BUSS5080 · Succeeding In The Accounting Profession
Organisational Politics, Influence & Conflict
Week 8 of BUSS5080 reframes organisational politics as a neutral, learnable career skill rather than a dirty word. Following Pfeffer's Power Play, power is the ability to influence, politics is acquiring and applying that power, and an organisation becomes political when it distributes scarce resources by discretion (manager judgment) rather than by prescribed, objective criteria. The chapter then hands you the practical toolkit: Cialdini's six principles of social influence, how to manage up (Gabarro & Kotter), how to win over people who disagree (the Daryl Davis case), and how to handle conflict with the five Thomas-Kilmann styles and Rapoport's rules. It is heavily tested in the closed-book multiple-choice exam, which loves to hand you a one-line message and ask you to tag the influence principle it uses.
What this chapter covers
- 011. Power, politics & organisational politics (Pfeffer) — ability to influence / acquiring power / applying influence for org or personal goals
- 022. Politics is neutral — an unavoidable, learnable career skill, not inherently unethical
- 033. What makes an org political — prescribed (objective criteria = less political) vs discretionary (judgment = more political) distribution
- 044. Political skill is a multiplier (Treadway et al.) — high performers who are also politically skilled pull ahead; competence alone under-delivers
- 055. Cialdini's six principles — reciprocity, scarcity, authority, consistency/commitment, liking, consensus (social proof)
- 066. Managing up (Gabarro & Kotter) — treat the boss relationship as a mutual dependence you build deliberately
- 077. Influencing opponents (Daryl Davis) — relationship, curiosity and listening beat argument-winning
- 088. Managing conflict — the five Thomas-Kilmann styles (assertiveness × cooperativeness) + Rapoport's rules (steel-man → agree → credit → rebut)
Tag the Cialdini influence principle
- +1Find the trigger phrase: '92% of teams have already switched' points to what many similar peers are doing to guide behaviour under uncertainty — that is consensus / social proof.
- +1Eliminate the look-alikes: no limited availability (so not Scarcity), no expert credential cited (not Authority), no prior gift creating an obligation (not Reciprocity). Answer: B.
Key terms
- Power
- The ability to influence others (Pfeffer). It comes not only from formal title but from control of resources, information, allies and relationships — so power can be built, not just granted.
- Organisational politics
- Acquiring and applying influence over organisational members to achieve organisational OR personal goals. The unit frames it as a neutral, unavoidable and learnable feature of working life, not something inherently unethical.
- Prescribed vs discretionary distribution
- How scarce resources are allocated. Prescribed = clear, objective, knowable-in-advance criteria, so the rule decides (less political). Discretionary = no clear criteria, so manager judgment and influence decide (more political).
- Political skill (Treadway et al.)
- The ability to read the social landscape, build genuine relationships and coalitions, and influence effectively. It multiplies performance: high performers who are also politically skilled gain resources and impact that equally-strong but influence-poor peers do not.
- Cialdini's six principles
- Reciprocity (repay what you receive), Scarcity (want what is less available), Authority (follow credible experts), Consistency/commitment (honour your own prior promises), Liking (say yes to those you like), Consensus/social proof (follow similar others under uncertainty).
- Managing up (Gabarro & Kotter)
- Deliberately building a productive relationship with your boss, treated as a mutual dependence between two fallible people — understand the boss's goals, pressures and style, understand your own, and build mutual expectations, dependability and honesty.
- Thomas-Kilmann styles
- Five conflict-handling modes plotted on assertiveness (own concerns) × cooperativeness (the other's): Competing (high/low), Collaborating (high/high), Compromising (mid/mid), Avoiding (low/low) and Accommodating (low/high). All are legitimate; skill is fit to situation.
- Rapoport's rules
- A discipline for critiquing well (via Dennett): (1) re-express the other's view so fairly they thank you, (2) list points of agreement, (3) say what you learned, and only THEN (4) rebut. You may voice criticism only after steel-manning the other side.
Organisational Politics, Influence & Conflict FAQ
Is 'playing politics' unethical?
No — that is a tested misconception. BUSS5080 follows Pfeffer in framing organisational politics as a neutral, unavoidable reality of working with people, and skill in it as a career asset. Politics is simply acquiring and applying influence to get organisational or personal goals done; it becomes unethical only if the tactics themselves are. Treating it as always dirty, or assuming good work will speak for itself, is what the exam marks as wrong.
What actually makes an organisation 'political'?
How it distributes scarce resources. If bonuses, promotions and information are handed out by clear, objective, knowable-in-advance criteria (prescribed distribution), the rule decides and the place is LESS political. If they depend on manager judgment with no clear criteria (discretionary distribution), influence decides and the place is MORE political. The classic exam trap reverses this — remember discretionary → more political, prescribed → less.
How do I answer a Cialdini 'which principle' MCQ quickly?
Tag by the trigger phrase, then rule out the look-alike. 'Others like you are doing it' = consensus; 'only a few left / you'll miss out' = scarcity; 'as a CPA with 20 years…' = authority; 'you already agreed to X' = consistency; 'I did you a favour' = reciprocity; 'we have a lot in common' = liking. The two most-confused pairs are consensus (follow others) vs consistency (honour your own promise), and authority (expertise) vs liking (rapport).
What is the point of the Daryl Davis story?
It is the unit's illustration that you influence people who deeply disagree with you through relationship, curiosity and listening — not by winning the argument. Davis, a Black musician, befriended and changed the minds of Ku Klux Klan members by staying in genuine dialogue. In the exam, any option saying he 'won the debate' or 'proved them wrong' misreads the case: the mechanism is relationship + listening, not a superior counter-argument.
How is conflict tested?
Two frameworks. First, the five Thomas-Kilmann styles on assertiveness × cooperativeness — Competing (high/low), Collaborating (high/high), Compromising (mid/mid), Avoiding (low/low), Accommodating (low/high); all are legitimate and the skill is choosing the fit. Don't confuse Compromising (a quick mid/mid split) with Collaborating (a high/high win-win). Second, Rapoport's rules for critique: you may rebut only after fairly restating the other's view, noting agreement and crediting what you learned.
Isn't being good at my job enough?
No — Treadway and colleagues find that high performers who are ALSO politically skilled build ties to colleagues who control key resources, manage stress and job demands better, and convert the same work into more organisational impact, while equally-strong performers without influence skill do not. Political skill is a multiplier on competence, not a substitute for it: you also have to get your work seen, resourced and adopted.
Exam move
Treat Week 8 as high-yield MCQ territory built on a few crisp discriminations. Lock the Pfeffer definitions (power = ability to influence; organisational politics = applying influence for org or personal goals) and the reframe that politics is neutral and learnable. Drill the single most-reversed fact until automatic: discretionary distribution → MORE political, prescribed criteria → LESS political. Memorise Cialdini's six and — more importantly — practise TAGGING one-line messages to a principle by its trigger phrase, deliberately pairing each with its look-alike (consensus vs consistency, authority vs liking) so the distractors can't catch you. For the applied short-answer, rehearse the combined move: build informal power the Pfeffer way (coalitions, resources, information) and win opponents the Daryl Davis way (relationship + listening), then layer in a fitting Cialdini lever. Finally, be able to place all five Thomas-Kilmann styles on the assertiveness × cooperativeness grid and recite Rapoport's order — rebut last.
