"

Chapter 13: Power, Influence, and Organizational Dynamics: Navigating Networks and Politics

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Define the concept of power and describe its role in organizational settings.
  2. Distinguish between the positive and negative aspects of power and influence.
  3. Identify and categorize the various sources of power within organizations.
  4. Analyze common influence tactics and evaluate strategies for impression management.
  5. Explain the concept of a social network and map your own professional network using relevant tools.
  6. Examine the antecedents and consequences of organizational politics through case examples.
  7. Assess how ethical considerations shape the use and perception of power.
  8. Compare and contrast cross-cultural differences in power dynamics and influence strategies.

Section 13.1: Spotlight

Power, Politics, and Climate Silence in the University of Missouri System

Figure 13.1

The front of the three-story Millennium Student Center on UMSL's campus.

Suobara– UMSL 01- CC BY SA3.0.

The University of Missouri System (UM System), comprising four campuses—UMSL, MU, UMKC, and Missouri S&T—conducted a comprehensive climate survey in 2017 to assess the experiences of students, faculty, and staff. The survey, administered by Rankin & Associates, revealed systemic concerns about power dynamics, transparency, and inclusion. While many respondents reported feeling comfortable in their campus environments, a significant portion—18%—experienced exclusionary or hostile conduct, and nearly 30% of students considered leaving due to climate-related issues (UM System, 2017). These findings underscored the influence of both formal and informal power structures on campus culture.

Sources of power varied across campuses. At UMSL and UMKC, department chairs and diversity offices held considerable sway, while at Missouri S&T, technical expertise and research leadership were dominant. MU, still reeling from the 2015 protests, exhibited centralized administrative power and heightened political sensitivity. Positive aspects of power included strong departmental collegiality and student engagement, but negative aspects—such as favoritism, opaque decision-making, and inequitable access to resources—were widely reported. These dynamics reflect the dual nature of power: it can enable collaboration or entrench hierarchy, depending on how it is communicated and exercised (Robbins & Judge, 2022).

Influence tactics and impression management were also evident. Faculty and staff often relied on informal networks, mentorship, and committee participation to gain visibility and influence. At MU, strategic impression management—particularly around diversity and inclusion—was used to rebuild institutional credibility post-crisis. However, these tactics sometimes masked deeper issues of organizational politics, where decisions were perceived as driven more by alliances and image than by merit or transparency. Such perceptions can erode trust and contribute to disengagement, especially when communication lacks authenticity (Greenberg, 1990).

Social networks played a critical role in shaping access to power. While UMSL and UMKC fostered active employee resource groups (ERGs) and student organizations, Missouri S&T’s networks were more insular, often reinforcing existing hierarchies. The antecedents of organizational politics—such as resource scarcity, ambiguous goals, and leadership turnover—were present across all campuses. The consequences included reduced morale, inconsistent policy enforcement, and skepticism toward institutional messaging. These outcomes highlight the need for ethical leadership and transparent communication to counteract the corrosive effects of unchecked political behavior (Mintzberg, 1983).

Cross-cultural influences further complicated the power landscape. Faculty and staff from underrepresented backgrounds reported barriers to advancement, cultural isolation, and differential treatment in evaluations and promotions. These disparities were particularly pronounced at Missouri S&T, where women and minorities in STEM fields faced systemic challenges. The ethical use of power—ensuring fairness, inclusion, and accountability—was inconsistently applied, often depending on the strength of local leadership and the visibility of DEI initiatives (Mastracci & Adams, 2019).

Despite the importance of climate data in addressing these issues, no system-wide climate survey has been conducted since 2017. This break from the five-year cycle—historically aligned with reaccreditation—may be attributed to leadership transitions, the COVID-19 pandemic, and shifting institutional priorities. However, the absence of updated data limits the system’s ability to measure progress, identify emerging challenges, and rebuild trust. Without renewed commitment to climate assessment, the UM System risks perpetuating the very power imbalances its 2017 survey sought to expose.

 

References

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.

Mastracci, S. H., & Adams, I. T. (2019). Understanding emotional labor at the cultural level. In The Palgrave Handbook of Global Perspectives on Emotional Labor in Public Service (pp. 119–148). Springer.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Prentice-Hall.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2022). Organizational behavior (19th ed.). Pearson.

University of Missouri System. (2017). UM System climate assessment executive summary. https://www.umsystem.edu/media/dei/ums-climate-assessment.pdf

Discussion Questions

  1. How do formal and informal sources of power influence decision-making and organizational culture in academic institutions like the University of Missouri System? Can you think of examples where informal networks might outweigh formal authority?
  2. What are some ways power can be used positively to foster collaboration and inclusion? Conversely, how can power dynamics lead to exclusion or favoritism, as seen in the case study?
  3. How do influence tactics, such as mentorship or strategic visibility, shape perceptions of leadership and fairness? Do you think impression management is necessary in academic settings, or does it detract from authenticity?
  4. What are the antecedents of organizational politics in the case study, and how do they impact morale and trust? How might ethical leadership mitigate the negative consequences of political behavior?
  5. How do cross-cultural differences in power use and perceptions of fairness affect inclusion and equity in diverse organizations? What steps could the University of Missouri System take to address these disparities more effectively?

Section 13.2: Psychological Foundations of Power

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Define power in organizational contexts, and distinguish between positional, relational, communicative, systemic, and episodic forms of influence.
  2. Evaluate the positive and negative consequences of power, drawing on real-world case studies and ethical considerations in organizational behavior.
  3. Identify and differentiate the key sources and bases of power (e.g., legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, referent), and explain how they operate across directions of influence.
  4. Analyze the relationship between dependency and power, using the strategic contingencies framework to assess how scarcity, importance, and substitutability shape influence.
  5. Apply concepts of conformity and authority from foundational studies (Milgram, Asch, Zimbardo) to modern organizational scenarios involving ethical decision-making and social pressure.
  6. Explain how sustainability communication and stakeholder engagement alter organizational power structures and resource dependency in contemporary workplaces.
  7. Critically assess how communication—such as framing, storytelling, and visibility—constructs power within social networks and organizational cultures.

Power is a central force in organizational life, shaping how individuals interact, make decisions, and influence others. The psychological foundations of power are deeply rooted in social behavior and communication, revealing how authority, conformity, and influence emerge within structured environments. Classic studies by Milgram (1963), Asch (1956), and Zimbardo (1973) laid the groundwork for understanding obedience and social pressure, but contemporary organizational communication research has expanded these insights to include how power is enacted through discourse, relationships, and cultural norms. For example, Gruenfeld (2022) emphasizes that power is not merely positional but behavioral—leaders who balance authority with approachability foster trust and engagement. Similarly, French and Raven’s (1959) five bases of power—legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, and referent—remain relevant today, especially as organizations increasingly rely on expert and referent power to build collaborative cultures (Nelson, 2024). Modern examples, such as the leadership practices at Southwest Airlines, illustrate how empowering employees through referent and informational power can enhance morale and performance (Barkacs, 2021). Moreover, organizational communication scholars highlight the role of framing and storytelling in shaping perceptions of power, suggesting that influence is often exercised through subtle linguistic and symbolic cues (Oksiutycz, 2024). Understanding these psychological foundations equips leaders and teams to navigate complex power dynamics ethically and effectively.

What Is Power?

Power in organizational communication is broadly understood as the capacity to influence others and shape outcomes within a social or institutional context. While early scholars like Salancik and Pfeffer (1989) defined power as “the ability to get things done the way one wants them to be done” (p. 3), contemporary research emphasizes that power is not only about decision-making authority but also about relational dynamics, discourse, and symbolic control. Organizational communication scholars now conceptualize power as embedded in everyday interactions, language, and structures that define who gets heard, whose ideas are legitimized, and how meaning is constructed (Mumby & Plotnikof, 2019).

Modern examples illustrate how power manifests through communication practices. For instance, leaders at companies like Amazon and Lego use storytelling and framing to align teams with strategic goals, demonstrating how discourse can serve as a subtle but potent form of influence (Maor et al., 2024). Similarly, the use of Slack channels or internal memos to shape employee perceptions of organizational priorities reflects how power operates through mediated communication (Lipp, 2025). These practices show that power is not only positional but also communicative—leaders who control narratives and access to information often wield disproportionate influence.

Moreover, power is often visible and recognizable within organizational hierarchies. Salancik and Pfeffer’s (1989) study of managerial influence remains relevant, as recent research confirms that employees can intuitively identify who holds power based on communication patterns, visibility, and access to decision-makers (Oksiutycz, 2024). However, today’s scholars also caution that power can be systemic and covert, embedded in organizational norms and routines that privilege certain voices over others (Mumby, 2015). Understanding power in this broader communicative and cultural context allows organizations to foster more inclusive and ethical environments.

Positive and Negative Consequences of Power

Power in organizations is a double-edged sword—capable of driving innovation and alignment, yet equally capable of fostering dysfunction and ethical collapse. Contemporary organizational communication research emphasizes that power is not merely a tool for decision-making but a relational and symbolic force embedded in discourse, culture, and structure (Mumby & Plotnikof, 2019). Leaders who wield power effectively can mobilize teams, shape strategic direction, and foster inclusive cultures. For example, Satya Nadella’s leadership at Microsoft demonstrates how referent and expert power, combined with empathetic communication, can transform organizational culture and performance (Bloch, 2024).

To better understand the consequences of power, scholars increasingly apply the Systemic vs. Episodic Power framework (Lawrence et al., 2012; Fleming & Spicer, 2014). Episodic power refers to direct, intentional acts of influence—such as coercion, manipulation, or persuasion—often visible in leadership decisions, negotiations, or disciplinary actions. Systemic power, by contrast, is embedded in organizational norms, routines, and structures. It shapes behavior indirectly through culture, language, and institutional expectations. For instance, systemic power may manifest in who gets invited to meetings, whose ideas are legitimized, or how performance is evaluated—often without explicit directives.

Positive consequences of power include strategic alignment, resource mobilization, and innovation. Leaders like Paul Farmer and Greg Mortenson used their influence to build hospitals and schools in underserved regions, demonstrating how power can be harnessed for social good (Kidder, 2004; Mortenson & Relin, 2006). In organizations, power used ethically can foster psychological safety, employee engagement, and shared purpose (Men, 2015; Eva et al., 2019).

However, power also carries risks. When concentrated or unchecked, it can lead to authoritarianism, ethical lapses, and organizational toxicity. The collapse of Enron and the scandal surrounding Governor Rod Blagojevich illustrate how episodic power—used manipulatively or self-servingly—can have devastating consequences. Moreover, systemic power can perpetuate inequities when embedded norms marginalize certain voices or reinforce status hierarchies (Oksiutycz, 2024).

Organizational communication scholars argue that mitigating the negative effects of power requires reflexivity, transparency, and distributed leadership. Leaders must be aware of how their actions and communication shape both episodic and systemic power dynamics. By fostering open dialogue, encouraging dissent, and embedding ethical values into everyday practices, organizations can ensure that power serves collective goals rather than individual ambition.

