Organizational Politics.
| Author | Shalini |
Theoretical Considerations
Politics is omnipresent. Be it any organization or institution of any size, one can find or perceive its presence. It can exist at both macroscopic as well as microscopic levels. Even, at the level of interpersonal relationship, most of the time, we can find ourselves as a user or a recipient of power. Politics can be operational at interpersonal/intergroup, intraorganizational or inter-organizational level or at all the levels, at the same time. The degree and the form of its practice might differ from one organization to another depending upon the organizational culture, structure, external environment and the contingent situation which can be influenced by many factors and forces. It can be driven by tangible or intangible needs of a person/group/organization. We know that any organization is consisting of people who have varied beliefs, values, needs, personal and career aspirations, and different interests and they all want to fulfill their needs and desires. Also, it is a fact that any organization has a fixed amount of resources because of which, when the organization fails to fulfill everyone's needs through rationality and objectivity, political behaviors become commonplace. Olorunleke (2015) argued that politics exists in every organization, the intent behind it might be positive (collaborative) or negative (competitive & destructive) and might vary but its presence could not be denied. Before we explore the dynamics of the work politics and try to delve into more depth regarding its functionality and the implications of that on the employees, it is important to delineate what exactly is meant by politics and what is the common theme behind it that leads to the acceptance of the fact that it is everywhere.
Organizational Politics
Burns (1961: 257) suggested that politics occurs when "others (individuals) are made use of as resources in competitive situations". The literature does not show a single, standard and widely accepted definition of organizational politics (Wangui, 2014). Hartel & Berry (1999: 32) noted that "there is no standard definition of organizational politics since organizational politics was most often perceived and described as behaviors that the organization itself (as personified by top management) undertook to influence employee behaviors and attitudes." However, broadly, organizational politics is understood as the activities undertaken as an attempt to influence others with the motive to pursue self-interest by means which might not be formally sanctioned by the organization (Cacciattolo, 2014; Pettigrew, 1973; Pfeffer & Pfeffer, 1981). To have a clearer understanding of the dynamics of organizational politics, it is important to have a more clear picture of the different dimensions of it. Bradshaw-Camball & Murray (1991) depicted that organizational politics is thought by some researchers to have three dimensions: (i) Structure (Who are the parties? What are their interests? How much power do they have? What are the bases of power?) (ii) Process (How is power used in pursuit of each party's interest?) and (iii) Outcomes (Who gets what? What is the impact on the ongoing relationship of the parties/others who comprise the organization and its stakeholders?). Therefore, we can say that the significance of organizational politics lies in the potential outcomes.
Perception of Organizational Politics & Coping Mechanism
In the context of organizational politics, the subjective interpretation or experience is considered to be more significant than the objective reality of politics. Ferris & Kacmar (1992) argued that organization politics should be understood based on what people experience rather than based on what is actually manifested because people respond to their own perceptions of reality rather than to the reality itself. We can assume that generally, there is a strong accordance between the objective reality and the perceived reality but it has to be accepted that perceptual variations can happen (based on many factors) and thus, it becomes more important to understand how, why and when this happens.
Ferris & Kacmar (1992) observed that the perception of politics is influenced by organizational factors such as centralization (formalization, hierarchical level, span of control), job/environmental influences (job autonomy, job variety, feedback, advancement opportunity, interactions with coworkers and supervisors) and personal factors (age, sex, manipulative-nature and self- monitoring). For example, women working from lower positions or people who have been exposed to political activities more than their peers will view their workplace to be more political. Vigoda- Gadot and Drory (2006) established that increased internal organizational politics may be due to the external competitive demands experienced by organizations, resulting from globalized economies and technological transformations. Ferris et al. (1989) suggested that the informal nature of an organization where there is uncertainty about decision-making creates a space for political behavior. Kacmar & Ferris (1991) tried to measure perception of politics and they came up with three dimensions which were labeled as 1) General political behavior, 2) Going along to get ahead, 3) Pay and promotion. Later, Kacmar and Carlson (1997) made several modifications to the original 12-item scale and came up with the same three dimensions.
From the above discussion, we can understand that people might use different strategies to negotiate their needs and desires in different circumstances. But the question comes what sort of behavioral tactics are generally employed which are perceived as political in nature. Theoretical studies have concluded that political behavior is a function of the personality of the actor, the situation, the context of the organization and the person against whom it is going to be employed. Allen et al. (1979) identified eight types of political tactics which generally people employ: (1) attacking or blaming others, (2) using the information as a political tool, (3) creating a favorable image (impression management), (4) developing a base of support, (5) praising others (ingratiation), (6) forming power coalitions with allies, and (7) creating obligations (reciprocity) and 8) associating with the influential.
The existence of organizational politics, be it, perceived or actual, has been considered to have a major and largely negative influence on the employees. (e.g., Burns, 1961; Gandz & Murray, 1980; Porter, 1976). Many theoretical researchers have concluded that organizations with a higher degree of political climate lead to a variety of harmful work consequences, which includes higher stress, turnover intentions, lower job satisfaction and commitment, due to which, organizational productivity and profitability suffers (Ferris et al., 1989; Kacmar & Baron, 1999). While many scholars argued that perception of politics has adverse effects on job involvement, job satisfaction, and leads to organizational withdrawal outcomes, like turnover and absenteeism (Drory, 1993; Ferris et al., 1989; Vigoda, 2000). Parker, Dipboye & Jackson (1995) found no such relationship. On the other hand, there are a few researchers who have suggested that the perception of organizational politics is not always negative for the employees.
However, organizational...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
