California State University, Northridge



INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

This piece consists heavily of quotations from and adaptations of material from several sources (see references at the end). There still may be some unreferenced quotations because I have lost track of their genesis over many years of moving content through various notes. I don(t claim originality, other than the choice and organizing of material - Rex Mitchell.

Pfeffer (1992, p.30) defined politics as (the processes, the actions, the behaviors through which potential power is utilized and realized.( Another author (Dubrin, 2001, p.192) defined organizational politics as (informal approaches to gaining power through means other than merit or luck.( It could be argued that politics are used primarily to achieve power, either directly or indirectly, e.g., by being promoted, receiving a larger budget or other resources, or gaining desirable assignments.

Many people regard organizational politics as something negative (e.g., pursuing self-interests at the expense of others) and something to be minimized. Consequently, although most people know that organizational politics are common, they avoid saying so when it concerns one(s own behavior. It is more common to talk about politics when complaining about a loss to a friend than it is in the context of one's own political maneuvering. When we win on an issue, we call it leadership; when we lose, we call it politics. In many organizations, politics is a taboo subject, which makes it difficult for individuals to deal with this crucially important aspect of organizational reality.

I believe a leader must skillfully use organizational politics to acquire and retain power and to accomplish major goals. Therefore, it would be a mistake to pretend that politics does not exist or to fantasize that a leader can be effective without appropriate (and ethical, I would add) use of politics. As Pericles wrote over 2500 years ago, "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." I regard organizational politics as neither good nor bad, per se, although it is important for us to distinguish between ethical and unethical political behavior.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO POLITICAL BEHAVIOR IN ORGANIZATIONS

(Morgan, 1986, p.142) It is useful to remember that in its original meaning, the idea of politics stems from the view that, where interests are divergent, society should provide a means of allowing individuals to reconcile their differences through consultation and negotiation. In ancient Greece, Aristotle advocated politics as a means of reconciling the need for unity in the Greek polis (city-state) with the fact that the polis was an "aggregate of many members." Politics, for him, provided a means of creating order out of diversity while avoiding forms of totalitarian rule. Political science and many systems of government have built on this basic idea, advocating politics, and the recognition and interplay of competing interests that politics implies, as a means of creating a non-coercive form of social order.

(Source?) Organizational politics are a natural result of the fact that people think differently and want to act differently. This diversity creates a tension that must be resolved through political means. There are many ways in which this can be done, for example: autocratically ("We'll do it this way"); bureaucratically ("We're supposed to do it this way"); technocratically ("It's best to do it this way"); or democratically ("How shall we do it?"). In each case the choice between alternative paths of action usually hinges on the power relations between the actors involved.

(Morgan, p.148) An organization's politics is most clearly manifest in the conflicts and power plays that sometimes occupy center stage, and in the countless interpersonal intrigues that provide diversions in the flow of organizational activity. Politics occurs on an ongoing basis, often in a way that is invisible to all but those directly involved.

(Morgan, p.155) As Scottish sociologist Tom Burns has pointed out, most modern organizations promote various kinds of political behavior because they are designed as systems of simultaneous competition and collaboration. People must collaborate in pursuit of a common task, yet are often pitted against each other in competition for limited resources, status, and career advancement. These conflicting dimensions of organization are most clearly symbolized in the hierarchical organization chart, which is both a system of cooperation, in that it reflects a rational subdivision of tasks, and a career ladder up which people are motivated to climb. The fact that there are more jobs at the bottom than at the top means that competition for the top places is likely to be keen, and that in any career race there are likely to be far fewer winners than losers. Along with the fact that different individuals and groups are mandated to exercise authority and influence over others, the hierarchy more or less ensures the kinds of competitive struggle on which organizational politics thrives.

One does not have to be consciously cunning or deviously political to end up playing organizational politics. Political behavior is a fairly natural response to the tensions created between individuals and their organizations. The setting of budgets and work standards, the day-to-day supervision and control of work, as well as the pursuit of opportunity and career, are often characterized by sophisticated forms of gamesmanship. Take, for example, the situations that reveal the guile with which factory workers are able to control their pace of work and level of earnings, even when under the close eye of their supervisors or of efficiency experts trying to find ways of increasing productivity. The workers know that to maintain their positions they have to find ways of beating the system, and do so with great skill and ingenuity. Individuals who systematically wheel and deal their way through organizational affairs merely illustrate the most extreme and fully developed form of a latent tendency present in most aspects of organizational life.

