Intro to Organizational Behavior (OB): Power and Politics - Managing Political Behavior Reduce Uncertainty, Encourage Open Communication Fair Resource Allocation

Managing Political Behavior: Study Guide

What This Is

Political behavior refers to actions employees take to influence others, secure resources, or advance personal agendas—often outside formal organizational processes. It thrives in uncertainty, ambiguity, and perceived unfairness. Left unchecked, it erodes trust, productivity, and morale. Why it matters: Politics can derail strategy (e.g., siloed departments hoarding information) or fuel turnover (e.g., high performers leaving due to favoritism). Example: At Netflix, the "Keeper Test" ("Would I fight to keep this person?") reduces political maneuvering by tying promotions and layoffs to clear, performance-based criteria—minimizing uncertainty and perceived bias.

Key Theories & Models

• Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964): Employees engage in politics when they perceive an imbalance in "give and take" (e.g., effort vs. rewards). Implication: Fair resource allocation (e.g., Southwest Airlines’ profit-sharing) reduces political behavior by aligning individual and organizational interests.

• Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975): People seek information to reduce ambiguity, which can manifest as political behavior (e.g., lobbying for promotions when criteria are unclear). Implication: Transparent processes (e.g., Google’s "gCal" for meeting agendas) reduce uncertainty and political games.

• Equity Theory (Adams, 1963): Employees compare their input/outcome ratios to others’. Perceived inequity triggers political behavior (e.g., withholding effort, spreading rumors). Implication: Fair resource allocation (e.g., Zappos’ holacracy with transparent role-based pay) mitigates resentment.

• Resource Dependence Theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978): Departments or individuals hoard resources (e.g., budgets, information) to gain power. Implication: Cross-functional teams (e.g., Amazon’s "two-pizza teams") reduce silos and political resource battles.

• Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995): Leaders favor "in-group" members, creating perceived unfairness. Implication: Structured feedback (e.g., Netflix’s 360-degree reviews) reduces favoritism and political alliances.

• Organizational Justice (Greenberg, 1987):

• Distributive justice: Fairness of outcomes (e.g., pay, promotions).
• Procedural justice: Fairness of processes (e.g., transparent criteria).

• Interactional justice: Respectful treatment. Implication: Southwest Airlines uses all three (profit-sharing + open-door policy + "LUV" culture) to minimize politics.

• Impression Management (Goffman, 1959): Employees use tactics (e.g., flattery, self-promotion) to shape perceptions. Implication: Encourage authentic communication (e.g., Bridgewater Associates’ "radical transparency") to reduce superficial politics.

• Power Bases (French & Raven, 1959):

• Legitimate power (formal authority) vs. personal power (expertise, charisma). Implication: Rely on expert power (e.g., Elon Musk’s technical credibility at SpaceX) to reduce political resistance.

Step-by-Step Application

1. Diagnose the Source of Politics
2. Ask: Is this due to uncertainty, resource scarcity, or perceived unfairness?

3. Tool: Use Organizational Justice to audit processes (e.g., Are promotions based on merit?).

4. Reduce Uncertainty

5. Action: Publish clear criteria for decisions (e.g., Netflix’s "Freedom & Responsibility" culture doc).

6. Example: At Zappos, role-based pay bands eliminate ambiguity about compensation.

7. Encourage Open Communication

8. Action: Implement psychological safety (e.g., Google’s Project Aristotle found this was the #1 predictor of team success).

9. Tactic: Hold "skip-level" meetings (e.g., Satya Nadella at Microsoft) to bypass political filters.

10. Allocate Resources Fairly

11. Action: Use zero-based budgeting (e.g., 3G Capital’s cost-cutting at Kraft Heinz) to eliminate political "pet projects."

12. Tool: 360-degree feedback (e.g., Netflix) to reduce favoritism.

13. Model Transparent Leadership

14. Action: Leaders should explain decisions publicly (e.g., Reed Hastings’ memos at Netflix).

15. Example: Bridgewater’s "Dot Collector" app lets employees rate meetings in real time, reducing political posturing.

16. Reward Collaboration, Not Politics

17. Action: Tie bonuses to team outcomes (e.g., Southwest’s profit-sharing) or peer recognition (e.g., Zappos’ "Zollars").