Conformity

Conformity, a foundational concept in organizational communication, refers to individuals’ tendencies to align their behaviors, attitudes, and decisions with perceived social norms. This alignment can manifest in subtle ways—such as facing forward in an elevator despite no explicit rule—or in more consequential behaviors, including ethical lapses driven by group pressure or authority influence. Contemporary research emphasizes that conformity is not merely a passive response but a dynamic process shaped by organizational culture, communication patterns, and power structures (Mikkelson & Hesse, 2020).

Modern organizational environments often foster conformity through implicit expectations and symbolic cues. For example, employees may suppress dissenting opinions in meetings to avoid social risk, even when they hold valuable insights (Milliken et al., 2003). This phenomenon, known as “facades of conformity,” can lead to emotional exhaustion and reduced job satisfaction, particularly when individuals feel compelled to mask their true beliefs to fit in (Wong, 2018). In hierarchical organizations, conformity is amplified by power dynamics—employees may defer to leaders not out of agreement but out of perceived obligation or fear of reprisal.

Classic studies by Milgram, Asch, and Zimbardo continue to inform our understanding of conformity in organizational contexts. Milgram’s obedience experiments revealed that individuals are surprisingly willing to follow authority figures, even when doing so conflicts with personal ethics (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Asch’s line judgment studies demonstrated how group consensus can override individual perception, with participants conforming to incorrect answers to avoid standing out (Capuano & Chekroun, 2024). Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment illustrated how quickly individuals internalize roles and norms, leading to abusive behavior when placed in positions of power without accountability (Recuber, 2016).

Recent scholarship challenges the notion that conformity is purely automatic or inevitable. Instead, it suggests that conformity is conditional—shaped by identification with group values, perceived legitimacy of authority, and the communication climate (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Organizational communication patterns, such as high conformity orientation and low conversation orientation, can exacerbate negative outcomes like burnout and turnover (Mikkelson & Hesse, 2020). Conversely, fostering open dialogue and psychological safety can mitigate harmful conformity and promote ethical decision-making.

In today’s digitally mediated workplaces, conformity also extends into virtual spaces. Employees may feel pressure to align with dominant narratives on internal platforms or social media, further complicating the boundaries between personal and professional identity. As organizations navigate hybrid work models and evolving norms, understanding the communicative mechanisms of conformity remains essential for cultivating ethical, inclusive, and resilient cultures.

The Milgram Studies

Stanley Milgram’s obedience studies, conducted in the 1960s at Yale University, remain a cornerstone in understanding authority and conformity within organizational contexts. Milgram sought to examine how ordinary individuals respond to directives from authority figures, even when those directives conflict with personal ethics. Participants were instructed to administer increasingly intense electric shocks to a confederate (posing as a learner) whenever an incorrect answer was given. Despite visible distress from the learner, 65% of participants continued to the maximum voltage of 450 volts, highlighting the powerful influence of perceived authority (Milgram, 1974).

Contemporary organizational communication research builds on Milgram’s findings by exploring how authority manifests in workplace hierarchies and decision-making. Scholars argue that obedience is not merely a psychological reflex but a communicative process shaped by leadership styles, organizational culture, and ethical climate (Russell & Gregory, 2011). For instance, authoritarian leadership may foster environments where employees feel compelled to comply with unethical directives, while democratic leadership encourages dialogue and moral reasoning (Soh, 2025).

Modern workplaces often replicate the dynamics observed in Milgram’s lab. Employees may follow questionable orders due to fear of retaliation, ambiguity in responsibility, or internalized norms of professionalism. This is especially evident in cases where dissent is subtly penalized—such as exclusion from meetings or negative performance reviews—despite formal protections like whistleblower policies (Soh, 2025). The concept of “moral disengagement” helps explain how individuals rationalize harmful actions by deferring responsibility to organizational systems or authority figures (Bandura, 1999).

Milgram’s studies also inform ethical leadership and organizational design. Creating environments that promote psychological safety, transparency, and critical thinking can counteract blind obedience. Leaders who encourage ethical questioning and empower employees to challenge directives contribute to healthier, more resilient organizations (Aspect, 2025). As organizations increasingly rely on data-driven decisions and algorithmic authority, the lessons from Milgram’s work remain vital for ensuring that human judgment and ethical reflection are not sidelined.

The Asch Studies

Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments remain foundational in understanding how social pressure influences individual judgment, particularly in organizational settings. In his classic studies, participants were asked to match the length of lines in a group setting where confederates—posing as fellow participants—intentionally gave incorrect answers. Despite the task’s simplicity, approximately 37% of participants conformed to the incorrect majority at least once, and 75% conformed on at least one trial (Asch, 1956). These findings underscore the powerful role of normative social influence, where individuals conform to avoid social rejection or conflict, even when the correct answer is obvious.

Modern organizational communication research builds on Asch’s work by examining how conformity manifests in workplace dynamics. For example, employees may suppress dissenting views in meetings or align with dominant opinions to maintain group cohesion, a phenomenon known as “pluralistic ignorance” (Karakowsky & Siegel, 2020). This can lead to suboptimal decision-making and stifled innovation. However, the presence of even one dissenting voice—mirroring Asch’s finding that a single ally reduces conformity by up to 75%—can empower others to speak up and challenge groupthink (Bond & Smith, 1996).

Cultural dimensions also play a significant role in conformity. A meta-analysis of 133 studies revealed that collectivist cultures, such as Japan, exhibit higher conformity rates than individualist cultures like the United States or Great Britain (Bond & Smith, 1996). This suggests that organizational communication strategies must be culturally sensitive, especially in multinational teams.

In today’s digital workplaces, conformity extends into virtual environments. Employees may feel pressure to align with prevailing narratives on internal platforms or social media, especially when visibility and engagement metrics are tied to performance (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Organizational leaders can counteract harmful conformity by fostering psychological safety, encouraging dissent, and modeling inclusive communication practices.

A Cautionary Tale: When Lines are Crossed

The Zimbardo Study

Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), conducted in 1971, remains one of the most cited and controversial studies in social psychology and organizational communication. Designed to explore the psychological effects of perceived power, the study randomly assigned healthy male volunteers to the roles of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison environment. Within days, guards began exhibiting authoritarian and abusive behaviors, while prisoners became passive, anxious, and emotionally distressed. The experiment, originally planned for two weeks, was terminated after just six days due to the extreme psychological deterioration of participants and ethical concerns (Zimbardo, 2009).

Modern organizational communication research revisits the SPE not only as a cautionary tale about role internalization and situational power but also as a lens for understanding how communication, identity, and authority interact in institutional settings. Scholars argue that the SPE illustrates the dangers of systemic power—where organizational structures and norms silently reinforce dominance and compliance—alongside episodic power, which involves overt acts of control or coercion (Fleming & Spicer, 2014). Zimbardo himself became entangled in the experiment, assuming the role of prison superintendent and failing to intervene, which underscores how communicative roles can shape behavior and ethical judgment.

Recent critiques have challenged the scientific rigor and ethical foundation of the SPE. Archival analyses reveal that guards may have been coached to act aggressively, and some participants admitted to role-playing rather than spontaneously adopting behaviors (Le Texier, 2019). These revelations have prompted scholars to reframe the SPE not as a demonstration of inevitable human cruelty, but as a study of communication framing, expectation setting, and researcher influence—all critical elements in organizational contexts (Bartels & Griggs, 2019).

The SPE’s legacy continues to inform organizational ethics, leadership training, and crisis management. For example, the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison scandal echoed many dynamics observed in the SPE, where lack of oversight, ambiguous authority, and deindividuation led to systemic abuse (Recuber, 2016). Similarly, corporate scandals such as Wells Fargo’s fake accounts crisis reveal how institutional pressures and role expectations can override individual ethics, especially when dissent is discouraged and performance metrics dominate communication (Oksiutycz, 2024).

Ultimately, the SPE serves as a powerful reminder that organizational roles and communication environments can profoundly shape behavior. Ethical leadership, transparent communication, and checks on authority are essential to prevent the kind of role-induced harm Zimbardo’s study so vividly exposed.

Relationship Between Dependency and Power

In organizational communication, dependency is a central mechanism through which power is distributed and exercised. According to Strategic Contingencies Theory, power emerges from a unit’s ability to manage critical uncertainties that affect organizational performance (Hickson et al., 1971). This means that individuals or departments that can solve strategic problems—especially those that are unpredictable or high-stakes—become indispensable and, therefore, powerful. Importantly, dependency is not fixed; it evolves in response to shifting organizational priorities, resource availability, and external pressures.

Modern research expands this framework by examining how scarcity, importance, and substitutability interact with dependency to shape power dynamics.

  • Scarcity refers to the uniqueness or limited availability of a resource. When a resource is rare—such as proprietary data, specialized knowledge, or access to influential networks—those who control it gain disproportionate influence. Organizational communication scholars note that scarcity is often constructed through strategic messaging, such as framing a project as a “once-in-a-career opportunity” to increase urgency and perceived value (Zerfass & Link, 2023).
  • Importance relates to how vital a resource or skill is to achieving organizational goals. For example, a compliance officer who is the only person familiar with new ESG reporting standards becomes a key player in a sustainability-driven enterprise. Communication practices that highlight the strategic relevance of certain roles or departments can reinforce their importance and elevate their power (Weder, 2023).
  • Substitutability addresses how easily a resource or skill can be replaced. The harder it is to find a substitute, the more dependent others become. For instance, an IT specialist who is the only person capable of maintaining a legacy system holds significant power—until the system is upgraded or replaced. This principle also applies at the macro level: oil-producing nations have historically held geopolitical power due to global dependency on fossil fuels. However, as renewable energy sources become more viable, that power diminishes (da Silva, 2023).

Sustainability introduces a new dimension to dependency and power. As organizations increasingly prioritize environmental and social responsibility, power shifts toward units that can navigate sustainability challenges. Communication teams that manage stakeholder engagement around climate initiatives or supply chain transparency become central to shaping organizational legitimacy and resilience (Weder, 2023). This reflects a broader trend toward strategic sustainability communication, where power is derived not just from solving problems but from shaping narratives and values that align with long-term viability.

Moreover, dependency is often reciprocal. In matrixed or collaborative organizations, departments rely on each other for resources, expertise, and legitimacy. This interdependence can foster cooperation or opportunism, depending on how power is exercised. Research shows that coercive power tends to increase opportunistic behavior, while non-coercive power—such as expert or referent power—can reduce it and promote trust (Huo et al., 2019).

Dependency and power are dynamic constructs shaped by strategic relevance, resource scarcity, and sustainability imperatives. Understanding these interactions enables organizations to design more equitable and resilient structures, where power is distributed based on contribution to shared goals rather than positional authority alone.

Insider Edge

“I’m Just Doing My Job” Isn’t a Shield Against Unethical Behavior

Objective

To empower employees to recognize and resist unethical directives from authority figures by understanding the psychological dynamics of obedience and the importance of ethical agency in the workplace.

