Organizational Politics, Culture and Management - Essay Example

Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Organizations comprise of various departments which often competefor the few resources at organization’s disposal. To perform their activities, these departments need enough resources especially in contemporary organizations where rewards are based on performance whether individual or collective as a group. Managers thus are forced to lobby for resources in order to compete effectively. Individuals also require lobbying for support especially if the chances available (for example, for promotion) are few and the employees who are being considered are many. This results in organizational politics which may be good or bad for the company depending on the intent of those playing politics. Some play a fair game and for the benefit of the organization while others play politics to achieve personal ends. The question that begs answers therefore, is; is it possible or desirable to eliminate organizational politics? In this essay, I will argue that it is not possible to eliminate organizational politics as long as there are resources to be shared and it is not even desirable to do so as it supports company growth. Organizational politics is defined by Griffin and Moorhead (2013: 387) as “the activities carried out by people to acquire, enhance and use power and other resources to obtain desired outcomes in a situation where there is uncertainty or disagreement.” Power is very vital in organizations as it determines who gets what, when and how and as such it is not unusual to find employees especially managers fighting for power so as to gain control (Gilmore & Williams 2013: 80). Sometimes power is achieved by the mere fact of a persons position in the organization (legitimate, coercive & reward power) hence those in power use all means to reserve it or gain it by ascending to a position of authority. This entails engaging in political behavior to achieve such ends especially if they feel their position is threatened. This political behavior (Cavanaugh, Moberg and Velasques 1981: 368) can be used for ethical or unethical purposes and should be avoided if it does not respect the rights of all affected parties, does not respect canons of justice and does not lead to efficient optimization of satisfaction of interests inside and outside organization. Although it may be unethical, Griffin and Moorhead (2013: 388) argue that trying to eliminate political behavior will seldom, if ever, work. Instead, this may increase the behavior due to resulting uncertainty and ambiguity. They argue that politics may provide possible basis for deciding which employees to let go during recession among other important decisions. As such, instead of trying to eliminate it, managers should recognize its inevitability and find a suitable balance. Rather than trying to eliminate it, they should use it effectively while at the same time taking steps to minimize dysfunctional consequences of abusive political behavior. There are various reasons for political behavior: ambiguous goals, scarce resources, technology and environment and organizational change. To manage political behavior, it is important to understand these reasons so that effective solutions can be found instead of trying to eliminate such behavior. One of the major reasons for such behavior is ambiguous goals (Robin, Bergman, Stagg & Coulter 2012). The corporate goals may not provide a clear direction of what is needed hence each manager tries to prove his ‘way of doing things’ is the best may be for the interest of the company of for personal interests. For example, if the goal of the organization is to have increased presence in the market, there are numerous ways of achieving such a goal. The company can establish branches, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions and each member will give his/her alternative to achieve their ends thus encouraging political behavior. Due to scarcity of resources, managers may also be forced to devise ways of gaining huge share of resources by misrepresenting information. Technological developments on the other hand, create uncertainty in the organizations thus prompting political behavior. For example, a manager might use such a chance to restructure his department hence increase his power base (Griffin & Moorhead, 2013). Organizational change also creates uncertainty and ambiguities leading to political behavior until such changes are implemented and institutionalized. Managing organizational change is thus a crucial task for managers to deal with political behavior. The techniques used by those engaging in political behavior make it impossible to eliminate such behavior. Some managers may have access to crucial information which other people (or few) have access to and use this to their advantage to gain power and control (Fairholm 2009). The more critical information the manager has, the larger the power base and ability to control decisions and activities to his own ends and there is nothing management can do since it may compromise effective functioning of the organization. For example, if the manager decides to quit and use the information in another company, then its competitive edge is compromised. It is thus better to not to try to eliminate such political behavior for the benefit of the company. Another technique commonly used is the control of lines of communication (Griffin & Moorhead 2013). Thos who are in touch with senior management may control information to gain undue advantage or hinder others from accessing such officials hence depend on them for information. This is commonly used by administrative assistants