The Politics of Organizational Change

Robert Price

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429886171
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Negocios y empresa
• Subtopic: Desarrollo organizacional

Politics is an aspect of everyday life within organizations, and is a force that inhibits individual and collective behaviour. If not fully understood, it can impede organizational change and development. In order to minimise the political aspects of organizational dynamics there is a need to understand the extent to which organizational culture brings about politicised conformance and how individuals shape their behaviour through self-interest to conform—sense-giving and sense-making nexus—thus moderating the degree of change initiatives.

The Politics of Organizational Change explores the relationship between self-interest, power, politics and managing organizational change from a theoretical perspective. It encourages the fundamental questioning of the relationship between self-interest, power and control inherent within organizational change, and discusses the attendant implications for managing change. It will be of value to those who require a text that goes beyond set patterns of coverage found in textbooks dealing with managing change.

1
Self-Interest and Political Behaviour

This chapter discusses how we learn and develop politicised behaviour at work, in that it is experiential, reflexive and reflective in nature. Individuals within organizations learn through the shaping forces that exist within extant and developing networks, for example, through stories told by colleagues, memes, interpretation and interpolation, general and specific discourse, transmission chains, tone set by active constructors, actors and actants. The learning process of organizational politics also helps individuals to identify specific political behaviour that is associated with positive and/or negative attendant consequences, which is a key part of the learning process that enables individuals to “fit” perceived organizational politicised requirements. Individuals identify, and in a broad sense accept political norms—a form of acculturation takes place within work environments. Bolman and Deal (1997, p163) put forward that organizational politics relates to five elements: (1) coalitions of individuals and interest groups, (2) existence of differences between members, (3) most important decisions relate to scarce resources, (4) power is the most important resource, (5) goals and decisions come through bargaining, negotiation etc. The elements relate to strategic decision-making; however, there is a recognition across all five elements that individuals pursue their own agenda, and do so based on degrees of self-interest or, perhaps at best, enlightened self-interest. Irrespective of how one may view the reasoning behind individual or actions of coalitions, self-interest is present to a lesser or greater degree, and is determined and controlled by individuals through self-control, and, it should be recognised, by key actors with personal leadership power.

Before further discussion, it is necessary to define self-interest in order that there is clarity and consistency in the way it relates to organizational politics and change. In a broad sense, self-interest covers advantage to self when making and taking decisions; it may include egoism, materialism and rationality, and encompasses forms of enlightened self-interest. Following on from this, and for the purpose of this book, The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (1998) definition is used. “[W] hat is in a person’s interests, to well-being” and also relates to: “… a motive or disposition of character: persons are said to act from self-interest when they aim at their own good or to be self-interested when they are disposed to pursue their own good”.

The definition also highlights that “individuals’ identities are constituted by a variety of roles, relations and commitments, and in different institutional contexts under different descriptions individuals can have distinct and sometimes conflicting conceptions of their interests” (O’Neill, 2001). O’Neill’s definition is pertinent to the core theme of the discussion throughout this book, in that it highlights the inherent conflict that resides within individuals when considering the way in which they consciously orient their political behaviour and inherent decisions about the degree to which they conform in terms of political behaviour. An individual’s politicised behaviour orientation, however, is not fixed; context and changes to context will determine the form it takes—it is a controlled malleable force within self. The other aspect to this is the degree to which self-interest shapes individual agenda in relation to organizational goals. As Cyert and March (1963) highlighted, “Organizations do not have objectives, people do”. Individual objectives in relation to organizational objectives require individuals to, depending on agenda, perform proskynesis, but the performance is one that is owned and largely controlled by individuals. However, there is duality of control through self and self-determinate orientation in relation to organizational line management through hierarchy, which manifests itself through degrees of control and power given to organizations through individual and collective politicised conformance. Chapter 2 will explore this aspect further.

