EDP 810 Module 4 The Political Frame Example

Power Is Not a Dirty Word: The Politics of a Case Record Rollout

Student Name

Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University

EDP 810: The Psychology of Leadership

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Power Is Not a Dirty Word: The Politics of a Case Record Rollout

The composite Des Moines youth agency's case record system was chosen by its data team and finance director to meet funders' reporting demands. The four casework supervisors were not consulted. Joan, the most senior, with twenty years at the agency, has told her team that the system is "for the funders, not the kids," and her team's completion rate is the lowest. Daniela, the executive director, has responded by emphasizing deadlines and asking the board chair to stress the system's importance at an all-staff meeting. The agency and its people are composites written for teaching. This paper analyzes the dispute through the political frame.

The Political Frame

Bolman and Deal's political frame assumes that organizations are coalitions of individuals and groups with enduring differences in values, beliefs, interests and perceptions of reality; that the most important decisions involve allocating scarce resources; that these differences and scarcity make conflict central and power the most important resource; and that goals and decisions emerge from bargaining and negotiation among stakeholders. From this view, the rollout dispute is not a breakdown but a normal contest over resources, influence and priorities.

Why Power Matters

Pfeffer (1992) argued that many managers avoid thinking about power, seeing it as distasteful, and that this leaves them unable to accomplish change. He proposed a set of steps: decide what you are trying to accomplish; diagnose patterns of dependence and interdependence, asking which people are influential and important to achieving the goal; work out their points of view and how they are likely to feel about what you are trying to do; identify their sources of power; identify your own sources of power; and choose strategies and tactics for using power that fit the situation. Power, in this view, is the capacity to get things done, and leaders need it.

Mapping the Stakeholders

The Tactics in Play

Kipnis et al. (1980) asked employees to describe how they got their way with others at work and identified a set of influence tactics: assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality, sanctions, exchange of benefits, upward appeals, blocking and coalitions. The rollout dispute already shows several. Daniela has relied on assertiveness, through deadlines, and an upward appeal, by bringing in the board chair. The data team has used rationality, citing funder requirements. Joan has built a coalition among caseworkers and, in effect, blocked adoption on her team. Assertiveness and upward appeals have hardened the supervisors' stance; the coalition on the other side is growing.

Daniela's Political Skill

The political skill inventory of Ferris et al. (2005) rates four things: how accurately a person reads others and situations, how persuasively and unobtrusively they influence, how well they build and draw on networks and how far others see them as genuine. Daniela is strong in apparent sincerity; staff trust her intentions. She is weaker in social astuteness, having missed the supervisors' exclusion until it became a conflict, and her network is strongest with the board and finance, weakest with the supervisors. The diagnosis suggests where she needs to act and where she may need allies.

An Influence Plan

The plan follows Pfeffer's steps. Daniela's goal is a system that caseworkers use and that meets funders' needs. Joan is the most important person to influence because of her credibility. Daniela will meet with her privately, acknowledging that the supervisors should have been consulted and asking what a system that served youth would look like. She will offer Joan a co-leadership role in the forms redesign, an exchange that gives Joan real influence over what she cares about. She will bring the other supervisors into the redesign team, building a broader coalition. She will ask Raj to present the redesign to the board alongside Joan, showing that the data team and casework are aligned. And she will stop relying on deadlines and upward appeals, which have produced resistance.

Ethics of Power

Using power raises ethical questions. Bolman and Deal suggest tests: whether the outcome is good for those affected, whether the means respect people's dignity and whether the process would stand scrutiny if made public. Daniela's plan passes these if she treats the redesign as genuine rather than as a maneuver to win Joan over; offering a role without real influence would be manipulation. She commits to accepting changes the redesign team proposes, within funders' requirements.

How the Conflict Escalated

The dispute grew through a series of moves and countermoves. When Daniela set deadlines, Joan read them as confirmation that the system was about control. When the board chair spoke at the all-staff meeting, the supervisors read it as Daniela going over their heads. Each assertive move gave Joan's coalition more reason to hold together. Kipnis et al. (1980) found that people chose tactics partly according to the resistance they expected; Daniela's choices assumed resistance and helped produce it. The influence plan reverses the pattern by starting with acknowledgment and exchange.

Anticipating Responses

Pfeffer (1992) urged leaders to anticipate how each stakeholder will react. Raj may see Joan's new role as a threat to the data team's influence, so Daniela will meet him first, framing the redesign as a way to make the data team's work succeed. The finance director will want assurance that funder requirements are protected; the redesign team's brief will state them as fixed. Joan may suspect the offer is a tactic; Daniela will give the redesign team real decisions from the start.

Conclusion

Pfeffer's argument and steps show why Daniela must understand and use power, Kipnis and colleagues' tactics explain why assertiveness and upward appeals hardened opposition and Ferris and colleagues' dimensions locate her political strengths and gaps. A coalition built around a redesign that Joan co-leads uses power ethically to make the system serve both funders and caseworkers.

References

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

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440-452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.440

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding power in organizations. California Management Review, 34(2), 29-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166692