Farrell's Contribution in Political Behaviour

Since decades, the dynamics of power and politics has been the fundamental theme w.r.t study of organizations, as they illustrate how individuals and group compete for resources and influence. Early sociologists such as Max Weber and Robert Michels emphasized on power dynamics and political behaviour in their initial works. However, this focus experienced a paradigm shift with emergence of scientific management and human relation approaches, which directed the attention towards employee motivation and productivity. Hence, political behaviour at individual level was overshadowed, as formal roles and processes took the centre stage.

Late 1970s marked the reemergence of organizational politics, owing to the broader societal transformations such as 1960s activism against authority, increasing skepticism towards leadership, wider media coverage of corporate scandals and prominence of Marxist and conflict theories which centred power struggles. This rediscovery, called the attention of scholars to not just focus on macro and structural levels, group dynamics and power bases but also on micro level i.e. understanding how individuals engage in political activities and its outcomes.

The key challenge in this area was the failure to differentiate between required job tasks actions from discretionary political actions. Furthermore, there were blurry lines between macro level power structures and micro level individual behaviour. To address these gaps, Dan Farrell and James C. Peterson in their seminal paper titled “Patterns of Political Behaviour in Organizations”, published in the Academy of Management Review, 1982 defined individual political behaviour as discretionary, informal activities not formally required by one’s role but undertaken to influence the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization. In simple terms, it refers to those actions and strategies used by individuals to influence the decisions and gain power or advance personal interests - often external to their formal job roles.

The authors further proposed a three-dimensional framework in order to classify behaviour and understand its diversity.

Internal vs. External – Internal behaviour harness the resources of the organization and is directed towards the people inside the organization such as formation of alliances. Whereas, external behaviour seeks to stretch beyond the boundaries of the organization such as filling a lawsuit. Individuals with less power and at lower-level often to external tactics whenever internal attempts seem to fail.

Vertical vs. Lateral – Vertical behaviour incorporates to influence people who are up or down the hierarchial level of the organization such as mentoring subordinates. Whereas, lateral behaviour engage people who are at the same level such as the one that occurs among peers.

Legitimate vs Illegitimate – Legitimate behaviour include actions that are considered as ethical and acceptable such as seeking sponsorship. Whereas, illegitimate behaviour encompasses those actions which violate the norms and aren’t acceptable such as sabotage.

The cross tabulation among these dimensions help to create a typology that categories a range of behaviours, illustrating their complexity and situational nature.

Furthermore, multiple factors determine how political behaviour manifests. In accordance to exchange theory, the key variables include investment, alternatives, trust and efficacy. Investment is often measured in terms of time, resources and efforts committed to the organization, which in turn compels employees in deterring towards illegitimate behaviour due to the risk of loss involved. Alternatives represent the options available to employees outside the organization; employees with limited perceived availabilities tend to engage in more internal actions. Trust, measured in terms of confidence in the organizational system and leadership, stimulates legitimate actions. Lastly, efficacy – conviction in one’s ability to impact outcomes, advocates political engagement.

Acknowledging and understanding these dimensions and factors, enables political behaviours to be incorporated into organizational theory, thereby supplementing the traditional and conventional model which builds around formal structures. Politics in organizations is not just intrusive and destabilizing, rather essential for facilitating decision making and ensuring smooth adaptability, especially during transitions like mergers and acquisitions. Political behaviour, if managed effectively and strategically, would ultimately facilitate organizational success.

In sum, comprehensively understanding power dynamics and politics at individual level, adds to the depth of organizational studies by uncovering informal, delicate and sometimes contradictory actions adopted by employees to steer through their roles.

-submitted by Ridhima Chadha, Ph D Scholar

Power and Political Behaviour

The evolution of power from ancient times to modern era is an interesting process of transformations and manifestations. Power has been an influencing force in shaping human societies with its effects in almost all major areas ranging from- changing civilisations, creation of bureaucracy, technology and values and beliefs of individuals. Power is believed to be an all-pervasive phenomenon with its intangible manifestations impacting the external world around.

