The word politics comes from the Greeks word
“Politika” according to Aristotle’s “affairs of the city” as quoted by safaris
political dictionary. Politics is a process by which group of people make
collective decisions.(Roborts et al; 1997). The term is generally applied to
the art or science of running governmental or state affairs. It refers to the
behaviour within civil government, Ian (2001).
According to Jenks et al (2008), politics consists of “social
relations involving authority or power
and refers to regulations of public units, and to the method or tactics used to
formulate and apply policy. The word politics can be used to refer to what
politicians do.
From the discussions above, it is
obvious that politics as an abstract phenomenon can be conceptualized by
different people in different ways according to their profession and belief.
For instance, Students of political science see it as a study which examines
the acquisition and application of power. Related areas of study include
political philosophy which seeks a rational for politics and an ethics of
public behaviors. Political economics, seeks to develop understanding of the
relationships between politics and economy and the governance of the two.
The Aristotelian postulation is that
man is a political animal. This means that man which includes women, engage in
one form of political behaviour or another.
According to Appordorai (1978) any
man who does not participate in the political affairs of his state either
because he does not want to or because he has no need for it, is either a beast
or a god. Barber, (1984) in his view, agued that politics should not be
considered as a specific type of activity, According to him, it is an integral
part of social life and essential for the well-being of every individual. The
simple reasons for man’s compulsory involvement in politics is as a result of
scarce resources. According to an American Political scientist, Harold Laswell in his
popular definition of politics, said that politics means who gets what, when
and how. (Chukwudi 1998) Comparing this definition with stonier and Hague’s
definition of economics which states that “Economies is fundamentally a study
of scarcity and the problems to which scarcity gives rise, lord Robinson’s
explain that human wants are insatiable
while resources are scarce (Ibe 2010) (Johnson, 2002). East (1988) asserts that
politic is the authoritative allocation of scarce resources and value. Here, it
is obvious that for one to survive in the society, organization ether
governmental or non-governmental etc must engage in one form of political
activities or the other otherwise be labeled a fool according to Perices who
states that a person, who does not take interest in the public affairs, is
considered not only harmless, but as a useless character (Deth et al 2000).
Having looked at some of the
concepts of politics, the question is what is organizational politics?
Organizational politics is to the organization what power politics is to
any level of government-a process of
getting things done. It contains many of the same elements and manoeuvers.
Executives compete for power, responsibilities, resources, and money.
Secretaries jockey for position, using intricate methods of backstabbing and
backbiting. Managers struggle to carry favour higher up while placating the
tropes below. And everyone barters for favours with a great deal of relish,
push and shove.
These processes are integral to
organizational politics, and Organizational Politics is an integral part of
every organization whether it is profit or non-profit, in the public or private
sector large or small, sophisticated or simple. There is no such thing as a
politically sterile environment. For proper understanding it is sometime better
to consider organizations as political systems. If power is exercised in an
organizations and politics conceived to be the struggle for power, then
politics should be an essential part of organizations.
A number of scholars perceived the
term organizational politics as predominantly negative phenomenon. (Grade et al
1980) argued that politics is an epidemic phenomenon in an organization.
According to him “it deserves more attention and empirical examination”. Block
(1988) in his view asserts that politics in organization is basically a
negative process. According to him, “if I told you, you are a very political person;
you would take it either as an insult or at best as a mixed blessing. Ferris
and Russ (1989) in agreement with the negative concept of organizational
polities defined Organizational Politics as a behaviour strategically designed
to maximize self-interest which controverts the collective organizational goals
or the interest of other individuals.
In their contributions, Grandz and
Murray (1980) and Medison et. al (1980) observed that when individuals were
asked to described workplace politics they typically listed self-serving
and manipulative activities that are not
perceived positively. Ezeigbo (2006) opines that Organizational Politics
represents an attempt to influence others using discretionary behaviours to
promote personal objectives. He sees the term as an exercise of power to get
one’s own way, including the acquisition of more power often at the expenses of
others. Prory, (1993) found out that Organizational Politics was perceived as
self- interest, advantages, and benefits at the expense of others and sometimes
contrary to the interests of the entire organization or work unit. He goes
further to associate Organizational Politics with manipulation defamation,
subversiveness, and illegitimate ways of overusing power to attained one’s
objectives. MCshane (2004) thinks that Organizational Politics are often more
of a problem than benefit and joined others to describe Organizational Politics
as behaviours with negative characteristics. Kanter (1979) argues that the
terms “power’, “force” and politics”
together create a whole whose “general context is far from positive, according
to him its connotations tend to be more negative than positive, and it has
multiple meanings” similarly, king, (1991) and Moorhead (1989) linked Organizational
Politics with the terms such as cunning, manipulations, subversion, mutual
degradation or the achievement of goes in improper ways. Mintzberg (1989)
stresses that Organizational Politics reflects illegitimate conduct aspects
such as ingratiatory conduct which lead to a rise in stress and pressure.
The fore-going discussions shows
that majority of researchers on Organizational Politics are of the opinion that
Organizational Politics is not good in organization. However, empirical efforts
to support these perceptions have been inconclusive. Vigola (2003) describes Organizational
Politics as a unique domain of inter-personal relationships in the workplace.
