Marilyn (1981) opine that Organizational Politics is
to organization what power politics is to any level of government a process of
getting things-done. According to him, it contains many of the same elements
and maneuver
- Where
there is similarities between real politics and Organizational Politics, there
are also important difference.
Most of the people who define
themselves as politicians have chosen politics as a career and a life-style.
They are interested in grabbing power by all means to serve the public. They
act in the name of the public and use whatever means are needed to reach their
ends sometimes legitimate sometimes not. They reserve their facades for and hypocrisy
for publication and outsiders only.
People who work in the organizations
have not chosen politics as a way of life or ever thought of it as a tool for
getting things done. If they are aware of political process they think of it as
a giant negative in their working lives. Sizing power and wielding clout are
not their top priorities. They may even say that they chose their work because
they don’t want the push and shove of government politics.
Another difference between politics
in government and Organizational Politics is that people in the organization
isolate themselves from reality. They cannot or will not acknowledge the fact
that politics plays an important part in getting things done. They don’t or
like to admit that we are all politicians. Most at times they are aware of the
process and if they are aware they will ignore it.
Bases of Power
Bases of power refer to the methods
that managers and leaders utilize to influence their employees. According to
Marilyn (1981). When considering bases
of power the authority must also be considered. These two are interconnected
attributes tied to the behaviour of superiors over their subordinate.
- Explained that “power should be
understood to be a condition of social relations” thus, it is erroneous to ask who
has power. Instead, it is necessary to explore how power is exercised. This is
because the nature of how power is exercised is a workable definition for
authority. In short authority and power are interlined, with power being the
ability to do things or have others do what one has ordered while authority is
the foundation on which that power is built.
He identified five bases of power according to French
and Raven (1960). Which laid the ground work for most discussion of power and
authority in the latter half of the twentieth century these five types of power
are coercive, legitimate, rewards, referent, and expert Power can be manifested
through one or more of these bases.
Coercive Power
Coercive power rests in the ability of manager to
force an employee to comply with an order through the treat of punishment.
It is an opposite of reward power.
Coercive power is rooted in fear as it is based on threatened or actual
punishment. One need not be in a position of authority to possess coercive
power. Fear of rejection by co-workers for not complying with what they want
represents coercive form of power in action. Coercive power typically leads to
short term compliance but in the long-run produce dysfunctional behaviour.
Kipnis (1976) belief that coercive
power is power to hurt and is possibly the most often used, most often
condemned and the most difficult to control. Instruments of coercive power in
an organization include physical power, physical assaults verbal attacks or
assaults and withholding economic support. Coercion reduces employee’s
satisfaction in their jobs, leading to lack of commitment and general employed
withdrawal.
Equally important as an effect on
the receding popularity of coercive as a basis of power has been the influence
of quality management theorists, such as Philip, (1976) and Demining, (1986).
They suggested that there is a decline in a productivity and creativity when
coercive power is employed. According to them, the use of coercive power
results in on atmosphere of insecurity or fear.
It will be good to note that there
are situations where coercion as a basis of power will be very important to an
organization. For instance, in time of economic crisis or threats to the
survival of the organization at large coercion may come to the forefront.
Coercive power may also materialize as organizations attempt to streamline
their operations for maximum efficiency, if employee must be fired those who
fail to conform to the organizational goals for survival will be the most
likely candidates for termination e.g. Economic Melt-down in Nigeria Banking
industries. The threat for termination for failure to comply, in turn, is
coercive power.
Legitimate Power
Legitimate power rest in the belief
among employees that their manager has the right to give orders based on his or
her position. Legitimate as a bases of power is anchored on one position in the
organization’s hierarchy. Access to information and resources is given to
somebody by the virtue of the position he/she occupies.
In a corporate setting, Employees
comply with the orders of a manager who relies on legitimate power based on the
position in the organizational hierarchy that the manager holds. The only
problem with this type of power is that employee may comply based on legitimate
power, they may not fee a sense of commitment or cooperation.
