Reflections on Organizational Politics and Power

It surprises me to discover that politics is defined as the resolution of different interests as found in Morgan’s book. “...In its original meaning the idea of politics stems from the view that, where interests are divergent, society should provide a means of allowing individuals to reconcile their differences through consultation and negotiation.” (Morgan, p. 150) I never knew that before. And to think the idea of politics for unity was advocated by Aristotle. I somehow missed this idea in my learnings before. This new discovery allows me to see politics with new lenses. I always thought of politics as a system that harbors discontent and destroys harmony. Politics for me used to be something that involved devious plotting and scheming and lying and cheating. Something advocated by the followers of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu. I never thought it as a tool for positive change. I guess this notion is because I have seen so many victims of organization politics in the workplace. And there were also occasions where I was the target of organizational politics, too.

Perhaps it is because of my Asian background but I believe that the cycle of organizational politics can be likened to the cyclical flow of nature. He/she who is the power center and the political maverick today just might be the victim tomorrow as the otherwise becomes true.

I could compare this to the metaphor of the bird and the piranha in the Amazon River. I saw the narrative on the National Geographic channel one day, and the message resonated.

During the rainy seasons when the Amazon River is full to the brim, piranhas living in the river jump out, grab, and eat the birds nesting in the trees found along the basin. It is a graphic sight. But the balance of power shifts during the summer, when the basin is nearly empty of water. The piranhas lay on the almost dry basin, helpless for the birds to feast on them as in a buffet.

So depending on the season, it is either the bird or the piranha that lives till another time comes.

Comparably, just like Morgan illustrates:  “A manager may control an important budget, have access to key information, and be excellent at impression management and be a powerful person for all these reasons. But his ability to draw on and use these sources of power is underpinned by various structural factors, such as intercorporate power plays or an impending merger that will eliminate his job. Many powerful managers have been the victims of downsizing.” (Morgan, p. 191)

If I had the power to change the world, I would push for soft power like I mentioned in my interview assignment. “Soft power” is like “a rough and ready power neutral relationship where a balance of sorts is possible.” (Rogers, Jenny, Coaching Skills: A Handbook, p.232)   I learned a lot from my interview with a senior manager in Satyam. He is an example of a pluralist manager with “soft power”. My subject fits the description of Morgan’s pluralist manager. He “accepts the inevitability of organizational politics, recognizing that because individuals have different interests, aims, and objectives, employees are likely to use their membership in the organization for their own ends. Management is thus focused on balancing and coordinating the interests of organizational members so that they can work together within the constraints set by the organization’s formal goals.” (Morgan, p. 198)  For my subject, it is exactly working together to become a win win situation because both manager and employee, leader and follower equalize each other’s interests, and both parties are empowered to make a difference.