Developments in Organizational Politics - Essay Example

?Organizational politics is the ugly truth that every organization faces. Power and politics both play an important role in any organization and that’s why people at all levels engage in intentional acts to protect their own as well as the rights of their department. Defined as a “controversial concept” by Vigoda- Gadot (2003), organizational politics is a common occurrence the degree of which differs from organization to organization. Self-interest is the main cause of organizational politics and it has been aptly described as “the pursuit of self interest at work in face of every sort of opposition real or imagined” (Kreitner2008). A more detailed explanation of organizational politics is given by Jennifer (2009) who has described it as activities the managers indulge in to strengthen their position in the firm. Elaborating further Jennifer (2009) said that it is a means through which managers gain power and thereby use it to their advantage such as pursuing goals suited to the individual or the department. Organizational politics originates from a number of sources and operates at individual, collective and organizational level (Yammarino 2002). However it has been observed that an individual could certainly benefit from organizational politics (Porter, Angle &Allen 2003). Generally the organizational politics is seen in a negative light and is described as the process which does not conform to the normal role behavior of the organization and is the means through which people acquire and use power to meet their personal goals (McKenna 2000). This statement was confirmed by a majority of employees who stated that organizational politics was harmful for the organization. Why does organizational Politics Exist? Although organizational politics has been the subject of study for decades but still it largely remains unexplored because the middle managers, the employees and even those at the echelons of power are not willing to disclose their moves and political secrets that help them succeed and achieve their personal agendas (Vigoda-Gadot&Drory 2006). One of the possible reasons for the existence of organizational politics is the scarcity of job opportunities. The staff facilities, money, staff resources and human resources of an organization are limited and have to be shared with all the departments. Those managers who obtain a greater share of resources are considered powerful and influential and that’s why managers use dishonest methods such as inflating the budget to gain a favorable share. It has been seen that conflicts occur during annual budget allocation and these conflicts cause political activity in organizations (Daft 2009). Jennifer (2009) believes that as growth in an organization becomes limited especially for managers who already occupy senior positions organizational politics become common to gain power and influence by several methods including impressing the kingpins (Jennifer2009). Organizational politics also occurs because of the presence of uncertainty and lack of clarity in an organization. Organizational politics comes into play when company adopts ambiguous goals. These ambiguous goals provide a perfect opportunity to managers especially those at the top to pursue personal goals in disguise of organization goals. Moreover, political activity becomes more prominent when non-programmed decisions need to be taken for instance two managers competing for the same post can be manipulative. Badham& Buchanan (2008) have labeled personal ambition and competition between the various departments as other sources of organizational politics. Another important origin identified by Badham& Buchanan (2008) is “change”. According to them when change occurs in an organization, it tends to disturb the comfort zone of the employees so to preserve their interests, they engage in organizational politics. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory gives another view to the organizational politics. According to this theory the expectations of an employee significantly influence his perceptions, motivations and performance in the workplace. The theory states that the employee puts his best efforts if his expectations at the workplace are met.In other words the employee works towards the interest of the organization when the self-interests are met as well. Power Relations in an Organization Like politics, power is also an intangible force and is difficult to measure. Power and organizational politics are related and organizational politics is often described as the use of power (Pfeffer1992). While power is defined as the force through which desired goals can be achieved, politics is the use of power to obtain decisions useful for achieving desired goals. Both power and politics are important for an organization because there are some problems and issues that cannot be solved by using power (Pfeffer 1992).In organizations power is considered to be a crucial process reflecting large organizational relationships that can either be horizontal or vertical. Horizontal power relationship exists between the various units of an organization for instances the departments or the divisions whereas in vertical power relationships the managers intentionally share the power with low level employees. The vertical power relationship is often beneficial for the growth and development of the organization as it motivates employees, increases efficiency, actsas a catalyst for getting the tasks done quickly and efficiently and allows the employees to use their creativity, knowledge and skills. It also ensures loyalty among employees. This type of power relation can be considered a positive power relation. In positive power relations the managers focus on achieving the company goal