The Role of Power and Politics in Organizations - Coursework Example

The Role of Power and Politics in Organizations Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Introduction Organisations consist of formal and informal rules that organize and direct actions of people from diverse backgrounds within the organisation. In order to make sure that these individuals with diverse interests, backgrounds and knowledge adhere to the set out organisational rules, the concept of power and politics is often drawn into perspective (Lunenburg 2012). This paper explores the concept of power and politics in the workplace, how a manger could work to acquire power and become politically active, the impact of power and politics in organizations, and the ethical implications of power and politics in organizations. The concept of power in the workplace Power as a concept covers the processes, mechanisms and outlooks that attempt – although not often productively -- to see to it that the employees act in accordance with the rules of the workplace. This implies that power is a central concept in management theory and practice. Indeed, a fundamental theory of power known as the exchange theory promotes the assumption that in the wider organisational context, emphasis is placed on the interpersonal relationship between the subordinates and the leaders and managers, where the followers are considered as capable of offering insight into the complicity of organisation and power (Clegg 2004). The concept of power in organisations has varied interpretations. Classically, power in organisations is depicted by Max Weber (1947) to be directly related to the structure, hierarchy or legitimacy. However, during the times of organisational change, illegitimate power may be depicted to be of considerable significance. The concept of power, as interpreted by Max Weber (1947), is therefore the likelihood of an individual assuming a position within a social relationship to undertake his will in spite of resistance. According to Jeffrey Pfeffer (1992), it is the latent capacity to influence behaviours, alter the courses of events, prevail over resistance and to influence individuals within the organisation to undertake activities they would otherwise not. At this stage, the concept of power needs to be differentiated from influence and authority. Influence is broader in concept and describes the capacity to change other individual’s courses of action by altering their satisfaction criteria, in order to develop their performance. On the other hand, authority describes the right to direct other individuals and ask them to undertake or engage in activities they would otherwise not do. Therefore, in addition to being legitimate in nature, it is practiced within the organisation. As a result, authority and power are two different terms since the acceptance and legitimacy of authority within the context of the organisation is broader in nature than power. As a result, it shows readiness of the employees to submit to the leader’s influence inspite of absence of power. The concept of politics in the workplace Politics in the workplace is concerned with exercising authority and power to create relationships with the view of getting things done. Simply put, it is concerned with influencing people within the workplace to attain organisational objectives. Filion and Hedwig (1999) defined it as the use of assigned or individual power in influencing the organisation, in order to obtain advantages outside the legitimate authority, including the capacity to access tangible or intangible benefits. Such tangible and intangible benefits may include pseudo-authority of higher status that could be applied in influencing the behaviour of other individuals. Workplace politics is also interpreted as office politics. At any rate, the concept is interpreted differently and applied in a broader sense. According to Clegg (2008), office politics consists of the processes that signify exercising power in negotiation of varied interests among members of the organisation. This implies that office politics, like workplace politics, may trigger conflicts due to power competitions (Jones 2007). How managers can acquire power Power becomes a central issue in circumstances where the organisation has to make people to do things they would not do in normal cases. Several sources of power have been suggested, including credibility, expertise, prestige and stature, control over rewards and control over money. These signify control over information, decision, rewards, capital and budget resources (Clegg 2004). A manager can leverage these sources of power to acquire power. Therefore, managers with more resources will tend to wield more power within the organisation. Such kinds of power are based on strategic contingency theory. According to the strategic contingency theory, individuals who have control over strategic resources have power over those who do not have, and can leverage the power bestowed by these resources to acquire more resource and more power. Managers can gain formal or legitimate power when they assume a formal position of authority within an organisation (Truter 2008). Accordingly, power accrues to a manager when he assumes a greater position of authority in an organisational structure and gets legitimate authority in a way that enables other individuals to feel