interested reader will be familiar with this research. The pres-
ent volume builds on its findings as it incorporates contemporary research, model
building, and the effectiveness of power tactics and related thinking to the model
presented earlier. This research references power use by executives from a wide
range of demographic and work situations and is summarized in Table A in the
Appendix.

This book interprets a solid and growing body of literature extending over
one hundred years on the operational uses of power coming from the growing
body of leadership studies and traditional managerial, sociological, psycho-
logical, and political perspectives on power (Brannen, 2005). The intent here
is to help readers—teachers, students, leaders, technicians, and followers—
access current knowledge and integrate it into a coherent strategy of operational
power tactics we have always used to secure our desired outcomes at work and in
all of our relationships with others (Barnes, 2005; Telford & Gostick, 2005). It
will help readers learn to use power to aid them and their group in achieving their
personal and organizational goals within the complex, global, multidifferentiated
organizations peculiar to twenty-first century America.

This second edition includes several features intended to increase its utility
as a resource researchers and practitioners alike can use to sharpen their under-
standing and skills in using power in their relationships. Its main contribution
remains the identification and application of the twenty-two power tactics that
leaders use to get their way in their relationships with others. Details of applica-
tion and refinement and a revised and updated analysis of the theory, operational
models, elements of power and their probability of success in use in a variety of
situations and by the range of professionals peopling the workplace will make the
second edition valuable to a wide range of professional and technical leaders.
This new edition will integrate current theory and practice to provide a twenty-
first century resource for twenty-first century leaders.

In addition to updating the theory component of the first edition and tighten-
ing the document’s language, the second edition includes a new chapter elaborat-
ing the use of power in multinational work groups and places this innovative
perspective in the marketplace of ideas. Another new chapter discusses the use of
power by organization members peopling the amorphous organizational sub-
groups making up the middle ranges of our large-scale organizations. These
group members differ in their orientation toward power from their CEO bosses—
the object of much past discussion and research about power use.

And, as a way to help novice leaders apply power in their group relationships
in appropriate ways, the second edition will add a variety of simple exercises,
activities, self-assessment instruments, cases studies, and/or discussion issues to
help readers assess their own power skills and hone them to better succeed at
work, home, or in other social situations, Together, these three major area of focus
will strengthen and direct the second edition, making it more useful to the reader
in both understanding and skillfully using power in their relationships.

viii PREFACE

The perspective taken here is practical in the sense that the orientation is
toward applied power use by individuals associated through organizational rela-
tionships (Telford & Gostick, 2005; Helgesen, 2008). The locus is, of course, the
group—an organization characterized by unique culture, values, and mores and
with a unique purpose, known leadership, and known and accepted group behav-
iors (Petersen, 2005). The centerpiece of this book is a grouping of 22 specific
power tactics both leaders and those they lead use in varying contexts to gain their
individual or group objectives. These tactics are typical of the internal political
interactions seen in the interpersonal relationships in which we all operate—the
jargon used is “office politics.”

The thrust of this book is to blow away the mysterious shadows that obscure
organizational politics. Power is, obviously, a necessary and constituent part of
leadership (Rost, 1991) whether we admit it or not. The focus is on power-in-use
as an important tool facilitating all group action. All of us have power and use it
routinely in our relationships with others. Whenever a leader acts to induce others
to behave in ways they desire, power is in use. Employees also use power to
impact the behavior of their leaders and coworkers, customers, and constituents.
Indeed, whenever anyone induces others to behave in ways they would not
otherwise have behaved, power and potentially leadership is being exercised.
Leadership is, therefore, independent of rank or formal managerial position. It is
an aspect of personal behavior that always includes routine power use. Power use
is, simply, an instrument of intended action.

PREFACE ix

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgment

Creativity involves, not in making something of nothing, but in integrating distinct
materials into a new whole. As with the first edition, I am indebted to many peo-
ple whose ideas and insights have informed and formed this book. So implicit is
their contribution that I can not always directly credit their contributions. To them
I owe thanks. I am also indebted to my wife, children, and grandchildren. Much
of my understanding of applied power comes from seeing them create their lives
by the positive choices they make daily in the face of an increasingly dangerous
and challenging world, a world they make livable—and lovable—for me.

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction: The History and Theory of Power

Power is a part of all organized behavior. It characterizes all human interaction.
Organizational power politics permeates all aspects of interpersonal communica-
tions and is an essential characteristic of all organizational action. Knowing how
to use power is invaluable to us all as a means to achieve some desired future
action in others. It is instrumental, in that people use power as an aid to achieve
their intended results (Gragnolati & Stupak, 2002). Although we recognize that
power can be, and sometimes is, an end-goal, its basic use is instrumental. Power
has utility for the group member most often as an intermediary tool to achieve
some personal, desired-end value. It does not have much utility (or, some say,
even being) as a “stored resource.” In fact evidence supports the contention that
power is not a “tangible,” storable commodity (such as information or money or
raw materials). Rather, its main value is in its use.

