Politics of change- reading 1&2









Stacey (1996) self-organization: are the self-forming patterns and
processes that shadow the formal organization and that are endemic in all
organizations. These patterns and processes are political processes,
which imply the exercise of power and the management of conflict. As
such, they are of intrinsic interest in any discussion of organizational
change.
Political processes are an essential part of an organization’s functioning.
Yet the concepts of politics, power and conflict particularly in the context
of resistance to change, frequently appear in the role of the more
undesirable aspects of organizational life. For instance, Robbins (2005)
drawing on the writings of Kanter (1979) says: “power has been
described as the last dirty word… people who have it deny it, people who
want it try not to appear to be seeking it, and those who are good at getting
it are secretive about how they got it.”
A survey of attitudes towards change management and organizational
politics was a distracting side issue compared to the issue of
organizational performance (Buchanan and Badham 1999). Of the
respondents 53% agreed that organizational politics is usually damaging,
is a sign of incompetent management and needs to be eradicated
wherever possible. Contrariwise 72% agreed that the more complex and
wide reaching the change the more intense the politics becomes, with
most agreeing that change agents (those facilitating or managing the
change) needed to be politically skilled.
(Buchanan and Badham 1999) “Power concerns the capacity of
individuals to exert their will over others. Political behaviors are the
practical domain of power in action, worked out through the use of
techniques of influence and other (more or less extreme) tactics. “
OR: power is an ability to make things happen and to overcome resistance
in order to achieve desired objectives or results. Political behavior is the
observable but often convert actions by which executives and others
enhance their power to influence decisions.
Robbins (2005) “power in action” happens when people get together or
in groups and where an individual seeks to influence the thoughts ,
attitudes or behaviours of another individual or group. Acting politically
is part of negotiating as a means to overcome resistance or resolving
conflivt; but it can also be the casue of conflict if used in a negative
manner.
Hadry 1994 power can be used to overcome conflict but can also be used
to avert it.
Robbins divides politics into legitimate (i.e. bypassing the chain of
command, forming coalitions, obstructing organization policies) and
illegitimate (i.e. deliberate sabotage, whistle blowing and groups of
employees reporting sick). His viewpoint: “political behaviors in
organization are those activities not required as part of one’s formal role in
the organization, but that influence, or attempt to influence, the
distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization.”
Morgan 1997 “organizations and modes of political rule”
 Autocracy: absolute government where power is held by an individual or
small group and supported by control of critical resources, property or
ownership rights, tradition, charisma and other claims to personal advantages
 Bureaucracy: rule exercises through the use of the written word, which
provides the basis for a rational legal type of authority or rule of law.
 Technocracy: rule exercised through use of knowledge, expert power and the
ability to solve relevant problems.
 Co-determination: the form of rule where opposing parties combine in the
joint management of mutual interest, as in coalition government or corporatism,
each part drawing on a specific power base.
 Representative democracy: rule exercised through the election of officers
mandated to act on behalf of the electorate and who hold office for a specified
time period or so long as they command the support of the electorate, as in
parliamentary government and forms of worker control and shareholder control
in industry.
 Direct democracy: the system where everyone has an equal right and is
involved in all decision making as in many communal organizations as a key
mode of organizing.
 Not all people in the organization would agree on who has power of
whatever type and who has not. Therefore power exists to a larger extend
only in the eye of the beholder. It is not necessarily knowledge or
recourses that give a person power but the belief by other that he/she has
that power of control.
 Handy (1993) ‘relativity of power’ is the situation where pone person
or group perceives another to have power while a second person or group
believes otherwise. Note: power is rarely one-sided; the dominance of
one person over another depends on the power balance. In his
classification of power and influence, he lists the possible sources of
power as: physical, position, expert, personal, and negative power. Methods
of influence: force (derived from physical power, ie bullying, loss of
temper and hold-ups), rules and procedures (derived from position
power), exchange (derived from having resources power), persuasion
(derived from personal power), ecology (derived from different power
sources, manipulating the physical and psychological environment to
achieve certain purpose), magnetism (derives from personal and
sometimes expert power). Handy links position power with resource
power by arguing that if some control over resources does not come with
position, then the source of power will be invalid.
 Hardy’s 1994 “four dimension of power”: decision making power, nondecision making power, symbolic power and the power of the system.
 Morgan’s source of power in organization (1987): formal authority,
control of scarce recourse, use of organizational structure, rules and
regulation, control of decision processes, control of boundaries, ability to
cope with uncertainty, control of technology, interpersonal alliances,
networks, and control of informal organization,. Control of
counterorganization, symbolism and management of gender relations,
structural factors that define the stage of action, the power one already
has.