Reward Power
Reward power, as the name implies,
rests on the ability of a manager to give some sort of reward to employees.
These rewards can range form monetary compensation to improved work schedules.
When reward power is used in a flexible manner, it can prove to be a strong
motivator, Deming (1986) emphasized on the danger of organization relying heavily on rewards,
according to him, the system can back-fire, Employees may be tempted to
unethically or even illegally meet the quotas to which overly rigid rewards
systems may be tied. Another problem associated with rewards as bases for power
is the possibility, that the rewards will divert employees’ attention from
their jobs and focus their attention instead on the rewards dangled before
them.
Referent Power
Referent power derives from
employees’ respect for a manager and their desires to identify with or emulate
him or her. In referent power, the manager leads by example. Referent power
rests heavily on trust. It often influences employees who may not be
particularly aware that they are modeling their behaviour on that of the
manager and using what they treasure he or she would do in such a situation as
a point of reference.
The concept of empowerment in large
part rests on referent power. Referent power may take considerable time to
develop and thus may not prove particular of effective in a workforce with a
rapid turnover of personnel. This is because referent power develops out of
admiration of another and a desire to be like that person. It is associated
with charismatic leadership. In his contribution, Robbins (2005) said that
referent power is anchored on the belief that a person can articulate
attractive vision take personal risks, demonstrate environmental and follower
sensitivity, and are wiling to engage in behaviour that most others consider
unconventional.
Expert Power
Expert power rests on the belief of
employees that an individual has a particularly high level of knowledge or
highly specialized skill set. Managers may be accorded authority based on the
perception of their greater knowledge of the tasks at hand than their
employees. In this type of power, the superior may not rank higher than the
other persons in a formal sense.
Expert power has within it a
built-in point of weakness: as a point of power, expertise diminishes as
knowledge is shared. If a manager shares knowledge or skill instruction with
his or her employees, in time they will acquire a similar knowledge base or
skill set. As the employees grow to equal the manager’s skills or knowledge,
their respect for the superiority of his expertise diminishes. The result is
either that the manager’s authority diminishes or that the manager
intentionally choose not to share his or her knowledge base or skill set with
the employees which will latter weakens the organizations effectiveness over
time.
Power and Politics Relationship
Organizational politics and power cannot be separated,
this is because both power and politics are aimed at managing relationship in
an organization. Organizational politics is the use of power while power is the
sources of potential energy to manage relationships. Miles (1999) defined
politics as the structure and process of the use of authority and power to
affect definitions of goals, directions and the other major parameters of the
organization. In this case, decisions are not made in a rational or formal way
but rather through compromise, accommodation and bargaining. Explaining the
relationship between politics and power, Tushman (2001) sees politics in an
organization as Behaviour to influence, or attempt to influence the
distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization. John
Gardner, noted 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 in a similar
vein, Richard Nixon, one time American present, States that the great
leaders need the capacity to achieve. According to him power is the opportunity
to achieve to nudge history in different direction saleanck and Pfetter (1977).
Reorganize power as “the ability of those who possess it to bring about their
desired results.
The concept of organizational
politics can be linked to lasswell (1936) definition of politics as who gets
what, when and how. If power involves the employment of stored influence by
which events, actions and behaviours are affected, then politics involves the
exercise of power to get something done, as well as to enhance and protect the
vest interest of individuals or groups.
We conclude this part of review by
saying that the use of organizational politics suggests that political
activities is used to overcome resistances and implies a conscious effort. To
organize activities, challenge opposition in a priority decision situation.