The idea of power has both emotional and ethical impact (Jurkiewicz &
Brown, 1995). For many it carries negative connotations. Some see power as
“manipulation,” “coercion,” “control,” or “force” (Rickards, 2000). For many,
power use has Machiavellian connotations. Of course, power is, or can be,
manipulative. We see power at work in behaviors such as “brown-nosing,”
“yes-ing” the boss, and similar sycophantic action. In fact, “Machiavellian”
has come to epitomize the worst in manipulative, exploitative, self-serving
power use (McMurry, 2000).

A balanced perspective allows, however, for an alternative construction of
the situation and a more positive view—one that sees power as ethically neutral.
The ethics of power lies not in power itself but in the motives and values of the
user. As with any other tool, we can use power for “good,” that is, for socially

developmental purposes (Kuhn & Graham, 2005), or for “bad,” that is, for
personal aggrandizement. User goals and operational results achieved, not power
application itself, are the ethical criteria (McClelland, 1975; Jurkiewicz & Brown,
1995). One can use power without destructive result to either self or others.
Results depend on the motives and skill of the power user. They are also a func-
tion of the power capabilities of all others involved in the particular power
exchange (Tepper, 1993).

Accepting this perspective, we also must accept the idea that power use
becomes critical in understanding normal group life. All organization members
use power to secure their goals, not just the leaders, supervisors, and managers
whom we traditionally view as powerful people. All people control scarce
resources of some type in negotiating agreement among related individuals. We
take independent action to direct organizational energies toward our predeter-
mined goals, indeed, in setting those goals in the first instance. Effective power
use secures both organizational and personal goals in most (if not all) organiza-
tional action. All of us most of the time engage in organizational politics as we
negotiate our way through our careers.

There is mounting support in current and traditional management writings
that legitimizes power and defines power maintenance functions (Tepper, 1993).
Power is, of course, central to organizational impact processes such as leadership,
planning, directing, controlling, and performance evaluation. It is in this sense
that most leaders and other workers see power use. It is also in this context that
power use has its most telling impact on personal and organizational success. The
task ahead is clear: develop a constructive way to think about and use power with
a minimum amount of disruption, pain, and dysfunction. Before anyone can
accomplish this, there must exist a body of knowledge and a technology they can
apply to day-to-day situations. Until scholars and practitioners have these data at
their disposal, it will be extremely difficult for either to be effective in making
improvements. Until someone develops this knowledge, both will have to get
along on the basis of hunch, guess. and an individually ascertained, “cumulative
wisdom.” It is to this end that I dedicate this book.

THE HISTORY OF POWER THEORY

Power use is so imbedded in daily life that viewing our interrelationships in
power terms deepens our understanding of why we are or are not successful in
reaching our goals. Seeing our relationships in power terms is a new perspective
for most of us and adds a new dimension to human relations, in stark contrast to
traditional relationship perspectives such as networks of communications, con-
flict resolution, change, motivation, or values (Fairholm, 1991; Gragnolati & Stu-
pak, 2002). Adding a power perspective is new, even through a few researchers in
the past hundred years of its modern history have advocated this perspective. A
careful reading of organization and leadership theories unmasks the power com-

xiv INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

ponent that has always been part of our theory and practice. We have only lacked
a language of power and the theoretical platform to make it clear. Over the years
several writers have begun to abstract working models and strategies applicable
to leadership. (See, e.g., Russell, 1938; Follett, 1942; Krech & Crutchfield,
1948; Bachrach & Baratz, 1970; Hickson, Hinings, Lee, Schneck, & Pennings,
1971; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977; Fairholm, 1993, 2003; Coleman, 2004; Brannen,
2005; Yap, 2006: Yukl & Becker, 2006.)

The following discussion relates sometimes disparate power ideas into a syn-
thesis, which is hopefully beneficial to practitioner and academic alike.

Background

Society is a condition of inequality. Whether in the animal or human realm,
we find the ordinary and the extraordinary, the leaders and the led, the powerful
and the relatively powerless. The patterns of dominance and subservience found
in nature are mirror images of systems present in our social systems all over the
globe. Consider this listing:

1. The leader displays the trappings, posturing, and gestures of dominance—
sleek, calm, relaxed, and purposive.

2. When challenged, he scares his foe with aggressive charges.
3. If needed he can—and does—overpower his opponent.
4. He is not only physically strong, but is cunning, quick, and intelligent as

well.
5. He reinforces his dominance on the group by maintaining harmony,

thereby ensuring his position.
6. He develops a cadre of assistants who help him maintain the safety of

the group. He rewards them with relative freedom of action and a closer
association with him.

