Power, Politics, Conflicts, and Negotiations in the Organizational Culture - Essay Example

Organizational behaviour Table of Contents Introduction 3 2. Power and politics 3 2 Conceptual theory 4 2.2 Impact of power and politics upon culture 4 2.3 Employee management 5 3. Conflict and negotiations 6 3.1 Conceptual theories 7 3.2 Impact of conflict and negotiations upon culture 7 3.3 Employee management 8 Conclusion 9 Reference list 10 1. Introduction Power, politics and conflicts are common aspects of organizational behaviour. The subject matter of organisational behaviour facilitates understanding how effectively mangers, employees and other stakeholders interact with each other so that the prime objective of the business can be achieved. Power and politics are essential for an organization to establish control and to direct the entire organization in a productive manner. Power and politics are also essential for implementing competition, achieving high productivity and to develop new ideas. Similarly it is seen that conflict is also an unavoidable factor in organizational growth and development (Buchanan and Badham, 2008). The current paper analyses the importance of power, politics, conflicts and negotiations and how they impact organizational culture and the employees. 2. Power and politics Power can be essentially described as the ability to make someone do something as per ones will. It is the ability to make things happen as one desires and as they direct others. Power can essentially be described as the influential mechanism one has over others. If an organization lets employees work as they wish without exercising power, they might escape from responsibilities and remain less serious about work. In order to make employees work, it becomes essential to exercise a certain degree of power. It is generally observed that power implemented legitimately is most beneficial. Frequent and over exercising of power may lead to employees feeling over dominated and pressurized (Lawrence, et al., 2005). This might negatively impact performance (Mumby, 2001). Power in an organization should always be directed towards enhancing organizational productivity. Mangers must ensure that while exercising power, they must not display rudeness, anger or ego. Power should be exhibited in a motivating and directive manner. Managers must ensure that power does not induce fear and resentment amongst employees. This would prevent them from sharing their problems and issues with the superiors. The power to direct and guide employees must be vested in the hands of able leaders who understand the needs of both the organization and the employees (Mumby, 2001). Threatening employees, with job loss or severe actions to make them to do their work is not an effective way to exercise power (Lawrence, et al., 2005). Organizational politics can be described as the act of giving more importance to one’s own interest without giving much consideration to the needs of others. Political influences are common in modern day organizations for influencing the manner in which organizational responsibilities are carried out. Learning how to navigate political influences within an organization is essential to emerge successfully (Jones, 2010). Intelligent use of politics facilitates emp0loyees to enhance productivity, establish clear objectives and enhance team spirit and cultural cohesiveness (Pettigrew, 2014). Politics to a certain extends is encouraged in organization as it helps employees to remain competitive and develop a desire to work hard. Politics is also seen to facilitate establishing ethical policies and prevent injustice in the workplace (Alford, 2002). Political association between workers many at times is deemed essential to so that superiors are influenced to make justifiable decisions. Political culture which exists within an organization is usually not expressed vocally. It is understood through actions and the manner in which individuals behave with each other with an organizational setting (Jones, 2010). 2.1 Conceptual theory The different types of powers which are seen to exist within an organization can be broadly categorized as formal power and personal power. Formal power can again be subdivided as coercive, reward and legitimate powers. Coercive power refers to the forceful implementation of rules and activities upon employees (Robbins and Judge, 2012). Reward power lies in the hands of those who can provide incentives and other forms of recognition to members who have performed extraordinarily well. Legitimate power gets acquired from the position one holds in an organizational hierarchy and accordingly influence other people. Personal power can be subdivided into expert and referent power. Expert power arises out of the skill and knowledge one possesses (Stryker, 2000). Referent power is gained from interpersonal skills, loyalty and admiration (Stryker, 2000). 