Political Perspective in Decision Making - Essay Example

Lecturer: presented: Introduction Decision making is a psychological process that culminates in the choice of a particular course of action amid many other alternatives. Innovativeness in organizations is usually realized after un1dergoing the decision making process, which involves need identification, search for possible sources o1f relevant information, evaluation of the information acquired and eventually undertaking a particular action. The outcome is psychological in the sense that decisions are not tangible, but from the ensuing behavior, one can easily tell that a certain decision has been made (Belk, and Askegaard, 2003 p.80). Organizational decision making takes place at different levels. Most of the crucial organizational decisions entail distribution of limited resources in the various departments or segments. They are significant in the identification of the most appropriate way to share resources. Due to scarcity of resources, political actions arise making the decision making process to have a political perspective. Most of the competition is usually exhibited by the organizations while searching for leadership and personnel positions that influence decision making. Political influence in decision making creates differences in the organizational dynamics making power to become a significant resource. Power enables those who hold it in an organization to have a substantial control in decision making. This essay discusses the political perspectives in decision making and their main implications. Political Perspective on Decision Making Organizations are usually an alliance of several individuals who have personal dreams expectations, weaknesses and strengths. These alliances are the fundamentals of the political perspectives, whose existence is attributed to the presence of division of labor in the business. According to Pettigrew (1985 p. 42), “associated career, rewards and individual status are the core sources of the political perspectives”. In his view, the occurrence of interest groups usually originates from the existence matching objectives within the group members. On the other hand, the differences that exist in the organizational hierarchy amongst the different groups facilitate the occurrence of the political perspectives. Differences come as a result of issues such as the members who have been newly recruited in the group and the pioneers, and others such as the traditionalists and those who want changes to be made in the organizational structures. The variations in opinions between these groups lead to the presence of sub units that are charac1terized by division of labor. However, organizations need to have the desired integrity in order to function properly, and therefore interdependence between the sub units has to be present. Miller et al (1996 p. 83) indicates that in a research conducted by the Bradford team in the decision making of several organizations in England, “the primary explanation is the degree of the political aspects in the decision itself”. This is an example of the impact of political aspects in organizational decision making. Political perspectives emerge when the different groups tend strive to acquire power in order to satisfy their interests. It entails mobilization of power in a bid to acquire authority over resources, in which state they can influence resource allocation. The members of such groups eventually exhibit a political conduct within an organization. Apart from the existence of groups with differences in opinion, Pettigrew (1977 p.81) noted that lack of sufficient resources within the organization can also lead to political perspectives in decision making. He feels that the continued sharing of scarce resources compels groups to seek power and control in order to acquire enough to satisfy their needs. They make it possible for themselves to strategize on legitimizing particular demands thereby creating a change in the organizational structures such as the roles, and the salaries allocated to the particular groups. Allocation of resources is usually imbalanced. The departments within an organization may not be allocated resources according to demand, but such may be acquired depending on the influence that such a department has in an organization. The differences between the departments are mainly exhibited in terms of salaries, individual roles and duties within an organization (Sheldon 1992 p. 252). Groups of people who possess power within an organization usually enjoy the attractiveness of power, due to the capacity that it confers to individuals in terms of influencing decisions. They determine whoever gets resources and who does not. The organizational goals as well as the organizational philosophy are determined by such a group, and the success of individuals is largely dependent on them. They largely determine the nature of the outcome especially when the decision making process involves complex issues. In such cases, power plays a significant role when the outcomes of decisions become relatively uncertain. It helps in creating certainty in the outcome. Competing for power is exhibited by organizations in two distinct levels. One is whereby groups and individuals within organizations struggle for power, while the second level is where organizations as a whole struggle for power in the greater perspective whereby the government plays a major role. It is usually the supreme body that has the capacity to determine the organizations that command greater power. Decision making takes a political perspective especially when the government is involved in the process (Miller et al 1996 p. 74). Organizations may also acquire the capacity to control particular resources through the influence of the government. Others are left with the option of waiting for their share, which is determined by the person who commands much power. The process becomes highly political which indicates the existence of monopolies within organizations. The influence of politics in innovation usually makes politics in decision making inevitable. It is more often thought that prudent leaders are those who have perfect political skills (Salaman 2001 p. 48). The politics of an organization usually become significant to an individual in the social process when one rises to the high leadership positions. In such a case, it is often realized that politics enhance the implementation of decisions in a complex organizational structure. For example Miller et al (1996 p. 82) observes that “When organizations are in trouble and urgent action is required, those in authority can be given great freedom to act”. This happens regardless of the impact of the leaders’ decisions on the work of the subordinates even if they too can assist. This is an indication of political influence in decision making. Most of the leaders who hold to leadership positions in organizations usually try to ensure that they fight for the decisions that they feel necessary in their personal view. They influence the formulation of strategic policies `within the organization. Realization of individual goals is usually found in all the decision making levels. The leaders must solicit support from a large number of the members in an organization in order to achieve their goals. Without this support, their decisions may fail to take effect. This creates a political outlook, having some groups