Using information and e-mail for political gain; e-mail and workplace politics have merged for a common, if unintended, purpose: e-politics, the use of information and electronic communication to further political purposes. (CareerPath).

At the Core

This article:

* Defines the term "e-politics"

* Explains how e-mail can be used in the workplace for political gain

For most organizations, e-mail is already the communication channel of choice for processing work-related messages. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, 80 percent of all organizations use e-mail for business communication. Moreover, the use of electronic communication will continue to increase as the cost of, and resistance to, new communication technologies decline.

Studies show that e-mail is used primarily to replace time-consuming and expensive conventional workplace communication methods. But like many forms of technology, the potential for e-mail abuse coexists alongside its numerous advantages. In one study, a significant majority of workers--86 percent--reported using the company e-mail system for a variety of personal reasons, including the transmittal of personal messages, jokes, electronic greeting cards, pornography, and games. Few workers can honestly say they have never used their employer's e-mail system to send a personal message or the joke-of-the-day.

Aside from the purely personal use of the company's communication technology, there is another form of e-mail transgression--not official, yet not unofficial--that assumes a quasi-sanctioned form of electronic communication. It's an interesting mix of Machiavelli and message: the use of e-mail to further purely political and self-serving goals. This new combination of organizational politics and electronic media can be called e-politics. This marriage of communications technology and political behavior in the workplace may lead to unforeseen and dysfunctional results as people increasingly use e-mail for political gain within their organization.

E-mail as an Enabler for Organizational Politics

Communication is a process requiring senders to make choices, each of which will create consequences affecting how that message will be interpreted. According to the authors of "The Selection of Communication Media as an Executive Skill" one of the most significant choices is channel selection. When choosing e-mail as the channel, all employee may sincerely believe that expediency and efficacy are the primary criteria driving that choice. However, self-serving motives and manipulative intent may also come into play.

As a unique communication channel, e-mail, unlike face-to-face, telephone, and written memo, possesses properties and characteristics that facilitate and enhance both the creation and dissemination of self-serving messages in organizations. Thus, even though an employee may engage in organizational politics face-to-face, over the phone, or in a written note, e-mail provides the sender with opportunities and channel enhancements not found in the other three channels.

And, e-mail allows the employee to engage in political behavior with less effort, energy, and time than would be required through other channels.

E-mail is not just an "electronic tether" between sender and receiver. An e-mail message might be a complex form of communication that includes multiple recipients and attachments. E-mail features that are both important and powerful include:

* Listservs (a.k.a. distribution lists): Electronic mailing lists in which messages are sent to multiple recipients enable e-mail senders to reach a wide audience such as subordinates, work groups and teams, peers, departments, and divisions--even the entire organization--with a single click of the mouse. Those who seek to strengthen their political bases will find listservs particularly valuable, as it enables communication with large numbers of people without the need for a physical presence. Moreover, by simply manipulating electronic phone books, unique networks can be created for ad hoc, self-serving purposes.

* Attachments: A wide variety of attachments may be included with e-mail: for example, documents or files such as memos, letters, reports, photos, and video clips. To curry favor and strengthen their political stock, e-mail senders can include one or more attachments to support their causes. In addition, numerous attachments may be included with an e-mail in an attempt to create information overload--a political tactic designed to confuse receivers by obscuring important issues with irrelevant facts and data.

* Impersonal nature: The electronic, impersonal nature of e-mail reduces the considerable discomfort that accompanies a personal confrontation. Those who wish to attack others can do so without the stress and anxiety of doing so in a face-to-face altercation. An aggressor need only create the mean-spirited message and hit the "send" button; communications technology makes such organizational dirty work much easier than a physical one-on-one encounter.

