15

Organizational Politics

Organizational politics are informal, unofficial, and sometimes behind-the-scenes efforts to sell ideas, influence an organization, increase power, or achieve other targeted objectives. Politics has been around for millennia. Aristotle wrote that politics stems from a diversity of interests, and those competing interests must be resolved in some way. Rational decision making alone may not work when interests are fundamentally incongruent, so political behaviors and influence tactics arise.

Today, work in organizations requires skill in handling conflicting agendas and shifting power bases. Effective politics isnt about winning at all costs but about maintaining relationships while achieving results. Although often portrayed negatively, organizational politics are not inherently bad. Instead, its important to be aware of the potentially destructive aspects of organizational politics in order to minimize their negative effect. Of course, individuals within organizations can waste time overly engaging in political behavior. Research reported inHR Magazinefound that managers waste 20% of their time managing politics. However, as John Kotter wrote inPower and Influence, Without political awareness and skill, we face the inevitable prospect of becoming immersed in bureaucratic infighting, parochial politics and destructive power struggles, which greatly retard organizational initiative, innovation, morale, and performance. In our discussion about power, we saw that power issues often arise around scarce resources. Organizations typically have limited resources that must be allocated in some way. Individuals and groups within the organization may disagree about how those resources should be allocated, so they may naturally seek to gain those resources for themselves or for their interest groups, which gives rise to organizational politics. Simply put, with organizational politics, individuals ally themselves with like-minded others in an attempt to win the scarce resources. Theyll engage in behavior typically seen in government organizations, such as bargaining, negotiating, alliance building, and resolving conflicting interests.

Politics are a part of organizational life, because organizations are made up of different interests that need to be aligned. In fact, 93% of managers surveyed reported that workplace politics exist in their organization, and 70% felt that in order to be successful, a person has to engage in politics.[3]In the negative light, saying that someone is political generally stirs up images of back-room dealing, manipulation, or hidden agendas for personal gain. A person engaging in these types of political behaviors is said to be engaging in self-serving behavior that is not sanctioned by the organization. Examples of these self-serving behaviors include bypassing the chain of command to get approval for a special project, going through improper channels to obtain special favors, or lobbying high-level managers just before they make a promotion decision. These types of actions undermine fairness in the organization, because not everyone engages in politicking to meet their own objectives. Those who follow proper procedures often feel jealous and resentful because they perceive unfair distributions of the organization's resources, including rewards and recognition. Researchers have found that if employees think their organization is overly driven by politics, the employees are less committed to the organization, have lower job satisfaction, perform worse on the job,have higher levels of job anxiety, and have a higher incidence of depressed mood. The negative side of organizational politics is more likely to flare up in times of organizational change or when there are difficult decisions to be made and a scarcity of resources that breeds competition among organizational groups. To minimize overly political behavior, company leaders can provide equal access to information, model collaborative behavior, and demonstrate that political maneuvering will not be rewarded or tolerated. Furthermore, leaders should encourage managers throughout the organization to provide high levels of feedback to employees about their performance. High levels of feedback reduce the perception of organizational politics and improve employee morale and work performance. Remember that politics can be a healthy way to get things done within organizations.

Antecedents of Political Behavior

Individual Antecedents

There are a number of potential individual antecedents of political behavior. We will start off by understanding the role that personality has in shaping whether someone will engage in political behavior.

Political skillrefers to peoples interpersonal style, including their ability to relate well to others, self-monitor, alter their reactions depending upon the situation they are in, and inspire confidence and trust. Researchers have found that individuals who are high on political skill are more effective at their jobs or at least in influencing their supervisors performance ratings of them.[13]Individuals who are high ininternal locus of controlbelieve that they can make a difference in organizational outcomes. They do not leave things to fate. Therefore, we would expect those high in internal locus of control to engage in more political behavior. Research shows that these individuals perceive politics around them to a greater degree. Investment in the organizationis also related to political behavior. If a person is highly invested in an organization either financially or emotionally, they will be more likely to engage in political behavior because they care deeply about the fate of the organization. Finally,expectations of successalso matter. When a person expects that they will be successful in changing an outcome, they are more likely to engage in political behavior. Think about it: If you know there is no chance that you can influence an outcome, why would you spend your valuable time and resources working to effect change? You wouldnt. Over time youd learn to live with the outcomes rather than trying to change them. Figure 13.10

Individual and organizational antecedents can both lead to political behavior.

