6
Politics: The Secret Approach to Conflict Resolution

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Define politics.

• Describe the three approaches to conflict resolution most relevant to effective political behavior.

• Describe the two major goals of political behavior.

• List and explain the political tactics identified by Dale Carnegie, Robert Baron and Jerald Greenberg, and Norman Martin and John Sims.

INTRODUCTION

If negotiation is the open approach to conflict resolution, politics is clearly the secret approach. It’s such a secret that many people in organizations refuse even to discuss the political tactics they have employed. But what exactly is politics? Examine the following definitions:

1. Politics is an organizational process affecting authority and status—we can speak of the politics of a decision (Allen 1990).

2. Organizational politics is the management of influence to attain ends not sanctioned by the organization or to attain sanctioned ends through non-sanctioned means (Mayes and Allen 1977).

3. Organizational politics is any behavior by an organizational member that is self-serving. When individuals act to enhance their own position, regardless of costs to the organization or to others, they are acting politically (Robbins 1983).

These three definitions emphasize the dark side of politics. Political behavior is seen as a set of secret, unprincipled behaviors designed to achieve narrow, selfish goals. No wonder many individuals refuse to discuss their political activities. Nevertheless, political activity exists in virtually all organizations. As we shall see in this chapter, there are good and bad politics. Particularly when trying to resolve conflict in organizations, politics can serve a very useful purpose.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION APPROACHES WELL SUITED FOR ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

In Chapter 5, we stated that most negotiations can be conducted using a forcing, compromising, or collaborating style. But as we turn to political behavior, we find that the three conflict resolution approaches most often used are avoiding, accommodating, and compromising. Avoiding occurs when one or both sides recognize that a conflict exists but react by withdrawing from or postponing the conflict. Accommodating occurs when one side to a conflict resolves the conflict by giving in to the other side at the expense of his or her own needs. Compromising occurs when one or both sides gain and lose in order to resolve the conflict.

THE GOALS OF POLITICAL BEHAVIOR

Why are these generally passive approaches common to political behavior? The answer is deceptively simple and neatly summarizes the great rule of politics: Make friends, not enemies. Avoiding, accommodating, and compromising can produce positive relationships. Consider the following comment from an excellent organizational politician:

The key to getting ahead here, and I think in every organization, is to minimize your enemies. When you create an enemy, you produce a person who just waits for an opportunity to stab you in the back. The knives are always ready. Now, it’s nice to have a lot of friends. They can really help you out when things get tough. But it’s even more important not to have enemies. That’s the number one rule of organizational life. I’d rather have most of the people here feel neutral about me than have half of them love me and half of them hate me. Your enemies are the real dangers. They’re the ones who can really harm your career, mostly through backstabbing and innuendo.

Exhibit 6–1 illustrates the relationship between politics and conflict. As we can see, the basic purpose of political behavior is not to become involved in conflict, because conflict can interfere with a person’s ability to reach his or her goals. Unlike negotiations, which are clearly oriented toward conflict resolution, politics is intended to prevent conflict, to minimize the number of enemies and maximize the number of friends so that individual goals, such as security, advancement, salary increases, and recognition, can be attained. Forcing and collaborating, two very direct and open approaches to conflict resolution, are not as useful in this context because both approaches may result in new enemies. As we have seen, forcing may lead to resentment, and though collaborating generally produces friends, it does so only if it’s successful. If unsuccessful, it, too, could result in new enemies.

In order to minimize enemies and maximize friends, a politically oriented individual will first try to avoid conflict and, thus, any potential damage that might arise from it. But when the conflict can’t be avoided, a politically clever person seriously considers accommodation, particularly if his or her investment in the issue is small. This not only prevents new enemies from emerging but may, in fact, create new allies. Nevertheless, if the conflict must be resolved, a compromising approach should be adopted because it does not normally lead to significant new enemies. And as we have seen, many people naturally resort to compromising because splitting the difference is a traditional way to resolve conflict without damaging personal relationships.

ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS: LITTLE HAS CHANGED

Political behavior is not a new organizational phenomenon—it has always existed in organizations. Just look through the management and business literature to see how little the art of organizational politics has changed over the past half century.