of people who are not pleased with the decision, while others support the leader’s decision, depending on the mobilization capability of the leaders. The minority group that is dissatisfied usually combines efforts to ensure that their opinions are considered in the decision making process. Jefferies (1992 p. 65) argued that the decision making process in organizations is far from unitary. In his point of view, it is a progression of persons in politics acting in response to their personal insights of organizational and individual goals. The leaders are usually faced with the problem of mastering each and every aspect of decision making hence the need for mobilizing support and controlled input of others. The leaders are usually open to the point of view of others so long as their leadership is not compromised by their decisions. Organizations exhibit politics when they begin engaging in the practice of some individuals beginning to exert authority over the others. Politics is the substitution of associations as the organization progresses in its routine. Politics and authority are a derivative of the power correlation existing between the individuals or groups concerned. The most successful political actions in organizations are usually cogent influence, encouraging request, and discussion. Illegitimate association and authoritarian demands have been found to be the unproductive (Miller et al 1996 pp. 71-74). The leaders in organizations usually employ tactical approaches to uphold their objectives through influencing others. Ingratiation is usually used by the junior staffs to influence the leaders to consider their decisions especially if they are powerful. Successful political control is a capability that leaders learn in the process of organizational activities. The origins of organizational politics usually do not depend on the organization’s capability to avoid or to engage in them. Organizations are compelled to get involved, although the recognition of the fact that the politics are unavoidable is important in order for them to be capable of evading the situations that can make them vulnerable. Janis (1982) views the character of the leader as a significant aspect of the outcome of decisions, for example the failure of Kennedys presidency which he cites to be a good example of political aspects which lead to unsatisfactory group decision-making, such as “the decision that was made by US Navy and the CIA to invade the Cuban Coast in 1961”. In order to play effective politics, those who intend to influence decision making in organizations listen carefully to their counterparts in order to understand the most appropriate approach tom use in leadership (Sheldon 1992 p. 254). This is accompanied by learning which makes them understand who to 1work with and who amongst the colleagues are difficult to form an association with. Teams and relationships are formed within organizations, which facilitate the occurrence of a political perspective in decision making. Implications of the Political Perspectives Politics in decision making have both positive and negative consequences, although in most cases, it has resulted in poor performance especially when there is envy amongst individuals and groups due to power differences. It is known to hamper the evaluation procedures due to the fact that the leaders the leaders usually mull over their personal relationships with their colleagues and subordinates. This will most likely influence their deci1sions regarding appraisals and performance reports. Their report may end up influencing career development in the workers. On the other hand, there is a tendency to give in appropriate appraisals to the subordinates. This may affect them negatively or positively in the sense that they may tend to improve their performance in order to maintain their relationship with their leaders. On the other hand, they may assume that they have perfected their performance, and therefore find no need to improve (Miller et al 1996 p. 91). However, there is usually a reason why a leader decides to undertake such kind of action. Mostly, it might be meant to attract the desired support from the subordinates. In some cases, such support is offered without the necessary evaluation and therefore it might not be effective in regard to the realization of the organizational objectives. Politics in organizational structures may lead to the leadership conferring credit to non performers due to interpersonal relationship. The subordinates may be facing problems that prevent them from performing, but the leader is usually ready to appraise such people so long as they are loyal. On the other hand, the organizational out look in relation to the public may cause the leaders to ignore some facts especially if there is a political aspect in the issues involved. Due to the desire to avoid creating an undesirable image in regard to the organization, a politically oriented leadership will tend to cover up some important issues, and eventually they may turn out to be detrimental to the management. There are situations whereby the political perspective becomes useful in decision making. When the rise in position in the organization is attributed to performance, it usually influences the improvement of the performance of others, aiming at the high positions within the organization in future (Moore 1995 pp. 67-69). The decisions to ascend to positions of power are political in the sense that one has to ensure that they necessary support is mobilized from colleagues. However, it becomes beneficial to the organization since the individual has to improve performance in order to Conclusion The political perspectives in decision making are multifaceted. They may be beneficial as well as disadvantageous in the functioning of the organization. Politics that arise amongst the members of an organization leading to reduced cooperation may cause uncertainty in the system. People usually find themselves in situations where they disagree on almost all issues and therefore they can not develop their careers. Such a system lacks the desired knowledge transfer in order to enhance career development. Leaders may end up causing failures in organizations especially when politics create feelings of dissatisfaction in the manner through which resources are allocated. This is exhibited mostly in the leaders who assume that power is a means to satisfy their personal desires. For those who use it to enhance their work, it is usually a success for the organization as a whole. However, there are particular situations when political perspectives in decision making enhance the performance of individuals. Bibliography 1. Belk, R. and Askegaard, S. 2003. The Fire of Desire: A Multisited Inquiry into Consumer Passion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 78-91. 2. Janis I. L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, 2nd edition Houghton Mifflin Company. 3. Miller S. J., Hickson D. J., and Wilson D. C. 1996. Decision Making in Organizations, Sage Publications Limited. 4. Moore M. H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, Harvard University Press. 5. Pettigrew A. 1985. The Politics of Organizational Decision Making, Muze Inc. 6. Salaman G. 2001. Decision Making for Business, SAGE Publications Ltd. 7. Sheldon T. A. 1992. Discounting in Health Care Decision-Making: Time for a Change? Journal on Public Health, vol. 14: 250-256 Read More