Organizational politics and its impact on leadership effectiveness

Organizational Politics and Its Impact on Leadership

Vigoda (2000) defines organizational politics as a behavior that strategically maximizes one's self-interests at the expense of the interests of others, and the needs of the greater organization. This view portrays organizational politics as something negative; something detrimental to the well-being of the organization. Gull and Zaidi (2012), however, hold a slightly different view. They define organizational politics as "an activity that permits people in an organization to accomplish goals without going through proper channels;" however, they also emphasize that whether or not politicking harms an organization depends solely on the degree of alignment between the goals of the individual, and those of the organization (p. 156). The wide array of definitions "suggests that the concept is in transition and under continuous debate" (Drory & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010, p. 195). This text takes on the latter perspective, with the author regarding organizational politics as neither good nor bad per se, but reckoning that it is prudent that managers and leaders learn to identify, and distinguish between unethical and ethical politicking within their organizations. This is the surest way to avoid the prospect of becoming immersed in retrogressive power struggles, parochial politics, and bureaucratic infighting, all of which greatly impede on organizational performance, morale, innovation, and initiative.

The Background of Organizational Politics

Organizational politics is no new concept, and as Sonaike (2013) points out, "it is self-deceit to believe that one's organization has no politics" (p. 197). Politicking takes on different forms and occurs at literally all levels of the organization. However, despite the fact that it is a noticeably common phenomenon, the concept of organizational politics has largely remained underground. Thanks to the negativity that has, since long in history, been attached to organizational politics; people often avoid relating their own behavior to politics, and only talk about politics when they lose to a colleague (Sonaike, 2013). Most organizations actually consider politics a taboo subject, and prefer to keep it buried underground.

I am of the view that an effective leader is one who skillfully uses organizational politics to obtain, and retain power, as well as realize fundamental goals. To this end, it is reckless and dangerous to fantasize that one can be an effective leader without effectively addressing, and making use of ethical politics. The prominent Greek statesman, Pericles, once said that politics will take interest in an individual, whether or not they take interest in it. We therefore cannot simply close our eyes to this crucial aspect of organizational reality.

Why People Engage in Workplace Politics

The main reason as to why people engage in organizational politics is to gain power. This power could come through promotion, being considered for desirable / coveted assignments, receiving larger budgetary allocations, among others (Ogungbamila, 2013). The more common self-serving behaviors include lobbying influential managers just before a promotion is made, and bypassing the chain of command to obtain approval for a special proposal (Ogungbamila, 2013). Such actions undermine fairness, and may spark feelings of resentment and jealousy in those colleagues who follow proper mechanisms. On a lighter note, however, such actions could at times be beneficial rather than detrimental. We can imagine, for instance, a case where the proposal in question is so urgent that going through the proper procedure would cause delays, and make the organization lose its number one investor. In this particular instance, politics gets to benefit the greater organization. In the end, therefore, it boils down to the degree of congruence between individual and organizational goals.

The Effect of Organizational Politics on Leadership

Like I mentioned elsewhere in this text, an effective leader is one who skillfully uses ethical organizational politics to obtain, and retain power, as well as realize fundamental goals. To this end, one cannot be an effective leader if they cannot effectively address, and make use of ethical politics. There are a number of ethical and unethical strategies and tactics, from which a leader can choose. A leader could assess the ethical standard of a strategy by answering six core questions; is this strategy right? Is it fair? How does it smell? Who gets hurt if this strategy is adopted (the fewer the better)? What would you advise your son or daughter to do in such circumstances? Would it be okay with you if details of your undertakings were disclosed?

The leadership strategies outlined in this paper are threefold; i) leadership strategies focused on power acquisition; ii) leadership strategies focused on the enhancement of relationships; and iii) leadership strategies focused on aversion or avoidance of political blunders (adopted and modified from Sonaike, 2013).