Common Misconceptions

• Misconception: Politics is always bad. Correction: Functional politics (e.g., advocating for a project you believe in) can drive innovation. Dysfunctional politics (e.g., backstabbing) harms trust. Example: At Pixar, "plussing" (building on others’ ideas) is encouraged; undermining is not.

• Misconception: More rules reduce politics. Correction: Excessive rules create bureaucratic politics (e.g., gaming the system). Example: Valve’s flat structure reduces rules but requires high trust to avoid politics.

• Misconception: Only weak leaders face politics. Correction: Politics exists at all levels (e.g., Steve Jobs faced internal resistance at Apple). Strong leaders manage it, not eliminate it.

• Misconception: Transparency eliminates politics. Correction: Transparency reduces politics but can’t eliminate it (e.g., Bridgewater’s radical transparency still has power struggles). Example: Google’s OKRs are public, but some teams still hoard resources.

• Misconception: Politics is just about power. Correction: It’s also about security (e.g., fear of layoffs) and identity (e.g., protecting one’s role). Example: During Microsoft’s "stack ranking" era, employees hoarded knowledge to avoid being rated low.

Exam / Case Interview Tips

1. Question Pattern: "How would you reduce political behavior in [scenario]?"
2. Frame your answer using Organizational Justice (distributive + procedural + interactional) and Uncertainty Reduction Theory.

3. Example: "First, I’d audit promotion criteria for procedural fairness (e.g., are they transparent?). Second, I’d implement skip-level meetings to reduce information asymmetry."

4. Tricky Distinction: Distributive vs. Procedural Justice

5. Distributive: Outcome fairness (e.g., pay).
6. Procedural: Process fairness (e.g., how pay is decided).

7. Trap: Focusing only on distributive justice (e.g., fair pay) while ignoring procedural justice (e.g., opaque promotion processes).

8. Case Interview Hack:

9. If the case involves resource conflicts, use Resource Dependence Theory (e.g., "This department is hoarding budget because they fear future cuts—let’s create cross-functional teams to reduce silos.").

10. If the case involves favoritism, use LMX Theory (e.g., "The leader’s ‘in-group’ is getting unfair advantages—let’s implement 360-degree feedback to balance influence.").

11. Behavioral Question: "Tell me about a time you dealt with office politics."

12. Structure your answer using STAR + OB theory:
    • Situation: "A peer was lobbying against my project to secure resources for theirs."
    • Task: "I needed to align our goals without escalating conflict."
    • Action: "I used Social Exchange Theory—I offered to co-sponsor their project if they supported mine, creating a win-win."
    • Result: "We secured resources for both projects, and our collaboration improved."

Quick Practice Scenario

Scenario: At TechCorp, the engineering team is resisting a new cross-functional initiative. They’re withholding information, and rumors suggest they fear losing headcount. The CEO asks you to reduce political behavior.

Question: Which theories/models should guide your approach, and what are 2 specific actions you’d take?

Answer:
1. Theories: Use Uncertainty Reduction Theory (address fears about headcount) and Organizational Justice (ensure procedural fairness in the initiative).
2. Actions: - Publish a FAQ (e.g., "No layoffs will result from this initiative") to reduce uncertainty. - Involve engineers in planning (e.g., co-create the rollout plan) to ensure procedural justice.

Why? Uncertainty fuels politics; transparency and inclusion reduce it.

Last-Minute Cram Sheet

1. Political behavior = actions to influence others, often due to uncertainty or unfairness.
2. Social Exchange Theory: Politics arises from perceived imbalance in "give and take."
3. Uncertainty Reduction Theory: Ambiguity-politics; clarity-collaboration.
4. Equity Theory: Perceived inequity-political behavior (e.g., withholding effort).
5. Resource Dependence Theory: Departments hoard resources to gain power.
6. LMX Theory: Leaders favor "in-groups," creating political divides.
7. Organizational Justice:
8. Distributive = outcome fairness.
9. Procedural = process fairness.
10. Interactional = respectful treatment.
11. Politics isn’t always bad—functional politics (e.g., advocacy) can drive change.
12. Transparency reduces politics but doesn’t eliminate it (e.g., Bridgewater’s radical transparency still has power struggles).
13. More rules can increase bureaucratic politics (e.g., gaming the system).