Dealing with Credit Appropriation

Credit appropriation is an unethical, devious political tactic in which the appropriator claims credit for work actually done by someone else, the target. Typically, targets feel unable to defend themselves, because their appropriators are more powerful politically, or are protected by someone more powerful than the target.

Here's an example. Let's suppose that Tatum (T = Target) is the target of Alex (A = Appropriator), the credit appropriator. When tasked with difficult problems, Alex's pattern is to seek information and ideas from Tatum. He then develops them or disguises them slightly if necessary and submits them as his own, without crediting Tatum. Tatum has confronted Alex repeatedly. She has pointed out that what he has done is unethical. At first, Alex responded that Tatum's group is a company resource, and she should just buckle down and do her job, and let him do his. He no longer responds to her objections, but he does keep requesting information and failing to credit her.

Despite feeling helpless to stop Alex or to get credit for her contributions, Tatum is not helpless. Here are three possible tactics Tatum could use, all based on issuing "whitepapers."

Speedwriting whitepapers

When Tatum receives a request for information from Alex, Tatum issues a whitepaper in response. She places it on her group's file server, and announces its general availability for anyone who wants it. General availability makes it difficult for Alex to claim its content as his own work. If she feels brave, Tatum includes in the announcement that it was written in response to a request from Alex.

This tactic Credit appropriation within
organizations is a form
of social piracyhas some limitations. First, if Tatum and Alex work in a security-oriented environment, she might be unable to distribute materials beyond her own security perimeter. In some such cases, announcements about general availability of the material would reach very few people, possibly no one other than Alex. Even so, there would at least be a record of the announcement.

Second, Tatum might be pressed for time. Even a one-page whitepaper takes time to write. And after a couple of these incidents, Alex might figure out what's happening. He might then try to outwit Tatum by asking for information more frequently than Tatum can generate whitepapers. He can up his game by asking for information he doesn't need, just to keep Tatum so busy that she can't keep responding with generally available whitepapers.

Stockpiling whitepapers

If Alex asks Tatum for information frequently enough, and if Tatum wants to keep using this tactic, she must find a way to generate whitepapers more rapidly. One approach involves creating an inventory of whitepapers in advance of Alex's requests, based on guesses of topics Alex might request. Even if she misses in her guess, she might be close enough to save some time when Alex does make his requests. And if she has insight about topics that might become relevant to Alex's work, her guesses can be more relevant.

Relaying flawed whitepapers

If Tatum can't find a way to become known as a reliable resource independent of Alex, it's necessary to deter Alex from asking her for information. One way to do that is to include misinformation along with the information she delivers to Alex, but she must do it in a way that insulates her from any recriminations when Alex encounters trouble.

For example, in response to a request from Alex, she can say, "I can't write that up right now, but I do have a document I got from Ed before he retired. It might be helpful, so I'll send it along. No guarantees though." In this way, she can send a (possibly outdated) piece that might satisfy Alex. If it does contain misinformation or outdated information, the source wasn't Tatum, but Ed, who has left the organization.

Another approach for Tatum is to create a whitepaper that contains misinformation of a special kind — it's wrong now, but at one time it was correct. She includes a watermark that clearly says "Possibly Obsolete." Then she can offer that to Alex, saying, "I can't write that up right now, but I do have a write-up from last year that might help, so I'm sending it along. No guarantees though." She's filling his request in a way that affords her some protection, while including a trap for Alex.

These tactics might not satisfy Alex. He might demand "more cooperation" from Tatum. But denying him anything at all is even riskier. By giving him something Tatum can later claim that she cooperated as best she could given the other demands on her time.

Because intentionally passing along unverified information or information known to be incorrect is questionable ethically, these tactics aren't for everyone and do carry some risk. When dealing with unethical colleagues, and straightforward approaches haven't elicited more ethical and respectful behavior, one must choose between continuing to be exploited, and reluctantly adopting tactics that one regards askance. That can be a difficult choice.

Announcing her materials as they become available can be advantageous to Tatum's own career. She might become known as a reliable resource within the organization. If that happens, Alex will need to find a new target, because his work will become recognized as derivative of Tatum's.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Devious Political Tactics:

Devious Political Tactics: The Three-Legged Race

The Three-Legged Race is a tactic that some managers use to avoid giving one person new authority. Some of the more cynical among us use it to sabotage projects or even careers. How can you survive a three-legged race?

The Perils of Novel Argument

When people use novel or sophisticated arguments to influence others, the people they're trying to influence are sometimes subject to cognitive biases triggered by the nature of the argument. This puts them at a disadvantage relative to the influencer. How does this happen?

Suppressing Dissent: II

Disagreeing with the majority in a meeting, or in some cases, merely disagreeing with the Leader, can lead to isolation and other personal difficulties. Here is Part II of a set of tactics used by Leaders who choose not to tolerate differences of opinion, emphasizing the meeting context.

Cultural Indicators of Political Risk

Because of fire risk, hiking in dry forests during dry seasons can be dangerous. In the forest, we stay safe from fire if we attend to the indicators of fire risk. In the workplace, do you know the indicators of political risk?

Covert Inter-Team Noncooperation

Occasionally teams find that they must cooperate with another team despite strong misgivings. Because noncooperation isn't an option, they find covert ways to avoid cooperating. Here's a little catalog of techniques of Covert Inter-Team Noncooperation.

See also Devious Political Tactics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming March 29: Time Slot Recycling: The Risks

When we can't begin a meeting because some people haven't arrived, we sometimes cancel the meeting and hold a different one, with the people who are in attendance. It might seem like a good way to avoid wasting time, but there are risks. Available here and by RSS on March 29.

And on April 5: The Fallacy of Division

Errors of reasoning are pervasive in everyday thought in most organizations. One of the more common errors is called the Fallacy of Division, in which we assume that attributes of a class apply to all members of that class. It leads to ridiculous results. Available here and by RSS on April 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info