Organizational Politics
Introduction
Organizations irrespective of their structure, design, hierarchies and outlook have one thing in common, the interplay of dynamics of different natured individuals who constitute them, say Porfeli and Vondracek (2001). This statement reflects three keen interest areas – firstly that individual employees who make an organization are natured differently and have varied interests, goals and personal ambitions. Secondly there is an interplay of these individuals’ intents and goals with those of the others and thirdly and importantly that this interplay translates into a dynamic organizational culture and politics. Politics is power in action cite Culbert and McDonough (1985). There can be no politics without power whether personal or authoritative, and most often than not, people engage in politics at the workplace to achieve additional power of some kind. Thus, the essay has been compiled in agreement with the statement that political activity is alive and well in organizations today.
Ployhart (2006) remarks that often organizational politics is concerned a taboo and management would refrain to accept it, let alone deal with it strategically, this is mostly on account of the fact that workplace politics rings a negative and a highly malignant connotation to it. Politics at work cannot be categorized as necessarily good or bad, but one thing that is certain is the fact that no one can escape it totally, even if not actively maneuvering political moves, argues Pfeffer (1992). Organizational politics refer to the use of power and personal intentions against others at the workplace, to gain an edge over the others (individuals or groups), remark Culbert and McDonough (1985). It could be limited to intentions and opinions; it can translate into actions and foul play and permeate conscious behavior. What makes most of us think that politics is unhealthy and malevolent is because it involves use of tactics and strategy that falls out of scope of one’s
Organizations irrespective of their structure, design, hierarchies and outlook have one thing in common, the interplay of dynamics of different natured individuals who constitute them, say Porfeli and Vondracek (2001). This statement reflects three keen interest areas – firstly that individual employees who make an organization are natured differently and have varied interests, goals and personal ambitions. Secondly there is an interplay of these individuals’ intents and goals with those of the others and thirdly and importantly that this interplay translates into a dynamic organizational culture and politics. Politics is power in action cite Culbert and McDonough (1985). There can be no politics without power whether personal or authoritative, and most often than not, people engage in politics at the workplace to achieve additional power of some kind. Thus, the essay has been compiled in agreement with the statement that political activity is alive and well in organizations today.
Ployhart (2006) remarks that often organizational politics is concerned a taboo and management would refrain to accept it, let alone deal with it strategically, this is mostly on account of the fact that workplace politics rings a negative and a highly malignant connotation to it. Politics at work cannot be categorized as necessarily good or bad, but one thing that is certain is the fact that no one can escape it totally, even if not actively maneuvering political moves, argues Pfeffer (1992). Organizational politics refer to the use of power and personal intentions against others at the workplace, to gain an edge over the others (individuals or groups), remark Culbert and McDonough (1985). It could be limited to intentions and opinions; it can translate into actions and foul play and permeate conscious behavior. What makes most of us think that politics is unhealthy and malevolent is because it involves use of tactics and strategy that falls out of scope of one’s
References: Ashkanasy, N. M. & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 26: 441-452. Barling, Julian and Loughlin, Catherine Chopra, S., Malhotra, P. (2008). Employees an asset - Strategy, Planning and Operations; Prentice Hall College Division. Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.19, No.3. Culbert, Samuel A Dawis, Rene V. and Lofquist, Lyold H. (1969). Adjustment to work. A psychological view of Man’s problems in a work oriented society. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G.R. (2006). Work Redesign. Page 78- 80. Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Ployhart, R.E. (2006). Staffing in the 21st Century: New challenges and strategic opportunities, Journal of Management, 32 (December), 868-897. Porfeli, Erik J and Vondracek, Fred W. (2001). Career Development, Office Politics, and Occupational Success, Chapter 14. Russell, B Savickas, Mark L. (2009). The Transition from school to work: A developmental perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 47. Scroggins, W.A., Thomas, S.L. & Morris, J.A. (2009). Psychologically testing in personnel selection, Part 3: the resurgence of psychological testing, Public Personal Management, 38(1), 67-77. Snell, Barbara. (2009), ‘In house Leadership and organizational politics’. Journal of Human Resource Management. Vol. 123. No33. Watt, Linda