From its earlier expression in ancient world as muscle power indicating that power resides in those who gain more physical strength than cognitive capacity, Societies praising leaders having more muscle power, kingdoms having more armed forces to fight for their expansion or to defend their realm, recognition gained by male counterparts in the society solely on the basis of their physical prowess, reinforces this ideology that- “power acquired through physical domination rules all.”

From muscle power, we witnessed a shift of locus of power to money power wherein advancements in every sector brought down by industrialisation or a capitalistic society worshiping wealth, money or profit influenced human psychology to a larger extent. Manifestation of money power can be seen through the Marxist theory – the emergence of two distinct and opposing social classes called – Proletariat and Bourgeoisie in a capitalist society leading to a class divide and the powerful establishment of hierarchical structure in the society.

In the modern era we are now slightly moving towards a new phase of power evolution which is highly centred around acquiring, sharing and retaining knowledge through reliable means in order to move in the direction of some pre-intended meaningful visions. Information technology, scientific and research advancements, data science and intellectual capacity has opened new avenues for knowledge to create its magic and provide today’s generation with equipped means and platforms to showcase their acquired wisdom.

As power moved from kings and leaders to wealthy nations and institutions and eventually to intellectual minds and information, in today’s time an individual having intellectual capital, resources, technology and a powerful personality can command more power than ever before. So, now in 21st century power is more distributed, more decentralised and could be attributed to a single individual. 

Therefore, if we have to dive into the view of individual power within the context of organisations, we encounter a concept called individual power, which essentially means an individual’s capacity or ability to influence and leave an impact on others around. It results from two distinct sources of power namely- personal power and legitimate power.

Although both these sources of power are intricately connected to each other, suggesting a correlation between the two in which, Legitimate power arises out of one’s position in the organisation or the lawful authority one enjoys by playing a particular job role, while personal power professes out of an individual’s subjective perception to have an influence on their environment and to gain intended results. Primarily, it is a psychological self-concept or an existing state of mind that combines- self-awareness, confidence, ethical inclination and perceived responsibility toward others. 

Academic scholars are of the view that this personal sense of power is a product of both objective or socio-cultural factors like- (having a high societal status, possession of some seemingly scarce or valuable resources and acquisition of more wealth or property), and subjective predispositions emanating from dominant personality traits like – extraversion, openness, Machiavellianism and neuroticism.

So, cultivating a strong sense of personal power by positively assessing life situations, interpersonal ties and by sticking to ethical values despite unprecedented challenges, fosters resilience, humility and helps the formation of a better society and an even better world.

Dynamics of Politics and Power

Politics and power are fundamentally distinct yet intertwined concepts wherein one (politics) manifests through the influence of other (power), Whenever there will be power, there will be an inevitable presence of politics. To understand the nature of politics, one must understand the distribution of power. A well-fitted example of organisations can be highlighted in this case to better understand the dynamics of the relationship between power and politics, because in organisations power is distributed according to the structure which ultimately breeds politics or political behaviour.

Political behaviour demonstrated by individuals in their work-setting has been either described or agreed upon, narrowly as a process of influence or self-serving tactics aiming for gaining personal benefits even at the expense of one’s own organisation or broadly it has been defined as a complex interplay of relationship between control and influence. So, to gain better clarity of the concept, a well phrased definition includes:

An individual’s desire to achieve goals or outcomes that the organization does not approve of, even if he/she is using well sanctioned or approved methods.

Or

An individual’s desire to achieve goals or outcomes that the organization does approve of officially, but using methods or means that are not officially validated by the concerned organisation.

Research has been done in the past to study the real-life experiences of employees, who have either encountered organisational politics before or are experiencing it in the current scenario. These studies revealed that the existence of politics in the organisation is very common and cannot be eliminated or excluded from its prevailing culture. Some studies view it as an instrumental force which leads to more creativity, innovation and discretionary effort by the employees while others indicated that it may lead to lack of trust, bad organisational culture resulting in favouritism, informal gossips and compromised productivity.

