Politics in organizational change and the human performance technologist

Performance Improvement • Volume 43 • Number 4 21

It is likely that you simply read the above command and did nothing, except maybewonder where this was going. If an “instructor” were standing in front of the class-room and said these same words, it is likely that you would have followed theinstructions. It is even more likely that you would have followed them if you were

in the military and an officer gave these directions. Why? As social beings, we basemuch of our behavior on what we perceive to be the results of power and politics.

Instructors often have a certain amount of formal authority. Groups recognize formalauthority overtly, such as the titles of people within an organization. We respond totitles, whether it is out of respect or fear. We also respond to “real” authority, which isauthority we grant others based on our opinion of their credibility, skills, past perfor-mance, and knowledge—irrespective of title. Real authority is power that can be devel-oped by individuals for political use. Formal authority is defined by hierarchicalsystems; real authority is defined by interrelationships. Consider those managers whorarely follow through on your requests, but ask you to do something on their behalf.You are likely to drag your heels if those requests are not supported by organizationalrewards or consequences. Conversely, for those managers who regularly follow throughon your requests, it is likely that you will then try to “please” them by fulfilling theirrequests, regardless of organizational reward. Why? Because those managers havedeveloped real authority through their actions within the context of your relationship.In either instance, you would be engaging in a political behavior.

Developing authority is explained in Skinner’s Reinforcement Theory, where behaviorrepetition is related to consequences. The consequences of actions in interpersonalrelationships build authority and define power within relationships between individu-als and/or teams. If a request (or stimulus) is repeatedly met with a positive conse-quence, the behavior is likely to continue; if the request is met with a negativeconsequence, the behavior is less likely to continue. Over time, these interactionsbetween individuals in an organization lead to the development of real authority.

Politics in OrganizationalChange and the Human

Performance Technologistby Matthew Alexander and Jodane Christoffersen

Stand up. Grab your papers. Move to the next chair on your right side.

Did you do it? [ ]

22 www.ispi.org • APRIL 2004

Politics

Politics is producing and applying power. It is essential forleaders to use politics to drive the success of organizationalchange projects. Therefore, it is essential that human perfor-mance technology (HPT) professionals learn how to identifywhere power exists within an organization—at the individ-ual, team, community of practice, or organizational levels.They can then use this knowledge to foster effective rela-tionships and gain the maximum support for their projects.In addition, it is important that HPT professionals developtheir own real authority while developing relationships withthose who hold power in the current environment. OnceHPT professionals have real authority, they are better able toapply healthy political behaviors and use their power todrive performance toward successful outcomes for the orga-nization. Organizations are not linear entities, but open sys-tems, so HPT professionals must understand the context thatis the systemic dynamic nature of politics and power.

The effective use of politics and power within an organiza-tion is a key driver to the success of organizational change.Used effectively, they can give an organization the competi-tive edge and propel it toward greater successes; if usedineffectively, they can hamstring a planned organizationalchange. Politics influence the success or failure of anychange project within an organization.

Organizational Politics

“Organizational politics is very difficult to discuss in isola-tion from the concept of power … power is not a thing or anact, but rather a resource, a capacity, a potential …” (Lewis,2002, p. 28). Organizational politics and power are not syn-onymous terms. Power is the potential to control or influ-ence behavior, and politics is the act of deploying power.Deploying power is a deliberate and targeted political act fora specific purpose. Overt and covert power is essential inthe political world and can be considered core to its defini-tion. Power can be seen as the relationship between organi-zational characters, be they individuals, formal teams, orinformal communities of practice (COP). Those trying tocreate it and those responding to the generator create powerthrough knowledge and action.

Organizational Change

Organizational change is a process of restructuring systems,processes, and behaviors. Often it is viewed from the strate-gic level, such as in organizational design projects or activ-ities. In addition, organizational change can be seen to occurat a tactical level in every HPT project. HPT projects requirethe translation of an organization’s strategic vision intooperational and tactical performance to achieve desired out-comes. These desired outcomes represent the deliverablesof HPT projects. Even projects where the deliverable may

not be an immediate change (such as a needs assessment orperformance analysis, which are forerunners to organizationalchange). These deliverables act as the antecedents of change.