Dale Carnegie

Dale Carnegie was concerned about organizational politics back in 1936. The book he wrote then, How to Win Friends and Influence People, is still popular today. In fact, in July of 2005 it was ranked 69 on Amazon.com’s best-seller list, and it usually ranks in the top 150 (after nearly seventy years in print!). Consider the following, paraphrased from Carnegie’s book:

You don’t win friends and influence people by being a petty tyrant. You don’t win friends and influence people by being brutally honest about their faults. You don’t win friends and influence people by pushing hard to get what you want at the expense of their needs. You must understand that other people have feelings too. You can’t brush them aside as if they were inanimate objects with no human qualities. You need to put yourself in the other fellow’s shoes and begin to appreciate his needs and feelings. This is the new human relations approach toward dealing with other people. It is composed of four essential elements:

• First, make others feel important through an open appreciation of their ideas and work. People will like you if you make them feel important.

• Second, make a good first impression. People judge you when they first meet you, and first impressions are hard to reverse.

• Third, win people over to your way of thinking by letting others do the talking, by being sympathetic to their problems, and by never telling people they are wrong. You don’t change people by hitting them on the head; you change them by winning their trust and support.

• Fourth, and finally, praise the good traits of the people you meet, and always give people an opportunity to save face if they are wrong or make a mistake. You should emphasize the good things people do and de-emphasize their bad traits. The surest way to get people to like you and do what you want is by praising them.

If you follow these four simple rules, I can guarantee that you’ll win friends and influence people. You’ll be the person with hundreds of friends and no enemies. And you’ll go far in your company and in your community. This approach has already worked for millions of people and it will work for you if you just follow these four basic rules.

Through his book and seminars conducted across the globe, Dale Carnegie’s ideas are still being widely spread. However, management research into politics did not end with Dale Carnegie. Much additional research not only supports Carnegie but also has led to new guidelines and suggestions based on his concepts.

The GMJ Surveys

Recent surveys conducted by the Gallup Management Journal (GMJ) reveal that “encouraging people” is a fundamental key to being a good team leader or a good team member (Sorensen and Crabtree 2001; Crabtree 2004). Examples of encouragement include (1) “winning others over” by smiling, welcoming a stranger, and greeting someone warmly by name, and (2) “positivity,” which means being willing to celebrate at the drop of hat—celebrate contract signings, upbeat profit reports, and birthdays. If your academic background is in management or sociology, the classic materials you read on leadership emphasized that the best leaders are those who provide the correct mix of “instrumental” and “expressive” behaviors. Instrumental behavior is intended to accomplish the productivity goals of the organization—getting the work done. But in the long run, “all work and no play” drains people of their creativity and denies them the time and the opportunity to build multifaceted—and thus stronger—relationships among one another. Expressive behaviors are those that appeal to people’s emotions and are the foundation for building community. Expressive behaviors make people feel good about themselves.

The GMJ surveys also reveal that companies with the most “engaged” employees are those that put Dale Carnegie’s advice into action (“engaged employees work with passion and feel a profound connection to the company”). More particularly, those companies that encourage friendships and friendly behavior at the workplace are five times more likely to have engaged versus “actively disengaged” employees (“actively disengaged employees aren’t just unhappy at work, they’re busy acting out their unhappiness and undermining the efforts of engaged coworkers”).

Robert Baron and Jerald Greenberg

In Tool 6–1, Robert Baron and Jerald Greenberg have reformulated research like that of the Gallup Management Journal into a set of useful strategies for increasing your influence by being friendly and politically astute at work. There is significant overlap between the ideas of Dale Carnegie and those of Baron and Greenberg on what constitutes acceptable political behaviors. Naturally, each person needs to evaluate the acceptability of these tactics for personal use—it is not uncommon for some people to find such tactics unacceptable. Consider this comment from a person who frankly admits he is not a good politician:

I’ve always hated politics, even though you can’t avoid it sometimes. It always smacks of false sincerity, ingratiation, manipulation, and deception. I just don’t like being nice to someone just because he or she can help my career. Why can’t people just be honest and say what’s on their mind? Why do we always have to play games?

