Introduction
Organizations have social, technological, economic and cultural attributes as well
as political attributes. David Buchanan (David Buchanan) and Richard Bard Farm
(Richard Badham) (1999a, p. 1)
Power and politics complement each other and affect the behavior of everyone in
the organization at the same time. Some people believe that power is the ability
to impose an individual's will on others, while political behavior is the
manifestation of power in action, which works through the use of influence and
(more or less) other strategies. Power and politics are inevitably intertwined,
affecting the behavior of everyone in the organization. Some scholars believe that
many management failures are due to political incompetence, naivety, or inability
and willingness to effectively complete the political tasks necessary for the
organization [Kotter, 1985; Yates, 1985] . (www.guayunfan.com)
Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal (1991) summarized this type of organizational
political view, arguing that goals and decisions are the result of bargaining,
negotiation, and power struggle between individuals and alliances. These alliances
are composed of different individuals and interest groups. In fact, they have
different values , preferences, beliefs , information, and opinions about reality .
Many commentators believe that political behavior plays an extremely important
role in organizations, which far exceeds people's usual imagination and
recognition, and some management academic journals have not fully revealed the
formation process of political behavior in the process of organizational
transformation.
Today those hierarchical organizations with relatively stable rules, organizational
boundaries, rational expectations, and rule-based seem to have fallen behind. The
so-called "post- modernization " organization is an organization characterized by
fluidity, uncertainty, ambiguity, and discontinuity. The security of work has been
replaced by the "security of employment". With the continuous development of
partnerships, joint ventures, subcontracting and marginal labor, social networks
and technological networks, organizational boundaries have gradually blurred.
The hierarchical system in the organization is replaced by trust in the power of
experts, and organizational decisions are made by these experts who have the
most insights into the problem. In this old-fashioned "post-modernization"
organizational structure, individuals are deprived of the traditional resources
brought about by a relatively stable organizational status, and they lose their vision
of their future. The fluid and unstable organizational structure means that
employees must rely more on individual and interpersonal resources and political
skills to improve individual and organizational goals. Obviously, this chaotic and
disorderly organizational environment not only gives political manipulation
opportunities, but also forces us to have a good understanding of the special role
played by political behavior in the organization.
If the members of the organization have different understandings of work, then it
must be that they cannot be of the same mind, but they have to continue to work
together. At this time, politics can solve this problem well [卡贝茨(Kakabadse
(Kakabadse) ), 1983]. Sometimes even if the members of the organization are really
working on the company's goals, they may not agree with the way to complete
the task. They will "fight" (for example) what they think is the right way to do
things. Ian Mangham (1979, p. 17) believes that most important organizational
decisions are the result of the interaction of social and political forces, and only a
small part is based on evidence and rational arguments. It is also affected by
"political mutual restraint and prevarication." US diplomat Henry Kissinger (Henry
Kissinger), agrees:
Power and Politics in Organizations
In the organization, the distribution of interests will generate interest competition
and mutual wrangling between individuals, groups and groups, and departments.
In this section, we focus on the formation and influencing factors of power and its
political behavior in organizations.
1. The division of power
Leadership positions must be connected with corresponding responsibilities and
powers. Different scholars have different interpretations of power. The American
scholar Stephen P. Robbins in his "Organizational Behavior" defines power as;
Power refers to the ability of individual A to influence individual B's behavior.
Under this influence, B's behavior and behavior conform to A's hope. It can be seen
from the above definition that power must be generated by the interaction
between two or more individuals, groups or departments. Moreover, individual A
controls the items that individual B expects to obtain, and at the same time,
individual B is also aware of this relationship, which produces a power relationship.
Power is relative. Individual A can control individual B because he controls the
items that individual B expects to get. But he may not have any influence on
individual C. For example: a senior manager of an organization, he will have an
impact on the employees of the organization, because he controls the needs of
the employees of the organization. However, for other organizations, its influence
will be reduced, or even no influence. Even for different members of the
organization, due to the different levels of managers, the different powers they
hold, and the different levels of expectations of their subordinates for the things
they control, different power relationships have arisen.
