Politics, Power and Influence

This module focuses on organizations as political systems, beginning with the possible types of underlying ruling systems. The relationship between interests, conflict, and power is then explored in the context of positional and personal sources of power. The module concludes with an overview of how to manage political behavior in organizations.

1. Organizational Politics

It is common for many of us to complain about organizational politics. When we do, we are talking about those aspects of being and working in organizations that seem to be associated with ways some people exercise influence and power that we do not particularly like. We bemoan organizational politics because we assume organizations should be places where rational decisions are made for the good of all stakeholders. Yet the original meaning of the idea of politics stems from the view advocated by ancient Greek philosophers that politics provide the means of allowing individuals with divergent interests to reconcile their differences peacefully. Politics, for Aristotle, was a way of creating order out of diversity and avoiding forms of totalitarian rule.

Rather than see just the negative side of organizational politics, let us examine organizations as Political systems, to borrow the metaphor from Gareth Morgan. Using that metaphor we will see how we can better understand both the functional and dysfunctional uses of power and influence. The field of political science has contributed much to our ability to unravel the important political qualities of organizational life that we would otherwise find unfathomable. We borrow from these political scientists when we examine the different kinds of ruling systems found in our organizations.

2. Ruling Systems

Whenever large groups of people get together it is helpful to develop a means by which people create and maintain enough order amongst members. Some of the most common means for ‘ruling’ or maintaining order in organizations include:

· Autocracy – a system of ruling where power is held by an individual or small group and supported by control over critical resources, property, ownership rights, tradition and/or personal charisma.

· Bureaucracy – a system where decision rights are invested in particular functions or roles which relate to each other in a predetermined legal manner. In the bureaucracy the power is in the systems; it is ‘depersonalized’.

· Technocracy – a system where power is vested in those who have or can best use knowledge, expertise, or solve relevant problems for the organization.

· Coalitions – systems where opposing or divergent interest groups combine in the joint management of aspects of the organization where they have shared interest, usually temporarily. Each party is drawing on its specific power base and explicitly negotiating differences with the other party(ies).

· Democracy – a system where rule is exercised through the election of officers mandated to act on behalf of the electorate for a specific time period (representative democracy) or where individuals vote directly for issues of concern to them and the majority view point becomes law (direct democracy).

Most organizations use some combination of the above systems of rule depending upon the issues, interests, power-bases, and consequences of decisions involved.

3. The Relationship of Interests to Conflict and Power

In addition to the systems of rule in organizations, there is lots of political activity associated with divergent interests. When we talk about people ‘playing politics’ within the organization we are usually referring to the ways they seem to be seeking benefits for themselves at a cost to the collective. This may also be understood as a conflict between self- and organizational- interests.

A systematic approach to understanding these dynamics would be to focus on the intersection of interests, conflict, and power. Each person and group in the organization can be thought of as having a collection of interests. Interests are defined here as desires, goals, concerns, values, expectations, orientations and inclinations that are all important to that individual or group. These interests overlap with the interests of others and the interests of the organization. When interests overlap easily, people join together in the pursuit of shared interests. Sometimes interests collide and we have conflict. Conflict is then resolved by either returning to where interests are mutual, or through the exercise of power. We will discuss more of the details involved with negotiations and conflict management in later sections of this course.

Because we often use power to resolve conflicts we have at the interpersonal, group and organizational levels, it is helpful to examine power in a bit more detail. Power is the capacity to influence the behavior of others to achieve a result. Power influences who gets what, when and how in our organizations.

A short summary of the relationship between interests, conflict and power would then be:

When interests collide, conflict results, which power (politics) is used to resolve.

4. Sources of Power - Authority

Power comes from many sources – some sources are personal, some sources are positional, some sources are relational, some sources are resource-based. In the description of sources of power that follow, we are using one way to understand sources of power, acknowledging that sources of power can be organized and understood in many other ways.