However, there are those who defend organizational politics and point to its great benefits. Let’s hear from a person who considers herself a competent organizational politician:

I’ve never had problems with politics. Behaving politically just seems natural. You try to make friends with as many people as possible and avoid making enemies. What’s wrong with that? I know some people complain about the deception and the manipulation. But most people are smart enough to realize there’s at least some deception in a great deal of what they do, both at work and at home. For example, whenever my mother bought a new dress, I always told her how much I liked it, no matter what I really thought about it. I didn’t want to hurt her by being brutally honest. This kind of mild deception occurs in organizations all the time. From my perspective, as long as you’re not deliberately and maliciously hurting someone else, political behavior is perfectly acceptable. It’s just a fact of organizational life.

Politics is an organizational fact of life, and it has been one since formal organizations were first created. Various tactics are involved, but the basic goals seem to remain constant—to make friends and avoid creating enemies in order to advance personal, departmental, team, and organizational goals.

THE CONNECTED ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: A CASE STUDY

As in previous chapters, we’ll illustrate these new concepts in a case study. Read Exhibit 6–2; it presents a situation involving an administrative assistant vacancy and an applicant with connections. After you have finished, turn to Exercise 6–1 and answer the questions there.

Most people in organizations are familiar with the kind of problem Diane Brigham is facing. She suspects the vice president of production will use his influence to get his daughter a good job. Of course, the vice president could be criticized if he uses his influence to achieve clearly selfish goals. In fact, some people would consider this situation to be an obvious conflict of interests—the interest of the organization to hire competent, not just politically connected people, conflicting with the interest of the vice president to place his daughter in a good job. By using his influence to get his daughter hired by the Clemson Company, the vice president could be sacrificing the interests of the organization.

Let’s assume Diane Brigham approaches this potential problem from an avoiding orientation. In other words, she recognizes that a conflict between Richard Kohler and her could develop but decides to withdraw from or postpone the conflict. Taking this approach, she might answer the preceding questions in this way:

1. My main goal is to maintain good relations with the vice president of production and not incur his anger. He’s too well-connected to have as an enemy. If I want to continue helping my employees by securing what they need and not hurt my own chances for advancement, I can’t have powerful people like Richard Kohler unhappy with me.

2. I guess the best approach is to hide awhile. No sense broadcasting an administrative assistant vacancy at this time. It’s sure to attract Richard Kohler, particularly since his daughter has worked in the marketing department before. So I’ll call a friend in HR and tell her not to post the vacancy. I’ll come up with some excuse—asking that the job be reclassified or being unsure about the kind of skills I want the new person to have. Then I’ll hire a temporary replacement until Rose Kohler is placed somewhere else. This will give me time to avoid the sticky question of whether or not to hire Rose.

3. I sure wouldn’t broadcast the fact that I didn’t want to hire Rose Kohler. That’s just inviting trouble and possible retaliation from Richard Kohler. I’ll just keep quiet about this one. If you stick your head out on an issue like this, you might get it cut off.

These responses show that Diane foresees a conflict but has found a way to avoid it. If Rose applies for the vacant administrative assistant position and Diane rejects her, this could annoy the vice president, who might look for an opportunity to retaliate against Diane.

Diane Brigham discussed some behind-the-scenes moves she could make. Calling up a friend in HR to prevent the job posting, so that Kohler doesn’t become aware of the vacancy, is one move; another is asking that the job be reclassified and hiring a temporary in order to gain more time. By the end of this maneuvering, Diane hopes Rose Kohler will have been placed in another department. These are subtle, secret moves intended to avoid the conflict. Naturally, Diane will “owe one” to her friend in HR, who might call in the favor later.

Most people will find this avoiding approach acceptable, even though there clearly are elements of deception and manipulation involved. Nevertheless, Diane could cross the line and venture into mostly unacceptable political behavior. For example, if she convinced a friend of hers to hire Rose but concealed all her doubts about the woman, most people would question the ethics of that behavior—it’s no way to treat a friend.

