Power and politics

?
1. Are organizations well-integrated
entities within which everybody
works harmoniously together?
● Do people share similar views of
the world around them and do
they act to promote the
interests of the organisation as
a whole?

2. Are decisions made logically and

rationally?

© John Hayes (2018)

Organisations are political
arenas
• Organisations can be conceptualised as a
collection of individuals, groups and
communities of practice, each pursuing
their own objectives.

• When there is a conflict of interest it is

the power and influence of those
involved that determines the outcome
rather than logic and rational argument.

• Consequently, those responsible for

managing change cannot afford to ignore
issues of power and influence.
•

© John Hayes (2018)

Political behaviour is most intense in times of
change

Change upsets the balance of

power.

Some defend the status quo and

others seek change to improve
their position.

© John Hayes (2018)

Implications for change
managers
• In order to manage change
successfully, change managers
need to be alert to the identity of
important stakeholders
• and to their predisposition to
either support or resist the
change.

© John Hayes (2018)

Power and authority

• Power is not confined to those who

have been given the authority to
determine how certain things will
be done.
• Sometimes individuals and groups
who do not have any legitimate
authority have more power than
legitimately appointed managers.

© John Hayes (2018)

Exercise

Think of a change you have tried to introduce

(or would like to introduce sometime in the future):
• Who are the people who were (are) able to block
your efforts to implement the change
• Why were (are) they able to exercise this influence?
• What is the basis of their power?

© John Hayes (2018)

Exercise (cont.)

Power is inherent in any relationship in which one person

or group is dependent on another.

The power to control or influence others resides in

control over the things they value, which may range all
the way from oil resources to ego support. In short,
power resides implicitly in the other's dependence
(Emerson).

Review your answer to the question posed on the previous slide.

• Are the powerful individuals or groups you identified
powerful because others are dependent on them?

© John Hayes (2018)

Change managers need to
be able to influence others
This involves:
• Promoting their reputation as
somebody who can deliver
change
• Negotiating advantageous
agreements
• Avoiding win-lose battles
wherever possible.

© John Hayes (2018)

 ©IMAGE SOURCE
Promoting their reputation
as somebody who can
deliver change
Change recipients’ are more likely to
follow leaders when they perceive
them to be competent and able to
deliver benefit.
This points to the importance of
leaders doing everything they can to
not only develop the competencies
they need to deliver successful change
but also to ensure that they are seen
to be competent by change recipients.

© John Hayes (2018)

 ©IMAGE SOURCE
Negotiating advantageous
agreements
Most change relationships are based on
some degree of reciprocity or
interdependence.
Leaders who are good at influencing others
are those who are able to:
• Assess, realistically, what it is that they
can offer to others and what it is that
they need from others
• Set this alongside an equally realistic
assessment of what others have to offer
them and what others need from them
• Use these assessments to negotiate
working agreements up, down and
across the organization that will support
their efforts to implement change.

© John Hayes (2018)

 ©IMAGE SOURCE
Avoiding win-lose battles
wherever possible

• Negotiations do not have to occur

within the fixed framework of a
zero-sum (“I win, you lose”) game,
and it is not always necessary for
leaders to seek ways of eroding
the power of others in order to
progress a change.
• A willingness to involve others in
the context of an increasing-sum
(win-win) game can often lead to
better outcomes and a more
successful change.

© John Hayes (2018)

Exercise:
Checklist for the acquisition and exercise of power
 

Think about those situations in which you were satisfied with your ability to
influence others. Using the checklist presented on the next slide, build a profile
of what you typically did to acquire and use power in those situations.
 
Next, think about those situations in which you were dissatisfied with your
ability to influence. Repeat the procedure and build a profile of what you did
when you are less successful.
 
Compare the two profiles and look for differences in your behaviour.
Differences between the two profiles might point to possibilities for changing
your behaviour in ways that will improve your ability to influence others.

© John Hayes (2018)

To what extent did you take steps to:
1. Promote your reputation as somebody who can deliver change?
2.  Increase others’ dependence on you by:
• taking stock of what resources others want from you?
• assessing how important these resources are to them?
• exploring whether they can obtain the resources you provide from other sources?
• raising others’ awareness of their dependence on you?
3.  Minimize your dependence on others by:
• taking stock of what you need from others?
• searching for (and establishing) alternative sources of supply?
• challenging historic assumptions about your dependence on others when
situations have changed?
4.  Build collaborative relationships with others and:
• identify new ways in which you could help target others?
• communicate your needs with those others you can trust in order to encourage
them to provide the resources your require?
• enlist the help of others to influence third parties inaccessible to you?
5.  Use all of the above to negotiate advantageous agreements?