Authority. The most common source of positional power is authority. Within bureaucratic and democratic organizational systems, authority is the right to make decisions and exercise influence granted to someone based on their position in the organization. The decision right is actually attached to the position, rather than to the person. Authority can also be decision rights granted to positions based on tradition or inheritance, such as the decision rights granted to royalty. And authority – decision rights – can also be granted to people based on their position as the leader of an organization or movement. In each case the decision rights are legitimated through the position, rather than directly to the incumbent in the position. If the person changes, the right to make decisions and influence people associated with that position shifts to the new incumbent in the position.

The ability to control scarce resources such as money, materials, technology, personnel, and suppliers can also be a source of positional power. If someone has the ability to limit access to anything members of the organization need to complete a task or survive in their sector of activity, that person has power. Scarcity combined with dependence provide the elements necessary for resource-based power.

Money is the most liquid of all organizational resources. It is therefore no surprise that some of the most political behavior in organizations is associated managing the budget systems or obtaining funding for projects. In many organizations managers seek not only access to necessary funds, but also to create discretionary funds – slush funds they can use to support projects and people in ways that serve to increase their sphere of influence.

So one can increase resource power by having control over scarce resources such as money or personal. Resource power can also be reduced, for instance, by decreasing one’s dependence on others. This is why many managers like to have their own resources and explains the seemingly needless duplication of resources within units. The idea is to have a financial, personnel, and technical reserve that reduce the need to ask anyone else for resources at a critical time.

We would like to think that organizational structure, rules, regulations, systems, and procedures are rationally designed to aid organization members in doing their jobs. In practice, within most organizations there are some people who decide how task-relevant positions will be organized, how information and money should flow within the organization, and what kinds of policies will be enacted to keep the organization working. These designs, systems and rules are often created, invoked, and used as sources of power.

We see power plays in reorganization, planning, scheduling, promotion and job-evaluation meetings. Perhaps you have been part of a reorganization that occurred in a way that leave people who had a large department with budgetary responsibilities in a position with no direct reports and fewer resources. Personnel shuffles may occur so that people who used to report directly to senior executives have to go through several levels for access to key decision makers.

Unions have been known to exercise power by ‘working to rule’ – obeying every single policy required by the organization exactly. The resulting slow down in work was through the enactment of policies in a rigid manner. Rules designed to guide and streamline activities can almost always be used to block activities when a show of power is required.

In both cases – the reorganization and the work-to-rule slowdown – there may be some rational reasoning behind the actions. And, there are likely politics at work with individuals or groups demonstrating their power to influence organizational practice.

In the section on managing and leading one of the tasks of managers is deciding how decisions should be made, who should make them, and gaining commitment to a particular decision making process. Managers may use decision-making power to influence organization direction in many ways, such as deciding:

· How a decision is seen by guiding and deflecting people’s attention in particular ways around issues,

· Whether an issue should go before particular people and which people, supporting documentation required before decisions can be considered, decision-making ground rules, and

· Which of a host of subtle communication cues that shape who we think and act about a decision to use.

It is also possible to exercise decision making power by deciding which criteria may be used to evaluate an decision thereby making some arguments legitimate for the decision-making process, and others less influential. Closely related to this source of power is control over knowledge and information flows.

· Relevance (you have a position/job that is very important for success of the organization),

· Autonomy (you have ability to control what, when, how, and where you work), and visibility (you have a position that makes you the first, only, or most obvious person in your organization for some reason).

8. Personal Sources of Power and Influence

Influence. Influence is the process by which people successfully persuade others to follow their advice, suggestions, or orders. Influence tactics can be organized simply into a push style and a pull style. The influence tactics in the push style include persuading others to your point of view by proposing and reasoning in a way that engages the listener, or asserting your views by stating your expectations, evaluating the other options, offering incentives or applying pressure. The pull style uses bridging and

attracting tactics. Bridging behaviors include linguistic involvement in the conversation by asking open-ended questions, other’s opinions, or disclosing both task and relational concerns. Attracting behaviors include inquiring about common ground and visioning in a way that is compelling to others.