Let’s consider the accommodating approach. Accommodating occurs when one side in a conflict resolves the conflict by giving in to the other side at the expense of his or her own needs. With an accommodating orientation, Diane Brigham might answer the three questions in the following way:

1. My ultimate goal is to advance in this company. And I believe in the philosophy that one hand washes the other. If I help powerful people, they’ll be obliged to help me in turn. If Richard Kohler hears about my administrative assistant vacancy and sends Rose over, I’ll look at her skills very carefully. If I think she can do a minimally acceptable job, I’ll hire her. That way I can add Richard Kohler to my list of friendly associates. And when I need a favor or a good word from a top-level person, I’m betting that Kohler will reciprocate.

2. I’m actually thinking about sending Kohler a note telling him about my vacancy and asking him whether his daughter might be interested in the job. This might be a little proactive, but it’s a good political move. He’ll see the posting anyway. By jumping the gun, so to speak, I’ll make a good impression on him, and his attitude toward me will be even more favorable. If his daughter doesn’t apply, I still get points for trying to help her out.

3. If Rose did apply for the job, I’d be very careful about putting too much emphasis on so-called objective qualifications. She’s probably not going to be the most qualified person I could get. But if she meets minimum standards, I’ll hire her because of her connections. The worst thing I could do is take the attitude that only the best should get hired. That’s not the way the game is played at the Clemson Company, and the smart people know it.

It’s interesting to note that most people tend to react more negatively to accommodation than they do to avoidance, probably because avoiding a conflict with a powerful person seems less cowardly and deceitful. To use an analogy, if a child sees a bully walking down the street toward him, getting off that street is an acceptable response to a potentially dangerous situation. If instead of avoiding the bully, the child asks the bully whether he can do anything for him, most of us would consider the child to be too accommodating, too ingratiating.

Diane’s intentions would result in the same disquieting reaction. We know why she would try to accommodate Kohler, but her reasons would be too self-serving. That Diane would reject more qualified candidates in favor of the politically connected Rose Kohler is a damning piece of evidence. Some would ask “Where are her professional principles?” Of course, Diane responds to this question in her last sentence. There’s a game being played at the Clemson Company, and smart people play it according to the rules. The game, of course, is politics—advancing your own self-interests through a series of behaviors used to avoid making enemies and create powerful friends.

Nevertheless, it’s possible for Diane to pursue an accommodating approach without being too accommodating. For example, if she posted the job, interviewed Rose if she applied, and selected Rose only if she had good office skills, the accommodation would be more acceptable. Diane might also put aside her negative opinions about Rose and judge her only on her current skills. While this kind of consideration would not normally be given to a candidate without connections, most of us understand the need to be more tolerant with a connected applicant.

Let’s now discuss the compromising approach. Compromising occurs when one or both sides gain and lose in order to resolve the conflict. If Diane and Richard Kohler were heading toward a showdown or a protracted stalemate, a compromise solution might satisfy both Diane and the vice president. Diane might not create a major ally with this approach, but she could avoid making a significant enemy. Consider the following answers to the three questions previously posed:

1. My goal is to get out of this ticklish situation without violating my basic principles and without making a new enemy of Richard Kohler. I’ll have to walk a thin tightrope on this one. It’ll be difficult to achieve my goal. In fact, it may be almost impossible.

2. I’ll handle the vacancy in a normal manner. I’ll post it with HR and interview all internal candidates and those recommended by other employees. If Rose Kohler applies for the job, I’ll apply the same standards to her that I’ll apply to everyone else. And if she’s qualified, I’ll give her a slight edge. But that’s how we usually treat internal candidates and those recommended by other employees. If she’s not really qualified for the job, I’ll help her find a position she is qualified for. I might hire her as a data entry keyer rather than as my personal administrative assistant. Or I might check with my friends at Clemson or in other companies to see if they have a suitable position for her. I’m sure Richard Kohler would appreciate this extra effort.

3. What would I not say or do? Well, I wouldn’t violate my professional principles and hire an incompetent person for the administrative assistant position. It would hurt me and my department if I did that. However, I wouldn’t be prejudiced against Rose because of her connections. We all know there’s a lot of influence peddling in organizations, and we’d be crazy to reject candidates just because they are connected. The key for me is to use my best professional judgment while trying to help Rose and her father if I’m asked to help. I really don’t know if this compromise would be acceptable to Richard, but I’m willing to give it a try.