and help the employees acquiring competency (Kinicki&Kreitner 1999). In horizontal power relationship, one department may have more say and can thus influence decision making. Usually the sales and marketing department is considered more powerful followed by R&D and finance. How do power relations and organizational politics affect organizational change and development? Those who influence organizational development agree that democracy is not the percept of this field rather it is ruled by class privilege and inequality (Bradshaw &Bonnstra2004). Power and politics are two key factors in any organization that can largely influence its development. Power and politics in an organization can be positive or negative and can benefit or harm the organization. Vertical power relation is a positive relationship that works both ways as on one hand it empowers low level employees and on the other the managers become more powerful as they gain the confidence of the employees and can make them work without using force. In any case the organization stands to benefit as productivity and employee retention increases. In organizations where the top management is collectively oriented, the individual managers use their power for the benefit of the organization (Argote 1999). Quoting Ferris et al (2005) Waddington (2012, p. 99) has defined organizational politics as “the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives”. A common belief is that organizational politics can hamper the development of an organization as people are of the view that organizational politics is nothing but the processes that are not authorized by the organization and can lead to disagreements (Waddington 2012). It is often assumed that organizational politics breeds negativity. This process is often considered to be a means for achieving self interest. It is interpreted negatively and is supposed to damage the organization. Studies show that those who indulge in negative organizational politics have a low morale and suffered from job anxiety. Besides low employee morale, job dissatisfaction, lack of faith in top management, poor decision making and low performance were the outcome of negative organizational politics that could potentially damage the organization. Organizations also suffered because the unethical and dishonest behavior exhibited by the employees to gain favors and move ahead reduces productivity. Negative organizational politics occurs mostly in those companies where there is uncertainty and lack of clarity in policies (Daft 2009). Negative political activity in an organization occurs in different forms. A CEO for example can get a report of the performance of the company compiled and may chalk out future strategies but he may not share the complete information with his team and sub-ordinates. The CEO may share only parts of information and withhold the rest and may use it later. This places the CEO in a strong position as he has the power and he can use it politically to make decisions in future that may be beneficial to him. Another type of negative political activity the managers indulge in is when they award contracts to contractors or hire consultants who share their ideas. As the consultant knows that he/she has been hired by that particular manager, they unconsciously support the manager and adopt that course of action which the manager prefers. As the consultant is an expert in his/her field, nobody in the organization questions the course of action adopted and the manager gets things done his way. However, Badham& Buchanan (2008) argue that there are many factors besides organizational politics that can cause low morale among employees, reduce their faith in the top management and prove to be damaging to the organization. Evidence shows that organizational politics is the best way to get things done when every other thing fails. Badham& Buchanan (2008) see it as a valuable tool and the way it is used makes it good or bad. Organizational politics can be used positively in situations where uncertainty is high and where there is a disagreement over goals in the company or when problems exist in determining the priorities. Positive organizational politics can also achieve networking, use of expertise, agreeable allocation of resources, image building, persuasion and achieving the company’s goals (Vigoda-Gadot&Drory 2006). Organizational Politics and Changes in Organization Badham& Buchanan (2008) consider change as the main factor that triggers and at times intensifies organizational politics because it generates uncertainty and ambiguity. Employees are intimidated by change as it may threaten the job position and alter workload. Also the uncertainty produced by it makes room for maneuver which the employees utilize for their interest (Badham& Buchanan 2008). Changes frequently in organizations due to various reasons and those organizations that accept these changes and adapt quickly are highly successful. Organizations do not readily accept changes due to the following reasons i) parochial self-interest which is the fear of loss of something valuable ii) misunderstanding and lack of trust which results due to poor communication and information and preconceived ideas that change is bad iii) low tolerance to change as the employees or stakeholders fear that they may lose their status or position in the organization and lastly iv) different assessment of the situation which causes disagreements and conflicts over benefits and costs. It has been observed that resistance to change lowers the efficiency of the company and decreases its chances of survival (Jones& Mathew 2008). Changes are not only inevitable but also essential for a company’s survival as to stay in the competition the company must bring about changes (Griffin 2011). However it has been observed that changes in organization create opportunities for organizational politics. As Holbeche (2005) has stated that organizational politics is likely to occur when there is a crisis, change, uncertainty, conflict or clash of interest in an organization.The core values of the organizational members are also challenged by change (Holbeche2005). The organizational areas where political activity is practiced the most are those which are plagued by inherent conflicts. The areas where organizational politics is dominant are resource allocation, management succession, ambiguous goals, technology and resources and structural change (Griffin& Moorhead 2009). Structural reorganization may also sometimes become the source of organizational politics (Griffin & Moorhead 2009). Conclusion Power and politics are a common phenomenon in any organization. If power is the ability to get a thing done the way one wants it to be done whether for personal gains or the benefit of the organization, politics is the acquisition and use of power to achieve goals.While power is somewhat accepted in an organization, organizational politics is considered unethical and is considered a means to achieve vested interests by the individuals (Champoux 2010). However the recent studies conducted show that organizational politics has two faces, it can be negative or it can be positive. Negative power relations and organizational politics can cause improper use of limited resources of the company, generate tension, cause disagreements, block the flow of communication and permit less qualified people to progress. When used negatively, organizational power damages the reputation of an organization and causes stunted growth as well.On the positive side organization politics assists the organization to reach its goal with considerable ease, brings about solutions to problems when use of power fails, helps the organization to adapt to changes; in short it helps a company to survive (Fairholm 2009). Organizational politics is usually associated with resource allocation, decision making and when solving conflicts within the organization (Singh 2009). It has also been observed that power and its use exists at all levels in the organization but only the top level and the middle level management resort to organizational politics. It was also observed that change in an organization brought about strong political activity (Miller 2009). This is because change brings uncertainty and alters roles and responsibilities. The employees thus indulge in organizational politics either to save their jobs or to get more powerful. At times the top management puts a strong resistance to change; this usually occurs when the company is making strong profits and the top brass is of the opinion that the profits may dwindle if change is initiated. Another reason to resist change could be that the company does not want to get out of its comfort zone. Case Study: Organizational Politics at Eastman Kodak Eastman Kodak is a classic example of how organizational politics can destroy an organization. Gualco (2012) has called Kodak a “victim of technology and changing marketplace” (p. 65). Kodak manufactured easy to use cameras and film rolls and was quite a successful company. However the introduction of mega pixel digital cameras in 1997 that did not need film saw Kodak losing a fair share of market. The invention of camcorder was another blow as the use of movie film for homes declined (Doniger 2008). However losing business was not the only crisis Kodak was facing; it was much too slow to accept the idea of globalization and the biggest threat to its existence came from inside in the form of political conflicts between managers. Because of these conflicts any attempts made to revamp and reorganize the company were stifled. Instead of adapting to the new technology and facing the challenges it offered, the managers were busy fighting for the job of CEO. In the early 1990s Kay Whitmore got elected as the CEO; he enjoyed the support of many senior managers and so on getting elected, he worked towards safeguarding their interests instead of improving the performance of the company. Getting Kodak back in the mainstream business required drastic measures and Whitmore did not want to take them as they conflicted with the interest of his allies at Kodak. The stakeholders on the other hand perceived that change would bring about positive results for Kodak. The behavior of the stakeholders can be related to Vroom’s expectancy theory which states that the willingness to change depends upon the perceived values which result with changes. In 1993 Kodak acquired a new chief operating officer Christopher Steffen a man who was reputed to work miracles and had helped other firms get on their feet. His resignation within a week of his appointment therefore came as a shock to the stakeholders. Steffen cited the vast difference in problem solving approach of the company as the reason. The senior managers led by Whitmore could not agree upon the ideas and speed at which the company would be restructured. Steffen wanted to close units and lay off employees while the top brass was more interested in saving its interests. The board of directors then fired Whitmore in 1994 and replaced him with George Fisher; an outsider. Fisher tried hard to bring in the much needed change but all his efforts were vetoed by the top management. Here the top managers who are referred to as inside stakeholders showed low tolerance to change as they saw it as a threat to their status and position. The senior managers once again got their man appointed as a CEO in 2000. This time it was veteran Dan Carp who had joined Kodak in 1970. Carp did take some measures to save Kodak such as cutting down the dividend and terminating 15,000 employees but he took too long to take these steps and in 2001 he stepped down as the CEO and was replaced by Antonio Perez. With Perez an outsider at the helm of affairs the company the stakeholders hoped that it would put to rest the ongoing war between the senior managers. Perez did try to save Kodak or what was left of it but it was too late by then and the company declared bankruptcy in 2005. An interesting thing is that people at Kodak were aware that digital technology would replace the films but acted too slowly to complete the transition to digital. The consumers were showing a preference for digital photography and much hype was being created about it. Kodak should have paid attention to the changing consumer behavior. It had a excellent facilities and resources where the digital technology could have been developed. Above all being an innovative firm, it should have risen to the occasion instead it just sat there and watch its profits and size become smaller.Secondly complacency had developed in the top brass which grew as the profits of the company grew. They refused to listen to the innovative ideas which could have brought a positive change (Kotter 2012). Kodak failed because the top management resisted change and failed to make the right strategic choices (Mui 2012). Above all Kodak failed because of the politics of senior managers who refused to bring about the necessary changes. The senior managers resisted because they feared that they would lose their jobs. From Kodak’s example it is evident that organizational politics exists mostly at upper and middle management level. To secure their vested interests, the senior management chose their own man as a CEO who instead of working towards the betterment of the company, focused more on saving their jobs. The size and profits of the company dwindled as workers were either laid off or they left to join other firms. The management at Kodak was first in the denial stage; a stage in which the company refuses to acknowledge that change can affect its performance and profits. Once it got over denial, it started resisting change; resistance to change occurs when the company fears that its profits will drop and also when the top management feels that it will lose control over the company. In case of Kodak the top management resisted changed because it feared that it will lose its control, power, security and status.In the beginning they did not attempt to change and later they did not try hard to change although the change (transition to digital technology) would have been good for them as well as for the organization. Most of the managers who had reached to the top had enjoyed a long relationship with the company and to transform it meant changing their own beliefs and values regarding the company. Such a change is exceptional and requires skill which the top management sadly lacked. References Argote, L 1999,Organizational Learning, New York: Springer Publications. Badham, R & Buchanan, D 008,Power, Politics and Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game, 2ndedn., London: SAGE Bradshaw, P &Boonstra, J2004,‘Power Dynamics in Organizational Change: a multi-perspective approach’, in boonstra, J (ed.), Dynamics of organizational change and learning, London: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 279-300. Champoux, J E 2010,Organizational Behavior: Integrating Individuals, Groups, and Organizations, 4thedn.,New York: Taylor and Francis Daft, R L2009,Organization Theory and Design, USA: Cengage Learning Doniger, M 2008,A Common Sense Road Map to Uncommon Wealth: The Key to Achieving Financial Success, Bloomington, IN: iUniverse Fairholm, G W 2009,Organizational Power Politics: Tactics in Organizational Leadership, USA: ABC CILO Griffin, R W2011, Fundamentals of Management, USA: Cengage Learning. Griffin, RW& Moorhead, G 2009,Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations, USA: Cengage Learning Gualco, D 2012,The Choices and Consequences of Our Age: The Disintegrating Economic, Political, and Societal Institutions of the United States, Bloomington, IN: iUniverse Holbeche, L 2005,The High Performance Organization, New York:Routledge. Jennifer, G 2009,Understanding And Managing Organizational Behavior, 5thedn., India: Pearson Education. Jones, G R & Mathew, M 2012,Organizational Theory, Design, And Change, 5thedn., India: Pearson Education. KinickiA&Kreitner, R 1999,Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills and Best Practices,3rdedn., New York: McGraw Hill Education Kotter, J 2012, Barriers to Change: The Real Reason Behind the Kodak Downfall, Forbes, [online], available at [Accessed on 8th Dec, 2012] Kreitner, R 2008,Management, USA:Cengage Learning McKenna, E F 2000,Business Psychology &OrganizationalBehavior: A Student's Handbook, USA and Canada: Taylor and Francis Group Miller, K 2009,Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes, 5thedn., USA: Cengage Learning. Mui, C 2012, How Kodak FailedForbes, [online], available at [Accessed on 8th Dec, 2012] Pfeffer, J 1992,Managing with Power: Politics and Influences in Organization, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press Porter, L, Angle, H & Allen, R 2003,Organizational Influence Processes, 2ndedn., New York: M.E.Sharpe Publishers Singh, K 2009,Organizational Behavior: Text and Cases, India: Pearson Education. Vigoda-Gadot, E 2003,Developments in Organizational Politics: How Political Dynamics Affect Employee Performance in Modern Work Sites, UK and USA: Edward Elgar Publishers Vigoda-Gadot, E &Drory,A 2006,Handbook of Organizational Politics, UK and USA: Edward Elgar Publishers Waddington, K 2012, Gossips and Organizations, New York:Routledge Yammarino, F J 2002,The Many Faces of Multi-Level Issues: Volume 1, UK and USA: Emerald Group Publishing Read More