Assignment of organizational behavior

January, 2023

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

In social terms, the meaning of organizational power is power involves the rule by the few over
the majority and we have to understand the political processes (both Structural and Interpersonal)
whereby power is legitimated (the process whereby power ceases to be nakedly coercive and
becomes the power that is based upon authority. By power is meant the ability of individuals or
groups to make their own concerns or interests count, even where others resist.

In dealing with the office politics, your best chance of survival is to understand the source of
your organizational power so you can use it appropriately. This is critical if you want to remain
relevant in your organization, and it may also save your career in your industry. When you face
the downside of organizational politics, the last thing you want to do is destroy your own value
by giving your power away. Organizational power is the ability that you have to influence the
behavior of another stakeholder in your organization. Your power is measured by the extent that
you can use your influence to get that stakeholder to do something that he or she would
otherwise prefer not to do.

German sociologist, Max Weber defined power as “The probability that one actor within a
social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance.”

Salacik & Pfeffer: Power is the ability of those who posses power to bring about and the
outcomes they desire.

Mintzberg: Power is the capacity to effect or affect organizational outcomes.

R.A. Dahl: A has power over B to the extern that he can get be to do something that B would
otherwise not do.

V.V. Mc Murray: Power is the ability of influencing others and to resist unwanted influence in
return.

Emerson: Defined power as “The power of actor A over actor B is the amount of resistance of
the part of B which can be potentially overcome by A.” 

1
From an organizational behavior perspective, this definition of organizational power implies that
the other stakeholder is dependent on you. This means that the greater their dependency is on
you the more power you will have to influence their actions.

Influence ability of the Targets of Power

Most discussion of power implies a unilateral process of influence from the agent to the target.

It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that power involves a reciprocal relationship between
the agent and the target, which is under the overall social-cognitive perspective taken in this text.

The power relationship can be better understood by examining some of the characteristics of the
target. The following characteristics have been identified as being especially important to the
influence ability of targets.

Dependency
The dependency of the target depends on the resources controlled by the agent. If the
dependency is high, power influence will be high or vice-versa.

The greater the target’s dependencies on their relationship with agents, the more targets are
influenced.

Uncertainty
Certainty or uncertainty in the mind of the agent about the appropriateness of his behavior
determines his influence ability.

Experiments have shown that the more uncertain people are about the appropriateness or
correctness of behavior, the more likely they are to be influenced to change that behavior.

Personality
There is various research studies show a relationship between personality and influence ability.
For example, people who cannot tolerate ambiguity or who are highly anxious are more
susceptible to influence.

2
Intelligence
Though there is no conclusive proof of the direct relationship between intelligence and influence
ability, it has been observed that more intelligent people are less susceptible to influence
generated by positional power.

Gender
Although traditionally, it was generally thought that women were more likely to conform to
influence attempts than men because of the way they were raised, there is no evidence that this is
changing.

As women’s and society’s views of the role of women are changing, there is less of a distinction
of influence ability by gender.

Age
A social psychologist has generally concluded that susceptibility to influence increases in young
children up to about the age of eight or nine and then decreases with age until adolescence when
it levels off.

Culture
The cultural values of a society have a tremendous impact on the influence ability of its people.
Characteristics of the culture to which targets belong affect their influence ability.

For example, people from a culture oriented to authority are highly susceptible to influence,
while those from a culture with low authority orientation are less susceptible to influence.

3
 2. HOW DO MANAGERS ACQUIRE THE POWER NEEDED FOR LEADERSHIP?

Social power is the potential to influence other people. Social influence is the power used. A
leader can have great power potential, but his influence might be limited due to his poor skills in
using social power.

There are five basic sources of power: Legitimate, Reward, Coercive, Informational, Expert
and Referent power.

1. Legitimate power

Belief that a person has the formal right to make demands, and to expect others to be compliant
and obedient. This is where you are hired, elected or appointed to a position that comes with
legitimate responsibilities. So, say you′re a frontline supervisor you′re probably going at some
point to make people′s schedule. That′s your legitimate responsibility. Its tied to your position.
Prime minister, CEO, a policeman or a teacher also have legitimate power. Good thing with
legitimate power is that we do not have to explain why we demand something from people, but it
does not last forever – only as long as we are in the legitimate position.

2. Reward power

Comes from leader’s ability to compensate people for compliance. The compensation might
include raises, money, promotions, training opportunities, compliments or just a smile. I’m a
middle-aged person and I still like a reward. If someone says excellent job that’s a reward for
me. Expected future reward motivates followers to stay in relationship. It doesn’t lead to
internalization and depends on rewards evaluable. Once the rewards are gone so is the influence.

3.Coercive power

The flip side of reward power is coercive power. Leader can punish others for noncompliance.
Threats and punishments are common coercive tools. Wise leader will use coercive power as a
last resort because It creates distrust and conflict. This is the power source that you don’t want to
overuse if you want to influence people in long term. Otherwise, the followers will be motivated
to leave the relationship.

4
4. Informational power

It’s not tied to you as a person, it’s the power of the information you have. Once you share the
information, the power is gone. On the other hand, if you hide the information, you will not be
liked by followers for long. Sharing information in teamwork is crucial to success. Leader can
use information to empower followers or with hold the information and create distrust.
Sometimes, Information might be used as a bargaining tool. 

5. Expert power

If you have a high level of education and knowledge let’s say you’re scientist, physician, lawyer
or engineer than you have the expertise. Surgeon „knows how to operate “and patient obeys. The
power of an expert is limited to the domain of his expertise. Don’t expect from a surgeon to give
you fashion advice! Expertise enables leaders to generally outperform followers.  Raises trust
and respect but only in one area.