Therefore, gaining nuanced understanding of power and politics manifesting in organisations settings helps us to clearly make informed decisions or choices pertaining to career and of life as a whole as it brings more strategic awareness, emotional intelligence and rational decision-making, which when used for the collective-wellbeing of all, may result in a better engagement, innovation and ultimately to a good workspace culture.

- submitted by Shalvi Solanki, PhD Scholar

References: 

Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344.

Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). Differentiating social and personal power: Opposite effects on stereotyping but parallel effects on behavioral approach tendencies. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1543–1549

Mayes, B. T., & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. The Academy of Management Review, 2(4), 672–678

Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. The Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 237–251.

Organisational Politics – Through the Lens of Rationality & Bounded Rationality

Rationality is a concept that originated in ancient Greece, where philosophers interpreted mythological texts by applying logic and reasoning. The prominent philosophers - Aristotle and Plato, present their respective schools of thought on human thought and reasoning. As per an article, (Lab, n.d.) on one side, Aristotle argued that humans are rational beings who act based on thought; on the contrary, Plato established the foundation of logical reasoning and the systematic pursuit of knowledge. 

In the 17th-18th century, the “Age of Reason” proclaimed that rationality evolved from seeking absolute certainty to embracing probabilistic reasoning, which means that sound decisions could be focused on despite of the incomplete information and uncertainty by way to emphasising the reasonable responses. Particularly in the year 1776, with the release of Adam Smith’s book – “The Wealth of Nations”, he proposed the concept of Rational choice theory, which suggested that individuals make decisions by weighing costs and benefits, and this shaped the modern economic thought.

With the advent of neo-classical theory in the 20th century, the concept of “Perfect Rationality” emerged in normative economics, i.e., how people ought to make choices. This concept of rationality basically revolves around the thought processes that the evaluation of choices can be done for achieving a goal or for finding an optimal solution to a problem, i.e., to attain “THE BEST” solution of a problem. Based on this concept of rationality as a core assumption, several theories in different domains have been introduced like – theories from economics (Expected Utility Theory or Utilitarianism, Game Theory, Cost-Benefit Theory, Prospect Theory, etc.); from Psychology (Theory of Planned Behavior, Information Processing Theory, etc.) from Organisartional behaviour (Agency Theory, Transaction Cost Economics, Strategic Choice Theory, etc.).

But, in 1957, Herbert Simon critically challenged the framework of ‘Rationality’ by highlighting its unrealistic assumptions and propounded the concept of “Bounded Rationality”. He stated that a perfectly rational decision cannot be made because of shortcomings that individuals face with regard to the inadequacy of information, the time constraints, and the limitations of their cognitive processes. He added, according to the study, (Cristofaro, 2017), that bounded rationality serves as a satisficing decision-making ability to an individual, i.e., Satisfy+Sufice, which means that enough satisfaction will be gained by a decision-maker and not the optimum one as suggested by the rationality concept. 

In reality, as per an HBR article (Reill, 2023), an individual takes approximately 35000 decisions in a day and if we consciously observe, then most of them are just for our enough satisfaction, as at the end we have to understand our limitations – limitations of cognition, limited information, uncertainty, limited time span and limited resources. He further explained that to arrive at a certain decision, human beings might use their own judgments or mental shortcuts or a rule of thumb known as heuristics. 

The concept of heuristics has also been preliminarily introduced by Herbert Simon in the 1950s, followed by Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky in the 1970s. Furthermore, with the conception of the Bounded rationality concept, several psychologists and other researchers sometimes interchangeably use the term with the ‘Irrationality’. Thus, Simon, in the year 1997, clarifies the difference between bounded rationality and irrationality, which could be understood as an equational form as follows:

Bounded rationality = Cognitive limitations + Incomplete Information + Uncertainty + Scarce Resources (time, etc.) + Situational Pressures

In sum, Bounded Rationality = Constrained but reasoned decision-making.