who act as liaison between management and other employees in the organization or outside the organization. To eliminate such behavior means to do away with such employees and this would lead to chaos as everybody would have access to the management even on unimportant issues. Besides, such employees are crucial since they are in close contact with employees hence know what is going on in the organization and act as informers to their bosses. Another technique of political behavior is the control of the agenda (Mintzberg 2009). Meetings of various committees or usual management meetings follow a well set agenda and rarely discuss issues outside the agenda. In this case, those setting meeting agenda can decide to include issues of their importance in the agenda and exclude issues not favorable to them or put such items at the bottom of the agenda and take much time discussing the items on top of the agenda. In the end, items at the bottom rarely get enough discussion time. It is difficult to eliminate such behavior as meetings must have an agenda and someone must set it either to own advantage or the benefit of all. Sometimes, the company may require the services of outside consultants thus creating an avenue for political behavior (Griffin & Moorhead 2013). The one sourcing for such experts often find someone with similar views as his own thus is able to pursue his interests without suspicion. The recommendations of the experts in the end reflect own views. Furthermore, the expert may feel obligated to the person who selected him hence recommend courses of action favorable to him. Others may build coalitions to pursue matters that are of interest to them sometimes for company’s benefit. In conclusion, organizational politics is fully a part of organization life and is necessary in achieving individual goals and a crucial path to success. It is used in situations of uncertainty and ambiguities, where resources are scarce, technological changes are prevalent and whenever organizational changes are taking place. Various techniques of political behavior are used such as: information control, control of communication, agenda control, use of outside experts and building coalitions. If used in an ethical way, political behavior is good for organizational success as it helps in making important decisions such as promotions and dismissals and also effective utilization of resources. However, sometimes it is used for pursuing individual interests which may or may not be for the benefit f the company hence undesirable. However, it is not possible to eliminate organization politics as it resides in individuals and it is for the benefit of organization. What managers can do is to accept it and learn how to manage it for the benefit of the organization as trying to eliminate it will only create more political behavior. Every organization has its way of doing things which differentiates it from the rest and contributes to its sustainable competitive advantage. Some companies are known for cost leadership, quality leadership, excellent customer service or the best organization to work for. This is part of the organization’s culture and everyone in the organization strives towards that end. Culture may mean different things to different people. For example, the laymen use it to mean “sophistication,” anthropologists use it to refer to customs and rituals developed over the course of history while managers use it to refer to norms and practices in the organizations. Whatever the case, it is evident that culture has an element of value embedded into it and determines what is important for any group of individuals or nations. Schein (2010: 18) defines culture as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solves its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.” Each group has its system of beliefs, values and norms which guide conduct of behavior and determines what is right or wrong hence punishable. An organization also has its beliefs and values which form part of its culture and these according to Schein (2010) are instilled by the founding managers, developed and amended over time and passed on to new members. Even if an employee joins the company with his own beliefs and values, he/she must learn the culture of the company and adapt to fit into the organization or quit. Culture is very difficult to change as it entails practices that are entrenched and stuck in the organization hence trying to change it may destabilize the foundation of the organization. Culture guides and constrains behavior through shared norms. However, sometimes it is necessary to change especially due to the dynamic environment and technological advances in which contemporary organizations operate in. The organization culture though reflects the values of its founders, is also influenced by the national culture (Schein, 2010). As such, organizations operating in different countries have different cultures even though they belong to same owners such as the multinational companies. This is why it is essential for companies wishing to operate foreign branches or wishing to engage in mergers and acquisitions and joint ventures need to understand the culture of the country they are operating in as what works in the mother country may not work in other countries. Some elements of culture may be similar in domestic and foreign companies but others may not. For example, the method of production may be similar in parent companies and foreign subsidiaries but the way of handling employees and clients or the products produced may differ. These cultural differences are manifested in the practice of management especially international management. Geert