Charisma. Charisma means ‘gift of grace’. Many people notice that some people seem graced with character, abilities, inner guidance, a powerful personality that seems to inspire the confidence and willingness of others to do what they ask. Charisma captures this personal element. In the research charisma is acknowledged as a source of power based in an individual’s personality and character.

Expertise and Effort. People who have particular skills and abilities that are valued often have a personal source of power within their organizations. Expertise can be acquired, developed, and cultivated throughout the lifetime. A successful track record in the use of one’s skills, talents and abilities, plus the willingness to put forth effort in pursuit of mutual interests will often provide people with the ability to influence others in a particular direction.

9. The Ambiguity and Ambivalence of Power

.Power is sometimes ambiguous in its source and ambivalent in its value. Power ambiguity comes from the fact that power derives from the many sources described in the module -- both positional and personal. This list of power sources here does not include every source of power available to us in our organizations. And the list makes it seem as though each source of power is distinct from other sources of power. In practice, most people are using multiple sources of power simultaneously in order to influence, if not control circumstances in their organizational world

Power is ambivalent. When we are using power to meet our interests we think the use of power is positive and our use of power is responsible. When others are using their power to block or hinder something we see as in our interest, we think they are playing power politics in a negative and unsavory manner. Power – its sources and uses – then takes on the valence we assign to it as seen through our particular concerns.

Nor have we discussed the fact that power sources are not asymmetrical or randomly distributed throughout our organizations. Some groups have lots of power and influence compared to other individuals and groups who have comparatively little power. Individuals in organizations also have differential power. When we think of organizations as political systems, we assert that within organizations people and groups are using the sources of power available to them in the service of their interests. Sometimes those interests overlap substantially with organizational interests, sometimes interests collide. What we know is that political behavior is very common in organizational life.

10. Managing Political Behavior in Organizations

The very nature of political behavior in organizations often makes it difficult to manage in any ‘rational’ and systematic way. It helps to have some understanding of the reasons for political behavior, common techniques for using political behavior, and strategies for limiting political behavior.

Typical reasons for political behavior include ambiguous organizational goals and objectives, scarce resources, and uncertainties and complexities in the environment often associated with rapid change. High uncertainty and complexity can come from changing technology, highly subjective personnel decisions, organizational restructuring, sector of activity shifts, etc. In situations with lots of ambiguity and complexity the most frequent technique vehicle for political behavior seems to be attempts to control access to resources and/or information. This may mean controlling or exploiting communication lines, hiring-using experts, or controlling the decision agenda. Any and all of the sources of power are used for pursuing interests in a political manner.

While it is virtually impossible to eliminate political activity in organizations, there are some ways to limit its dysfunctional consequences.

· Opening up communication lines helps enormously – often limiting people’s ability to control both information and scarce resources.

· Reducing uncertainty, especially when it is combined with open support- commitment to organizational goals, objectives, and mission. Clear and engaging direction provides a beacon to guide most people’s behavior thereby making deviance from those goals more evident.

· Understanding who and where in your organization the tendency to political behavior is most likely to occur. Sometimes vigilance pays off in an ability to forestall or check political behavior as it starts.

System of Rule Statement

1. Autocracy a. “How shall we do it?”

2. Bureaucracy b. “It’s best to do it this way”

3. Technocracy c. “We’ll do it my way”

4. Democracy d. “We are supposed to do it this way”

Summary

In this module we explored the notion of organizations as political systems. We examined the five types of ruling systems commonly used in organizations. These systems form the foundation on which political behavior is enacted. Conflicting interests give rise to exertion of power from several sources (such as position or personality) and varieties (such as authority via position, control of varying kinds, influence, charisma, or expertise and effort). Finally, we discussed the ambiguity of the source and ambivalence in the value of power, along with ways of managing political behavior in organizations.

