Influence of Politics and Power

Influence of Politics and Power

Organizations comprise of mainly human and material resources. It is typically the human resources part of the organization that changes or transforms the material resources in the organization to finished and consumable products (Omisore and Nweke, 2014). In the process of transforming material resources of the organization, there are choices involved. Choices, in this case, are the type of products to be generated, the various materials to be employed to generate the desired quality as well as the kind of machinery to be used for production efficiency and the financial resources to be used and their sources (Omisore and Nweke, 2014). All these requires decision and choices to be made. These decisions are mostly influenced by politics, while the individuals involved in these decision making employs some power to pass their decisions.

It is critical to analyze power, coalitions, and bargaining to understand organizational politics effectively. The power link is the platform for political action and covers most of the primary issues underlying organization politics (Omisore and Nweke, 2014). Thus, survival in an organization revolves around the political act. As the essential component through which people and subgroups gain, keep up, and use power, coalition solidifies and brings to the frontal area the conflicting interests of organizational subgroups (Geppert, Becker, & Mudambi, 2016). Through bargaining, particular coalition endeavor to accomplish their political goals and shield themselves from infringements by resisting coalitions. Positive organizational politics develops a commitment culture while negative politics deprives individuals of their rights and promotes and promotes the “tragedy of the commons” culture, which is unethical for organizational development (Omisore and Nweke, 2014).

Organizational politic is associated with behaviors that are against those in which the organization based its specific position, as indicated by Geppert et al. (2016). The behaviors are aimed at acquiring selfish and personal ends that are against the ends of others in the organization. The politics may focus on the objectives of groups as well as individuals and often include behaviors that are a threat to the organization. For instance, the most debated issues are interdepartmental coordination, a delegation of authority, and promotions or transfers (Geppert et al., 2016; Omisore and Nweke, 2014). The promotion of incompetent persons based on favoritism is the usual concern. Inherent in this and many others politicized situations are the influencing of performance evaluations, positively for oneself and negatively for competitors, and the influencing of authority allocations, as between one work union and another or between supervisor and subordinate (Omisore and Nweke, 2014). Such kind of favoritism not only spoils the work culture but also demotivates those who genuinely want to work and carve a niche for themselves. Employees who work hard need to be motivated and appreciated irrespective of their position in the hierarchy.

Sources of Power

The research by Geppert et al. (2016) highlights four main sources of power in an organization. The office or Structural position in an organization represents the first sources of power. It operates by allowing party access to various bases of power. In some ranks, there might be minimal data but enough coercive resources, while others permit the occupant the potential to influence symbols or mobilize internalized commitment to specific norms (Geppert et al., 2016).

The second source of power in an organization is based on personal characteristics. As indicated by Weber (1947), there are charismatic leaders who have power through virtue of exceptionality and usually mystical characteristics. In any case, significant individual qualities may likewise incorporate verbal expertise, the capacity to contend viably for positions, or even physical traits (for instance, a physical handicap of a veteran embracing an earlier antiwar position) (Geppert et al., 2016). The third source of power in an organization is expertise. This refers to the specialized skill the characters bring to the organization. It is ordinarily founded on exercises outside the organization, for instance, education. This is treated as a source of power, as opposed to a premise of power in French and Raven’s terms since it is by all accounts a method by which a party comes to control specific information instead of the control itself (Omisore and Nweke, 2014). Finally, Opportunity, the specific source of power installed in the casual structure of the organization (Geppert et al., 2016). The thought originates from Mechanic’s (1962) examination of the power of the lower levels in an organization (for example, sectorial staff). The casual parts of formal positions or casual places that are not recognized officially by the organization can give a significant source of power (Omisore and Nweke, 2014).

The organizations emphasize the authority point of power, as witnessed in the long-standing worry with centralization and decentralization (Omisore and Nweke, 2014). The fundamental disappointment in this methodology is the failure to comprehend that the lower echelon may likewise capture power. The organizations are worried about the power to confer by the top while forgetting the conceivable outcomes of subordinates to take the power past that is offered to them by the organizational structure. This extra side of power taking must be a focal worry of the political model of organizations to profit the department and improve organizational performance (Geppert et al., 2016; Omisore and Nweke, 2014). The various people and different subgroups in the organization are not passive beneficiaries anticipating the downward trickle of power but rather dynamic members mobilizing power for their ends (Omisore and Nweke, 2014). Hence, a political way to deal with the organization suggests a multidirectional image of power, and this implies an accentuation on influence on the authority structure (Omisore and Nweke, 2014).

Leadership Behavior and Culture

The study of power and politics could influence leadership behavior and significantly improve the organization’s culture. Consider the case of Uber: When Travis Kalanick launched Uber, he adopted a highly aggressive business strategy (Hill, 2017). In some areas, the business model violated legal regulations, but Kalanick and co-founder Garrett Camp ignored local laws and focused aggressively on disrupting the taxi industry and achieving business success (Hill, 2017). While this aggressive mindset may have been effective for launching the app, it was not conducive to effective leadership once Uber had broken into the market. Instead of continuing to be brash and aggressive in ways that enabled sexism in the workplace and the subordination of Uber drivers, the leadership at Uber studied power and political behaviors that foster positive workplace culture. Indeed, similar platforms like Lyft and Airbnb have been able to build a sense of community among drivers and hosts (Persio, 2017), so there was no reason why Uber’s new leaders could not be able to do the same, despite the large size of their driver base (Persio, 2017). Also, the new leaders at Uber should study the dangers of mixing business with politics, as it always leads to scandals that negatively impact both organizational culture and customer loyalty.

Leadership Influence

As the case of Uber demonstrates, leadership behavior is highly complex and can significantly influence organizational structure and performance. When a leader behaves in a way that emphasizes the importance of the concentration of power at the top, it can lead to a highly hierarchical organizational structure. For instance, because the executive leadership at Uber was focused on control, they created a platform that isolated drivers from Uber itself, leading to a high level of dissatisfaction among drivers

Also, when organizational leaders express disinterest in promoting diversity and preventing discrimination within an organization, it can enable those who wish to act in a sexist manner. Moreover, when a leader responds defensively to allegations of harassment and discrimination within the workplace, rather than acknowledging the seriousness of the issue and vowing to address the problem, it can further foster the development of a discriminatory workplace. This can negatively affect company performance as job dissatisfaction increases, and more skilled workers leave the company to escape the toxic work environment. In the most serious cases, as with Uber, it can ultimately force the resignation of a large proportion of the executive leadership, which can limit improvements in organizational performance during the inevitable leadership transition process.