The division of power can generally be divided into two categories-formal power
and personal power. The individual uses the legitimacy of his power to use
compulsory measures to order others to do things, where he is based on his status
and the formal power of his power. Formal power is mainly the power conferred
by the formal organization when appointing individuals.
In other cases, the individual does not have the authority given to him by his legal
status, but he can still form and exert influence. This is mainly due to the influence
of personal power generated by certain characteristics of the individual to
promote the hard work of others. We can further divide these two powers.
Formal power
Formal power is based on the individual's position in the organization. It can be
divided into compulsory power, reward power and legal power.
Coercive power Coercive power refers to the individual's ability to influence the
behavior
of
others
through
punishment
or
by
producing
undesirable
consequences. This power is based on fear. When managers in an organization
have the power to demote, admonish, not raise pay, and terminate contracts, they
have the corresponding powers. Employees under this kind of authority may get
negative consequences if they do not obey. Employees follow the rules to avoid
being punished by the leader. However, as a coercive means, coercive power can
only stop or reduce unnecessary behaviors for the organization, and it cannot
motivate employees to work.
Reward power is the opposite of compulsory power. Reward power refers to the
ability of individuals to influence their behavior by rewarding others for their
satisfactory behavior. When a manager has opportunities for promotion, salary
increases, bonuses, personal development, and other distributional powers related
to benefits, he has the corresponding powers. When subordinates feel that the
leader can satisfy their needs, they are willing to follow and obey him. Like coercive
power, the magnitude of rewarding power comes from how much the leader can
provide benefits to his subordinates. When he provides more benefits to his
subordinates, he has the greater reward power, otherwise the smaller.
Statutory power Statutory power usually refers to the ability of a leader to
influence the behavior of his subordinates due to his formal position in the
organization. Managers with this power can control and use organizational
resources. At the same time, managers can influence the actions of others through
legal power. Although statutory power includes a certain degree of compulsory
power and rewarding power, its connotation is much broader. In addition,
managers in this kind of power generally apply to a certain range of powers. When
leaders are farther away from their specific scope of responsibility, their legal
power will be weaker. Outside the scope of this responsibility, the legal power will
quickly disappear.
Personal power
In addition to the formal powers, we described above, some personal powers are
also influential to the organization. This kind of power comes from some unique
characteristics of the individual, thus forming a personal charm. Since there are
many aspects involving personal charm, only the expert power and reference
power that play a major role in the organization will be introduced here.
One of the personal charms of expert power comes from individual expertise, skills,
and knowledge. Due to the subdivision and specialization of work in today's world,
there are tasks that dominate the field, and this is the expert. Similarly, for an
organization, when an individual possesses some knowledge and skills higher than
other individuals in the organization, it has expert power. Accordingly, he will have
a certain personal influence in this organization.
Referential power is a kind of power related to personal qualities, charms,
experiences, backgrounds, etc. When the resources or characteristics of an
individual are recognized by other members, the individual has certain power,
which is called referential power. For example, individuals who have very extensive
interpersonal relationships will become well-informed individuals. However, this
influence is different from the coercive power and rewarding power of formal
power, and it does not produce negative or positive results. But it does satisfy the
individual to a certain extent, thus forming the source of his power.
In terms of formal power and personal power, the influence formed by managers
through statutory power, rewarding power and coercive power is collectively
referred to as position power. Position power has mandatory characteristics, and
because the psychology and behavior of the leader is passive, there are certain
restrictions on the motivation of employees. There may be a greater psychological
distance between superiors and superiors. And personal power is the collective
name of expert power and reference power related to the individual's own factors.
This kind of power is not necessarily related to the position power of the leader.
Therefore, this kind of power does not have an inevitable mandatory feature. It is
a process in which employees consciously and voluntarily accept influence based
on conviction. Therefore, this influence is more lasting and profound.
2. The source of power
Earlier we mentioned the definition of power. The so-called power refers to the
occurrence of individual A's behavior towards individual B, thereby changing
individual B's behavior and making it behave in line with A's hope. So why does
individual B change his behavior? In other words, to what extent can individual B
change his behavior? Which key is variable in that the individual A, B for the
individual dependent? The stronger the dependence of B on A, the greater the
power of A in their relationship. The strength of dependence depends on how
individual B feels controlled by individual A and whether there are other
alternatives besides A. So, we can say that only when a person controls what you
expect to have, he has power over you. And the higher the degree of this control,
the greater its power over you.