This is to say that the concepts of power and organizational politics are
related. Both are used to affect decision making in the organization or
behaviour by members. Political behaviour is dependent on having. Some type of
powers, or it can be a away circumvent the lack of organizational power. It
encompasses efforts to influence the goals criteria, or processes used for
decision making. It include such varied political behaviours as withholding key
information form decision-makers, whistle blowing spreading rumors, leaking
confidential information about organizational activities to the media,
exchanging favours with others in the organization for mutual benefit, and
lobbying on behalf of or against a particular individual or decision
alternative. Both also have a “legitimate-illegitimate” dimension, Legitimate
political behaviour refers to normal every-day politics, while illegitimate
political behavior violate the implied rules of the game.
It will be good to note that these
bases of power are not independent of each other on the contrary a person can
use these power sources effectively in various combinations. Ivanceivich et al
(2008) confirm the research of others and suggests that when subordinates
believe a manager’s coercive power is increasing, they also perceive a drop in
reward, reference and legitimate power.
In addition, the reception rate of
these power sources differs, just as some source may engender more positive
responses than others. In addition to the above bases of power, Pfeffer’s
(1992) researched and observed that individual skills and attributes can be
good sources for acquiring and maintain strategic power bases. According to
him, the characteristics are:
* High
energy and physical endurance is the ability and motivation to work long and
often times grueling hours. Absent this attribute other skills and
characteristic may not be of much value.
* Directing
energy is the ability and skill to focus on clear objective and to subordinate
other interests to that objective Attention to small details embedded in the
objective is critical for getting things done.
* Successfully
reading the behaviour of others is the ability and skill to understand who are
the key players, their position and what strategy to follow in communicating
with and influencing them. Equally essential in using this skill is correctly
assessing their willingness or resistance to following the strategic leader’s
direction.
* Adaptability
and flexibility is the ability and skill to modify one’s behaviour. This skill
requires the capacity to re-direct energy, abandon a course of action that is
not working, and manage emotional or ego concerns in the situation.
* Motivation
to engage and confront conflict is the ability and skill to deal with conflict
in order to get done what you want accomplished. The willingness to take on the
tough issues and challenges and execute a successful strategic decision is a
source of power in any organization.
* subordinating
one’s ego is the ability and skill to submerge one’s ego for the collective
good of the team or organization possessing this attribute is related to the
characteristics of adaptability and flexibility. Depending on the situation and
players, by exercising discipline and restraint an opportunity may be present
to generate greater power and resources in a future scenario. The skill and
attributes identified in the ICAF Strategic leader. Development inventory are
relevant not only to the work of strategic leaders but may contribute to their
overall capacity to acquire and use power effectively. These skills and
attributes are grouped as conceptual skills and positive attributes.
Conceptual Skills and Attributes
·
Professional
competence is one of the many ways leaders ‘’ add value ‘’ by grasping the essential nature of work to be done and
providing the organizing guidance so it can be done quickly, efficiently and
well
·
Conceptual
Flexibility is the capacity to see problems from multiple perspective, it
includes rapid grasp of complex and difficult situations as they unfold, and
ability to understand complex and perhaps unstructured problems quickly. It
also includes tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity future vision reflects
strategic vision, appreciation of long-rang planning, and a good sense of the
broad span of time over which strategic cause and effect play out.
Conceptual competence relates to conceptual
flexibility in that both are essential for strategic vision. It has to do with
the scope of a person’s vision and the power of a person’s logic in thinking
through complex situations.
Political sensitivity is being skilled in assessing
political issues and interest beyond narrow organizational interests. It means
possessing the ability to compete in an arena immersed in the political frame
to ensure that your organization is adequately resourced to support your stated
organization interests and those of the national.
Positive Attributes
Interpersonal competence is
essential for effectiveness in influencing others outside your chain of
command, or negotiating across agency lines. It suggests high confidence in the
worth of the people, which reflected in openness and trust in others.
* Empowering
subordinates goes beyond simple delegation of tasks and is crucial for creating
and leading high performing organizations. It involves the use of personal
capacity to develop meaningful roles.
Team performance facilitation
includes selecting good people in assembling a team, getting team members the
resources to do the job, providing coordination to get tasks done and moving
quickly to confront problem individuals.
