Introduction

The term ‘power’ is defined as the ability to exert influence on others. If a person has power, it means that he is able to change the behaviour or attitudes of others. In one’s role as a supervisor, a manager’s power may be seen as the ability to cause subordinates to do what the manager wishes him to do. Thus, power is an important tool with the manager to influence the behaviour of subordinates for the accomplishment of organisational goals. That is why, study of types, sources and bases of power is essential to have deep insights into organisational behaviour.

 

Definition Of Power And Related Terms :

Generally, power is defined as the capacity of a person to exert influence over others. If a person has power, it means he is able to influence the behaviour of other individuals.2 The essence of power lies in having control over the behaviour of others. A manager’s power may be measured in terms of his ability to:

1. give rewards,
2. promise rewards,
3. threaten to withdraw current rewards,
4. withdraw current rewards,
5. threaten punishment, and
6. punish.

“Power is the potential ability to influence behaviour, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance and to get people to do things that they would not otherwise do.”                                  –

Pfeffner

“Power is the ability to influence people or things, usually obtained through the control of important resources.”

-White and Blender

 

Power, Authority and Influence–

In day-to-day usage, the term ‘power’ is used synonymously with authority’. But authority denotes the right of manager to decide and command. For example, a manager has a right to assign tasks to subordinates and require satisfactory performance from them. But, the manager may not have the means (or power) available to enforce this right. Thus, whether a manager can enforce his rights is a question of power. Similarly, there may be a situation where a person has a power to do something, but lacks authority to do it. Such situations may cause conflicts in organisations. Therefore, for organisational stability, power and right to do should be equated. “When power and authority for a given person or position are roughly equated, we have a condition we may call legitimate power.” In other words, authority is one type of power, and it is based on the recognition of the lawfulness of the attempt to exert influence. This power or right arises from the formal position in the organisation.

The term ‘influence’ is often used in conjunction with either terms such as power, authority, control and conformity. Some people try to distinguish between influence and other terms. But we shall consider influence as an all inclusive concept that covers any and all modes by which behavioural changes are induced in people.

Power is the capacity of the influencer or agent of influence to affect others’ behaviour which accrues to him because of his resources like strength, wealth, or knowledge. Authority is legitimate power, one of the several different kinds of power available to an agent. Authority is conferred upon an agent by an organisation (such as government) or by the people (as in an election, or by custom and tradition).

Control is an extreme form of influence in which the agent not only influences the target to behave in a certain way but also enforces limits to that behaviour. For instance, traffic experts seek to do more than just influence drivers to slow down. In order to achieve their objectives of safety and movement, they enforce both maximum and minimum speeds on highways. Conformity is the objective of influence-the yielding of the target to the agent’s wishes. The word is generally used to indicate that the target has succumbed to the influence of a group or organisation. Conformity implies a notion that the target changes his behaviour to go along with the group or organisation or behaves differently from the way he would have in the absence of influence.

 

Negative and Positive Power-

David McClelland has identified two faces of power as follows:

1. Negative Face. The negative face of power is usually expressed in terms of dominance submission. Or in other words, “I win, you lose”. Leadership which is based on negative face of power treats people as pawns to be used or sacrificed as the need arises. This face of power is self defeating. People who are treated like pawns will either resist the leadership will become passive. In both ways, their value to the organisation would get reduced.

2. Positive Face. The positive face of power involves exerting influence on behalf of others rather than over others. The leaders who exercise their power positively encourage their subordinates to develop the strength and the competence they need to succeed as human beings as well as members of the organisation.

McClelland found that successful managers have a greater need to influence others for the benefit of the organisation than for self-aggrandisement. Managers who use their power positively will be more effective than those who use it in a negative way and just to dominate the others. McClelland concluded that good managers exercise power with restraint on behalf of others. Such managers improve the morale of the subordinates by encouraging team spirit, rewarding the achievements and supporting the subordinates.

 

Concept And Sources Of Authority:

Authority denotes rights granted to a position in an institution. It includes right to take decisions and get them executed from the subordinates. The rights enjoyed by a position are not unlimited. The extent and limits of authority of a position are specified in advance. The authority given to a position is legal and legitimate. The position-holder is expected to use it as per rules, regulations, policies, practices and norms of the organisation.