Hofstede (2001) in his theory of cultural dimensions identified five dimensions on which cultures of countries differ which includes: power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, long-term orientation and each of these dimensions has a contrasting perspective. A sixth dimension (indulgence versus restraint) was added in 2010 after rigorous research (Hofstede, Gert & Minkov, 2010). For them culture is the software of our minds while the institutions are the hardware. Power distance is the extent to which countries accept and expect power inequalities and is high in African and Asian countries and low in European countries like Britain. As such, it is expected that Britain companies apply democratic procedures while African countries use consultative management. Inequality in Britain is also encouraged through competition between individuals and companies (Hollinshead, 2009). Individualism vs. collectivism refers to the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. In Individualistic companies like Britain encourage individuals to work hard and compete hence personal achievements are valued as well as individual rights as opposed to collective values (Hofstede, 2001). Individuals also are more oriented to close families rather than extended families. Britain companies also encourage individual decision making as opposed to teamwork unlike in collectivist countries in Africa which encourage teamwork and group welfare. Uncertainty avoidance dimension for Hofstede (2001) refers to the extent the society exercises tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. Britain has a low uncertainty avoidance hence is risk tolerance. As such, conflicts in the management process are encouraged as they enhance diversity in decision making. Creativity is also encouraged hence continuous innovations and entrepreneurship skills encouraged. Britain does not insist on laws and regulations to guise the business hence its labor market is the least regulated among the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries besides U.S and Canada (CIPD 2011: 5). On the other hand, collectivist countries engage in step by step planning to avoid conflicts and use of laws and regulations to guide behavior. Masculinity vs. feminity refers to the degree to which a country is attached to male of feminine values. As such, masculine nations like Britain emphasize on competitiveness, ambition, power, challenging careers, and success (Hofstede 2001; Hofstede, Gert & Minkov, 2010). Feminist nations on the other hand, stress on relationships and quality of life hence welfare policies are more important than individual success. Long-term vs. short-term orientation dimension is dependent on time horizons. Long-term dimension gives importance to the future hence planning ahead especially to minimize risks is crucial. It is also geared towards persistence and capacity for adaptation (Hollinshead, 2009). Short-term oriented countries like Britain on the other hand, value the past as well as the present not the future. As such, companies emphasize on respect for tradition, reciprocation and fulfilling of social obligations (Hofstede, 2001). More emphasis is also put on immediate results as opposed to written long-term plans. The last dimension developed by Hofstede and associates in 2010 is the indulgence vs. restraint (Hofstede, Gert & Minkov, 2010). This refers to extent to which managers try to control their desires and impulses. In indulgent nations, like Britain individuals emphasize on gratification of desires hence enjoyment and fun are valued in workplaces. However, in restrained countries like Asia, such gratifications are curbed through regulations and strict norms. In conclusion, different countries have different cultures and these cultural differences are reflected in the practice of management. By using Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory, these differences can be analyzed using six dimensions and these include: power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, long-term orientation and indulgence versus restraint. These affect how various organizations are managed in different countries irrespective of whether they are owned by similar shareholders. Culture should thus be taken into account when deciding on market entry strategies to various countries. References Cavanaugh, GE., Moberg, DJ., and Velasques, M (1981). The ethics of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review, July 1981, p. 368. CIPD (2011). The economic rights and wrongs of employment regulation. Work Horizons, 1-13. Available at< http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/5547.workhorizons.pdf>[Accessed May 16, 2014] Fairholm, G W (2009). Organizational power and politics: tactics in organizational leadership. 2ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Gilmore, S and Williams, S (ed) (2013). Human resource management. 2ed. Oxford: OUP Griffin, R.W and Moorhead, G (2013). Organizational behavior: managing people and organizations. 11 ed. Mason, OH: Cengage Hofstede, G (2001). Cultural consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., Gert, JH and Minkov, M (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Hollinshead, G. 2009. International and Comparative Human Resource Management. Basingstoke: McGraw-Hill Mintzberg, H (2009) Managing. Santa Barbara, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc Robbins, Stephen., Bergman, Rolf., Stagg, Ian and Coulter, Mary (2012). Management. 6th ed. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Schein, E (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. 4ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Read More