Common Sense Notions of Political Action and Power - Essay Example

Briefly outline ‘common sense’ notions of political action and power. Discuss how Social Constructionist/Relational Theory challenges the assumption that political action is a problem that interferes with the normal running of an organization. To understand the “common sense” notions of political action and power we must first define what exactly we mean when we use the term political action. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines political action as an “action designed to attain a purpose by the use of political power or by activity in political channels.” To further understand this term we may also refer to the definition provided by the US Department of Defense (2005), which describes political action as subversive and as “a planned series of activities designed to accomplish political objectives by influencing, dominating, or displacing individuals or groups who are so placed as to affect the decisions and actions of another government.” In order to gain an even deeper understanding we may look at examples of political action which include but are not limited to voting whether it be on certain issues or the election of a representative, starting a petition on a certain issue, sending a message through social media, or participating in a committee. Therefore, taking these definitions and examples into account it would be safe for us to assume that there are two groups of people involved in the political action process. The first group is the one that is seeking to send out a message and the second group is the one who will receive the message. In fact, according to Micheal Kaulbars (2009), a trained research biologist who is very active on environmental and social justice issues, the standard model of political struggle includes two groups; the activists and the target. In this model he describes the activists as the group of people who use protests, petitions, hunger strikes, and other forms of campaigning techniques to directly influence their target’s behavior. The target in response to these actions creates counter groups and media campaigns to influence the activist’s behavior. Kaulbars (2009) criticizes this model of political action as being ‘too’ simplified. In fact, this standard model is a perfect description of the “common sense” notions surrounding political action. According to him, this model is unsuccessful at explaining political action because the activists described rarely have enough power to make a difference. Hence, now that we know a little more about political action we must analyze what part it may play in the running of an organization? In fact in order to understand an organization we must look at it as a political system (Management Consulting Courses, n.d). To elaborate on this further we must redefine politics in relation to an organization. In an organization, politics are a means to recognize and reconcile conflicting interests between individuals. This makes sense as organizations; especially large ones are made up of a number of very diverse individuals which will no doubt translate into diversity in interests and agendas. Hence, it is safe to say that organizations create an environment that is perfect for political action. In fact, according to Ammeter et al., (2002), there are three basic levels of political action in organizations; individual, coalition and network. At the individual level leaders try to influence individuals in the organization through one-on-one relationships. Furthermore, at the coalition level, coalitions are formed by leaders through convincing peers, subordinates and other members in the organization to join a force in order to pursue common interests. Lastly, in the network level, individuals and groups are tied together into an interconnected system. Therefore, we may look at the networking level as a result of the individual and the coalition level. First individuals are influenced which leads to the formation of groups eventually leading to the formation of a network. To elaborate further on political action from an organizational point of view, we must analyze the kind of conflict that can arise in an organization which will eventually call for political action. However, first we can touch upon the mechanisms that organizations use in order to resolve conflict. As mentioned in the paragraph above, conflicts are bound to arise in organization due to a diverse range of interests and agendas. Hence, mechanisms are needed to resolve these conflicts to ensure that the running of the organization remains smooth. One mechanism that is used is “Systems of Rule.” This system can range from autocratic to democratic, representing how power is divided and applied within the organization so that some sort of order is maintained within members in the organization (Management Consulting Courses, n.d). Furthermore, organizational actors seek to satisfy not only the interest of the organization but also their self-interest. As mentioned in the paragraph above self-interest is one of the main motivating factors for political action and is definitely inherent in organizations. Therefore, organizational problem solving and decision making emulates a political process since it is driven by self-interest (Management Consulting Courses, n.d). There are not only different sources of conflict but also different levels. To further elaborate, we can first touch upon the different levels of conflict in organizations. Conflict can occur with an employer or an employee, between individuals in an organization, and across different organizations (Management Consulting Courses, n.d). However there are the main levels of conflict, the first one being Intrapersonal conflict. Intrapersonal conflict arises from within an individual. This can happen when the individual feels like they have the responsibility of fulfilling more than one goal and the goals might be in conflict with each other. The second level of conflict is Interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal conflict arises when one feels the need to protect their self-image due to damage by others. A problem like this can arise whenever there is a personality clash between two people in an organization. The third and last level of conflict inherent in an organization is intergroup conflict. Intergroup conflict can arise between two different departments in an organization. This can often happen due to competition between the two departments for the same resources. It could also be due to a difference in opinion of groups which inevitably leads to group loyalties (Management Consulting Courses, n.d). Now that we are a little familiar with the different levels of conflict, we can also analyze the sources of conflict in order to gain a deeper understanding of what may call for or lead to political action in an organization. Conflict can arise due to various reasons, the most common ones being organizational change, personality clashes, difference in values, threats to status, contrasting perceptions, and lack of trust. Organizational change arises when there is a difference in goals for the organization and a conflict in opinion on how to achieve these goals and what the probable outcome of these goals will be. Similarly, personality clashes as mentioned in previous paragraphs are