Louis A. Allen, According to “Authority as the sum of the powers and rights entrusted to make possible the performance of the work delegated.” He has classified authority into three categories namely,

1. Authority of knowledge,
2. Authority of position,
3. Legal authority.

According to him authority of knowledge is possessed generally by the staff specialists appointed by the company. They more often influence the actions of persons in line by virtue of their knowledge. Some persons acquire authority by virtue of their position in the organisation. Legal authority is the authority which is entrusted to a person by the law of the land. For instance, a company is a legal person and has a right to sue others according to the provisions of the Companies Act.

Authority is an important concept in organisational theory and behaviour. Authority is the key to the manager’s job. The hierarchical structure of an organisation is based upon the flow of authority. No manager can discharge his functions and get the job done unless he has the necessary authority. Organised managerial action requires authority. Authority is also the supreme coordinating power or binding force in an organisation.

The features of authority are as under :

1. Authority of a manager is the right to takes decisions and regulate the behaviour of his subordinates. This right enables him to decide and command.
2. Authority is granted to a manager by his superior or the organisation. He exercise his rights by virtue of his formal position in the organisation.
3. The right to give orders is legitimate, i.e., it is socially and ethically acceptable to all concerned. Unless subordinates accept the superior’s command, authority cannot be meaningful and operational.
4. The objective behind the use of authority is to influences the behaviour of the subordinates in the right direction.
5. Authority of a person is not absolute. It is limited by several internal and external factors including the willingness of subordinates to accept the rights of the manager.
6. Authority in itself is an objective thing but its exercise is always subjective. The use of authority is determined by the personality factors of its possessor and the people over whom it is exercised.

 

Distinction Between Power and Authority:

Sometimes, the terms ‘power and authority’ are used synonymously but they are separate, though closely related, concepts. Henri Fayol defined ‘authority’ as the right to give orders and the power to exact obedience. He distinguished between a manager’s official authority of position (formal authority) and his personal authority, which derives from knowledge and experience. Power on the other hand, is the ability to exert influence by which a manager directs the actions of others. The term ‘power’ connotes ability or capacity to do something or to get intended results. A person may have influence on other’s behaviour even without any legal sanction. Power also accompanies the use of authority in the control, direction or utilisation of resources. Persons may derive authority from better knowledge, from access to vital information that they can dispense or withhold strategically, or from psychological forms of dominance and aggression directed towards others.

The main points of distinction between authority and power are as under:

1. There are several sources of power such as reward power, coercive power, referent power, information power, expertise power etc. A person may be powerful by virtue of his position, knowledge, expertise, etc. But authority has only one source the position in the organisational hierarchy. Therefore, power is broader than authority.
2. Authority is associated with the formal organisation and, therefore, it is always formal. But power can be both formal and informal. Authority is impersonal and objective, but power can be personal and Subjective.
3. Power is all pervasive. Authority is vested in a position whereas power may be found in the lowest level also. For example, a trade union leader may have more power than the general manager.
4. Authority is always related to responsibility. Authority and responsibility balance each other. But in case of power, there is no such balancing factor. Persons wielding power might have no specific responsibilities to discharge.
5. Authority has a downward flow from superior to subordinate. A subordinate cannot exercise authority over his superior. Power, on the other hand, can flow in all directions. It is not the exclusive prerogative of superiors, even subordinates can possess it.
6. Authority can be delegated to the subordinates. But some forms of power, e.g., expertise power, can never be delegated.

In short, authority is a downward flowing concept whereas power flows in all directions. Authority can be delegated to the lower levels in the organisation. The lower we go down the hierarchy, the lesser is the authority. But it is not so in case of power which has been defined as the ability or capacity to influence the behaviour of others. If a worker is able to influence the behaviour of a departmental manager, it is implied that the worker has exercised power over the departmental manager. Similarly, the departmental manager may be able to influence the behaviour of his superior, peers and subordinates. Thus, power flows in all directions.

 

Sources of Authority:

There are three different schools of thought about the sources of authority which are discussed below :

1. Formal Authority Theory. According to this theory, all authority originates in the formal structure of an organisation. The ultimate authority in a joint stock company lies with the shareholders. Shareholders entrust the management of the company to the Board of Directors and delegate to it most of their authority. The Board of Directors delegates authority to the chief executive who in turn delegates to the departmental managers and so on. Every manager or executive possesses authority because of his organisational position and this authority is known as formal authority.  Authority conferred by law is also regarded as formal authority. Subordinates accept the formal authority of a manager because of his position in the organisation. The subordinates are aware of the fact that if they disregard the formal authority they will be punished according to the rule and regulations of the company. The formal authority theory further states that the superiors have the right to delegate their authority. Thus, formal authority always flows from top to bottom. Authority is institutionalised power which implies the capacity to get obedience of the subordinates. The formal authority theory is a normative theory. It shows the way individuals should behave and implies that disobedience of lawful and legitimate orders of managers is wrong and indefensible. However, it does not answer certain questions such as: Do managers have the unquestionable right to command and expect compliance when an order seems immoral to workers? What happens if a manager gives an order and the subordinates do not obey?

2. Acceptance Theory. According to this theory, the authority is the power which is accepted by others. Formal authority has no significance unless it is accepted by the subordinates. The degree of effective authority possessed by a manager is measured by the willingness of the subordinates who accept it. 12 Thus, the acceptability of an order will depend upon relative consequences, both positive and negative. Many orders may be fully acceptable, many fully unacceptable, and others only partially acceptable. Barnard maintains that a subordinate will accept an order if

a. he understands it well,

b. he believes it is consistent with the organisational objectives,

c. he believes it compatible with his personal interest, and

d. he is able mentally and physically to comply with it.

In addition to the above conditions, acceptance of authority is fostered by what Barnard called the zone of indifference and Simon referred to as the area of acceptance. The ‘zone of indifference indicates the specific limits that are set by individuals themselves within which they will respond willingly to the exercise of authority over them. In fact, not all orders are obeyed with equal enthusiasm. The zeal or reluctance with which a subordinate carries out an order of his boss is the result of his weighing, often subconsciously, the effect which trying to carry out the order will have upon his personal career. Within this zone the employees will not question the use of authority. But outside this zone, the superiors must earn the acceptance of the employees.

The acceptance theory of authority has certain limitations also. According to it, a manager has authority if he gets obedience from the subordinates. But a manager is not able to know whether his order will be obeyed by his subordinates unless the order is carried out or disobeyed by them. Secondly, the theory emphasises rewards and punishments a superior can use, but it overlooks the influence of social institutions like trade unions.

3. Competence Theory. According to this theory, an individual derives authority because of his personal competence. Urwick identified formal authority as being conferred by organisation, technical authority as being implicit in a special knowledge or skill, personal authority as being conferred by seniority or popularity. Thus, a person may get his order or advice accepted not only because he is having any formal authority, but also because of his personal qualities. These qualities may be technical competence or social prestige in the organisation. For example, a person is expert in a particular field and other people go to him for guidance and follow his advice as if that were an order. From the above discussion, we can conclude that authority of a manager flows from different sources. Formal authority is conferred by the organisation, personal authority by subordinates acceptance and technical authority is implicit in special knowledge or skills. To be effective, a manager needs acceptance authority and competence authority. Nevertheless, formal authority is the foundation of the managerial job.

 

Limits of Authority :

The authority of superior is not absolute. It is subject to various economic, social, legal, political and other factors. Similarly, the authority of a manager is restricted by various factors such as:

1. Physical limitations. Physical laws, climate, geographical factors, etc. restrict managerial authority to a great extent. For example, an order to make Silver from aluminium would be meaningless.
2. Economic constraints. The authority of an executive is restricted by economic constraints. The chief executive of a company would not like to ask his sales personnel to sell products at a high price in a highly competitive market or to ask the purchase department to procure raw materials for use in the next twelve months when capital and storage space are not available for this purpose.
3. Social constraints. The use of managerial authority is also subject to many social limitations. Therefore, the task assigned to employees must conform to the group’s social beliefs, habits and codes of ethics.
4. Legal constraints. Various acts of the Central and State Governments impose restrictions on the exercise of authority by a manager. For instance, a manager can’t direct the workers not to form or join a union.
5. Biological limitations. A manager cannot ask a subordinate to do something which he is not capable of doing. For example, a manager cannot direct a subordinate to climb the sidewall of a building.
6. Organisational constraints. A manager’s authority is limited by the objectives and policies laid down by the top management of the organisation. He can’t go against the internal policies and rules of the organisation.

