Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
77 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
power |
the ability to influence the behaviour of others and resist unwanted influence in return |
|
2 categories of power sources |
1. organizational power 2. personal power |
|
3 types of organizational power |
1. legitimate power 2. reward power 3. coercive power |
|
why is legitimate power limited? |
can't exceed scope of authority can't ask employees to do something beyond the scope of their jobs |
|
when is reward power effective? |
subordinates believe leader has control over something they want reward criteria are clear, fair, and rewards given out as promised |
|
why is coercive power a poor form to use? |
principle of fear results in negative feelings to those who wield it |
|
personal forms of power |
forms of power that capture that "something else" |
|
2 types of personal power |
1. expert power 2. referent power |
|
when does expert power exist? |
1. leader has expertise 2. others have need for that expertise good to explain request |
|
when does referent power exist? |
charismatic leader others desire to identify and be associated with the leader |
|
4 power contingency factors |
1. substitutability 2. centrality 3. discretion 4. visibility |
|
centrality |
how important a person's job is and how many people depend on that person to accomplish their tasks |
|
discretion |
degree to which managers have the right to make decisions on their own without being restrained by organizational rules |
|
visibility |
how aware others are of a leader and the resources a leader can provide |
|
subsitutability
|
degree to which people have alternative in accessing the resources people control |
|
ideal conditions for power |
1. no susbitutes 2. high centralityy 3. high discretion 4. high visibility |
|
relationship between power and influence |
need power in order to influence people |
|
2 aspects of influence |
1. directional : downward (managers influencing employees - most common) or lateral ( peers influencing peers) 2. relative - disparity between influencer and influencee more important than absolute power of influencer |
|
4 most effective influence tactics |
1. rational persuasion 2. inspirational appeals 3. consultation 4. collaboration |
|
rational persuasion |
use of logical arguments and hard facts to prove something is worthwhile can show that the proposal is both important and feasible |
|
best influence tactic to use for upward influence |
rational persuasion |
|
inspirational appeals + one important criteria |
creates emotional reaction by appealing to one's values and ideals leader needs insight on what their targets value |
|
consultation |
target participates in deciding how to carry out or implement a request increases commitment and target now has a take in seeing that their opinions are valued |
|
collaboration ( as an influence method) |
leader makes it easier for target to fulfill request but offering to work with and help the target |
|
4 moderately effective tactics |
1. ingratiation 2. personal appeal 3. exchange tactic 4. apprising |
|
ingratiation + when is it most effective |
sucking up better in long term rather than just before making request |
|
personal appeal |
based on personal friendship the stronger the friendship, the more successful the attempt is likely to be |
|
exchange tactic + one requirement |
requestor offers reward in return for performing a request requestor must have something of value to offer |
|
apprising |
requestor explains how performing the request will benefit the target personally |
|
rational persuasion vs apprising |
rational persuasion - explains general importance and if effective, feasibility too apprising explains benefit just to the target |
|
2 least effective tactics |
1. pressure 2. coalition |
|
pressure |
coercive power through threats or demands short term benefit only |
|
coalition |
influencer enlists others to help influence the target generally used in combo with other tactics |
|
when are influence tactics most successful |
1. using multiple tactics in combination 2. softer tactics more successful (make use of personal forms of power) 3. tactics match the type of power the leader has |
|
3 responses to influence tactics |
1. internalization - behavioural + attitudinal change 2. compliance - behavioural change 3. resistance (to influence tactic) - no change |
|
most common response to influence tactics |
compliance |
|
2 ways leaders can use power to influence others |
1. organizational politics 2. conflict resolution |
|
organizational politics |
individual actions directed to furthering one's own self interest |
|
political skill |
ability to effectively understand others at work and use that knowledge to influence others in ways that enhance personal and/ or org. objectives |
|
4 capabilities involved in political skill |
1. networking ability 2. social astuteness 3. interpersonal influence 4. apparent sincerity |
|
networking ability |
adeptness at identifying and developing diverse contacts |
|
social astuteness |
tendency to observe other and accurately interpret their behaviour |
|
interpersonal influence |
unassuming and convincing personal style thats flexible enough to adapt to different situations |