* Objectivity
is the ability to “keep one’s cool” and maintain composure under conditions
that might otherwise be personally threatening.
* Initiative/commitment
is the ability to stay involved and committed to one’s work, get things done,
be part of team effort and take charge in situations as required.
Understanding the character of
strategic leader power and the requisite personal attributes and skills sets
the stage for employing power effectively. We need to know more than the
conceptual elements that constitute power in organizations at the strategic
level. But, we need to know the strategies of how to use power effectively and
get things done.
1. The
First task is to decide what it is the leader is trying to achieve that
necessitate the power.
2. With
the goals in mind, the leader must assess the patterns of dependence and
interdependence among the key players and determine to what extent he or she will
be successful in influencing their behaviour. It is critical that the leader
develop power and influence when the key players have expressed a differing
point of view. It is important to remember there is more interdependence at the
strategic level of the organization where task accomplishment is more complex.
3. Getting
things done means the leader should “draw” a political map of the terrain that
shows the relative power of the various players to fully understand the
patterns of dependence and interdependence. This involves mapping the critical
organsiation units and sub-units and assessing their power bases. This step is
very important because a leader needs to determine how much power these units
have to leverage influence either in support or opposition to their effort. For
example, if a leader is proposing to introduce a consensus team decision making
process in a joint interdependent environment, this implementation decision
could change power relationships among the players. In this case, the leader
needs to know the opposing players and the depth of their power bases. This
move will likely require the mobilization of allies and the neutralization of
resisters.
4. Developing
multiple power bases is a process connected to those personal contributes and
skills previously discussed and to structural sources of power. Structural
sources of power comes form the leaders creation and control over resources,
location in communication and information networks interpersonal connections
with influential others, reputation for being powerful, allies or supporters,
and the importance of leading the “right” organization.
5. Recognizing
the need for multiple power bases and developing them is not enough. The
strategic leader must have an arsenal of influence strategies and tactices that
convert power and influence into concrete and visible results. (Allen 1979,
Kotler, 1985, 1978 Pfeffer, 1992, 1981 Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977.
• Coercive tactics are the least effective in influencing strategic decisions. These tactics
involve employing threats, punishment, or pressure to get others to do what a
leader wants done. Typical leader behaviors include: using position power to demand obedient compliance or
blind loyalty, making perfectly clear
the costs and consequences of not “playing the game”, publicly abusing and
reprimanding people for not performing, and punishing individuals who do not
implement the leader’s requests, orders or instructions.
This chapter has addressed what strategies and tactics
are required for leading with power at the highest organizational level. In a
micro context, it is about managing power, which translates as being personally
effective in knowing how to get things done and having the political will to do
so. At a macro level, it means coping effectively with the strategic
environment and dealing with innovation and organizational change.
How Power Is Lost
In a general sense power is lost because organizations
change and leaders don’t. Organizational dynamics create complex conditions and
different decision situations that require innovative and creative approaches,
new skill sets and new dependent and interdependent relationships. Leaders who
have learned to do things a specific way become committed to predictable
choices and decision actions. They remain bonded and loyal to highly developed
social networks and friendships, failing to recognize the need for change, let
alone allocating the political will to accomplish it. Ultimately, power may be
lost because of negative personal attributes that diminish a leader’s capacity
to lead with power effectively. The SLDI identifies a number of negative
attributes that when linked to certain organizational dynamics will generate
potential loss of power:
• Technically
Incompetent describes leaders who
lack the conceptual skills needed to develop vision and be proactive’ in
managing organizational change.
• Self-Serving
Unethical leaders abuse power and use
it for their own self aggrandizement, take special privileges, and exploit
peers and subordinates by taking credit for contributions done by others.
Self-serving leaders contaminate the ethical climate by modeling power-oriented
behavior that influence others to replicate their behavior. Over the long run,
these leaders engender divisiveness and are not trusted.