inevitably inherent in organizations and can cause conflict due to a difference and clash in opinion whether it is between individuals or groups. Furthermore, as people have different personality’s people also adhere to a different set of values which may also lead to a difference in opinion and eventually goals and interests for the organization. For example conflicts can arise due to a difference in ethical values. In addition, conflicts can also cook up due to a threat of status. For instance, if one member in an organization feels their status is being threatened they may get defensive and try to take action by getting more people on their team. Lastly, conflicts are not only bound to happen when there is some kind of a difference in opinion or threat to status but also when there is a lack of trust. This lack of trust is also bound to exist within an organization, especially if it is a large one. Lack of trust will hinder motivation at the employee level which could affect the employee and employer relationship, inevitably leading to an even bigger conflict (Management Consulting Courses, n.d). Looking at the different levels and sources of conflict in an organization as well as the different levels of political action in an organization is safe for us to assume that political action undermines the smooth running of an organization. As mentioned in one of the first paragraphs, political action is usually unsuccessful when there is an interaction between just two sets of people namely the activists and the target. The answer to conflict in an organization therefore is not political action. In fact there are other resolution strategies like confrontation, collaboration and compromise that will prove to me much more successful. Now that we are familiar with both political action and with the inevitable part that it plays in interfering with an organization, we can view political action in organizations in relation to the social constructionist theory. According to Owen (n.d.), “Social constructionism may be defined as a perspective which believes that a great deal of human life exists as it does due to social and interpersonal influences.” He goes on to say that social constructionism does not deny the influence of genetic inheritance, but seeks to explain the affect that social factors play on communal and individual life. Furthermore, he also talks about how social constructionism regards individuals as integrals with cultural, historic and political evolution therefore coming up with the hypothesis that apart from the inherited and developmental aspects of humanity all other aspects are created, maintained and destroyed through our interactions with others over time. Owen (n.d.), goes on to say that because the genetic material and cultural factors of each race are different, there is no universal human nature. Another important aspect of the social constructionist theory to consider is that it makes the assumption that many aspects of life for instance social action and institutional practices are not objective facts of the world like we may think they are. Instead they are a product of human inter-subjectivity (Flamand, n.d.). In this light, we can find many flaws with the idea that political action is a problem that interferes with the running of an organization. For one, since social constructionism uses social factors and interactions between individuals over time to explain human life, how can we assume that there is a standard model of political action as mentioned above? If we are looking at political action from a strict social constructivist viewpoint, then we cannot assume that there are two groups who are always in conflict with one another. Furthermore, we cannot make any assumptions about the levels and sources of conflict within an organization. Since we are assuming that people and their behavior varies across different cultures and time we cannot make any assumption about what conflict can arise and what one may do about it. Furthermore, since this viewpoint does not agree on a universal human nature, it would be unsafe to generalize the reasons for conflict. Since social constructionism places such a huge emphasis on how individuals vary across different times and cultures it is no doubt that technology has a huge impact on understanding this theory. Chandler (1995) as cited in Seawost (n.d.) says that “"Technology is one of a number of mediating factors in human behavior and social change, which both acts on and is acted on by other phenomena". Since technology is constantly changing, the social constructionist theory aims to examine technology from a historical and cultural perspective in order to understand the effect that technology has on business, political and organizational arrangements (Seawost, n.d.). Keeping this in mind, again we cannot make assumptions about the level and sources of conflict in an organization. For instance, in an organization in a region that is not so technologically advanced the same conflicts may not exist. Furthermore, the same kind of political action may not take place. For instance, forming committees, petitions and other forms of political action techniques are not an innate quality for humans. These techniques have evolved over time through the influence of media and technological factors. Therefore it would be unfair to make any assumptions on political action according to this theory. To sum it up, social constructionist theory challenges the assumption that political action is something that interferes with the running of the organization due to two main factors. The fact is that sources of conflict will vary amongst times and culture and the way these conflicts are resolved will also vary across culture and time. Therefore, we cannot make any definite assumptions about the two. Works Cited: Ammeter, P. A., Douglas, C., Gardner, L. W., Hochwarter, A. W. & Ferris, R. G. (2002). Toward a political theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. Pergamon. 13. Pp.751- 796. Flamand, Lee. n.d. The social constructionist theory. [online]. Available at: http://www.ehow.com/about_5447977_social-constructionist-theory.html. [Accessed 11 January 2012]. Kaulbars, Mike. (2009). Political Action I: how it actually works.[online]. Available at: http://cjc.openconcept.ca/content/political-action-i-how-it-actually-works. [Accessed 11 January 2012 ]. Management Consulting Courses. N.d. Power and Organizational Politics. [online]. Available at: http://managementconsultingcourses.com/Lesson30Power&OrganizationalPolitics.pdf. [Accessed 11 January 2012 ]. Merriam Webster Dictionary. (2012). Political Action. [online] Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political%20action [Accessed 11 January 2012 ]. Owen, Ian R. n.d. Social constructionism and the theory, practice and research of psychotherapy: A phenomenological psychology manifesto.[online]. Available at: http://www.intentionalitymodel.info/pdf/SOCCONST.pdf. [Accessed 11 January 2012 ]. Seawost. n.d. Communicating in the global village: Social constructionism. [online]. Available at: http://www.seawost.com/construction.html. [Accessed 11 January 2012 ]. US Department of Defense. (2005). Subversive Political Action. [online]. Available at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subversive+political+action. [Accessed 11 January 2012]. Read More