 

Sources Of Power :

Based on interpersonal relationships, French and Ravan have classified sources of power into five categories as follows:

1. Reward Power. It depends upon the extent to which one has control over rewards that are valued by another. The greater the perceived value of such rewards, greater will be the power. People comply with the wishes or directives of others because doing so produces positive benefits. These rewards can be extrinsic in nature with tangible values or these can be subjective and intrinsic wards such as recognition and praise. In the organisational context, different forms of rewards can be better pay, promotions, favourable performance appraisal, preferred shifts, etc.

2. Coercive Power. The opposite of reward power is the coercive power, i.e., the ability to influence punishment. Fear of punishment may make the subordinate execute the instructions of the boss. Coercive power reflects the extent to which a manager can deny desired rewards or administer punishment to control other people. The more punishments a manager can impose upon the subordinates, the stronger is his coercive power. The coercive power may consist of reprimanding, demotion or firing the subordinates for unsatisfactory performance.

3. Expert Power. Expert power is based on the perception or belief that the influencer has some relevant expertise or specialized knowledge that others do not have. It is more of a personal power rather than organisational power. If the subordinates view their leaders as competent, they would follow their leader. For example, we follow doctor’s advice because of our faith in his knowledge and competence.

4. Legitimate Power. It corresponds to the term ‘authority’. It exists when an influence acknowledges that the influencer is lawfully entitled to exert influence. It is also implied that the influence has an obligation to accept this power. Legitimate power is also known as ‘positional power’ because of authority inherent in the position. It represents the power a person perceives as a result of his position in the formal hierarchy of the organisation. Legitimate power includes power to give rewards and impose punishments.

5. Referent Power. This power is known as charismatic power and is based upon the attraction exerted by one individual over another. This power develops out of admiration of another and a desire to be like that person. Reference power is more of a personal nature than the positional nature. This power is not acquired because of a position but because of personal charisma so that the followers would like to associate themselves with the leader. The stronger the association, the stronger is the power. In the organisational setting, the subordinate would obey his senior, because he wants to behave in the same manner as the superior and the subordinate identifies himself with the superior.

 

Interaction Among Sources of Power:

The five sources of power discussed above are not completely independent of one another. The way the agent uses certain powers can affect the extent of his other powers. For instance, the use of reward power can increase referent power as people like those who reward them. The appropriate use of reward power-specifying desired behaviour and rewarding it when it occurs may also increase expert power by heightening the agent’s perceived credibility and knowledge.

The use of coercive power tends to decrease referent power, in that people tend to avoid those who administer punishments or withhold reward. The judicious use of coercive power-specifying undesired behaviour and punishing it when it occurs can increase expert power. Such use heightens the perceived credibility and expertise of the agent. As with the appropriate use of reward power, the agent is seen as one who does what he says and who is capable of distinguishing undesired from desired behaviour. It is not uncommon for subordinates to resent a manager who lets others “get away with murder” in the performance of their jobs.

The possession of legitimate power can increase referent power. Legitimate power is often mark of high status and honour, and people are attracted to high-status individuals. Possessing legitimate power can also increase expert power, in that targets often associate positions of authority with expertise in the field.

Referent power can probably increase most of the other powers. People place more value on rewards given by attractive than unattractive individuals. Attractive people are attributed more legitimacy and more expertise than they perhaps deserve because of halo effect.

Expert power directly affects legitimate power. People more rapidly accept the authority of those who have expertise and are more willing to accept a system in which knowledgeable individuals wield the authority. Expert power also affects referent power. One who uses expertise judiciously and who accepts the limits of his expertise can increase attractiveness. One who refuses to share expertise, who claims more than he has, or who flaunts it can lose attractiveness.

 

Acquisition Of Power :

There are two bases of power in organisations. The first is the positional power by virtue of the status in the organisation and the other is the personal power because of personal characteristics and knowledge. A successful manager is one who has built up high positional as well as personal power base. The factors contributing to acquisition of both types of power are discussed below.

