Power & Influence
Case - Thomas Green:
Power, Office Politics, and a
Career in Crisis
Principles
of Management
Sasser, W. Earl, Jr., and Heather Beckham.
"Thomas Green: Power, Office Politics and a Career in Cri
sis."
Harvard Business School Brief Case 082-095, May
2008.
Agenda
Team Dynamics Wrap-up
Bases of Social Power
Thomas Green Case
Introduction
Situation Analysis Objectives
Team Discussions: Position and - Explore the role
Action Plan that personal work
styles and politics play in
Team Presentations a workplace.
- Explore the concepts of
power and influence.
- Evaluate strategies for
constructive conflict
resolution.
2
Case Thomas Green
Introductory Questions
Describe Thomas Green’s situation.
Who is he? What is his professional history? What are his current accomplishments
and challenges?
Describe Frank Davis’ strengths and leadership style.
What is important to him in a work setting? What motivates him? What
does he expect from his colleagues and direct reports? How does he want to be
treated?
Describe Thomas Green’s strengths and leadership style.
What is important to him in a work setting? What motivates him? What
does he expect from his colleagues and manager? How does he want to be treated?
Describe Thomas Green’s new role.
How is Thomas’ new role different from his previous role as an account executive?
What different talents and strengths are required in the new position? Is this new job
a good fit for Thomas? Why or why not?
Describe the conflict between Thomas and Frank.
What is creating the tension and conflict between Thomas and Frank? How has
McDonald contributed to the situation?
Describe Thomas Green’s job performance.
What is your analysis of Thomas Green’s actions and job performance in his first five 3
months? What has he done well? What mistakes has he made?
Leader-Member Exchange
LMX Model
INPUT PROCESS OUTCOME
*Dulebohn, James H.; Bommer, William H.; Liden, Robert C.; Brouer, Robyn L.; Ferris, Gerald R. (2012-11-01). 4
"A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences of Leader-Member Exchange Integrating the Past With an Eye Toward the Futur
e"
I. Situation Analysis
INPUT PROCESS OUTCOME
Green (Follower)
& Davis (Leader)
• Green’s job
• Differences in work Leader-Member performance
styles & personal Exchange
characteristics (LMX)
• Differences in goals
& expectations IN-group
vs
• Motives of Davis and OUT-group
McDonald
Interpersonal
relationship actions
I. Situation Analysis
How do Green and Davis differ in
Work Styles?
Ambitious, young,
aggressive, overconfident,
independent.
Management style: free
wheeling, busy, seemingly
unorganized, lack of
commitment to deadlines,
focus on intuition than data
Davis
Detail oriented, team player, prefers written
documentation & commitment to deadlines,
wants to be informed (micromanager)
I. Situation Analysis
How do Green and Davis
Differ in Goals?
Content or topic
What does each person want to achieve? Davis wants data and
short-term results. Green wants to pursue long-term growth strategy.
Relational
How does each person want to be treated? Davis wants loyalty,
support, & to be kept in the loop. Green wants independence and not
micromanaged.
Identity or Face-Saving
How does each party protect their identity and character? Green’s
open challenge threatened Davis’ reputation.
Process
How can work get done? Davis wants frequent updates in a written
format. Green wants autonomy to explore external relationships and
intuition in decision making. 7
Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2007). Interpersonal Conflict. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
I. Situation Analysis
Green’s Interpersonal Relationship
Actions
Ignores McDonald’s reservations
Does not seek guidance from seasoned
managers
Does not understand or help his boss
(Davis)
Ignores early warning signs from Davis
(data, docs)
Uses avoidance and dissociation in conflict
Does not use expert or referent powers
8
I. Situation Analysis
Green’s Job Performance
Does not meet Davis’ deadlines
Does not provide documentation
Does not use data
Busy with clients (in current role!)
Does not inform Davis consistently
Shows negative attitude, not a team player
Lacks definite output: no new strategy
Does not provide proof for Davis’
overstated forecasts
9
I. Situation Analysis
Motives of Davis and McDonald
Unknown true motives or agendas
Davis
Constructive motive to develop Green?
Destructive motive to make a case to fire Green?
• Afraid of being exposed for his “creative” accounting?
McDonald
Set up Green to help expose Davis’ “creative accounting”?
Motive to leave Green on his own? Motive to abandon him?
Motive to create highly political climate for Davis and Green?
Green
Reveal “creative” accounting of Davis’?
Help his boss and correct Davis’ forecast?
We have tendency to “cover ourselves” 10
II-IV. Position, Evidence &
Action Plan
What actions, if any, should Thomas Green take?
Breakout into IP teams (15 min)
Identify 2 options but discuss one in detail
Identify its advantages and disadvantages
Develop an action plan for Thomas Green
Wrap up / Conclusions (5 min)
What tips would you have for effective LMX? 11
IV. Action Plan
Conflict Style Choices
Which conflict style should Green choose?
12
Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2007). Interpersonal Conflict. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Bases of Social Power
(French & Raven, 1959; McGinn & Lingo, 2007)
Position power (formal/associated with the job)
Legitimate power - formal right to make demands, and to
expect compliance and obedience from others
Reward power - ability to compensate another for
compliance.
Coercive power – can punish others for noncompliance.
Personal power (associated with one’s own unique
qualities)
Expert power - person's superior skill and knowledge.
Relational power (focused on the network of
relationships)
Referent power - person's perceived attractiveness,
worthiness, and right to respect from others (e.g., charisma)
13
French, J. R. P., Raven, B. 1959. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander. Group dynamics. New York: Harper & Row.
