The Political Agenda of Organizations

Yitzhak Samuel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351322386
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Économie
• Subtopic: Théorie économique

Individualism and collectivism, egoism and altruism, are interwoven threads that make up the social fabric of all organizations. In consequence, political behavior is an integral part of organizational life. These two interconnected characteristics of human behavior--conformism and opportunism--account for most of the actions and interactions that take place in organizations every day.

This volume examines all kinds of organizations from a political perspective, analyzing them in terms of social power and politics. It presents several theories of power and compares them as it scrutinizes the political layout of organizations. For ease of understanding, the book applies the language of political games to describe organizational politics in terms borrowed from the realm of sports, such as contesters, playgrounds, encounters, rules of the game, strategies and tactics, scores, and victories and defeats. It thoroughly analyzes the concepts of social power and social influence from various points of view.

Samuel outlines the variety of political games that are played in the realm of organizations, listing nine types of games in which individual level politics, group level politics, and organizational level politics take place. While scrutinizing the political layout of organizations, he also demonstrates how major issues dealt with through processes of decision-making turn into political agendas within organizations. He addresses the issue of managerial politics, drawing upon research that shows how managers influence their subordinates, and how executives conduct power struggles and political maneuvers to defend their lucrative positions.

The Political Agenda of Organizations is an enlightening analysis of the power and influence in business organizations and will be of interest to sociologists and other social scientists as well as students of management and business administration.

1
The Essence of Power

This book discusses organizational politics—namely, ways in which people work in different organizations and try to exercise influence upon organizational structures and processes as individuals or groups, in order to achieve specific results. In trying to understand how organizational politics works, it is necessary to study and to understand the phenomenon of power in social reality in general and in the organizational reality in particular.¹ Hence, this chapter deals with the notion of power.

Power is one of the foundations of social life among the human species, as it is for other living creatures of all kinds. In nature, power is embodied in the physical prowess of animals. In human society it assumes many forms. Power is the motivating force that causes diverse types of behavior among individuals, groups, organizations, governments, and nations.

Bertrand Russell, the well-known philosopher, wrote about sixty years ago: “I shall be concerned to prove that the fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense that Energy is the fundamental concept in physics.”² Since that time considerable intellectual effort has been expended on the part of social scientists in researching the roots of the power phenomenon in human society, and attempting to understand its dynamics and its implications for society and for social life.³ In the study of organizations, social scholars have dealt with the concept of power from various theoretical viewpoints.⁴

The efforts to explain the phenomenon of power created many different definitions of the power concept. These definitions revealed the conceptual differences among the various social sciences—psychology, sociology, political science, and economics—with regard to the phenomenon of power. Presumably these differences are the result of philosophical interpretations given by various intellectuals and humanists. Nevertheless, in spite of the differences between the definitions, certain commonly accepted components might be found that can characterize the power phenomenon. Moreover, many studies conducted on this subject over recent decades, brought forward a significant number of findings that can delineate the character of the power phenomenon in human society. Agreement is gradually being formed among researchers with regard to the essential nature of power, its sources, expressions, and results. Therefore, it is appropriate to introduce some of the definitions of the concept of power and to discuss the ideas that they express. This is because power is the key to understanding the phenomenon known as “politics” in social life in general and in organizational life in particular.

Before we commence with the discussion it should be clarified that politics, in its broadest sense, includes all the actions aimed at gaining power and the usage of this power to attain goals and promote interests. The concept of power in politics has somewhat the same meaning as the concept of money in economics. Just as money turns the wheels of economics, so power turns the wheels of politics.⁵ Both power and money are valuable resources that are used as bargaining chips in conducting economic deals or political deals between actors.⁶

It is no wonder, then, that power and politics have been growing subjects of interest among students of organizations. In their preface to a recent volume of articles, Bacharach and Lawler refer to this trend:

As organizational politics began to emerge as a specific field of organizational theory some 50 years ago, many empirical studies were published that voiced implicit, if not explicit, political themes. We can look back to such classic works as Selzinck’s TWA and the Grass Roots (1949), Gouldner’s Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy (1954), Crozier’s The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (1964), Tannenbaum’s Control in Organizations (1968), Zald’s Organizational Change: The Political Economy of the YMCA (1970), Allison’s The Essence of Decision (1971) and even Max Weber’s prototypical Religion of China (1951) and clearly recognize the examination of organizations from an interest group perspective.⁷

Concepts of Power

“Power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his wishes despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests.”⁸ This old and famous definition, suggested by Max Weber, is still used today with regard to most of the explanations of the power phenomenon. According to this definition, power is essentially coercion.

