The Dynamics of Power and Politics Within Organizations

The Dynamics of Power and Politics within Organizations

The vast majority of organizations are not democracies. There is usually a hierarchical structure of differing levels of management and subordinates; otherwise known as those with power and those without. As history can attest to, wherever there is power there are politics. While there are some similarities and some differences between the two, in reality they tend to operate intermingling so often that they really become part of the same force. For this reason it is important to understand how they compare and contrast in order to fully comprehend how they work together.

Power and politics in organizations go hand in hand. In organizations, politics are inevitable. In comparing power and politics it first helps to understand their definitions. Power is defined in the text as the ability to get someone else to do what you want him or her to do. Power vested in managerial positions derives from three sources: rewards, punishments and legitimacy (Schermerhorn 2003). The reward source is where managers reward subordinates to get what the manager wants them do, whereas the punishment source uses punishment as a means to get people to do what a manager wants them to. The legitimacy source is in the organization where the culture is that “the boss” holds the power. Organizational politics is defined as involving the use of power to obtain ends not officially sanctioned and the use of power to find ways of balancing individual and collective interests in otherwise difficult circumstances (Schermerhorn 2003). The connection between power and politics is that politics and politicians use power to obtain influence. It depends on how the politics are used as to whether or not they are positive or negative. Politics already have a negative connotation, but they are not always negative. Organizations are bound to have politics because when there are many people in the organization, everyone’s needs need to be taken into consideration not just the individual. In some organizations however, personal interests are met first before collective interest.

For a real-world example, Enron is a classic case of self-interest politics being used by managers. In an article speaking of the poor politics of Ontario Canada, author Jack Mintz describes a Canadian politician as acting “no better than a corporation such as Enron misreporting their profits in order to improve temporarily their stock market values and help line the pockets of managers receiving profit-based incentives.” The executives at Enron are an extreme example of management self-serving themselves using politics as a vehicle to do so.

Power itself would be much simpler to define if it were not for the inevitable politics that occur wherever there is power to wield. “Politics arise because individuals need to develop compromises, avoid confrontation, and live together. The same holds true in organizations, where individuals join, work, and stay together because their self-interests are served.” (Schermerhorn 2003). If power is considered a goal for individuals within an organization then politics is the means for how to strategically use power. Politics cannot exist without power and the struggle for it. “Politics are fundamentally to do with motives” (Butcher 2003). Every individual within the organization may have different motives and those motives may conflict with the organization’s goals and motives. Politics comes into play in order to reconcile all these competing interests and motives.

Studying politics and power within companies can be very interesting. The dynamics involved in balancing the conversations can be tricky and devastating if not handled in a proper manner. A water utility company located in the state of California is governed by the Public Utility Commissions; this story is a prime example of high level politics. Privately owned utilities need to submit applications to this committee in order to increase their rates for the services they provide to many communities. The people who sit on this committee are appointed by the governor of California, and at a crucial time for the survival of privately owned water utilities, the governor recently decided to put a person into the lead position within the commission that felt all utilities should be run by the city or state. With a new person in charge of the Public Utility Commission, who had his own personal views regarding who should be in charge of utilities, there could be problems and there were. The newly elected chairperson would not review the applications in a timely manner. He would scrutinize and question every statement or budgeted item which was causing the companies to drop in value because of their decrease in revenue. Given the circumstances