Here Diane selects a middle-ground approach to the potential conflict. She’ll give some to get some. Although Diane sees this as a ticklish situation in which one false step could create significant problems for her, she is primarily worried about the political fallout if she rejects the daughter of a vice president. Having this powerful manager as an enemy is something she would like to avoid.

However, Diane is aware of her professional and departmental obligation to select an administrative assistant who can do the job. Poor performance on the part of her personal administrative assistant would present a major obstacle to Diane in meeting her goals as a marketing manager. In addition, if Rose performed poorly she might have to fire her or force her out. This could provoke Richard, and he might look for any opportunity to get even with Diane for his daughter’s sake.

In selecting a compromise position, Diane Brigham knows she may not satisfy Richard Kohler totally, but she may soften him a bit and prevent him from becoming an enemy. If she can’t offer Rose the position, she intends to do all she can to assist her in finding a suitable job, though it may be a lower-level job in Diane’s department or a position in another department or organization.

As you can see, compromising does not have the political impact of either avoidance or accommodation. Avoidance does not create enemies because it removes a person from the conflict. Accommodation, however, can create strong friendships but often at the expense of basic principles. Compromising may bend professional principles somewhat but does not shatter them. Strong friends might not be made, but neither are strong enemies. The pie is divided fairly evenly, and everybody gets a decent slice of it. If Diane can’t hire Rose as her personal administrative assistant because her skills are inadequate, Diane can help Rose find a more suitable position. Diane isn’t saddled with an unqualified administrative assistant, and Rose and her father may appreciate Diane’s efforts to help Rose. All three individuals can achieve key goals, though probably not all their goals, through this compromising approach to the potential conflict.

BUT IS IT GOOD FOR THE ORGANIZATION?

In Chapter 1, we argued that conflict and conflict resolution approaches will be most beneficial if organizational performance improves or remains stable. Thus, in trying to determine whether organizational politics is good or bad, we must ask the following question: Does the pursuit of self-interest through political behavior really lead to more effective and efficient organizations? Consider the following comment about self-interest written by Adam Smith in 1776 in his classic treatise on capitalism entitled An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations:

[E]very individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it (Smith 1910 [org. 1776], 423).

Adam Smith’s logic is the foundation of our capitalistic system. As individuals pursue their own interests and fortunes, they are forced to provide society with goods and services at a reasonable price. These market forces—the invisible hand—channel self-interest into gains for the society as a whole.

Political behavior within organizations is analogous to the self-serving behavior of capitalists in our free enterprise system. By pursuing their own interests, individuals frequently contribute more to the organization than if they worked exclusively for the good of the organization. The organization itself acts as the invisible hand to channel self-serving behavior into overall gains for the organization. Consider the following comments Diane Brigham made one year after she hired Rose Kohler as her personal administrative assistant:

Rose was qualified for the job, so I hired her. She wasn’t the most qualified candidate, but her political connections gave her a real edge. To say the least, Rose has been a very pleasant surprise. She’s much more mature than when I first dealt with her three summers ago. Also, her office skills have improved dramatically since then.

There have been some interesting benefits from this. My relationship with Richard Kohler, the vice president of production, has never been better. He is bending over backward to help us over here in marketing. The other day, my boss even commented about how well things were going with production. I also get inside information from both Rose and her father about production changes they think I might like to know about. I never have problems with plant managers and production supervisors anymore. Guess they know that Kohler wants a smooth relationship with marketing. That old battle between production and marketing is over with at Clemson. The conflict just disappeared. In short, hiring Rose has worked out well.

We’re not claiming that all political behavior will result in benefits to the organization. But the pursuit of personal goals by individuals can be used by the organization to accomplish its own goals. For example, Diane Brigham’s political behavior served both herself and the organization: Her problems with the production department were minimized, and the organization as a whole gained in morale and, no doubt, productivity.

As you contemplate adopting some of these political behaviors, particularly as a means to resolve conflict, remember that self-interest and organizational interest are not mutually exclusive. It’s possible to improve organizational performance as you pursue your individual goals. As Adam Smith observed, selfishness is not always the worst thing for a society. In fact, it may often advance the interests of society and the organizations on which society depends.