This view distinguishes power relationships from other social relationships as being asymmetrical in nature; that is, it deals with a situation in which one actor is capable of fulfilling his or her will in spite of the opposition of others to that will. Such coercion is achieved by the use of negative sanctions; that is, prevention of rewards or application of penalties upon noncompliance:⁹ “Power in the present sense means control over rewards and/or penalties that give one actor, A, the capacity to induce otherwise unwilling compliance by a second actor, B.”¹⁰

As it could be expected, this perception of power in social life raised various kinds of critiques and hence different conceptions of power.¹¹ However, “This seemingly simple definition, which presents the negative rather than the positive aspects of power, has been challenged, amended, critiqued, extended, and rebuffed over the years but, nonetheless, remains the starting point for a remarkably diverse body of literature.”¹²

Nonetheless, it is worth presenting here briefly some other views on the power phenomenon. For example, Harvey and Mills suggest expanding the definition of power so that it will include a larger scope of social relationships.

The definition of power with which we operate here is clearly much broader than this and is motivated by a felt need to conceptualize the general force resting behind all attempts to affect outcomes in social relationships, whether these attempts take the form of outright coercion, influence, or the exercise of legitimate authority.¹³

According to this approach, power is defined on the basis of two main factors: The first is the ability to use negative sanctions (penalties), and the other is the legitimacy (justification) for using power. By means of these two factors, Harvey and Mills distinguish between four types of power.

1. Legal Authority—Power that is based on a strong punishment capabil ity and a high degree of legitimacy, that is to say, a willingness to comply because of a recognized, legally determined authority within a specific official framework.
2. Rational Authority—Power that is based on a weak punishment capa bility and a high degree of legitimacy, which expresses recognition of the expertise, knowledge, and experience of the person in power.
3. Coercion—Power that is based on a strong punishment capability for enforcing negative sanctions (penalties) and a low degree of legiti macy (repudiation).
4. Persuasion and Manipulation—Power that is based on a weak punishment capability and a low degree of legitimacy that is attributed to power and its usage.¹⁴

In many cases, power is based on the principle of deterrence. The ability of one actor to threaten another with negative sanctions saves him from the need to use his power. The expected negative response is the deterrent factor because of which the demands of the person in power are obeyed. Another aspect of deterrence ability results from the recognition of the fact that one actor possesses power over others in a given system of relationships. This knowledge also decreases the use of negative sanctions since this is also a deterrent factor that prevents resistance against the person in power, especially when this power is legitimized. Whenever there is a conflict between opposing desires of actors in a social relationship, the ability of one actor to overcome the will of the other is a practical expression of power.

The needs, motives, or goals of an actor are generally expressed in certain types of behavior. Persons, groups, and organizations usually tend to fulfill their needs by purposive, goal-directed actions. In the same way, social actors avoid, as much as possible, any behavior that goes against their needs, or behavior that makes it difficult for them to achieve their goals. From this perspective, power reflects a causal factor in human relationships that results in a change of behavior. Therefore, as Dahl suggests, “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.”¹⁵ This definition perceives power as one’s control of another’s behavior.

Factors that increase the chances that an actor could cause another actor to change his behavior can be “structural factors” such as the role those actors hold in the organization, their place in the hierarchy of authority, or their cen-trality in the communication network of the organization. As it will be discussed in the chapter on interpersonal politics, there are different levels of power among people who take part in organizational activity compared with others in the organization. These differences result from their degree of proximity to the decision makers of the organization (for example a secretary or an assistant). Similarly, those who are close to centers of power in the external environment, such as government institutions or newspaper networks are likely to have greater power than those who are in remote positions.

Alternatively, factors that determine the power of actors may be psychological factors, that is, factors that are linked to the motivations of actors such as their ambitious drives or their domineering attitude. Power-driven people tend to recruit all their resources to gain power that will enable them to obtain positions of command and control. Persons identified as “politicians” are those actors striving to reach positions of dominance and who make every effort to hold those positions as long as possible.