* Clandestine communications: E-mail systems contain features that make it possible to relay messages surreptitiously and thereby permit senders to engage in a unique form of stealth political behavior. Notably, e-mail messages may be forwarded to others without the original sender's knowledge, a practice that may be politically advantageous but one that also raises serious ethical issues. The "forward" e-mail feature severely jeopardizes the guarantee of confidentiality of personal communication. Similarly, "blind" electronic copies may be sent, with a receiver believing that he or she is the only recipient of a message when, in fact, others have also received the message.

An Exploratory Study

To explore the relationship between e-mail and organizational politics, the authors collected data from 244 employees representing a wide variety of companies and industries. The purpose of the study was to examine how people use various methods of communication (written communications (excluding e-mail), face-to-face, telephone, and e-mail) to further workplace political purposes. The study was based on the typology of organizational politics developed by Robert W. Allen, et al., which identified eight types of political and self-serving behavior, as shown below.

Statistical data was collected on how the various types of political behavior were most commonly exchanged (face-to-face, letter or memo, telephone, or e-mail), along with information regarding the direction of political communication (that is, were political messages received primarily from peers, subordinates, or bosses?).

* E-mail is the most commonly used form of communication channel for purely work-related messages (34 percent), closely followed by face-to-face communication (30 percent). Third in usage was the telephone (23 percent). The memo or letter was a distant fourth (14 percent).

* By far, face-to-face channels were those used most often to convey political messages (57 percent), although e-mail was the channel of second choice (19 percent). Third and fourth, respectively, were telephone (16 percent), and memo or letter (8 percent).

* Regarding political purposes, survey participants reported that e-mail was most commonly used for Allen's category of "Ingratiation" followed closely by "Developing a Base of Support" and "Developing Allies/ Coalitions." "Using Information as a Political Tool" was perceived as the least-common form of political behavior to be communicated via e-mail.

In addition to providing quantitative data, respondents were asked to provide qualitative data. They were asked, for example, to provide a dramatic example of how a specific e-mail they had recently received was used to further political purposes. The following are examples of how e-mail can capture the power and potential of e-politics. These examples reflect both the content (what was said) and process (how the e-mail system tools were used to say it) dimensions of the communicative act:

1. My supervisor used e-mail to praise one of my team members, making him sound like a savior for accomplishing a mundane task which fell into the range of his everyday responsibilities. The member praised was the nephew of a director. The message went to several cross-functional teams and their managers. The format was typical of our corporate culture's praise practices.

In this example, the employee's discontent over the offensive use of e-mail to publicly heap undeserved praise upon a co-worker shows that electronic communication serves multiple "work-related" purposes in organizational settings. In the above example, the sender used new technology to engage in an old-fashioned form of politicking: ingratiation for self-serving purposes. In bygone days of organizational communication before e-mail, the sender would have been required to engage in the cumbersome and time-consuming process of either calling a meeting for person-to-person politicking or having letters processed and mailed to the team members. With e-mail, however, ingratiation is efficiently accomplished with a few mouse clicks.

2. A co-worker wrote a detailed schedule of her daily work tasks, starting from when she first hit the door at the office until she went off call that evening. She e-mailed the schedule not only to her supervisor but several other co-workers, to show us all how hard she works and her dedication to the job. I was amazed at the important things she forgot to state, such as the two-hour lunch we all took for my birthday!

This example is reflective of the political behavior, "Using Information as a Political Tool," as the employee in question overloads the e-mail recipients with irrelevant details of her work schedule. There's also a degree of "Creating a Favorable Image" political behavior embedded in the employee's ruse, as she feels the publication of her work schedule will result in positive sentiments from co-workers. Would the sender have taken the time and effort to send duplicate copies of this same message face-to-face, over the phone, or in a memo? Probably not.

3. A co-worker e-mailed my entire banking [workplace] network, including other branches, telling everyone it was our boss's birthday and that we should call her and wish her happy birthday. Because a new position has opened up, she has been buttering up the boss.

The above example is clearly "Ingratiation" and a wonderful example of how electronic distribution lists can be used for self-serving purposes.

