Book Reviews: Managing And Being Managed (Power Relationships and Politics)

I loved reading. 
I would read between homework assignments, favourite TV shows, or on the bus.
I would stay awake until the wee hours if the book was enticing enough.

Book Reviews

Managing And Being Managed

By Teddy L. Langford –

Dean, School of Nursing Texas University Health Science Center Lubbock, Texas.

Chapter3: Power Relationships And Politics

Power. Politics. What is your first reaction to those words? Is it distress, disgust, or dismay? None of these reactions would be sur­prising since so many negative experiences come to be labeled as “the result of an exercise of power” or “an encounter with politics.” Or perhaps your reaction is not negative but rather disinterested because you consider both power relationships and politics as the province of those who are in major businesses, in elected offices, or are the very wealthy, and not the direct concern of ordinary people. If any of these reactions describes your response, you may find the approach to the content of this chapter difficult to accept. This is because the emphasis will be on viewing both power relationships and political behavior as phenomena of human social interaction, phenomena that are neither categorically good nor bad. The intent and the consequences of the relationships are the causes of negative and/or positive reaction. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to attempt to impart an understanding of these phenomena so that the negative consequences you may encounter will be minimized and the maximum benefits can be realized in your professional interactions.

Definition of Power

The very use of the term power to describe a social concept implies that an analogy can be drawn from the physical sciences; one that will help to clarify the meaning. Examine first a couple of definitions and then consider the analogy.

J. D. March states that power is the potential of one individual or group, the agent, to affect or influence the behavior of another, the actor. A similar definition is presented by D. Mechanic. He call power a force, one that results in behavior that would not have occurred if the force had not been present. Both definitions oil to mind properties of electricity. The analogy is simple. Electricity is a force, a potential. Until it is directed, i.e., a circuit formed, there is no change or effect produced by its presence. To continue the analogy; one might note two possible results: (1) electrocution can result if the power is used unwisely, or (2) current can operate many of the machines that make modern life comfortable. Either result of the realization of the potential (creating a current) is possible and is defined not by the electricity but by the user.

The same analogy can be used with social power. It is neither positive nor negative on its own; it exists as a potential. Some in­dividuals want to operate many machines for convenience, for pro­duction, or simply for fun, and therefore seek large amounts of electricity. So also some individuals may wish to have the potential to produce large amounts of work, to accomplish a variety of ac­tions, to “get things done,” for convenience, for production, or for fun. Logically, then, these individuals or groups would be interested in having or gaining the social power to do this.

Other authors have developed theoretical models involving power as a central concept. These concepts differ from one another, although sometimes only subtly, primarily in the refinement of terms. For example, for Robert Bierstedt, influence is used as a noun with many properties similar to March’s noun power* In March’s work, influence is used as a verb. The result is very different mean­ings for the term influence. Such distinctions are important in under­standing the author’s perspective and in considering the validity of the theoretical proposition and subsequent research. Therefore, as you read this text or other literature on this topic, it is useful to identify and clarify the terms basic to the model(s) discussed. In this text, the use of key terms may be illustrated by Fig. 5.1.

Given this perspective, there are several questions that can yield important answers for the person who is manager (agent in the inter­action) as well as the person who is being managed (target in the interaction). Some of those questions are: Why is the power or po­tential element of this model so important, rather than the means or acts used to produce the desired behavior? What are the sources of power? Is the power of a group simply equal to the sum of the power of each of its members? Does power exist as an absolute entity, or is it relative and/or relational? Other more directly prac­tical questions are: How can I estimate the power I possess in certain situations? What can I do to increase my power? Should I? The list could continue indefinitely. The following section will provide some answers to such questions.

Bases of Social Power

The attributes, assets, or resources of an agent (individual or group) provide the bases of social power. It is the perception by the target that the agent possesses one or more assets, and is able and willing to make use of it then, that creates the power, the potential to influence. As you consider the various bases of power, remember that it is not simply the possession of the resources that creates the power, but rather the perception, by the target, that (a) the resource is possessed, and (b) it can and will be used. It is this perception that makes social power relational, and it explains why the same resources produce differing amounts of power in relation to different targets.

One comprehensive classification of the bases or sources of power was developed by John French and Bertram Raven. They list five different sources of power: reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power, and expert power.

Reward power

Reward power is that which is generated by the target’s perception that the agent has the resources and willingness to provide with something he values in exchange for his complying with sired behavior. The resources relevant in this case may be money, materials, or goods of some sort, or some less tangible resources such as compliments or praise, affection, and job promotion or enlargement. If this is the only base from which an individual derives Dower, it is possible that when the more tangible assets are depleted 'the money, for example), the target’s desire for the less tangible rewards will not be sufficient to produce the desired results. This is especially true in a work situation because although work may be the primary source of monetary “rewards,” the supervisor who can affect that reward is seldom the main source from which an individual seeks the greatest part of his life’s praise or affection.