HOW TO GET AHEAD IN ORGANIZATIONS BY REALLY TRYING

We conclude this chapter by rephrasing the title of a famous play, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. In this play, the main character easily fools everybody into thinking he is a hardworking, extremely competent manager. The audience knows the truth: The character is a likeable but mostly incompetent and lazy fraud—all show and no substance.

In some organizations, a few individuals do get ahead, even though their skills don’t really merit the advancement. This undoubtedly is the exception, not the rule. Those who are promoted generally have better managerial and professional skills than those who are not. They also have good political skills, which are useful for resolving conflict. Because conflict can damage a person’s career, political efforts are usually directed toward avoiding, minimizing, or eliminating it.

Norman Martin and John Sims

A number of years ago, Norman Martin and John Sims reported the results of their research on power and politics within organizations in the Harvard Business Review (Martin and Sims 1956). These two researchers were interested in the specific tactics that successful leaders and executives used to advance in organizations. In particular, they wanted to identify political tactics that have been successfully used to influence other people. The following list of nine political behaviors summarizes their conclusions:

1. Alliances. Form alliances and friendships with those who are in high positions or who will probably be promoted to high positions. These managers can help you by teaching you the proper attitudes and behaviors and by promoting your career.

2. Compromise. Be willing to compromise, particularly on issues that are minor to you and important to others. This is especially important if the other party is equal to or more powerful than you in the organization.

3. Active delay. Learn the art of active delay—the ability to look as if you’re working on a project, even if you’re just buying time. This is a useful device for dealing with controversial, no-win projects. A study committee, for example, is a particularly effective active-delay device.

4. Information. Exchange information with those who have vital, sometimes confidential, information. Most of this information is exchanged through informal communication channels (in other words, via the “grapevine”).

5. Flexibility. Be flexible regarding transfers and promotions from your area of expertise into new areas. Managers with this type of maneuverability frequently move ahead faster in their careers than those who are inflexible about what they will do.

6. Enthusiasm. Be enthusiastic. Managers who are enthusiastic are better able to sell their ideas to others.

7. Confidence and optimism. Be confident and optimistic. Managers who are confident and optimistic are typically viewed as more able and more powerful than those who are fearful and pessimistic.

8. Advice from others. Be cautious about seeking too much advice from too many people. Managers who are always seeking advice and counsel from others are frequently viewed as weak, ineffective managers.

9. Be the boss. Always be your subordinates’ boss. Subordinates do not want their managers to be just one of the gang. There must be a certain psychological distance between supervisors and subordinates, even when there is a friendly relationship between the two groups. Subordinates also want and need superiors who are respected for their expertise and influence outside the department.

These political behaviors elaborate on the ideas of Dale Carnegie, the Gallup Management Journal, and the tactics suggested by Robert Baron and Jerald Greenberg (see Tool 6–1). Taken together, the advice of Carnegie, the Gallup Management Journal, Baron and Greenberg, Martin and Sims, and many other more recent writers indicates that the art of organizational politics has changed little in the last seventy years. If there is an addendum for the 2000s, it is to be sensitive to the changing social character of American workers. As practicing managers are already aware, no longer do white men dominate the office and the shop floor. As of 2005, nearly a fifth of the workforce has African, Latino, or Asian ancestry (and this proportion will increase steadily for the next several decades); moreover, nearly half of all executives, administrators, and managers are now women. As emphasized throughout this course, effective managers—and politically effective managers—are, by necessity, sensitive to issues of race, national origin, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, and disability. Indeed, it is no longer a prerogative to be sensitive but a legal mandate—as many distraught managers have learned in recent years upon seeing his or her company sued for sexual harassment or for age, disability, religious, racial, or sexual discrimination (see Tool 6–2). Indeed, recall the observations and advice given to you in Chapter 1: This social diversification has been accompanied by a cultural change in which individuals of all backgrounds are quicker to speak up in the face of mistreatment or exploitation and, moreover, have the means to deal with it via litigation, arbitration, assistance from government agencies and labor relations boards, and increased union representation in the white-collar workforce. One implication is that both novice and veteran managers need to develop a sense of when it is necessary to discuss budding conflicts with the human resources officer in their organizations. Your HR officer will let you know which rules of due process, as well as which federal and state laws, might be relevant to your particular conflict.

