Political Behavior in Most Organizations - Essay Example

Political behavior in most organizations is the norm rather than a variant. Power implies dependence while politics implies manipulation. Politics may be an illegitimate system but it is used most often to attain legitimate ends. Power and politics are intricately bound together. If power is the resource, politics is the act used to develop the resource. Supervisor support and political coaching becomes essential for new entrants to avoid absenteeism and staff turnover. Change and uncertainty heighten the intensity of political behavior. Perception of politics can lead to negative connotation but the system of politics is essential to correct certain deficiencies and dysfunctions. Power games are an integral part of an organization and the formal process of planning, coordination and control do not suffice. Management For any organization to work, a number of stakeholders have to pool their efforts. Terry & Franklin (1994) define management as ‘a distinct process consisting of activities of planning, organizing, actuating and controlling performed to determine and accomplish stated objectives with the use of human beings and other resources’. Similarly Worthington and Cumberpatch (2006) defined management as; ‘The roles fulfilled by individuals who manage the organization’ and ‘A process which enables an organization to achieve its objectives’. These definitions suggest that management involves a coordinated approach of all such business operations. It has often been argued that organizational politics leads to dysfunctional outcomes. This paper will critically evaluate that ‘management should be based on formal processes of planning, coordination and control and should not involve power and politics.’ Mullins (2005) contends that organizations comprise of ‘people, objectives, structures’ and ‘management’. Internal and external factors affect the functioning of an organization. While an organization may have control over internal factors like finances, human resources, management strategies, it may not have control over external factors like the legal and political scene, competition, suppliers, terms and conditions from financial institutions, or newer technological innovations. Organizations and their management are not supposed to indulge in politics and the power-game but the management is at the same time required to carry the organization through the ups and downs of the times. Butcher & Clarke (2003) state that ‘managers often seem to struggle with their role’. When managers are confronted with paradoxical situations, the theories and relevant prescription might appear to be insufficient for their needs. Some amount of political acumen becomes necessary on the part of the management. Politics is one of the systems in the organization (Mintzberg, 1985). The systems of ideology, expertise and authority are legitimate but the system of politics is technically illegitimate. Politics arise out of conflicts argue some authors while Mintzberg states that politics and conflicts capture an organization in part or in whole and give rise to Political Arena. ‘Managing’ people and resources is also a form of political activity known as playing ‘games’ within the organization. Research suggests games could range from alliance-building games, to sponsorship games, budgeting games to empire-building games, insurgency or counter-insurgency games. They could even be line vs. staff or rival camps games. While come of these games are legitimate others are illegitimate. Some are destined to destroy while others emerge when the legitimate power is weak. Political confrontation does not always correct a situation; it may even worsen it. Politics is divisive and costly and leads to all sorts of aberrations but an organization has no choice but to form shaky alliances. Senior managers often have to play games to gain acceptance for their decisions. Shaky alliances are not arbitrary and often reflect opposing forces in the organization that are roughly equal in importance. The organization will not be able to function if it did not accept them all. Conflicts can be moderated to get the work done. Power and politics are intricately bound together. If power is the resource, politics is the act used to develop the resource (Lewis, 2002). While power is viewed as a change technique, politics arouses negative connotations. Organizational politics implies conflicts and opposing views and such conflicts are seen as normal, to be lived with, managed and resolved. Some authors argue that organizations are political systems where people pursue their own interests. Another reason why power and politics give a distorted impression is that power implies dependence while politics implies manipulation. Politics has been defined as the observable but covert actions by which executives enhance their power to influence a decision. The decision making process itself is political in nature as the outcomes are uncertain and resolutions are made through the exercise of power. Some argue that politics can be beneficial particularly in rapidly changing environments because they serve as important mechanisms for adaptation (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988). In the study of the microchip industry it was observed that top management teams of effective firms avoid politics while management teams of poor performers tend to use politics. At the same time, politically active top management teams perform less well. Poor performance triggers power centralization which leads to politics. Politics restricts information flow and alliances distort the perception about the opinions of others. Politics are time-consuming; they create communication barriers and inflexibility within a team. Managing the human resources is another area where, circumstances sometimes demand more than the well established theories and principles of management. Trade union issues are often handled