6. Referent power

It is based on the resource of respect and/or love. Leaders with values, integrity and honesty raise
respect and have great referent power.  Influencers and/or celebrities also use referent power.
Great leaders prefer to use referent power because it makes everyone feel good. It improves
relationships and social climate.  Whenever I talk about referent power in my lectures, people
mention people like Oprah Winfrey. She has a lot of referent influence over people. She
recommends books and then people read them, and they become bestsellers. She gives advice
and people take it… It’s a kind of power where people want to follow you.

To be a joyful leader, one needs a more robust source of power than a title, an ability to reward
or punish, or access to information – one needs a more personalized and advanced power
sources like expert power and referent power. By understanding different sources of power, one
can use the cocktail of powers to become an influential joyful leader. But, remember, great
power comes with great responsibility!

5
7. Charismatic Power

Charismatic power is an extension of referent power stemming from an individual’s personality

Charismatic leaders get others to follow them because they can articulate an attractive vision,
take personal risks, demonstrate environmental and follower sensitivity, and are willing to
engage in behavior that most others consider unconventional.

But many organizations will have people with charismatic qualities who, while not in formal
leadership positions, can exert influence over others because of their heroic qualities.

The above-mentioned bases/types of power are normally practiced in many organizations.

But, indeed, all the powers are not seen in a single organization. The uses of powers vary from
organization to organization, time to time, person to person, situation to situation, etc.

6
 3. WHAT ARE ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS? DESCRIBE IN DETAIL

Organizational politics are informal, unofficial, and sometimes behind-the-scenes efforts to sell
ideas, influence an organization, increase power, or achieve other targeted objectives. Politics
has been around for millennia. Aristotle wrote that politics stems from a diversity of interests,
and those competing interests must be resolved in some way. “Rational” decision making alone
may not work when interests are fundamentally incongruent, so political behaviors and influence
tactics arise.

Today, work in organizations requires skill in handling conflicting agendas and shifting power
bases. Effective politics isn’t about winning at all costs but about maintaining relationships while
achieving results. Although often portrayed negatively, organizational politics are not inherently
bad. Instead, it’s important to be aware of the potentially destructive aspects of organizational
politics in order to minimize their negative effect. Of course, individuals within organizations
can waste time overly engaging in political behavior. Research reported in HR Magazine found
that managers waste 20% of their time managing politics. However, Power and Influence,
“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”.

Organizations typically have limited resources that must be allocated in some way. Individuals
and groups within the organization may disagree about how those resources should be allocated,
so they may naturally seek to gain those resources for themselves or for their interest groups,
which gives rise to organizational politics. Simply put, with organizational politics, individuals
ally themselves with like-minded others in an attempt to win the scarce resources. They’ll
engage in behavior typically seen in government organizations, such as bargaining, negotiating,
alliance building, and resolving conflicting interests.

Politics are a part of organizational life, because organizations are made up of different interests
that need to be aligned. In the negative light, saying that someone is “political” generally stirs up
images of back-room dealing, manipulation, or hidden agendas for personal gain. A person
engaging in these types of political behaviors is said to be engaging in self-serving behavior that
is not sanctioned by the organization.

7
Examples of these self-serving behaviors include bypassing the chain of command to get
approval for a special project, going through improper channels to obtain special favors, or
lobbying high-level managers just before they make a promotion decision. These types of actions
undermine fairness in the organization, because not everyone engages in politicking to meet their
own objectives. Those who follow proper procedures often feel jealous and resentful because
they perceive unfair distributions of the organization’s resources, including rewards and
recognition.

The negative side of organizational politics is more likely to flare up in times of organizational
change or when there are difficult decisions to be made and a scarcity of resources that breeds
competition among organizational groups. To minimize overly political behavior, company
leaders can provide equal access to information, model collaborative behavior, and demonstrate
that political maneuvering will not be rewarded or tolerated. Furthermore, leaders should
encourage managers throughout the organization to provide high levels of feedback to employees
about their performance. High levels of feedback reduce the perception of organizational politics
and improve employee morale and work performance. Remember that politics can be a healthy
way to get things done within organizations.

Antecedents of Political Behavior

Individual Antecedents

There are a number of potential individual antecedents of political behavior. We will start off by
understanding the role that personality has in shaping whether someone will engage in political
behavior.

Political skill refers to peoples’ interpersonal style, including their ability to relate well to others,
self-monitor, and alter their reactions depending upon the situation they are in, and inspire
confidence and trust. Researchers have found that individuals who are high on political skill are
more effective at their jobs or at least in influencing their supervisors’ performance ratings of
them. Individuals who are high in internal locus of control believe that they can make a
difference in organizational outcomes. They do not leave things to fate. Therefore, we would
expect those high in internal locus of control to engage in more political behavior. Investment in
the organization is also related to political behavior. If a person is highly invested in an

8
organization either financially or emotionally, they will be more likely to engage in political
behavior because they care deeply about the fate of the organization. Finally, expectations of
success also matter. When a person expects that they will be successful in changing an outcome,
they are more likely to engage in political behavior. Think about it: If you know there is no
chance that you can influence an outcome, why would you spend your valuable time and
resources working to effect change? You wouldn’t. Over time you’d learn to live with the
outcomes rather than trying to change them.

Organizational Antecedents

Scarcity of resources breeds politics. When resources such as monetary incentives or promotions
are limited, people see the organization as more political. Any type of ambiguity can relate to
greater organizational politics. For example, role ambiguity allows individuals to negotiate and
redefine their roles. This freedom can become a political process. Research shows that when
people do not feel clear about their job responsibilities, they perceive the organization as more
political. Ambiguity also exists around performance evaluations and promotions. These human
resource practices can lead to greater political behavior, such as impression management,
throughout the organization. As you might imagine, democratic decision making leads to more
political behavior. Since many people have a say in the process of making decisions, there are
more people available to be influenced.