BUS576 - 4 Group - Power and Politics, Conflict and Negotiation

Winning Power and Influence

Jeffrey Pfeffer talks about winning power and influence and some tactics on how to do that. The first thing I found interesting  is about networking. Networking is creating links and relationships on a professional and sometimes personal level. They are people that are great to be connected with for opportunities for the future. We all know that we need to network and it's about who you know and not necessarily what you know. Then he describes how some people say it's like a task. It's something you don't want to do, but you do it anyways. I know it feels like this to me because it takes a lot of energy to keep starting conversations with strangers. It's important to build your network, but it takes time to build it. Pfeffer then goes on to say that networking isn't a 'task,' but a skill. A task is like taking out the trash. You don't want to get better at it, but you have to do it. Networking is a skill because you keep striving to get better at it. Soon it won't feel like a 'task' or something you need to work for, but just come natural and easier. In my class, Strategic Performance for Women Executives, our instructor had us fill out a monthly networking plan. Her vision was for us to attend more events, reach out to loose contacts, and create meaningful bonds that we can cultivate. Then through these bonds and professional development, skills like learning to act and speak with power and stand with power can be achieved. You'll never be able to learn and practice winning power and influence if you don't know anyone. Do you think networking is as important as Pfeffer says? Do you view networking as a task? How else do you think you can win power and influence?

Just Be Angry

Then, in Jeffrey Pfeffer's 'You're Still the Same: Why Theories of Power Hold Over Time and Across Contexts,' he talks about powerful people and how people view them. I never really thought about anger and power having such positive correlations. Machiavelli found that if one must decide to be loved or feared, choose to be feared. There is a commonly observed reserve association that powerful people have the discretion to be angry because their power provides them more latitude in their behavior (Pfeffer, 2013). Then people associate people who are angry with power. Pfeffer then goes on to say that people can make their anger more apparent through social media and then more people will see how 'powerful' that person is. When thinking about it, I work with a man who seems to be angrier more than content most of the time. I don't like dealing with him because he gets angry at everything, but when I need something done, I go to him. He puts fear in people and I do think they associate that with power. They know if they don't get something done, this man will cause repercussions. I never really thought about them thinking the man I work with having power, but just that it's best to get what he needs done as soon as possible. This can be important, especially when there are time contingent tasks that need done. When being loved, your requests may not be as priority for the people whom you are asking. If you are feared, the people will most likely answer you quicker. I think there are other ways to be perceived other than anger and fear when being powerful, but it does seem to be a simple and easy way for effectiveness. Do you see examples of anger and power being associated in your workplace? What other ways are effective when being perceived as powerful?

Critique

In 3 Golden Rules of Negotiating, the author talks about three of us twelve golden rules to follow when entering into a negotiation. He first goes into how people misconceive what a negotiation really is. Negotiation comes from the Latin word negotiatus and means to carry on business (Cardone, 2013). Negotiations are just coming to an agreement with another person because they have something that adds value. The first rule is to always start the negotiation. The author pulls from past experiences to show how starting first has worked for him. The author is right that you are giving up control when letting the other person start the negotiation, but he doesn't have evidence that this is a negative start. If there was research to support this argument, I might be more inclined to believe that starting a negotiation controls where it ends. The next rule is to always negotiate in writing. This makes sense and there doesn't really need to be research to back this up. It is always important to have proof or evidence of a negotiation and the terms. If you don't, the negotiation is pointless as there is only hearsay. The last rule is to always stay cool. The author describes how great negotiators know how to stay cool in a negotiation with a lot of emotion. The author needs to support this claim in someway in order to make his 'rule' believable. The reader can understand why the author is saying this, but may want to know why.

Reflection

This week, I learned a lot about power and influence. I have taken a class about negotiations before in the fall, and then in the first part of the summer, I learned about strategic performance for women and we touched on negotiations and conflict. Power and influence were a little newer to me. I never really think about power, just leadership and moving up in a company. Power and influence never really come to mind and that is probably one of my weaknesses. I didn't think about it in the way I should. I need to be aware of how I am perceived from these standpoints. I need to learn to build up power and influence or it will be harder for me to lead and rise to the top. There are so many different aspects of a leader and some layers are harder to figure out than others. I am glad I was able to learn more about what it takes.

Resources:

Cardone, G. (2013, Jan 21). 3 Golden Rules of Negotiating. Retrieved 
Jul 17, 2014, from Entrepreneur: http://www.entrepreneur.com/
article/225537

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. Interview by Gary Hamel. How to Win Power and 
Influence People. Personal interview. 24 Feb. 2011.

Pfeffer, J. (2013). You're Still the Same: Why Theories of Power Hold 
Over Time and Across Contexts. Stanford University: 
The Academy of Management Perspectives.