As you examine these ideas, you will notice that the idea of a reward as an incentive to behavior is similar to material discussed in Chapter 1. You considered several views of motivations in that chapter. Further, the notion of a particular type of need motivating behavior at one time and not at another reflects a point of view similar to Maslow’s.⁵ The major difference in this chapter’s informa­tion is a widened perspective. The view has moved from a focus on a single individual and his or her behavior to an interaction between two or more persons, as perceived from one side of that interaction, the “actor’s” (or target’s) perspective.

Coercive Power

Coercive power is that which is based on an individual’s fear. It depends on the application or, in most cases, on the threat of applica­tion of physical sanctions, such as the infliction of pain, restriction of movement or freedom, death, or control by force that prevents one from meeting basic physiological or safety needs. The more obvious examples of physical threat are ones that are direct and are aimed at producing physical and/or mental discomfort, whereas the measures related to interfering with basic needs may be either direct or indirect. For example, depriving a person of water and food is a direct method that would be the basis for coercion; whereas an indirect method would be depriving a person of the job that is source of income, which would mean interfering with meeting his basic needs and thus be a basis for coercion.

The actor (or target) acknowledges that another has this sort of power when he (the actor) behaves in a certain way due to the implied or real threat of beatings, embarrassment, verbal abuse, loss of job, or other potentially undesirable and/or painful possibilities. Holding such power depends on the agent’s keeping the actor in proximity in order to assure that the threat of receiving the punish­ment or deprivation is realistic. For example, if the would-be power wielder is 100 miles away and is speaking to you by phone, the threat of direct physical violence rendered by that person might be relatively weak, and the subsequent power to cause you to “eat spinach” might be quite small.

Legitimate Power

Legitimate power is attributed to an agent or source when the actor’s values indicate that the agent has a legitimate right to in­fluence him and that he (the actor) in turn, has an obligation to accept that influence. Those who have strong religious beliefs may attribute such power to their priest. In the work setting, legitimate power is generally attributed to persons based on their position in the organizational hierarchy, although this expectation may or may not be made explicit by the organization.

The basis of the legitimation of another’s power arises, as mentioned above, from the values and/or norms that the actor accepts. These values may have their basis in the broad cultural values such as those affecting attitude toward persons of various ages or sex. A more specific source of legitimation is the individual’s acceptance of specific social structures, such as a hierarchy in a business organization or a series of ranks in a club. Some would argue that these examples are, in effect, only institutionalized and/or internalized examples of reward or coercive power. It may well be true that the potential for reward or punishment is directly related to this type of power. However, there is, in these cases, a certain lack of explicitness regarding outcome. The power is attributed even though there is no clear indication that the individual occupying a position would use either reward or coercion, but rather simply because the position is “expected” to have power.

As cultural values and norms change, the legitimate power attributed to some will shift. For example, in some cultures, the elderly are honored for their wisdom and have considerable power afforded them in decision making because of the status conferred by age. In most Western cultures, the value of age is relatively lower, and if countries are “Westernized” as well as industrialized, the power attributed to the elderly may decline. In the United States, until relatively recently, females tended to be less “legitimately” powerful than men, based on the predominant values in our society. As a result, women in our society attribute more power to men than to other women in almost every type of endeavor. Surely this has affected the way in which nursing, as a primarily female occupation, has developed. The change in women’s perspective of themselves that is emerging in our country and elsewhere will very likely pro­duce changes in male-female power attribution as well.

Referent Power

Referent power arises from a desire for oneness with the indi­vidual or group, which can subsequently influence the actor. One who admires and wishes to identify with a person, a favorite teacher, for example, will be influenced by that person in many aspects of behavior. Some social groups hold this sort of power in relation to those who wish to be members. One has only to consider the many ridiculous actions that sorority or fraternity initiates are willing to perform in order to cite an example of this type of power affecting behavior.

Expert Power

Expert power is based on the actor’s perception that the agent holds greater knowledge than he holds or than others hold. In this case, it is as though the agent is evaluated by the actor on two scales: (1) a relative one, “He knows more then me,” and (2) an absolute one “He knows almost all there is to know about obstetric nursing.” The degree of power seems to be related to a combination of these estimates of expertness. Expert power typically is limited to actions related to the agent’s area of expertise. Amitai Etzioni states that power is sector- or base-specific.⁶ That is, to have power in one sector does not automatically mean having power in others. For example, one would not necessarily expect persons to comply with the directions of an accountant (expert in tax matters) in regard to health practices, although those same persons would probably perform as the accountant directed in regard to record keeping for taxes.