4. My supervisor sent a message reprimanding the department and copied all of upper management just to show that she was made aware of [a] problem and was correcting it. She was aware of the problem before and was simply trying to protect herself.

This is a good example of using e-mail to "Attack or Blame Others." Also, by suggesting that she is correcting the problem, the sender also attempts to "Create a Favorable Image." Moreover, as this example demonstrates, some incidents reported by survey respondents do not neatly fit into only one of Allen's political behavior types but instead contain multiple forms of political behavior, thus reflecting the complexity of workplace communications and political motives.

5. I received a copy of an e-mail message sent from our supervisor to the district vice president. The nature of the e-mail was about the great progress in our department and how he was personally responsible for initiating the new ideas that were responsible for our success. We have eight people in the department, and each person contributed significantly. So much for the "team player" concept!

This is an excellent example of taking personal credit for a team effort and reflects both "Ingratiation" and "Creating a Favorable Image." Because the supervisor withheld information about the team's contribution, he was also "Using Information as a Political Tool."

6. A blasting e-mail was sent to the entire firm chastising an employee for sexist language in an e-mail he had sent previously.

The sender of the reprimanding e-mail succumbed to the power of e-mail to reduce inhibitions. A reprimand that might have been better given privately and face-to-face was instead broadcast publicly.

6. Microsoft Outlook was used to "invite" attendees while potential attendees did not have access to e-mail (i.e., calling a meeting of which potential attendees may be unaware for so long a time that they cannot attend, thereby utilizing e-mail as an on-the-brink technology where the mode of communication does not fit the situation, and thus the sender "invited" people who never received the invitation).

This is a case of how communication technology may be employed to form coalitions and develop a base of support. This example is manipulative is best, Machiavellian at worst.

Implications for Management

Using e-mail to help further political goals and self-serving purposes and represents a relatively new--but palpable--characteristic of an organization's culture and communications technology.

Unfortunately, little attention has been given to the fact that the meshing of communications technology and political behavior may lead to unforeseen and dysfunctional results. For example, the efficiency with which e-mail perpetuates political behavior may result in morale problems and interpersonal conflicts that might not otherwise exist. While instinct suggests a positive answer, a conclusive answer remains to be proved.

Preliminary research suggests that the use of e-mail for political purposes seems frequent enough that management should address a number of issues related to political behavior and electronic communication, including:

* Should e-mail policies and directives state that "politics" should be avoided when using electronic communication? While some might suggest that this approach might lead to a healthier organization climate, others may see problems with this directive. First, organizational realists might suggest that politics are firmly embedded in any social structure and impossible to control or remove. Second, advocates of organizational power grabbing--perhaps a larger percentage of employees than one might suspect--will likely applaud the use of e-mail or any form of technology that makes it easier to collect and wield power. The third problem lies with definition. What exactly constitutes a political message? Consider the following:

   The president of our company planned a trip to a foreign company to do
   mission work and stated [in his e-mail to all employees] that he would be
   donating many hours of his labor and own money to the cause. He said that
   he was fortunate to be able to do this, and he encouraged employees to
   donate money and other goods for the less lucky.

While some may view this message as a classic example of "Creating a Favorable Image," others might suggest that this note is simply a benign and caring way to keep employees informed about the plans of top management and to solicit voluntary donations for a good cause. Some e-mail messages, then, may leave little room for doubt as to their ultimate purpose, but the goal of others is subject to debate.

If the content of the message is open to interpretation, the process of its transmission is an empirical fact. Specifically, attachments, listservs, copies, blind copies, and forwarded messages enable the political actor to achieve his goals. Thus, rather than impose restrictions on filtering organizational politics--restrictions likely to go unheeded--organizations could support the positive expediency of e-mail while minimizing its potential dark side. For example, through edict, training, and sanctions, the following communication guidelines could be established:

1. Send attachments only when they are necessary to help the receiver. Seek to express, not impress.

2. If an attachment is necessary, be wary of overloading the receiver.

3. Before you forward an e-mail without permission of its source, question the impact your forwarding it will have on that source.