The concept of self-interest, even though political aspects are not specifically referred to, can be summarised through Balogun and Hope Hailey’s (2004, p149) iteration of Beckhard Harris’ (1987) “Change Equation”, which identifies three key components of individual reaction to change. The three elements, relative to the nature of change and its impact on individuals, are: (1) the degree to which an individual is satisfied/dissatisfied with the current state, (2) the degree to which the change is desirable, (3) whether or not change is practical. Individuals relate the three elements directly to the perceived cost to self. The degree of cost may then manifest itself in degrees of resistance, whether overt and/or covert. This is not necessarily a binary choice, but nuanced through politicised conformance behaviour: individuals will determine their degree of resistance in relation to the importance they attach to those aspects of the required change that disrupts their satisfaction with the current state. This process takes place irrespective of the change approach used; it is an inescapable aspect of the reality of individual reaction to change measured in terms of “what does it mean for me?” This also equates to Lewin’s (1951) Field Theory in terms of hostility to change that is within the “restraining forces” field; the idea being, of course, to identify the forces that may create resistance to the forces driving change. Lewin’s Field Theory has been criticised for being a top-down approach, only suitable for stable environments and first order change and for not, at least overtly, considering organizational politics and power. Burnes (2004), however, reappraises Lewin’s concept and challenges the assumptive criticism that it is a simplistic three-stage approach. Burnes highlights that Lewin viewed change as non-linear and as unpredictable—self-interest that manifests itself through politicised conformance adds to non-linearity and unpredictability, and challenges the degree of managerial control outside of hierarchical line management. The problem, however, is not one of identifying resistance, but the degree to which individuals are resisting in an overt politicised way: outwardly espousing their understanding for the need to change, but inwardly not accepting, or fully accepting, the change due to the disruption it causes to individuals, for example, seemingly inconsequential issues such as desk space.

However, this does not mean that individuals do not understand an organization’s rationale for change, or even do not understand how change relates to organizational goals. The issue is one to do with personal loss of those aspects of an individual’s work routine and networks within formal organizational spaces that are not only valued by individuals, but also enable work to be undertaken efficiently and effectively, even in terms of work that takes place within liminal spaces within organizations. Placing individuals at the centre of change in a political sense raises the issue of the degree of control organizations have through planned change. There is, of course, control, through politicised conformance—more on this later—but not to the extent to which managers think, or perhaps, choose to think. Choosing to assume there is control through planned change predicated on hierarchical power is a safer and easier place to reside as part of organizational dominant space—it is a form of managerial oikeiosis. Oikeiosis will be discussed later in the chapter.

Specifically, in relation to managing change, to what extent, irrespective of the change approach used, do managers—the ones invariably tasked with managing change once the initial flurry of activity is complete—understand this particular force at play, but also the extent to which it cannot be totally controlled through being managerial? Further to this, and in terms of politics as games, Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel (1998, p234) use a passage from George Elliot’s (Mary Anne Evans–George Eliot, 1866) Felix Holt, The Radical, which encapsulates the power dynamic between land owners and other stakeholders in relation to 1832 Reform Act. The line, “Fancy what a game of chess would be if all the chessmen had passions and intellects”, captures the very essence of the analogy, which is not as esoteric as one may think at first sight in relation to managing organizational change. It relates to change, control, power, resistance and reaction between stakeholding groups, some of whom have more to lose and/or gain than others, and has a self-interest perspective. Simply replace the Reform Act with that of organizational change, and stakeholders with employees, and the analogy fits both organizational life and organizational change. Managers, on behalf of organizations, expect employees to behave as if chess pieces: to conform to the movements dictated through a change process, and to do so irrespective of the approach used. Unfortunately, the chess pieces in the game of change do think for themselves and view the impact of proposed changes in relation to impact on self. Maintenance and control of individual independence of thought, and to a degree action, is through the inner-self; but employees also know that performance through conformance is expected. This presents individuals with a conundrum, that is, to perform through participating in change that requires degrees of conformance, or to set oneself openly against the change, which usually carries a political cost. The result of this is a kind of game playing, but a game where both sides retain forms of control whilst at the same time lacking total control, which adds to the complexity of managing change. A question arises from this, who controls change and the nature of change processes used? The game has rules of politicised conformance behaviour; however, the rules are unwritten, unpublishable and rarely openly spoken of through the formal side of organization, but it is power that managers know exists and enables them to manage. Individuals know the unspoken rules, and are used for shaping thought and action with others within liminal spaces through into formal dominant spaces. This creates a power dynamic that shapes the degree of change through individuals, both in terms of the depth of individual change, and in a temporal sense.