Assets That Create the Power Base

The previous section on bases of social power discussed poten­tial sources of influence. Continuing the analogy of electricity, we could point out that various resources or assets might be used to generate this electricity. Water might be the resource used, or cobalt, or oil. Likewise, in the case of social power, the basic resources or assets are also varied.

In our modern society, money is for many people a potential reward. It serves many purposes. Money can be the means to meet basic needs through purchases of food, shelter, and clothing. It can also represent status and achievement, which are in themselves rewards to some. Thus, money is a major asset in creating a reward power base. The ability to withhold money or to deprive persons of money they possess can be the base for coercive power as well. Money can also be a mediator in achieving a referent power base. This is because money and the real and symbolic goods it can pur­chase are frequently cause for admiration and subsequent attribution of power by some who may aspire to have similar wealth.

Groups seeking to gain power frequently depend on people as the assets from which to derive power. Although it is true that people are an asset from which power can be generated, at least one author has noted that this is a widely variable asset. Morton Deutsch stated that the utility of people as a resource of power is a function of their numbers, their personal qualities, their social cohesion (trust and mutual goals), and their social organization (effective coordination and division of labor).⁷ This variability could explain, for example, why simply “having a lot of people on your side” may not help to produce the power needed to influence policy or procedure in health care in your country. The possession of a mass of interested persons does not necessarily create an asset sufficient to develop power. In many ways, nursing as a profession is an example of how a very large group can wield relatively little power in many areas. Perhaps one explanation lies in the lack of cohesion and lack of strong social organization within nursing as a profession.

Social status is an asset in developing both a referent and a legitimate power base. A certain “ability to get things done” seems to be conferred on those who achieve high social status. The achieve­ment of high social status is very complex and apparently is related to a number of factors that may vary according to culture, including economic status of self and family, sex, age, education, and occupa­tion. Although the elements prompting high social status vary among cultures, its function as an asset in creating power is constant al­though not always highly potent. The degree to which it is a factor is, as with all power bases and the assets that create them, dependent on the target (actor).

Knowledge or information is another prime asset. This asset is directly related to the expert power base. As mentioned above, attribution of expert power is apparently based on evaluation of knowledge both on an absolute scale and on a relative one. There­fore, simply knowing a lot will not necessarily create power for the knowledge holder. It is paradoxical that in teaching personnel with whom we work, we may bring them to a knowledge level similar to our own. In doing so, we may be simultaneously dissipating our own power base. This observation is not to suggest that continuing development of staff or education of patients is undesirable, but rather that one must rely on multiple assets and bases for power to accomplish goals, and one must continually analyze assets as they relate to potential targets of influence.

Perhaps at this point it is useful to reiterate that although discussion of power may evoke negative feelings, there is no real reason to perceive power as other than a neutral force — the potential to get things done. It is the uses of power that require examination for negative or positive intents.

Power — Who Needs It? How Much is Needed?

On observing a variety of individuals, you will notice that they seem to vary widely in their ability to prompt others to act. That difference can be viewed as a difference in levels of power attributed to them by others. As mentioned above, power is defined in relative terms, depending on both the actor and the agent. Therefore, indi­viduals will have varying levels of power, depending on the target or actor with whom they are dealing. But you can probably think of someone who seems powerful in many areas. Or, conversely, you might be able to identify a person who is unable to affect the be­havior of anyone at all. The direct reason for the latter situation is a lack of assets to create any of the power bases mentioned above.

The reason for that lack of assets should be examined. Why do some people seek to accumulate the assets that are the basis for power, whereas others appear to be indifferent or to actively avoid gaining a power base? Social and cultural factors can be identified as possible contributors to this difference. Until the relatively recent past, women as a group in the American culture have tended to wield far less power then would have been expected. Culturally and socially, their sphere of concern and interest was more limited than that of males. Whether by choice or by unthinking adherence to norms and mores, American women have been traditionally less likely to seek the assets upon which power is based.

Ethnic and cultural minority groups have been in a similar position in regard to power in the United States. In the past several years, a national concern for equal treatment and for equal rights for all has awakened the concern of many who have subsequently come to realize that the ability to influence others is a key element in achieving equal opportunities.