2.2 Impact of power and politics upon culture Both power and politics are seen to develop a culture of competitiveness within an organization. Organizational culture facilitates monitoring the day to day activities of employees. Through suitable cultures, an organization is seen to control or exert power upon employees to remain productive (M. W. Pye and L. W. Pye, 2009). Power facilitates developing a culture whereby employees effectively follow the established codes of conduct and the formal policies of operations. Implementing such a power induces similar behaviour amongst employees and facilitates developing similar cultures. Power is often utilized for manipulating internal and external perceptions within an organization and is seen to take the form of a control mechanism (Jasperson, et al., 2002). When power of superiors to control the actions of subordinates gets enhanced, a culture of fear and resentment gets automatically developed within the organization. Power many at times control and direct the manner in which culture is fostered within an organization. Power especially plays an important role when new policies are introduced and for making new employees understand the culture which exists within an organization (Burns, 2000). Politics often leads towards a culture of acting in teams. Usually the interests of individuals are promoted by combining themselves into group. Politics is one of the strongest forces behind conflicts within employees of an organization (Easterby‐Smith, Crossan and Nicolini, 2000). Politics also leads towards employees to develop a need to achieve higher organizational positions so that they are able to control the activities of other employees. If political influences are not controlled, they negatively impact the culture existing with an organization. When employees notice that promotion and rewards are provided by superiors based on personal interests and exercising political influences, it makes them lose their motivation (Ferris, et al., 2002). As a result employees stop working hard and depend on political forces to sustain in the organization. Uncontrolled politics may also lead to the development of strong worker groups which may have a very strong influence upon the organizational decision making capabilities. Firms may begin to support employee interest’s more than organizational interests. Hence mangers must regulate politics and not let it control organizational decisions to a large extend (Jablin and Putnam, 2000). 2.3 Employee management Power plays an important role in monitoring and controlling employee performance. However the existence of high power within an organization leads to rapid employee turnover and may increase the level of anxiety and stress within an organization. Power is essential to make employees follow the rules established and refrain from fraudulent behaviour (Rahim, 2002). Politics is often associated with power. A powerful employee is able to exercise his political motives more intelligently than others. Both power and politics are mainly essential for promoting the spirit of competitiveness’ and productivity. Hence mangers must ensure that only positive types of power and politics are exercised within an organization. It must be kept in mind that both power and politics are essential factors require being promoted in a controlled manner for improving performance (Owen, 2002). 3. Conflict and negotiations Organizational conflicts arise when one or a group or employees are not in support or condemn the views or actions of others. Conflict causes two parties involved to negate each other’s opinions. Conflict within an organization is an unavoidable factor as the perceptual and cognitive abilities are highly diverse. Conflicts are generally considered to be harmful for an organization and should essentially be avoided as far as possible. Poor communication, improper interpretation of information and lack of openness towards of failure are seen to be the main reasons of disapproval within an organization (De Dreu and Van Vianen, 2001). However, a different school of thinkers believe that conflicts are a necessary outcome of teams and generally lead towards development of increased efficiency through competition (Rahim, 2002). Conflicts are essentially seen to arise out of three main reasons, namely; goal differences, interdependence and difference in perceptions. Goal differences are a common reason of conflict between managers and employees (Dean, Jeffrey and Hee, 2003). While employees give more emphasis upon their own needs mangers remain focussed upon achieving organizational goals. Perception variances are also a common cause of conflicts within an organization. Due to differential cognitive abilities, the same information can be interpreted differently. As a result the decision making and opinions generated may vary leading to conflicts between the same group members. Most conflicts are seen to arise between team members due to strong interdependency (Rahim, 2002). Conflicts are essentially solved through negotiations. Negotiation is a process whereby a win-win situation is created amongst members who are in conflict (De Dreu and Van Vianen, 2001). In order to put an end to a conflict process it is important to negotiate and reach a consensus. In order to give effect to the negotiation process it is essential to encourage employees in conflict to develop a positive and submissive mentality. It usually becomes essential to establish direct interaction between members in order to implement the negotiating process (Jehn and Bendersky, 2003). Employing an external agent to resolve conflicts also becomes essential for giving effect to the negotiating process. The process of negotiation involves discussing what each party wants. Accordingly a suitable decision is taken which delivers benefits to both parties. Negotiations require members in conflict to forego some benefits so that consensus can be reached (Oetzel and Ting-Toomey, 2003). 