well on the basis of political acumen of the manager concerned. In fact, to get out the optimum from a satisfied and participative individual is considered to be the ultimate objective of HRM policies. As far as new comers to an organization are concerned, orientation involves coordination and control. The new comers tend to be influenced by their supervisors and they are more susceptible to adverse impacts of politics in the organization (Gilmore, Ferris, Dulebohn & Harrell-Cook, 1996). Coaching and counseling can help the new subordinate attain a better understanding of the expectations of the supervisor, otherwise due to political overtones, he may opt to keep away from the stressful situation. To have a smooth start, political coaching is suggested. Absenteeism and other forms of withdrawal may be avoided if supervisors advise the new entrants with the situation. As he develops an understanding of the situation through experience, he is less stressed with politics around. Politics are a part of innovation and change. Organizational power and influence is essential to get things done. The skill of getting things done is as important as the skills of figuring out what to be done (Pfeffer, 1992). Unless an organization has this capability, it will lag behind in competition. Power is always granted to a person in authority to be used at the right place and time. Change and uncertainty can heighten the intensity of political behavior. Politics is the practical domain of power in action. In extreme cases power brokers deploy their resources and tactics like deceit, tactics and games to further their self-interest. Not all tricks are dirty tricks and the positive aspects of political behavior have to be recognized. Change in an organization invariably leads to conflicts and resistance. Those who block change can be said to be resorting to political tactics and this can be tackled by a parallel response from those supporting change (Buchanan & Badham, 1999). An individual’s perception of politics is important in an organization. Perception of politics can lead to negative organizational outcomes (Harris & Kacmar, 2005). Power is always related with a negative connotation whereas power is the capacity to bring about certain intended consequences in the behavior (Pfeffer, 1992). Leadership involves skill at developing and exercising power and influence. That leadership is required for the smooth functioning of an organization cannot be denied. At the same time it is associated with the most distrusted element and a barrier to human progress. Power is the energy required to initiate and sustain action; it has the capacity to translate intention into action. Politics is critical for effective managerial behavior. The concepts of power and organizational politics are related (Pfeffer). Organizational politics is the exercise or use of power while power is the potential force. Research suggests that employees feel that workplace politics is most common in organizations and successful executives need to be good politicians. There were some against politics also but this only acknowledges the fact that power and politics exist in the organization; it also amount to understanding the benefits of politics for personal success but the word politics suggests that it should be removed from the workplace. Political behavior in most organizations is the norm rather than a variant. Organizational politics is always considered to be dubious, underhand, manipulative and cunning (Buchanan & Badham, 1999). It is thus considered to be dirty, to be avoided and eradicated. It is never considered to be an aspect of organizational behavior to be incorporated systematically into theoretical perspective. Nevertheless, political behavior is simultaneously deployed in defense of organizational goals as well as for personal and career objectives. Organizational politics when used to further their self-interest can blur the rules of conduct which can increase levels of stress (Harris & Kacmar, 2005). Constructive thinking about politics can lead to lower levels of job stress apart from supportive relationships at work place. Communication is the essence in this relationship. Politics in this case can be a perceived opportunity rather than a perceived threat. When an influencing agent attempts to change the behavior of persons, these attempts can be countered by group norms in the opposite direction. It then becomes important to influence the behavior of the group collectively. The resistance to change comes from a tendency to adhere to group standards that were opposed to the request form the management (Raven 1993). Such conflicts can lead to frustration among workers and ultimately high turnover. The change can be internalized if there is mutual participation with the management. This demonstrates that there are bases of power at work. Power bases are used in every aspect and at every stage in life – even to influence a student group in college or by the parent to influence the child. Why then is it considered negative when it works in the setting of an organization? Politics is intense and pervasive and can destroy an organization. When an organization is about to die from other causes, the influencers try to extract whatever personal benefits they can at the last moment (Mintzberg). Bases of power have developed substantially and there are six bases of power for studying social or interpersonal power. These include reward, coercion, legitimate, expert, referent, and informational (or persuasion; Raven, 1993). When there is high turnover rate among workers, mutual participation with management in decision making works like an influence from a friend. Thus the change is internalized and both the management and the organization benefit. The threat of punishment also leads to change. For instance it has been observed that the supervisor may say, "Do the job this way or you will be demoted." The subordinate may work but this is