Organisational Behaviour Chapter 9

Power and politics in organisations OBJECTIVES: Describe what is meant by the term ‘organisational power and politics’ Examine the paradigms which underpin different approaches to understanding power in organisations Discuss a variety of theoretical perspectives on organisational power Analyse the political processes which are used to obtain, hold and exploit power in organisations Critically discuss managerial strategies of empowerment © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Defining power There are several meanings to the word ‘power’. When we think about the meaning of the word in the context of organisations, we usually mean one or more of the following: The ability to direct the behaviour of other people in the organisation. The capacity to influence or direct the events in an organisation. The authority that is delegated to a person or a role by senior management in the organisation. A person who exerts influence in a given situation. © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Defining politics The word politics also has several meanings. In general use it refers to government, but we can also use it analogously when we talk about the governing of organisations. In that context it can mean: The methods or tactics employed in the running of an organisation. Manoeuvring within an organisation to obtain control or power. Dealing with conflicting relationships and views within an organisation to ensure an outcome that you desire. © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Perspectives on power and politics The assumptions we make about how an organisation should work have a profound influence on how (and whether) we engage in political behaviours in our organisational lives. We can summarise the assumptions we make under three headings: Unitarist assumptions Pluralist assumptions Radicalist assumptions © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Unitarism The principal underlying assumption behind unitarism is that the interests of all stakeholders coincide. In particular, owners, managers and employees all have the same investment in the success of the organisation and consequently, there should be general agreement about means and ends © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Pluralism The pluralist perspective, in contrast, accepts that different stakeholders have different interests, and that those interests can often be in conflict. Consequently, in this context, you would expect to find a strong emphasis on negotiation, building positive relations and compromise. Its adherents see such a perspective as healthy and natural © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Radicalism Radicalists believe that organisations, as part of a wider society, reflect the struggles and divisions which we observe in the wider society. For those who see things in this way, sectional interests in society are not left at the door of the workplace, but are taken inside and form part of the organisational context © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Sociological paradigms Whether we take a unitarist, pluralist or radicalist view of power, we base our assumptions on certain beliefs about human communities. We follow what are called paradigms. Often the paradigms we adopt are tacit, that is to say, we don’t always consciously realise that we hold them. © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Sociological paradigms Key questions for understanding a prevailing paradigm: Is reality an objective fact that exists outside of us or do we ‘construct’ the world in our mind from our knowledge and experience of it? Do we have to experience something to understand it, or can we draw our understanding from scientific investigation? Can human beings make free choices about what courses of action to take or are those choices determined by circumstance and environment? © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Sociological paradigms From these key questions Burrell and Morgan have developed a two- dimension matrix which shows four paradigms which we use for understanding human systems : © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Sources of organisational power Informational power - conferred by having access to information unavailable to others Reward power – having access to resources which can be used to incentivise people to behave in ways we want Coercive power - This kind of power uses threats of negative consequences to influence changes Legitimate power - the power delegated to people at various levels of the organisation Expert power - when a subordinate believes that someone has superior and reliable knowledge and understanding of an issue, either through their professional expertise or because of their experience of similar situations. Referent power - Sometimes called personal power, or charismatic power, this power source relies on the target identifying strongly with the agent as a role model © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Context and consequences of power interactions Bachrach and Baratz posed the question: when we look at the uses of power in society, who participates, who wins, who loses? According to Lukes, this is the, but other, more subtle and subversive faces of power exist © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

The hidden face of power The face of power which is hidden is the ability of the powerful to control the agenda. So they determine what the problems are, how they are to be solved and who is to benefit from their solution. They control the discourse of the situation. Michel Foucault suggested that people in positions of power control the discourse of a situation and thereby exclude discussion of topics which they find challenging or contrary to their interests. They create a climate where certain topics are simply not discussed Discourse in this context is part and parcel of exercising power, since those who determine the discourse are determining what is or isn’t true. © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

The invisible face of power Lukes has also identified another, the invisible face of power. Here, we find people without power who have internalized and accepted that condition. They believe that their situation is normal and cannot be challenged. People in power are there because of some kind of right or superior ability which the powerless cannot hope to achieve. © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

The invisible face of power Writing about this phenomenon, Hinson and Healey say: ‘When those who have the power to name and to socially construct reality choose not to see you or hear you … when someone with the authority of a teacher, say, describes the world and you are not in it, there is a moment of psychic disequilibrium, as if you looked in the mirror and saw nothing. It takes some strength of soul — and not just individual strength but collective understanding — to resist this void, this non-being, into which you are thrust, and to stand up, demanding to be seen and heard.’ © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Strategies for attaining and using power Fulfilment of contract terms Using the formal system Managing meaning Controlling how decisions are made Giving or withholding resources (including knowledge and information) Proximity to the centre Alliances and coalitions © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Empowerment In the generally accepted (non-managerial) use of the word, empowerment is used across a wide range of situations. It is often used to address people who are marginalised in a society by proposing processes and rights which enable them to find and take opportunities otherwise denied them and to have a voice in society where previously they went unheard. © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Empowerment We can broadly define empowerment in organisations as allocating support, authority and resources to workers to achieve specific goals. This is a much more restricted use of the word. It is the granting of power to achieve the goals of management © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)

Empowerment Empowerment of employees in the work place has divided opinion. On the one hand it can be seen as a process which delivers high level performance at the same time as providing staff with motivation, satisfaction and growth. Others, however, disagree. Harley, researching empowerment initiatives in Australian organisations, shows that there is no correlation between what organisations call empowerment and increased experience of autonomy by staff. In other words, although jobs may have been expanded and the employees given more responsibility and decision-making power, the level of employee autonomy remains the same. © Mike Maughan, Organisational Behaviour, Palgrave (2014)