Aspects of Power in Organisations - Literature review Example

? Aspects of Power in Organisations Aspects of Power in Organisations Introduction Tackling the issue of politics in organisationshas long been considered a problematic area in management. This is largely because the consideration of organisation politics supposes the existence of a dark side of organisational life since it calls for the examination of typical contentious issues related to politics (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000 p. 534). These issues include power, control and interest. However, the examination of organisational politics is essential since it offers a critical perspective on which an in-depth understanding of management, for instance, human resource management (HRM) can be attained. Based on this context, it is evident that the consideration of organisational politics can offer a basis for challenging the existing paradigm (Sparks, Faragher & Cooper 2001, p. 503). This paper seeks to report the existing literature on power in the context of a noteworthy branch of organisation management, human resource management. The rationale of this paper is informed by the need to raise the profile of the politics of power in HRM. Literature Review The fundamental question that informs this literature review concerns what power has to do with HRM. Reading through HRM textbooks, it quickly becomes clear that power as an idea is rarely examined explicitly (Rigg & Trehan 2004, p. 157). Whenever the issue of power is tackled directly, it is mostly as a question of negotiating power between the organisation and its labour force, the responsibility of empowerment, or the power of organisational leaders to execute punishment or rewards (Ali 2012, p. 983). However, indirectly, power can be termed as an interesting topic in the HRM literature since it prompts the question of the status or influence of HRM as a critical function in organisations. In the context of HRM in organisations, power refers to the deliberate influence over the behaviours, emotions and beliefs of the workforce. However, according to Witt, Andrews & Kacmar (2000, p. 343) power is largely ubiquitous since without power (typified through influence) it is impossible to have cooperation and stability within the organisation. However, by and large, the execution of power often results in problems, which typically stem from the visions of people with power, as well as the way they use their power. Observations have been made regarding the growing significance of HRM in organisations in the last few decades. The human resource (HR) department has become the central figure of organisations, and the question of the influence and role of the HR department has come to the forefront (De Leede & Looise 2005, p. 115). Historical accounts have analysed the emergence of power among HR specialists in organisations, there is no empirical work specifically related to the application of power by HR specialists (Harley & Hardy 2004, p. 378). The ideal of organisations where the entire workforce works collaboratively toward a mutually acceptable goal is common in most HRM rhetoric. However, the reality is quite different since although teamwork is often regarded as one of the most significant organisational virtues, the workplace is often shrouded in demerits such as competition, antagonism and conflict. It is within this context that an in-depth appreciation of influence and power proves essential. All organisations are comprised of individuals with diverse tasks, personal interests and careers (Gotsis & Kortezi 2010, p. 499). According to Sparks, Faragher & Cooper (2001, p. 494) in order to be successful in getting things done, HR specialists need to appreciate the importance of their capacity to exert influence on the organisation’s entire workforce. In the execution of their power, a vast majority of conventional HRM programs have taken on, whether knowingly or unknowingly, managerialist or functionalist perspectives. Managing typically encompasses the exertion of influence through the use of power. In the contemporary business environment, the notion that managing is a technical activity has been challenged. This has been attained through the materialization of critical thinking, for instance, in the use of power to perform HR functions (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000 p. 544). Today, HRM specialists appreciate that power does not necessarily come from being in the managerial position, but rather that power emanates from being in the right place at the right time in order to influence the workforce to accomplish specific functions. At its core, HRM appreciates that since the workplace is essentially a political entity, there is a need to find a means of enabling workers reconcile their conflicts and dissimilarities. As a consequence, in HRM, power provides for a way through which specialists can mend workforce differences through both negotiation and consultation (De Leede & Looise 2005, p. 111). In the contemporary business environment, HRM is constantly seeking ways of asserting power by managing organisational politics (Rigg & Trehan 2004, p. 159). The idea of politics refers to activities people carry out in order to attain, increase and use resources such as power in order to accomplish their desired results, especially in circumstances involving disagreement or uncertainty (Wendy & Morrison, 2001 p. 308). In light of this understanding, HR specialists exercise the full extent of their power in order to influence the emergence of different interests within the entire workforce while also maintaining their department’s main interests in organisational matters, for instance, providing employee training and development. Famous theorists (Vigoda-Gadot 2007, p. 672) have identified two primary perspectives that dictate the exercise of power in HRM. These theories include the critical perspective and the functionalist perspective. On its part, the critical perspective conceptualises the idea of power in HRM as actions and domination taken in order to challenge resistance to domination or influence. In essence, according to Ferris, Perrewe, Anthony & Gilmore (2000, p. 30) the critical theory of power argues that dominant groups within an organisation, including managers, typically endeavour to exert their power in order to influence different aspects of the organisation, often on behalf of the organisation itself (Gotsis & Kortezi 2010, p. 503). This is evidenced by the critical roles played by HRM in the organisation, including managing and developing the workforce and ensuring effective use of resources in order to attain optimal productivity. In doing this, dominant groups within an organisation are able to continue imposing their own interests on the dominated groups and repeating their control and influence over those dominated. Essentially, the critical perspective demonstrates that, in organisations, HR specialists typically assert their power over the workforce, thereby manipulating organisational discourse linked to the workers (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000 p. 550). Therefore, by accomplishing this fete, HRM imposes its own interests on the