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.
Share on Google Plus


The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin