Politics

When we were growing up, most of us were taught that if we worked hard and got a good education, we would be rewarded either in the form of pay or position. However, somewhere along the way the premise seemed to change to “it is who you know” that counts. When this happens in an organization, it is a sign that politics is an important feature of the firm's culture.

Politics is apparent “when employees convert their power into action to exert influence, earn rewards, and advance their careers”(p. 305).¹ Since organizational members are in competition with each other for limited resources, politics will always be present to some degree. However, if it is allowed to flourish and/or becomes a dominant force in how things are done or decisions are made, it can be very damaging.

Leaders have a role in the level of politics tolerated in an organization. That is, politics tends to increase in "cultures characterized by low trust, role ambiguity, unclear performance systems, zero-sum reward allocation practices....and [when there are] self-serving senior managers" (p. 177).¹ One practice by leaders that can cause political behavior is the division of workers into in-groups versus out-groups. It is very natural and common for a leader to develop a trusted group of advisors (an in-group), but when it exceeds certain limits or it is to the exclusion of others offering ideas and input, it may be problematic.

Some of the problem results from the benefits derived from being the selected few. The strong inner-circle may often be rewarded with better positions, more pay and more enriching and fascinating projects. Unfortunately, those in the out-group can feel left out – they are not invited to important meetings, perhaps cannot seem to get that promotion they had hoped for and may be at the lower pay rung.

This appears to be a natural feature created by leaders in many organizations. If one can get into the inner circle, he or she gets ahead. Unfortunately, unless the leader is aware of the problems this can cause, it may seed political behavior. For example, those in the out-group may clamor for position, leading to behaviors designed to advance their personal career. It may cause the use of tactics like ingratiation to the leader or taking credit for the work of others.

Leaders who want to prevent these problems must take great pains to be more egalitarian and keep the playing field level. Even with an inner circle, leaders should seek input and advice from others as a means to expand the pool of people who feel included. There is a wide range of activities that leaders can implement to assist.

Unfortunately, many leaders are oblivious (or don’t care) about this effect. If left to fester, it can cause an array of problems (some I have written about before). Consider a group that is trying to execute a significant project and there is one member who has strong political connections to the most senior leader in the organization (i.e. is part of his or her inner circle). What can happen in this case? To start, nothing negative would happen if the in-group member does not act on his/her status or the senior leader refuses to accept the political behavior. Alternatively, if the member exerts his political power and the leader accepts it, the remaining team members might feel demoralized when they learn this one member has the power to override their decisions. Thus, the project's movement forward may be hindered or halted.

Another negative outcome of allowing high levels of political behavior is that worker motivation can drop. When our parents told us to deliver value and we would be rewarded –  only to find out that the leader’s friend or brother is chosen for our target position – one may lose interest because there is no longer a clear path to success. If that is the case, why bother?

One theory that offers insights into how a worker may react to political behavior is called Equity Theory.² Equity Theory reveals that when a person compares him or herself to others and perceives that he or she is being "treated unfairly," a reaction is generated that serves to return the situation to "equity." For example, assume two individuals are equal in position, tenure, education and productivity/performance in an organization, but one learns the other is paid 25% more for the same job. This may cause the individual to feel the need to rebalance the situation by taking one or more actions. One action is to leave the organization, another is to lower their work output and, finally, he or she might recast the other person as truly more effective and so on. Ultimately, as Equity Theory suggests, it is damaging to the organization to have perceptions of inequity², and leaders should take action to mitigate these impressions.

Research reveals that healthy organizations have lower levels of politics and political behavior.³ There are some antidotes to mitigate the problem:

• Transparency around processes and decisions are measures that can reduce political behavior.
  
  
• There are some individual traits that signal a person may be political in nature (e.g. Machiavellian Personality)¹ and, therefore, employee selection can play a role.
  
  
• Installing a fair and equitable process for promotions is another solution. While a leader can be an advocate for a particular person, it is best if there is a fair process for the decision; valid human resource processes, including appraisal systems, can be of benefit in this regard.
  
  
• Similarly, decision-making in groups should prevent the exercise of influence by a single person. Organizations can install decision-making protocols that require certain steps are followed when larger decisions are made.
  
  
• Project planning protocols are also a good mechanism to improve and structure processes; it can be used to prevent some of the underlying problems.
  
  
• Clarifying roles and installing valid human resource performance processes can reduce political behavior.

Excessive political behavior renders an organization unhealthy, and this dysfunction can hurt performance and financial results. Leaders need to be aware of their role in creating the conditions for political behavior to occur (creating in-groups) and take action to mitigate.

Please feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Robbins, S. & Judge, T. (2012). Essentials of Organizational Behavior (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

² Robbins, S. & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

³ Lencioni, P. (2012). The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.