2100 Final: Political Frame

4 characteristics of power

Sources of power can be structural (embedded in position) or personal Authorities: -Recipients or targets of influence -Agents or initiators of social control -Have the authority to make binding decisions that affect partisans Partisans: -Agents or indicators of influence -Recipients or targets of social control The exercise of power is only possible in relationship to others The exercise of power depends on the context Power is dynamic, meaning that the relative capacity of a person to exercise power or influence others shifts and changes depending on the relative importance of the relationship and the context

functional conflict

conflict that benefits the main purposes of the organization and serves its interests

dysfunctional conflict

conflict that hinders the organization's performance or threatens its interests

political frame assumptions

-Organizations are coalitions of different individual and interest groups -Coalition members have enduring differences in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality -Most important decisions involve allocating scarce resources—deciding who gets what -Scarce resources and enduring differences put conflict at the center of day-to-day dynamics and make power the most important asset -Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining and negotiation among competing stakeholders jockeying for their own interests

types of conflict

-horizontal conflict: Occurs in the boundary between departments or divisions -vertical conflict: Occurs at the border between levels -cultural conflict: Occurs between groups with differing values, traditions, beliefs, or lifestyles

partisans

Any member of the coalition who wants to exert bottom-up pressure is a potential partisan Opposite role of authorities, as agents or initiators of influence, and targets or recipients of social control

relationship conflict

Conflict based on interpersonal relationships

task conflict

Conflict over content and goals of the work

process conflict

Conflict over how the work gets done

authorities

Entitled to make decisions binding on their subordinates Recipients or targets of influence, and the agents or initiators of social control

Principles of moral judgment

Mutuality: are all parties operating under the same rules of the game? Generality: Does a specific action follow a principle of moral conduct applicable to comparable situations? Openness: Are we willing to make our thinking and decisions public and confrontable? Caring: Does this action show concern for the legitimate interests and concerns of others?

Sources of power based on French and Raven

Position -Confer certain levels of legitimate authority -Place incumbents in more or less powerful locations in communications and power networks -As helpful to be in the right department as it is the right job Control of rewards -Ability to deliver jobs, money, political support, or other rewards Coercive -Rests on ability to constrain, block, interfere, or punish -A union's ability to walk out, students' capacity to sit in, and an army's ability to clamp down Information or expertise -Power flows with the information and know-how to solve important problems Reputation -Reputation builds on expertise -People develop records of accomplishment based on prior performance -Opportunities and influence flow to people with strong reputations Alliances and networks -Getting things done in an org involves working through a complex network of individuals and groups -Friends and allies make things a lot easier Access and control of agendas -Organizations and political systems typically give some individuals and groups more access than others to decision arenas -When decisions are made, the interests of those with "a seat at the table" are well-represented, while the concerns of absentees are often distorted or ignored -Access often comes with a price Framing: control of meaning and symbols -Ideological power: establishing the framework within which issues will be viewed and decided is often tantamount to determining the result -Elites and opinion leaders often have substantial ability to shape meaning and articulate myths that express beliefs, identity, and values -Viewed positively, this fosters meaning and hope -Viewed cynically, elites can convince others to accept and support things not in their best interests Personal and referent -Individuals who are attractive and socially adept- because of charisma, energy, stamina, political smarts, gift of gab, vision, or other characteristics- are imbued with power independent of other sources -Influence that comes when people like you or want to be like you

Types of bargaining (also called distributive)

Positional bargaining (also called distributive):They argue that parties too often engage in "positional bargaining": They stake out positions and then reluctantly make concessions to reach agreement. Fisher and Ury contend that positional bargaining is inefficient and misses opportunities to create something that's better for everyone. Principled bargaining: -separate people from the problem -focus on interests, not positions -invent options for mutual gain instead of locking in on the first alternative that comes to mind. More options increase the chance of a better outcome -to insist on objective criteria—standards of fairness for both substance and procedure. Agreeing on criteria at the beginning of negotiations can produce optimism and momentum, while reducing the use of devious or provocative tactics that get in the way of a mutually beneficial solution

underbounded system

Power is diffuse and the system is very loosely controlled Encourages conflict and power games

overbounded system

Power is highly concentrated and everything is tightly controlled Regulates politics with a firm hand

presentations versus operational data

Presentational: "are often ideological, normative, and abstract" Provide an idealized image of organization Generated for public consumption Operational: -"are more reflective of actual organizational practices, relations, and inner workings" -Provide a more genuine image of organization

Structural, HR, and Political frame views of power

Structural theorists typically emphasize authority, the legitimate prerogative to make binding decisions -Managers make rational decisions, monitor to ensure that decisions are implemented, and assess how well subordinates carry out directives The political frame views authority as only one among many forms of power -It recognizes the importance of individual and group needs but emphasizes that scarce resources and incompatible preferences cause needs to collide -The issue is how competing groups articulate preferences and mobilize power to get what they want -Power is not evil

structural frame versus political view of conflict

The structural frame views conflict as the impediment to effectiveness -Hierarchical conflict raises the possibility that lower levels will ignore or subvert management directives -Conflict among major partisan groups can undermine leadership's ability to function The political frame stresses that the combination of scarce resources and divergent interests produces conflict surely as night follows day -Conflict is not something that can or should be stamped out -Not necessarily a problem or a sign that something is amiss; it is normal and inevitable

types of negotiators

Value claimers: Bargaining is a hard, tough process in which you have to do what it takes to win as much as you can -Bargaining is a mixed-motive game. Both parties want an agreement but have differing interests and preferences, so that what seems valuable to one may be negligible to the other. -Bargaining is a process of interdependent decisions. What each party does affects the other. Each player wants to be able to predict what the other will do while limiting the other's ability to reciprocate. -The more player A can control player B's level of uncertainty, the more powerful A is. The more A can keep private—as Bill Gates did with Seattle Computer and IBM—the better. -Bargaining involves judicious use of threats rather than sanctions. Players may threaten to use force, go on strike, or break off negotiations. In most cases, they prefer not to bear the costs of carrying out the threat. -Making a threat credible is crucial. A threat works only if your opponent believes it. Noncredible threats weaken your bargaining position and confuse the process. -Calculation of the appropriate level of threat is also critical. If I underthreaten, you may think I'm weak. If I overthreaten, you may not believe me, may break off the negotiations, or may escalate your own threats. Value creators: -Believe that successful negotiation must be inventive and cooperative in searching for a win-win solution

definition of power

Weber: Power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance. Pfeffer: Power is the potential ability to influence behavior, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance, and to get people to do things they otherwise would not do