The Effect Of Power And Politics On Productivity In Organizations

Positive and Negative Power In Organizations

Using your organisation or one that you are familiar with as a case study, analyse and critically discuss the impact that your topic areas may have on the culture of the organisation.

Power and politics have been attributed to affecting businesses right from governing how decision-making process gets implemented to how employees associate with each other (Zeiger, n.d.). In both large and small enterprises, the effect of power rests on whether workers engage positive or negative power in influencing others in places of work. Politics may be used in influencing the people who have power thus dictating whether the general culture of the work environment promotes productivity.

Positive forms of power

The use of positive power in an organization entails promoting productivity. This entails according to employees the authority to make concrete decisions, giving awards to employees for their robust and excellent performance and promoting employees who show strong performance to be in charge of other employees. Positive power has the effect of boosting employee confidence and motivate the same workers to work harder. It also involves the people in executive positions to command respect through workers’ respect and communication as opposed to coercive engagements. The rates associated with employee retention are high when employees are accorded power to present their concerns and work in unity in the organization.

On the other hand, when leaders fail to show respect to employees working under them, then they can be said to be possessing negative power. With this type of leadership, employees are motivated to perform and deliver exemplary results by being threatened with job loss and other forms of punishment or favoritism is extended to particular employees as opposed to recognizing their endeavor of multiple workers. This does not only see the quality of work decrease under this type of regime but also results in high turnover rates in an enterprise.

Employees that have mastered the art of navigating organizational politics are deemed to be more productive compared to those who are left out in the dark. In order to boost productivity, organizations are tasked with developing a political culture that is not only easy but also simple for workers to fathom. Establishment of transparent policies and chains of authority makes it simple for workers to find solutions they require thus spending more time on delivering quality work. A work climate that emphasizes collaboration and equality when it gets to the treatment of employees assists in preventing and curbing conflicts that can impact negatively on productivity.

The Importance of Positive Power in an Organization

Organizations that cultivate climates exhibited and dominated by negativity and conflicts end up suffering in the long-run. The encouragement of employs to indulge themselves in unethical behavior so that they can develop and aspects of favoritism crown the quality of work, an organization experiences decrease in productivity levels and turnover rates that are high. An organization that lacks policies that are transparent and clear chains of command makes employees spend more time seeking answers while trying to attempt to fix issues rather than engaging in the completion of quality work.

Organizations of the modern world provide fertile yet perfect ground for the prosperity of politics, and the term is commonly heard from individuals who work in organizations that are either large or small. It is only when people in such organizations convert their power into action that they are deemed to be actively involved in politics. The aspect of power at times exerts much pressure as it is one of the most issues among employees and prompts several employees to quit their jobs in such organizations in the event that political waters rise above their heads. Employees who exhibit a great deal of knowledge and expertise but fail to demonstrate the ability to handle political environment get disappointed easily and this has the effect of affecting their level of output.

Organization politics can be explained as the accomplishment of personal motives and prioritizing individual interest over organizational interest without paying attention to the effect on the organization. The power scene and the use of politics in a firm can be characterized by individuals who are the cause of problems affecting the growth of their fellow workmates. Such employees as they strive to climb up the ladder in their profession, they encounter problems that are imposed along their way. Such problems are not authentic but are rather created deliberately with the aim of hindering one’s growth and pulling such people down.

Some of the business activities are more attached to credibility gaps compared to the manner in which executives view and handle organizational life (Zalenzik, 2013). A sense of disbelief arises whenever managers attempt to make decisions in a rational manner while a number of participants understand that politics play an important if not an overriding role. Whatever motive organizations are formed for that is either for purposes as systems of reward or entities for problem-solving, they still remain political structures. This translates to organizations run based on delegating authority and developing a stage to exercise the power. It is thus no surprise that people who are motivated to seize and use power endure a familiar and accommodating environment in business.

The Harms of Negative Power in an Organization

Also, executives become reluctant to identify the platform for power both in personal motivation and in institutional relationships. In one way or another, power and politics are considered dirty words. In connecting these words to the context of personalities in enterprises, some managers retreat into the safety of institutional logics.