• Micromanagement of subordinates
destroys individual and team motivation. Leaders who over-supervise their
subordinates have strong control needs, are generally risk averse and lack
conceptual understanding of power sharing and subordinate development.
• Arrogant
leaders are impressed with their own
self-importance, and talk down to both peers and subordinates thereby
alienating them. If empowering others is about releasing purposeful and
creative energy, arrogance produces a negative leadership climate that
suppresses the power needs of others. Arrogant leaders make it almost
impossible for subordinates to acquire power as a means to improve their own
performance as well as to seek new ways to learn and grow.
• Explosive
and Abusive leaders are likely to be
“hot reactors” who use profanity excessively, have inadequate control of
temper, and abuse subordinates. They may also lack the self-control required to
probe for in-depth understanding of complex problems and so may consistently solve
them at a superficial level. Explosive and abusive leaders may self-destruct
repeatedly in coalition building and negotiating situations.
• Inaccessible
leaders are out of touch with their subordinates particularly when they need
access for assistance. Peers typically “write the individual off.” Leaders are
generally inaccessible because they don’t place great value on building
interpersonal relationships, they may have weak interpersonal skins or they may
be self-centered.
Channeling Political Behavior
Newman et. al. (1982) note political behaviour as one
of the facts of organizational life and focus on some of the motivational
benefits of polities and positive contributions such behaviours can promote,
for example commitment to causes which can create great enthusiasm, derive and
personal loyalty which can be a practical motivation and often satisfies a
psychological need. A few debilitating effects of political behaviour are also
mentioned. Unless it is carefully channeled, however, intra-organization
polities can undermine the effectiveness of an enterprise.
Four
influences call for specific attention:
1.
Pursuit of the
personal goals of politicians (either self-selected causes or personal derive
for power or promotion) usually detracts from the central strategy of the
enterprise. To the extent that political action succeeds in diverting resources
from and / or blocking efforts it wards target results, effectiveness suffers.
2.
If internal
polities escalate into a major power straggle, a substantial amount of
attention and energy is devoted to the internecine warfare itself. Service
rendered to customers will ultimately suffer.
3.
The company
incentive mechanisms directed toward company strategy may be undermined by the
rewards and punishments meted out by those with political power. The more
imprecise the company measurement and reward system, the more vulnerable it
will be to counterproductive internal political pressures.
4.
Polities often
focuses on short – run trade off in this process long – run programs tend to be
sacrificed because both the measurements
and payoffs from long – range programs occur will into the future.
The
proceeding analysis indicates that, although some features of political
behaviour can be beneficial, there is serious danger that it can dissipate the
concerted effort that organization is intended to deliver needed, then are ways
to harness and direct the energies of people who have a bent for politics
Newman
et. al (1982) discuss four measures to channel political behaviour to the
benefit of the organization, they are:
Sharpen strategy of the enterprise
Trouble starts
when political pressures pull away from the control strategy of an enterprise
consequently, the results sought by the enterprise (or department) and the
balance between them should be clear and agreed upon Numerous supporting
activities (and political manoeuvering) can them be evaluated in terms of their
contribution toward achieving these strategic goals such sharpening of strategy
is easier to propose than to do. Strategic thrusts are multiple and sometimes
competing; they shift over time; the optimum way of attaining them is always
uncertain, and in subdividing necessary work we often create conflicting sub
objectives. Nevertheless, mechanisms exist in an organization (that is, in a
well organized bureaucracy) for identifying the strategy which, for a given
period, carries official endorsement. This must be articulated if undesirable
political activity is to be flagged and checked. With approved thrusts and
targets known, the company can hope that political efforts will be directed
towards their achievement. What is wanted is congruence in the results sought
by politicians and by the enterprises.
The researches allocations and rewards
to strategy.
According Newman et. al. (1982) capacity to give or withhold resources and
rewards is a foundation of political power. The key to modification that
management must introduce here is to structure the allocation and reward
processes so that the best payoffs clearly go to people who are actively
contributing to achievement of official goals and not to more political allies.
