Examine how political Jeff Bezo with his power

Anonymous
timer Asked: Mar 29th, 2017
account_balance_wallet $10

Question Description

-Examine how political Jeff Bezo(CEO Amazon) was and whether it was constructive or not. Write a final summary of your teams opinion of the ability and ethical application of power for this leader.: This assignment is 2pages

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Politics: Power in Action When people get together in groups, power will be exerted. People want to carve out a niche from which to exert influence, earn rewards, and advance their careers. When employees in organizations convert their power into action, we describe them as being engaged in politics. Those with good political skills have the ability to use their bases of power effectively.49 Source: D. Crampton, “Is How Americans Feel about Their Jobs Changing?” (September 28, 2012), http://corevalues.com/employee-motivation/is-how-americansfeel-about-their-jobs-changing. Definition of Organizational Politics There is no shortage of definitions of organizational politics. Essentially, this type of politics focuses on the use of power to affect decision making in an organization, or on self-serving and organizationally unsanctioned behaviors.50 For our purposes, political behavior in organizations consists of activities that are not required as part of an individual’s formal role but that influence, or attempt to influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization.51 political behavior Activities that are not required as part of a person’s formal role in the organization but that influence, or attempt to influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization. This definition encompasses what most people mean when they talk about organizational politics. Political behavior is outside specified job requirements. It requires some attempt to use power bases. It includes efforts to influence the goals, criteria, or processes used for decision making. Our definition is broad enough to include varied political behaviors such as withholding key information from decision makers, joining a coalition, whistleblowing, spreading rumors, leaking confidential information to the media, exchanging favors with others in the organization for mutual benefit, and lobbying on behalf of or against a particular individual or decision alternative. The Reality of Politics Interviews with experienced managers show that most believe political behavior is a major part of organizational life.52 Many managers report some use of political behavior is both ethical and necessary, as long as it doesn’t directly harm anyone else. They describe politics as a necessary evil and believe someone who never uses political behavior will have a hard time getting things done. Most also indicate they had never been trained to use political behavior effectively. But why, you may wonder, must politics exist? Isn’t it possible for an organization to be politics free? It’s possible—but unlikely. Photo 13-4 Whistleblower Michael Woodford was fired from his position as CEO of Japan’s camera-maker Olympus after informing company officials about accounting irregularities. Although not part of his role as CEO, Woodford engaged in the political behavior of whistleblowing that uncovered a 13-year accounting fraud by some Olympus executives. Source: REUTERS/Luke MacGregor. Organizations are made up of individuals and groups with different values, goals, and interests.53 This sets up the potential for conflict over the allocation of limited resources, such as departmental budgets, space, project responsibilities, and salary adjustments.54 If resources were abundant, then all constituencies within the organization could satisfy their goals. But because they are limited, not everyone’s interests can be satisfied. Furthermore, gains by one individual or group are often perceived as coming at the expense of others within the organization (whether they are or not). These forces create real competition among members for the organization’s limited resources. Maybe the most important factor leading to politics within organizations is the realization that most of the “facts” used to allocate the limited resources are open to interpretation. What, for instance, is good performance? What’s an adequate improvement? What constitutes an unsatisfactory job? One person’s “selfless effort to benefit the organization” is seen by another as a “blatant attempt to further one’s interest.” 55 The manager of any major league baseball team knows a .400 hitter is a high performer and a .125 hitter is a poor performer. You don’t need to be a baseball genius to know you should play your .400 hitter and send the .125 hitter back to the minors. But what if you have to choose between players who hit .280 and .290? Then less objective factors come into play: fielding expertise, attitude, potential, ability to perform in a clutch, loyalty to the team, and so on. More managerial decisions resemble the choice between a .280 and a .290 hitter than between a .125 hitter and a .400 hitter. It is in this large and ambiguous middle ground of organizational life— where the facts don’t speak for themselves—that politics flourish (see Exhibit 13-2). A behavior one person labels as “organizational