Organizational politics
 This page is a stub. It is not ready for publication and is used to aggregate information about a subject. You can add further reading and add information to the page. If you want to prepare this page for publication please consults with the creator of this page. |
Organizational politics or workplace politics are interactions between members of the group, that are influancing the way decision are taken in the organization. To deliver pro-organizational decision, one has to understand the politics, and kno how to desolve self-intrests decisions.
For instance, sometime when one manager is afraid that some oher manger will get into his teritory, he may resist a decision that may be good for the organization, but bad for him.
Contents
Causes
Causes of "irational" decision making in an organization:
- Fear that somebody else may takeover my ability to influance and get promoted.
- I want to revange for somthing wrong that other in the organization did to me (emotional bank).
- I want to make other negotite with me, and therefore take me into account and make me more important in decision making (Ariel Sharon used this tacitics many time (Ha' Roe'he)) .
- Lose of control, due to inability to undestand the decision, and a great need for control)
- Need for control, power and promotion: because of limited resources, one have to have advantage in gaining access to the resources a head of others. To do so, one has to harm others, make them percived as less capable, and he himself, should look much better adapted and capable of inheriting the position. It may make some, to criticize and dismiss other members suggestions,and use authoritative voice.
One other reason is that managers, with low ability to collaborate rationally (usually with low ACC activity (conservatives) , yet with high motivation to control and high capabilities of social learning (conservatives). So they use their strength in social manipulation to gain control over others and, and eliminate any resistance. The players that will play the most destructive games will those with high need for control, low ability to collaborate effectively, and high level of fear from criticism (so the consciences is that they learn from criticism, which is a tool for learning).
Extreme short-term pressure and uncertenty encourage game-playing (t.y: when people in this situations they have difficulties in collaborative decision making: due to coordination problem and usage of FFFF decision system.)[1]. Anxiety promotes game playing[2]. The main reason may be due to anxiaty that some need will not be fulfilled[3].
Specific Causes and Solutions
I suggest that the basic causes of office games are ego wars. In ego wars, members in organizations try to control the situation by several tactics.
Why do we use force? We use force to submit others to our will.
Why do we gossip and give bad reputation to our raivles? To know that we are better, To make many people hate our enemy, and as a group, to knock the enemy down, and clear the way for us.
Why do we keep important knowledge to ourselves? To be important to decision makers. If they will know, they will not need us. To add selective information that will promote our hidden agendas. To make decision makers unaware of alternatives that are uncomfortable to our goals.
Why do we stick to higher order decision makers? To get more of their time and attention, so we can influence them. We can better influence less knowledgable and less able decision makers. We falter the decision makers, and become friends with them.
Why do we criticize? To stop others from doing things we do not want. We are passive-aggressive. Conservatives, with mind-closure and need for obedience will need a leader that will tell them what to do, and they will just criticize to prevent him from doing things we think are ineffective or harmful to us. To change wen need to be active in decision making and and compiling to the decisions. We should be more suggestive, and to contribute to the finding and developing of solutions.
What conservative managers like? People how promote their needs without any need for their intervention. People who are self-motivated, ambitious and deliver what they promised, without skirmishes. People how understand the political arena and know how to maneuver past it to achieve their goal. But managers afraid of people who are to powerful, who got to much legitimacy from others, and can replace them. So to avoid this situation, they will restrict the knowledge of their subordinates and will restrict their authority to make decisions.
All this can be reduced, if the decision process is much more collaborative and effective, so it will promote everybody's needs, and results decisions that are win-win situation. And also, if Horner and status will be made by real merits and contributions, and that everybody will be loved and honored (this is also a result of good decision making process, so nobody need to fight the others). Also wage differences should be less steep, otherwise, most self-centered and and Maslow 1 will use any means to go to the top.
Because we are motivated by our needs, we need to make such gradient of satisfaction (like salary (Maslow 1 and 4), power to decide (Maslow 2), friends (Maslow 3), honor (Maslow 4), mates (Maslow-new)) that will make people to inspire to higher places, but not in such a way as to make them fight others. And we have to create win-win decision making process.
Tactics
To overcome the lack of real abilities, caused by over-confidence, managers will use organizational politics. They will try to look important, and very-busy.They will blame others of lack of achiving the goals, They will use exclusive knowledge, as an advantage to manipulate the system to their needs, while preventing from non-colation mambers this knowledge. They will use this knowledge as a resource in exchange favors for other benefits. They will connect to the higher rancks managment, and they will show that they have good connections to higher powers in the organization[4].
See interesting paper[5]
Sending Others
Making others fight your war: you may notice that a naive member,that have a tendency to fight. you may infuriate him about your target, and let him attack him, and giving a bad name with gossip. This way you stay clean, and make your enemy look bad.