3.1 Conceptual theories The process of conflict is seen to occur on three important stages. The first stage is where the incompatibility takes place. Here communication between the members involved in the process of conflict remains unclear and leads to misunderstandings. The basic framework and reasons for conflict is set in this stage. The second stage of the conflict process is to perceive and understand the existence of differences. This stage makes employees realize the differences existing between the different parties (Drolet and Morris, 2000). It is also indicative of the aspect of cognitive thinking differences (Drolet and Morris, 2000). Resolution and negotiations works most effectively in this stage. The final stage of conflict is essentially the intention stage. At this stage members engaged in conflict are seen to develop a need to achieve consensus. A cooperative mentality gets developed and members engaged in conflict try to seek ways in which conflicts can be resolved. In order to understand how negotiation can be achieved, the perceived benefits for both the parties are analyzed (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). Accordingly it is determined which benefits are required to be foregone so that a concrete resolution can be achieved. The dimensions of conflict handling can be broadly classified as competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommodating and compromising (Drolet and Morris, 2000). If the intention of conflict is to compete, reaching a consensus is difficult. Such conflicts are settled thorough performance monitoring or gauging the situation from the third person’s point of view. When the intention of conflict is collaborative, it becomes possible to develop measures which are in favor of all members engaged in conflict (Moore, 2014). Developing intentions of avoidance is also quite common. Avoidance mentality usually gets developed when the conflict process gets so prolonged that the parties lose interest to win and automatically withdraw themselves from remaining a part of the conflict (Staw and Sutton, 2000). 3.2 Impact of conflict and negotiations upon culture Conflicts may have both positive and negative impacts upon the culture of an organization. Positive conflicts involves group discussions and counter arguments which leads to the generation of innovative ideas and thoughts. Positive conflicts prevent an organization to refrain from becoming stagnant. Usually conflicts in an organization arise when adaptation, change or innovations are implemented (Montoya-Weiss, Massey and Song, 2001). It therefore becomes essential for mangers to make employees realise the benefits of change and adopt the same in an optimistic manner. Conflicts can only arise when there are differences of opinions. In order to generate opinions it is essential that employees engage in deep thinking and analysing processes. Conflicts therefore are indicative of liveliness and active organizational human resources, thereby preventing organizational stagnation. Conflicts help in clearing misunderstandings as detailed discussion take place. It also facilitates detailed awareness regarding the subject matter of discussion and leads to better interpretation of subject matter (Montoya-Weiss, Massey and Song, 2001). Rational decision making therefore gets facilitated. Broader and more fruitful solutions can be reached (Friedman, et al., 2000). Dysfunctional or negative conflicts may lead to severe consequences if not controlled or mitigate on time (Lovelace, Shapiro and Weingart, 2001). Productive conflicts are usually related to the manner in which an organization functions. Dysfunctional conflicts arise out of aspects such as personal ego and cultural differences (Jehn and Mannix, 2001). Dysfunctional conflicts if not controlled on time may become grave issues and difficult to be solved through negotiations. Managers are required to remain particularly careful regarding such conflicts and develop codes of conduct so as to prevent them. Dysfunctional conflicts between employees, suppressed for long durations, may lead to permanent damage of relationships. Such conflicts also disrupt organizational environment and may lead to highly negative consequences such as termination of employment (Lovelace, Shapiro and Weingart, 2001). 3.3 Employee management Managing conflicts productively is an essential management activity. Mangers are require to assess the interests of the employees who are in conflict and accordingly develop approaches so that a win-win situation gets created. Organizational authorities are required to develop codes of conduct which facilitate fostering positive conflicts and resist the development of negative conflicts (Alper, Tjosvold and Law, 2000). Mangers intervention into the conflict process is also essential for the timely resolution of conflicts. Managers are required to adopt the problem solving technique for resolving conflicts and facilitate negotiations. Usually when quick decisions are required to be taken, managers resort to completion and act in favour of those who win the competition. However such techniques can only be undertaken when the conflict matter is related to organizational processes or tasks. If the prime aspect of conflict is relationship based, negotiating techniques become highly difficult to implement (Bendersky, 2003). Conclusion Power in an organization is essential