coercive, instead reward power may be used that on completion the subordinate is rewarded with an incentive or increased pay. Personal approval from someone we like works as reward power also and it need not be in physical terms of money or incentives. As the same time refection or disapproval from someone we like serves as powerful coercive power. Mintzberg states that no distribution of organizational power can remain stable. Even in shaky alliances outright conflict is not far from the surface. The stability depends upon the distance between the two or more centers of power. Any small change in one center of power can bring about a situation which demands redistribution of power. This could only aggravate the situation because the power in the centers may not undergo change. The system of politics in an organization is essential to correct certain deficiencies and dysfunctions. This implies that very often in organizations, the legitimate systems like authority are used to pursue illegitimate means while political systems are used to attain legitimate ends (Mintzberg). Pfeffer also states that power and influence can be acquired and exercised for evil purposes. Most medicines can kill a person if taken in wrong doses, nuclear power can at the same time provide mass energy or lead to destruction. We do not abandon cars just because so many accidents take place every year. People are not willing to approach the risks and advantages of power on the same principles. In the case of whistle blowing in an organization, political means are used against formal authority to correct irresponsible behavior (Mintzberg). When weak leaders suppress strong subordinates, politics provides a platform for information collection and promotion. The political games at such times serve as tests to demonstrate the potential for leadership. Political games can help remove the weak link from the chain for the ultimate benefit of the organization. Pfeffer rightly states that when we use power we justify it but when others use it against us, we see it as an evil. Individual success in an organization requires working with and through people. Organizational success if viewed as how successfully individuals can coordinate their activities. In an organization things are seldom clear-cut and obvious. The process of decision-making is not intellectual. The problems in an organization have multiple dimensions which call for multiple methods of evaluation. Attempts to marginalize key decisions and to encourage a strong culture of shared objectives stifle debate and creativity (Buchanan & Badham, 1999). This is what Mintzberg means when he insists that political system allows a platform for others to voice their support. Political behavior is not only inevitable in an organization but necessary in stimulating debate and creativity and hence should be viewed positively. Politics urges people to fight for their rights or what they think is right. The other legitimate systems tend to promote a single point of view while politics permits a variety of voices to be heard on any issue (Mintzberg). Each voice is allowed to express its own support in favor of the organization. Vested interests can block the changes and it becomes essential to remove such blocks. Giving an opportunity to other to voice their support can help identify the blocks and the vested interests. The legitimate systems allow concentration of power in the hands of the chosen few while politics gives an opportunity to all those who are interested. Involvement of power and politics has become an integral part of the process. Politics may be irritating but it also serves and enables the organization to move ahead. Political motives sometimes drive change and political tactics will always be used in some measure for implementing change. Politics help to attain legitimate ends, to resolve conflicts, to allow the deprived to voice their opinion. It all depends on an individual’s perception of politics. Politics is not just inevitable where hundreds of people work, it becomes necessary in encouraging creativity. Power games are an integral part of an organization and in today’s scenario the formal process of planning, coordination and control do not suffice. References: Buchanan, D., & Badham, R., (1999), Politics & Organizational Change: The Lived Experience, Human Relations, Vol. 52, No. 5, 1999 Butcher, David and Clarke, Martin (2003). ‘Redefining managerial work: Smart politics’. Management Decision, Vol-41 No-5. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J., (1988), Politics of Strategic Decision Making in high velocity environments: towards a mid-range theory, Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4) pp. 737-770 Gilmore, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Dulebohn, J. H., & Harrell-Cook, G., (1996), Organizational Politics and Employee Attendance, Group & Organization Management, 21/4 pp 481 Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M., (2005), Easing the strain: The buffer role of supervisors in the perceptions of politics–strain relationship, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2005), 78, 337–354 Lewis, D., (2002), The place of organizational politics in strategic change, Strat. Change 11: 25– 34 (2002) Mintzberg, H., (1985), Organization as political arena, Journal of Management Studies, 22 (2), pp. 133-154 Mullins, L. (2005) Management and organisational behaviour 7th edition. Harlow, Pearson Education Pfeffer, J., (1992), Understanding power in organizations, California Management Reveiw, Winter 1992, pp. 29-50 Raven, B. H., (1993), Bases of power: origins and recent developments, Journal of Social Issues, 49 (4), Winter 1993 pp 227 -(25) Terry, George R. & Franklin, Stephen G. (1994), Principles of Management, US, Richard D Irwin Inc. Worthington, I. and Cumber patch, Z. (2006) ‘Business organisations: the internal environment’ The Business Environment 5th edition. Harlow, Pearson Education. Read More