Why It Matters

Saying “I’m just doing my job” may feel like a defense, but it can lead to complicity in unethical actions. Groundbreaking studies by Milgram (1963) and Zimbardo (1973) revealed how ordinary people can commit harmful acts under authority pressure. In organizations, this dynamic can erode trust, damage reputations, and create toxic cultures.

Ethical behavior isn’t just a personal virtue—it’s a strategic asset. Employees who act with integrity protect themselves, their colleagues, and the organization from legal, reputational, and moral harm.

Strategy Toolkit

1. Recognize Authority Pressure

  • Be aware of situations where directives conflict with your values or ethical standards.
  • Ask yourself: Would I be comfortable explaining this decision publicly?

2. Use Assertive Communication

  • Practice respectful dissent: “I’m concerned this may violate our ethical guidelines. Can we discuss alternatives?”
  • Frame objections around shared values and organizational integrity.

3. Seek Ethical Allies

  • Build relationships with colleagues who value ethics.
  • Use internal ethics hotlines or speak with HR or compliance officers when in doubt.

4. Document and Reflect

  • Keep records of questionable directives.
  • Reflect on your role as an ethical agent—not just a task executor.

Empowerment Tip

You are not powerless. Organizational research shows that employees who speak up about ethical concerns are often respected and can influence positive change (Detert & Edmondson, 2011). Courageous communication is contagious—your voice can inspire others to act with integrity.

 

References
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61967925

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525

Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). The Stanford prison experiment: A simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment. Retrieved from http://www.prisonexp.org

Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (8th ed.). Wiley.

 

Discussion Questions

  1. How does the phrase “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” align or conflict with modern organizational communication research on episodic and systemic power? Consider how both visible acts of coercion and embedded power structures can shape ethical or unethical behavior in organizations.
  2. Have you ever witnessed or experienced a situation where someone’s power led to either positive transformation or ethical decline? How did factors like organizational culture, communication style, or leadership influence that outcome?
  3. Reflecting on the Milgram and Zimbardo studies—as well as contemporary examples like the Wells Fargo scandal or Abu Ghraib—how do you think you would respond in high-pressure, authority-driven situations? What factors might influence your actions (e.g., psychological safety, leadership style, role expectations)?
  4. What lessons can be drawn from classic and modern conformity research (Asch, Milgram, Zimbardo, etc.) to design organizations that resist abuses of power and foster ethical decision-making? How can communication strategies like transparency, dissent encouragement, and cultural sensitivity help?
  5. Identify someone you are professionally dependent on. How do scarcity, importance, and substitutability shape the power dynamic in that relationship? Can you think of ways to either balance or responsibly manage that dependency?

Section 13.3: Influence Strategies and Power Bases

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Differentiate among the key bases of power—legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, referent, and informational—and explain how communicative practices shape their enactment and effectiveness.
  2. Analyze strategic influence tactics (e.g., rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, coalition-building, consultation) and assess their ethical and contextual impact across organizational settings.
  3. Evaluate impression management techniques—verbal, nonverbal, and behavioral—and explore how they affect perceptions of authenticity, credibility, and leadership in hybrid and digital environments.
  4. Compare and contrast upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts, using organizational scenarios to understand how relational dynamics and communication strategies alter outcomes.
  5. Apply theories of power and influence to real-world organizational cases, identifying how framing, storytelling, and symbolic leadership contribute to persuasive success.
  6. Examine how systemic and episodic power structures interact with resource dependency, scarcity, and substitutability, affecting organizational behavior and decision-making.
  7. Design ethical and inclusive communication strategies to responsibly use power and influence in cross-functional, multicultural, and team-based contexts.

6 Bases of Power: Communication, Influence, and Organizational Meaning-Making

Power in organizations is not merely a static possession—it is enacted, negotiated, and shaped through communication. Contemporary organizational communication research emphasizes that power is discursive and relational, constructed through language, storytelling, framing, and symbolic interaction (Mumby, 2013; Deetz, 1992). While French and Raven’s (1960) foundational typology remains influential, modern scholarship expands our understanding by examining how power is embedded in organizational structures, cultures, and communicative practices.

1. Legitimate Power

Legitimate power stems from formal roles and institutional authority. However, in today’s organizations, legitimacy is increasingly tied to how leaders communicate their vision and values. For instance, Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, revitalized the company’s culture by framing leadership around empathy and growth mindset—discursively positioning himself as a transformational leader rather than a top-down authority (Lipp, 2025). Legitimate power is sustained not just by titles but by how leaders narrate their role and align it with organizational purpose.

2. Reward Power

Reward power involves the ability to provide incentives, but its effectiveness depends on how rewards are communicated and perceived. In organizations like Salesforce, leaders use storytelling to highlight employee achievements, reinforcing a culture of recognition and inclusion. Public praise, personalized feedback, and transparent promotion narratives enhance the symbolic value of rewards (Men & Verčič, 2021). Communication transforms rewards from transactional tools into relational affirmations.

3. Coercive Power

Coercive power, traditionally associated with punishment, is now understood through the lens of organizational culture and psychological safety. Leaders who rely on fear-based tactics often erode trust and engagement. Instead, modern organizations emphasize accountability through dialogue and restorative practices. For example, Netflix’s culture of radical candor encourages open feedback while discouraging punitive communication (Maor et al., 2024). Coercion today is less about overt threats and more about subtle discursive exclusions or gatekeeping.

4. Expert Power

Expert power arises from specialized knowledge, but its influence is amplified through communicative credibility. In tech firms like Google, engineers gain influence not only through expertise but by how they articulate complex ideas in accessible ways. Thought leadership blogs, internal forums, and collaborative storytelling help experts build trust and shape organizational decisions (McDonald & Mitra, 2019). Expertise becomes power when it is communicatively enacted and socially validated.

5. Information Power

Information power is increasingly tied to network centrality and communicative access. Employees who span boundaries—connecting departments or external stakeholders—often hold strategic information and influence. Organizational communication scholars highlight how visibility, framing, and timing of information release affect power dynamics (Oksiutycz, 2004). For example, internal influencers on platforms like Slack or Teams shape discourse by curating narratives and amplifying key messages.

6. Referent Power

Referent power, rooted in admiration and identification, is deeply shaped by storytelling and symbolic leadership. Leaders like Jacinda Ardern have cultivated referent power through authentic communication, empathetic framing, and inclusive narratives. In organizations, referent power is often built through relational transparency, shared values, and consistent messaging (Krishna, 2021). Charisma is no longer just personal magnetism—it is a communicative performance that resonates with collective identity.

Strategic Power Use: Influence as Communicative Practice

Influence in organizations is no longer viewed as a simple behavioral tactic—it is a communicative process embedded in relationships, discourse, and organizational culture (Mumby, 2013). From infancy, humans learn to shape outcomes through interaction, but in professional settings, influence becomes strategic, intentional, and often subtle. Rather than relying on static authority, effective influencers adapt their approach based on context, audience, and desired outcomes (Lee et al., 2017).

In contemporary organizations, influence is enacted through a repertoire of communicative tactics that range from rational persuasion to coalition-building. These tactics are not confined to hierarchical roles; research shows that subordinates, peers, and supervisors all use similar strategies, with effectiveness depending more on relational dynamics than positional power (Ansari & Wiltshire, 2021).

For example, climate advocate Al Gore exemplifies strategic influence by combining data-driven appeals with emotionally resonant storytelling. His post-political influence stems not from formal authority but from his ability to frame environmental issues in ways that mobilize public action—such as encouraging behavioral shifts like switching to LED bulbs or reducing water usage. This illustrates how influence can be amplified through discourse and symbolic leadership (Cecchi-Dimeglio, 2025).

Responses to influence attempts typically fall into three categories: resistance, compliance, or commitment. Commitment is the most desirable outcome, as it fosters sustained engagement and initiative ownership (Lee et al., 2017). Below are nine widely studied influence tactics, each with distinct communicative characteristics and strategic applications:

Workplace Strategy Pack

Do You Have the Characteristics of a Powerful Influencer?

Objective

To help employees evaluate their influence potential and develop the communication traits that define powerful influencers in organizational settings.

Why It Matters

Influence is not about authority—it’s about credibility, connection, and communication. Research shows that individuals who master interpersonal influence are more effective in leadership, collaboration, and change initiatives (Conger, 1998; Yukl & Chavez, 2002). Understanding your influence profile can help you lead ethically, build trust, and drive results.

Self-Assessment: The Influencer Profile Inventory

Rate yourself on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) for each statement:

# Statement
1 I communicate clearly and confidently, even in high-pressure situations.
2 I actively listen and make others feel heard and respected.
3 I adapt my communication style to different audiences.
4 I build strong relationships across departments and levels.
5 I am seen as trustworthy and dependable.
6 I use storytelling or examples to make my ideas compelling.
7 I can persuade others without relying on formal authority.
8 I remain calm and constructive during conflict or disagreement.
9 I seek feedback and use it to improve my influence strategies.
10 I advocate for ideas that align with organizational values and ethics.

Scoring Key

  • 40–50: Strategic Influencer You demonstrate high-impact communication and ethical influence. You’re likely seen as a trusted advisor and change agent.
  • 30–39: Emerging Influencer You have strong potential. Focus on refining your adaptability, persuasion techniques, and relationship-building.
  • 20–29: Developing Influencer You’re building your foundation. Prioritize active listening, credibility, and ethical alignment.
  • Below 20: Influence Awareness Needed Time to invest in communication skills and self-awareness. Consider mentorship, training, or coaching to grow your influence.

Strategy Tips to Strengthen Influence

  • Practice Perspective-Taking: Understand others’ motivations and tailor your message accordingly.
  • Build Credibility: Be consistent, reliable, and transparent in your actions.
  • Use Influence Tactics Wisely: Favor rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, and collaboration over pressure or manipulation (Yukl & Tracey, 1992).
  • Model Ethical Influence: Align your actions with organizational values and speak up when integrity is at risk.

 

References
Conger, J. A. (1998). The necessary art of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 84–95.

Yukl, G., & Chavez, C. (2002). Influence tactics and leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00143-1

Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.525

Fairhurst, G. T., & Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communicative perspective. Leadership, 10(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013509396

9 Commonly Used Influence Tactics

Figure 13.7 Influence Tactics Use and Outcomes (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Schriescheim & Hinkin, 1990; Yukl & Falbe, 1991).
Frequency of Use Resistance Compliance Commitment
Rational persuasion 54% 47% 30% 23%
Legitimating 13% 44% 56% 0%
Personal appeals 7% 25% 33% 42%
Exchange 7% 25% 33% 42%
Ingratiation 6% 41% 28% 31%
Pressure 6% 56% 41% 3%
Coalitions 3% 53% 44% 3%
Inspirational appeals 2% 0% 10% 90%
Consultation 2% 18% 27% 55%

Source: Adapted from information in Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638–652.