(Source ?)The potential complexity of organizational politics is mindboggling, even before we take account of the personalities and personality clashes that usually bring roles and their conflicts to life. Sometimes the conflicts generated will be quite explicit and open for all to see, while at other times they will lie beneath the surface of day-today events. For example, relations in meetings may be governed by various hidden agendas of which even the participants are unaware. In some organizations disputes may have a long history, decisions and actions in the present being shaped by conflicts, grudges, or differences that others believe long forgotten or settled. The manager of a production department may align with the marketing manager to block a proposal from the production engineer not because he disagrees with the basic ideas, but because of resentments associated with the fact that he and the production engineer have never gotten along. Though such resentments may seem petty, they are often powerful forces in organizational life.

A number of individual and organizational factors contribute to political behavior (following adapted from Dubrin, 2001, p.204-5):

1. Pyramid-shaped organization structure:

A pyramid concentrates power at the top. Only so much power is therefore available to distribute among the many people who would like more of it. Each successive layer on the organization chart has less power than the layer above. At the very bottom of the organization, workers have virtually no power. Since most organizations today have fewer layers than they previously had, the competition for power has become more intense.

2. Subjective standards of performance:

People often resort to organizational politics because they do not believe that the organization has an objective and fair way of judging their performance and suitability for promotion. Similarly, when managers have no objective way of differentiating effective people from the less effective, they will resort to favoritism.

3. Environmental uncertainty and turbulence:

When people operate in an unstable and unpredictable environment, they tend to behave politically. They rely on organizational politics to create a favorable impression because uncertainty makes it difficult to determine what they should really be accomplishing. The uncertainty, turbulence, and insecurity created by corporate mergers or downsizing is a major contributor to office politics.

4. Emotional insecurity:

Some people resort to political maneuvers to ingratiate themselves with superiors because they lack confidence in their talents and skills.

5. Manipulative tendencies:

Some people engage in political behavior because they want to manipulate others, sometimes for their own personal advantage.

6. Disagreements that prevent rational decision making:

Many executives attempt to use rational criteria when making major decisions, but rational decision making is constrained by major disagreements over what the organization should be doing. Unless strategy and goals are shared strongly among key organizational members, political motivation is inevitable in organizational decision making.

POLITICAL STRATEGIES AND TACTICS

To make effective use of organizational politics, leaders must be able to make appropriate use of specific political strategies and tactics. Remember that ethical behavior is regarded as an important requirement for effective leadership.

(Source ?)As one of many guidelines, The Center for Business Ethics at Bentley College has developed six questions to help evaluate the ethics of a specific decision. Before engaging in a particular influence act or political tactic, they recommend that a person seek answers to the following questions;

* Is it right? (based on absolute principles of moral rights)

* Is it fair? (based on absolute principles of justice)

* Who gets hurt? (the fewer the better)

* Would you be comfortable if the details of your decision or actions were made public in the media or through electronic mail? (based on the principle of disclosure)

* What would you tell your child, sibling, or young relative to do? (based on the principle of reversibility)

* How does it smell? (based on common sense and intuition)

Let's look at a representative group of political tactics and strategies, categorized in the following two sections as ethical or unethical, although many of the strategies and tactics could fall into either category, depending on motivations and methods of implementing them. Used with tact, diplomacy, and good intent, ethical influence tactics can be quite effective. Sequencing of tactics is another important consideration. In general, it is best to begin with the most positive, or least abrasive, tactic. If you do not gain the advantage you seek, proceed to a stronger tactic. Also, begin with low-cost, low-risk tactics.

Essentially Ethical Political Strategies and Tactics

(Slightly modified from Dubrin, p.198-203) This section describes a sampling of ethical political behaviors, divided into three related and overlapping groups: strategies and tactics aimed at (a) directly gaining power, (b) building relationships with superiors and coworkers, and (c) avoiding political blunders. All of these approaches help a leader gain or retain power. They also help the leader cope with the fact that organizations are not entirely rational.

Strategies and Tactics Aimed Directly at Gaining Power. It could be argued that all political tactics are aimed at acquiring and maintaining power, if we consider power in a broad scope. Tom Peters says that, although power can often be abused, it can also be used to benefit many people, "and as a career building tool, the slow and steady (and subtle) amassing of power is the surest road to success."

