Introduction
Managers have to understand and develop new sources of power and influence if they are going to be able to defend their groups’ interests. Thus, they must become “political”— i.e., understand the political dynamics of organizations and build the power and influence necessary to navigate them. Hill (2003, 272)
On power and politics
Many new managers erroneously believe that the “powerful” are those in more senior positions, because they equate power simply with formal authority Hill (2003, 272)
Power in organizations
Organizations can be seen as both, cooperative systems of employees working together to achieve goals and political arenas of individuals and groups with differing interests (Brass 2017).
Power can be defined as the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do, politics as power in action, using a range of techniques and tactics (Buchanan and Badham 2020).
Power and politics is at the heart of how organizations function (Hill 2003).
Though, often associated with negative connotations, Buchanan and Badham (2020) shows that the view of the damaging, negative consequences of politics is too narrow. Politics can be both ‘functional’ and ‘dysfunctional’.
Power and leadership
Other things being equal, political conflict increases with growing interdependence, diversity, and resource scarcity (Pfeffer 1992).
Managers who ignore or fail to understand how power and influence work in organizations will find that they and their teams experience difficulty in being effective and ethical in their work. Hill (2003, 273)
Development of competing coalitions and periods of organizational crisis exacerbate political conflict, while leadership and shared value help to reduce the amount of conflict (Hill 2003).
Leaders need to define a vision that aligns and motivates people, creates shared values, and a shared culture—these are critical mechanisms for managing the increased diversity and interpedendence in organizations today.
Political conflict in organizations
Sources of power
Discovering that formal authority is a very limited source of power, new managers must find other ways to get things done […] they soon learn that power and influence are the meachnisms by which the inevitable political conflicts in organizations get resolved. Hill (2003, 274)
Personal and positional characteristics
Sources of personal power (Hill 2003, 276)
- Expertise: relevant knowledge and skills
- Track record: relevant experience
- Attractiveness: attributes that others find appealing and identify with
- Effort: expenditure of time and energy
Sources of positional power (Hill 2003, 276)
- Formal authority: position in hierarchy and prescribed responsibilities
- Relevance: relationship between task and organizational objectives
- Centrality: position in key networks
- Autonomy: amount of discretion in a position
- Visibility: degree to which performance can be seen by others
Building key relationships
Companies are increasingly required to engage in cross-organizational work (across levels, functions, geographies) in an effort to improve their capacities to execute and innovate.
Leaders need to build and maintain key relationships to identify changes in the priorities and needs of these groups and prepare their field for new opportunities and threats—a strong, well-developed network can provide the kind of big picture information needed in today’s world (Brass and Krackhardt 2012).
It is, thus, required to identify dependencies1, to take into account the political dynamics that make for potential sources of conflict2, and to invest time and energy in building and maintaining relationships with those on whom the team is dependent3 (Hill 2003).
It is always better to overestimate rather than underestimate dependencies. Hill (2003)
Literature
Footnotes
Dependencies can be analyzed by asking questions such as On whom am I dependent, and who depends on me?↩︎
Political dynamics can be understood by asking, e.g., What differences exist between me and the people on whom I am dependent? What sources of power do I have to influence this relationship?↩︎
Questions like What can be done to cultivate or repair the relationship? help to cultivate relationships↩︎
Social capital theory
In brief
It is not what you know,
it is who you know.
History
The concept of social capital has been relative independently introduced by scholars from various disciplines at different times.
Seminal works particularly originate from
Since the 1990s the concept of social capital found its way into organizational and management sciences to explain e.g.
Definitions
Similarities and distinctions
The definitions of social capital share some similarities and distinctions:
Strong vs. weak ties
Coleman (1988) argues that cohesion, that is to say the strength of the relationship between actors, is the source of social capital (strong ties)
Burt (2018) posits that social capital rather emerges from opportunities to bridge disconnections or non-equivalencies separating non-redundant sources of information (structural holes)
Structure, cognition, and relation
Value
The ultimate value of a given form of social capital is context-dependent (Adler and Kwon 2002).
Strong ties
Effective search for novel information
(competitive rivalry, certain tasks, individual contribution)
Weak ties
Effective transfer of information and tacit knowledge
(collective goals, uncertain tasks, group contribution)
The value is further dependent on the availability of complementary resources (e.g., combination capability)
Opportunity, motivation, and ability