Individuals learn and develop self-interest politicised behaviour; it is experiential, reflexive and reflective in nature; a form of psychological ontogeny, that is, the way individuals develop from a young age into and through adulthood, including work. Learning political behaviour, generally, and at work, enables individuals to achieve a form of oikeiosis, which relates to making oneself at home in one’s surroundings; and in the politicised behaviour sense, generally, and at work, feeling at ease through fitting-in. In the work-based context, understanding organizational politics enables individuals to make a conscious link between political activity and job performance (Hochwarter, Witt and Kacmar, 2000) as a means of achieving oikeneiosis. In a more specific sense, oikeiosis can mean appropriation, orientation, familiarisation, affinity, affiliation and endearment. This more specific interpretation of the word lends itself to the way in which individuals behave in relation to the choices they make; again, either in the general social and familial context and/or at work. The process, which all individuals go through, becomes oikeiotes—a sense of belonging through understanding political dynamics of organizational culture. Belonging may seem a strange word to use as it implies embracing the political dynamic in an active and positive sense; however, the word is symbolic, in that it encapsulates the degree of political decision-making that all employees have to do in order to belong, to be able to work within an organization and with colleagues, and to be accepted. Individuals work out the rules of the game through an organization’s informal culture, irrespective of any narrative that may exist through an organization’s formal culture, which leads to a fluid symbiotic relationship between the formal and informal side of organizations. Such fluidity, of course, will shape specific political decision-making on the part of individuals, which further complicates managing change beyond control exerted through the formal side of organization.

Another aspect of oikeiosis is that it can be related to conscious decisions about political behaviour at work guided by self-interest; and by doing so, allows a more nuanced understanding of the way in which individual political thought and behaviour enables active and/or passive “political ease” at work, whether within formal or informal organizational spaces. The process and action of politicised ease has centrality to individual perception of, and response to, organizational change and how it guides individual thoughts and actions in a political sense, namely:

• Familiarisation—understanding the political dynamic within context: political norms, expectations, acceptable, allowable, locus exercising of power.
• Affinity—personal feelings towards political dynamic and how it fits with one’s ethos, which requires individuals to make a politicised decision to “play the game or not” and how this translates into taking decisions with regard to one’s political behaviour.
• Appropriation—recognising and taking on political cultural norms, or those aspects that individuals choose to accept in relation to individual ethos, which can manifest itself in a passive or active sense through actions and words.
• Endearment—a decision to more fully embrace the political dynamic in an active sense; or conversely, to reject the political dynamic, which may range from antipathy through estranged to alienation.
• Orientation—positioning oneself in order to fit-in, achieve one’s agendum and/or to get things done.

Part of fitting-in politically requires individuals to be either passive or active with regard to politicised behaviour: to do (behaviour) and say certain things (a form of script), or not to do and say certain things in relation to an individual’s familiarisation through to the orientation phase. An individual’s decision-making process in determining their political response, and therefore their orientation, becomes conscious in order to become at ease within context. Ease in this sense does not however mean that individuals are at ease with proposed changes. It means that individuals are at ease within themselves and with others as to what they really think relative to visible actions and words; it is a settlement owned and controlled by individuals beyond managerial control, and a form of control reflected through degrees of participation in change.