Factors Contributing to Positional Power

1. Centrality refers to those activities that are most central to the work flow of the organisation. The manager will acquire positional power if the information filters through him. This will give him some say in the work of many sub units. For example, the finance manager approves all the payments to all the departments of the organisation. This gives him an extra power base to affect the behaviour of other departments.
2. When resources in the organisation are scarce, there will be a struggle in the different departments for acquiring these resources. Whosoever is the winner of the struggle, will acquire power. Power will become apparent only when the resources are scarce. When there is abundance in the organisation of different types of resources, scarcity will not be a factor to judge the power.
3. Uncertainty about future events can play havoc with the plans of different departments. Uncertainty may relate to reduction in supply of resources, fall in demand of company’s products, change in government policies, etc. The managers who are able to cope with such uncertainty and who can gain from such uncertainty can acquire power.
4. The more valuable a person is to the organisation, the greater power he holds. There are some people in the organisation, whose contributions are so much, that they become indispensable. This indispensability may be the result of their speciality, expertise and knowledge which cannot be substituted easily by others. Any change in the marketability of such speciality will change the power base as well.

 

Factors Contributing to Personal Power

1. A manager can enhance or acquire personal power through the expertise. Expertise can be gained through education, training and experience. Expertise can also be gained by information gained by having access to data and/or people. To enhance his personal power, the manager must make sure that there is a critical need in the organisation for this knowledge and skills that cannot be conveniently obtained elsewhere.
2. Referent Power. Referent power contributes to a large extent to the personal power of the manager. The manager should have a charisma that attracts the subordinates to him and make them follow him in every way. Pleasant personality characteristics, agreeable behaviour patterns and attractive postures enhance referent power..

1. A person who is hard working and sincere in his efforts will have more personal power because of his expertise and reference. A sincere and hard working person is most sought out for advice. A sincere manager is always respected by the subordinates. Subordinates, generally, depend upon a hard working and sincere manager.

 

Politics In Organisations :

Modern organisations are a fertile place for politics to thrive. In the words of Pfiffner and Sherwood, “Politics is endemic to every organisation, regardless of size, function, or character or ownership. Furthermore, it is to be found in every level of the hierarchy; and it intensifies as the stakes become more important and the area of decision possibilities greater.” Organisational members resort to politics to gain more power, to have command over resources, to have more say in decision-making, to fulfil personal goals, etc. Two important definitions of politics are as under:

“Politics refers to the structure and process of the use of authority and power to affect definition of goals, direction and the other major parameters of the organisation. Decisions are not made in a rational way but rather through compromise, accommodation and bargaining.”

-Tushman

“Politics in an organisation refers to those activities that are not required as part of one’s formal role in the organisation, but that influence or attempt to influence the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organisation. ”

-Farrell and Peterson

Thus, politics refers to those activities in the organisations that are not required as part of one’s formal role in the organisation but that influence, or to influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organisation. From the above definitions, two important points emerge:

1. Political behaviour is outside one’s specified job requirements.
2. It generates efforts to influence the goals, criteria or processes used for decision-making that will result in the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organisation.

The features of organisational politics are as under:

1. Organisational politics involves the use of some kind of authority, power or pressure over other person or groups. Punishments are commonly used for this purpose.
2. Basically, political behaviour is self serving in nature. Attempts are made to use organisational resources for personal benefits or to give some benefits to others.
3. Political behaviour is outside one’s specified job requirements. It involves getting things accomplished that are not formally recognised practices or procedures.
4. Political decisions may not be rational from the organisational point of view. They are usually made to acquire more power.
5. Politics takes place in varying degrees in all organisations and at all levels in an organisation. However, research reveals that organisational politics is more common at the middle and higher levels of management.
6. Political action begins when a member recognises that achievement of his goals is affected by the behaviour of others.
7. Politics is inevitable in organisations. The entire organisation is a political battlefield. Almost all the members play politics at one time or the other. Every member in an organisation has the opportunity play one or more political games. Some people do not utilise this opportunity while others are constantly involved in mind-boggling politics.

