3 conditions that might give rise to organizational politics
Arundhathi Baburaj
✔ Helping people & brands communicate finer ✔ Academician | Researcher | Consultant
Substitutability, resource allocation, and organizational challenges are three common conditions within organizations that often give rise to politics.
Substitutability refers to the extent to which employees or resources can be replaced or substituted within an organization. When individuals or resources are highly substitutable, it means that their unique contributions are relatively less important, and they can be easily replaced by others without significantly affecting the overall functioning of the organization. Low substitutability suggests that individuals or resources have specialized skills or knowledge that are not easily replaceable. The ways in which politics are conducted in organizations with respect to substitutability:
1. Resource hoarding: Individuals or departments with substitutable skills or resources may engage in politics by hoarding or controlling specific resources. By limiting access to these resources, they can enhance their power and influence within the organization, making it more difficult for others to replace them.
2. Information manipulation: Individuals with specialized knowledge or skills may strategically manipulate or withhold information to maintain their importance and relevance. By controlling access to critical information, they can create dependencies and hinder the ability of others to substitute or replace them.
3. Coalitions and alliances: In organizations where substitutability is high, individuals or groups may form coalitions or alliances to protect their interests. By joining forces with others who possess similar skills or roles, they can collectively exert influence and negotiate for better outcomes, making it harder for others to substitute their contributions.
4. Office politics and favouritism: Substitutability can lead to traditional office politics, such as forming alliances, engaging in favouritism, or engaging in social maneuvering. Individuals may engage in personal tactics to enhance their standing within the organization, positioning themselves as irreplaceable or preferred choices for certain roles or projects.
5. Competing for promotions and opportunities: In organizations where substitutability is high, individuals may engage in political behaviour to compete for promotions and career advancement opportunities. They may strategically align themselves with influential individuals, engage in self-promotion, or undermine the competition to increase their chances of being selected over others who may be seen as potential substitutes.
6. Undermining substitutes: Individuals may engage in politics by deliberately undermining potential substitutes. They may discredit or devalue the skills or contributions of others to maintain their own significance within the organization. This can involve spreading rumours, sabotaging their work, or engaging in negative tactics to diminish the perceived value of potential substitutes.
7. Creating dependencies: Individuals or groups may strategically create dependencies on their specialized skills or resources to enhance their power and limit the potential for substitution. By making themselves indispensable in certain areas, they can exert influence and negotiate favourable outcomes for themselves, making it challenging for others to replace or bypass their contributions.
Resource allocation refers to the process of distributing and assigning resources within an organization, such as financial resources, personnel, time, and other assets. The ways in which politics are conducted in organizations with respect to resource allocation:
1. Lobbying and influencing decision-makers: Individuals or groups may engage in political behaviour by lobbying and exerting influence over decision-makers responsible for resource allocation. They may strategically present their case, leverage personal connections, or use persuasive tactics to sway resource allocation decisions in their favour.
2. Coalition-building: In order to increase their influence over resource allocation, individuals or departments may form coalitions or alliances with others who share similar resource needs or goals. By joining forces, they can pool their influence, negotiate collectively, and increase the likelihood of securing a larger share of resources.
3. Information manipulation: Politics in resource allocation can involve the manipulation or withholding of information. Individuals or groups may strategically control or present information in a biased manner to shape resource allocation decisions. By selectively highlighting their contributions or downplaying the value of others, they aim to secure a more favourable allocation for themselves.
4. Strategic positioning and self-promotion: Individuals or departments may engage in political tactics by strategically positioning themselves and self-promoting their contributions to the organization. They may emphasize their importance, showcase their achievements, or highlight their potential impact to increase their chances of receiving a larger share of resources during allocation processes.
5. Bargaining and negotiation: Politics in resource allocation often involve bargaining and negotiation between stakeholders. Individuals or groups may engage in political behaviour by employing negotiation tactics, making strategic concessions, or leveraging their influence to secure a more favourable allocation for themselves.
6. Favouritism and personal biases: Resource allocation decisions can be susceptible to favouritism or personal biases of decision-makers. Politics may occur when resources are allocated based on personal preferences rather than objective criteria. Individuals with personal relationships or connections to decision-makers may gain an advantage, while others may be disadvantaged, leading to perceptions of unfairness and breeding organizational politics.
7. Resource hoarding and territoriality: In competitive resource allocation environments, individuals or departments may engage in politics by hoarding or protecting resources under their control. They may create barriers or obstacles to prevent others from accessing those resources, thereby maintaining their power and influence within the organization.
Organizational challenges refer to the difficulties or problems that arise within an organization due to various factors such as changes in the external environment, internal conflicts, resource constraints, or complex decision-making processes. Below are the ways politics are conducted in organizations in relation to these challenges:
1. Power struggles and leadership transitions: Organizational challenges, such as leadership transitions or changes in power dynamics, can trigger political behaviour. Individuals or groups may vie for positions of power or influence, engage in personal maneuvering, or form alliances to secure their interests during these periods of uncertainty.
2. Coalition-building and alliances: When faced with organizational challenges, individuals or departments may form coalitions or alliances to protect their interests and advocate for their preferred outcomes. By joining forces, they can increase their collective influence and negotiate for better solutions to address the challenges they face.
3. Information manipulation and framing: Politics in organizational challenges can involve the manipulation or framing of information. Individuals or groups may strategically control or present information to shape the perception of the challenge, advance their own agenda or influence decision-making processes in their favour.
4. Resistance to change: Organizational challenges often involve change initiatives, and resistance to change can give rise to politics. Individuals or groups may engage in political behaviour to protect their existing roles, resist the implementation of new practices, or influence the change process in a way that aligns with their interests.
5. Negotiation and bargaining: Politics may arise during the negotiation and bargaining processes associated with organizational challenges. Individuals or groups may employ political tactics to secure better outcomes or protect their interests by leveraging their influence, making strategic concessions, or using persuasive tactics to shape the resolution of the challenges.
6. Influence over decision-making: During organizational challenges, political behaviour may involve exerting influence over decision-making processes. Individuals or groups may strategically position themselves to influence decision outcomes or shape the decision-making process itself. This can include information manipulation, exerting influence over decision-makers, or engaging in behind-the-scenes lobbying to sway decisions in their favour.
7. Resource allocation and competition: Organizational challenges often involve resource constraints or allocation issues. Politics may be conducted through competition for scarce resources, lobbying for resource allocation in favour of specific projects or departments, or engaging in resource hoarding to protect one's own interests.
8. Perception management and framing: Politics in organizational challenges can also involve perception management and framing of the challenges. Individuals or groups may engage in activities to shape the narrative, influence how the challenges are perceived, and position themselves in a favourable light in order to gain support or advance their own agenda.
For more reading:
https://hbr.org/1970/05/power-and-politics-in-organizational-life
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/expend/guide3.htm
https://quizlet.com/492653278/management-and-organizational-behaviour -chapter-10-flash-cards/
https://open.lib.umn.edu/organizationalbehaviour /chapter/13-4-organizational-politics/
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/organizational-change-politics-36768.html