Another approach to understanding differences in power is psychological. This considers factors within the individual (rather than group attribution) that may affect the level of aspiration or degree of success in gaining bases for power. James Tedeschi, Barry Schlenker, and Thomas Bonoma in early attempts at theory develop­ment on this topic have addressed the question, Who wields power?⁸ They identified self-confidence, a generalized expectancy of success, as one factor. Those who are high in self-confidence will estimate high probability of obtaining rewards and avoiding costs in using power. These authors also noted that the higher a person’s status, the more deference he expects. That person, then, is more self-confident in terms of the possibility of gaining and using power. This informa­tion implies that early learning toward developing the self-concept will affect a person’s predisposition toward seeking power. It does not, however, imply that these attributes are fixed and do not con­tinue to vary throughout life. Consider your own perception of yourself. As you learn more about nursing, do you gain confidence about yourself as a nurse and as a person? Or, conversely, do negative experiences in some activities decrease your confidence both speci­fically in that area and in general?

Another aspect of the theory developed by Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Bonoma suggests that the question of why levels of aspiration for power vary can be explained in terms of the relative expectation of costs and utility of gaining and using power. Combining concepts from game theory and economic theory, these authors state that a person’s subjective expectation of utility in regard to any social behavior will be the basis for deciding to act. Choosing to gain and use power is one specific type of such social behavior. If the expec­tation of utility (gain or rewards), based on subjectively defined values and preferences, is high, one will choose to seek and use power. If the expectation of utility is negative (costs are great and rewards are low), or the expectation of positive utility is low, then the agent will choose not to seek or use power.⁹

The following example illustrates how this theoretical state­ment might explain behavior:

You are a staff nurse in a rehabilitation center. On your unit there are two nurses aids (NAs). Their usual functions are limited to basic patient as­sistance in activities of daily living and some assistance to the staff nurses in general unit activities. You have a patient, an above-the-knee amputee, who is interested in beginning to take some short trips off the unit, with supervision, to gain confidence in his mobility with his new prosthesis. You would like to have the nurses aid accompany the patient on trips on the hospital grounds. There is no prohibition against assistants per­forming such tasks, but there is no precedent either. The choices you make about asking the NA to do this can be related .to (1) the utility you have assigned to the action and (2) the expectation of success (the NA agreeing to perform the action). Suppose, for example, that you are convinced that this activity is important for the patient and you believe that the NA will find it satisfying to be helpful in this way. The utility is thus relatively high from your perspective. If you are self-confident and are aware that you have a legitimate base of power in your position and are aware also that the NA attributes expert power to you; and since you have had a good working relationship with the NA in the past, you will have a relatively high expectation of achieving the utility you have assigned to the action. Therefore, you would choose to ask the NA to take on this new task.

In reality, we seldom are so thorough in our reasoning about choices to attempt to influence others, as in the case example above, but the concept of subjective expectation of utility is a useful one in analyzing decisions to use power.

The most obvious examples of power use in organizations are those where one (the source) possesses a legitimate power base as the superior in a superior-subordinate organizational line, such as in head nurse-staff nurse or staff nurse-nurse assistant relationships. However, the legitimate base is not the only relevant base, nor is it a necessary prerequisite for the exercise of power. You can probably think of examples in which a staff nurse or a group of staff nurses has influenced a supervisor to change some procedure or to make some decision favored by that group. In this case, bases of power other than legitimate prompted the action.

Thus, although social power is not finitely quantifiable, it is probably true that different power bases are acknowledged in varying degrees by different individuals. For example, someone’s legitimate power, especially if I perceive my own to be nearly equal to his, may carry “very little weight” with me. However, if he possesses reward power in the form of ability to increase my salary, that may very well cause me to attribute considerable power to him. Because of this individual difference in attribution of power, it is sometimes difficult to determine “how much is enough” to ac­complish the desired end.

As you analyze situations where you wish to influence others to act, and where you are the subject of influence attempts, it will become apparent that there are advantages to understanding how power is gained, how it may be dissipated and the effects of lack of power — all of which will be discussed in the next section.

Gaining, Using, and Being without Power

Since power is created from assets, in abstract terms, one gains power by amassing assets. Confining the question of assets to the professional situation you are involved in, there are several possible ways to increase assets and therefore to potentially increase power. One major asset is position; that is, to increase the status and au­thority of position is to increase the legitimate base. Another asset is the ability to provide praise (most of us have that ability if we use it wisely), to recommend salary increases and other forms of tangible rewards, and/or to make work assignments. These and similar assets create the reward bases.

Gaining the option to provide some of these rewards is usually related to position definition. Frequently, however, opportunities to gain and use these assets are overlooked. For example, if you have authority by position description to make personnel evaluations, you have defaulted on gaining assets for power if you have let that become a ritual rather than a meaningful opportunity to provide reward. The converse of the ability to reward is the ability to punish, by withholding rewards or by more direct and physical means. Although a strong ethical sense of individual rights and a belief in xhe ability of people to improve and achieve when rewarded may discourage the actual use of coercive power, there are some for whom roercive power is the only sort they will acknowledge.