© John Hayes (2018)

Identifying and
managing
stakeholders

Leaders need to be able to

identify and manage those
stakeholders who can
influence the outcome of the
change.

© John Hayes (2018)

Jawahar and
McLaughlin’s
approach to
stakeholder
management draws
on:
• Resource dependence
theory
• Prospect theory
• Organizational life-cycle
models

© John Hayes (2018)

The contribution of
resource dependence
theory
Change managers need to pay
most attention to those
stakeholder groups who
control resources critical to the
organisation's survival
They can:
• Proact
• Accommodate
• Defend
• Ignore

© John Hayes (2018) ©Getty Images/Westend61\Nico Hermann

The contribution of
prospect theory
In the absence of threats a gain
frame will be adopted, and
leaders will follow a risk-averse
strategy. They will do their best
to address the concerns of all
stakeholders in order to
persuade them to support the
change.
In the presence of threats a loss
frame will be adopted, and
leaders will pursue a risky
strategy. They will only address
the concerns of those
stakeholders who are relevant
to the immediate loss threat.
© John Hayes (2018) ©Getty Images/Westend61\Nico Hermann
The contribution of
organisational life cycle
theory
Over the course of a change
project resource requirements
may change and this will affect
the extent to which a change
manager is dependent on
different stakeholders.
 
Consequently, change
managers may need to focus
their attention on different
individuals and groups at
different points in the change
project life cycle.

© John Hayes (2018) ©Getty Images/Westend61\Nico Hermann

Stakeholder analysis
• Identify important stakeholders
in terms of their power to
influence and their attitudes
towards the proposed change

• Develop a strategy for

persuading influential
stakeholders to support the
change

© John Hayes (2018)

 ©Getty Images
Stakeholder grid
Positive attitude
(Potential sponsors)

Strong
Weak support support
(champions)
Low High
power power
Strong
Weak
opposition
opposition
(blockers)

Negative attitude
(Potential blockers)

© John Hayes (2018)

Influencing stakeholders
to support the change
Winning the support of
Attitude
those who oppose the
change and have the
power to influence the
outcome Power
Inform, involve and bargain
Blockers
If they have a legitimate concern,
consider reframing the change to
accommodate their demands

© John Hayes (2018)

Reducing the influence
of powerful blockers
Attitude

Challenge their arguments

If they cannot be persuaded

to support the change and if Power
their demands will damage
the interests of other
legitimate stakeholders it may
be necessary to find ways to Blockers
reduce their power.

© John Hayes (2018)

Increasing the
influence of those
stakeholders who are
already supportive
Attitude

sponsors
For example, secure Weak
their appointment to
decision making groups

Power

© John Hayes (2018)

Building a coalition of
supportive
stakeholders who will
Attitude
be prepared to work
together to support the
supportive
change coalition

Communicate an
inspiring vision that
highlights mutual
benefits Power

© John Hayes (2018)

 Fragmenting existing
coalitions who are
antagonistic towards the
change
Attitude

Pick off and persuade,

bargain with,
or marginalize key
Power
members of the
coalition

Coalition of
blockers

© John Hayes (2018)

Bringing new sponsors
or champions into play
New
spon
sor
Persuade players who have not Attitude
been proactive to take a more
active part in influencing events

Power

© John Hayes (2018)

Changes over time

An important point to
remember is that as a change
project unfolds and as
circumstances change the
identity of key stakeholders
may also change.

© John Hayes (2018)

Summary
This session has explored the politics of organisational change and the
importance of enlisting support from key stakeholders.
 

It was noted that

• At any given stage in a change project certain stakeholders emerge as
more important than others because of their potential to satisfy critical
organisational needs.
• It is possible to identify which stakeholders are likely to be more or less
important at each stage.
• The strategy that will be used to deal with each stakeholder will depend
on the importance of that stakeholder relative to other stakeholders.
The stakeholder grid was introduced as a useful tool for identifying the power
of stakeholders and their predisposition to support or oppose the change.

© John Hayes (2018)