Power and Politics in Organizations - Essay Example

Power and Politics in Organizations Primarily, politics and wielding of power is the grease that oils the wheels of administration and management of organizations. The ability to engage in politics through proper wielding of power determines a leader’s ability to exert influence on subordinates, and accomplish desired objectives. In practice, organizational politics stem from various sources. Technically, understanding the causes of politicking is the first step in appreciating the depth and breadth of positive and negative consequences of power and politics in organizations. Upon understanding the consequences of power and politics, the next appropriate step would entail appraising the merits and demerits of power-wielding and politicking in workplaces. Finally, appropriate recommendations become necessary in either optimizing the benefits of power and politics, or mitigating the negative effects of the two concepts of organizational theory. Introduction In the contexts of organizational theory and organizational behavior, workplace politics feature as one of the most influential concept in management of corporations. In essence, politics entails the process of using either formal or personal power in influencing subordinates. Conventionally, presidential politics are iconic processes used in influencing a nation’s citizenship. Presidential candidates and other elected leaders use their formal or personal powers in wooing voters to their sides. Similarly, politics is as alive and practical in workplaces as it is in national and state administration contexts. Typically, workplace politics emerge whenever employees are subjected to an unhappy workplace environment (HEYMAN, 2007). In addition, organizational politics emerge whenever a part or a whole of a company’s workforce is dissatisfied with an existing or a new hierarchical structure. Whatever the cause, organizational politics are meant to exert influential or coercive pressure on the opposing side, especially the top leadership. Technically, organizational politics is a coercive approach meant to place those behind a political movement at an advantaged position (WITT, 2010). Power and Politics Essentially, leaders are the spear tips in organizational politics. Formally, leaders are responsibly for coordination, control, influence, and inspiration of subordinate employees within an organization. During politics, leaders intensify their coordinating and influential efforts in negotiating for favors and advantages. Occasionally, political activities within an organization heighten whenever different leaders subscribe to opposing interests (SPICER, 2012). For example, some departmental managers within a manufacturing firm may stand in favor of salary increment and employees’ promotions. On the other hand, opposing leaders of the same firm may stand in favor of profit maximization goals through minimization of labor costs. In such contexts, leaders possess conflicting interests. In an effort to advance their specific interests, political dynamics arise. In political dynamics, power is the fuel towards achievement of desired goals. The more power a leader have, the higher the chances of achieving political objectives within an organization (FAIRHOLM, 2009). In this regard, successful accomplishment of political goals within an organization depends on a leader’s ability to skillfully navigate through the aisles of autocratic, bureaucratic, and technocratic powers. Types of Power in Workplace Politics Prior to appraising the causes and consequences of political dynamics in organizations, it is worth conducting a comprehensive evaluation of types of powers in workplace leadership. Power falls into two primary categories; formal power, and personal power. Formal power is bureaucratic in nature. Bureaucratic power gives a leader the right and ability to influence subordinates based on written hierarchical structures and formal chain of command (HEYMAN, 2007). Specific examples of formal power include coercive, reward, and legitimate influences. Bureaucratically, only bosses and top level leaders can reward subordinates through promotions and salary bonuses. In addition, the same bosses can coerce subordinate employees to act in a prescribed manner, failure to which their disloyalty attracts punitive actions like demotions or even termination of employment. These types of powers are not only formally recognized by all members of an organization, but are also legitimately exercised by leaders in furthering their political interests (HEYMAN, 2007). Besides formal or bureaucratic powers, another type of influential force in organizational politics is personal power. Technically, personal power is not formally recognized by any organizational structures. Despite the lack of formal recognition, personal power is sometimes known to exert more influence on employees compared to formal power. One example of personal power is expert or technocratic power. Expert power is attributed to a leader’s academic or technical expertise skills (SPICER, 2012). For instance, a project manager with the most knowledge and experience in the use of project management software possess substantial expert power in project management exercises over any other opposing leaders. Essentially, a leader’s ability to solve technical problems is the main source of expert influence in organizational politics. Another source of personal power is referent power. Referent power results from a leader’s physical and charismatic traits. For example, physically attractive leaders have the ability to influence masses, simply because they look good. In addition, leaders with desirable interpersonal skills can easily entice and attract masses through charismatic appeals (WAGNER, 2009). Technically, a synergistic effect of both formal and personal powers can significantly catapult a leader ahead of his or her opponents in workplace politics. Causes of Workplace Politics In practical contexts, workplace politics