7. He protects his subordinates, thus ensuring the continuance of the group.
8. He determines the movement of the group. They go where he goes, work

when he works, and rest when he rests.
9. He is continually reassuring the group members of his affection and love

for them.
10. He assumes command in times of danger and is in the forefront of battle.

This account could be a description of the modern business executive. In fact,
it is an outline of the ten commandments of dominance in baboon leaders
described by Desmond Morris in The Human Zoo (1969).

Human society follows this natural pattern. The immense differences in
power between the powerful and the relatively powerless are no longer as strik-
ing as they perhaps once were. The relative power of the slave and the holder of
10,000 slaves is not the same as the CEO with 10,000 subordinates over whose

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER xv

livelihood he has suzerainty. Nor are the depredations of the Spanish inquisition
similar to the egalitarianism of today’s governments or modern religious
ecumenicalism. Whether or not the individual need for dominance has atrophied
over the centuries is debatable. Its gross manifestations appear to have at least
moderated. The plain fact remains, however, that those individuals with power act
in ways uncommonly similar to the ways those in power in ancient times acted.
And, both are similar to the actions of the dominant ape.

Anyone with even a little energy, concern for others, or a drive to accomplish
anything wants to and does exercise power. We all exercise power. Parents use
power, as do ministers, teachers, policemen, athletes, and leaders of all social
groups. Within reason, we consider the exercise of power by any of these people
as normal and routine. In these cases, power use is not a matter of concern for
anyone—not for the object of power, or the power holder, or for the social scien-
tist who may study the episode. When we exercise power within normal limits,
those exercising it are useful, valuable, and acceptable functionaries in our social
system. It is only when the person of power exceeds group norms that power
becomes a threat and the object of fear, derision, scorn, and elimination (Peck,
2006). Within acceptable norms, power is a natural part of life. Beyond those
norms it is a threat many fear and try to eliminate—or ignore. In these cases,
many people see this kind of power as evil, unethical, hurtful, and oppose its use
(Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1995).

The Progress of Power

Krieger and Stern (1968) have aptly synthesized the evolution of power in
theory. Their survey of power evolution (restated here) is instructive. For Plato,
power is a necessary aspect of the good. For Plato, the principal ingredient of
power was knowledge. We should, therefore, respect power and those who use it.
Aristotle concentrated on means and ends distinctions. For him there was reci-
procity between the powerful person and the target of power. Power is a function
of change we can use to achieve good ends. The good ruler is a good and wise
man. On the other hand, the Romans saw political power as independent from
ethics. They saw power in terms of origins, not ends. Power for them was posi-
tion based; it came with the decision to involve oneself in the political life and
institutions of the society. We grant the public leader power, but also constrain
him or her by the prerogatives claimed as part of the role of public “controller.”
Greek thought placed power in ethical terms around ends sought. They distin-
guished ethical ends from the forms of power defined by Roman tradition.

These ideas were separate through the Middle Ages, but gradually merged
into one theoretical system. Thomas Aquinas argued that God, being the author
of all nature, must also be the final source of political power. Kings must accede
to the rule of theology while attending to the business of caring for social sys-
tems. Machiavelli demurred from this ecclesiastical construct, arguing instead

xvi INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

that power must be served. His ethics were those of the realist. State power
existed to protect and secure the state. Nonetheless, theological primacy over
temporal rulership continues into our times. English political traditions implied a
divine right until the seventeenth century. Then, consent of the governed in the
form of social contracts replaced the divine right to rule. The Social Contract
philosophers saw power as residing not only in kings, but in commoners. The
assertion of this power took the form of rights granted to citizens in cultural and
economic matters. The king‘s role became one of concern with the protection of
these rights and for the general welfare of his subjects.

Although, historically, much of the view of power is in political terms (Safty,
2003), there is a much more encompassing arena for the study of power today.
The modern organization and its ruler, the leader-executive, is a prime locus for
the study of power today. The large-scale organizational executive exercises a
power no less encompassing than that of the political executive. His power is
pervasive and strong, his impact on the quality of life is broad. Power is a major,
often implicit, theoretical thread in American business and government, as well
as political and social theory. Much of the theory coming to us from past research
forms three distinct tracks: political power theory, psychological power theory,
and organization power theory (Coleman, 2004).

POWER IN POLITICAL THEORY

From a political perspective the distribution of power in America is continu-
ously covered in the literature. One helpful treatment has been the work of C.
Wright Mills (1957). His work established the thesis that political power in
America is in the hands of a few people whom he called the power elite—the
relatively few political, military, economic, and community leaders. These people
occupy strategic positions in the social system at every level in America: national,
state, region, and community. Their positions at the top of institutions making up
the social infrastructure make it possible for them to command in significant com-
munity decisions (Dahl, 1961). Comparing familial, religious, or educational
leaders with the power elite, Mills argued that they were not particularly effective
in using power to run community institutions or processes. These people are often
relegated second-level roles in community decision making. The power elite
Mills defined formed a kind of interlocking directorate at the top of the commu-
nity leadership system. Conscious of their power and their relationship to each
other, and aware of other community leaders, the elite, typically, are not a mono-
lithic, formal body. The membership is frequently shifting, with individuals mov-
ing in and out on a continuing basis determined in large part by the particular
issues on the public decision agenda. The elites are, nevertheless, present at any
given moment and are a known and knowable body of community power
notables. They cooperate and conspire to exercise decision-making power over
significant community action issues.