Another aspect of political orientation is the degree to which individuals may seek a form of political capital through formal and informal networks, hierarchies and attendant positional power bases, power bases revolving around individuals (personal power) and connective power. Individuals make a conscious decision to be political in an active and/or passive sense. This is not to say that behaviour is fixed; individual political behaviour may be dependent on the relative importance of contextualised issues. Using political capital as power to benefit self and/or others in an enlightened self-interest way, and in terms of change, may be more to do with maintaining that already held: maintaining self through eroding belief in proposed changes in order to maintain position, role, influence, social networks, promotion prospects etc. Individuals may resist in a sotto voce closed sense, that is, politicised action and/or reaction to change that is demonstrated in such a way as to confirm participation, albeit in a closed conformance sense. Individuals will openly discuss their true beliefs and feelings on proposed changes with trusted colleagues; however, such conversations, of course, will tend to remain unknown to managers. This creates, as stated earlier, a power dynamic that is impossible to shape by managers because control of it resides within individuals; control that is known by individuals and used to shape managers to a greater degree than is hitherto recognised. To recognise it, is admission that control does not entirely reside within and through hierarchy, even though proskyneis is practised, and therein lies the duality of control and power between organization and individuals based on self-interest.

Individuals at work also learn through stories, memes, interpretation, discourse, transmission chains, active constructors, actors and actants. Individuals therefore learn how to do politics, whether actively or passively. This process also identifies political behaviour and attendant consequences, whether functional or dysfunctional. Individuals undertake a conceptual analysis of logical implications of behaving in a political way in terms of preferences, choices and means–end schemes; individuals behave in a praxeological way. The role of individuals in proskynesis does, as identified by Hierocles, place individuals at the centre (McGuire and Hutchings, 2006), and, outside of the political forces at play within organizations, an individual’s inner-self cannot be managed (Hesson and Olpin, 2013), except, of course, by the individual. Politicised conformance based on self-interest as part of organizational change becomes one of gains and losses that are not optimal, but allow individuals to make and take decisions that, overall, benefit the individual—a form of return on investment in a homo economicus sense. Politicised behaviour is inherent within individual decision-making, and done so, arguably, in relation to Prospect Theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979): the choice between probalistic alternatives that involve risk, with decisions based on losses and gains rather than outcomes; real life choices rather than optimal decisions. Decision-making based on self-interest is, as put forward by Luke (1974) based on three dimensions of behaviour:

• One-Dimensional behaviour—subjective interests
• Two Dimensional—observable conflict, current and potential issues
• Three Dimensional—political decision-making and control over the agenda.

The three dimensions, I suggest, can be related to the degree to which self-interest is embedded within the act of proskynesis; again, it is something that individuals consciously decide to do, either in an emotive or rationale way. This creates a rational-emotional paradox (Sheard, Kakabadse and Kakabadse, 2011), in that, individuals’ attempt to balance rationality and emotionality, and how best to modify behaviour(s) to achieve a balanced relationship between involvement/non-involvement, and emotional engagement and emotional disengagement in relational to the political dynamics of change.

Machiavelli’s view on “innovation” (Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 1988) as change recognises the role that self-interest plays in how individuals make sense of change (sensemaking in relation to organizational sensegiving) and how individuals decide to react. Machiavelli provides a binary response, which is either “enmity” or “luke-warm support”, neither of which, if taken literally, is exactly encouraging for the practise of managing change. This implies that even dialogical approaches to managing change will meet with tepidity! Machiavelli is, in one sense, stating the obvious by recognising basic human characteristics through highlighting self-interest in relation to what is lost to and/or gained through change by individuals, and how this will shape resistance: he goes on to refer to those...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1 Self-Interest and Political Behaviour
• 2 Political Narratives of Change
• 3 Illusion of Control
• 4 Implications for Managing Change
• 5 Managing the Political and Power Dynamic of Change
• Index