are not only inevitable, but also necessary. Workplace politics is an integral part of any organization, simply because employees within any given work environment possess different interests and ambitions. Typically, some perpetrators of workplace politics may have hidden agendas meant for personal gain, while others may have genuine interest to improve the social and economic conditions of an organization’s stakeholders. Either way, the two common causes of workplace politics include competition and an untamed desire to advance, and abuse of power and resources (WAGNER, 2009). Middle level leaders may have inherent desires to advance up the bureaucratic ladder. In such case, the desire to occupy an upper position triggers competitive strives in leadership offices, which manifest in for of political dynamics. On the other hand, abuse of a leadership office may cause dissatisfaction and discomfort among employees. In such cases, any improper exercise of power that undermines fairness and transparency within an organization invariably necessitates politicking. Besides the two elaborated causes, other auxiliary reasons for workplace politics may include but not limited to scarcity of resources, and personal conflicts between leaders (FAIRHOLM, 2009). Consequences of Workplace Politics Political frictions within an organization yield both positive and negative outcomes. With respect to positive outcomes, politics in the behavior of leaders minimize and even eliminate abuse of power and misappropriation of resources within an organization. Traditionally, political leadership was often equated with corruption. Leaders with high formal and personal powers are highly likely to craftily embezzle an organization’s resources for personal gain (BOOTH & MELLING, 2013). Any subordinate leader or employee who tries to question or whistle-blow misappropriation of resources by such corrupt high level leaders may be demoted or fired. Fortunately, workplace politics facilitates collective whistle-blowing; hence discouraging corruption in top offices. Contrarily, one negative outcome of politics in organizational leadership is low job satisfaction. Practically, workplace politics involve differences and personal conflict between top leaders. In the process of such in-fighting, certain workplace practices may be violated. For example, a leader with formal power may unfairly lay-off multiple workers just to prove a point to his or her political opponents. In such cases, job security becomes uncertain and subordinate employees start to operate with heightened levels of job anxiety (BOOTH & MELLING, 2013). Eventually, politicking undermines the element of job satisfaction. Pros and Cons of Wielding Power in Workplace Presently, most organizations discourage the wielding of power in workplaces. Organizations in the 21st Century are more inclined to workplace democracy. Multinational corporations are continually encouraging employees to collectively present their views and concerns through democratic channels like popular election of leaders (WITT, 2010). Despite such efforts in fostering democracy within work environments, most companies still adopt traditional forms of power exercising mechanisms. Technically, rampant wielding of power in workplaces presents both benefits and setbacks. One benefit of exercising power in today’s work environment is efficiency during change implementation (SPICER, 2012). Most employees are resistant to change. Fortunately, coercive power proves instrumental during change implementation. In case of any resistance to change, leaders with coercive and reward powers can either threaten to punish opponents of change, or reward those showing close adherence to desired change principles. One setback in the wielding of workplace power is cultural tension. Presently, workplaces are becoming increasingly diversified. Admittedly, employees from different social and economic backgrounds have distinct was of thinking and performing their respective duties. However, wielding of power create a rigid work environment where diverse opinions that conflict leadership directions are discouraged (WAGNER, 2009). Therefore, power and politics compromises on workplace diversity, and causes unnecessary tension among employees. Conclusion In conclusion, it is evident that wielding of political power in organizations is there to stay. Despite increased popularization of workplace democracy today, leaders in both public and private companies are still fond of engaging in politicking, and wielding of power. Actually, the desire to influence others in achieving specific objectives motivates leaders to exercise either personal or formal powers (BOOTH & MELLING, 2013). Apparently, the need for politicking and exercise of powers intensifies whenever there is either competition among leaders, or discomfort among employees attributed to abuse of power and resources by existing leaders. In practice, power and politics usher in both negative and positive consequences and outcomes. In this regard, it is recommendable that leaders should reap from the positive outcomes, and devise ways of mitigating the effects of negative outcomes in workplace power and politics. References BOOTH, A & MELLING, J. (2013). Managing modern workplaces: Productivity, politics and workplace culture. Indianapolis: Ash-gate Publishing. FAIRHOLM, G. W. (2009). Organizational power and politics: Tactics in organizational leadership. Pittsburg: ABC-CLIO. HEYMAN, M. C. (2007). Organizational theory: A look at the anthropology of power-wielding bureaucracies. Journal of Human Resource Management 63(4), 486-492. SPICER, A. (2012). Beyond power and resistance: New approaches to organizational politics. Management Communication Quarterly 47(1), 32-47. WAGNER, J. A. (2009). Organizational behavior: Securing competitive advantage. New York: Cengage Learning. WITT, A. (2010). Influences of supervisor behaviors on the levels and effects of workplace politics. Journal of Business Psychology, 22(5), 135-144. Read More