1. Develop Power Contacts and Relationships. After powerful people have been identified, alliances with them must be established. Cultivating friendly, cooperative relationships with powerful organizational members and outsiders can make the leader's cause much easier to advance. These contacts can benefit a person by supporting his or her ideas in meetings and other public forums. One way to develop these contacts is to be more social, for example, throwing parties and inviting powerful people, although they may not be available.

2. Make an Early Showing. A display of dramatic results can help gain acceptance for one's efforts. Once a person has impressed management with his or her ability to solve an important problem, that person can look forward to working on problems that will bring greater power.

3. Keep Informed. It is politically important to keep informed. Successful leaders develop a network to help them keep abreast, or ahead, of developments within the firm. For this reason, a politically astute individual befriends key staff members and executive administrative assistants, for example.

4. Control Vital Information. Power accrues to those who control vital information. For example, many former government or military officials have found power niches for themselves in industry as a Washington representative of a firm that does business with the government. The vital information they control is knowledge of whom to contact to shorten some of the complicated procedures in getting government contracts approved.

5. Control Lines of Communication. Related to controlling information is controlling lines of communication, particularly access to key people. Administrative assistants and staff assistants frequently control an executive's calendar. Both insiders and outsiders must curry favor with the conduit in order to see an important executive. Although many people attempt to contact executives directly through email, some executives delegate the responsibility of screening email messages to an assistant.

Strategies and Tactics Aimed at Building Relationships. Much of organizational politics involves building positive relationships with network members who can be helpful now or later. This network includes superiors, subordinates, other lower-ranking people, coworkers, external customers, and suppliers. The following are several representative strategies and tactics:

6. Provide Favors and Develop Ingratiation. A skillful leader always has a positive balance of favors given, and can draw on that balance when something is needed in return.

7. Display Loyalty. A loyal worker is valued because organizations prosper more with loyal than with disloyal employees. Blind loyalty--the belief that the organization cannot make a mistake--is not called for; most rational organizations welcome constructive criticism. An obvious form of loyalty to the organization is longevity, although its value varies.

8. Develop a Reputation as a Subject Matter Expert. Expertise is one of the major sources of power. Others come to and ask help from an expert.

9. Rational Persuasion. Using this form of influence helps create an impression that you are reasonable and fair, and also avoids creating resentment that can result from heavy-handed influence tactics.

10. Manage Impressions of You. Impression management includes behaviors directed at enhancing one's image by drawing positive attention to oneself. Although this can deal with clothing and grooming, it also deals with deeper aspects of behavior, such as speaking well and presenting one's ideas coherently. Another part of impression management is to tell people about your success or imply that you are an "insider."

11. Bring in Outside Experts for Support. To help legitimate their positions, executives will often hire a consultant to conduct a study or cast an opinion. One possible problem to avoid is that, consciously or unconsciously, some consultants may slant things to support the executive's position. This tactic would be considered unethical if the executive is intentionally seeking a non-objective opinion.

12. Consult With and Ask Advice of Others. Consulting with others, even when not required, helps build support for a decision or action. Consulting and asking advice on work-related topics builds relationships with other employees. Asking another person for advice--someone whose job does not require giving it--will usually be perceived as a compliment, and asking advice transmits a message of trust in the other person's judgment.

13. Ask Satisfied Customers to Contact your Boss. A favorable comment by a customer receives considerable weight because customer satisfaction is a top corporate priority. If a customer says something nice, the comment will carry more weight than one from a coworker or subordinate.

14. Be Courteous, Pleasant, and Positive. It has been argued that courteous, pleasant, and positive people are the first to be hired and the last to be fired (assuming they also have other important qualifications).

15. Send Thank-you Notes to Large Numbers of People. One of the most basic political tactics, sending thank-you notes profusely, is simply an application of sound human relations. Many successful people take the time to send handwritten notes to employees and customers to help create a bond with those people.

16. Flatter Others Sensibly. Flattery in the form of sincere, specific praise can be an effective relationship builder. By being generous in your positive feedback and comments, you can build relationships with work associates and make them more receptive to your ideas.