It is not difficult to see that if we have a resource, and this resource is very limited,
we will have power over others who need this resource. But if such resources are
very sufficient, a buyer's market will be formed. This directly affects the size of your
power. This point also helps explain why some employees at lower levels can get
rid of the control of senior managers. Because they have some professional and
important knowledge and skills, high-level managers must rely on these low-level
employees.
Importance In scarcity, we mentioned that when individuals have scarce resources,
they will generate power. However, the size of this power also depends on the
individual's dependence on this resource. When the individual's dependence on
resources is stronger, the more power it generates. On the contrary, if the
individual's dependence on this resource is weak, his power will gradually decline
or even zero.
Irreplaceability Although scarcity and importance both generate power, it also
depends on an important variable relationship, that is, irreplaceability. Even if a
resource is important to an individual, and the resource itself is scarce. But if a
replaceable item appears, it will affect its power over the individual.
To sum up, when individual A has something that individual B needs, and this
thing is very important to individual B, and there is no other substitute for it,
at this time, B is for individual A. The degree of dependence will be very high,
and individual A will have power over individual B. This can explain why most
organizations develop multiple suppliers instead of maintaining a business
relationship with only one vendor.
3. Factors that trigger political behavior
In an organization, if individuals want to get satisfactory compensation and
achieve career development, political behavior will occur. Political behavior refers
to the behavior of individuals exerting influence on the behavior of others or the
process of organizational affairs to ensure the satisfaction of their own interests.
These behaviors are often activities that are not recognized by the formal role of
the organization, but they will affect or may affect the distribution of benefits
within the organization.
Political behavior can be divided into two dimensions, legal and illegal. Legal
political behaviors are those that conform to norms and are routine political
behaviors. Illegal political actions are those that violate implicit organizational
rules.
Studies have shown that there are many factors that produce political behavior,
but they can be roughly divided into two categories: individual's own factors and
organizational factors, as shown in Figure 7-7.
Figure 7-7 Factors affecting political behavior
Research on personal factors has shown that certain personality traits, motivations,
needs and other individual factors can easily lead to political behavior. Researchers
have found that employees with high self-monitoring, internal control points, and
power needs are more likely to be involved in political behavior. Individuals with
strong self-monitoring skills are generally more sensitive, and usually show a
strong tendency to social conformity. Therefore, they are better at using political
skills and political behavior. Individuals with internal control have a deep belief in
their ability to control their environment. Therefore, they are usually willing to take
more active actions to manipulate the development of the situation. In addition,
the individual’s expectations of success, investment in the organization, and
other opportunities for job choices may affect members’ political activities.
In addition to individual personality characteristics, organizational factors are likely
to produce political behaviors. Certain specific organizational contexts and
cultures also contribute to the production of political behaviors. Specifically, when
the resources provided by the organization tend to be in short supply, individuals
or departments are striving for more benefits, or when the organization intends to
break the original resource allocation model, or when there are limited
opportunities for promotion in the organization, and in order to strive for good
performance evaluation and other factors will be more likely to form a source of
political behavior.
Earlier we focused on the factors that influence political behavior. But we should
also realize that not all employees in the organization like to participate in political
behavior. For those individuals who are unwilling to participate in the political
vortex, they can only passively accept pressure and constraints from all aspects.
The results of these individuals are always in a negative state. Evidence shows that
when there are too many political behaviors in the organization, it will increase the
anxiety of employees and feel excessive work pressure, thus showing a decline in
job satisfaction , which in turn forces employees to increase their absenteeism rate,
even Will lead to increased employee turnover.
But for some individuals with a high level of understanding of political behavior,
because they can make full use of political behavior, their performance level is
likely to improve.
Political behavior can meet the appropriate and legal needs of individuals and
organizations and can also lead to negative results. Good political behavior will
promote personal development. To the detriment of political behavior will result
in employees in an organization anxiety emotions, reduce job satisfaction,
performance declined even leave the organization. Therefore, as a manager, we
must recognize the inevitability of political behavior and at the same time control
the occurrence of bad political behavior.