Whereas, Irrationality = Illogical-emotion or intuition-driven behavior, but not aligned with reason

What is Organisational Politics?

Organisational Politics refers to the use of tactics, influence, and power dynamics by individuals or groups within an organisation to achieve either their own goals or the organisational goals. It involves intentional acts of influence to navigate ambiguity, control information, and achieve desired outcomes, whether individual or organisational. Based on this, we can categorise organisational politics into two core aspects – Positive as well as Negative. The key defining trait of political behaviour is its self-serving nature, often at the expense of others or the organisation. This is in contrast to pro-social behaviours, which benefit the organisation.

On the one hand, Jeffrey Pfeffer, a prominent personality in the field of Organisational behaviour, defines organisational politics as "those activities taken within organisations to acquire, develop and use power and other resources to obtain one's preferred outcomes in a situation in which there is uncertainty or dissensus about choices”, while another eminent figure from the domain of organisational psychodynamics – Abraham Zaleznik in his HBR article (Zaleznik, 1970) “Power & Politics in Organisational Life”, explained that work-behaviour and decision making would be based on the power dynamics and thus, viewing organisations as a rational system would be an illusion. 

Furthermore, in support of his opinion on rationality, he described organisations as a political arena where each individual competes for limited resources, influence and status. Seeking power for validating their self-worth drives the psychological need for comparison. The formation of several alliances, coalitions, trust among executives and the distinction between mere compliance and genuine commitment further highlighted the nuanced nature of political behaviour within organisations. 

If managed effectively, political awareness could lead to foster collaboration, resolve conflicts and support leadership effectiveness. However, if unchecked, it may lead to mistrust, fragmentation and organisational dysfunction. Therefore, understanding and navigating these political undercurrents is essential for leaders and employees aiming to thrive in complex and competitive workplace environments.

Based on the Understanding of Organisational Politics, its relation with the bounded rationality can be deduced as follows:

Political Scenario	Bounded Rationality Mechanism
Interpreting motives in ambiguous behavior	Reliance on heuristics and biases
Navigating role conflict or resource competition	Satisficing decisions under pressure
Assessing fairness and justice in promotions	Bounded perception influenced by limited visibility
Choosing political alliances	Strategic decision-making with incomplete information
Avoiding conflict in high-politics environments	Risk-averse, simplified decision-making
Coping with overload from perceived politics	Mental shortcuts to reduce cognitive strain

-submitted by Nisha Bajaj, Ph.D. Scholar (2024-25)

References:

Cristofaro, M. (2017). Herbert Simon’s bounded rationality: Its historical evolution in management and cross-fertilizing contribution. Journal of Management History, 23(2), 170–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-11-2016-0060

Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: the state of the field, links to related processes. Personnel and Human Resources Management, 17(August), 1–39.

Lab, T. D. (n.d.). Rationality. Retrieved May 21, 2025, from https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/rationality

Reill, A. (2023). Subscribe Sign In Latest Magazine Topics Podcasts Store The Big Idea Data & Visuals Case Selections HBR Executive Early career A Simple Way to Make Better Decisions. HBR. https://hbr.org/2023/12/a-simple-way-to-make-better-decisions

Zaleznik, A. (1970). Power and Politics in Organizational Life. Harvard Business Review, 48, 47–60.

From Taboo to Tool: Tracing Organizational Politics Evolution

Why do internal conflicts cause certain organizations to flourish while they cause others to collapse? The complex domain of organizational politics is frequently where the solution might be found.

Honestly, workplace politics are generally viewed negatively. We frequently visualize favoritism in backroom deals or covert agendas. However organizational politics have always played a vital role in how work is done whether explicit or hidden and our perception of it has changed over time.