17. Develop Coalitions. Sometimes coalitions are initiated by less powerful actors who seek the support of others. At other times they may be developed by the powerful to consolidate their power. Whether formal or informal, confined to the organization or extended to include key interests outside, coalitions and interest groups often provide important means of securing desired ends.

Avoiding Political Blunders. (Adapted from Dubrin, p.203-4) A strategy for retaining power is to refrain from making power-eroding blunders. Committing such politically insensitive acts can also prevent one from attaining power. Several leading blunders to avoid are described next.

18. Embarrassing or criticizing the boss in a public forum. One of the oldest saws in human relations is to "praise in public and criticize in private." Yet, in a moment of anger or stupidity, we may blurt out something that can be costly.

19. Surprising the boss. Surprises, particularly negative ones, are not appreciated.

20. Bypassing the boss. Protocol is still highly valued in a hierarchical organization. Going around the boss to resolve a problem is therefore hazardous. You might be able to accomplish the bypass, but your career could be damaged and your recourses limited.

21. Declining an offer from top management. Turning down top management, especially more than once, is a political blunder. You thus have to balance your other interests against the blunder of refusing a request from someone powerful in the organization. An increasing number of managers and professionals today decline opportunities for promotion when the new job requires geographic relocation. For these individuals, family and lifestyle preferences are more important than gaining political advantage on the job.

Potentially Unethical Political Strategies and Tactics

(Adapted from Dubrin p.203-4, 227-8) Any technique of gaining power can be unethical if practiced in the extreme and with negative intentions. For example, a person who supports a boss by feeding him or her insider information that could affect the price of company stock is being unethical. Some approaches are almost unequivocally unethical, such as the those described next. In the long run they can erode a leader's effectiveness by lowering his or her credibility.

1. Back Stabbing. The ubiquitous back stab requires that you pretend to be nice, but all the while plan someone's demise. A frequent form of back stabbing is to initiate a conversation with a rival about the weaknesses of a common boss, encouraging negative commentary and making careful mental notes of what the person says. When these comments are passed along to the boss, the rival appears disloyal and foolish. Email has become a medium for back stabbing. The sender of the message documents a mistake made by another individual and includes key people on the distribution list. A sample message sent by one manager to a rival began as follows, "Hi, Sam. I'm sorry you couldn't make our important meeting. I guess you had some other important priorities. But we need your input on the following major agenda item we tackled . . . ."

2. Purge All But Loyalists. The ancient strategy of purge those you have conquered suggests that you remove from the organization rivals who suffered past hurts through your efforts; otherwise the wounded rivals might retaliate at a vulnerable moment. This kind of strategy is common after a hostile takeover or even a (merger of equals,( e.g., the purge of former Chrysler Corporation executives by the former Daimler-Benz executives after the merger to form DaimlerChrysler.

3. Set a Person Up for Failure. The object of a setup is to place a person in a position where he or she will either fail outright or look ineffective. For example, an executive whom the CEO dislikes might be given responsibility for a troubled division whose market is rapidly collapsing. The newly assigned division president cannot stop the decline and is then fired for poor performance.

4. Exert Undue Pressure. Even if you have the power to do this, it would be unethical if used to further your interests at the expense of others. In any case, it may have longer-term repercussions.

5. Divide and Conquor. An ancient military and governmental strategy, this tactic is also used in business. The object is to have peers struggle among themselves, therefore yielding the balance of power to another person. If team members are not aligned with one another, there is an improved chance that they will align with a common superior. One way of getting subordinates to fight with one another is to place them in intense competition for resources.

6. Play Territorial Games. Also referred to as turf wars, territorial games involve protecting and hoarding resources that give one power, such as information, relationships, and decision-making authority. A relationship is "hoarded" in such ways as not encouraging others to visit a key customer, or blocking a high performer from getting a promotion or transfer. Other examples of territorial games include monopolizing time with clients, scheduling meetings so someone cannot attend, and shutting out coworkers from joining you on an important assignment.

A Caveat

(Adapted from Morgan, p.195-8) There is a danger when becoming sensitized to political behavior that one begins to see everything as political, to develop a Machiavellian interpretation that suggests that everyone is trying to outwit and outmaneuver everyone else. We begin to see politics everywhere, and to look for hidden agendas even where there are none. Rather than use politics to generate new insights and understandings that can help deal with divergent interests, there is a temptation to reduce the concept to a tool to be used to advance our own personal interests.