Its main characteristics are the readiness of people to use power in their
efforts to influence others and secure personal or collective interests or,
alternatively, to avoid negative outcomes within the organization.
Kipnis et al., (1980), and Erez,
(1980) pointed out “positive” political skills such as persuasion, rationality,
exchange, assertiveness, ingratiation and impression management etc and agreed
that they can help individual build coalitions and maintain them in a long run.
Priory (1993) emphasized that politics is a specific quality of the
organizational dynamic which impact on all aspect of business life. He refers
to Organizational Politics as behaviour “that occur on an informal basis within
an organizational dynamic which impacts on all aspect of business life. He
refers to Organizational Politics as “behaviour “that occurs on an informal
basis within an organization and involves intentional acts of influence that
are designed to protect or enhance individuals’ professional careers when
conflicting courses of action are possible”.
Gandz and Murray (1980) in their
study found out that Organizational Politics has some meaningful positive
outcomes. According to them many of the organizations members also believe that
political behaviours are necessary in many cases, especially if someone has an
interest in advancing in the organization (promotion) and being acknowledged by
his co-workers and employers as a good employee or as a talented manager.
According to Diphoye, (1995), “decision makers resort to political behaviour in
which they deconstruct Human Resources Management procedures” such as staffing,
appraisal, compensation, training to provide support, justices and empowerment.
Whetton and Cameron (1991) see Organizational Politics as a phenomenon with a
multitude of meanings which nobody can categorically state that it is either
positive or negative depending on how it is practice in organization. But the
fact is that Organizational Politics is an inescapable and intrinsic reality.
It is so intricately woven with management system that relationships, norms
processes, performance and outcomes are hugely influenced and affected by it.
According to Kotter (1985). The
challenges faced by strategic leaders in implementing complex and long-range
consequential decisions demand that they be sophisticated with respect to
issues of leadership, power and influence. The question is what is power? Power
is a measurement of an entities ability to control its environment including the
behaviour of other entities. (Maxwell 1999) Andrew (1996) quoting Max Weber
(1978) agreed with Maxwell and defined power as the probabilities that one
actor within a social relationship would be in a position to carryout his own
will despite resistance. Gardner (1997) writing about leadership and power in
organizations, note that leaders are preoccupied with power. He further states that power is the basic
energy needed to initiate and sustain action or to put in another way, the
capacity to translate intention into reality and sustain it. Adedeji (2004)
said that one time American president Richard Nixon
Once said that the great leader needs power
which to him entails the capacity to achieve, the opportunity to build, to
create. Offor ( 200)
Much of the past and recent concepts
of power revolve around the issue of the enabling nature of power. Thus, power
can be seen as various forms of constraint on human action, but also as that
which makes action possible, although in a limited scope. Babshola (2005) Some
of the theorists on the issue of power are France Philosopher, Michel Foucault
who, following the Italian political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli sees power
as “a complex strategic situation in a given society social setting. Thomas
Hobbes sees power as a man’s “present means to obtain some feature apparent
goods”. Harold Lasswell related power to politics from his definition of
politics as “who gets what, when and how. For Machiavelli politic is all about
power (Jose 1990). Daft (2004) on his part argued that the ability of one
person or department in an organization to influence other people to bring
about the desired outcome for power holders. For McCall (1995) power is the
ability to Marshall the human, information, and material resources to get
something done.
Foregoing discourse shows that power
is attractive because it confers the ability to influence decisions, about who
gets what resources, what goals are pursued, what Philosophy the organization
adopts, what actions are taken, who succeeds and who fails power also gives a
sense of control over outcomes, and may in fact convey such enhanced control.
Particularly as decision issues become complex and outcomes become more
uncertain, power become more attractive as a tool for reducing uncertainty.
Hurdy and Clegg (1996) present two
different perspectives on organizational power, the functionalist perspective
indicate that power is exercised during decision making as part of a deliberate
strategy to achieve intended outcomes, and it is also used to control access to
the decision-making arena and hence, to ensure compliance through decisions the
critical perspective describes power as domination and actions taken to
challenger it constitute resistance to domination. Critical theory asserts that
the dominant group in an organization attempt to exercise power to manipulate
discourse of organization on behalf of itself, by so doing, it can keep on
imposing it own interests on the dominated and reproducing its privileges over
the dominated.
From the definitions of power by a
number of scholars, it should be agreed that power is important for people to
accomplish their desired goals. It is the ability that a person may use to get
others to do what he/she wants to be done (Mackus 2001). The nature of power is
control over other people.
In the organization, power of a
person can be derived from interpersonal, structural and situational basis.
Basically, interpersonal power is vested on a person as prescribed by the
organization (i.e legitimate, reward and coercive) and by the persons’
qualities such expert and referent.
While structural and situational powers, resources, decision making and
information powers. These type of power is normally based on the organization’s
structures, that is the higher the
position of a person as structured by
the organizations, the greater is his/her power in accessing to resources,
making decisions and having access to important information. In as much as
power is important for effective leadership. Managers of organizations should
learn to make effective use of power. They should associate their power with
organizational purposes. Thus the reality of power should be wisely accepted
that it is important to enable someone to contribute effectively to the
organization.