The primary asset for expert power is the possession of informa­tion or skill. Increasing assets for this base requires an increase in knowledge or skill by the agent and probably also requires some effort to make the target aware that the expertise exists. The referent base is one for which it is difficult to amass assets since the attribu­tion of this type of power is largely based on attraction to a person or group conceived by the target. Physical attractiveness is frequently an influence in creating this base, but is not the only element.

Another consideration in accumulating power is the possibility of combining bases; that is, rather than relying on reward power alone, combine the reward base with the expert base or use other combinations of bases. In this way, the potential of accumulating power is maximized. Even though one base may have little relevance for an individual target, the other base or the combination may. When the target is a group, a combination of bases can help appeal to the responses of various members of the group.

Still another option to increase power is coalition formation. This strategy is frequently used by individuals or groups with relatively little power vis-a-vis their target. Two or more parties combine their assets and thereby combine power bases toward accomplishing a particular goal. The coalition is not a permanent nor total partner­ship. The only real necessity is that the partners agree that both can benefit from the alliance and that they make clear to the target that they are united in this purpose. This is a common strategy in situations where decision making is based on votes, such as in legisla­tive activity. Combining single votes from a variety of disparate sources can produce a necessary majority on a particular issue.

In organizational settings, although not as obvious as in legis­lative activities, coalitions may be formed by lower power individuals or groups in order to gain desired ends. The power base resulting may be any of those mentioned above. An example would be when staff nurses in a community health clinic form a coalition with a local women’s group to gain power in seeking additional funds for equip­ment. The staff nurses may possess a small coercive base and a mod­erate expert base. These bases could be combined with the reward base represented by the women’s group’s continued financial support of special projects of the clinic. This example also illustrates that coalitions are not limited to participants in the formal organization, even though the target and the desired behavior are within the organizational context. As a group that has traditionally held rela­tively little power in most arenas, nurses could make good use of coalition formation in seeking to accomplish goals in health care.

Although it is possible to learn about power and subsequently to make definite efforts to gain the assets to increase power, some individuals or groups may never gain much power, either because their level of aspiration does not require it or because they are able to meet their own needs without dealing with other people. For those who are without power yet wish to receive rewards (or prevent pain), there is little other open as a course of action except: (1) to comply and consistently be a target rather than a source of influence, or (2) to ingratiate themselves with those who do hold power. In­gratiation, according to Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Bonoma, is “deliberate and illicit strategies people employ for the purpose of increasing their attractiveness in the eyes of others and in the hopes of thereby acquiring subsequent rewards.”¹⁰ This may produce satisfying results if one wants to be dependent upon the wishes of others. But this characteristic seems inconsistent with the expecta­tions that a professional person or group should be decisive and able, when necessary, to cause things to happen, that is, to exercise some power.

Another more satisfying strategy when one is relatively power­less is to set about to offset the power of others by reducing the dependence on others for some rewards. This requires the ability to evaluate oneself and grant “good feelings” for positive accom­plishments. Another effort at such decrease in dependence for rewards might be to seek a work setting where a fair and impartial system for merit evaluation and subsequent promotions is in opera­tion. Reducing dependence on others for information also offsets those persons’ power over to you. When you can use or gain direct access to primary sources of information, you do not depend on others for that information or their interpretation of it. For example, if you seek and use the personnel manual to answer your own questions about policies, you have offset a bit of the power a long-term organizational member may have in relation to you.

The Cost of Using Power

One final idea among the general concepts about power pre­sented here is cost. Since power is created from assets, it, like the assets, is finite. It is possible to exhaust the assets and the power through “spending” just as with strictly tangible assets like money. Some assets are less tangible than money and are more difficult to quantify, yet they do form expendable items both absolutely and relatively. In the absolute sense, it is possible to exhaust the supply of new information you possess in holding an expert base. If you do not maintain and update your knowledge and skills, those with whom you deal can attain the same knowledge. In the relative sense, it is possible to exhaust your store of relevant rewards in relation to a particular target if you “run out” or if the item ceases to be rewarding to that target. Suppose that I am rewarding a child for running errands by giving him candy. I can “run out” of candy, or he may decide that he no longer likes the candy and would prefer apples or money instead.

Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Bonoma described costs of influence (the use of power) as falling into two categories: source-based costs and target-based costs.¹¹ The example above can be used to illustrate both types. A source-based cost is one that is voluntarily incurred by the source. In the example, I chose to use some of my asset

candy — to gain the influence I desired. I chose to do that on my own. A target-based cost is one incurred by the source as a result of responses by the target. If the child resists my efforts to use candy as a reward to get errands run, I may find it necessary to use some other resources to accomplish the same end. Although I retain the choice in whether to expend the asset or to forget about the errands, the target has changed the cost to me. Thus, as either party to an influence effort changes, the power equation changes also. If you are to use power wisely, it is necessary to monitor such changes carefully in any attempts you may make to influence others.