This kind of manipulative stance is reflected in many contemporary writings on the politics of organization, which have a tendency to emphasize the cynical, selfish, ruthless, get-ahead-at-all-costs mentality that so often turns organizations into corporate jungles. These writings sell through statements such as: "Find out where the real power is and use it" and "Win through intimidation;" This use of a political metaphor breeds mistrust and encourages the idea that organization involves a zero-sum game where there must be winners and losers. While there may be a measure of truth in this, in that many organizations are dominated by competitive relations, the effect is to reduce the scope for genuine openness and collaboration.

EXERCISING CONTROL OVER DYSFUNCTIONAL POLITICS

(Loosely based on Culbert & McDonough, 1985; Dubrin, 2001, and Pettigrew, 2003) Although necessary, organizational politics can hurt an organization and its members when carried to excess. Too much politicking can result in lower morale, higher turnover, and wasted time and effort, thereby lowering performance. To avoid these negative consequences, leaders should combat political behavior when it is excessive and dysfunctional. Some steps that can help accomplish this follow.

1. To control politics, organizational leaders must be aware of its causes and techniques. For example, during a downsizing, the CEO can be on the alert for instances of back stabbing and transparent attempts to please him or her.

2. Open communication also can constrain the impact of political behavior. For instance, open communication can let everyone know the basis for allocating resources, thus reducing the amount of political behavior. When communication is open, it also makes it more difficult for some people to control information and pass along gossip as a political weapon.

3. Avoiding favoritism is a potent way of minimizing politics within a work group. If group members believe that getting the boss to like them is much less important than good job performance in obtaining rewards, they will try to impress the boss through task-related activities.

4. Setting good examples at the top of the organization can help reduce the frequency and intensity of organizational politics. When leaders are nonpolitical in their actions, they demonstrate in subtle ways that political behavior is not welcome. It may be helpful for the leader to announce during a staff meeting that devious political behavior is undesirable and unprofessional.

5. Another way of reducing the extent of political behavior is for individuals and the organization to have goal congruence, i.e., share the same goals, with thorough understanding of what they mean. If political behavior will interfere with the company and individuals achieving their goals, workers with goal congruence are less likely to play office politics excessively.

6. Politics can sometimes be constrained by a threat to discuss questionable information in a public forum. People who practice devious politics usually want to operate secretly and privately. They are willing to drop hints and innuendoes and make direct derogatory comments about someone else, provided they will not be identified as the source. An effective way of stopping the discrediting of others is to offer to discuss the topic publicly.

IN CONCLUSION

(Adapted from Morgan, p.194-5) After reflecting on the realities of political dynamics and behaviors in organizations, it seems appropriate to reevaluate the myth of a highly rational, objective, non-political organization. The idea of rationality seems to be invoked to overcome the contradictions inherent in the fact that an organization is simultaneously a system of competition and a system of cooperation. An emphasis on rationality could lead us to construct an organization that does not manage the diversity of interests present and, therefore, is ineffective and unstable.

I believe skillful and appropriate use of organizational politics is necessary for a leader to acquire and retain power and to accomplish major goals. Although political behavior can be unethical and destructive, it also can and should be ethical and contribute to a balanced set of interests. Perhaps we can join Aristotle in viewing organizational politics as a means of reconciling differences through consultation and negotiation, and as a means of creating order out of diversity while avoiding abuses. As Adolf Berle wrote in 1969 (p.562-3):

Your democratic institutions... must foster, defend, and enlarge institutions by which knowledge can be made greater and choices wider and more certain. ...The real function of power and the order it creates... is the liberation of men and women to think and be and make the most of themselves.

SOURCES

Berle, Adolf A. (1969). Power. New York: Harcort, Brace & World.

Culbert, Samuel A. & McDonough, John J. (1985). Radical management: Power politics and the pursuit of trust. New York: The Free Press.

Dubrin, Andrew J. (2001). Leadership. (3rd ed) New York: Houghton Mifflin

Morgan, Gareth (1996). Images of organization (2nd ed). Newbury Park: Sage

Pettigrew, Andrew (2003). "Strategy as process, power and change," in Stephen Cummings & David Wilson (2003), Images of Strategy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

last modified 1/17/05

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download