The usefulness of political behaviors—in terms of career success—has been demonstrated by management researchers and writers cited throughout this chapter. In fact, skillful political behavior often is necessary for advancement in organizations. Being politically smart can minimize the negative effects of conflict and help managers get ahead in organizations by really trying; it is the secret approach to both conflict resolution and career advancement.

In this chapter, we began by defining politics, or political behavior, as any self-serving behavior by an organization member. When individuals act to enhance their own positions, taking the costs to the organization or to others minimally into account, they are acting politically.

Political behavior is designed to make friends, not enemies. If people can maximize the number of their friends and minimize the number of enemies, they are better able to achieve their individual goals. Minimizing enemies in organizations is considered more important than maximizing friends because enemies can thwart an individual and his or her efforts to advance.

A major goal of organizational politics is not conflict resolution; rather, the goal is to avoid conflict, because being involved in conflict can lead to losing friends and creating enemies. When conflict cannot be sidestepped, political behavior is directed toward subtle resolution approaches that keep damaged relationships to a minimum. Three conflict resolution approaches are associated with political behavior: avoiding (withdrawing from or postponing the conflict), accommodating (giving in to the other person at the expense of one’s own needs), and compromising (splitting the difference between the two sides).

A number of political behaviors were introduced and examined. In his book How to Win Friends and Influence People,) Dale Carnegie emphasized four points: making others feel important, making a good first impression, letting others do the talking, and praising the good traits of others.

The surveys conducted by the Gallup Management Journal during the early 2000s revealed that “encouraging people” is a fundamental key to being a good team leader and a good team member. Examples of encouragement include (1) “winning others over” by smiling, welcoming a stranger, and greeting someone warmly by name, and (2) “positivity,” which means being willing to celebrate at the drop of hat—examples are celebrating contract signings, positive profit reports, and birthdays. Moreover, these surveys reveal that companies with the most “engaged” employees are those that encourage friendships and friendly behavior at the workplace.

Robert Baron and Jerald Greenberg’s review of the research on political behavior led them to advance seven political tactics: (1) make a good first impression, (2) cultivate a halo, (3) develop an image of power, (4) cultivate a reputation for expertise, (5) know the norms, (6) count on reciprocity, and (7) be liked.

The last researchers cited in this chapter were Norman Martin and John Sims. They studied the political tactics of successful leaders and managers and identified nine political behaviors: (1) forming alliances, (2) being willing to compromise, (3) learning the art of active delay, (4) exchanging important information, (5) being flexible, (6) being enthusiastic, (7) exhibiting confidence and optimism, (8) being cautious about seeking advice, and (9) always being your subordinates’ boss.

The final theme explored in this chapter included the ethical issues surrounding organizational politics. While this remains a controversial area, it is possible to distinguish between ethical and unethical political behavior. The key criterion used is whether political behavior helps an organization perform better. We concluded that if this criterion is met, then the behavior is often justifiable.

 

1. Political behavior is aimed at_________ and_________in order to help individuals achieve their goals.	1. (b)
(a) gaining power/avoiding privation
(b) minimizing enemies/maximizing friends
(c) vanquishing enemies/“tooting one’s own horn”
(d) saving face/backstabbing one’s enemies
2. The political approaches most commonly used are:	2. (b)
(a) forcing and collaborating.
(b) compromising, avoiding, and accommodating.
(c) avoiding, accommodating, and forcing.
(d) collaborating and accommodating.
3. Dale Carnegie’s attitude toward “conversation” as a political tool is best captured by which of the following statements?	3. (c)
(a) Do the talking—it gives you the power to direct the conversation and get what you want.
(b) He who talks, controls; he who listens is controlled.
(c) Let others do the talking. (d) a and b.
4. The idea that doing favors for others will put them in your debt and further your career in an organization is best captured by which of the following statements?	4. (d)
(a) First impressions count.
(b) Cultivate a halo.
(c) Know the norms.
(d) Count on reciprocity.
5. Considering the most common approaches to conflict resolution “politically” oriented individuals use, we find that most people react more negatively to____________ than they do to_________ .
(a) compromise/accommodation
(b) avoidance/accommodation
(c) accommodation/avoidance
(d) avoidance/compromise