Talcott Parsons, who treated power as a system resource, addressed a social system perspective of power; like money in economics, power operates as a specific mechanism responsible for creating change in individual or collective actors, interacting within a wider social system. Power is thus a means of coercion as well as consensus for the attainment of collective goals.

Power then is a generalized capacity to secure performance of binding obligations by units in a system of collective organization when the obligations are legitimized with reference to their bearing on collective goals and where in case of recalcitrance there is a presumption of enforcement by negative situational sanctions—whatever the actual agency of that enforcement.¹⁶

Michel Foucault contributes another conception of power in social life. From his point of view power should not be perceived as domination by one actor—individual, a group, a class or organization—over other actors. Power is never in any one’s possession, since it is neither a commodity nor is it a certain kind of wealth. Instead, power is embedded in everyday details of normal life; it is mainly applied and enhanced by practices of surveillance—personal, technological, administrative, judicial, and so forth. Thus, power is accomplished by language, by cultural practices, by discourse, by moral, and by formal knowledge or expertise. By those means of control compliance becomes not only acceptable but to some extent even desirable.

Power must be analyzed as something which circulates, or rather as something which only functions in the form of a chain. It is never localized here or there…. Power is employed and exercised through a net-like organization. And not only do individuals circulate between its threads; they are always in the position of simultaneously undergoing and exercising this power. They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation. In other words, individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application.¹⁷

A different perspective, as presented by Hannah Arendt, sees the phenomenon of power as a communicative form of action. This conception makes a distinction between power, which rests on the common will of a group or population, and between force, which designates an individual property inherent in a person. Thus,

Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in conceit. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only as long as the group keeps together. When we say of somebody that he is “in power” we actually refer to his being empowered by a certain number of people to act in their name.¹⁸

Following the communicative interpretation of power, Mats Alvesson maintains that “the power element in communication means a forming and fixing of ideas, the selves of the participants and the preconditions for social interaction.”¹⁹ In other words, power is regarded as a dimension of cultural organizing, which influences ideas in such a way that it reinforces asymmetric relations between actors.²⁰

The psychological perspective states that a concept of power has to include the element of intention to change the minds and behavior of others. Hence, the exercise of power towards another refers to “the capacity to produce intended effects, regardless of the physical or psychological factors on which the capacity rests.”²¹ According to this approach, the person in power not only takes care to fulfill his intentions through influencing the behavior of others, but also deliberately prevents others from reaching their goals.²² This perspective emphasizes the subjective aspect and this heightens the complexity of power in social relationships.

Power is far too complex a phenomenon to be explained only by objective terms of causality or by subjective terms of intentions. Power has also to be examined as the ability to bring about certain results via intentional influence over others within an interactive relationship between specific actors. That is, power is the ability to influence that is created in certain social conditions and personal circumstances that occur at the same time. People who attain power of one type or another in circumstances for which they are not responsible, such as a sudden gain in wealth, could translate their power into practical influence over others only if they have the will to influence, the motive to change, or the desire to control.

The common term that appears in many definitions of power is that of ability.²³ Ability refers to possible options and not necessarily to their actual implementation. Every actor who has certain capacities that enable him to enforce compliance over another actor enjoys a certain level of power over others. This ability has two aspects: (1) the objective aspect, that is, power which is measured by the quantity and quality of resources of a specific actor with which he or she can influence another actor; and (2) the subjective aspect, that is, the assessment made by one actor about the ability of another actor to enforce his will over him or her in spite of resistance.

The definition of power relationships between actors in terms of causality leads the discussion to the concept of influence. It is already forty years since the two psychologists John French and Bertram Raven defined the term ‘social influence’ as the result expressed by “change in the belie...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• preface
• Introduction
• 1. The Essence of Power
• 2. The Theoretical Basis
• 3. The Political Layout
• 4. The Political Agenda
• 5. Perceived Politics
• 6. Political Games
• 7. Interpersonal Politics
• 8. Intergroup Politics
• 9. Interorganizational Politics
• 10. Managerial Politics
• Conclusion
• References
• Index