1. Rational Persuasion

Using logic, evidence, and data to support a proposal. This remains the most commonly used tactic and is positively associated with task performance and commitment. For instance, leaders at Google often use internal data dashboards to justify strategic pivots (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003).

2. Inspirational Appeals

Appealing to values, ideals, or emotions to inspire action. Satya Nadella’s emphasis on empathy and growth mindset at Microsoft exemplifies this tactic, aligning organizational goals with personal meaning (Cecchi-Dimeglio, 2025).

3. Consultation

Inviting others to participate in decision-making. This tactic fosters autonomy and psychological safety. At Salesforce, leaders routinely use collaborative platforms to crowdsource ideas before launching initiatives (Hirsch, 2023).

4. Ingratiation

Using flattery or praise to build rapport. While effective when sincere and infrequent, it can backfire if perceived as manipulative. In hiring contexts, personalized cover letters that express admiration for company values often receive more favorable responses (Varma, Toh, & Pichler, 2006).

5. Personal Appeals

Leveraging relationships and familiarity. This tactic is most effective in close-knit teams or when trust is high. Remote-first companies like GitLab emphasize visibility and frequent interaction to build relational capital.

6. Exchange

Offering something in return for compliance. This can include tangible rewards or intangible benefits like recognition. For example, leaders at HubSpot offer mentorship opportunities in exchange for cross-functional collaboration.

7. Coalition Tactics

Mobilizing support from others to influence a target. This is common in change management efforts, where internal champions help build momentum. At Netflix, employee-led ERGs (Employee Resource Groups) often use coalition tactics to advocate for policy changes.

8. Pressure

Applying persistent demands or threats. While sometimes necessary in crisis situations, pressure tactics are generally associated with negative outcomes and should be used sparingly (Yukl, Kim, & Falbe, 1996).

9. Legitimating Tactics

Invoking formal authority or rules. This tactic relies on positional power and is often used to enforce compliance. However, modern organizations prefer to pair it with transparency and ethical framing to avoid resistance.

Impression Management: Strategic Self-Presentation in the Workplace

Impression management refers to the deliberate and often strategic process of shaping how others perceive us in professional and social contexts. In organizational settings, this involves managing verbal, nonverbal, and behavioral cues to align with workplace norms, expectations, and desired identities (Bolino et al., 2016). While early theories emphasized surface-level tactics like attire or speech, contemporary research highlights impression management as a dynamic, context-sensitive practice influenced by digital media, organizational culture, and identity negotiation (McFarland et al., 2023).

In today’s hybrid and remote work environments, impression management extends beyond physical presence. Employees curate their digital personas through email tone, video call backgrounds, and social media profiles. For example, virtual impression management includes behaviors like maintaining eye contact during video meetings, using professional avatars, and crafting LinkedIn posts that signal competence and thought leadership (Blunden & Brodsky, 2024).

Effective impression management balances authenticity and credibility. Roberts (as cited in Stark, 2005) emphasizes that presenting oneself in a way that is both true to one’s values and aligned with organizational expectations fosters trust, engagement, and performance. However, when impression management contradicts personal identity—such as masking core values to gain approval—it can lead to emotional exhaustion and identity strain (Gupta & Sagadevan, 2024).

Coworkers continuously form impressions based on observed behaviors, whether or not those behaviors are intentionally managed. These impressions influence perceptions of reliability, leadership potential, and team fit. Therefore, taking ownership of one’s professional image is not just strategic—it’s essential. Employees should reflect on the traits they wish to convey (e.g., decisiveness, empathy, innovation) and consider how their communication style, appearance, and actions reinforce those traits.

Impression management strategies fall into three broad categories:

Nonverbal Strategies- Nonverbal cues include clothing, posture, facial expressions, and body modifications. Tattoos, once stigmatized, are now used strategically in creative industries to signal brand alignment and authenticity. Ruggs and Hebi (2022) found that tattoos enhanced hiring intentions in artistic roles by reinforcing organizational edginess, while having no negative impact in non-artistic contexts.

Verbal Strategies- Verbal impression management involves tone, speech rate, and language choice. These elements shape perceptions of confidence, competence, and emotional intelligence. For instance, a steady voice and clear articulation during presentations can signal leadership readiness, while a shaky or high-pitched tone may unintentionally convey uncertainty (Blunden & Brodsky, 2024).

Behavioral Strategies- Behavioral tactics include actions such as self-promotion, ingratiation, conformity, and exemplification. Complimenting a supervisor, volunteering for high-visibility projects, or associating with influential colleagues are common examples. These behaviors enhance network centrality and are positively correlated with performance evaluations (Wayne & Liden, 1995; Barsness et al., 2005).

Direction of Influence: Communicative Power Across Organizational Levels

Influence in organizations is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor—it is shaped by relational dynamics, positional hierarchies, and communicative strategies. Contemporary organizational communication research emphasizes that influence is enacted through discourse, framing, and symbolic interaction, and varies depending on whether it is directed upward, downward, or laterally (Mumby, 2013; Bolino et al., 2016).

Upward Influence

Upward influence refers to the ability of employees to shape decisions made by those in higher positions. In today’s flattened hierarchies and agile organizations, upward influence is increasingly vital. Employees often appeal to organizational values, strategic goals, or stakeholder expectations to gain support from superiors. For example, employees at Patagonia have successfully influenced leadership to adopt more sustainable practices by aligning proposals with the company’s environmental mission (Cecchi-Dimeglio, 2025).

Modern research shows that upward influence is most effective when it involves rational persuasion, consultation, and collaborative framing (Lee et al., 2017). Tactics such as ingratiation and self-promotion are less effective and may even backfire if perceived as insincere (Ansari & Wiltshire, 2021). Moreover, upward influence is often facilitated through digital platforms like Slack or Microsoft Teams, where visibility and strategic messaging can amplify employee voice.

Downward Influence

Downward influence involves leaders shaping the behavior and attitudes of their subordinates. Rather than relying on authority or coercion, effective leaders today use inspirational appeals, storytelling, and vision framing to mobilize teams (Blunden & Brodsky, 2024). For instance, leaders at Airbnb use narrative-driven communication to align employees with the company’s mission of belonging and hospitality.

Research shows that downward influence is most successful when leaders foster psychological safety and relational transparency (Gupta & Sagadevan, 2024). Managers who engage in consultation and collaborative goal-setting are more likely to gain commitment rather than mere compliance. Additionally, resistance to influence is interpreted more positively when the leader-subordinate relationship is strong, signaling trust and openness (Tepper et al., 2006).

Peer Influence

Peer influence is increasingly central in team-based and matrixed organizations. It occurs through informal conversations, shared norms, and collaborative decision-making. Effective peer influence relies on rational persuasion, coalition-building, and mutual accountability (Cohen & Bradford, 2002). For example, cross-functional teams at Spotify use agile rituals like retrospectives and stand-ups to influence each other’s priorities and behaviors.

Executives also engage in peer influence to gain support for strategic initiatives. Research shows that across departments, rationality remains the most frequently used tactic, followed by consultation and inspirational appeals (Enns & McFarlin, 2003). Peer influence is most effective when it is framed around shared goals and organizational values, rather than personal gain.

Workplace Strategy Pack

Embracing Power Ethically and Effectively

Objective

To empower employees to become comfortable with holding power over subordinates by developing ethical, communicative, and relational leadership practices.

Why It Matters

Power isn’t inherently negative—it’s a tool. When used ethically and transparently, power enables leaders to guide, support, and elevate others. However, discomfort with power can lead to indecision, avoidance, or misuse. Research shows that leaders who understand and responsibly wield power foster trust, engagement, and performance (Keltner et al., 2003; Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014).

Being comfortable with power means recognizing it as a responsibility, not a privilege.

Strategy Toolkit

1. Reframe Power as Service

  • View power as a means to support others’ growth and success.
  • Ask: How can I use my position to remove barriers for my team?

2. Communicate Transparently

  • Share the rationale behind decisions.
  • Invite input and feedback to reduce power distance and build trust.

3. Practice Ethical Leadership

  • Align actions with organizational values.
  • Avoid favoritism, coercion, or manipulation—opt for fairness and consistency.

4. Develop Relational Authority

  • Build influence through credibility, empathy, and respect—not just title.
  • Use active listening and inclusive language to foster psychological safety.

5. Reflect on Power Dynamics

  • Regularly assess how your behavior affects others.
  • Seek feedback from peers and subordinates to stay grounded.

Empowerment Tip

Power doesn’t corrupt—disconnection does. Stay connected to your values, your team, and your purpose. Ethical power is relational, not hierarchical. When you lead with integrity and clarity, power becomes a force for good.

 

References
Fairhurst, G. T., & Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communicative perspective. Leadership, 10(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013509396

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265

Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (8th ed.). Wiley.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson Education.

In today’s dynamic organizational landscapes, power and influence are no longer dictated solely by title or tenure—they are earned, enacted, and sustained through communication. Whether navigating upward influence through strategic framing, guiding teams with visionary appeals, or shaping peer dynamics via rational discourse, professionals must develop a versatile toolkit rooted in emotional intelligence, authenticity, and situational awareness.

As organizations become more interconnected and mission-driven, the ability to ethically and effectively influence others is essential to leadership, collaboration, and innovation. Impression management and influence tactics are not manipulative maneuvers—they are communicative competencies that help individuals align their intentions with outcomes, shape perceptions with integrity, and cultivate trust through transparency.

Ultimately, power in the workplace is relational. It thrives not in isolation, but in how we connect, communicate, and co-create meaning. By mastering these tools and understanding their strategic direction, individuals position themselves—and their organizations—for sustained growth and positive impact.

Insider Edge

Power Can Elevate—or Erode. Safeguard Yourself.

Objective

To help employees recognize the subtle risks of power corruption and adopt communication-based strategies to maintain ethical leadership and personal integrity.

Why It Matters

Power can be a force for good—but it also carries psychological risks. Research shows that power can reduce empathy, increase risk-taking, and distort ethical judgment (Keltner et al., 2003). In organizational settings, unchecked power can lead to toxic cultures, diminished trust, and reputational damage.

The most respected leaders aren’t just powerful—they’re self-aware, communicative, and principled.

Strategy Toolkit

1. Stay Grounded in Empathy

  • Make time for active listening and perspective-taking.
  • Ask: How will this decision affect others—not just outcomes?

2. Build Feedback Loops

  • Encourage honest input from peers and subordinates.
  • Create safe spaces for dissent and dialogue.

3. Practice Ethical Transparency

  • Share your decision-making process openly.
  • Avoid secrecy or justification based solely on authority.

4. Monitor Your Influence Tactics

  • Favor collaboration, rational persuasion, and inspirational appeals (Yukl & Tracey, 1992).
  • Avoid manipulation, coercion, or excessive pressure.

5. Reflect Regularly

  • Use journaling or peer coaching to examine your leadership behavior.
  • Ask trusted colleagues: Am I still leading with integrity?