Before 1970 workplace politics was largely ignored or implicitly viewed as dysfunctional. Some major theories of the time like:- scientific management by Frederick Taylor and classical bureaucracy by Max Weber focused on formal organizational structures, efficiency, and rationality. This perspective viewed political activity as abnormal, a sign of personal deviance or organizational failure. Although the concept of "power" existed at this time it was limited mostly to formal authority and legitimate hierarchy. Informal influence and back-channel negotiations were sidelined in theory, despite their presence in practice.

Then comes the turning point of organizational politics, when scholars acknowledge that organizations are fields of conflicting interests and constrained resources rather than solely rational entities. Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald R. Salancik's work, especially The External Control of Organizations (1978), highlighted power and reliance, allowing for political behavior in theoretical models.

Organizational politics started being recognized as a legitimate field of study by 1980 . Together with other organizational metaphors (such as machine, organism, and culture), the political metaphor came into being, enabling academics to conceptualize organizations as political systems. Mintzberg (1983) and others initiated the study of how unofficial alliances, coalitions, and influence strategies affect decision-making processes.

Both constructive and destructive nuanced politics began to reflect in organizational politics, depending on the context and execution by 1990. Prominent two streams of the time Strategic politics and ethical politics. Empirical research grew during this time, looking at the effects of factors like leadership styles, corporate culture, and structure on political conduct.

After 1990, micro-foundations like the individual and interpersonal level dynamics of organizational politics were given greater emphasis. Key concepts like Political skills, impression management, and emotional intelligence have emerged. Political skill has been extensively studied by scholars such as Gerald Ferris, who defines it as a social competency that enables people to comprehend and effectively influence others. This has changed the way that academics and professionals view political behavior—not as manipulation, but as a potentially useful tool for navigating intricate institutions.

This prospective have further deepened in the contemporary organizational theories. Scholars now study organizational politics through the lenses of identity, culture, intersectionality, and resistance thanks to the growth of postmodern, critical, and interpretive perspectives. Politics is thought to be ingrained in discourses, power structures, and institutional norms in addition to being merely interpersonal competition.

Political dynamics are also reshaped because of the digital transformation of the work. In virtual and hybrid workplaces, influence is distributed through new, less obvious channels, such as data visibility, algorithmic management, and digital communication. The way politics appears in decentralized, networked systems needs new theoretical and empirical attention because of these changes.

From being an underappreciated subject to being a key component in comprehending how organization operate, organizational politics research has advanced significantly. This change parallels a larger trend in organizational theory, which has shifted from rationalist and mechanistic viewpoints to more dynamic, human-centered, and political ones. Since effective leadership and organizational success depend on the understanding of the fact that politics exist wherever there are people, acknowledging the political nature of organizations does not imply supporting manipulation.

- submitted by Shruti, Ph. D. Scholar

Michel Foucault on Power

Michel Foucault – the 20th century French philosopher has influenced the study of power and politics in a different philosophical view through his writings. The contribution of Foucault, through the understanding of power and politics is profound and transformative. He challenged traditional notions of power as something held by individuals or institutions and instead conceptualized power as diffuse, relational, and embedded in everyday practices and knowledge systems. 

Foucault’s analysis of power comes in two forms i.e. empirical and theoretical. The empirical concerned with historical form of power and how these emerged from previous forms of power. Foucault's power analysis begins on micro-level, with singular "force relations". According to him, force relations are an effect of difference, inequality or unbalance that exists in other forms of relationships (such as sexual or economic). Power, according to Foucault, operates through both tactics (individual-level actions) and strategies (larger, organized systems), and it is constantly shifting through interactions and resistance. 

According to Foucault there are three types of power in empirical form, namely, sovereign power, disciplinary power and bio power. Sovereign power is the traditional, top-down model seen in monarchies, where authority resides in a ruler who has the right to take life or property, often reinforcing power through public punishment. Disciplinary power, on the other hand, is modern and subtle, functioning through institutions like schools, prisons, and hospitals. It aims to train and control individuals by shaping their behaviours, desires, and identities using techniques like surveillance, normalization, and exams. 