Where Politics Fits Into Organizational Change

“…[T]he phenomenon of organizational politics includes allforms of influence in organizations…” (Valle & Witt, 2001,p. 386). Given this, the development and use of power canbe considered a dominant task within the context of organi-zational change. Therefore, HPT professionals must under-stand how it is relevant to their projects and how the clientwill respond to their tactical use of power.

We have all known employees who try to wield power overothers, promoting themselves while stepping on othersalong the way. Such is a typical application of powerfocused on self-interest. From the organization’s perspec-tive, when self-interest is placed above organizational goals,dysfunctional politics and abuse of power are at play.

Power is not inherently good or bad; it is a resource with thepotential to be deployed for either functional or dysfunc-tional results. It is when the results of the political act orapplication of power emerge that people judge. The valueindividuals place on power and political action is based ontheir perspective and the impact that action has on them orthe things they value. Political problems often arise in situ-ations where responsibility is not taken seriously or wheredecisions are made to harm others intentionally. Such situ-ations are not power problems but rather are problems witha person or department and the relations and structure thatmake up the power. Therefore, power is not to blame,though the people and their decisions of how they deploypower may be culpable.

The act of blaming politics or power as the source of wrong-doing stems in part from a cultural trait found in English-speaking Western countries. In such cultures politics as atopic of discussion is often avoided, considered “taboo”(Lewis, 2002, p. 29). Western societies have developed anegative connotation for the words politics and power. Incontrast to this cultural trait, organizational politics is acommonly practiced management tool. Further, organiza-tional politics is one ingredient of an emerging managementepistemology for decisionmaking within the corporate envi-ronment. By using politics as a management tool, an envi-ronment can be created for innovative problemsolving.“Healthy politics will give rise to debate, argument, andconflict. Dysfunctional politics tend to repress dissensionand to force decision making behind the scenes” (Powers,1999, p. 125).

When organizational change is occurring, politics is rife.The success of organizational change depends on the successof pulling together divergent groups within an organization


through healthy politics. Consider how many times HPTprofessionals have gone into an organization where twobusiness units, seemingly working toward the same strate-gic plan on a balanced scorecard system, are in fact activelygoing in different directions. Often this occurs not justbetween a single pair of business units or teams, but alsobetween the majorities of the organizational business units,creating “silos.” HPT professionals must rearticulate therelationships between silos by bringing together divergentgroups to effect business changes in alignment with theorganization’s strategy.

Politics and the Individual

Valle, Witt, and Hochwarter (2002) studied the effects thatpositive and negative affectivity have on organizational pol-itics. Negative affectivity (NA) describes the degree to whichan individual experiences the world through “dark” lenses,seeing the negative parts of life more readily, while positiveaffectivity (PA) describes the degree to which an individualexperiences the world through “rose-colored glasses,” see-ing the positive parts of life more readily (Valle et al., 2002,p. 122). Zautra states that “…the tendency for high PA topredict the perceptions of pleasant events, and high NA topredict the perception of unpleasant events has beendubbed the ‘affect-matching hypotheses’” (Valle et al., p.122). This hypothesis shows that the same act of politicsmay be seen and interpreted differently by different indi-viduals based on their affectivity, as well as their positionwith the resultant behavior. Those who see politics ashealthy may come from a PA perspective, while those whosee the same politics as dysfunctional may come from anNA perspective. Valle et al. suggested the implications arethat “[m]anagers… must seek to understand the personali-ties of their subordinates so they can gauge and compensatefor their reactions in light of politics perceptions” (p. 126).

This can be applied directly by HPT professionals whenthey are engaged in political actions to achieve project goals.They must be aware of the impact that individuals’ percep-tions have on behavior, specifically in response to their HPTproject, and then be able to use these perspectives for theproject’s gain.

This means HPT professionals must seek to understand theindividual perspectives of those with power—both real andformal—as it relates to the HPT project. They must be sen-sitive to the affect-matching hypothesis while developinginterventions and be prepared to “tailor interventions to bet-ter suit individuals” (Valle, et al., 2002, p. 126). This can beachieved through effective communication and meetingfacilitation in order to help disseminate information andnurture individual ownership of the change within a poten-tially disenfranchised employee. During this process, HPTprofessionals must use a range of communication skills toavoid dysfunctional politics and resistance because of nega-

tive affectivity. In addition, they must find the right cham-pions for their interventions when resistance is found.