Organizational Antecedents

Scarcity of resourcesbreeds politics. When resources such as monetary incentives or promotions are limited, people see the organization as more political. Any type of ambiguity can relate to greater organizational politics. For example,role ambiguityallows individuals to negotiate and redefine their roles. This freedom can become a political process. Research shows that when people do not feel clear about their job responsibilities, they perceive the organization as more political.[16]Ambiguity also exists aroundperformance evaluationsandpromotions. These human resource practices can lead to greater political behavior, such as impression management, throughout the organization. As you might imagine,democratic decision makingleads to more political behavior. Since many people have a say in the process of making decisions, there are more people available to be influenced.

The Impact of Power and Politics in Organizational ProductivityPower and politics play a huge role in business, from governing how decisions are made to how employees interact with one another. In businesses big and small, the impact of power depends on whether employees use positive or negative power to influence others in the workplace. Politics may directly influence who has the power and determine whether the overall culture of the workplace encourages productivity.

Positive Types of Power

Positive power in an organization involves encouraging productivity. This includes giving employees the power to make decisions, rewarding employees for strong performance and appointing employees who perform strongly to supervise other employees. Positive power builds employee confidence and motivates employees to work harder. It also results in those in higher-level positions gaining power through employee respect and communication, rather than coercive efforts. Employee retention rates are higher when employees are given the power to express concerns and work together in an organization.

Negative Types of Power

When leaders in an organization do not have the respect of the employees under them, they have a negative power. This type of leader motivates employees to perform by threatening them with job loss and other punishments or shows favoritism to certain employees rather than recognizing the hard work of multiple employees. Not only does the quality of work produced decrease under this type of power, but it leads to higher turnover rates in an organization.

Positive Workplace Politics

Employees who learn to navigate the politics of an organization are more productive than those who are left out of the loop. To encourage productivity, organizations must develop a political culture easy for employees to understand. Establishing clear policies and chains of command makes it easier for employees to find the answers they need and spend more time on producing quality work. A climate focused on collaboration and equal treatment prevents conflict that can reduce productivity.

Negative Workplace Politics

Organizations that develop climates of negativity and conflict suffer as a result. If employees are encouraged to engage in dishonest or unethical behavior to get ahead and favoritism trumps the quality of work, an organization faces decreases in productivity and higher turnover rates. An organization without clear policies and chains of command leads to employees spending more time searching for answers and attempting to fix problems than actually completing quality work.

Understanding Politics in DevelopmentDevelopment is a complex business but it should not be tackled in isolation from the political dynamics in a country or context. And thats why development practitioners would be advised to embrace the Political Economy Analysis, according to experts.

The Political Economy Analysis encourages and enables development professionals to better understand key political dimensions in a particular context in which they operate. It may also provide insights on how to adapt their approaches accordingly.

Development is essentially a locally driven political process, said Sue Unsworth fromThe Policy Practice. If external players are going to be at all effective in influencing how that process takes place, they have to understand it and look for ways of engaging with it.

A better understanding of the politics can help programme officers avoid over-ambitiousness, can contribute to setting realistic time schedules and appropriate sequencing and to foresee future problem areas or understand better why certain efforts have not been successful in the past.

The Political Economy Analysis has received a good deal of attention in recent years. But for it to endure, and Ms Unsworth believes that Political Economy Analysis is an essential tool in the development practitioners cache, donors have to change the way they operate, she said speaking at a recent PEA seminar in Brussels.

The impact has been quite fragmented within agencies, and what [the Political Economy Analysis] hasnt done is induce any kind of fundamental rethink about how development happens and what the role of external players might be, said Ms Unsworth, And that in turn isnt affecting key decisions agencies make about how they recruit and deploy staff and train and use them.

Alex Duncan, also from The Policy Practice and another key speaker from the learning seminar, agrees that this approach is central to effective development, and one that donors have overlooked for too long.

Over the decades, by and large, development agencies have been remarkably ignorant of politics in their programming which is not to say that their staff dont understand, as I think the staff often do understand but that this way of thinking, of trying to be more realistic, has not been legitimised by the organisations.

Agencies, like the Commission, have not given the staff the analytical tools and space to arrive at a better understanding of the context in which they are working.

But now that the Political Economy Analysis has come to the fore, Mr Duncan cautiously believes there is no going back.

It should not be oversold, it is not a new silver bullet that is suddenly going to transform the way that organisations work, said Mr Duncan. It seems to me there is no going back to the situation where we thought of the principle development challenges as a technical problem or a lack of finance.

Plenty of evaluations carried out for the European Commission and others have said you have been too naive politically and I think one has to respond to those kinds of findings of our past effectiveness.How to Deal with Organizational PoliticsThere is not an organization on earth (or space for that matter) that does not have to deal with politics. The degree of organizational politics varies from one organization to another but the reality is, all organizations have some sort of internal political struggle that can rip it apart. Dealing with this struggle takes a keen awareness of the landscape, players and rules in which the political game is played. Dont dilute yourself in thinking that your organization has no politics.The reality of any organization with more than one person is that politics is the lubricate that oils your organizations internal gears. Apply the proper lubricate and things will work fine. Forget to lubricate it and your organization will grind to a halt.

The Political Landscape

Your organizations political landscape starts from the top. Whomever leads your organization will not only form the landscape but also influence the rules (more on that later). The political landscape is the formal hierarchy, informal hierarchy and alternative hierarchies that link the political players together.

Formal HierarchyIn most organizations, this is the organizational chart that defines the reporting structure and who works for whom. Its the first indication of how the organization is setup politically and can reveal a lot about how the landscape is initially formed. Consider some of these ideas when looking at your organizations reporting structure.

Flat Reporting:Flat reporting structures come about because the people at the top want visibility into every aspect of the organization. Flat works when you are small but as an organization grows, flat starts to strain and produces other hierarchies.

Lots of Executives:An organization with lots of executives usually means that there is a lot of politics because executives want more influence and they now have to fight among other executives for a smaller number of resources.

Functional:A functional hierarchy groups like resources (legal, HR, etc.) under one boss. These resources are then farmed out to various groups or divisions (if they exist) to get tasks done. In general, functional groups dont really have a revenue stream so they are constantly validating their existence and this creates a natural political atmosphere.

Divisional:Most companies use the divisional approach since it allows for more accurate reporting of performance and allows people to focus on specific products and markets. The politics of a divisional hierarchy tend to center around budgets and interactions with the functional groups. Even a divisional hierarchy needs some functional groups for support.

Matrix:A matrix takes the functional approach and the divisional approach and crosses them. Resources are common and assigned to projects that divisions wants done. This structure is ripe with political struggle because there are various reporting structures, resources dont work on one thing and politicking is driven by the constant fight between matrix mangers and divisional managers.

As you can see, there are several different organizational hierarchies and each has its own unique political challenges. Most organizations tend to be a hybrid and that adds an even more interesting dynamic to the political landscape.

Informal HierarchyAll organizations have an informal hierarchy that runs parallel to the formal one. This informal hierarchy is built at all levels and comes about by people working together. By working together, people within the organization know the go to people for critical items. These people can are the organizational gatekeepers that yield some political power by the nature of their position or reputation. Its pretty clear who these people are because they may control an executives schedule, are critical to a legacy system or know all the office gossip.

Alternative HierarchyThis is akin to the informal hierarchy but more formal in the sense that its usually associated with the matrix type organizations where there is a lot dotted line reporting. Dotted line reporting is when you have more than one boss. The dotted line implies you are responsible for some aspects of someone elses project but they dont write your review. This alternative hierarchy can be a powerful political lever. It usually taps into a different part of the organization and your dotted line boss can sometimes be a valuable ally when your interests are aligned.