Carli, Linda L. “Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence.” Journal of

Drucker, Peter F. “Leadership: The Effective Exercise of Power and Influence” in

Morgan, Gareth, “Interests, Conflict, and Power,” from Images of organization,

Glossary

Attracting behaviors: Inquiring about common ground and visioning in a way that is compelling to others.

Authority: The right to make decisions and exercise influence, granted to someone based on their position in the organization.

Bridging behaviors: Linguistic involvement in the conversation by asking open-ended questions, others’ opinions, or disclosing both task and relational concerns.

Influence: The process by which people successfully persuade others to follow their advice, suggestions, or orders; influence tactics can be organized simply into a push style and a pull style.

Power: The capacity to influence the behavior of others to achieve a result; influencing who gets what, when, and how in our organizations.

· Identifying the sources and varieties of power used to obtain intra organizational political goals

Questions and Answers

1. Lately it seems more and more people dislike managers, work and their organizations. Power and politics seem to be a part of it. What’s going on?

Answer 1: At a core level most people seem to resist the idea of overt power used to control them. We see this resistance between individuals and classes of people throughout history. As they say in France “plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose” (the more things change the more they stay the same). People also dislike being lied to. Power and politics invoke both of these issues – power-over being associated with attempts to control, and politics for many being synonymous with lying. Mary Parker Follet, writing in the 1920’s commented that people do not like control – or ‘power-over’ – yet they willingly respond to ‘power-with’. Empowerment, participatory management, evolving team-based organizational forms, may all be responses to the collective resistance to power-over that seemed to be part of organizational life. That said there are always attempts to organize organization so that the exercise of power does not seem so much like control. Some critics of the field of organizational behavior claim that it is a field that teaches managers how to manipulate behavior, not just to motivate and support collective activity in pursuit of shared interests. There is admittedly a fine line between management and manipulation.

2. What should I do if I wish to exercise minority influence and I’m a double minority? It seems I have to work harder than single minorities, again, and so unfair for one person to have to carry that responsibility for the group all the time?

Answer 2: Exercising power or influence from the double-minority position on your team or in your organization is indeed a challenge. This topic was addressed to some extent in Module 9: Working Effectively in Teams. Two strategies were suggested for exercising minority influence in general – building idiosyncracy credits and/or being persistent-consistent-objective about an issue. However, being one person with a double-minority viewpoint has a qualitatively more difficult time exercising influence than do two people with a minority viewpoint. A solution: Build alliances. Usually there is at least one person in the group who agrees, at least in part with you. Ask that person to support you the next time you bring up the issue – better yet, coach them so that they can bring up the issue so it does not look like you are pursuing ‘special’ interests. It may not be fair to do more work, but it does make you effective at building alliances and exercising influence – both of which are important leadership and management skills.

3. It seems impossible to exercise power or influence if you are not in a high status position or come from a relatively high socio-economic class. What can I do if I want to influence others but I did not come from such a position?

Answer: Authority – the right to make decisions based on position in the organization – is often correlated with socio-economic class, more so in some cultures than in others. Often the authority is granted to a role-position and every position has a status. The amount of actual authority-power an incumbent will have will vary somewhat with the other sources of power that individual has. So an individual with other sources of power, including high socio-economic-status may have more authority within any given role than someone without that status. To augment your authority-power in whatever role you have in your organization you can always become a socio-emotional leader. These people exercise influence by focusing on the emotional and social aspects of a group. They encourage others, resolve conflicts and otherwise keep the group cohesive. And remember, there are lots of sources of personal power that can be developed.

1. Organizational Politics

2. Ruling Systems

3. The Relationship of Interests to Conflict and Power

4. Sources of Power - Authority

8. Personal Sources of Power and Influence

9. The Ambiguity and Ambivalence of Power

10. Managing Political Behavior in Organizations

System of Rule Statement

Summary

Glossary

Questions and Answers

End of Module