POLITICS

Politics is universal phenomenon in organized society. Political behavior is not limited to those who hold public positions. We can expect political behavior in every organization. In the previous section, we have seen how people and groups in organization use politics to gain more power.

Pfiffner and Sherwood have commented that “the ‘who gets what’ (politics) is endemic to every organization, regardless of size, function or character of ownership. Furthermore, it is to be found at every level of the hierarchy, and it intensifies as the stakes become more important and the area of decision possibilities greater”. One survey of 400 managers provides that insight into their views towards organizational politics. To a larger extent, mangers agreed that

1.     Politics is common in most organizations.

2.     Managers must be good at the politics to succeed.

3.     Politics becomes more important at higher levels.

4.     Politics can detract from organizational efficiency.

Thus it is necessary for managers to understand the dynamics of politics sot that they can take suitable course of actions to minimize its dysfunctional consequences.

CONCEPT OF POLITICS

It can be delivered that everyone plays some kind of politics at some point of time in the organization. We can find references that define politics as one or more of the following: self – serving behavior, acquisition of power, protection of one’s own domain, building of support though group formation, or influence maneuvering. In all these cases, politics involves acquisition of power or be around power and engage in self serving behavior. Therefore, politics can be referred to as actions for seizing, holding, extracting and executing of power by individuals and groups for achieving personal goals. Because of organizational politics, organizational decisions are affected in such a way that they contribute to personal goals rather than organizational goals. Tushman has defined politics as follows:

“Politics refers to the structure and process of the use of authority and power to affect definition of goals, directions and the other major parameters of the organization. Decisions are not made in a rational or formal way but rather through compromise, accommodation and bargaining.”

This definition, though explains the process of politics and its effect on decision making which does not remain rational, does not specifically indicate self – serving behavior of the people engaged in politics. Miles has included self – interest concept in defining politics. He says that:

“ Organizational  politics is the process whereby individuals or groups use whatever power they can amass to influence organizational decisions in the direction of their own interests”

On the basis of the review of various definitions of organizational politics, Drory and Romm have arrived at the following definition of organizational politics.

“Organizational politics refers to intentional behaviors that are designed to enhance or protect a person’s influence and self interest”.

Based on the definition of politics, its main features can be described as follows:

1.     Political behavior involves some kind of power wither directly or indirectly. Power can be exercised by those who are in formal positions and enjoy authority. It can also be influenced by other persons close to those who hold formal authority.

2.     Politics involves behavior that is self – serving. It suggests that either organizational resources are used for personal benefits or benefits to be given to one person are given to another. In the both the cases, the decision in not rational from organization’s point of view.

3.     Politics takes place when an individual recognizes that achievement of his goals is influenced by the behavior of others. In such a case, politicking involves the elimination of adversaries by the influential maneuvers of a member of the organization.

4.     All self – serving behaviors which do not involve use of power or threat of use of power cannot be termed as politics. For example, an employee’s asking for a rise in pay is not political behavior, but the use of threat to unionize to obtain in pay rise amounts to political behavior

RESONS FOR ORGANISATIONAL POLITICS

Organizational politics is a natural phenomenon of every human group organization, when the group or the organization works for certain time, it tends to generate political behavior. There may be several reasons for this. Some more prominent factors which contribute to political behavior are as follows:  

1.     Competition for Power: Political behavior emerges because people want to derive power, that is, over and above the authority delegated to them formally. They want to acquire power because it is satisfying to them. Since amount of power like other resources is limited, often there is competition for acquiring power. In this process, people feel it rational to maneuver the things in such a way that ir gives them more power and consequently use of resources then others. Thus, their behavior becomes dysfunctional from organization point of view.

2.     Discretionary Authority: Organizations provide positions with discretionary authority to use such powers in the case of special needs like emergency in organizations. Such authority is used based on individual judgment. For example, a production manager may be given discretionary authority to appoint personnel of certain category in the case of emergency without making reference to personnel department. Such discretionary authority, then, becomes the basis for organizational politics. Normally, those in discretionary positions seek to maintain power at least equal to or greater then these dependence on organizational members. If their discretionary power is less, they will try to form coalition to achieve more power. This will result in political behavior.

3.     Ambiguity in Organization: Ambiguity in organization, particularly of roles and authority, generates politics. The more ambiguous the formal roles and authority of organization members, the more developed will be the internal system of political competition. Ambiguity puts people to settle their roles through mutual interactions. In these interactions, people may try to enact their roles most suited to them so that they can show better performance. It is to be noted that better performance leads to more incentives and rewards. However,  roles enacted in such a way may not be functional for the organization.  

4.     Subjective Evaluation of Performance: Subjective evaluation of performance may also lead to political behavior. In many cases, performance evaluation cannot be based on  any concrete achievement, and it is the judgment of a superior which is taken as the basis for performance evaluation. This may happen where performance evaluation. This may happen where performance cannot be measured quantitatively, for example, the job of a personnel manager or research and development manager. When subjective evaluation of performance is taken and members may think some bias in superior’s evaluation, they may be forced into dysfunctional political behavior. For example, in such a case, a subordinate may like to be closer to his superior by providing him personal satisfaction rather than organizational performance. Therefore, the lesser the objectivity in defining and measuring performance evaluation criteria, the greater is the room for the individuals to engage in dysfunctional behavior.

5.     Saturation in Promotion: People have a feeling that they have reached saturation level of promotion. When they reach the maximum level as per their talent and skills, they resort to political behavior. This is what Peter principle describes, that is in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to the levels of incompetence and he will have no other business than to engage in politics that have undesirable consequences. However this may not be true for all the persons. Some persons may emphasize work achievement more than positional achievement and may not involve in politics.