politics” is very likely to seem like “effective management” to another. The fact is not that effective management is necessarily political, although in some cases it might be. Rather, a person’s reference point determines what he or she classifies as organizational politics. For example, one experimental study showed that power-oriented behavior performed by a permanent, tenured employee is seen as more legitimate and less harsh than the same behavior performed by a temporary employee. Take a look at the following labels used to describe the same phenomenon. These suggest that politics, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. “Political” Label “Effective Management” Label 1. Blaming others vs. Fixing responsibility 2. “Kissing up” vs. Developing working relationships 3. Apple polishing vs. Demonstrating loyalty 4. Passing the buck vs. Delegating authority 5. Covering your rear vs. Documenting decisions 6. Creating conflict vs. Encouraging change and innovation 7. Forming coalitions vs. Facilitating teamwork 8. Whistle-blowing vs. Improving efficiency 9. Scheming vs. Planning ahead 10. Overachieving vs. Competent and capable 11. Ambitious vs. Career minded 12. Opportunistic vs. Astute 13. Cunning vs. Practical minded 14. Arrogant vs. Confident 15. Perfectionist vs. Attentive to detail Exhibit 13-2 Politics Is in the Eye of the Beholder Identify the causes and consequences of political behavior. Not all groups or organizations are equally political. In some organizations, for instance, politicking is overt and rampant, while in others politics plays a small role in influencing outcomes. Why this variation? Recent research and observation have identified a number of factors that appear to encourage political behavior. Some are individual characteristics, derived from the unique qualities of the people the organization employs; others are a result of the organization’s culture or internal environment. Exhibit 13-3 illustrates how both individual and organizational factors can increase political behavior and provide favorable outcomes (increased rewards and averted punishments) for both individuals and groups in the organization. Individual Factors At the individual level, researchers have identified certain personality traits, needs, and other factors likely to be related to political behavior. In terms of traits, we find that employees who are high self-monitors, possess an internal locus of control, and have a high need for power are more likely to engage in political behavior.56 The high self-monitor is more sensitive to social cues, exhibits higher levels of social conformity, and is more likely to be skilled in political behavior than the low selfmonitor. Because they believe they can control their environment, individuals with an internal locus of control are more prone to take a proactive stance and attempt to manipulate situations in their favor. Not surprisingly, the Machiavellian personality— characterized by the will to manipulate and the desire for power—is comfortable using politics as a means to further his or her self-interest. In addition, an individual’s investment in the organization, perceived alternatives, and expectations of success influence the degree to which he or she will pursue illegitimate means of political action.57 The more a person expects increased future benefits from the organization, the more that person has to lose if forced out and the less likely he or she is to use illegitimate means. The more alternative job opportunities an individual has—due to a favorable job market or the possession of scarce skills or knowledge, a prominent reputation, or influential contacts outside the organization—the more likely that individual is to risk illegitimate political actions. Finally, an individual with low expectations of success from illegitimate means is unlikely to use them. High expectations from such measures are most likely to be the province of both experienced and powerful individuals with polished political skills and inexperienced and naïve employees who misjudge their chances. Organizational Factors Although we acknowledge the role individual differences can play, the evidence more strongly suggests that certain situations and cultures promote politics. Specifically, when an organization’s resources are declining, when the existing pattern of resources is changing, and when there is opportunity for promotions, politicking is more likely to surface.58 When organizations downsize to improve efficiency, resources must be reduced, and people may engage in political actions to safeguard what they have. But any changes, especially those that imply significant reallocation of resources within the organization, are likely to stimulate conflict and increase politicking. The opportunity for promotions or advancement has consistently been found to encourage competition for a limited resource as people try to positively influence the decision outcome. Source: REUTERS/Robert Pratta. Cultures characterized by low trust, role ambiguity, unclear performance evaluation systems, zero-sum reward allocation practices, democratic decision making, high pressures for performance, and self-serving senior managers will also create breeding grounds for politicking.59 The less trust within the organization, the