Information Links The LandscapeWithin this political landscape, the main linkage between everything is the access to and the flow of information. Information is a precious commodity. The worth of this commodity naturally rises and falls as the political landscape shifts up and down all of these hierarchies. Realize that you are a player in this landscape. Where you fit in and what power or influence your position and linkages have will be just as important as your ability to use that influence.

The Political Players

Each player in the organization has a role in the politics that grease the wheels of getting things done. No one can escape politics and thats why its vital to determine who the players are and what power they wield. Any organization, whether its all volunteer or a corporation, will have several of the following political players:

The boss:is the person thats in charge of the organization. Usually, they make the ultimate decision and are who people are trying to gain favor with.

2nd in command:is being groomed for the bosses job and has a tremendous amount of political clout with the boss.

The yes man:pretty much always agrees with the boss, even if its the wrong thing to do. Yes men get to their position by catering to what every boss deep down wants to always be right.

The curmudgeon:is always looking at the downside of everything. Nothing is ever good enough or like we used to do it. The curmudgeon has political power but its usually narrowly focused.

The vortex:always creates drama and wants to suck everyone to their side, even if its down the path to disaster. Their typical task is to say they just want to be helpful and make sure every option is explored but what they really want to do is slow things way down and push their own agenda.

The empire builder:loves the political power of having lots of people. They use this power to grab even more power and will not stop until they are the boss.

The peacemaker:wants everyone to get along and work together in harmony. Usually, they have a ton of political power because they are perceived as having the best interest of the company in mind.

The brain:knows everything and is purely data driven. Politicians usually avoid the brain because the entire company knows how smart they are.

The rubber chicken:is hard to pin down and always has a what if. They are rubber chickens because they squeak a lot but dont really say much.

The parrot:will steal someone elses idea as their own. They also tend to have no real opinion other than the right opinion of the day and will parrot that all around the company.

One thing to remember is that people can and do change their roll, depending on the situation. Its not uncommon for a yes man to be the boss in certain circumstances or even the curmudgeon being the brain or even a peacemaker. The dynamics of the situation should always dictate a reexamination of the players and how they fit into the landscape.

The essential item to remember is that people will fall into several different modes, depending on their attitudes and political prowess

The Rules

Organizational politics does have rules and the sooner you figure them out, the better. These rules are what the players have agreed to as the framework of how the organization will deal with political conflict. Now, rules can also change and are sometimes situational when it comes to what hierarchy you are dealing with. There are really no true set of general rules but the list below gives some of the basic ones that most organizations will adhere too. Obviously, your organization will differ but once you understand some of the basic rules, then it should be pretty easy to figure out the rest.

Strict chain of command:chain of command rules mean that any issues or decision must follow the proper channels. There is no going over a mangers head to talk directly to his boss. This rule is generally in organizations with a lot of hierarchy. Lots of hierarchy breeds paranoia in that if someone is out of the loop, they are probably irrelevant.

Shoots the messenger:if the bearer of bad news is frowned upon or looked upon negatively, then you clearly dont want to give bad news. Even if its the truth, you really need to learn how to tell the whole truth in a positive way and not get shot in the process.

Favoritism trumps performance:this rule is usually in place when there is an organization with a lot of yes men that the boss likes. In this situation, the most favorite people will have a ton of influence and any political maneuvering has to go through them.

Paranoid android:In some political realms, there is a paranoia baked into the environment. Everyone feels this sense that people are out to get you. When this type of environment is in play, the rules dictate that you cover yourself from attacks by hyper communicating whats going on.

Kingpins:An environment with kingpins says that every decision has to go through a specific set of people. Kingpins usually control groups or divisions and their influence is far reaching. In some cases, the other rules dont apply to kingpins and that means you need to craft your positions directly to them.

Data driven:When an environment is data driven, the political posturing is somewhat reduced. Politics never really go away but its more controlled when the environment trusts the data over favoritism.

Decision by committee:When the rules of the game include committees, it takes longer to get stuff done. Committees have their place and when decisions or directions are made strictly by committee, you need to be vigilant in making sure every committee member understands the issues and has all the data.