Power
Power – ONE Root Cause of
Workplace Issues
The role of power dynamics:
What power was used in the jury of the 12 Angry Men?
What power was used in the Thomas Green case?
14
Interpersonal Influence
Focused on GETTING OTHERS TO SAY “YES”
to a REQUEST – getting things done “through” others
How did Davis/others use it in the film?
We are most vulnerable to techniques that elicit
automatic responses
15
Interpersonal Influence
Persuasion Tactics
PERSUASION – APPEALING TO DEEPLY ROOTED
HUMAN NEEDS, VALUES, & DRIVES
Can be taught & learned!
Legitimate power is no longer enough for most of
today’s managers!
Managers need peers and superiors to achieve their
goals
Rational persuasion (one of the influence tactics) may
be used on you as a subordinate, consumer,
colleague, OR manager by your own subordinates
16
Cialdini’s 6 Principles of
Interpersonal Influence (Tactics)
1. Liking
2. Reciprocity
3. Social Proof
4. Commitment/Consistency
5. Authority
6. Scarcity
Identify which have been used in
12 Angry Men, Thomas Green case
or your IP team. 17
1.
Liking
People like those who like them!
U R more likely to comply with requests of others
you like (e.g.,Tupperware party).
Referent power: U like hostess-U will buy!
To create “liking”
Praise & compliments (must be authentic)
Cooperation & respect
Creation of an emotional connection with audience
(e.g., use vivid examples, stories, metaphors)
Physical attractiveness: Attractive individuals are more
persuasive in changing attitudes & compliance
Similarity - See yourself as a similar/increased
liking/you’ll buy from them! 18
2.
Reciprocity
People repay in kind!
U R more likely to comply with a request from
someone who previously provided a favor/gift
Charities rely on this! The unsolicited gift, accompanied by
request for donation or survey (money, address labels -
Disabled American Vet including small gift – donations
doubled!)
Vendors giving clients gifts (tickets to game)
Free estimates from service companies
Men buying women drinks
Favors in the workplace, e.g., lending staff to others
GIVE FIRST! 19
Reciprocal Concessions
When you begin with an extreme request that is nearly
always rejected and then retreat to a more moderate one
(the one you had in mind from the outset)
Ex.: fund-raising, after being asked for a large donation, people are
substantially more likely than before to give average-size
contributions
The persuasive target leaves the transaction feeling better
about the outcome
20
3.
Social Proof
People follow the lead of similar others
We’ll likely do something if we observe similar others doing
it (New Yorkers vs foreigner)
Veteran employees resisting project – Manager calls in “old-
timer” who’s now “on board”.
Which bartender/street performer gets more tips? The one
with the tip glass empty or half full?
Taped laughter causes audiences to laugh more frequently
and longer
21
Social Proof
Similarity matters
We are more willing to comply with a request or behavior if it is
consistent with what peers are thinking or doing
• Ex. list alumni donations
• Start-ups listing their clients
Persuasion effective coming from peers
Emphasize similarities
Use peer power
22
4.
Commitment & Consistency
People “align” with their
commitments!
Get it in writing (if u get them to write down commitment,
they’ll be more likely to follow through)
• Boss telling worker he wants her commitment to produce reports
more timely in writing.
Broadcast the commitment to others (or get the person to
commit in front of others)
MAKE THEIR COMMITMENTS \ ACTIVE, PUBLIC &
VOLUNTARY!
23
Commitment & Consistency
Desire to appear consistent exerts major influence
over our behavior
“We want to appear consistent!”
After actively, publicly, and voluntarily committing to
a position, people are more likely to comply with
requests consistent with that position
Exercise: Ask several questions to which the target will be
likely to say yes, then follow up with a final question (your
real question) that they must then say “yes” to
Example from 12 Angry Men?
24
Commitment & Consistency
Low-ball technique
Obtain commitment to an action and then increase the
costs after commitment is obtained
“Even a penny would help…”
Plea to act in a way that is consistent with seeing
yourself as a helpful person
Don’t coerce or force
It will reduce likelihood of follow-through
25
5.
Authority
People defer to experts
We’re more willing to follow the suggestions of someone we
perceive as a legitimate authority
They are our “short-cuts” to good decisions/we listen to them!
Tied to expert power, legitimate power
“Credibility”
Based on expertise and relationships
Organization’s brand matters
Don’t assume that others know where you’re the expert!
(Tell them, subtly)
Expose your Expertise!
26
6.
Scarcity
People want more of what they can have less of
We try to secure opportunities that are scarce/dwindling!
Availability used as shortcut for determining quality
We hate to lose freedoms/opportunities
“Limited supply”, “Limited time offer“, “This is a once-in-a-
career opportunity”
Exclusive info-more persuasive than widely available data
“This won’t be distributed until next week”….
EMPHASIZE UNIQUE BENEFITS + EXCLUSIVE INFO!
27
Make it Scarce!
Scarcity
Participants in a consumer-preference study were given a
chocolate chip cookie from a jar and asked to taste and rate
its quality (Worchel, Lee & Adewole, 1975). When the
cookie was one of the only two available, it was rated more
favorably than when it was one of ten.
The cookie in short supply was rated:
more desirable to eat in the future
more attractive
more costly
28
Now that you know…
Are you readily going to say yes when a colleague asks
you for a favor?
Make sure you have a go-to political base you can rely
on to back you
Remember that it takes time to obtain “Liking”
advantages in influence – one on one time is often key
“Authority” can’t often be mastered on the spot!
29