Note that again the ideal arrangements is one in which political payoffs and
rewards as well as company rewards – support the enterprises strategy) thus same
result sore being sought.
Punish deviant power – seekers
Newman
et al. (1982). Regards this as a secondary step. The primary way the primary
way to avoid undesirable political activity is to create a setting in which the
desired results are known and the mayor sources of power are administered in
support of those goals. However, in spite of these positive influences some
individuals will occasionally become so obsessed with promoting the private
goal that they resort to polities that run contrary to company interests.
Specifically they reward and punish and start building coalitions for actions
inconsistent with reorganized company strategy when such behaviour is
discovered it should be promptly and openly reprimanded if continued it should
be punished by more severe measures – such as transfer to a powerless position
or by dismissal. Every organization develops a climate a set of traditions
values and standards that subtly shape behaviour.
Tolerance
or intolerance toward independent power bases is part of this climate. If a
company wishes to avoid becoming infested with petty power – players, the
practice must be explicitly frowned upon.
Isolate resources acquisition from
internal operations.
According to
Newman et al (1982) every company must attract a variety of resources suppliers
– people of different skills capital, materials and services, government
support, customers and like. Although these groups find association with the
company beneficial, there is inevitable some bargaining over the terms of
cooperation this bargaining is very similar to the political process we have
been examine an exchange of favours and material help, the development of
relative power positions and perhaps informal coalitions in concluding
agreements. If this external bargaining with resource suppliers gets mixed up
with internal decision making, the likely hood of deviant internal polities
jumps sharioly. For instance, if a banker is given a veto on expenditures or a
union leader controls work assignments each become a member of the decision
making apparatus then, if either pushes for the parochial interest of the bank
or union when decisions are being made with the organization, we find ourselves
in the same fix as with a self – encountered politician. To keep internal polities
adequately channeled, arrangements for resources input should be set for a year
or more, and once set team behaviour should be expected. After ground rules for
contributing the resource have been established, integrated company action
takes over. The concept of “no-divided internists” becomes paramount. This does
not mean that company decisions are indifferent to the need to reach future
agreements with resources contributors it does means that the two categories of
decisions are separate
Political
tactics:
Gaining the power advantage.
To
understand organizational politics, it is important to recognize the various
forms political behaviour can take in organization. Baron and Greenberg (1989)
identify five techniques.
Blaming and
attaching others
One of the most popularly used tactics of
organizational politics involves blaming and attacking others when bad things
happened. Someone who could take the blame for some failures or wrongdoings. A
supervisor, for example, may explain that the core of sales plan he or she
designed was based on the serious mistakes of one of the supervisors
subordinates even if this is not entirely true. Finding a scapegoat can allow
the politically astute individual to avoid association with the negative
situation. Although this practice may elicit serious ethical questions, it is
important to note that it goes on quite frequently in organizations.
Controlling
access to information
Information is the lifeblood of
organization. Therefore, controlling who knows and does not know certain
information is one of the most important ways of exercising power in
organization. Although outright lying and falsifying information may be used
only rarely in organization, there are other ways of controlling information to
enhance one’s organizational position. For example, one might (a) withhold
information that makes you look bad (for example, negative sales information)
(b) avoid contact with those who may ask for information you would prefer not
to disclose (c) be very selective in the information you disclose or (d)
overwhelm users with information which may not be completely relevant.
These are all ways to control the nature of
information people have at their disposal.
Cultivating
a favourable impression
It is not all uncommon for person interests in
enhancing their organizational control to engage in some degree of “image
building” an attempt to enhance the goodness of their impression on others.
Such efforts may take many forms, such as (a) dressing for success,” (b)
associating oneself with the successful accomplishment of others (or, in
extreme case, taking credit for other success (c) sampling drawing attention to
one’s own success and positive characteristics etc.