Straight from the gut:If you political environment relies on quick decisions and gut reactions, then you will need to be prepared for a rapid change in direction at a moments notice. Influencing the gut reaction environment requires having a solid grasp of the facts and the ability to think quickly.

Analysis paralysis:Some organizations deliberately ask for so much analysis that they never make a decision. This rule can frustrate a person of action. To combat this, you need to do the analysis up front and have a really compelling story or you will be asked to do even more analysis.

Some of the items above are not really rules but rather behaviors. These behaviors are important to watch out for because they do frame how the political game is played and will guild you in your political strategies.

Methods to Deal with Organizational Politics

Organizational politics is a full contact sport. It must be played with diligence and a full understanding of the landscape, players and rules. Like any good sports team, preparation before the game makes the game much easier to play and gives you a better chance of winning. Below are a few essential skills that will help you play the game better:

Be data driven:Usually, data trumps any sort of political agenda. When you are data driven, you rely on the facts and that is your best method to diffuse any sort of political positioning.

Foster alliances:You need to build up alliances well in advance of any political conflict. Alliances are a great way to help each other ensure that nothing gets past your collective political radar.

Admit when you are wrong:The power of admitting when you are wrong is seldom understood. When used correctly, it diffuses a politically charged situation within an instant. The trick is to use it sparingly since if you are wrong too often, people will start to question your competence.

Understand the question behind the question:In a politically charged environment, the line of questioning will always lead to some sort of political peak. Knowing where the questions are leading will allow you to anticipate this and adjust accordingly.

Tell the truth:This may seem obvious but most people will skirt the truth because it may make them look bad. Dont worry so much about looking bad that but rather, make sure you have the facts straight and that you are striving to seek the truth about the situation.

Use email sparingly:Email can be a curse in a political environment since its a record of half-baked ideas and half-truths. Use email sparingly and only when you have the facts straight.

Always look out for the best interest of the company:This is probably the single best thing you can do when in a politically charged company. No one can debate you motivation when its in the best interest of the company.

Foster relationships:Personal insights into your coworkers can help you navigate the political landscape by giving you content into their personality. This is useful when the arguments get heated.

Stand up for yourself:When you right, let everyone know it. Dont cower when someone attacks you. Rather, state the facts and be proud of how you handled the situation.

Help others:By helping others, you earn their trust and respect. You also earn their gratitude that will come in handy when you need help.

Try and find common ground:Common ground is where everyone in the situation can agree. In almost every situation, there is some common point where all parties will agree. Finding that will allow you to accomplish a critical political move having the parties actually agree on something.

Agree to disagree:Sometimes a situation will descend into such chaos that the only solution is to agree to disagree. This should be your last alternative but its a powerful tool when you are deadlocked.

Be the peacemaker:Its best that you get the reputation of someone who finds solutions to tricky problems. Being the peacemaker is one way to achieve that. Peacemakers are looked at favorably because they transcend the politics and focus on making progress.

Know When to Say I dont know:Its much better to say I dont know then to try and make up an answer on the fly. Saying I dont know takes courage but when used correctly, those three simple words can diffuse a volatile situation for another day. Just be careful not to use it too much.

Constantly adjust your approach:As the saying goes, one size does not fit all. You need to read the situation you are in and select the best approach to achieve your objectives. Doing this will allow you to be much more successful than if you just do the same thing over and over again.

One thing that stands out from the list above is the amount of effort it takes to interact in a politically charged organization. Dont fret if you feel overwhelmed. Most people do get overwhelmed when they first jump into a political environment. The thing to remember is to ease into it, if possible and really understand the landscape before you start playing the game.

One Final Thought

The most important thing about organizational politics is to be prepared. Dont wing it or assume that you have alliances when you spent no time beforehand doing research or building them. The worst thing you can do is come into a political situation and not have all the facts, know the landscape, understand the players and the rules. Thats a sure way to lose the game before you even started to play it.

You are here:Home>Economics help blog>The relationship between economics and politicsThe relationship between economics and politics

byTejvan PettingeronAugust 14, 2014inconceptsReaders question: Whycannotpolitics and economics be seen in isolation?Economics is concerned with studying and influencing the economy. Politics is the theory and practice of influencing people through the exercise of power, e.g. governments, elections and political parties.

In theory, economics could be non-political. An ideal economist should ignore any political bias or prejudice to give neutral unbiased information and recommendations on how to improve the economic performance of a country. Elected politicians could then weigh up this economic information and decide.

In practise there is a strong relationship between economics and politics because the performance of the economy is one of the key political battlegrounds. Many economic issues are inherently political because they lend themselves to different opinions.

Political ideology influencing economic thought

Many economic issues are seen through the eyes of political beliefs. For example, some people are instinctively more suspicious of government intervention. Therefore, they prefer economic policies which seek to reduce government interference in the economy. For example, supply side economics, which concentrates on deregulation, privatisation and tax cuts.

On the other hand, economists may have a preference for promoting greater equality in society and be more willing to encourage government intervention to pursue that end.

If you set different economists to report on the desirability of income tax cuts for the rich, their policy proposals are likely to reflect their political preferences. You can always find some evidence to support the benefits of tax cuts, you can always find some evidence to support the benefits of higher tax.

Some economists may be scrupulously neutral and not have any political leanings (though I havent met too many). They may produce a paper that perhaps challenges their previous views. Despite their preferences, they may find there is no case for rail privatisation or perhaps they find tax cuts do actually increase economic welfare.

However, for a politician, they can use those economists and economic research which backs their political view. Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were great champions of supply side economists like Milton Friedman, Keith Joseph, and Friedrich Hayek. When Reagan was attempting to roll back the frontiers of the state there were no shortage of economists who were able to provide a theoretical justification for the political experiment. There were just as many economists suggesting this was not a good idea, but economists can be promoted by their political sponsors. In the US, the Paul Ryan budget proposals were welcomed by many Republicans because they promised tax cuts for better off, cutting welfare benefits and balancing the budget.(1)A popular selection of policies for Republicans.

Economics needs political support

If you study economics, you can make quite a convincing case for a Pigovian tax a tax which makes people pay the full social cost of the good, and not just the private cost. This principle of making the polluter pay, provides a case forCarbon Tax, congestion charges, alcohol tax, and tobacco tax e.t.c.

However, whether these policies get implemented depends on whether there is political support for them.

For example, a congestion charge was proposed for Manchester, but it was very heavily defeated in a referendum. A new tax is rarely popular. As an economist, I would like to see more congestion charging because it makes economic sense. But, what can make sense to an economist can be politically unpopular.

The political appeal of austerity

Another interesting example is thepolitical appeal of austerity. After the credit crunch, there was a strong economic case for expansionary fiscal policy to fill in the gap of aggregate demand. Yet, politically, it can be hard to push a policy which results in more government debt. There may be an economic logic to Keynesian demand management in a recession but a politician appealing to the need to tighten belts and get on top of debt can be easier slogans to sell the general public, rather than slightly more obtuse multiplier theories of Keynes

Who runs the economy Politicians or economists?

Another interesting case is the relationship between fiscal policy (set by government) and monetary policy (largely set by independent Central Banks)

In the UK and US (and Europe) fiscal policy has been relatively tight, given the state of the economy. As a consequence it has fallen to Central Banks to pursue expansionary monetary policy to offset the deficiencies of fiscal policy. If politicians pursue tight fiscal policy, Central Bankers have to adapt Monetary policy.

See:problem of politics and economicsMicro economics free of politics?

There are some areas of economics we could argue are free of politics basic supply and demand and concepts like the theory of the firm are not laden with political ideology. But, even in micro-economics, you could argue that politics cant help seeping in. If you take an issue likeprivatisation there is a clear political issue. Who should control key industries private enterprise or the government?

Agenda

Another issue with economics is that some criticise the subject for prioritising economic growth and maximisation of monetary welfare. Some argue that the aim of society is not to maximise GDP but to maximise happiness, the environment and being satisfied with what we have. Therefore, a politician from an environmental background may disagree with the whole premise behind macro-economics. It is not just about the best way to promote economic growth. But, whether we should be aiming for economic growth in the first place. That is a political issue too.