higher the level of political behavior and the more likely it will be of the illegitimate kind. So, high trust should suppress political behavior in general and inhibit illegitimate actions in particular. Role ambiguity means the prescribed employee behaviors are not clear. There are, therefore, fewer limits to the scope and functions of the employee’s political actions. Because political activities are defined as those not required as part of the employee’s formal role, the greater the role ambiguity, the more employees can engage in unnoticed political activity. Performance evaluation is far from a perfect science. The more organizations use subjective criteria in the appraisal, emphasize a single outcome measure, or allow significant time to pass between the time of an action and its appraisal, the greater the likelihood that an employee can get away with politicking. Subjective performance criteria create ambiguity. The use of a single outcome measure encourages individuals to do whatever is necessary to “look good” on that measure, but that often occurs at the cost of good performance on other important parts of the job that are not being appraised. The longer the time between an action and its appraisal, the more unlikely it is that the employee will be held accountable for political behaviors. Myth or Science? “Powerful Leaders Keep Their (Fr)Enemies Close” This statement appears to be true. We all have heard the term “frenemies” to describe friends who are also rivals or people who act like friends but secretly dislike each other. Some observers have argued that frenemies are increasing at work due to the “abundance of very close, intertwined relationships that bridge people’s professional and personal lives.” Keeping enemies close may be one reason Barack Obama appointed Hillary Clinton secretary of state after their bitter battle for the presidency. Or, in the business world, why one entrepreneur decided not to sue a former college classmate who, after working for her startup as a consultant, took that knowledge and started his own, competing company with the first company. Is it really wise to keep your enemies close? And, if so, why? New research suggests answers to these questions. This research conducted three experimental studies where individuals chose to work in the same room with the rival, even when instructed that they would probably perform better apart; to sit closer to rivals when working together; and to express an explicit preference to be closer to the rival. The researchers further found that the primary reason for the “being closer” effect was the desire to monitor the behavior and performance of the rival. The researchers also found that the “keeping enemies closer” effect was strong under certain conditions—when the individual was socially dominant, when the individual felt more competition from the team member, and when rewards and ability to serve as leader were dependent on their performance. These results suggest that the concept of frenemies is very real and that we choose to keep our rivals close so we can keep an eye on the competition they provide. Sources: M. Thompson, “How to Work with Your Startup Frenemies,” VentureBeat (December 22, 2012), downloaded May 9, 2013, from http://venturebeat.com/; andN. L. Mead and J. K. Maner, “On Keeping Your Enemies Close: Powerful Leaders Seek Proximity to Ingroup Power Threats,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102 (2012), pp. 576–591. The more an organization’s culture emphasizes the zero-sum or win–lose approach to reward allocations, the more employees will be motivated to engage in politicking. The zero-sum approach treats the reward “pie” as fixed, so any gain one person or group achieves has to come at the expense of another person or group. If $15,000 in annual raises is to be distributed among five employees, any employee who gets more than $3,000 takes money away from one or more of the others. Such a practice encourages making others look bad and increasing the visibility of what you do. Finally, when employees see the people on top engaging in political behavior, especially doing so successfully and being rewarded for it, a climate is created that supports politicking. Politicking by top management in a sense gives those lower in the organization permission to play politics by implying that such behavior is acceptable. How Do People Respond to Organizational Politics? Trish loves her job as a writer on a weekly television comedy series but hates the internal politics. “A couple of the writers here spend more time kissing up to the executive producer than doing any work. And our head writer clearly has his favorites. While they pay me a lot and I get to really use my creativity, I’m sick of having to be on alert for backstabbers and constantly having to self-promote my contributions. I’m tired of doing most of the work and getting little of the credit.” Are Trish’s comments typical of people who work in highly politicized workplaces? We all know friends or relatives who regularly complain about the politics at their job. But how do people in general react to organizational politics? Let’s look at the evidence. In our earlier discussion in this chapter of factors that contribute to political behavior, we focused on the favorable