obliged to comply with his decisions. Such kind of power may accrue to a manager when he gains control over decisions, budget, staff and resources. This kind of power refers to formal or legitimate power. A manager may also acquire power by assuming a position in which he has the capacity to reward other individuals by means of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Here, the manager acquires the formal ability to facilitate pay increase for employees. This reflects reward power (Clegg 2004). A manager may also acquire power coercively by denying individuals, within the workplace, the desired rewards, recommending punishments and administering sanctions. This may include dismissing employees or imposing silent treatment on certain workers. This kind of power describes coercive power. A manager may also acquire power when he possesses special judgment, skills, knowledge and expertise needed by other individuals. According to Truter (2008), despite the fact that managers with this power tend to be respected, this kind of power may be weak as it might entrap them in ‘prison of success’, where they may not be rewarded with further managerial position, as the company may not want to lose his skills in a particular department. This kind of power refers to expert power. Managers also gain power when they have the capacity to provide employees with feelings of approval, sense of worth and personal acceptance. The manager’s personality may however affect the rate at which other people would wish to identify with him. This kind of power may be improved when linked to ethics, morality and having long-term vision (Truter 2008). How mangers could work to become politically active Managers can use several tactics to be politically active. These may include acquisition and maintenance of power. This is based on the iron law of oligarchy theory, which states that while power has to end up in the hands of the few for an organisation to function effectively, the few should use all means accessible to them to preserve, maintain and increase their political authority or power (Leach 2005). Developing power relationships and contacts, according to Filion and Hedwig (1999), is a powerful strategy. After the manager identifies powerful individuals, he has to establish alliances with them. This allows the managers’ causes to easily advance. The manager can also use the strategy of making an early showing, where he displays dramatic results that allow him to gain acceptance due to his efforts. Once he is able to impress the stakeholders or the executive, he can easily gain greater power. The manager should also remain informed. By developing a network of people to keep him informed of issues within the organization, the manager becomes politically astute (Daud et al. 2013). The manager also needs to control vital information. According to Clegg (2004), power comes to individuals who can control vital information. Such information enables the manager to stay ahead of other individuals within the organization and to make informed decisions. The manager also needs to control communication lines. Relative to information control is controlling communication lines, specifically access to strategic persons. At any rate, the manager should avoid the negative implications of politics as it can be dysfunctional when excessive. To ensure this, the manager should control organizational politics by being aware of its causes and techniques. He should also open communication to allow everyone to understand the basis of resources and minimize political behaviour. He should also avoid favouritism in addition to setting ethical behaviours to show that political behaviour is not acceptable (Daud et al. 2013). The impact of power and politics in organisations The impact of power is dependent on whether the people within the organisation use positive or negative power in influencing processes. Within the organisation, positive power encourages productivity. Examples include granting power to a CEO to lead decision-making processes, promoting productive sales employee to oversee the sales workforce, or rewarding highly performing employees with higher pay. Positive power types motivate employees and foster their confidence. It also encourages situations where employees at higher positions gain power through communication, qualification and respect instead of coercion (Sidhu et al., 2011). Some studies have also indicated that employee retention rates tend to be higher when employees are granted the power to work collaboratively and express their concerns within organisations (Clegg 2004). On the other hand, negative types of power happen when leaders within the organisation are not respected by their subordinates (Sidhu et al., 2011). These types of leaders threaten the employees to make them perform their duties. For instance, an HR manager may show favouritism to some employees instead of acknowledging the hard work they do. In such situations, the quality of work reduces. It also leads to high employee turnover rates. In regards to the positive politics within the organisation, employees who get to learn how to navigate through the organisational politics tend to be more productive. Creating clear organisational policies make it convenient for the workers to find the answers they require, as a result becoming productive by spending less time