Politics is a means of reconciling competing interests...

...organizations need mechanisms whereby they reconcile conflicting interests...

Systems of rule... each represent a political orientation with respect to how power is... distributed throughout the organization.

Politics is a means of recognizing and, ultimately, reconciling competing interests within the organization. Competing interests can be reconciled by any number of means. For example, resorting to "rule by the manager" might be seen as an example of totalitarian rule. On the other hand, politics may be a means of creating a noncoercive, or a democratic work environment.

As mentioned, organizations need mechanisms whereby they reconcile conflicting interests. Hence, organizations, like governments, tend to "rule" by some sort of "system". This "system" is employed to create and maintain "order" among the organization's members.

Systems of rule within organizations range from autocratic to democratic at the extremes. Between these extremes we find bureaucratic and technocratic systems. Whatever the system, each represents a political orientation with respect to how power is applied and distributed throughout theorganization. Each type of organizational "rule" simply draws on different principles of legitimacy.

Organizational actors seek to satisfy not only organizational interests, but also their own... needs; driven by self-interest...

Organizational decision-making and problem- solving, while seemingly a rational process, is also a political process. Organizational actors seek to satisfy not only organizational interests, but also their own wants and needs; driven by self-interest.

Members of a corporation are at one and the same time cooperators in a common enterprise and rivals for the material and intangible rewards of successful competition with each other. (Farrell and Peterson, 1982)

Political behavior has been defined as :

• the non-rational influence on decision making

The tension created by this diversity can resolved by political means. In an autocratic organization, resolution comes through the directive: "We'll do it my way!". The democratic organization seeks to resolve this diversity of interests by asking: "How shall we do it?" By whatever means an organization resolves this diversity, alternative approaches generally hinge on the power relations between the actors involved.

According to Farrell and Peterson(Farrell and Peterson, 1982), the successful practice of organizational politics is perceived to lead to a higher level of power, and once a higher level of power is attained, there is more opportunity to engage in political behavior

One things does appear to be clear: the political element of the management process is non-rational. Organizations cannot pretend to engage in rational decision-making processes so long as political influences play a role -- and they always will!

For purposes of understanding organizational political behavior, Farrell and Peterson (1982) proposed a three-dimensional typology. The dimensions are:

• where the political activity takes place -- inside or outside the organization,

• the direction of the attempted influence -- vertically or laterally in the organization, and

• the legitimacy of the political action.

EXTERNAL

• whistleblowing
• lawsuits
• leaking information

INTERNAL

• exchange of favors
• reprisals
• obstructionism
• symbolic protest

VERTICAL

• by- passing the chain of command
• complaining to a supervisor
• mentor- protege activities

LATERAL

• exchange of favors
• coalition formation

LEGITIMATE

• activities genarally accepted in an organizational context

ILLEGITIMATE

• threats

This could be done by complaining to supervisors, bypassing the chain of command, or obstructionisn (ignoring requests or missing deadlines). In less autocratic organizations, political activity can be expected to occur most frequently in the internal-lateral-legitimate cell. This activity includes coalition formation, the exchange of favors, and reprisals.

As managers (and as students of organizations) it is useful to be able to predict behaviors; this includes political behavior. Exchange Theory, which we have encountered before when discussing motivation (Equity Theory) and power (Dependency Theory of Power), provides some insight into people's political behavior in organizations. Let's examine four variables:

• investment
• alternatives
• trust
• efficacy

As employees spend more time with a firm, they acquire nonportable training and skills.

The skills acquired working as a machine operator in a pulpmill are valuable to the employee only so long as that employee is employed in the pulp industry. This training constitutes a valuable investment insofar as the employee has value to the firm because of these skills. These same skills are of little value in another industry like mining. Thus, in another industry, the employee has lesser value and, as a consequence, less job security.

An employee with considerable time invested in industry-specific training is less likely to engage in organizational politics, that might jeoporadize that investment, than an employee with less time invested.

Furthermore, over time, most employees acquire frienships with coworkers. These friendships constitute social and psychological investments. Because political activity could potentially undermine an employee's employment with the firm, a senior employee may be assumed to be reluctant to risk losing his/her investment -- friends in the workplace.