Empowerment Tip

Power doesn’t reveal character—it tests it. The antidote to corruption is connection: to your values, your team, and your purpose. Ethical leaders use power to elevate others, not themselves.

 

References
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265

Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.525

Fairhurst, G. T., & Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communicative perspective. Leadership, 10(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013509396

Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (8th ed.). Wiley.

 

Discussion Questions

  1. Which of the revised bases of power (e.g., positional, expert, referent, informational, reward, coercive, communicative) do you tend to rely on most in your professional or academic life? Are there any you consciously avoid or struggle to use effectively? Why? Consider how your communication style or environment shapes your use of power.
  2. In what ways do coercive and reward power differ both in mechanism and long-term impact? Can you think of a recent organizational example (or one from media) where either was used effectively or poorly? How did communication shape the reception of that power?
  3. Based on the influence tactics discussed—such as rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, coalition-building, consultation, and ingratiation—which do you believe are most effective in today’s workplace? Why? Support your answer with recent organizational trends or leadership examples.
  4. Why do you think rational persuasion continues to be widely used across all levels of influence (upward, downward, lateral)? How do logic and clarity intersect with other forms of power, such as storytelling or symbolic leadership?
  5. Reflect on a recent instance where you tried to influence someone—whether a team member, supervisor, or peer. Was your approach upward, downward, or lateral? Which tactic(s) did you use, and what was the result? Would you change anything about your approach if you had the chance?
  6. How can impression management and digital visibility influence perceptions of power and leadership in remote or hybrid teams? What strategies are most authentic and effective for shaping professional identity online?
  7. Choose one organizational figure you admire (e.g., a CEO, activist, or entrepreneur). How do they use communication to construct their power? What influence tactics and storytelling techniques do they use, and how do they manage their public image?

Section 13.4: Organizational Politics and Political Skills

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Define organizational politics as informal behaviors aimed at influencing decisions, securing resources, or advancing interests within complex organizational systems.
  2. Explain how individual traits such as political skill, political will, internal locus of control, and self-efficacy contribute to political behavior in workplace settings.
  3. Analyze organizational conditions—such as resource scarcity, role ambiguity, and democratic decision-making—that act as antecedents to political behavior.
  4. Evaluate both constructive and destructive forms of political behavior by applying real-world examples across virtual, hybrid, and traditional work environments.
  5. Interpret empirical data and workforce trends related to the prevalence, perception, and outcomes of organizational politics in contemporary settings.
  6. Apply theoretical frameworks of power, influence, and strategic communication to assess political behavior in team dynamics, performance evaluations, and leadership practices.
  7. Develop strategies for navigating political environments ethically, promoting transparency, equity, and organizational effectiveness.

Organizational Politics in Contemporary Workplaces

Organizational politics refer to informal, often behind-the-scenes efforts to influence decisions, secure resources, and advance personal or group interests. Traditionally viewed with skepticism, political behavior has more recently been recognized as a natural—and sometimes necessary—aspect of organizational life, particularly in environments marked by ambiguity, resource scarcity, and competing priorities (Maher, Ejaz, Nguyen, & Ferris, 2022). Far from being inherently negative, political behavior can serve as a strategic tool for navigating complex organizational landscapes, especially during periods of change or uncertainty.

Contemporary research reveals that organizational politics have evolved beyond traditional hierarchical maneuvering. Today, they manifest through digital channels, hybrid work structures, and cross-functional collaboration. The rise of intelligent voice assistants, virtual communication platforms, and algorithmic management has reshaped how influence is exerted and perceived (Khandelwal & Upadhyay, 2025). These technologies introduce new power dynamics, where visibility, responsiveness, and digital fluency become political assets. Within this context, political skill—the ability to understand others and use that understanding to influence them effectively—has emerged as a critical competency. It encompasses social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability, and apparent sincerity (Ferris et al., 2005).

Equally important is political will, which refers to an individual’s motivation and determination to engage in political behavior when necessary. Together, political skill and political will form a meta-theoretical framework that helps explain how individuals navigate power dynamics and influence outcomes in increasingly complex organizational settings (Maher et al., 2022). These traits are especially relevant in hybrid and remote work environments, where informal influence often replaces traditional authority structures.

Recent data underscore the prevalence and impact of office politics. A 2023 study by Pepperdine Graziadio Business School and Regina Corso Consulting found that 68% of employees believe office politics are widespread, and 94% say managers have a responsibility to reduce or eliminate them (Sumter & Motamedi, 2023). Similarly, a 2025 workforce report revealed that more than half of U.S. workers have witnessed heated political discussions at work, with over 60% agreeing that such discussions affect productivity—either positively or negatively (CivicScience & De Graaf, 2025). In nonprofit sectors, political uncertainty has disrupted funding and strategic priorities, further intensifying internal political behavior (Center for Effective Philanthropy [CEP], 2025).

While political behavior can be constructive—facilitating innovation, coalition-building, and strategic alignment—it can also be destructive when driven by self-interest or when it undermines transparency and fairness. Examples include bypassing formal channels for personal gain or lobbying decision-makers in ways that exclude others. Such behaviors erode trust and can lead to perceptions of injustice, particularly among employees who rely on formal procedures (Waddington, 2017). These dynamics are especially harmful in sectors like healthcare, where recent research shows that organizational politics can negatively affect psychological well-being and increase turnover intentions (Obeng, Atan, & Arhinful, 2025).

The consequences of unchecked organizational politics are well-documented. Employees who perceive their workplace as overly political report lower job satisfaction, reduced commitment, increased anxiety, and diminished performance (Ferris et al., 1996; Byrne et al., 2005). These effects are often amplified during periods of organizational change, when uncertainty and competition for resources intensify political behavior. Ethical leadership has emerged as a key factor in mitigating these effects. Leaders who model transparency, fairness, and inclusive communication can reduce perceptions of politics and foster meaningful work experiences (Mosquera, Tigre, & Alegre, 2025).

To counteract the negative impact of politics, organizations must cultivate environments that promote ethical influence, inclusive decision-making, and transparent communication. Effective strategies include modeling collaborative behavior, providing equitable access to information, and offering consistent feedback. When employees feel heard and supported, perceptions of politics diminish and organizational health improves (Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006).

Ultimately, politics are an enduring feature of organizational life. The challenge lies not in eliminating them, but in equipping individuals with the political skill and will to navigate them ethically and effectively.

Antecedents of Political Behavior in Contemporary Organizations

Political behavior in organizations arises from a complex interplay of individual traits and organizational conditions. As workplaces become increasingly hybrid, decentralized, and digitally mediated, understanding the antecedents of political behavior is essential for fostering ethical influence and minimizing dysfunction.

Individual Antecedents

Political behavior is not merely opportunistic—it often stems from deeply rooted psychological and interpersonal factors. One of the most studied predictors is political skill, defined as the ability to effectively understand others and use that knowledge to influence them in ways that enhance personal or organizational objectives (Ferris et al., 2005). Individuals high in political skill demonstrate social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability, and apparent sincerity, making them adept at navigating complex relational dynamics. Political skill without political will may result in passive behavior, while political will without skill can lead to ineffective or even harmful politicking.

Other individual antecedents include:

  • Internal locus of control: Employees who believe they can influence outcomes are more likely to engage in political behavior, especially when they perceive opportunities to shape decisions (Valle & Perrewé, 2000).
  • Organizational investment: Emotional or financial commitment to the organization increases the likelihood of political engagement, as individuals seek to protect or advance its interests.
  • Expectations of success: When individuals believe their efforts will yield results, they are more inclined to act politically. This aligns with Bandura’s (1997) theory of self-efficacy, which links belief in one’s capabilities to proactive behavior.

In today’s workplace, these traits are often amplified by digital communication platforms. For example, employees with high political skill may use asynchronous messaging tools to subtly influence decision-making or build coalitions across departments.

Organizational Antecedents

Organizational structures and cultures also play a pivotal role in shaping political behavior. Key antecedents include:

  • Resource scarcity: Limited access to promotions, budgets, or recognition fosters competition and political maneuvering. In environments where resources are perceived as zero-sum, individuals may resort to influence tactics to secure their share (Kacmar & Ferris, 1989).
  • Role ambiguity: Unclear job responsibilities create space for individuals to define their roles strategically, often leading to political behavior. This is especially prevalent in matrixed or project-based organizations where boundaries are fluid (Muhammad, 2007).
  • Ambiguity in performance evaluations: When criteria for success are vague or inconsistently applied, employees may engage in impression management to shape perceptions of their performance (Rosen et al., 2006).
  • Democratic decision-making: While inclusive governance is generally positive, it can also increase political behavior by expanding the number of stakeholders involved in decisions. More voices mean more opportunities for influence—and more potential for conflict.

Emerging technologies further complicate these dynamics. Organizational communication research shows that tools such as intelligent voice assistants and virtual collaboration platforms can both mitigate and exacerbate political behavior. For instance, AI-driven feedback systems may reduce ambiguity in evaluations, but they can also be gamed by savvy users who understand algorithmic patterns (Khandelwal & Upadhyay, 2025).

Workplace Strategy Pack

Navigating Power and Politics in Performance Evaluations

Objective

To empower employees to recognize, respond to, and protect themselves from unethical or politically motivated manipulation of the performance evaluation process.

Why It Matters

Performance evaluations should reflect merit, growth, and contribution—not favoritism, retaliation, or political maneuvering. When power and politics corrupt this process, it undermines trust, demoralizes teams, and distorts career trajectories. Research shows that politicized evaluations can lead to disengagement, turnover, and organizational cynicism (Rosen et al., 2006; Ferris et al., 2002).

Employees deserve transparency, fairness, and a voice in how their performance is assessed.

Strategy Toolkit

1. Document Your Contributions

  • Keep a personal record of achievements, feedback, and metrics.
  • Use project summaries, client testimonials, and performance data to support your case.

2. Seek Clarification and Feedback

  • Ask for specific examples and criteria used in your evaluation.
  • Frame questions constructively: “Can you help me understand how this rating was determined?”

3. Build Credibility Networks

  • Cultivate relationships with mentors, peers, and cross-functional allies who can vouch for your work.
  • Use 360-degree feedback when available to balance biased perspectives.

4. Understand Organizational Politics

  • Learn the informal power structures and influence dynamics.
  • Use this awareness to navigate conversations and advocate strategically.

5. Escalate Ethically When Needed

  • If evaluations are clearly retaliatory or discriminatory, document concerns and consult HR or ethics officers.
  • Use organizational grievance channels with professionalism and clarity.

Empowerment Tip

Your performance is more than a number—it’s a narrative. Take control of your story. When politics distort the picture, your voice, evidence, and relationships can restore clarity and fairness.

 

References
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Howard, J. L. (1996). Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes. Human Relations, 49(2), 233–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679604900204

Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.211

Fairhurst, G. T., & Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communicative perspective. Leadership, 10(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013509396

Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (8th ed.). Wiley.

Insider Edge

Surviving Destructive Office Politics When Leadership Stays Silent

Objective

To empower employees with communication strategies and ethical tools to navigate toxic office politics—especially when managers ignore or enable harmful dynamics.