workforce and reproduces its influence of the organisation’s employees. Furthermore, the critical perspective sets out to determine the ways in which HRM’s power, conflict, legitimacy and control significantly influence relations among workers, between managers and between managers and the workforce (Chang, Rosen & Levy 2009, p. 779). Ultimately, the critical perspective provides a rich understanding of how management perspectives are ultimately applied to the management of human resources. Like in conventional management, the management of power in HRM also involves negotiating the politics of leadership, especially by appreciating the huge impact effective leadership has on the HR strategies adopted (Nazalan, Wafa & Hassan 2011, p. 22). Fundamentally, the negotiation of power in HRM involves finding ways of dealing with live tensions and real issues that impact the workforce. Such negotiation ultimately ensures that HR specialists do not fit unquestionably into roles traditionally required of them, but rather engage with the moral and social issues that surround people management practices. On the other hand, De Leede & Looise (2005, p. 110) argue that the functionalist perspective provides that the exercise of power in organisation management processes such as decision making is an integral part of the strategy to achieve desired outcomes. Additionally, Nazalan, Wafa & Hassan (2011, p. 20) poise that the functionalist perspective is applicable to the management of access of HR specialists to the decision making subject, thus ensuring complete compliance through decisions. Clearly, the greatest assumption of the functionalist perspective to the exercise of power, especially in HRM, is that the behaviour of HR specialists takes place within a rationally designed environment, thus is indivisible from the idea of efficiency. Contrary to the aforementioned perspectives, other theorists (Witt, Andrews & Kacmar 2000, p. 347) concerned with the exercise of power in organisation have identified that individuals within organisations are sometimes focused primarily on the self-serving and organisationally disallowed, individual exercise of power (Rosen, Harris & Kacmar 2009, p. 30). Conversely, others (Wendy & Morrison, 2001, p. 304) have typified the exercise of power within organisations as a process that involves social influences with potentially dysfunctional or functional consequence to the entire organisation. Essentially, this means that the exercise of power is sometimes dictated by the management of influence, particularly social influences. According to Vigoda-Gadot (2007, p. 681) behaviour is not necessarily influenced by the pursuit or exercise of power since focus is largely on purposeful attempts to control the beliefs and goals shared by all individuals within the organisation. The weakness inherent in this perspective is that it fails to appreciate that people also pursue different beliefs and goals in addition to the shared goals and beliefs. In reality, behaviour is largely influenced by individual pursuit or exercise of power (Ali 2012, p. 980). Conclusion The politics of people development in HRM calls for the redefinition of strategies touching on the exercise and management of power (Edwards & Kuruvilla 2005, p. 10). The literature presented in the paper has provided an essential glimpse into the management of power throughout the management of people in the HR department. The paper has enabled a vital examination of the different perspectives that influence the exercise of power within organisations (Harley & Hardy 2004, p. 393). These perspectives are shown to largely remedy wrongful exercise of power influenced by personal ambition and desires. From the analysis of literature, it is evident that the critical and functionalist perspectives of power provide the best approaches to the exercise of power since both perspectives steer clear of self-directed exercises of power. The paper has demonstrated a major gap in the examination of politics in organisations and the application of power in HRM. This calls for the conduct of additional research into organisational politics in order to enhance discourse regarding the positive attributes of organisational and realise the advantageous application of power in organisations (Ferris, Perrewe, Anthony & Gilmore 2000, p. 28). References Ali, A 2012, ‘The role of leadership in human resource management: Proposing conceptual framework of advanced leadership model’, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 979-989. Chang, CH, Rosen, CC & Levy, PE 2009, ‘The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behaviour: A meta-analytic examination’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 52, pp. 779–801. Edwards, T & Kuruvilla, S 2005, ‘International HRM: National business systems, organizational politics and the international division of labour in MNCs’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1-21. De Leede, J & Looise, JK 2005, ‘Innovation and HRM: Towards an integrated framework’, Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 14, no. 2, 108-18. Ferris, G, Perrewe, P, Anthony, W & Gilmore, D 2000, ‘Political skill at work’, Organization Dynamics, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 25-37. Gotsis, GN & Kortezi, Z 2010, ‘Ethical considerations in organizational politics: Expanding the perspective’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 93, pp. 497-517. Harley, B & Hardy, C 2004, ‘Firing blanks? An analysis of discursive struggle in HRM’, Journal of Management Studies”, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 377-400. Nazalan, N, Wafa, W & Hassan, RA 2011, ‘The relationship between values, attitudes and organisational politics’, International Journal of Management and Business Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, 19-23. Podsakoff, PM, MacKenzie, SB, Paine, JB & Bachrach, DG 2000, ‘Organizational citizenship behaviours: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research’, Journal of Management, vol. 26, pp. 513–563. Rigg, C & Trehan, K 2004, ‘Reflections on working with critical action learning’, Action Learning Research and Practice, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.151-167. Rosen, CC, Harris, KJ & Kacmar, KM 2009, ‘The emotional implications of organizational politics: A process model’, Human Relations, vol. 62 no. 1, pp. 27-57. Sparks, K, Faragher, B & Cooper, CL 2001, ‘Well-being and occupational health in the 21st century workplace’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 74, pp. 489-509. Vigoda-Gadot, E 2007, ‘Leadership style, organisational politics and employees’ performance: An empirical examination of two competing models’, Personnel Review, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 661- 683. Wendy, EO & Morrison, TG 2001, ‘A comparison of situational and dispositional predictors of perceptions of organizational politics’, Journal of Psychology, vol. 135, no. 3. pp. 301-313. Witt, LA, Andrews, CA & Kacmar, KM 2000, ‘The role of participation in decision-making in the organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship’, Human Relations, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 341-358. Read More