Just as with power, politics has come to carry some negative connotations for anyone who does not enjoy complicated interaction among persons in their professional activities. Consider the following example as a preliminary to further discussions of this concept.

You have just arrived at work, the first day of the second month on your first job. As you arrive you notice that two other staff nurses are engaged in a very animated conversation. You overhear bits of it —“I’ve only had one weekend off a month for the last three months.” “Short of staff.” “Admitting patients that should be in CCU (coronary care unit).” “Never enough linen.” “Rotate to nights with only one day off between changes.” As you approach, one of the staff nurses looks up and says, “Are you interested in working with us? We’re going to organize a staff nurses unit and get the state nurses association to represent us. No one is taking care of us and we can’t take care of patients as a result.”

“Well,” you say, “I need to think about this a little, but I surely do believe that nurses need a voice in decisions about what happens to them and their patients.”

Then imagine this next scene. It is four days later. You are just emerging from Mrs. J’s room where you have just managed to get her to help feed herself after weeks of depressed dependence. The smile of accomplishment you are wearing turns to dismay when you look about and see that six of the ten patients for whom you are responsible have call lights on and there is no one in sight. Where, you wonder, have the personnel gone? You mentally set priorities and begin quickly answering the lights. Just as you emerge from the fifth patient’s room, you see two nurse’s aids emerge from a vacant room. With them is the ward manager from your unit. The ward manager is carrying the personnel schedule, which he develops for the head nurse’s approval. You hear one aid say to the ward manager; “I know Mrs. Parsons won’t even notice the change and it really will help me. Head nurses don’t pay that much attention. To them an aid is an aid. Thanks, I’ll see you at lunch.” The other aid then says to the ward manager, “I’m sure glad that you’re in charge of scheduling now. You understand our schedule change problems lots better than Mrs. Parsons did. But that’s no surprise.”

Does this seem real to you? If it does, perhaps we can now examine what was really happening in this situation. At first glance, two things are evident: (1) the staff nurses are organizing, and (2) there are at least two nurse’s aids who have found a way to get their schedule as they like it, possibly at the expense of paying close atten­tion to the patients. An example of good and bad? Perhaps, but the evaluative terms good and bad might be used quite differently, de­pending on your perspective. For example, suppose that the per­spective we take is that of the nursing supervisor, not a newly licensed staff nurse. Do you suppose her response might be different to the first scene? Or suppose that you were one of the aids, who has what she thinks is good reason for getting a specific day off each week. The perspective makes the difference, because in each case the individuals involved were acting in what they believed to be their own best interests. That is the very core of what is called politics. It is a very human, very interesting, and possibly very frustrating and potentially damaging phenomenon. It is also one that most of us are not well equipped to deal with on other than an emotional basis.

In order to examine politics from a theoretical perspective, a first step is to define the term. Stephen Robbins defines politics as “any behavior by an organizational member that is self-serving.” He goes on to say, “It is functional when that behavior assists in the attainment of the organization’s goals. It is dysfunctional when it hinders these goals.”¹² Examining the implications of this statement, one can see that political behavior can then be totally individual, the action of one person, for that one person’s ends. It can also be group behavior directed to goals a group views as in the best interest of its members. The above example demonstrates that.

It is also evident that one of the natural consequences of self-interest behavior is potential conflict. Since the self-interests of one individual and those of another do not always correspond, the possibility exists that at some point the individuals will perceive that their interests are antagonistic. Conflict will then ensue. To use the above example, when the registered nurses organize as a group to promote their interests, the director of nursing service may see that particular political behavior as in direct opposition to her desire to maintain a good public image. Each party to the inter­action has defined her own interests, and these interests may conflict with each other. It is interesting to note that seldom does anyone actually publicly admit aloud that self-interest is the issue when such a conflict arises. Values, ethics, organizational integrity, the care of the patients — all of these are the reasons given for one’s position. The staff nurses may be deeply interested in some professional value that prompts concern for the ratio of staff to patients. Or, from the other point of view, perhaps some organizational loyalty prompts the director’s position. Once the position is taken, it becomes the person’s own — an element of self-interest.