Why It Matters

Destructive office politics—such as favoritism, manipulation, and whisper campaigns—erode trust, fracture teams, and stifle innovation. When managers refuse to intervene, employees are left vulnerable to reputational harm, burnout, and disengagement. Research shows that toxic political climates suppress open communication and create cultures of fear and silence (Lutgen-Sandvik & Sypher, 2010; Laker, 2024).

Employees must learn to protect their integrity, build alliances, and communicate strategically—even when leadership fails to lead.

Strategy Toolkit

Strategy Application
Map the Political Landscape Identify key influencers, alliances, and informal power structures. Awareness reduces vulnerability.
Strengthen Credibility Networks Build relationships across departments and levels to buffer against cliques and favoritism.
Document Interactions Keep records of decisions, communications, and incidents that reflect bias or manipulation.
Use Neutral, Strategic Language Avoid gossip or emotional reactions. Frame concerns around fairness, transparency, and team impact.
Seek External Mentorship Find guidance outside the toxic environment—mentors, coaches, or professional networks.
Empowerment Tip

Silence protects politics—voice disrupts it. Even when managers won’t act, your clarity, professionalism, and ethical stance can shift the narrative. Ask:

“How can I communicate in a way that protects my values and invites accountability?”

Transparency is your shield. Integrity is your compass.

 

References
Laker, B. (2024, September 19). Office politics are poison—transparent communication is the antidote. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminlaker/2024/09/19/office-politics-are-poison-transparent-communication-is-the-antidote/

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Sypher, B. D. (Eds.). (2010). Destructive organizational communication: Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of organizing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928554

Ferris, G. R., Davidson, S. L., & Perrewé, P. L. (2005). Political skill at work: Impact on work effectiveness. Davies-Black Publishing.

Discussion Questions

  1. Do you believe political behavior in organizations can be used ethically and strategically to drive positive outcomes? Provide examples or scenarios that support your stance.
  2. Describe a situation—either from research or personal experience—where political behavior negatively impacted organizational transparency, trust, or morale. What mechanisms or conditions enabled that outcome?
  3. Share an example where political skill and political will led to innovative or collaborative success in a team, school group, or workplace. How did influence tactics or strategic communication contribute?
  4. In addition to political skill, internal locus of control, and resource scarcity, what other individual or organizational factors might predict political behavior today—especially in virtual or hybrid settings? Consider technology, leadership styles, or cultural norms.
  5. Think of a recent organizational or school initiative where political behavior played a role—either overtly or subtly. Were those behaviors productive or counterproductive? How might political awareness have changed the outcome?

Section 13.5: Social Network Analysis and Relational Power

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Analyze the structure, diversity, and strength of your personal and professional relationships, and evaluate how they contribute to your access to information, influence, and visibility.
  2. Assess the validity, accuracy, and ethical implications of different SNA techniques—including survey-based and digital trace methods—and determine which may yield the most actionable organizational insights.
  3. Critically examine the ethics of informal networking strategies, such as engaging in recreational activities with coworkers, and consider how authenticity, equity, and inclusion play a role in relational power-building.
  4. Investigate how communication technologies—such as collaboration software, analytics dashboards, and social media platforms—have reshaped the formation, visibility, and influence of social networks in modern organizations.

Relational Power and Influence Strategies in the Digital Workplace

Relational power—defined as influence derived from interpersonal connections and access to information—has become increasingly central to organizational life. In today’s hybrid and digitally networked environments, power is not solely positional; it is embedded in relationships, communication patterns, and social capital (Chong, Fu, & Shang, 2013). Employees who cultivate broad, diverse, and strategically positioned networks are better equipped to navigate complexity, drive innovation, and influence outcomes. As traditional hierarchies become less visible in virtual settings, relational power has emerged as a critical currency for leadership and collaboration (Soga, Bolade-Ogunfodun, Islam, & Amankwah-Amoah, 2022).

Social networks function as dynamic maps of informal relationships that shape how work gets done. They serve three key functions: facilitating information exchange, connecting individuals to diverse expertise, and conferring influence through network centrality and connectivity. For example, a recent study found that 85% of job seekers learn about opportunities through personal networks, underscoring the role of relational ties in career mobility (Jobvite, 2019). Within organizations, informal networks often outperform formal hierarchies in enabling collaboration, problem-solving, and change adoption (Krivkovich et al., 2025).

Social Network Analysis (SNA) has become a powerful tool for mapping and analyzing these relational structures. SNA can be conducted through indirect methods—such as analyzing email metadata or digital collaboration logs—or direct methods like surveys that ask employees whom they trust, consult, or collaborate with (Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2001). These analyses reveal key influencers, bottlenecks, and gaps in communication. Boundary spanners, for instance—individuals who connect disparate groups—play a vital role in innovation diffusion and cross-functional alignment (Cross, Liedtka, & Weiss, 2005).

Network roles and tie strength are essential components of relational power. Central connectors are highly linked individuals who facilitate information flow, while boundary spanners broker connections between teams or departments. Peripheral specialists, though less central, offer niche expertise and are often consulted for specific tasks. The strength of ties also matters: strong ties, characterized by frequent and emotionally supportive interactions, foster trust and coordination. Meanwhile, weak ties—though less frequent—introduce novel ideas and diverse perspectives, making them essential for creativity and strategic foresight (Granovetter, 1973; Vogels et al., 2022).

Digital platforms such as LinkedIn, Slack, and TikTok have amplified relational power by increasing visibility and reach. For example, TikTok now supports over 5 million small and medium businesses, enabling influence through short-form storytelling and network engagement (TikTok, 2023). Visibility in digital networks enhances perceived credibility, access to opportunities, and the ability to shape discourse. In this context, relational power intersects with political skill—the ability to navigate social contexts with authenticity and strategic intent. Individuals high in political skill leverage networks to build trust, broker alliances, and influence organizational narratives (Ferris et al., 2005).

Strategically, organizations can use SNA to identify informal leaders, improve cross-functional communication, accelerate innovation, and address silos and inclusion gaps. Employees, in turn, can build relational power by seeking diverse connections across roles and departments, engaging in knowledge-sharing and mentorship, and participating in cross-functional projects and informal gatherings. Relational influence is not just about who you know—it’s about how you communicate, collaborate, and contribute across networks. In a world where agility and connection drive success, relational power is a strategic asset that organizations must recognize and cultivate.

  1. How would you describe your current social network in terms of diversity, reach, and influence? Have you taken deliberate steps to expand it across professional and personal spheres?
  2. Based on what you’ve learned, which Social Network Analysis method—direct (e.g., surveys) or indirect (e.g., email metadata or digital collaboration patterns)—do you think provides deeper insight into workplace relationships, and why?
  3. What are the potential ethical considerations when engaging in informal networking through social or recreational activities (e.g., sports, shared hobbies) with coworkers? Where might the line be drawn between authentic relationship-building and exclusionary behavior?
  4. In what ways have digital tools (like LinkedIn, Slack, or TikTok) transformed how professionals build, maintain, and leverage social networks within and beyond the workplace?

Section 13.6: Ethical and Cultural Influences

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Evaluate ethical considerations in leadership and power structures. Examine how different sources of power (e.g., legitimate, expert, referent) interact with ethical climates in organizations, and explore how transparency, accountability, and governance mechanisms can prevent power misuse.
  2. Analyze the impact of national culture on organizational power dynamics. Compare cultural prototypes of leadership across high and low power distance societies and assess how cultural expectations influence decision-making, influence tactics, and perceptions of fairness.
  3. Assess ethical leadership within diverse cultural contexts. Understand how cultural norms shape ethical behavior and explore how leaders in multicultural environments can foster ethical climates that support inclusion, psychological safety, and global collaboration.
  4. Apply cultural intelligence to global leadership challenges. Identify strategies for navigating cultural differences in power perceptions and influence styles, especially in international ventures where cross-border collaboration demands adaptive leadership and communication skills.

Ethical and Cultural Dimensions of Power in Contemporary Organizations

Power within organizations demands ethical scrutiny, especially as leaders gain influence through legitimate authority, expertise, rewards, or referent appeal. In today’s global and digitally connected workplace, ethical leadership is increasingly viewed as a cornerstone of organizational health, transparency, and trust (Krivkovich et al., 2025). The potential for misuse—particularly in opaque or hierarchical systems—remains a pressing concern.

Consider the case of Richard Grasso, former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, whose $140 million compensation package was approved by a board he largely appointed. This scenario exemplifies how concentrated power can undermine ethical governance and stakeholder trust (Hartman & DesJardins, 2008). In contrast, leaders like Haruka Nishimatsu, former CEO of Japan Airlines, gained respect by embracing modest compensation and egalitarian practices—riding the bus to work and dining with employees (Petersen, 2009).

Ethical Climates and Leadership Behavior

Ethical climates—shared perceptions of what is morally appropriate—shape employee behavior and organizational culture. Research shows that ethical leadership fosters psychological safety and encourages feedback-seeking, especially in high power distance contexts where subordinates may otherwise hesitate to speak up (Gong et al., 2019). Leaders who model integrity and fairness can mitigate the risks of hierarchical distance and promote inclusive decision-making.

Power Distance and Cultural Prototypes of Leadership

Power distance refers to the extent to which inequality in power is accepted within a society. In high power distance cultures (e.g., Mexico, Japan, Brazil), authority is centralized, and obedience is expected. Leadership tends to be formal, hierarchical, and status-driven. Decisions are often made by top executives, and loyalty may outweigh merit in promotions (Javidan et al., 2006).

In contrast, low power distance cultures (e.g., Sweden, Australia, the Netherlands) favor egalitarianism, participative leadership, and flatter organizational structures. Leaders are expected to be approachable and achievement-oriented, but not overly dominant. Australians, for instance, prefer leaders who are visionary yet relatable—“one of us” rather than above us (Ashkanasy, 1998).

These cultural prototypes influence not only leadership expectations but also ethical norms. In collectivist cultures, ethical climates may emphasize group harmony and loyalty, while individualistic cultures prioritize autonomy and justice (Verma, Ganesh, & Sahishnu, 2025).

Cross-Cultural Influence Strategies

Influence tactics vary across cultures. In the U.S., rational persuasion and data-driven arguments are favored. In China, relational tactics such as coalition-building and indirect influence are more effective (Fu & Yukl, 2000; Yukl, Fu, & McDonald, 2003). Leaders operating in global contexts must adapt their communication style to align with local expectations and ethical standards.

For example, in a joint venture between American and Mexican firms, U.S. managers were frustrated by delayed responses from their Mexican counterparts. The delay stemmed from hierarchical norms—Mexican employees needed approval from superiors before replying. Understanding such cultural nuances is vital for ethical and effective collaboration.

Insider Edge

Navigating Ethical Climates and Leadership in Cross-Cultural Workplaces

Objective

To equip employees with tools to ethically and effectively navigate workplace cultures and leadership behaviors that differ from their own values or norms.

