Mos 2181 Ch 12

the ability to influence the behaviour of others and resist unwanted influence in return

1. organizational power

2. personal power

1. legitimate power

2. reward power

3. coercive power

can't exceed scope of authority

can't ask employees to do something beyond the scope of their jobs

subordinates believe leader has control over something they want

reward criteria are clear, fair, and rewards given out as promised

principle of fear results in negative feelings to those who wield it

forms of power that capture that "something else"

1. expert power

2. referent power

1. leader has expertise

2. others have need for that expertise

good to explain request

charismatic leader

others desire to identify and be associated with the leader

1. substitutability

2. centrality

3. discretion

4. visibility

how important a person's job is and how many people depend on that person to accomplish their tasks

degree to which managers have the right to make decisions on their own without being restrained by organizational rules

how aware others are of a leader and the resources a leader can provide

degree to which people have alternative in accessing the resources people control

1. no susbitutes

2. high centralityy

3. high discretion

4. high visibility

need power in order to influence people

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

1. rational persuasion

2. inspirational appeals

3. consultation

4. collaboration

use of logical arguments and hard facts to prove something is worthwhile

can show that the proposal is both important and feasible

rational persuasion

creates emotional reaction by appealing to one's values and ideals

leader needs insight on what their targets value

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

leader makes it easier for target to fulfill request but offering to work with and help the target

1. ingratiation

2. personal appeal

3. exchange tactic

4. apprising

sucking up

better in long term rather than just before making request

based on personal friendship

the stronger the friendship, the more successful the attempt is likely to be

requestor offers reward in return for performing a request

requestor must have something of value to offer

requestor explains how performing the request will benefit the target personally

rational persuasion - explains general importance and if effective, feasibility too

apprising explains benefit just to the target

1. pressure

2. coalition

coercive power through threats or demands

short term benefit only

influencer enlists others to help influence the target

generally used in combo with other tactics

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

1. internalization - behavioural + attitudinal change

2. compliance - behavioural change

3. resistance (to influence tactic) - no change

compliance

1. organizational politics

2. conflict resolution

individual actions directed to furthering one's own self interest

ability to effectively understand others at work and use that knowledge to influence others in ways that enhance personal and/ or org. objectives

1. networking ability

2. social astuteness

3. interpersonal influence

4. apparent sincerity

adeptness at identifying and developing diverse contacts

tendency to observe other and accurately interpret their behaviour

unassuming and convincing personal style thats flexible enough to adapt to different situations

appearing to have high levels of honesty and genuineness

employees with higher political skill have higher task performance and citizenship behaviour

lower job satisfaction, more stress, higher turnover intentions, lower org. commitment

knowing the cause of org. politics

1. personal characteristics

2. organizational characteristics

1. need for power

2. machiavellianism

willingness to manipulate and deceive others to acquire power

1. lack of participation in decision making

2. limited or changing resources

3. ambiguity in roles

4. high performance pressure

5. unclear performance evaluations

organizational characteristics

two or more individuals perceive that their goals are in opposition

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

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

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

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

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

process in which 2 or more individuals discuss and attempt to reach agreement about their differences

win-lose

negotiating over a fixed pie of resources

so when one person wins the other person loses (zero-sum condition)

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

integrative - no one feels like a loser + higher outcome favourability

1. preparation - BATNA

2. exchanging info

3. bargaining

4. closing and commitment

best alternative to a negotiated agreement

negotiator's bottom line - better off not negotiating at BATNA point

during preparation stage

1. perceived power relationship

2. emotions

more power = more likely to ask for more and less likely to concede

more likely to take distributive approach (win-lose)

distributive bargaining

lower judgement accuracy

integrative approach

overconfident - making decision too quickly

no but they negotiate more effectively

moderate positive

-increases internalization of task performance

-internalization increases citizenship behaviours

-compliance decreases counterproductive behaviour

-effective use of power + influence can increase motivation

personal power increases affective commitment

effective use of power increases job satisfaction people accomplishing internalized goals)

increases commitment levels

parties resolve conflict through use of specially trained, neutral 3rd party

third party facilitates a dispute resolution process but with no formal authority to dictate a solution

third party determines a binding settlement to a dispute between parties

arbitrator chooses, mixes and matches available alternatives

each party presents its fairest offer and arbitrator chooses the most reasonable one

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)