Although conflict is a potential result, this is not to suggest that all political behavior results in conflict. Sometimes political behavior will result in a person’s position, extent of power, scope in performance, or recognition being enhanced. Furthermore, this may not be at the direct expense of another person. Of course, if we view power, participation, and recognition as being finite in quantity, then we can reason that one person’s gain is someone else’s potential loss, for the quantity is no longer available to them for potential increases in their own power or recognition. Therefore, some political actions will cause considerably more conflict in an organization than others. For example, you can predict that an action will cause major difficulty if you can determine whether either or both of the following conditions exist: (1) The action is performed deliberately by a large or organized group. (2) The total organization (not just individuals in it) is at risk of losing money, prestige, or operational capacity as a result of the action. Examples of political behavior that will not necessarily cause large-scale conflict are those acts that are by one person or affect only one person and that will not materially affect the vital organs of the organization. Thus, political activity can be viewed as existing along a continuum, from small one-person shows to large major campaigns, with a variety of maneuvering between these two points.

Another key point in understanding politics is that the less structure in the organization and the less clarity in roles, the greater the chances of political activity taking place. Robbins notes that a well-run bureaucratic structure discourages political activity.¹³ This seems logical, since the power, scope of decision making, and other parameters of each position are spelled out regardless of who fills the position. The result is a highly structured built-in certainty of routine. But it is also proposed that a tight bureaucracy may be antithetical to the development of creative work and so it is best suited to routine kinds of work. Therefore, since much of nursing, especially in less structured settings, requires creative activity, the development of a tight bureaucracy hardly seems to be a logical solution to reducing political activity in an organization. This last statement might imply that when political activity exists, it needs to be stamped out. Is that necessarily true?

Robbins in his definition of politics, as noted earlier, spoke of functional and dysfunctional political behavior. The dysfunctional conflict-producing politics has been discussed above. He also calls some politics neutral. Neutral, he says, is that behavior in one’s interest that is essentially passing the buck.¹⁴ The individual does nothing overt, neither does she or he state an opinion. Rather the oerson protects self by being noncontroversial. Although this may be somewhat frustrating, it is generally not worth the effort to get the person to take a stand on the issue, unless, of course, that person :s supposed to be making decisions regularly.

What then is functional politics, a form of behavior that may need to be encouraged rather than discouraged? The definition said that self-interest behavior that promotes the goals of the organization is called functional. Given that meaning, performing well on the job, thereby seeking a good evaluation and promotion and obtaining salary increases, is functional political behavior. It promotes the individual’s self-interest while furthering organizational goals.

Political behavior then can certainly be either a negative or positive force for the organization as well as for individuals. Since that is so, your concern as a person entering a work setting in a new role is not necessarily how to stay out of politics, or how to keep from being a target. Rather, your effort should be directed toward understanding the political behavior present in an organization and making wise choices about when and how you will participate.

As mentioned earlier, formal organizational structures, es­pecially the extreme form of the bureaucracy, are designed to reduce or eliminate uncertainty and should as a result reduce politics in the organization. However, humans, being what we are, generally find ways of getting past formal structures when we want to. In organizations, the result is the unofficial network of communication and decision making often referred to as the informal organization. The example of the nurse’s aids’ going directly to the person develop­ing the schedule rather than to the head nurse as prescribed by the formal organization is an example of the informal structure in action.

The key to understanding institutional politics is understanding the organization’s informal structure. It might well be said that small groups are the key to holding the informal structure together. How then does the new nurse in the situation identify where these groups are and what their functions are? One of the best ways is to note who spends time together at work. Who helps out whom, without being requested to? Who takes coffee breaks or mealtimes together? In these groups that consistently form at social times, who seems to be at the hub? To whom do the members seem to defer in conversa­tion? That person is a leader in some way. Take note. That group provides communication for its members. If you are astute, within a month you can recite all the pairings and other groupings that develop on your unit and division. All you need to do is watch, listen, and make mental notes. This activity in itself is preparatory. It is much like learning the rosters of the football teams playing in a game. You will need the information later, whether as a spectator or as a player.

Once you have begun to identify how the informal communica­tion and decisions seem to flow, you must remember that the “nonstructure” is quite fluid, potentially changing as new members come and go. So you need to periodically validate your observations. The next thing with which to be concerned is your own position in this structure. Your first political act may well be deciding how to respond to or participate in the informal structure. Will you seek the safety of a group headed by someone else? There is a risk here that the group’s interest may not reflect yours. Will you be a full-time loner? The risk in this situation is of being so marginal as to lose communication in both informal and formal structures. Perhaps you will align yourself with another “rookie.” There is a certain comfort here. But will your own development be retarded by re­maining peripheral in this way? One suggestion is to try to find out, by accepting invitations and by making intentional efforts at gaining proximity, what the interests of various groups and individuals are. You can do this by identifying recurrent themes of conversation. You can ask, “What do you think?” kinds of questions. Then you can look past the superficial reasons and rationale to identify possible reasons why those interests are someone else’s self-interests.

You must remember that interaction among your coworkers goes on all during the work itself. All that interaction has meaning. If you want to manage the politics that will affect you, you will need to be acutely aware of both the work and those with whom you work, because both elements are inextricably related.