Why It Matters

Globalization and diverse workforces mean employees increasingly operate in environments with unfamiliar ethical norms and leadership styles. Misalignment between personal values and organizational culture can lead to confusion, ethical dilemmas, and disengagement. Research shows that ethical climates—shared perceptions of “right behavior”—are shaped by leadership and cultural context, and they significantly influence employee decision-making and well-being (Martin & Cullen, 2006; Roy et al., 2023).

Understanding how to adapt, communicate, and maintain integrity in these environments is essential for professional resilience and ethical leadership.

Strategy Toolkit

Strategy Application
Assess the Ethical Climate Use frameworks like Victor & Cullen’s to identify dominant ethical reasoning (e.g., utilitarian, rules-based).
Decode Leadership Signals Observe how leaders communicate values—explicitly and implicitly—and how they respond to ethical issues.
Practice Cultural Humility Avoid assumptions. Ask questions, listen actively, and seek to understand before reacting.
Anchor in Core Values Identify your non-negotiables and use them as a compass when navigating ambiguous situations.
Engage in Constructive Dialogue Frame ethical concerns in terms of shared goals (e.g., trust, transparency, team cohesion).

Empowerment Tip

Adaptation doesn’t mean assimilation. You can respect cultural differences while staying true to your ethical foundation. Ask yourself:

“How can I honor my values while building bridges across cultural and leadership divides?”

Ethical agility is a strength—not a compromise.

 

References
Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9084-7

Roy, A., Newman, A., Round, H., & Bhattacharya, S. (2023). Ethical culture in organizations: A review and agenda for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 34(1), 97–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.44

Hanges, P., Lucas, J., & Dobbs, J. (2023). Culture, climate, leadership and ethical behavior. Journal of Character and Leadership Development. Download article at https://jcldusafa.org/index.php/jcld/article/download/108/105

Discussion Questions

  1. What accountability mechanisms—such as independent boards, transparent performance metrics, or stakeholder review processes—can organizations implement to ensure that CEO compensation aligns with fair market value and ethical governance rather than personal relationships?
  2. If a colleague is moving to China to start a business, what culturally informed advice would you offer about power dynamics, influence tactics, and relationship-building? How might differences in power distance, communication norms, and ethical expectations shape leadership strategies in that context?

Section 13.7: Spotlight

Building Social Capital Through Intentional Networking in St. Louis

Two standout organizations in the St. Louis metro area—Community Impact Network and Greater St. Louis, Inc.—have cultivated reputations for fostering intentional cultures of collaboration and internal networking. The Community Impact Network, a nonprofit focused on equity in the 24:1 community, connects over 80 member organizations through monthly convenings, shared funding opportunities, and cross-sector partnerships. Similarly, Greater St. Louis, Inc.’s Fellows Experience is a nine-month leadership development program designed to build a cross-sector network of mid-career professionals committed to inclusive economic growth. Both organizations recognize that social connectivity is not a byproduct of culture—it’s a strategic asset.

The benefits of these networking ecosystems are substantial. At the Community Impact Network, staff and partners report increased trust, faster problem-solving, and more innovative programming due to the strength of their internal and external relationships. Greater St. Louis, Inc. (2025) has seen improved talent retention and regional alignment as Fellows bring back cross-sector insights and civic engagement strategies to their home organizations.  These networks also serve as platforms for knowledge exchange, enabling individuals to access resources and expertise beyond their immediate teams.

However, intentional networking is not without its challenges. Both organizations must navigate network fatigue, where over-scheduled meetings or unclear collaboration goals can dilute engagement. Additionally, maintaining equity in access to networking opportunities—especially for underrepresented voices—requires ongoing attention. Without careful facilitation, dominant personalities or legacy power structures can unintentionally marginalize emerging leaders or smaller organizations within the network.

A key strength of both models is their emphasis on indirect ties—connections that extend beyond immediate colleagues or departments. These “weak ties,” as Granovetter (1973) famously described, are often more valuable for accessing novel information and opportunities. For example, a Fellow from Greater St. Louis, Inc. might connect with a nonprofit leader from the Community Impact Network during a regional convening, sparking a collaboration that neither organization could have predicted. These indirect ties expand the reach of each individual’s social capital and reinforce the region’s collective capacity for innovation.

Both organizations also help employees and participants build their personal brands. The Fellows Experience includes modules on personal branding, civic capital, and strategic visibility, encouraging participants to articulate their leadership identity and expand their influence. At the Community Impact Network, staff are encouraged to lead initiatives, present at convenings, and represent the organization in public forums—giving them visibility and credibility within the broader nonprofit ecosystem (Granovetter, 1973). These branding opportunities not only benefit the individuals but also enhance the reputation and reach of the organizations they represent.

The Community Impact Network and Greater St. Louis, Inc. demonstrate how intentional networking can be a catalyst for personal growth, organizational effectiveness, and regional transformation. By investing in both direct and indirect connections, and by supporting individual brand development within a collaborative framework, these organizations offer a model for how social capital can be cultivated with purpose and equity.

 

References

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Greater St. Louis, Inc. (2025). The Fellows Experience. https://greaterstlinc.com/fellows

Community Impact Network. (2025). Who we are and what we do. https://stlci.net

Discussion Questions

  1. How is online networking different from or similar to in-person networking? Please describe your experience with both.
  2. What are the downfalls and benefits of social networking?
  3. In what ways are indirect ties as powerful and important as direct ties?
  4. To what extent have you built your own brand? Is this something that you have ever considered before?

Section 13.8: Conclusion

Power and politics are inherent features of organizational life. When exercised with skill and integrity, they can facilitate coordination, innovation, and strategic decision-making. However, power also has the potential to foster conformity, and unchecked conformity can pave the way for unethical behavior and corruption. The degree of power one holds is often linked to how much others depend on them. Those perceived as valuable resources within an organization can leverage that dependence to influence decisions and behavior.

Efforts to gain power frequently involve political behavior. As individuals seek to persuade others or advance their agendas, politics naturally emerge. While political maneuvering can be necessary for navigating complex organizational dynamics, it is often viewed as unfair or inefficient—especially by those who prioritize formal rules and procedures. For some, organizational politics represent a misallocation of time and resources.

Importantly, power and influence are deeply embedded in social networks. Individuals who occupy central positions within these networks often wield informal authority and access to key resources. Social connections can open doors to new opportunities, enhance visibility, and ease professional challenges. Regularly evaluating and cultivating your network is a strategic move—one that can strengthen your influence and align your relationships with your goals.

Section 13.9: Case Study and Exercises

Ethical Dilemma Case Study

The Assistant Chair’s Accusation

Background

Professor Elena Morris, a respected non-tenure track faculty member with a master’s degree and over a decade of teaching experience, worked in a department where tenure-track faculty dominated decision-making. The assistant chairperson, Dr. X., had long expressed disdain for non-tenure track instructors, frequently stating that only those with earned doctoral degrees were qualified to teach in the unit.

The Incident

During a routine curriculum review, Dr. X. made a clerical error that affected course scheduling. Rather than admitting the mistake, she accused Prof. Morris of submitting incorrect documentation. The accusation was not only false—it was strategic. Dr. X. had previously voiced her desire to remove Prof. Morris from the department and saw this as an opportunity to discredit her.

Prof. Morris, meticulous in her recordkeeping, provided clear documentation proving the error originated from Dr. X. She filed a formal grievance, citing retaliation and professional misconduct. However, the upper administration dismissed the grievance without a thorough investigation. Prof. Morris suspected that the administration protected Dr. X. and the chairperson to maintain control over departmental leadership.

Despite the evidence, Prof. Morris continued to face subtle forms of retaliation—being excluded from meetings, denied committee roles, and receiving poor evaluations. Eventually, both Dr. X. and the chairperson were promoted to higher administrative roles, leaving Prof. Morris disillusioned and unsupported.

Organizational Communication Insights

This case illustrates a breakdown in ethical leadership, organizational justice, and communicative transparency. Research shows that when institutions fail to address grievances fairly, they erode trust and foster a toxic climate (Singh & Singh, 2024). Moreover, bias against non-tenure track faculty reflects a deeper issue of status-based exclusion, which undermines collaborative culture and equity (Berry & Worthen, 2021).

“Grievance-handling procedures must be transparent, timely, and fair to maintain institutional integrity and stakeholder trust.” — Singh & Singh (2024)

“Contingent faculty face systemic inequities that are often perpetuated by opaque administrative practices and exclusion from governance.” — Berry & Worthen (2021)

Ethical Questions

  • Should Prof. Morris escalate her grievance to external oversight bodies or professional associations?
  • How can institutions ensure that grievance procedures are not influenced by internal politics?
  • What protections should exist for non-tenure track faculty facing retaliation?

Recommended Actions

  1. Policy Reform: Institutions should revise grievance protocols to ensure independent review and protection against retaliation.
  2. Faculty Governance Inclusion: Non-tenure track faculty must be included in decision-making bodies to reduce marginalization.
  3. Training in Ethical Leadership: Administrators should receive training in ethical communication and bias awareness.
  4. Documentation Culture: Faculty should be encouraged to maintain records to protect against false accusations.

References
Berry, J., & Worthen, H. (2021). Power despite precarity: Strategies for the contingent faculty movement in higher education. Pluto Press.

Singh, M., & Singh, A. (2024). A study on grievance-handling effectiveness and identifying determinants of stakeholder satisfaction in higher education. International Journal of Advanced Research in Commerce, Management & Social Science, 7(3), 123–129. https://www.inspirajournals.com/uploads/Issues/1026710273.pdf

American Philosophical Association. (2020). Guidance for non-tenure track faculty. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.apaonline.org/resource/resmgr/docs/guidance_for_ntt_faculty.pdf

Individual Exercise

Assignment: Analyzing Power Bases in Organizational Roles

In your group, analyze the individuals listed in the left-hand column of the table below by identifying the types of power they may possess. Use French and Raven’s five bases of power—legitimate, reward, coercive, information, and referent—as your framework.

Instructions

  1. For each role listed, discuss which types of power the individual could realistically hold in a typical organizational setting.
  2. In each column, provide a brief example or explanation of how that type of power might be demonstrated in the role.
  3. Be thoughtful and creative—power can be formal or informal, and may depend on context, relationships, or access to resources.
Role Legitimate Power Reward Power Coercive Power Information Power Referent Power
Flight Attendant
Software Engineer
Executive Assistant
Manager
Mailroom Clerk
Customer Service Rep
CEO

Tip for Success

Consider both formal authority and informal influence. For example, a mailroom person may not have legitimate power, but could hold information power by controlling the flow of sensitive documents.

References

Carpenter, M.A., & Sanders, W.M. (2007). Strategic Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Watt, D.J. (2003). Six degrees: The science of the connected age. NY: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd.

