Politics in an Organization

For the purposes of our discussion, the book defines Organizational Politics as “the processes in which individuals or groups within an organization use non-formally sanctioned power tactics to advance their own aims.” Advancement in a company usually involves gaining the requisite amount of skills and work experience needed to fill higher positions. In simple terms, once you get better at your job, you tend to me more likely to further your own position within the company. Political tactics however, add a whole different dimension to the discussion. By resorting to political tactics, a person can become more favored than counterparts who may be more qualified or more experienced.

This may not be necessarily detrimental however, and there are two important reasons why this is so. First, a person’s career growth is strongly affected by the overall standing of his or her employer. As such, an employee has a vested interest to ensure that the company is performing to its full potential. Second, the time a person spends with a company tends to create ties of loyalty between employee and employer. When an employee begins to care about his or her company, then it is unlikely he or she will act in ways that will act against company objectives.

The book describes several examples of political tactics. These include the following:

Blaming or attacking others Controlling information Developing a base of support for one’s ideas Image building Ingratiation Associating with the influential Forming power coalitions and developing strong allies Creating obligations

It is interesting to note that these tactics all possess some element of deception or manipulation. It can very well be argued that these elements are one of the central characteristics of political tactics. It should not be made apparent that one is trying to resort to non-formally sanctioned tactics to gain power, since the system is designed such that power would be assigned purely on the basis of a person’s qualifications.

Ethics of Political Tactics

It was mentioned earlier that political tactics are not always disruptive to an organization. In fact, political tactics can be harnessed in ways that actually benefit the company. First, they can help project proponents and department managers garner support for endeavours which are beneficial for the company. Second, they may be the only defense a person has against co-workers who would abuse their own political powers at his or her expense. Used in these ways, political tactics can be considered as ethical courses of action, despite their nature.

The problem with political tactics is that in the same way they can be used beneficially, they can also be utilized in a manner that is clearly injurious to other individuals, as well as the organization in general. For example, a Marketing manager who befriends the division President may subsequently gain funding for his projects while another, more qualified Marketing manager’s projects may not be approved, partly due to the fact that the second manager is not as friendly with the President. The end result is that the second manager is unfairly put in worse off position, through no fault of his or her own. Also, the benefits of the projects the second manager was pursuing will no longer be realized, and are essentially wasted for the company.

Utilitarianism

For a more detailed analysis of the ethics of political tactics, we once again refer to the four main ethical principles discussed in class, beginning with the ethics of Utilitarianism.

We established earlier that political tactics are similar to double-edged swords; they are weapons which can be used both to protect and to destroy. Therefore, the concept of political tactics is neither ethical nor unethical in and of itself. It is the particular uses of political tactics which can be judged as unethical or ethical. If you use political tactics to install organizational goals which are noble and generally beneficial, it would be ethical. On the other hand, if political tactics are used purely for personal interest and creates organizational inefficiency, it would be clearly unethical.

An example of this is the act of controlling information. In certain cases, this helps some individuals leverage their own power and therefore put themselves in a good position to achieve their personal goals. However, it comes at a significant cost for the organization; individuals who would have been able to use to information for the company’s benefit are not given access to it, creating organizational inefficiency and slowing down its overall progress.

Moral Rights / Justice

One of the more fundamental principles of human rights is Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which basically states that people should be treated as ends, and not as means to further one’s interests. Since political tactics tend to deceptively use other people as instruments to increase one’s own power, they clearly fail to conform with the premises of the Categorical Imperative.

However, this issue is complicated by the fact that political tactics are also commonly used to defend against other people’s manipulation and deception. In that sense, it actually promotes our rights to equal treatment. Without the use of political tactics, we are left defenseless against the injustice that may be brought about by other people and their deception. The entire organization might suffer the consequences as well, since valuable contributions from members who are not as comfortable with political tactics would not be gained.

Similarly, one of the fundamental principles of justice is equality of treatment. In its ideal form, the corporate system of advancement is just, since it considers the objective qualifications of its employees, and distributes positions and benefits accordingly. However, political tactics tend to distort this system significantly. Undue benefits and positions are given to people who can master the political game, and this has nothing to do with their individual merits or capabilities. Conversely, undue penalties are also imposed on those who choose not to involve themselves in office politics, despite their own merits and capabilities.

The Ethics of Care

We believe that one of the most significant ethical issues involved in the issue of Political Tactics is its effect on relationships. The continued and prolonged use of deception through political tactics may have long-term and debilitating effects on personal relationships in the office. And when we consider how much time we spend with our officemates, we can see how political tactics can seriously damage what are some of our most important relationships.

One of the main problems is the if a person is successful in utilizing deceptive tactics to gain several benefits, he or she is encouraged to continue with this behaviour, and thus gets increasingly comfortable in using other people as instruments in advancing personal interests. As the book describes, this situation is very corrupting and dehumanizing.

On the other hand, those who are on the receiving end of deception tend to feel frustration, conflict, and feelings of failure. And that may just be a natural reaction to not receiving the benefits commensurate to one’s contributions and capabilities, while other less deserving individuals may receive more than they are due.

The Caring Organization

The book defines a Caring Organization as one “in which dominant moral concepts are those that arise from an ethic of care.”

Joanne M. Leidtka has formulated these four basic qualities of a caring organization:

1. Focused entirely on persons, not “quality”, “profits”, or any of the other kinds of ideas that much of today’s “care-talk” seem to revolve around

2. Undertaken as an end in and of itself, and not merely a means toward achieving quality, profits, etc.

3. Essentially personal, in that it ultimately involves particular individuals engrossed, at a subjective level, in caring for other particular individuals

4. Growth-enhancing for the cared-for, in that it moves them towards the use and development of their full capacities, within the context of their self-defined needs and aspirations

We can clearly see that this is quite different from the CSR initiatives that modern companies tend to practice, in that CSR in normally founded on the rationale that caring creates customer goodwill and long-term economic growth. The Caring Organization on the other hand, is selflessly concerned only with the welfare of its stakeholders.

This kind of philosophy could even be beneficial for the company in a business sense. Since trust flourished in a Caring Organization, decisions tend to be made more quickly and with less red tape. Also, there is more customer commitment in a Caring Organization, and this can motivate its employees to create more value for its customers.

Despite these potential benefits however, this concept is probably far too idealistic to be realized in today’s corporate environment, where company shareholders are understandably concerned with the economic factors of their business. This is especially true in our country, where the power in even the largest corporations tends to be concentrated in the hands of a select few people. As such, we believe the book is correct when it surmises that there is not a corporation in the world which perfectly embodies the spirit of a Caring Organization.

Ethical Issues Regarding Care

The two main issues regarding care are caring too much and caring too little. It seems counterintuitive at first glance, but caring too much can certainly be a problem. The constant effort required to address other people’s needs can come at the expense of oneself, leading to burnout. A happy medium must be established between caring for others and caring for oneself.

Another consideration is that caring too much can affect one’s impartiality, which could then affect the way we handle moral decisions. We are just human after all, and we are inevitable influenced by feelings and bias, which make impartial moral decisions that much more difficult.

However, the more serious ethical issue may be not caring enough. If this occurs on a personal level, it could lead us to neglect co-workers and friends in need. In the organization level, this could create indiscriminate layoffs, creation of large impersonalized bureaucracies, managerial styles that see employees as disposable costs, and reward systems that discourage caring and reward competitiveness, all of which could prove damaging to the individuals within the company.