in engaging in office politics (Sidhu et al., 2011). For instance, a company with organisational climate that is centred on collaboration, equity and equality prevents organisational conflicts, which have the potential to reduce productivity (Jones 2007). On the other hand, when it comes to negative workplace politics, encouraging climate of negativity within the organisation can encourage conflict. For instance, companies that encourage workers to take part in unethical or dishonest behaviours so as to get promoted experience decreased turnovers, high rates of unethical practices and reduced productivity. At the same time, organisations that lack clarified chains or command or policies may be rife with situations where the employees spend much time looking for answers and seeking to fix problems rather than engaging in productive work (Lunenburg 2012). Ethical implications of power and politics in organizations Ethics depicts the right application of power and politics to influence positive behaviour. When the management sanctions organisational activities positively, positive outcomes are realised (Clegg 2004). For instance, when a CEO appoints an individual to head department based on performance and qualification, the individual becomes respected and his will is fulfilled. Such positive application of power promotes commitment to the new departmental head and shapes employees’ behaviour (Barstow 1994). Managers who use their power to ‘routinise’ work within the organisations to cut off their ethical responsibility tend to become less ethical. Employees may be influenced to engage in unethical practices (Clegg 2004). When activities that ratify organisational actions become routinised, work within the organisations become repetitive. For examples, employees may only get to recognise a small section of the organisational chain while undertaking tasks. At the same time, they cannot see how and where their tasks fit in the organisation or see the outcome of their work. When the employees feel dehumanised by power and politics, morality within the organisation decreases (Barstow 1994). For instance, when an organisation’s ideological indoctrination and descriptions influence organisational members into believing that some employees are less human than others, distance and divisions between organisational members are created. Additionally, recognising the employees as instruments rather than as people makes it easier for managers to forget the ethical implications of their decisions or actions (Clegg 2004). Conclusion While power is the capacity of an individual to influence another individual's behaviour, politics is concerned with exercising authority and power to create relationships with the view of getting things done. Several sources of power have been suggested, including credibility, expertise, prestige and stature, control over rewards and control over money. A manager can leverage these resources of power based on strategic contingency theory. Managers can as well use several tactics to be politically active, based on the iron law of oligarchy theory, by using all means accessible to them to preserve, maintain and increase their political authority or power. Power and politics play an integral role in organisations, such as governing the decision-making processes or employee interaction. The impact of power is dependent on whether the people within the organisation use positive or negative power in influencing processes. Unlike negative power that is coercive, positive power can be a highly effective instrument for influencing positive organisational behaviour, resulting to high productivity, as well as initiating and sustaining actions. On the other hand, politics directly influences who has the power and whether the organisational culture supports productivity. Reference List Barstow, C 1994, Ethics: The Right to Use Power and Influence, Hakomi Institute, pp.17-20, viewed 24 Aug 2014http://www.hakomiinstitute.com/Forum/Issue10/Ethics.pdf Clegg, S 2004, Managing Power and Politics in Organizations Resistance, Empowerment, Ethics, Cha 5, viewed 24 Aug 2014, http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/5252_Clegg_I_Proof_Chapter_5.pdf Clegg, S 2008, Foundations of Organization Power, Presentation to the Nobel Symposium on the Foundations of Organizations 2008 Daud, Z, Isa, M, Nor, W & Zainol, Z 2013, "Office Politics: The Reduction of Employees’ Need for Power," International Journal of Business and Social Science vol. 4 no. 11, pp.29-35 Filion, N & Hedwig, R 1999, Power, control and organisational learning, WZB Discussion Paper, No. FS I 99-104 Jones, G 2007, Organizational Theory, Design, and Change, 5th ed., Pearson Education, New Jersey Leach, D 2005, “The Iron Law of What Again? Conceptualizing Oligarchy Across Organizational Forms,” Sociological Theory, vol. 23 no. 3, pp.312-337 Lunenburg, F 2012, "Power and Leadership: An Influence Process," International Journal Of Management, Business, and Administration vol. 15 no. 1, pp.1-8 Pfeffer, J 1992, Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Sidhu, J, Ansari, S, Volbenda, H & Oshri, I 2011, Managing organisational politics for effective knowledge processes," RSM Insight 4th Quarter 2011, pp.12-14 Truter, I 2008, "Power in the Workplace: 'Put Your Iron Hand Inside A Velvet Glove'", SA Pharmaceutical Journal, pp.50-52 Read More