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER xvii

Another significant contributor to the elites theory of power is Floyd Hunter
(1959). Hunter elaborated Mills’ work in research done in Atlanta, Georgia.
Nationally, He found that top leaders came from more than just military, eco-
nomic, and political cadres, but included labor, recreation, professional, and
financial leaders also. For Hunter, the power elite are more homogeneous than
Mills suggested and are often highly centralized and structured. This monolithic
hierarchy includes at least policy councils as well as general membership.
Hunter’s highly definitive structure of power challenged others to move into the
power discussion with counter arguments. Most notable was Robert A. Dahl
(1961), whose research led him to the conclusion that power was apparent in the
community in a pluralistic pattern rather than a monolithic one. For Dahl, power
is exercised in the community by a series of shifting coalitions, differing in mem-
bership based on the issue under study. Community public works concerns will
bring to the fore a markedly different power cadre than, say, one concerned with
education. These and other writers of this period have had a significant impact on
power theory (see, e.g., Rose, 1967), focusing research attention on multiple
theses to explain the working of the community body politic (Ryan, 2000).

The theoretical debate on these two issues—elitist versus pluralistic—
continues today. Both sides amass data to support their respective contentions.
The issue is not a settled one by any means, but the rhetoric may be abating
somewhat. While the controversy is very much in evidence, the dogmatic pos-
turing has given way to a more empirical accumulation of the evidence. This
posture may provide a future resolution of this critical issue in political power
theory (Coleman, 2004; Safty, 2003).

POWER IN SOCIAL THEORY

Social and political power theory shares the same philosophical traditions.
Plato, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Adler concluded separately that we
can explain man’s nature and place in society in power terms. Today we are using
power ideas to describe many different social events: war, social movements, race
turmoil, political activism, the counter-revolution. In the process of widespread
use, the word has acquired many meanings—so many as to make the term
misleading and its use confusing. One prominent thread moving through this
body of power in social theory is that it is seen more often as a negative idea
rather than a positive one (Goltz & Hietapelto, 2002). Plato saw power as essen-
tially good, but cautioned that its misuse can be destructive since it can be the
basis for man’s propensity for acquisition.

Machiavelli has achieved a degree of fame (even infamy) as a result of his
work to apply power in public life. His advice to rulers on how to gain, maintain,
and accrue power are commonplace by today’s standards. But, in a back-handed
way, Machiavelli focused public attention on the ethical dimension of power use,
a focus much in vogue today. For Hobbes, power was the present means to secure

xviii INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF POWER

some future good. Since people seek pleasure, power becomes the means by
which they can gain that goal in the face of competition (even conflict) from
others. Carried to its logical conclusion, this drive in people for hedonistic pleas-
ures leads to conflict and war. The solution for Hobbes was in some form a social
founded in a formal covenant—social contract—among the people. The
social contract creates a superior governing entity—the Hobbesian Leviathan—
a self-perpetuating, autonomous social , one, like Machiavelli’s, that is inde-
pendent of moral or religious constraint. Although less important today to social
scientists, his ideas have significantly influenced our thinking and our theory of
social systems.

Others proffered other solutions to the dilemma of power use among the
members of social systems. The utopian and the rationalist views were much
more in vogue in the past than today. Both grappled with the central issues of
power use and distribution among the members of the society. Bertrand Russell
followed these theorists. His task was to deal with the corporate version of man
in society. Power in modern industrial society becomes a different of
involvement. Power exercised by the organization’s leaders becomes more imper-
sonal, anonymous, and related more to abstract roles than previous, more indi-
vidualistic constructions. For Russell, the key to understanding power in
industrial societies lies in understanding the structure of society and its major
institutions. Power in this context relates to institutional values. His definition of
power as the production of intended effects is, then, entirely compatible with an
organizational focus.

Nietzsche’s work still has currency among social scientists in elaborating
power at the psychological level. His work uses power as an elastic term as well
as a specific one. He incorporates a widely diverse list of concepts in defining
power, as well as the concrete idea that power is the essential and irreducible prime
motive for action. For Nietzsche, man’s internal, prime desire is for power. Other
desires are incidental to this central drive. He specifically defines power to mean
self-overcoming, an idea not dissimilar to Maslow’s self-actualization ideas. The
antisocial uses of power …