Power and Politics Nature
There are few business activities more prone to a credibility gap than the way in which executives approach organizational life. A sense of disbelief occurs when managers purport to make decisions in rationalistic terms while most observers and participants know that personalities and politics play a significant if not an overriding role.
According to Max Weber (1947), power is ‘the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests’.
Celebrated sociologist Anthony Giddens (1997) sees, ‘power as the ability to make a difference, to change things from what they would otherwise have been, as he puts it “transformative” capacity’. Power can be defined by saying that ‘A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests’. According to Steven Lukes (2005), power has three dimensions or faces:
(1) Decision-making
(2) Non-decision-making
(3) Shaping desires
Power and Politics Nature
Workplace politics is the process and behavior that in human interactions involving power and authority. It is also a tool to assess the operational capacity and to balance diverse views of interested parties. It is also known as office politics and organizational politics. It involves the use of power and social networking within a workplace to achieve changes that benefit the organization or individuals within it. “Organizational politics are self-serving behaviors” that “employees use to increase the probability of obtaining positive outcomes in organizations”. Influence by individuals may serve personal interests without regard to their effect on the organization itself. Some of the personal advantages may include:
- Access to tangible assets
- Or intangible benefits such as status
- Pseudo-authority that influences the behavior of others
Ways to reduce organisational politics
- Tasks should be delegated on the basis of efficiency and work experience so that the employees are able to find job satisfaction. This will automatically reduce any reason to indulge in politics
- Organisations should emphasise transparency at all costs
- Promote teamwork to strengthen the bond so that people hesitate to indulge in office politics
- Effective communication will reduce the chances of office politics
- Encourage a positive frame of mind in the workplace as people will then hesitate to spread lies and bitch about others
Gossip
Office politics differs from office gossip in that people participating in office politics do so with the objective of gaining advantage, whereas gossip can be a purely social activity. However, the two are somewhat related. Office gossip is often used by an individual to place themselves at a point where they can control the flow of information, and therefore gain maximum advantage.
The secretive nature of organizational politics differentiates it from public gossip and thus, may be more harmful to the organization. Both can cause one to doubt the intentions of co-workers, which creates a hostile work environment. Office politics also refers to the way co-workers act among each other. Employee interaction holds the potential to be either positive or negative (i.e. cooperative or competitive).
Manipulation
At the root of office politics is the issue of manipulation. Manipulation can be present in any relationship where one or more of the parties involved uses indirect means to achieve their goals. In the workplace, where resources are limited, individuals often have an incentive to achieve their goals at the expense of their colleagues. For example, if six people apply for one promotion, they might expect the selection to be made purely on merit.
If one of the candidates were to believe that this would put them at a disadvantage, they may use other means of coercion or influence to put themselves into an advantageous position. When those who have fallen subject to the manipulation begin to talk to each other directly or when other evidence comes to light such as financial results the manipulator will have an explanation ready but will already be planning their exit, as they are driven to stay in control, not to face a revelation which would expose his behavior.
Power and Politics in Organizations
Power and politics in organizations are a reality that no organization can ignore. Though the evolution of the modern corporation and the concomitant rise of the managerial class with a professional way of running the firms is touted to be one of the contributory factors for the decline on power politics in organizations, one cannot just simply say that there are no power centers or people with vested interests even in the most professionally run and managed firms.
The reason for this is that power and politics are as old as human nature and recorded history and hence, one cannot simply wish away the primal urge to resist those in power and in turn, try an impose the will by those in power. This is the interplay of forces within organizations wherein the top management and the senior leadership often tries to have it their way whereas those in the middle and those who have been passed over for promotion as CEOs and other C level positions try to resist such power moves.
Power Struggles in Family Owned Businesses
Of particular interest to our discussion is the way in which family owned businesses often have a greater component of power politics in them. The reason for this is that family owned businesses often have rival power centers allied to the different family members. For instance, in organizations such as Fidelity which is a family concern, it is often the case that there are multiple power centers with different factions being propped up by the different family members. Indeed, the reason for choosing this example is the fact that in recent years, the succession struggle is gaining traction and is responsible for most of the intra firm politics in that company.
Talking about succession struggles, there can be no better example than the case of the Reliance conglomerate which witnessed an internecine power struggle between the various family members after the demise of the family patriarch. Indeed, this case has become so famous that many western universities have come up with case studies on why it happened, who gained and who lost and whether it was in the benefit of the shareholders and the employees.
Impact of Power Struggles on the Stakeholders
Talking about the impact of power and politics on shareholders and other stakeholders, it is often the case that the rank and file employees are the major losers in the power games. This is because they find that those at the top are bickering and always fighting and hence, are demoralized to work resulting in attrition and lackadaisical performance.
In addition, it is the case that the rank and file employees find that they are caught between rival factions and feel that they are being sacrificed by the factions whose only interest is furthering their own agendas. Indeed, as the saying goes, when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers, whenever there is a power struggle in the organizations, it is those at the bottom and the middle to some extent who suffer the most.
Of course, the smarter ones among them ally themselves to one faction or the other and hence, find that it is safe to take sides rather than being caught in the crossfire. In addition, they also find that it is better to hitch their fortunes to a particular faction so that they play the power game. Needless to say, all this has an impact on the productivity and performance of the organization. This is the reason why many shareholders and particularly the institutional ones among them who step in whenever the power games become too intense and impact the financial and operational performance of the firms.
Power and Politics are Integral to Human Nature
Having said that, it must be noted that not all power struggles lead to negative outcomes as it is often the case that the winning faction might be a result of the losing faction becoming too autocratic or despotic. This is the case in firms such as Hewlett Packard and Apple where the power struggles resulted in the induction and return of the old guard to the benefit of the firms.
Moreover, it is always good to have a system of checks and balances within firms so that any excessive centralization of power and control are minimized. It is also good to have specific attempts at dissent because the more divergent the views and the more diverse the opinions, the healthier it is for the firm to decide on the best course of action.
Indeed, it is better for the decision makers to listen to multiple perspectives rather than surrounding themselves with yes men and sycophants who have their own interest in glorifying their masters. Further, decision making which takes into account all the viewpoints is any day better than unilateral styles. In conclusion, while power and politics are as old as humanity, it is also the case that the balancing mechanism whenever there is a tendency to cross the limits means that such power and politics should be assessed from this perspective rather than taking a negative view.