Causes of Organisational Politics :

People play politics in organisations because of the following reasons:

1. Lust for Power. An important reason for politics in the organisation is people’s lust for power. People want to acquire and enhance power in the organisation. They aim at increasing the area of their influence. Conflict between line and staff elements is a typical example in this regard.
2. Discretionary Authority. There are some positions in the organisation which have discretionary powers to be used in case of emergency. The use of power depends upon the sole judgement of the position-holder. That is why people indulge in politics to grab such positions or to be very close to such a position-holder.
3. Command Over Scarce Resources. Most of the organisations have limited resources. Any person who has control over allocation of scarce resources enjoys more power. In the process of trying to gain control, political behaviours are exhibited. Political influence plays an important role in how these sources will be distributed to various departments rather than rational needs.
4. Self-Serving Behaviour. Politics involves behaviour that is self-serving as organisational resources are used for personal benefits. In such a case the decision is not rational from the organisation’s viewpoint. All self-serving behaviour cannot be called politics.
5. Saturation in Career. To rise in one’s career, a person needs competence. But when a person does not have the requisite competence, he cannot rise above a certain level. In such a case, he may resort to political behaviour to move up in the organisational hierarchy. This type of behaviour is a universal phenomenon in modern organisations.
6. Organisational Change. Whenever there are changes in the organisational structure or rearrangement of organisation policies, people in the powerful positions have the opportunity to play political games. These changes may include a reorganisation or a planned organisation development effort or even an unplanned change brought about by external forces.

 

Tactics of Organisational Politics (Power Tactics) :

Both individuals and groups play politics in the organisation to have greater say in decision-making and sharing of resources. The commonly used political tactics are as under:

1. Negotiation or Bargaining. It involves negotiation for sharing benefits between the groups and thus avoiding conflicts. Each party to the conflict offers some benefits or concessions to the other so that there can be some stability in their relationship. Collective bargaining agreements between labour and management are the results of negotiations. The party having greater bargaining power is able to get more benefits than the sacrifices made.
2. Competition for Acquisition of Power. The resources with the organisation are limited. Various groups compete with each other to have a greater share of such resources. For this, they try to influence the criteria used as the basis for resource distribution in the form of funds, space, support staff, etc. Each group looks at its relative position in the light of several criteria and then argues for those criteria which are likely to fetch it more power.
3. Cooptation. Under this strategy, the powerholder associates the representatives of other groups in decision-making so as to avoid criticism about misuse the of power. Several companies coopt representatives of suppliers and financial institutions in their Boad of Directors. This strategy is used when there is dependency on other groups for financial support.
4. Alliance with Other Groups. Under this strategy, two or more groups in the organisation may form a coalition or temporary alliance on the basis of their minimum common program. Thus, the members are able to increase their power over groups not in their coalition. It is an interesting mix of cooperation and competition. Member groups cooperate with each other in order to compete more effectively with non-members. The member groups compete with each other to have greater share of power. Coalitions are often used in organisations for having influence on setting of goals and distribution of benefits to the coalition partners.
5. Persuasion. In several cases, persuasion can be used as a political strategy to exercise greater influence in the organisation. Forceful persuasion  when made eloquently is highly effective in influencing others as well as  gaining respect for intelligence and ability. The returns can be very substantial  in this case.
6. Coercion or Pressure. Where persuasion fails, coercive or pressure tactics may be employed. For example, a trade union might threaten a strike or slow down if the management does not accept its demands. In a similar vein, the management might threaten a lock-out in the factory if the trade union does not accept its terms. The use of threats may provoke counter threats rather than concessions. Nonetheless, pressure tactics are a part of power struggle in modern organisations.
7.  Control Over the Agenda of the Meetings. A politically powerful person can control the agenda of the meetings. Decisions can be stalled by removing items from the agendas or they can be manipulated by placing them in particular places on the agenda. The items at the beginning of the agenda are generally, discussed in greater detail and in broader consideration of empirical information as compared to the items which are placed at the end of the agenda.
8. Control Over the Decision Criteria. People who can control the decision criteria can control the decisions as well. In any decision making situation, multiple measures are available for assessing alternatives. Rather than insisting upon one’s preferred alternative, a much more effective political strategy is to suggest that the decision should be based upon the criteria favouring the preferred alternative.
9. Control Over Information or Communication Channel. People who have some control over channels of communication can yield considerable power. People may be in lower level of hierarchy, but they may have political power because of this factor. For example, the secretaries of the important executives the organisation are considered very powerful because they have access to their bosses. The secretary may decide who sees the boss and who doesn’t at a given time. This power may be used for favouring certain people and frustrating the others.

