What can Do Organisational Politics - Essay Example

School: HOW CAN NAVIGATING ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ENABLE LEADERS TO FUNCTION MORE EFFECTIVELY Lecturer: HOW CAN NAVIGATING ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS ENABLE LEADERS TO FUNCTION MORE EFFECTIVELY Introduction Organizations are important destinations where a lot of social relations and interactions take place. Wherever there are social relations and interactions, there is an automatic provision that there will be the existence of politicking that to a large extent would ensure the regulation of power. In the organisational context, organisational politics have been viewed from a perspective that is not very different from the normal definition of politics in other social setting. For example, Valle and Perrewe (2000) defined organisational politics as “the exercise of tactical influence which is strategically goal directed, rationale, conscious and intended to promote self-interest, either at the expense of or in support of others’ interests” (p. 361). From this definition, it would be noted that organisational politics, like in everyday politics focuses on ways of promoting self-interest through the acquisition of power, influence of people and institutionalisation of strategic goals. But one reality is that in an organisational setting, politics is not just about leaders but all other stakeholder who are concerned with the productivity of the organisation (Doldor, Anderson and Vinnicombe, 2012). For example, a supplier may have his own political influence that ensures that the organisation uses his services as against other competitors. In the same way, an employee may have his own political influences and behaviour that ensures that leaders provide his needs needed to be effective. Based on the fact that different people may all be involved in the organisational politicking other than the leader alone, the issue of political skill and political will becomes very relevant. Buchanan (2008) argued that there is no cumulative traditional leading that influences the development of political theories for organisations. What this suggests is that the acquisition of political skills would be as diverse as possible and concentrate on the specific needs of an organisation. This assertion notwithstanding, Mintzberg (1983) made mention of the need for there to be some fundamental characteristics that can be pointed to as unique of a person who is politically skilled and one who is not. On the issue of political will, Douglas and Ammeter (2004) also asserted that organisational political will concerns with the eagerness that the organisation has to move according to the strategic goals in place within the organisation. In either case of political skill and will, it would be noted that there is a crucial factor of control and power, which triggers results for organisations. In this essay, the lens shall be put on organisational leaders as navigators of organisational political power, who are expected to exhibit some level of political will and skill to enable them function more effectively towards the achievement of organisational goals. Political Will As explained by Mintzberg (1983), political will refers to the motivation to engage in political behaviour. This means that within the organisational setting, it is not sufficient for leaders to be aware of the existence political behaviour but that they must take a step further in implementing these if they can be said to have political will. Meanwhile, political will may be either a functional or dysfunctional will. Writing on political leadership and bureaucracy within the organisation, Clarke and Butcher (2009) observed that there are leaders who would always provoke a sense of thinking and understanding into developments within their organisations before accenting to their approval. Such leaders can be said to be those that exhibit functional political will. This is because having the motivation to implement political behaviour should not be tantamount to accepting just anything that has not been probed for its guaranteed benefits to the organisation. Clarke and Butcher (2009) also pointed to the drive for bureaucratic control as an inevitable outcome of organising. As much as this is a realistic fact, Valle and Perrewe (2000) also lamented about how some leaders have depended on the existence of bureaucratic programming of events within the organisation to become highly dysfunction in the application of political will. To such leaders, the bureaucratic systems are sufficient in effecting changes once all bureaucratic considerations have been met. In such situation, political will cannot be equated to effective leadership. Still on political will, there have been recent calls in professional practice about the need for leaders to ensure the highest levels of ethical consideration in their work practice (Doldor, Anderson and Vinnicombe, 2012). This is because as much as the need to have the motivation to implement political behaviour is relevant, it is always important to probe the question of intent. According to the Standard Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2013) political will ought to be executed, using the ethical principle of beneficence, which borders on conducting organisational processes in a manner that seeks to connote fairness, mercy, charity, and wellbeing of the organisational society. It is therefore important the leaders will always judge their intent for embarking on specific actions that denote political will. In the opposite to the execution of ethical political is unethical political will. In such case of unethical political will, leaders may admit to the need to implement political decisions and become the embodiment of political behaviour. But the intent for doing this may be for the reason of having some personal gains that do not benefit the organisation at large. A typical example of unethical application of political will is any form of political will that is enacted for the reason of conflict of interest that benefits the leader outside of the organisation. In the opinion of Buchanan (2008), game-playing has its own merits and demerits, as it is necessary in achieving personal goals and securing resources. Doldor, Anderson and Vinnicombe (2012) has also noted that when it comes to the issue of political will within the organisation, being either playful or cautious may be an approach in its own to determine how leaders will react to political behaviour. In this sense, being either playful or cautious cannot be said to be right or wrong but determined by the circumstance that provokes this. When leaders are faced with political decisions that demand an all inclusive approach, they may choose playfulness to get all stakeholders as relaxed to be partakers of change as possible. Where the stakes are very high; such as in situations of ethical dilemma, being cautious can be said to be the best approach. On the other hand, playfulness may be used wrongly when it is executed on the lines of dysfunctional game-playing. This is because such attitude towards political will has often been associated with sluggishness, indecision and lack of commitment (Baddeley and James, 1987). By implication, even though the political will be implemented in the long run, it often comes