outcomes. But for most people—who have modest political skills or are unwilling to play the politics game—outcomes tend to be predominantly negative. Exhibit 13-4 summarizes the extensive research (mostly conducted in the United States) on the relationship between organizational politics and individual outcomes.60 Very strong evidence indicates, for instance, that perceptions of organizational politics are negatively related to job satisfaction.61 The perception of politics also tends to increase job anxiety and stress, possibly because people believe they may be losing ground to others who are active politickers or, conversely, because they feel additional pressures from entering into and competing in the political arena.62 Politics may lead to self-reported declines in employee performance, perhaps because employees perceive political environments to be unfair, which demotivates them.63 Not surprisingly, when politicking becomes too much to handle, it can lead employees to quit.64 When employees of two agencies in a study in Nigeria viewed their work environments as political, they reported higher levels of job distress and were less likely to help their co-workers. Thus, although developing countries such as Nigeria are perhaps more ambiguous and more political environments in which to work, the negative consequences of politics appear to be the same as in the United States.65 Researchers have also noted several interesting qualifiers. First, the politics– performance relationship appears to be moderated by an individual’s understanding of the “hows” and “whys” of organizational politics. “An individual who has a clear understanding of who is responsible for making decisions and why they were selected to be the decision makers would have a better understanding of how and why things happen the way they do than someone who does not understand the decision-making process in the organization.”66 When both politics and understanding are high, performance is likely to increase because the individual will see political actions as an opportunity. This is consistent with what you might expect among individuals with well-honed political skills. But when understanding is low, individuals are more likely to see politics as a threat, which can have a negative effect on job performance.67 Second, political behavior at work moderates the effects of ethical leadership.68 One study found that male employees were more responsive to ethical leadership and showed the most citizenship behavior when levels of both politics and ethical leadership were high. Women, on the other hand, appear most likely to engage in citizenship behavior when the environment is consistently ethical and apolitical. Third, when employees see politics as a threat, they often respond with defensive behaviors —reactive and protective behaviors to avoid action, blame, or change.69 (Exhibit 13-5 provides some examples of these behaviors.) And defensive behaviors are often associated with negative feelings toward the job and work environment. 70 In the short run, employees may find that defensiveness protects their self-interest, but in the long run it wears them down. People who consistently rely on defensiveness find that, eventually, it is the only way they know how to behave. At that point, they lose the trust and support of their peers, bosses, employees, and clients. defensive behaviors Reactive and protective behaviors to avoid action, blame, or change. Avoiding Action Overconforming. Strictly interpreting your responsibility by saying things like “The rules clearly state …” or “This is the way we’ve always done it.” Buck passing. Transferring responsibility for the execution of a task or decision to someone else. Playing dumb. Avoiding an unwanted task by falsely pleading ignorance or inability. Stretching. Prolonging a task so that one person appears to be occupied—for example, turning a two-week task into a 4-month job. Stalling. Appearing to be more or less supportive publicly while doing little or nothing privately. Avoiding Blame Buffing. This is a nice way to refer to “covering your rear.” It describes the practice of rigorously documenting activi ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

agneta
School: New York University

Attached.

Running head: POLITICAL JEFF BEZO

1

Political Jeff Bezo

Institution Affiliation
Date

POLITICAL JEFF BEZO

2

Jeff Bezo, the current CEO of Amazon successfully put the organization among the
leading forty online businesses. Jeff was able to grow the organization and give it a strong
foundation while growing himself as an individual. This was achieved through the application of
different skills and techniques (Wight & Bull, 2004). For one, the CEO was able to build a
culture that was quite competitive as it was cost-conscious among others. Recently, Jeff was able
to take his interest beyond Amazon and join the political arena. He was a supporter of the gay
marriages discussion of 2012 and he actually donated 2.5 million dollars to show his support for
the same.
Jeff Bezo ...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Thank you! Reasonably priced given the quality not just of the tutors but the moderators too. They were helpful and accommodating given my needs.

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors