Navigating politics in the workplace can be difficult at times. Some people handle politics in the workplace with ease. These employees may even enjoy “working” the unique political system within their organizations. Others hate dealing with the politics and often wonder why work is not always about the work. There is an enormous continuum on politics between the two viewpoints. In terms of leadership, it is important for you to learn about politics in the workplace. What are your strengths? What are your weaknesses? What are some ways that you can improve your political acumen in the workplace? The analysis of the first and second self-assessment tests that you have done for this module will help you analyze the following case. Pull together some thoughts from the analysis of the SATs to answer the discussion questions. I suggest you read the questions (at the bottom of the case) before reading the whole case.
DISCUSSION CASE ON ORGANIZATIONAL POWER AND POLITICS
PAGES 174-175 of our Textbook.
Jose Gonzalez, a Hispanic man, was highly sought after receiving his PhD in accounting. Today, he is a tenured professor at a small teaching college in the Midwest. The Department of Accounting (DA) has nine faculty members; it is one of five departments in the School of Business (SB). The accounting department chair is Helen Canton, who is in her first year as chair. Six faculty members, including Jose, have been in the department longer than Helen. Helen likes to have policies in place so that faculty members have guides for their behavior. On the college-wide level, however, there is no policy about the job of graduate assistant. Helen asked the dean of the SB about the policy. After a discussion with the vice president for academic affairs, the deal told Helen that there is there is no policy. The vice president and dean suggested letting the individual departments develop their own policy regarding what graduate assistants can and cannot do in their position. So, Helen made developing a policy for graduate assistants an agenda item for the department meeting.
During the DA meeting, Helen asked for members’ views on what graduate assistants should and should not be allowed to do. She was hoping that the department could come to a consensus on a policy. It turns out that Jose was the only faculty member using graduate assistants to grade exams. To other faculty members speak out against having graduate assistants grade exams. They believe it is the professor’s job to grade exams. Jose makes a few statements in hopes of not having to correct his own exams. Because his exams are objective, requiring a correct answer; Jose believes it is not necessary for him to personally grade the exams. He also points out that across the campus, and across the country, other faculty members are using graduate assistants to eteach entire courses and to correct subjective papers and exams. Jose states that he does not think it fair that he can no longer use graduate assistants to grade objective exams when others are doing so. He also states that the department does not need to have policy and requests that the department not set a policy. However; Helen, she wants a policy. Jose is the only one to speak in favor of allowing graduate assistants to grade exams, although three others made no comments either way. But, after the meeting, one other member, Joel Corman, who said nothing during the meeting, tells Jose he agrees that it is not fair to deny him this use of a graduate assistant.
There was no department consensus, as Helen hoped there would be. She said that she would draft a department policy, which will be discussed at a future DA meeting. The next day, Jose sent a memo to department members asking if it is ethical and legal to deny him the same resources as others are using across the campus. Jose also states that if the department sets a policy stating that he can no longer use graduate assistants to correct objective exams, he will appeal the policy decision to the dean, vice president, and president.
Discussion Questions
Support your answers to the following questions with specific information fo from the case and the textbook, or with other information from other sources.
1. (a) What source of power does Helen have, and (b) what type of power is she using? (c) Which influencing tactic is Helen using during the meeting? (d) Is negotiation and /or the (e) exchange tactic appropriate in this situation?
2. (a) What source of power does Jose have, and 9b) what type of power is he using during the meeting? (c) Which two influencing tactics is Jose primarily using during the meeting? (d) Which influencing tactic is Jose using with the memo? (e) is the memo a wise political move for Jose? What might he gain and lose by sending it?
3. What would you do if you were Helen? (a) Would you talk to the dean, letting her know that Jose said he would appeal the policy decision? (b) Which influencing tactic would this discussion involve? (c) Which political behavior would the discussion represent? (d) Would you draft a policy directly stating that graduate assistants cannot be used to grade objective exams? (e) Would your answer to (d) be influenced by your answer to (a)?
4. If you were Jose, knowing you had no verbal supporters during the meeting, would you have continued to defend your position or agreed to stop using a graduate assistant? (b) What do you think of Jose sending the memo? (c) As a tenured full professor, Jose is secure in his job. Would your answer change if you (as Jose) had not received tenure or promotion to the top rank?
5. (a) If you were Jose, and Helen drafted a policy and department members agreed with it, what would you do? Would you appeal the decision to the dean? (b) Again, would your answer change if you had not received tenure or promotion to the top rank?
6. If you were the dean of the School of Business (SB), knowing that the vice president does not want to set a college-wide policy, and Jose appealed to you, what would you do? Would you develop a school-wide policy for SB?
7. At what level (college-wide, by schools, or by departments within each school) should a graduate assistants policy be set?
8. (a) Should Joel Corman have spoken up in defense of Jose during the meeting? (b) If you were Joel, would you have taken Jose’s side against the other seven members? (c) Would your answer change if you were or were not friends with Jose, and if you were or were not a tenured full professor?
Remember to support all your answers. You cannot just say ” I would do such and such” without any reasons supporting your answers.
0 comments