In discussing her success in establishing her power base insupport of the merger between Hewlett Packard andCompaq, Carly Fiorina, Hewlett Packard CEO, summarizedher tactic that won over the board and shareholders: “[I]tdoesn’t matter whether I’m talking to two people, 10 people,or thousands of people. I think about it as though I’m talk-ing to just one person” (Mora, 2003, p. 32). In short, humanperformance technologists must navigate through the sys-tems of interpersonal relationships to build the power basefor their project, with an awareness of why people may ormay not support their intervention(s). Further, they mustcollaborate with the individual members of each stake-holder group to work together to fracture the old power rela-tions that support silos and build new power relationsthrough redefining inter-relations.

Politics and Teamwork

In a study on how organizational politics affected teamworkand job satisfaction, Valle & Witt (2001) concluded that“…perceptions of politics had a stronger relationship withjob satisfaction among workers reporting little value orimportance placed on teamwork than among those reportingconsiderable importance placed on teamwork” (p. 386). Away to leverage this research is through the developmentand support of teams. When employees are working in func-tional teams they tend to be included in the communicationloop, even if it is through the grapevine. Ideally, as they thengain knowledge as a group, the individual is less threatenedby politics, and the locus of control resides at the grouplevel with their shared knowledge and actions.

This is part of building what Senge (1990) refers to as a“shared vision” that supports team learning and whatWenger (1998) refers to as “joint enterprise” within a com-munity of practice. Building this shared vision or jointenterprise serves to guide members away from self-interest,which is a prime driver for politicking, and toward beingpart of a larger goal and unit for a more altruistic objective.As Senge reports: “…People truly want to be part of some-thing larger than themselves” (1990, p. 274).

HPT professionals should encourage group involvementand ownership of change. When employing this approach,caution is needed, as it can create resistance from thoseindividuals who perceive that relinquishing their knowl-edge to the team may adversely impact their individualauthority. Conversely, by sharing their knowledge they mayfoster greater support, develop formal and/or real authority,and thus increase their relationships, both in number andstrength, throughout the organization. This can increasepersonal authority. “Efforts to enhance or emphasize theimportance of teamwork may be an appropriate managerial


approach to reducing politics by increasing employees’understanding and control” (Valle & Witt, 2001, p. 381).

This highlights the importance of distributed information orshared knowledge throughout a group as a key tool in reduc-ing the ability of dysfunctional politicking, especially thosesteeped in an organization’s rumor mill. The act of distrib-uting information can be considered a healthy politicalbehavior, to be used tactically in redistributing knowledgeand reworking relationships that result in a restructure ofpower within the organization.

Politics and Communities of Practices (COP)

A COP is a concept founded in social learning theory.Although appearing relatively recently in contemporarywriting, it is a practice that is older than Western civiliza-tion and is indigenous in some form in all cultures. It hasthree main elements, as seen in Figure 1.

Mutual engagement is the social concept of making a choiceto participate in a community where the members recognizea newcomer and accept his/her belonging. Joint enterpriseis the common goal that binds the community. Shared

repertoire are the collective artifacts the community pro-duces. COPs are formed in response to environmental stim-uli. They cannot be manufactured; they emergeindigenously when the three major components wheresocial negotiation is the conduit develop. Social negotiationis where the participants interact to create their own mean-ing of the elements that allow them to operate as a COP.

The relevance of COP theory to politics and organizationalchange is that existing COPs are power bases to be acknowl-edged and addressed. The act of engaging in organizationalchange can work as an environmental stimulus that feedsemerging new COPs. HP technologists must be careful whenimplementing a project to ensure that existing and emergingCOPs do not hamper a project. Rather, they must gain the sup-port of these COPs for their project to be successful. Withouta catalyst, the COPs can operate as a “…loose coalition [ofgroups] whose members have only a passing interest in theformal goals of the organization” (Lewis, 2002, p. 29), seekingout fulfilling goals that are divergent from the organization’s.

