>> MIM Speaks
POWER, POLITICS AND COMPANY MANAGERS
OCTOBER 25, 2001 (P.7) -
BUSINESS TIMES
ORGANISATIONS, companies or firms are primarily made up of
people like you and me.
Human interactions in the form of face-to-face discussions
between managers and subordinates, interdepartmental
squabbles, informal chit-chats in the canteen and so on,
create social systems that are unique for each firm. Most
people bothered little to know that organisations are not
only social systems, but political, as well.
In the workplace, we are busy either fire-fighting, dealing
with customer complaints, or grappling with issues such as
cost-cutting, raising productivity, finding creative ways
to tackle increased competition, and the like.
We have little time for social or political systems. What
are they, you ask.
While companies work hard at maintaining and increasing
their competitive strengths, it may be wise for some
managers to pay a little attention to their firms'
political structures and systems.
Most of us know our company's organisation chart. If we are
managers, it makes us feel rather smug knowing where we
stand in the hierarchy. But few would have bothered with
their company's political structure.
It is rather interesting, in fact, to draw up such a chart.
Many are amused and amazed when they see how the power
lines connect different people directly with the big boss
is the chief executive officer (CEO).
People are especially amazed when the chart shows, for
instance, that it is not the general manager (GM) who calls
the shots, but lady financial controller who has a special
power relationship with the companys CEO.
SOME DEFINITIONS
Before we go on, let us look at some definitions. Culling
from the writings of professors such as Henry Mintzberg
(McGill), Jeffrey Pffefer (Stanford), Rosabeth Moss Kanter
(Harvard), Charles Handy (London Business School), and
others, we get the following picture on power and a few
related words:
* POWER: a) It is the capacity to influence; to overcome
resistance or opposition; to make others do what they would
otherwise not do; to mobilise people and resources and so
on; in order to get things done. b) power per se is a
neutral word. But in competitive situations, power tends to
get ugly, which is the negative face of power. This is when
managers of integrity, achieve results by exercising power
in a humane and appropriate manner.
* POLITICS: The force behind politics is power. So, when
power, an invisible force, is exercised, we see it in the
manifested form of political activities.
* POWER POLITICS: It is the subtle use of force to achieve
one's objective, whatever that may be.
* OFFICE POLITICS: In the context of organisations, it
generally refers to the self-serving (as opposed to the
others serving) activities people engage in. As mentioned
earlier, when people compete for scarce resources or
promotions, it is unavoidable that certain amount of power
play occurs. And there is a tendency for these forces to be
divisive and destructive. Unfortunately, too many
organisations allow negative forces of this sort, to
thrive.
TO BE OR NOT TO BE
Should managers be involved in organisational politics? The
answer is yes.
Traditional organisational charts have a pyramidal shape.
As we move up, positions of power become fewer. Like most
good things in short supply, people compete against each
other for them.
Its only natural. Managers who Are not competitive, or
refuse to compete because they want no part of dirty
politicking, have merely given others a walk-over. It may
be helpful to note what classical management writer Max
Weber wrote many decades ago.
According to him, when persons compete against each other
in organisational settings, power or power politics
inevitably rear its ugly head.
Secondly, bosses and top management people are human. They
have likes, dislikes, wants and all. Everything being
equal, the managers who gets the plum is the one boss likes
most, or the one who has cultivated the rapport and support
of powerful superiors.
In business organisations, when employees compete for
positions and resources, certain amount of activities
(frowned upon by some) such as favour-currying,
obligation-buying, getting into the, boss's good books and
so on, are bound to happen.
Managers who frown upon such self-serving activities must
realise that, being human, bosses and superiors have soft
spots, and also, blind spots. If they want no part of
politicking, that is fine. But they cannot assume the best
jobs go always to the most deserving.
Meritocracy in political systems is a little more complex.
Last, but not least, effective and successful CEOs know
instinctively that political skill is an important
managerial skill, since managers need power and influence
to get things done through and with people.
Dedicated managers who shun from power politics, or who are
disinterested in the sources and, uses power may be viewed
by some CEOs as unsuitable candidates for promotion.
IS POWER A DIRTY WORD?
Is power really such a nasty word? Harvard don, Roasabeth
Moss Kanter, depicted power as such when she wrote: Power
is America's last dirty word. It is easier to talk about
money and sex than it is to talk about power. Then we all
have heard of Lord Actons (infamous?) quote that, Power
tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt
absolutely. It is true that power struggles or office
politics tend to involve below-the-belt tactics. But to
assume that power is nasty is like agreeing with the
proverbial saying that money is the root of all evils.
Managers who cherish such as integrity, and respect leaders
with good moral behaviour could do better than that; for
power per se is neutral, if these managers still avoid
organisational politics is time to learn to like and
respect it. Let us recondition our minds toward the
positive face of power.
CONCLUSION
Stanford don Jeff Pffefer that wrote nothing much happens
between or among people in work organisations unless social
influence occurs. In other word without appropriate
exercise of (positive) power, nothing much gets done;
unless they resort to shouts, threats, unreasonable demands
and the like, which happens to be common in some
organisations. Dedicated managers need to learn to acquire
and exercise power and influence.
Armed with this skill (provided that the other managerial
skills -- conceptual, interpersonal, information-handling,
communication and technical, are in place) these managers
will be able to perform their tasks superbly!
Finally, organisations of this century have to be flexible,
agile, speedy, on top of being cost-affective and highly
competitive. Effective CEOs need less of managers who are
politicking out of selfish motives.
They require more capable managers of integrity and skilled
in the art of sourcing and using power for the success and
common good of the organisation.
|