Gossip
Using gossip to create bad name for other member,and therfore to let him look less able in front of his group and superiors.
Marginalized Game
When there is a new memeber in a group, which shine above all, the chalnged managers can make him feel unimportant by assigning to him unimportant and very duel missions. Do not invite him to important meetings, and keeping from him important information needed for achieving his goals. when the target of this game suggest something, the others criticize him heavily. when he complain, you tell him he has to play the team game. The marginalized game aim is to reduce the power of a strong players, and downsized them to a manageable player. it is used by conservative players. (Games in workplace .p 2).
Hidden Agendas
Hidden agendas are goals or needs a person or a group is hiding form the rest of the group. The hiding person or group will try to manipulate the decision making process in such a way that their hidden agendas will get high ROI by the group decision and resulting actions. To enter a hidden agenda into the large group consideration the hiding person or group will camouflage the agenda as the group interests.
Sandbaging
You deliberately show that the goal of your plans is too high, so you can ask for more resources, and when you succeed, you look like superhero.
Scapegoating
blaming others for the failure, in order to avoid critisicim. It is used to "get of the hook" if some results are bad, to create bad reputation to rivals on limited resources like promotion and important projects.
Further readings
Goldstein & Read Games At Work[6]
- A full list of games can be found in Games at Work", p18 and in the appendix
Berne, Eric, Games People Play[7]: The games from individual psychological viewpoint.
Solutions
"When a company’s culture favors transparency, intellectual honesty, teamwork, and open debate, the prevalence of game playing is usually rather low. In contrast, fear-based, strongly hierarchical cultures, for example, tend to encourage game playing"[8] Special individual care also reduce game-playing(ibid).
Dissolveing Tensions
Because many of the causes of workplace politics are caused by grudge between members, these animosities should be dissolved.There are many ways to disolve animosities. Listening circles are good way to dissolve tensions. Gaing mutual SON and perspectives are also important the solving the problem.
Transparency
because gossip can be very harmful to the image of members, and can serve as abase for manipulation, dishonesty and wars, it is better to make everything transparency, and to deal with conflicts in a constructed way.
Collaborative Decision Making
When members in a decision making process have hidden agenda, they use partial evidence that support decision in their favor or they criticize evidence or conclusion that goes against their interests. In an open decision process, partial information and invalid criticism, are met with opposition, therefore resulting a more balanced results that serves the needs of more people (as long as the group can keep balanced decision process). Some time, when the decision goes against the hidden interests, one can "blow" the process, by using political power to null the process.
Choosing the best decision makers or making the organization more flat
because one of the main reason for the conflicts are fights for getting control on the organization or subunit in the organization, if a good practice in selecting the beset decision maker and motivators, then people will acknowledge the upper decision makers, and I have sent that when there is a good manager, people like to work under his management. the best managers are those, how can take good decision, usually after hearing all relevant inputs, get the decision and explain the decision. and if the manager has an ability to highly motivate his workers and achieve high ROI, then people will want to let them control. the problem starts, when there are unsuited managers. Good managers, also need to know how to solve conflicts in his team, and elaborate high team spirit.
Truth, courage and building the organization
If truth is highly valued, and building a team spirit is in place and good decision making practices are in place, people will not be afraid and will not be intimidated by others, and so, less games will take place.
Courage to say the right thing in the right time[9]
emotional intelligence reduce game playing and increase authentic human interactions[10].
Example of Companies with high level of democracy
Further readings
Reference
- ↑ Games at work p.17
- ↑ Games at work p.65
- ↑ Games at work p.139 (Identify your needs)
- ↑ Allen, Robert W., et al. "Organizational politics." California Management Review 22.1 (1979): 77-83.
- ↑ political tactics
- ↑ Games At Work - How to recognize and reduce office politics Goldstein, Read and Cashman April 2009, Jossey Bass Wiley, ISBN 978-0-470-26200-9
- ↑ Berne, Eric, Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships, Jan. 2010, Penguin Books Ltd., ISBN 978-0-14-104027-1
- ↑ games at work, p.17
- ↑ games at work, loc 150
- ↑ games at work, loc 162
- ↑ The seven day weekend by Ricardo Semler
- ↑ An intreview with the CEO Bipul Sinah on Globes (Hebrew)
- ↑ Cropanzano, Russell, et al. "The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress." Journal of Organizational Behavior 18.2 (1997): 159-180.
- ↑ Kacmar, K. Michele, and Robert A. Baron. "Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research." (1999).
- ↑ Vashdi, Dana R., E. R. A. N. VIGODA‐GADOT, and Dvir Shlomi. "ASSESSING PERFORMANCE: THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATES AND POLITICS ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS'PERFORMANCE." Public Administration (2012).