for giving effect to leadership and directing a firm to success. Power roles are essential so that subordinate actions can be monitored and corrected so as to achieve the set objectives. Politics within an organization gets developed from individual as well as organizational factors. Individual factors are strong personality and desire to succeed. Organizational factors on the other hand are essentially resource availability, role ambiguity, evaluation systems, performance pressures and management attitude. Irrespective of the source of politics, managers must ensure that only healthy politics are encouraged within an organization. Conflict and negotiations are also unavoidable factors within an organization. Individuals based on their level of knowledge and understandings of different subject matters are seen to provide diversified opinions. This leads to organizational conflicts. Conflicts are also indicators of the fact that an organization consists of diversified pools of thought. Timely negotiation of conflicts are essential for maintaining organizational a peaceful environment and reaching consensus, facilitating decision making. Reference list Alford, C. F., 2002. Whistleblowers: Broken lives and organizational power. New York: Cornell University Press. Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, K. S., 2000. Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), pp. 625-642. Bendersky, C., 2003. Organizational dispute resolution systems: A complementarities model. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), pp.643-656. Buchanan, D. and Badham, R., 2008. Power, Politics, and Organizational Change: winning the turf game. London: Sage. Burns, J., 2000. The dynamics of accounting change inter-play between new practices, routines, institutions, power and politics. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5), pp. 566-596. De Dreu, C. K. and Van Vianen, A. E., 2001. Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), pp. 309-328. Dean, G., Jeffrey, Z. and Hee, S., 2003. Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L., 2001. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), pp. 450-467. Drolet, A. L. and Morris, M. W., 2000. Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), pp. 26-50. Easterby‐Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicolini, D., 2000. Organizational learning: debates past, present and future. Journal Of Management Studies, 37(6), pp. 783-796. Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A. and Ammeter, A. P., 2002. Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. Research in Multi Level Issues, 1(2), pp. 179-254. Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C. and Tsai, J. C., 2000. What goes around comes around: The impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), pp. 32-55. Jablin, F. M. and Putnam, L., 2000. The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. London: Sage Publications. Jasperson, J. S., Carte, T. A., Saunders, C. S., Butler, B. S., Croes, H. J. and Zheng, W., 2002. Review: power and information technology research: a metatriangulation review. MIS Quarterly, 26(4), pp. 397-459. Jehn, K. A. and Bendersky, C., 2003. Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research In Organizational Behavior, 25(1), pp. 187-242. Jehn, K. A. and Mannix, E. A., 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy Of Management Journal, 44(2), pp. 238-251. Jones, G. R., 2010. Organizational theory, design, and change. New Jersey: Pearson. Lawrence, T. B., Mauws, M. K., Dyck, B. and Kleysen, R. F., 2005. The politics of organizational learning: integrating power into the 4I framework. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 180-191. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L. and Weingart, L. R., 2001. Maximizing cross-functional new product teams innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy Of Management Journal, 44(4), pp. 779-793. Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P. and Song, M., 2001. Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy Of Management Journal, 44(6), pp. 1251-1262. Moore, C. W., 2014. The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Mumby, D. K., 2001. Power and politics. The New Handbook Of Organizational Communication: Advances In Theory, Research, And Methods, 1(1), pp. 585-623. Oetzel, J. G. and Ting-Toomey, S., 2003. Face concerns in interpersonal conflict a cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30(6), pp. 599-624. Owen, R., 2002. State Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East. London: Routledge. Pettigrew, A. M., 2014. The politics of organizational decision-making. London: Routledge. Pye, M. W. and Pye, L. W., 2009. Asian power and politics: The cultural dimensions of authority. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Rahim, M. A., 2002. Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal Of Conflict Management, 13(3), pp. 206-235. Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A., 2012. Organizational Behavior 15th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Staw, B. M. and Sutton, R. I., 2000. Research in organizational behaviour. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Stryker, R., 2000. Legitimacy processes as institutional politics: Implications for theory and research in the sociology of organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 17(1), pp. 179-223. Read More