Robbins (2005)
Formal power
Personal power


Coercive power (dependent on fear)
Reward power




Legitimate power
Information power (derives from
access ti abd control over info)

Expert power (specialized skills)
Referent power (identification with a
person who has desirable resources/
traits
Charismatic power
 Weber (1947) drew attention to three types of authority:
1. Tradition: authority legitimized by custom and practice and a belief in the
right of certain individuals to rule other.
2. Charismatic authority: legitimized through the leader’s particular
qualities being valued and an inspiration to others.
3. Rational-legal authority: characterizes the power held by people because
of their position in some formal or understood hierarchy that has some
independent standing with regard to the rules and procedures sustaining
it
 Resource power: comes with the power to distribute valued rewards or
withhold something that someone else values. Push strategy attempt to
influence people by imposing or threatening to impose costs on the
people or group concerned if they do not do what is required. This ability
to impose such costs will depend largely on a person’s position and the
resources that she he controls. Pull strategies are the reward strategies,
emphasize material social and other extrinsic rewards, for example extra
pay, or expertise or information may be traded access to valuable
contacts may be given.
 Visible assets of the power holder are the control over resources such as
determining other people’s budgets or rate of promotion.
 Invisible assets are the power to control information, which is referred in
Morgan’s and Robbin’s list of sourced of power. The ability to slow down
or accelerate the flow of information gives power to many people who
probably do not occupy high positions, but who simply act as messengers
or copies of information from one part of the organization to another,
 Another type of invisible asset (Handy, 1993) is that of right of access,
which is similar to what Robbins calls referent power and what Morgan
refers to as having access to interpersonal alliance, networks, and
‘informal organization’. Certain position in orgs give the right of entry to a
variety if networks (formal and also informal) to which entry comes
easily because of a person’s position
 The right to organize, as invisible asset mentioned by both Handy 1993
and Paton 1994 tends to be part of position power. And is linked to
methods of influence associated with ecology; ex: power to say who
occupies which organizational space or to wave certain rules according to
convenience. Reorganization always means a redistribution of power.
Therefore the power to restructure an organization or part of it can be
regarded as visible power.

Decision-making power (Hardy, 1994): position power almost always
includes the right to make particular decisions. This power is visible and
unquestioned.
 Wilson’s (1992) covert power: which is exercised through non-decision
making rather then by means of attempts to influence readily identifiable
decision topics., for example by setting the agenda under which
something will be discussed and limiting who may and may not take part
in the discussion. Hardy further explains “safe” agendas where some
topics are deliberately excluded from the decision- making process.
 (Referring back to table above) three categories of personal power:
expert or knowledge power, symbolic and individual power.
1. Expert/knowledge power: Paton (1994) “organizations use specialist
knowledge to cope with task and environmental uncertainty”. According
to Handy, unless someone’s claim to expertise is recognized, it will not
become a power source for that person; also a small amount of expertise
can bring large amounts of power but it can easily be lost if someone with
a bit more expertise comes along--. Morgan “knowledge of how to design
and operate information technology systems is a special form of expert
power.
2. Symbolic power: is the power to manipulate and use symbols to create
organizational environments and beliefs and understandings of others to
suit one’s own purposes. It is the management of meanings according to
Morgan. Hardy includes the use of languages, rituals, and myths as
examples.
3. Individual power: Buchanan and Huczunki 2004 refer to Pfeffer 1992 who
adds another source of power which derives from personal
characteristics of those holding the power:
 Energy, endurance and physical stamina
 Ability to focus energy to avoid wasteful effort
Sensitivity and an ability to read and understand others
 Flexibility and selecting varied means to achieve goals
 Personal toughness, willingness to engage in conflict and confrontation
 Able to play the subordinate and team member to enlist the support of
other
 Many people are relatively powerless because of the way particular
organizational factors affect them.
 Women’s lack of power: Morgan 1997 argues that formal orgs typically
mirror what in the west has been a patriarchal society. Jobs involving
strategic decision-making, and control of finances and those relating to
machines and technology are generally done by men. Women earn less
then men (Wilson, 1995). Morgan (1997) and Kanter (1979) say it is
because of the way the prevailing structure and power balance in
organizations, which are based on a male model, conspire indirectly to
reduce the power sources of women. Maitland 2000 reported that a UK
institute of mgt survey found that women account for 22%of all British
managers as compared to 8% a decade ago.
 Powerlessness because of cultural differences: people from cultures
scoring high on Hofstede’s (1981) high power distance cultural
dimension will expect managers to make all major decisions. This in turn