late, out of decision and without commitment to execute behaviour. Political Skill There is no denying the fact that politics is a game. As a game, there are rules and principles that must be applied to ensure that a person wins. At the same time, it is important that players possess some important skills that make them competitive on the field of play. According to Douglas and Ammeter (2004), leaders are expected to exhibit some key characteristics as players of the political game. This is where the issue of navigation best come in. This is because in the absence of characteristics that put the leader in charge of the political game, there are chances that the leader will be out of control and find other people within the organisation dictating the pace of organisational play (Douglas and Ammeter, 2004). Some of the best characteristics that leaders can posses to equip them in the political game include firmness, fairness and innovation. A leader could be said to be exhibiting firmness if that leader can take charge of the organisation and ensure that the organisation moves in a direction that he most desires. Whiles doing this, there must be a fair playing field that promotes all-inclusiveness. Again, leaders must be the embodiment of change, as and when it matters so that they can always be ahead of competitors. In the opinion of Baddeley and James (1987), leadership best starts with self discipline. By implication, social skills that ensure that leaders are self-monitored and self-efficient are very important in organisational politics. As leaders in organisational politics, an important consideration that needs to be made is that without influence, there cannot be effective leadership. This is because it is through influence that a leader can get his subordinates and other stakeholders supporting his dream. Meanwhile, commanding influence does not come automatically or by the mere virtue that a person is a leader. It is always expected that leaders will possess qualities that make them respectable and difficult for their orders to be flouted. To do this effectively, the social skills of self-monitoring and self-efficiency helps leaders in giving personalised assessment of their conduct before presenting these conducts to the larger organisation. Self-monitoring for example can put leaders in check; whiles self-efficiency can ensure that they are very moderate with their dealings. Once positive social skills are exhibited, leaders are sure to be effective commanders of their organisations because they will earn the reputation and influence of their workforce. In today’s competitive organisational environment, the need to be socially accepted by the larger workforce is not an option for leaders but a compulsory expectation. This is because the organisation is fast becoming a social setting, where the leader must be in a position to satisfying each person’s social needs. To do this however, social skills are required. Gender Gender has been identified to be one important factor that influences organisational politics, especially when it is looked at from the perspective of leadership. In a study by Danermark et al (2002), it was note that once males are in leadership position, they influence the political climate in a way that is different from the way females influence the political climate. Also, when males are in charge of the leadership, they are perceived by females in a way that is different from how males perceive the organisational politics when males are in leadership. For example when female workers were asked in the study by Danermark et al (2002), they noted that masculine organisational culture left a relatively permanent mark on their political journeys. On the other hand, males did not see gender as a relevant in influencing the organisational politics. By implication, males are always well positioned as leaders to command influence over females and at the same time help females become an integral part of the organisational politics than when the tables are turned. With the above findings well noted, the need for a pragmatic shift to leadership within the organisational setting to ensure balance for all sexes, regardless of the gender of the leader in charge is very relevant. As agents of transformation, leaders must always endure to create a political atmosphere that promotes the wellness of all stakeholders within the organisation. Through the shared responsibility model of leadership, leaders can ensure that there is always a level playing field for males as much as it is for females, regardless of the gender of leaders. Once this is done in a very effective manner, the success of the organisation can be celebrated by all as a result of action that they played together. In the opinion of Valle and Perrewe (2000), it is always important that leaders will respect the competences of each gender and not undermine the abilities of anyone. In the same way, not being intimidated by anyone by virtue of gender is very important. Conclusion From the discussions above, the place of leadership in ensuring a political climate that best promotes effectiveness within the organisation has been outlined. To a very large extent, the leader is the driver in the seat of the organisational vehicle, whose actions and inactions can affect the company either positively or negatively. In the application of political skills, it is important to be mindful of selection of political behaviour so that these skills can be seen as those that promote the collective welfare of the organisation. As much as possible, leaders must be on top of their game to ensure that they do not loss their leadership identities to other people who may be very influential within the organisation. In the same way, the discussion has showed that the fact that there ought to be political will does not mean all forms of political will are positive. It is always important that leaders choose functional will over dysfunctional will and ethical will over unethical will. References Baddeley, S. and James, K. (1987), "Owl, Fox, Donkey or Sheep: Political Skills for Managers", Management Learning, vol. 18, pp. 3-19. Buchanan, D. (2008), "You Stab My Back, I’ll Stab Yours: Management Experience and Perceptions of Organization Political Behaviour", British Journal of Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 49-65 Doldor, E., Anderson, V. & Vinnicombe, S. (2012) “Refining the Concept of Political Will: A Gender Perspective”, British Journal of Management. Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 4-21 Douglas, C. and Ammeter, A. P. (2004), "An examination of leader political skill and its effect on ratings of leader effectiveness", Leadership Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 537. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power In and Around Organizations. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ Standard Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2013). The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics. [Online] Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principle-beneficence/ [March 26, 2014] Valle, M and Perrewe P. L. (2000). ‘Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviours?: tests of an implicit assumption and expanded model’, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 359–386. Read More