When it comes to the issue of competition for resources, conflicts of interest always suffice and are easily identified for instance when allocating funds for research and development. However, such conflicts are subject to bargaining procedures where all parties to the contest have to validate their involvement (Cairns, 2017). The secondary impacts of bargaining do entail organizational and power matters. However, the fact that such power issues ensue debate on economic challenges as opposed to leading them to develop a manifest content that can be subjected more readily compared to sectors where major considerations are channels for delegating authority.

In such scenarios, that entail constructing a formal organization entity, a succession of management, promotions, and conflicts of interest are dire and open mainly because there are no subjective mechanisms to determine what is a wrong or right course of action (Verdasca, 2011). The crucial question to be asked is who is to be entrusted power and position. This includes specific people with both their strengths and weaknesses and a particular historical content where actions are interpreted as symbolic.

The case of a large corporation such as General Motors, inadvertently proved what every top seasoned manager knows (Zalenzik, 2013). Those power coalitions established to outdo instances of rivalry and the play with regards to personal ambitions are fragile solutions. Following the appointment of Cole to replace Knudsen that led to the resignation of Knudsen terminated instances of an illusion that argues that the logical processes in organizations are independent or preside over human emotions and relations that bind people together. If there is an organization that can boast of rationality is General Motors (Entrepreneur, 2015). The display of primary corporate life to the public more so the in the ranks of the executive is not logical at all and can be tainted to the point that the security that people think that they get from the belief in a particular idea as such idea is attached to the corporate image.

The issue of Knudsen being discharged from being the president of Ford indicates that personalities and politics of organizations are fewer aberrations and more instructions of life in large corporations (Zalenzik, 2013). However, as General Motors strive in sustaining its image, many executives like to ignore what this illustration displays, those corporations are political entities which survive by feeding on the psychology of comparison. In trying to understand and grasp something from the psychology of comparison drives us into the self-esteem theory in all its manifestations that have both conscious and unconscious sources. Despite enlightening in a general perspective, and drawing a realistic image of individuals and organizations, there are some advantages that accrue in such knowledge and include: increased degree of freedom to act directly instead of beating about the bush about a problem. Also, there is greater subjectivity with regards to individuals’ strengths and limitations and thus the ability to utilize them effectively.

Developing a Political Culture in an Organization

Corporation life, when viewed through the lens of politics, may be termed as a series of contradictions (Nwaeke & Ugiabe, 2012). As a matter of fact, it is the practice of rationality though its zeal and energy originate from the ideas that dominate the minds of people in power, whose content and origins are vaguely perceived. It handles sources of authority and their delegations yet rely on the availability of balance of power that rests on the shoulder of the individual who triggers actions and gets an outcome. There are many rituals associated with such a practice such as participation and power-sharing yet results entail power consolidation along with a key figure to whom other people make emotional associations.

The structure of a formal organization adopts a coalition among its core executives. However, the forms are different and also psychological significance in this context may differ. However, it is apparent that no organization can operate without power consolidation in the association of a key figure with his assigned team (Geppert & Dörrenbächer, 2014). Such a coalition between the chief executive and his subordinate should not exist in the first place. It may surpass the second level as witnessed in the context of presidents of the United States who fail to establish relationships with their cabinets but instead depend on executive staff outside the formal setups.

The lack of a coalition within the executive structure of a corporation can generate severe challenges for instance paralysis that exists in the form of inability to make concrete decisions and to examine performance and an overt rivalry in the executive team.

The failure of a coalition to develop stems from chief executive and issues in developing relationships that are confident (Zalenzik, 2013). There are many causes that are complex but they usually revolve around the kind of defenses by the chief executive and what he needs as a mechanism of alleviating stress. The departure of Knudsen was triggered by palace revolt and is a perfect illustration of the failure in the development of a coalition.

Though it is a fact that Henry Ford II appointed Knudsen as the leader of the company, Knudsen’s absolute power as a tyro to an established structure rested on his effort of developing an alliance (Zalenzik, 2013). The specific person who seemed ideal and critical in forming a strategic alliance was Lee Iacocca. However, for some reason, both Knudsen and Iacocca seemed to compete for authority and influence rather than soliciting a pool of power to which both parties would contribute as it the case with many workplaces. Due to the lack of a coalition, postures of rivalry and battle for leadership ensued. Ford on the other hand acted by weighing power exhibited on one side as compared to the other side. However, it is not clear why coalition failed to emerge as with the case of Knudsen.

