Organizational Power and Politics Essay Example

his power and even tries to increase it by wrongfully treating his racially different subordinate. Responding to a survey featured on the Insider Views on Workplace Issues website, 78 percent of the people stated that they are familiar with the boss who lets organizational politics override effective management.

And, 79 percent of respondents have interacted with the boss who demands loyalty from his subordinates but who does not reciprocate such allegiance. Dr. Sarah Banda Purvis, an independent consultant and author, who has developed a series of surveys for working women, has said: “Managers who provide the support and resources to enable employees to get their jobs done successfully are few and far between. A more common management species is the egocentric boss, who tends to look out only for No. 1. (BlueSuitMom. com, Inc. 2003)"

The survey results also revealed the following facts about organizational politics and the misuse of power in the case of the people surveyed: 73% have encountered bosses who tend to stereotype working women as clerical or "go-fer" personnel; 66% know of bosses who abuse their organizations' performance review programs; 65% have come into contact with hypocritical bosses; 60% are familiar with the boss who says one thing to employees, but whose actions reflect quite the opposite; 56% have come across the boss who treats employees as possessions; and 51% know bosses who relate to women only on a physical level (BlueSuitMom. om, Inc. ).

Organizational politics is not all bad though. Patricia A. Wilson (1995) mentions plenty of researchers who have associated political activity in organizations with the distribution of resources or other advantages – obviously on the basis of the belief that

this distribution of resources and other advantages would lead to gains for the organization. As an example, a man whom others believe to be a worthless employee may be promoted to the rank of vice president by the president of an organization because the latter believes in the employee.

The employee, in turn, would return the favor to the organization by working extremely hard because his high rank in the organization motivates him beyond the motivation levels of all other employees. Jeffrey Pfeffer and Christina T. Fong (2005) refer to the self-enhancement of the employee with reference to his promotion in the organization. This idea of self-enhancement includes the belief that the employee who has now been promoted to the rank of vice president would also try to work more effectively than others ranked below him.

Regarding a seminar on “Leadership, Power, Influence, and Politics in Project Management,” Vijay Verma (2003) writes: Ignoring the external and internal politics surrounding your project can be hazardous. Successful project managers understand the importance of managing stakeholders through leadership and influence. Analyze the political context in your organizations and learn how to convert your adversaries into your allies. Uncover ways to manage politics at the project and upper management levels.

You'll evaluate, improve and refine your leadership skills and iscover methods for increasing your total power. Politics is always about power. Hence, politics and power may not be separated. Whenever there is power and control, the powerful one—be it a prophet with the people or a mother in a home—would exercise influence through politics. Politics is about maintaining power and influence regardless of whether it is done in a healthy/just or unhealthy/unjust

way. Politics and power are therefore, inseparable. Of course, power and politics are different and their definitions serve to describe their differences.

Power can be strength without the use of politics, e. g. , in the case of a newly-assigned manager who quits his job and takes the role of an officer in a less powerful position because he wants less responsibility at the job. This manager refuses to use politics in his powerful management position. Needless to say, such managers are rare. For this reason, John Gardner had written that leaders are preoccupied with power (National Defense University). This is because power pays a higher price for work to people than does subordination.

Although it involves a great deal of responsibility, the benefits of power are immense. Besides, power is essential to organizations seeing that no organization can survive without leaders and their guidance. Hence, all leaders must have power, and it is a “given” in the organization. What is more, leaders do not have to base all their decisions without the use of politics. Therefore, Gerald Graham (2001) writes: “Like it or not – politics are a part of the organization. ” Knowing this, how else can we think of power?

Metaphors relating to power weave through work conversations and organizational experience. Our understandings of power and power relationships are brought to life and maintained through language. When we talk and argue we initiate, maintain, justify and reinforce structures of organizational membership, acceptance and decision-making. The classical administrative theory portrays organizations as “logical, functional, bland, impersonal, passionless entities that operate according to neutral rules of efficiency and economy.

But organizations are social constructions characterized by ownership, membership,

control and language. Social power is manifested through the exertion and ability of members and other stakeholders as they generate and maintain their position and relationships. These matters are human and illustrate human frailty: skill, ability, and learning capacity; opportunism and willingness to engage; control over passions and self-centeredness or altruism and virtue; ingenuity and disingenuousness (McKinlay & Foucault 1995).

According to R. Dahl, social power is "the ability to get another person to do something that he or she would not otherwise have done. " The weakness in the social construction/language argument relating to power is that it neglects pure, real, coercive force. The fist speaks louder than words. The person who does not speak but who acts—using the gun, the sword, the fist—to force others into submission—has power. This is just one use of power. In the modern business word—coercion—albeit mediated by social mores and the law—is nevertheless still evident.

The employee may be dismissed; the union may strike (McKinlay & Foucault). Moreover, organizational managers in power do not always have to provide reasons for their behavior, neither does a labor union on strike have to explain itself when it disagrees with the organization on pay raise even if the organization had agreed with the union to only negotiate terms after six months. Hence, political behavior has been defined as the “non-rational influence on decision making” (Ratzburg 2000). To put it another way, organizational politics can be used any time and for any reason.

The only requirement for organizational political activity is power. Positioning and influencing (politics) are structurally and procedurally inherent in organizations. Authoritarianism, self-interest, pluralism and coalitions prevail. Through consultation and maneuvering (politicking), individuals and

groups balance their views and preferences. Organizational life is predominantly political. Participants agree and disagree about purposes, goals and methods (McKinlay & Foucault). Furthermore, almost all groups of people are organizations.

Even a family is an organization and we surely have heard of family politics! Politics and power are inseparable. When there is power, there are politics. However, both power and politics are different to the extent that power is potency while politics is the use of that potency to acquire higher standards. Organizations are running as they must in the presence of both power and politics, both of which are impossible to do away with seeing that there will always be people with superior abilities and bargaining powers with respect to the others.