The act of social negotiation can be viewed as a healthy polit-ical act for any one COP, which can be seen as a subsystem ofthe greater organizational system. If a COP is working for pos-

Figure 1. Elements of Communities of Practice (Adapted from Driscoll, 2000, p. 163, and Wenger, 1998, p. 73).


itive business results, then the COP is typically viewed strate-gically as functional. The inverse can also be true if the COPis out of alignment with business strategies and goals. Likepower, COPs are not intrinsically beneficial or harmful(Wenger, 1998). Identifying existing communities within theorganizational structure and “…structuring work activityaround teams [communities of practice] for strategic purposescan leverage the team concept to reduce the effects of organi-zationwide political activity on workers” (Valle & Witt, 2001,p. 382). Although teams and COPs are not synonymous, theinformation flow and political shelter of each can providesimilar benefits to the members. Teams are closely related toformal authority, as they are defined by an organization’sstructure and/or hierarchy; COPs are moreclosely related to real authority, as they arenative, independent of an organization’sstructure and boundaries. When HPT pro-fessionals identify a COP and its joint enter-prise, they can then work to secure leveragefrom it by gaining membership and work-ing from within.

An individual’s level of membership orbelonging is called a trajectory. Trajectoriesare concepts that identify participants’status and associated authority within aspecific COP. Relative to politics, the tra-jectories are germane. The level of partici-pation will vary based on the trajectorywithin each community, and that levelwill impact the individual’s ability todirect and use the community through therelationships with the other members. Thefive trajectories are defined in Figure 2.

If an individual has a trajectory for a givenCOP, that individual is considered an“insider”; this does not mean he or she hasan insider trajectory, but that the individualhas some formal acceptance as part of theCOP. Without this acceptance, an individ-ual is considered an “outsider” withoutpower or status within the COP. An out-

sider may have formal authorityand therefore power over a com-munity, but not power within. TheHPT professionals must becomeinsiders to use the COP, as“[a]cquiring the skill to play politi-cal games is easier for the dominantgroup, or insiders …. because the‘rules, boundaries, and intricaciesof the game are kept quiet, anddoled out selectively’” (as cited byPowers, 1999, p. 124). Given this,individuals’ trajectories represent

their status as defined by the COP, which defines their powerwithin the COP and therefore their ability to generate effec-tive political actions.

Figure 3 depicts the relationships between trajectories andany one COP, and how a boundary trajectory can integrateany two COPs. There is no theoretical limit on how manyparticipants within a COP can be on a boundary trajectoryas well as the dominant trajectory of a given COP. Therefore,there is no limit to how many COPs can be linked and nolimit on the combinations of how those links can interrelatewith each other and with other COPs. It is an intricate,unstable, organic system.

Figure 2. Five Trajectories (Adapted from Driscoll, 2000, p. 167, and Wenger, 1998, p. 154).

Figure 3. Communities of Practice and Trajectories.

Toward a Systems Model of Politics

Many representations of politics in orga-nizational change have been published.They range from an organizational chart toa jumble of names in a circle, althoughoften neither is accurate. These “[a]ttemptsto simplify change processes into a seriesof rational linear events or N-step phasemodels are at face value attractive but inpractice they tend to lose their relevanceto the actual process of managing change”(Dawson, 2001, p. 211-212). There is noeasy-to-fit model for politics in organiza-tions, as each organization has its ownqualities. It is best to develop a new modelfor each project as HPT professionalsinteract with the organization’s members,teams, communities, and industries forspecific HPT projects.

To provide a base for HPT professionals tobuild their own models, our model (seeFigure 4) highlights the systemic nature ofCOPs within an organization. The shapedcircles represent the many COPs that can exist. The web rep-resents the formalized communication structures that existboth horizontally and vertically within the organization. Thearrows represent the communication and influence that HPtechnologists could use to increase their power base andtheir ability to effect change through their membership inCOPs. This model demonstrates the complex systemicnature that reinforces the requirements of HP technologiststo identify the unique political landscape of each individualproject. Although the model shows the COPs as uniform insize and power with an equally overlapping center, weacknowledge that this will rarely be the case.

Where Does This Leave HPT Professionals?

HPT professionals must remember and keep at the forefrontof their minds that politics and the act of power buildingoccur in organizations for individual self-interest, and thevalue of political acts are deeply steeped within the contextand the person or group wielding the power. As profession-als who try to operate within an ethical standard, we mustremember to keep their own self-interests, such as extendingcontracts, on the back burner. Their goal must be balancingorganizational and individual benefits so as not to exploit orharm those within the system while achieving project goalsin line with the strategic direction of the organization.