Leadership Strategies Aimed at Gaining Power: amassing power is one sure way of achieving success. In this regard, a leader should strive to i) develop power relationships and contacts, who can adequately offer support for one's ideas in public forums or meetings; ii) stay abreast and informed, and be ahead of any developments. A politically astute leader develops an information network with his employees, and especially befriends those members whom people would normally consider 'junior'. For instance, administrative assistants interact more often with other employees, and may be a better source of needs-related information than a middle-level manager. Thirdly, an effective leader should strive to gain adequate control over vital information. Power befalls those who hold vital information. An effective leader has knowledge on, for instance, exactly whom to contact to shorten some lengthy contractual procedures.

Leadership Strategies Aimed at Building Relationships: these assist a leader in building strong networks with suppliers, customers, lower-ranking people, subordinates, and superiors. They include displaying loyalty and courtesy, for instance, by sending thank you and appreciation notes; employing rational persuasion; consulting and seeking others' advice when necessary; providing favors so as to establish a balance that could be drawn on when a favor is needed in return; developing coalitions to consolidate power; engaging in sincere, sensible flattery when giving positive feedback; and engaging in positive impression management.

Leadership Strategies Aimed at Avoiding Political Blunders: political blunders are an impediment to power-retention. Some of the common blunders that managers ought to refrain from include; i) turning down an offer from a superior -- this could be costly, especially if done frequently. It is crucial for one to balance their individual interests against the blunder of repeatedly turning down a powerful figure's requests. The reason most professionals turn down promotion offers that involve geographic relocation is; to them, lifestyle and family preferences are more important than political advantage. Ii) Going around the boss -- hierarchical organizations still value protocol. Bypassing your boss could be hazardous and career-threatening. Iii) Badmouthing seniors in public forums -- the adage, 'praise in public, and criticize in private' is still significant; blurting out things that embarrass or criticize your boss in public places could damage your career and limit your recourses.

Combating Retrogressive Politics

If not properly checked, organizational politics can be a source of retrogressive power struggles, parochial politics, and bureaucratic infighting, all of which impede on organizational performance, morale, innovation, and initiative. Leaders should move to combat politics when it is dysfunctional or excessive. The strategies outlined below can guide a leader towards effectively accomplishing this (adopted and modified from Valle & Witt, 2001; Sonaike, 2013; Ogungbamila, 2013).

The very first step is identifying instances of politics, and establishing its causes and techniques. For instance, when an opportunity for promotion arises, the CEO can be alert for backstabbing or transparent impression management instances among potential candidates.

Open communication is a valuable tool in constraining office politics. The leader can, for instance, use open communication to make known to all members the strategies of resource allocation. This reduces political maneuvering, and makes it difficult for individuals to gain or assume control of data deemed vital, and make use of the grapevine as a tool of war for political gain.

Leaders should avoid favoritism. If members believe that good performance is more important than impression management in obtaining rewards, they will most likely work towards impressing the boss through exemplary job performance.

Leaders should set positive examples by being non-political in the execution of their duties. The intensity and frequency of organizational politics at the lower levels could be minimized if the people at the top subtly demonstrate that politicking is not welcome.

Leaders ought to ensure that the goals of individual workers are in congruence with those of the organization. They could, for instance, organize forums, in which members are taught the importance and significance of goal congruence to both personal and organizational development. Workers who value goal congruence are less likely to engage in devious office politics.

Discussing questionable information publicly could also go a long way in constraining office politics. People who play devious politics usually prefer to operate privately and secretly; they are often ready to make derogatory statements, or drop innuendos and hints about someone else, as long as they remain unidentified. Offering to discuss such issues in a public forum could go a long way in minimizing the discrediting of others.

Conclusion

It is evident that there is need to reevaluate the myth of a non-political, objective, and highly rational organization, not only because it is irrational, but also because it disregards the idea that an organization is a network of cooperation as much as it is a network of competition. This myth leads us to construct an organization that blatantly disregards the concept of diversity of interests. I conclude that in order for a leader to obtain and retain power, they must make skilful use of office politics because in as much as politicking can be destructive and retrogressive, it can also adequately contribute to a balanced interests set. It's time we fully adopted Aristotle's view that workplace politics provide means for reconciling differences and avoiding abuses by creating order out of diversity.