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.
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