Chapter 12 • Politicking
2. Friendliness is using flattery, creating goodwill, acting humble, and being friendly prior to making a request. It is more effective for obtaining favors than for selling ideas. It also requires that you be well liked and that your interpersonal relations with the target of influence are good. 3. Coalitions get the support of other people in the organization to back up their request. Because this strategy is complex and requires coordination, it tends to be used for important outcomes and when the final decision relies more on the quantity than on the quality of support (as in committees that make their decisions by majority rule). 4. Bargaining is the use of negotiation through the exchange of benefits or favors. This strategy is applicable when you and the person you want to influence are interdependent and when the culture promotes give and take. 5. Higher authority relies on gaining the support of higher-ups in the organization to back your requests. This is an effective strategy only if the higher-ups are liked or feared. Although appropriate in bureaucratic cultures that have great respect for authority, this strategy is inappropriate in less-structured cultures. 6. Assertiveness is a direct and forceful approach, such as demanding compliance with requests, issuing reminders, ordering individuals to do what you need done, and pointing out that rules require compliance. This strategy is effective when the balance of power is clearly in your favor: You have considerable ability to reward and punish others, and their power over you is low. The drawback is that the target is likely to feel resentful and look for opportunities to retaliate later. 7. Sanctions refer to the use of organizationally derived rewards and punishments, such as preventing or promising a salary increase, threatening to give an unsatisfactory performance appraisal, or withholding a promotion. This strategy is similar to assertiveness, except the influence here depends solely on your position. This is not an approach for influencing superiors, and even when used with subordinates, it might be perceived as manipulative or illegitimate. Considering the Cost–Benefit Equation Before you select a political strategy, be sure to assess any potential costs of using it against its potential benefits. The inexperienced politician needs to be reminded that all forms of power are not alike. Some are accepted more readily than others, and in many instances, the costs of applying influence exceed the benefits derived from such action. Although the benefits of power are obvious, the costs are often overlooked. As Lawless15 has noted, “Power is effective when held in balance. As soon as power is used, it gets out of balance and the person against whom the power is used automatically resorts to some activities designed to correct the power imbalance.” In physics, we know that for every action there is a reaction. In the study of management, we know that for every use of power there is a corollary use of power. Therefore, your choice of a strategy should depend only partly on whether it will allow you to achieve your short-term goal. You should also try to minimize resentment and use up the least possible amount of future credit. This suggests a preference for reason, friendliness, and rewards to obtain compliance, and avoidance of coercive approaches whenever possible.16 Remember, whenever you use the do-this-or-else approach, you run the risk that your bluff will be called. The result might not be desirable in cost–benefit terms; you might win the battle but lose the war.
189