does not train these people to gain power sources. Morgan’s citation of
the ‘ability to cope with uncertainty’ power relates directly to Hofstede’s
uncertainty avoidance dimension- so if a minority group’s cultural
upbringing focuses on controlling ambiguity -then this gains them power.
Perspective of power in Western society is based on power of individual,
where in East Asian countries s people are expected to show loyalty to
their group.
Position of powerlessness: legislation helped reduce racism and sexism
which prevented women and minority groups from gaining power – yet
there are groups who do not have this benefit because no particular
prejudice is shown against them. They are powerless because of the
position they occupy., examples are first line supervisors and staff
professional (Kanter 1979). According to her power is easily accumulated
when one has a job that is designed and located to allow discretion,
recognition, and relevance. Secondly power comes when one has
relatively close contact with sponsors, peer networks, and subordinates.
“Competition for power nearly always turns to conflict”- handy
Morgan: because orgs are designed as systems, which at the same time
promote competitions as well as cooperation, one of their outputs will
inevitably be conflict. – know--n as the “pluralist” frame of reference.
Robbins (2005) prefers the “traditional approach” which sees conflict as
violence, destruction, and irrationality. In this case management’s major
responsibility is to ensure that conflicts don’t arise.
The idea of Taylor (1911) and his principles of scientific mgt are example
of a unitary approach to managing.
Conflict is the behavior intended to obstruct the achievement of some
other person’s goals. (Mullins, 2005).
Handy argues that all conflict start from two types of differences: differing
goals and ideologies, and differing interest.
The layers in organizational difference: misunderstandings, differences of
values, diff of interest, interpersonal difference, differences of viewpoint.
Interdependence: different organizational groupings depend upon each
other to a larger/smaller extend, the relationship may be either mutual or
one-way depending on the power balance between groupings.
Organizational structures: conflict is likely because of power
imbalances hierarchal structures bring about. Research by Lawrence and
Lorsch 1969 argue that increased differentiation between departments
with each being more specialized will lead to increased conflict.
Rules and regulations: Robbins mentions the role of rules and
regulations in reducing conflict by minimizing ambiguity especially where
there is high formalization. For Mullins this impacts the clarity of
definition of the roles. According to Tosi et al, in situations with over
regulation people can become frustrated due to lack of autonomy and a
perceived lack of trust by superiors.
Limited resources: resources give people that hold them power, so at
times when they are plentiful the potential for conflict through competing
for resources is reduced and vice versa.
Cultural difference: lead to conflict through misunderstandings or
inappropriate behavior on the part of those with one set of cultural


characteristics towards those with another. Japan has a collectivist
culture; hence people are more likely to avoid outright confrontation than
people from individualistic cultures such as US.
 Environmental change: Mullins mentions shifts in demand, increased
competition, government intervention, new technology, and changing
social values as possible sources of conflict. For ex: the UK gov
threatening to withdraw subsidy from the further and adult education
sector for the training of sports coaches.
 Many situations involve more than one layer of conflict, and many of
those layers are closely linked.
 Strategies for managing conflict vary- orientation of managers
subscribing to unitary philosophy of an organization will be to suppress
conflict whenever possible. But in a democratic society this will cause
further extreme conflict.
 Schelling 1960 suggests that parties to a conflict can act in three different
ways: 1) Compete (where one wins and other loses) 2) Cooperate (both
win) 3) Mixture of these two with both winning something but not all
they had hoped.
 Thomas 1976 identifies 5 styles for handling conflict: competing,
collaborating, avoiding (no win situation), accommodating (can create
lose/win situation but retains a good relationship between parties),
compromising (with both being partially satisfied),
 French and Bell (F&B) (1990) “without influence (power) there would be
no cooperation and no society”
 The two faces of power: McClelland 1970, in their discussion of this
F&B say: the negative face of power “is characterized by primitive,
unsocialized need to have dominance over submissive other”. Positive
power derives from the socialized need to initiate, influence and lead,
and hence recognizes other peoples need to achieve their own goals as
well as those of mgt and the org.
 The problem of change: some types are less pragmatic then others, and
the radical, frame-breaking change is more likely to bring the greatest
conditions of uncertainty and fear of what the future may ring. Yet small
incremental change can also upset balance of power. Nadler 1988
suggests three problems associated with this transition process:
 Problem of resistance to change
 Problem of organizational control
 Problem of power
The positive use of conflict and power: Robbins 2005 uses the terms
functional, dysfunctional, and constructive or destructive conflict. Robbins
emphasizes functional conflict, which views conflict as positive and necessary
to perform effectively. He argues too low levels of conflict are dysfunctional
as too high levels. He refers to the optimal level of conflict, which engenders
self-criticism and innovation to increase unit performance.
Guidelines for dealing with conflict: encourage openness, model appropriate
response, provide summaries and restatements of the position, bring in
people who are not directly involved, encourage people to take time and
reassess, use strengths of the groups, focus on shared goals, use directions
and interests to develop areas of new gain.

Charecterization of power by Buchanan and Badham 1999:
1. Power is a property of individuals, defined across a number of identifiable
power sources or bases, some structural, some individual, and exercised
in attempts to influence other.
2. Power is a property of relationships between members of an
organization, identified by the extend to which some individuals believe,
or do not believe, that others possess particular power base.
3. Power is an embedded property of the structures, regulations,
relationships and norms of the organization, perpetuating existing
routines and power inequalities.
 Testing the rhetoric of empowerment: management gurus have
preached the benefits of pushing decisions down the line, allowing those
doing the work to say how resources should be used- aka delegation,
empowerment, commitment, involvement…etc. more can be achieved,
people will be motivated, managers are free to think about strategy and
so on. However the problem faced is that 70% of managers are rate
delegation as their weakest skill.