The Importance of Collaboration and Equality in a Work Environment

Though in any failure the ideal place to identify for the flaws is in the characters of the main victims and the nature of defenses they exhibit which translates to some coalitions being probable irrespective of how robust other variables demonstrate their necessity.

However, defensiveness on the role played by the chief executive could also lead in developing a coalition that is unworkable and unrealistic, with the main character being isolation that is self-driven as its repercussions (Zalenzik, 2013).One of the defensive mechanisms that are normally engaged and has the effect of developing coalitions that are unrealistic or isolation of a top-ranking official is fear to create rivalry.

A coalition that is realistic aligns with formal authority and professionalism with emotional attachments vital for developing and sustaining a coalition. The top executives fear of rivals or jealousy on the part of junior employees of the authority by the chief executive can in extreme cases lead to distortions that are extremely paranoid. As such people become suspicious of others and through their subjective perceptions and estimations of their fantasies develop counterplots.

There are some scenarios that occur where there a good number of subordinates share and aspire the same fantasy of being leaders (Goddard & Nexon, 2016). Suppose the same subordinates feel that their rights are infringed based on their relationship with the chief executive, such a condition can be the platform for developing a collision and this leads to a critical episode that entails replacement of the key figure.

For instance, the executives of an Interpublic Group, a complex estimated worth to be $ 700 million and specialized in advertising and public relations facilitated and advocated for the resignation of the chief executive by the name Harper. Harper had a long history of the company as she had managed the company for a period of not less than 18 years. Marion had built the company into becoming the global largest conglomerate in the distribution of marketing services. In trying to expand the company, Harper led the company into acquisition processes, formed new enterprises and widened his scope into global branches and firms. As it often occurs the innovator becomes careless when it comes to controlling the empire built such that financial crisis becomes apparent.

In the case of Harper, it is either he was unable to identify the gravity of his financial challenges and specifically, the importance of allowing cash balances to operate below the minimum set requirements as per the agreements with the financial institutions.

Harper appeared to be more careless in a more telling manner. Instead of forming strong coalitions with his executive team, he depended on the development of individual ties which controlled most of his relationships. If any of his executives offended him, Harper automatically exiled the offender to one of the branches considered as remote.

When matters of financial constraints became too hard to bear, the aggrieved managers who were once relied on Harper walked out and formed their coalition and were successful in combining votes that were used to cast out Harper, firing him in return. Though there is little information on the aftermath of this revolution, the coalition that had been formed faced challenges of its own kind and this involved though not limited to power contention

References

Cairns, T. D., 2017. Power, Politics, and Leadership in the Workplace. Employment Relations, 43(4), pp. 5-11.

Entrepreneur, 2015. 10 Examples of Companies With Fantastic Cultures. [Online]
Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284732729_The_impact_of_teamwork_on_employee_performance
[Accessed 28 April 2018].

Geppert, M. & Dörrenbächer, C., 2014. Politics and Power within Multinational Corporations: Mainstream Studies, Emerging Critical Approaches and Suggestions for Future Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(2), pp. 226-244.

Goddard, S. E. & Nexon, D. H., 2016. The Dynamics of Global Power Politics: A Framework for Analysis. Journal of Global Security Studies, 1(1), pp. 4-18.

Nwaeke, L. & Ugiabe, M., 2012. Power and politics in Organizations. [Online]
Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275031275_POWER_AND_POLITICS_IN_ORGANISATIONS
[Accessed 20 May 2018].

Verdasca, A. T., 2011. Workplace Bullying, Power and Organizational Politics:A case-study in the Portuguese Banking sector. [Online]
Available at: https://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~socius/publicacoes/wp/WP_6_2011.UV.pdf
[Accessed 20 May 2018].

Zalenzik, A., 2013. Power and Politics in Organizational Life. Harvard Business Review, 21(2), pp. 124-136.

Zeiger, S., n.d. The Impact of Power and Politics in Organizational Productivity. [Online]
Available at: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/impact-power-politics-organizational-productivity-35942.html
[Accessed 20 May 2018].