At the point when you have become somewhat aware of the social groupings and their defined self-interests, you can then begin to make intelligent choices. You can become a part of those activities and groups that you see as functional, in the sense mentioned earlier, and satisfying for you.

It will take vigilance to avoid having your interests dictated by group pressure. A very important step toward preventing your self from being submerged in the work group and risking loss of integrity of personal choice is to build a strong personal support system. This system can only provide support when needed most if it does not depend on your being defined by your work alone. The people in that support and the things there must relate to you as friend, piano player, skier, spouse, or whatever, and only incidentally as nurse. Having that kind of wholeness can make you even more valuable as a nurse because it provides balance and perspective and the basis for empathy.

Now, to reiterate, in order to manage the politics you en­counter, it is necessary to:

-Understand it in specific terms—people and issues.

-Make intelligent decisions about how to participate and with whom in functional self-interest activities.

-Remember that doing an excellent consistently visible job is in itself one of the most functional self-interest activities anyone can perform.

One other issue regarding politics needs consideration here. What do you do when you are the target or about to be a casualty in another person’s political moves? The first thing to do is to try not to put yourself in that position. That is, do not be so naive as to believe that everyone is acting in your best interest. It is not a typical human trait to be constantly altruistic. There is no need to be angry or to feel betrayed by this statement. In fact, it is placing a terrible burden on our fellow humans to expect them to be super­human at all times.

We would all like to think that we could depend on our col­leagues to sort out whether any act they perform will infringe on another before proceeding. Many people will. But just because you do not intend to drive into the back of the car in front of you is no reason to throw away your rear-view mirror, assuming (because you have good intentions), you won’t be rear-ended. Thus it is with the world of work. Realistically it is better to be aware of human temptation and identify whom you may be a threat to or a con­venient stepping stone. You can make yourself an ally of someone you may be a threat to, by providing willing assistance and helping them know that you as an ethical person will not advance at their expense. For those who might use you as a stepping stone, confron­tation is a healthy way to inform them that you are not to be so used. That confrontation can be growth-producing for both of you.

Again, it is important to note that everyone legitimately has self-interests, and there is no reason why he or she should feel un­comfortable for advancing his/her interests in an ethical, functional way. Identify what you want to accomplish, and whether you can accomplish it within the framework of a particular organization’s goals and in the company of its personnel. If you find that through examination, either from interview or experience there, that you cannot accomplish them, your choices are to either surrender your interests, leave the organization, or try to change it (which is ul­timately an attempt at advancing your interest).

As you grow and learn, you will reexamine your self-interests. Where once your greatest concern was with your position providing a learning experience, perhaps you will reach a time when you are concerned with how you can develop new strategies for providing care. A careful self-inventory at regular intervals is important. At the same time, it is prudent to recognize that other than functional forms of political behavior exist and will probably continue to do so. Political behavior like social power exists; it is neither good nor bad in itself, and only becomes so from certain perspectives; and it needs to be understood and dealt with competently if one is to survive and flourish in the work setting.

SUMMARY

Social power has been examined here as a construct for analyz­ing and understanding interaction designed to produce influence. Examples have been cited to illustrate how understanding power relationships can be a useful tool in professional situations. The related concept, politics, was presented, relatively briefly, along with suggestions for using this information for successful personal interactions in the work setting.

Additional Reading

Bernal, Henrietta, “Power and Interorganizational Health Care Projects,” Nursing Outlook, 24, No. 7 (July 1976), 418.

Benne, Kenneth, Warren Bennis, and Robert Chin, “Planned Change in America,” in W. G. Bennis, et al., eds., The Planning of Change, 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976, pp. 13-21.

Claus, Karen E., and June T. Bailey, Power and Influence in Health Care, St. Louis, Mo.: C. V. Mosby, 1977.

Kalisch, Beatrice, and Philip Kalisch, “A Discourse on the Politics of Nursing,” Journal of Nursing Administration, 6, (March-April 1976), p. 29.

Langford, Teddy L., “Impotence May be Curable: An Essay,” Nursing Leader­ship, 1, No. 1 (June 1978), 29.

McClelland, David C., “Two Faces of Power,” Journal of Inter-National Affairs, 24, No. 1 (1970), 29.

McClelland, David C., and David H. Burnham, “Power Is the Great Motivator,” Harvard Business Review, 54, No. 2 (March-April 1976), 100-110.

Knowledge: The Power of the Helping Profes­sions,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10, No. 3 (1974), 451-61. Sills, Grayce M., “Nursing, Medicine and Hospital Administration,” American Journal of Nursing, 76, No. 9 (September 1976), 1432.

Wise, H., et al., Making Health Teams Work. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1974.