References

Ansari, M. A., & Wiltshire, J. (2021). Influence strategies/tactics in the workplace. Oxford Bibliographies. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199846740-0202

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

Ashkanasy, N. M. (1998). What matters most in leadership: A cultural perspective. Australian Journal of Management, 23(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289629802300205

Aspect. (2025). Milgram experiment in organizational context. https://aspect-hq.com/hiring-decisions-psychology/milgram-experiment-in-organizational-context

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3

Barkacs, C. B. (2021). The 10 sources of power and how anyone can use them. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/power-and-influence/202103/the-10-sources-of-power-and-how-anyone-can-use-them

Barsness, Z. I., Diekmann, K. A., & Seidel, M. D. L. (2005). Managing impressions in organizations: A meta-analysis of research on impression management tactics. Journal of Management, 31(6), 741–760.

Bartels, J. M., & Griggs, R. A. (2019). Using new revelations about the Stanford Prison Experiment to address APA undergraduate psychology major learning outcomes. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 5(4), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000163

Bloch, B. (2024, July 17). Practicing what you preach: The impact of authentic leadership on organizational success. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2024/07/17/practicing-what-you-preach-the-impact-of-authentic-leadership-on-organizational-success

Blunden, H., & Brodsky, A. (2024). A review of virtual impression management behaviors and outcomes. Journal of Management, 50(6), 2197–2236. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231225160

Bolino, M. C., Long, D. M., & Turnley, W. H. (2016). Impression management in organizations: Critical questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 377–406.

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111

Brandon, R., & Seldman, M. (2004). Survival of the savvy: High-integrity political tactics for career and company success. Free Press.

Byrne, Z. S., Kacmar, C. J., Stoner, J., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2005). The relationship between perceptions of politics and depressed mood at work: Unique effects of coworker and supervisor perceptions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 347–357.

Capuano, C., & Chekroun, P. (2024). A systematic review of research on conformity. International Review of Social Psychology, 37(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.874

Cecchi-Dimeglio, P. (2025). 5 techniques leaders use to influence action and drive lasting change. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/paolacecchi-dimeglio/2025/02/27/5-techniques-leaders-use-to-influence-action-and-drive-lasting-change/

Chong, M. P. M., Fu, P. P., & Shang, Y. F. (2013). Relational power and influence strategies: A step further in understanding power dynamics. Chinese Management Studies, 7(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506141311307596

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

CivicScience & De Graaf, S. (2025). Pulse of the U.S. Workforce Report. Retrieved from [28]

Cohen, A. R., & Bradford, D. L. (2002). Influence without authority (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Cross, R., Liedtka, J., & Weiss, L. (2005). A practical guide to social networks. Harvard Business Review, 83(3), 124–132.

Cross, R., Parker, A., & Cross, R. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Harvard Business Press.

da Silva, M. A. P. M. (2023). Substitutability in R&D and open innovation: Why competing firms face a paradox of openness? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15, 5204–5229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01338-1

Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. SUNY Press.

Enns, H. G., & McFarlin, D. B. (2003). When executives influence peers: The effects of task and organizational characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(3), 265–278.

Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004

Ferris, G. R., et al. (1996). Organizational politics and job performance: A field study. Human Relations, 49(2), 233–266.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the Political Skill Inventory. Journal of Management, 31(1), 126–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271386

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the Political Skill Inventory. Journal of Management, 31(1), 126–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271386

Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2014). Power in management and organization science. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 237–298. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.885518

Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2014). Power in management and organization science. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 237–298. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.885518

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.

Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and China. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00039-4

Gong, Z., Van Swol, L., Xu, Z., Yin, K., Zhang, N., Gilal, F. G., & Li, X. (2019). High-power distance is not always bad: Ethical leadership results in feedback seeking. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02137

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Gruenfeld, D. (2022). The psychology of power & influence. Stanford Graduate School of Business. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/psychology-power-influence

Gupta, A., & Sagadevan, K. (2024). Research on impression management: Current progress and future possibilities. GLIMS Journal of Management Review and Transformation, 3(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/jmrt.241256305

Hartman, L. P., & DesJardins, J. (2008). Business ethics: Decision-making for personal integrity and social responsibility. McGraw-Hill.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the “nature” of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s studies really show. PLOS Biology, 10(11), e1001426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426

Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic contingencies’ theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391831

Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 89–106.

Hirsch, W. (2023). Influence and organizational change: Getting your way the right way. Wendy Hirsch Consulting. Link

Huo, B., Tian, M., Tian, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2019). The dilemma of inter-organizational relationships: Dependence, use of power and their impacts on opportunism. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 39(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2017-0383

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross-cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873410

Jobvite. (2019). Job Seeker Nation Study. https://www.jobvite.com/jobseeker-nation-report/

Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). Theoretical and empirical development of a model of supervisor political perceptions. Journal of Management, 15(4), 529–545.

Karakowsky, L., & Siegel, J. (2020). The silent majority: Pluralistic ignorance in organizational decision-making. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(5), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2445

Khandelwal, K., & Upadhyay, A. K. (2025). Emerging technologies and organizational communication: Envisioning the future of work. Frontiers in Communication, 10, Article 1602251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1602251

Kidder, T. (2004). Mountains beyond mountains: The quest of Dr. Paul Farmer, a man who would cure the world. Random House.

Krishna, A. (2021). Employee activism and internal communication. In L. R. Men & A. T. Verčič (Eds.), Current trends and issues in internal communication (pp. 113–129). Palgrave Macmillan.

Krivkovich, A., Horah, D., Bowcott, H., Kelleher, J., & Harrison, L. (2025). Five impactful themes we’re hearing in 2025. McKinsey & Company.

Lawrence, T. B., Malhotra, N., & Morris, T. (2012). Episodic and systemic power in the transformation of professional service firms. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 102–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01037.x

Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000486

Lee, S., Han, S., Cheong, M., Kim, S. L., & Yun, S. (2017). How do I get my way? A meta-analytic review of research on influence tactics. Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 210–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.001

Lipp, C. (2025). 5 ways leaders can communicate power. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2025/07/5-ways-leaders-can-communicate-power

Lipp, C. (2025). The science of personal power. Harvard Business Review Press.

Maher, L. P., Ejaz, A., Nguyen, C. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2022). Forty years of political skill and will in organizations: A review, meta-theoretical framework and directions for future research. Career Development International, 27(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-07-2021-0191

Maor, D., Honigmann, D., Naylor, J., & Sherman, E. (2024). Unlocking organizational communication: Five ways to ignite employee engagement. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/… .

McDonald, J., & Mitra, R. (2019). Movements in organizational communication research. Routledge.

McFarland, L. A., Hendricks, J. L., & Ward, W. B. (2023). A contextual framework for understanding impression management. Human Resource Management Review, 33(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100912

Men, L. R. (2015). The role of ethical leadership in internal communication: Influences on communication symmetry, leader credibility, and employee engagement. Public Relations Journal, 9(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280804888

Men, L. R., & Verčič, A. T. (Eds.). (2021). Current trends and issues in internal communication: Theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Mikkelson, A. C., & Hesse, C. (2020). Conceptualizing and validating organizational communication patterns and their associations with employee outcomes. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(1), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420932299

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row.

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00279

Mortenson, G., & Relin, D. O. (2006). Three cups of tea: One man’s mission to promote peace… one school at a time. Penguin Books.

Muhammad, A. H. (2007). Antecedents of perceived organizational politics: A study of public sector organizations. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 7(2), 1–10.

Mumby, D. K. (2013). Organizing power: Communication, power, and resistance. Oxford University Press.

Mumby, D. K. (2015). Organizational communication: A critical approach. SAGE Publications.

Mumby, D. K., & Plotnikof, M. (2019). Organizing power and resistance. In J. McDonald & R. Mitra (Eds.), Movements in organizational communication research (pp. 45–67). Routledge.

Nelson, A. (2024). Five bases of power. Applied Social Psychology. https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2024/10/09/five-bases-of-power/

Oksiutycz, A. (2004). Power, empowerment and organisational communication. Communicare, 23(1), 1–15.

Oksiutycz, A. (2024). Power, empowerment and organisational communication. Journal of Communication Management, 28(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-2024-0005

Petersen, B. (2009, February 20). Japan Airlines CEO earns $90,000, eats with workers. NPR. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100885949

Recuber, T. (2016). From obedience to contagion: Discourses of power in Milgram, Zimbardo, and the Facebook experiment. Research Ethics, 12(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016115579533

Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 211–220.

Ruggs, E. N., & Hebi, M. (2022). Tattoos and hiring intentions: The role of job type and perceived competence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(4), 612–624.

Russell, N. J. C., & Gregory, R. J. (2011). Spinning an organizational “web of obligation”? Moral choice in Stanley Milgram’s “obedience” experiments. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(5), 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010384129

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.

Soh, S. (2025). The Milgram experiment: What it teaches us about authority and modern workplaces. https://samsoh.com/executive-development/leadership-skills/the-milgram-experiment-what-it-teaches-us-about-authority-and-modern-workplaces

Stark, M. (2005). Authentic leadership: Building credibility and trust. Harvard Business School Publishing.

Sumter, R., & Motamedi, K. (2023). Office politics and leadership accountability. Pepperdine Graziadio Business School & Regina Corso Consulting.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2006). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 443–455.

TikTok. (2023). TikTok for Business. https://www.tiktok.com/business/en

Valle, M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Human Relations, 53(3), 359–386.

Varma, A., Toh, S. M., & Pichler, S. (2006). Ingratiation in job applications: Impact on selection decisions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(3), 200–210.

Verma, G. G., Ganesh, K. N., & Sahishnu, M. (2025). Ethical work climate and organizational citizenship behavior in collectivist culture: Does power distance matter? Evidence-based HRM, 13(3), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-01-2024-0019

Vogels, E. A., Gelles-Watnick, R., & Massarat, N. (2022). Teens, social media and technology 2022. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

Waddington, K. (2017). Creating the conditions for compassion. In P. Gibbs (Ed.), The pedagogy of compassion at the heart of higher education (pp. 49–70). Springer.

Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 232–260.

Weder, F. (2023). The evolution of the sustainability story: Strategic sustainability communication as niche construction. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 17(3), 228–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2023.2229304

Wong, Y. L. (2018). Conformity in the workplace: The relationship between facades of conformity, job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and intention to leave [Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stout]. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/79796

Yukl, G., Fu, P. P., & McDonald, R. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in the perceived effectiveness of influence tactics for initiating or resisting change. Applied Psychology, 52(1), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00123

Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 309–317.

Zerfass, A., & Link, J. (2023). Scarcity management in employee communications. Akademische Gesellschaft. Scarcity Management Overview retrieved at https://www.akademische-gesellschaft.com/comminsights/scarcity-management-in-employee-communications/

Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). The Stanford prison experiment. Naval Research Reviews, 30, 4–17.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2009). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.

Media Attributions

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

THRIVE 2025: Teamwork, Harmony, Resilience, Innovation, Vision, & Empathy: Organizational Communication Open Text Copyright © 2025 / 2023 / 2017 / 2010 by [Author removed at request of original publisher] is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book