|
apparent sincerity |
appearing to have high levels of honesty and genuineness |
|
relationship between political skill and job performance |
employees with higher political skill have higher task performance and citizenship behaviour |
|
effects of extremely political environments |
lower job satisfaction, more stress, higher turnover intentions, lower org. commitment |
|
first step in minimizing org. politics |
knowing the cause of org. politics |
|
2 types of causes of org. politics |
1. personal characteristics 2. organizational characteristics |
|
2 types personal characteristics |
1. need for power 2. machiavellianism |
|
machiavellianism |
willingness to manipulate and deceive others to acquire power |
|
5 types of organizational characteristics |
1. lack of participation in decision making 2. limited or changing resources 3. ambiguity in roles 4. high performance pressure 5. unclear performance evaluations |
|
which type of cause has a stronger effect on org. politics (organizational or personal)? |
organizational characteristics |
|
conflict |
two or more individuals perceive that their goals are in opposition |
|
competing |
win-lose high assertiveness, low cooperation 1. emergency/quick decision needed 2. important issue where unpopular opinion is needed 3. against people who take advantage of noncompeting people |
|
avoiding |
lose-lose low assertiveness, low cooperation 1. trivial issue 2. no chance of satisfying your concerns 3. disruption outweighs benefits 4. gathering info supersedes a decision 5. let people cool down 6. issue seems tangential to other issues |
|
collaborating |
win-win high assertiveness, high cooperation 1. both sides are too important to be compromised 2. objective is to learn 3. gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus 4. work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship |
|
accommodating |
lose-win low assertiveness, high cooperation 1. when you're wrong / minimize loss 2. issue is important to others, not important to you 3. build social credit for later issues 4. harmony and stability are important 5. allow subordinates to learn from mistakes |
|
compromise |
moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperation 1. goals are important but not worth disruption of more assertive modes 2. opponents of equal power committed to mutually exclusive goals 3. temporary settlements to complex issues 4. backup when collaboration or competition unsuccessful |
|
negotiation |
process in which 2 or more individuals discuss and attempt to reach agreement about their differences |
|
distributive bargaining |
win-lose negotiating over a fixed pie of resources so when one person wins the other person loses (zero-sum condition) |
|
integrative bargaining |
aims for win-win best for situations with multiple outcomes, adequate trust parties willing to be flexible people good at collaborating do best with this style allows long term relationships to form |
|
distributive vs integrative bargaining |
integrative - no one feels like a loser + higher outcome favourability |
|
4 stages in the negotiation process |
1. preparation - BATNA 2. exchanging info 3. bargaining 4. closing and commitment |
|
BATNA |
best alternative to a negotiated agreement negotiator's bottom line - better off not negotiating at BATNA point during preparation stage |
|
2 negotiator biases |
1. perceived power relationship 2. emotions |
|
how does the perception of oneself having more power affect negotiations? |
more power = more likely to ask for more and less likely to concede more likely to take distributive approach (win-lose) |
|
negative emotions + negotiating |
distributive bargaining lower judgement accuracy |
|
positive emotions + negotiating |
integrative approach overconfident - making decision too quickly |
|
do men negotiate more than women? |
no but they negotiate more effectively |
|
power & influence correlation to job performance |
moderate positive -increases internalization of task performance -internalization increases citizenship behaviours -compliance decreases counterproductive behaviour -effective use of power + influence can increase motivation |
|
power + influence model correlation to org. committment |
personal power increases affective commitment effective use of power increases job satisfaction people accomplishing internalized goals) increases commitment levels |
|
alternative dispute resolution |
parties resolve conflict through use of specially trained, neutral 3rd party |
|
mediation |
third party facilitates a dispute resolution process but with no formal authority to dictate a solution |
|
arbitration |
third party determines a binding settlement to a dispute between parties |
|
conventional arbitration |
arbitrator chooses, mixes and matches available alternatives |
|
final-offer arbitration |
each party presents its fairest offer and arbitrator chooses the most reasonable one |
|
voluntary agreement rates higher when mediation or arbitration is done first |
arbitration first -arbitrator hears both sides, makes decision and places it in sealed envelope, mediation process, if no agreement then they use the sealed envelope (arb's decision) |