According to Aristotle, politics
stems from a diversity of interests. To fully understand the politics of
the organization, it is necessary to explore the processes by which people
engage in politics. Consistent with Aristotle's conceptualization, it is a
given that, within the organization, all employees bring their own interests,
wants, desires, and needs to the workplace.
To help us understand
organizations, we might consider them as political systems. The political
metaphor helps us understand power relationships in day-to-day organizational
relationships. If we accept that power relations exist in organizations, then
politics and politicking are an essential part of organizational life.
Politics is a means of recognizing and, ultimately, reconciling
competing interests within the organization. Competing interests can be
reconciled by any number of means. As mentioned, organizations need
mechanisms whereby they reconcile conflicting interests. Hence,
organizations, like governments, tend to "rule" by some sort of
"system". This "system" is employed to create and
maintain "order" among the organization's members.
Systems of rule within organizations range from
autocratic to democratic at the extremes. Between these extremes we find
bureaucratic and technocratic systems. Whatever the system, each represents a
political orientation with respect to how power is applied and distributed
throughout the organization. Each type of organizational "rule"
simply draws on different principles of legitimacy.
According to Farrell and Peterson(Farrell and
Peterson, 1982), the successful practice of organizational politics is
perceived to lead to a higher level of power, and once a higher level of power
is attained, there is more opportunity to engage in political behavior
For purposes of understanding organizational
political behavior, Farrell and Peterson (1982) proposed a three-dimensional
typology. The dimensions are:
•
where the political activity takes place -- inside or outside
the organization,
•
the direction of the attempted influence -- vertically
or laterally in the organization, and
•
the legitimacy of the political action.
Causes of Organisational Politics
Change
Change is unsettling and often results in
winners and losers. When this is the case, it is hardly surprising that more
extreme – subtle, underhand, covert or just downright devious – behaviours
surface. Individuals start to position themselves in advance of the change.
Simply preserving the status quo can often generate such behaviour or even
sabotage. It is little wonder that so many change initiatives fail.
Limited
Resources
Not surprisingly, when businesses set budgets to drive down
costs and end prices to the customer, there is enormous pressure to hold down
expenditure and investment. Consequently, department heads have to compete with
colleagues for a share of a pot that is rarely large enough. Finance Directors
who make these allocations will find themselves on the receiving end of bribes,
threats, propositions, sales pitches, gifts, violence and affection – except,
of course, we don’t call it that, we call it politics. Relationships may become
strained, perhaps even permanently damaged, within a group of people who are
supposed to collaborate with each other to best effect on a daily basis.
Subjectivity
of Evaluation
Cuts in the cost base often reduce
opportunities for promotion. The result is more aggressive behaviour on the
part of ambitious individuals, who are driven to get ahead of colleagues if
they are to obtain the scarce senior roles they aspire to. Aggressive does not
mean using fists, but it does entail competing against other members of staff
who just happen to be in the same team.There is nothing underhand in this.
Everyone ‘knows the score’, which only serves to perpetuate a climate of
suspicion, rumour and gossip to the detriment of getting the job done.
Unfortunately, staying out of the fray simply isn’t an option if you want to
succeed.
Information
The very speed at which businesses move
these days requires that roles are frequently amended and job descriptions
often lag behind the new way of doing things. Matrix structures and an
orientation to project teams often result in ambiguity over who is responsible
for what. Objectives set at the start of the year quickly become overtaken by
events, which leads to confusion and vagueness between colleagues. The outcome
is often marked by a lack of trust, accusations of exceeding authority and
territorial infighting. The rumour mill cranks up and soon individuals are
swayed by all manner of perceptions and assumptions that have no basis in fact,
but everything to do with the way we choose to interpret others’ behaviour.
Compliance or Commitment
Following orders from
positions above self may be in the nature of mere acceptance of directives or
of internalization of the intent of the directive. In case of compliance, the
change brought about is one that is easily reverted to null at the slightest
instance. Although, compliance results due to position power of the directing
figure, an internalization of the idea has not percolated down the hierarchical
levels. This speaks volumes about the issues of employee involvement and
empowerment not only as a part of enhancing acceptability of an initiative, but
also towards preserving the power of the superior.