4. Before you send copies and blind copies, make sure that your intent is to achieve team and/or organizational goals.

5. Simply because you can send an e-mail to everyone in the organization does not mean you should. Create ad-hoc communication networks on a need-to-know basis.

Thus, rather than monitoring e-mail content exclusively, organizations should consider monitoring the process dimension: how e-mail is being used. Periodic surveys of employees could help to focus on the dark side of e-mail and provide an impetus for recommendations. Sample items on such a survey might include the following:

* What percentage of the attachments you receive via e-mails actually help you perform your job?

* Do you believe that your inclusion as a recipient of an e-mail was necessary to achieve both work unit and/or organizational goals?

* Should employers monitor e-mail messages in order to control various forms of content (namely, political content) of the message? Of course, many employers already monitor e-mail and Internet usage, but they do so primarily to eliminate the use of e-mail and Internet for personal purpose. According to the American Management Association, about 45 percent of American companies monitor employee electronic communications, including e-mail, voice mail, and Internet use. While the prospect of having e-mail messages reviewed for "politics" may minimize its political content, the potential cries of "Big Brother" and the resulting employee backlash may offset any potential advantages of doing so.

* Should employees be encouraged to confront those who send e-mail messages that are perceived to contain clearly inappropriate, abusive, and non-factual political messages? A healthy organization climate is one in which employees are encouraged to tactfully approach one another to discuss any form of interpersonal problem, including inappropriate e-mail messages. While it may be difficult for many employees to openly confront others about their behavior, certain communications issues, including the use of e-mail, could be addressed anonymously (e.g., through the use of 360-degree feedback surveys).

The introduction of electronic communication has created a new dimension in political behavior. With e-mail, it's no longer "politics as usual"; it's politics potentially more powerful, pervasive, and invasive than politics using conventional communication channels. Because e-politics has the capability to have a significant impact on the organization culture, its consequences cannot be ignored. While e-politics may be seen as a useful tool by some and a media nemesis by others, one fact is for sure: e-politics is here to stay.

A Typology of Organizational Political Behavior

1. Attacking or Blaming Others

2. Using Information as a Political Tool

3. Creating and Maintaining a Favorable Image

4. Developing a Base of Support

5. Ingratiating: Praising Others

6. Developing Power Coalitions

7. Associating With Influential Persons

8. Creating Obligations and Reciprocity

References

2001 AMA Survey: Workplace Monitoring and Surveillance. New York: American Management Association, 2001.

Adams, Arthur J., Lyle Sussman, Frank E. Kuzmits, and Louis E. Raho. "Political Messages in Organizations: Channels and Directions." Decision Sciences Institute Meeting, San Francisco, 2001.

Allen, Robert W., Daniel L. Madison, Lyman W. Porter, Patricia A. Renwick, and Bronston T. Mayes. "Organizational Politics: Tactics and Characteristics of its Actors." California Management Review, Fall 1979.

Bliss, Richard. "Establishing E-Rules Can Protect Your Company From E-mail Abuse." Compaq Enterprise, April 2000.

Gray, Chris. "End E-mail Chaos: An Introduction to E-mail Data Management." Computer Technology Review, 2001.

Greco, Joan. "Privacy: Whose Right Is It Anyhow?" The Journal of Business Strategy, 2001.

Lengel, Robert H. and Richard L. Daft. "The Selection of Communication Media as an Executive Skill." Academy of Management Executive, 2, 1988.

Society for Human Resource Management. "E-mail Becoming a Workplace Norm, But Policies Lag Behind." February 1996 press release.

Yaukey, John. "More Companies Keep an Eye on Company E-mail." The Detroit News, 6 July 2000.

Frank Kuzmits, Lyle Sussman, Art Adams, and Louis Raho are professors in the Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Louisville, Kentucky. They may be reached at [e-mail].