As “[t]he HP consultant is usually associated with the less-powerful support staff in the organization” (Powers, 1999,

p. 126), it is critical that we learn how to become membersof COPs within the organization to increase our own powerbase and our ability to effect organizational change. To thisend, HPT professionals should “[challenge] the grip of theinternal politics and game playing [starting] with building ashared vision” (Senge, 1990, p. 274). The communicationprocess in achieving a shared vision will help reduce dys-functional politics.

As they identify and join COPs that have the power toimpact their projects, HPT professionals will also need todevelop their own power base through communication andsuccessful completion of visible deliverables. The earlier inthe project that those with authority can see valuable resultsin the project, the more credibility the project will have.This often results in greater power. So HPT professionalsmust be competent in gaining respect and credibility at alllevels of the organization and use their power base to pro-mote change.

One of the critical points for gaining credibility early on ina project is through the facilitation of the project kickoffmeeting. “The launch phase is the most important one onthe political playing field. It is here that the foundation ofthe change is laid” (Powers, 1999, p. 130). The kickoffmeeting is the first impression, where those on the teamwill be sizing up the HPT professional and others on theproject team to make their first judgments. Effective com-munication during this launch phase can make or breakany project.


Figure 4. Systemic HPT Political Model.

HPT Project/HP technologist


HPT professionals must make effective communication thecore ingredient in their daily work practice. They need tokeep the kinks out of the communication process, keepingthe communication fluid and free flowing throughout theirinteractions within the whole organization.

Summary

Politics and power are not intrinsically good or bad; they aremerely tools. When used to drive organizational change forachieving business goals, they can be considered healthy.When they are used for self-interest or at the expense of others,they can be considered dysfunctional. Clear communication,dissemination of knowledge and information, and the effectiveuse of teams and COPs can mitigate the potentially harmfuleffects of politics. By understanding the systemic nature of pol-itics in organizational change and the ways in which peopleuse power, HPT professionals can see the political machina-tions as they occur and manage the processes accordingly.

References

Dawson, P. (2001). Organisational change. In R. Wiesner &B. Millett (Eds.), Management and organisational behav-iour (pp. 211-223). Sydney, Australia: John Wiley and SonsLtd.

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction(2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Lewis, D. (2002). The place of organizational politics instrategic change. Strategic Change, 11, 25-34.

Mora, D.C. (2003, September). Carly, reconsidered.Continental, 31-33.

Powers, E.S. (1999). The dynamics of politics in organiza-tional change. In H.D. Stolovitch, & E.J. Keeps (Eds.),Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 122-138). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline the art & practice ofthe learning organization. New York: Random House.

Valle, M., & Witt, L.A. (2001). The moderating effect ofteamwork perceptions on the organizational politics-jobsatisfaction relationship. The Journal of Social Psychology,141(3), 379-388.

Valle, M., Witt, L.A., & Hochwarter, W.A. (2002).Dispositions and organizational politics perceptions: Theinfluence of positive and negative affectivity. Journal ofManagement Research, 2, 121-128.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice learning,meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M. (2002).Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Matthew Alexander is a Graduate Assistant to Dr. Donald Winiecki at BoiseState University and student in the MS Instructional & Performance TechnologyProgram. Prior to this, he spent six years in corporate training and develop-ment and change management in Australia. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Adult Education with a Human Resource Development Major from the University of Technology, Sydney. Matthew may be reached [email protected].

Jodane Christoffersen is an Instructional Designer for Carlson Companies, Inc.in Boise, Idaho and a full-time graduate student at Boise State University in theMS Instructional and Performance Technology Program. She has 10 years ofpast work experience as a Project Manager and Training Manager in the high-tech industry. She spent a year in Chitose, Hokkaido, Japan, teaching ESL. Sheholds a BA in English Literature from Albertson College of Idaho. Jodane maybe reached at [email protected].

Have you recently published a book about HPT or a related field?Would you like us to consider it for a book review? Or would you like to volunteer

to write a book review? If so, please contact Book Review Editor Erika Gilmore at 765.720.1853 or [email protected].

Politics in organizational change and the human performance technologist

Documents

Transcript of Politics in organizational change and the human performance technologist