BUS272 TB

294 Part 3 Interacting Effectively
organizational citizenship behaviour when levels of both politics and ethical leadership
were high. Women, on the other hand, appear most likely to engage in organizational
citizenship behaviour when the environment is consistently ethical and apolitical.
Types of Political Activity
People engage in a variety of political activities in organizations, including the
following: 87
• Attacking or blaming others. Used when trying to avoid responsibility for failure.
• Using information. Withholding or distorting information, particularly to hide
negative information.
• Managing impressions. Bringing positive attention to oneself or taking credit for
positive accomplishments of others.
• Building support for ideas. Making sure that others will support one’s ideas
before they are presented.
• Praising others. Making important people feel good.
• Building coalitions. Joining with other people to create a powerful group.
• Associating with influential people. Building support networks.
• Creating obligations. Doing favours for others so
they will owe you favours later.
Individuals use these political activities for different
purposes. Some of these activities (such as attacking or
blaming others) are more likely to be used to defend one’s
position, while other activities (such as building support
for ideas and managing impressions) are meant to enhance
one’s image. Evidence suggests that keeping your enemies
close to you makes some sense politically, as Focus on
Research indicates.
Why do some
people seem to
engage in politics
more than
others?
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
Powerful Leaders Keep
Their (Fr)Enemies Close
Is it really wise to keep your enemies close? We have all
heard the term “frenemies” used to describe friends who are
also rivals or people who act like friends but secretly dislike
each other. 88 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.”
Recent research based on three experimental studies found that a dominant leader
chose to work in the same room with a rival ingroup member, even when instructed that
they would probably perform better apart; to sit closer to the rival when working together;
and to express an explicit preference to be closer to the rival. The primary reason dominant
leaders wanted to be closer to rivals was to monitor the rivals’ behaviour and performance
and protect their power.
The research also found that the “keeping enemies closer” effect was strong under
certain conditions—when a rival was socially dominant, when a dominant leader felt
competition from the rival, and when the rewards and ability to serve as a dominant leader
were dependent on the rival’s 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.