 

Dysfunctions Of Politics:

Organisations may be viewed as political systems wherein individuals acquire and exercise power over each other to satisfy self-interests. This struggle for self-aggrandizement may produce undesirable consequences of dysfunctions. Political behaviour becomes dysfunctional when it hinders the achievement of organisational goals. When the individual and organisational interests are complementary, political behaviour can be beneficial or functional. When the goals of the organisation and those of its members are incongruent, political behaviour becomes dysfunctional. Politics is functional when organisation’s and individuals’ interests interact. The rest of the behaviour is dysfunctional.

Some of the dysfunctional aspects (unintended consequences) of political behaviour as under:

1. Power Struggle or Conflicts. At times, people play games (politics) to acquire power in the organisation. They may also indulge in jockeying for power. Such games and jockeying creates a healthy atmosphere in the organisation. Organisational health suffers because the members’ efforts are directed towards power struggle rather than performance.
2. Biased Performance Appraisal. It is not always possible to measure and evaluate the performance of employees objectively. Managers, therefore, resort to subjective evaluation of performance. Whenever employees feel that the evaluation is inaccurate and biased, they resort to dysfunctional political behaviour.
3. Delay in Feedback. Feedback on how well an employee is doing in his job is not instant. Employees are often moved from one position to another. By the time an employee’s contribution in his current job is fully assessed and communicated, he might have moved to some other job. Due to this time lag the feedback system, employees frequently focus not on performance but on visible actions like flattery, pseudo-performance, eyewash tactics, etc. to get promotions and other benefits.
4. Promotion of Self Interest. Political behaviour is, generally, motivated and guided by self interests. If there is a conflict between self interests and organisational goals, and self interest would obstruct the organisational goals and politics would have negative effects. For example, if the personnel manager, manipulates the selection process, to appoint somebody who is not competent enough, the impact on the organisation will be dysfunctional. But if an individual behaves in a way that is compatible with the organisational goals, to promote his self interest, such behaviour is functional.
5. Adverse Impact on Employees. Power politics may weaken morale and demotivate the employees. Victims and victors may be created and energy and time may be frittered away on planning attacks and counter attacks instead of concentrating on task accomplishments.
6. Inequitable Distribution of Power. Some individuals may be able to acquire a major portion of the organisational power because of organisational politics. This power may be used to promote self interest, exploit other people and displace organisational goals.

 

Managing Political Behaviour :

The political behaviour in organisations is impossible to be eliminated in toto. Therefore, efforts should be made to restrict it in such a manner as to limit its dysfunctional effects. Management may take the following steps to minimise the dysfunctions of politics :

1. Clarity of Roles. The management should define the roles and authority of organisational members as clearly as possible. Job definitions, rules and procedures may be used for this purpose. Clarity in roles will help to minimise favouritism, nepotism, etc.
2. Ethical Role Model. If the manager himself plays political games, he conveys a message to the subordinates that such behaviour is acceptable. That is why, top managers should provide positive and ethical role models themselves. They should make it clear to subordinates that such political games will not be accepted which are detrimental to employees’ morale and organisational climate. Lower level people will accept or ignore politics only if the top management does so.
3.  Transparent Appraisal System. The management should install an objective system of performance appraisal of subordinates. The scope for bias in appraisal should be reduced to the minimum. Moreover, performance should be the only basis of rewards such as increments, promotion, etc. This will check political activity on the part of subordinates to gain more and more awards. They will be compelled to concentrate on their jobs.
4. Fair Distribution of Resources. Various factions compete for financial and human resources in the organisation. A systematic approach for allocating resources according to justifiable criteria is advantageous and has the potential of reducing excessive political behaviour. Firmly established policies are mandatory and top management must be careful to apply them consistently. Otherwise, politics can evolve as a primary competitive approach in which empire building predominates. If this occurs, it would be difficult to develop team-work and cooperation among various units of the organisation.
5. Effective Communication. The bottlenecks in communication throughout the organisation should be removed. A person becomes politically powerful if he can control important information. If the communication system in the organisation is open, political behaviour can be constrained. If necessary information is available to all the people regarding the availability and allocation of scarce resources, then it would not be necessary for people to engage in political behaviour to acquire or control the information.
6. Understanding the Aspirations of Employees. The management must know the perceptions of the subordinates on various issues. If the management is responsive to the needs and aspirations of the employees, undesirable political behaviour will be reduced to a great extent. The management should not condone or promote gossips which usually lead to spreading rumours and inaccurate information.