Developing a
base of support
To be successful in influencing
others, it is often useful to gain the support of others within the
organization. Managers may for example, “lobby for their ideas before they
officially present them at meetings ensuring that others are committed to them
in advance, thereby avoiding the embarrassment of being publicly rejected. The
norm of reciprocity is very strong in organizations, “you scratch my back, and
I will scratch yours” ‘one good turn deserve another’ when someone does a
favour for you, you may say ‘I owe one’ suggesting that you are aware of
obligation to reciprocate that favour. Calling in favour is a well-established
and widely used mechanism for developing organizational power.
Aligning oneself with more powerful
others
One of the most
direct ways of gaining power is by connecting oneself with more powerful
others. There are several ways to accomplish this, for example, lower power
person may become more powerful if they have very powerful mentors, more
powerful and better established person who can look out for them and protect
their interests. As another example, people may also agree in advance to form
coalition groups that band together to achieve some common goal. Research has
shown that the banding together of relatively powerless groups is one of the most
effective ways they have of gaining organizational power. Two relatively
powerless individuals or groups may become stronger if they agree to act
together, forming a coalition. It is also possible for people to align
themselves with more powerful others by giving them ‘‘positive stakes’’ in the
hope of getting more powerful persons to like them and help them – a process
known as ingratiation. Agreeing with someone who is more powerful may be an
effective way of getting that person to consider you an ally. Such an alliance,
of course is looking for support within an organization.
Planning political games in
organizations
In
organization, many people or groups of people may try to influence many other
people or groups by playing games Baron and Greenberg (1989) identify four
major categories of political games.
Authority games
Some games are played to resist authority insurgency
game while other are played to counter such resistance to authority counter
insurgency games. Insurgency can take forms that are quite mild (such as
organizing workers to mutiny or sabotage their workplaces). Companies may try
to fight back with counter-assurgency moves. One way they may do so is by
invoking stricter authority and control over subordinates.
Power base game
These are the games played to enhance the degree and
breath of one’s organizational power. For example, the sponsorship game is
played with superiors. It involves attaching oneself to a rising or established
star in return for a piece of action. Both benefit as a result. Similar games
may be played among peers, such as the alliance game. Here, workers at the same
level agree in advance to mutually support each other, gaining strength by
increasing their job size and power. One of the riskiest power base games is
known as empire building. In this game, an individual or group attempts to
become more powerful by becoming responsible for more and more important
organizational decisions. A sub-unit may increase it power by attempting to
gain control over budgets space, equipment or any scarce and desired
organizational resources.
Rivalry games
Some political games are designed to
weaken one’s opponents. For example, in the line versus staff game, managers on
the line, who are responsible for the operation of an organization unit, clash
with those of staff who are suppose to provide needed advice and information.
For example a foreman on an assembly line may attempt to ignore the advice from
a corporate legal specialist about how to treat a certain production worker, they
by rendering the staff specialist less powerful. Another rivalry game is the
individual with differing points of view attempt to reduce the power of others.
For example, the production department of an organization may favour the goals
of stability and efficiency whereas the marketing department may favour the
goals of growth and customer services.
The results may be that each side
attempts to cultivate favour to those allies who can support it, and who are
less sensitive to the other sides’ interests. Of course because organizational
success requires the various organizational sub-units to work in concert with
each other, such rivalries are considered potentially disruptive to
organizational functioning. One side or the other may win from time to time,
but the organization loses as a result.
Change game
Several different games are played in order to create
organizational change. For example in the whistle blowing game an
organizational member secretly reports some organizational wrongdoing to a
higher authority in the hope of righting the wrong and bringing about change. A
game played for much higher stakes is known as the young turks game. In its,
camps of rebel workers seek to overthrow the existing leadership of an
organization – a most extreme form of insurgency. The change sought by person
playing this game is not minor, but for reaching and permanent. In government
terms, they are seeking a “coup d’etat” some of this political games or
activities may readily co-exist with organizational interests while other is
clearly antagonistic with organizational interests.