Biopower shifts the focus from individuals to entire populations, managing life itself by regulating birth rates, health, sexuality, and demographic patterns through norms rather than force. It operates under the guise of optimizing life but has historically been used to justify control, exclusion, and even mass violence, such as in eugenics or modern wars framed as humanitarian interventions. Foucault’s broader aim is to reveal how deeply power shapes thought and behaviour, encouraging critical awareness and the potential for resistance and change.

This French philosopher, Michel Foucault, has had a major influence on political thought by fundamentally redefining the concept of power and how it operates in society. He had influenced the society with the help of some of his writings, namely: 

• Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason (1961), 
• The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences (1966), 
• Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (1975), 
• The history of sexuality: The will to knowledge.

Foucault’s overall political stance remains a subject of intense debate among scholars, with disagreements over both the consistency of his views throughout his career and the specific positions he held at different times. While interpretations vary widely—some viewing him as aligned with the political right for rejecting liberal notions of freedom and justice, and others seeing him as either a revolutionary leftist or transcending conventional political categories—there is general agreement that Foucault introduced a radically new approach to political thought. Central to this was his focus on power and subjectivity, approached through a historical lens and a discursive methodology that emphasized the study of texts and how discourse shapes institutions and beliefs. 

His work became explicitly political in the 1970s, during which he developed the genealogical method to analyse power's historical transformations. Before this period, in the 1960s, his work was more theoretical and less overtly political, and its implications remain contested. Overall, Foucault’s political thought aims to uncover how historical discourses shape modern political systems and ideologies.

- submitted by Pooja Rai, Ph D Scholar

Kautilya on Power

Arthsastra of Kautilya is a masterpiece. It covers how to deal with international territories as well as the nation's politics and power structures. It begins with Matasya Nyay concept by saying if there is no king, mighty people will cause trouble and distress to weaker section of people exactly the same way, a big fish eats small fish. Hence to keep equality and equanimity in place we need to have a formal structure of governance in place. He talks about Saptang Theory where he classifies a kingdom in seven parts.

King: - First and foremost, part is King, he termed King as the Swami, the representative of god. The king is the supreme power of Kingdom. The King has broadly two important functions. First is protective function and second is promotive function. Protective function means providing protection to the countrymen. It includes both internal and external. A well-qualified army is maintained and trained to task and prepared for all emergency situations. Promotive function is about promoting welfare, it is said that King’s welfare is not his personal welfare it is the welfare and contentment of his countrymen.

प्रजासुखे सुखं राज्ञः प्रजानां च हिते हितम् | 

नात्मप्रियं हितं राज्ञः प्रजानां तु प्रियं हितम् |

["In the happiness of the people lies the happiness of the king, their welfare is his welfare. Not his own pleasure is the king's welfare, but the people's pleasure is their welfare,"]

Amatya:- The second important designation after King is Amatya which is termed as minister, there could be one Amatya or multiple depending upon the size of kingdom. Minster should be Nobel, educated and more than anything a person with highest character. They should have great memory skills. Kautilya also emphasised that these Amatya’s should be a born citizen not someone who acquired citizenship. He reemphasised loyalty part, wisdom and confidentiality as must have qualities for Amatya’s.

Janpada:- It alludes to the state's territory and populace. The state's land should be rich in forests, rivers, mountains, minerals, wildlife, and other natural resources. It ought to have a pleasant climate. People ought to be obedient to their monarch, diligent, disciplined, devout, prepared to defend their homeland, and content to pay taxes on a regular basis.

Durga :- It alludes to forts. To provide defence against foreign invasions, the state should maintain a sufficient number of forts situated strategically throughout its territory. Forts ought to be constructed next to large bodies of water, dense woods, deserts, and hills or mountains. They stockpile food grains for emergencies and house soldiers. It also act as the king's hiding place when his life is in jeopardy.

Kosha: - This refers to the state treasury. Any state cannot function without its finances, which are its lifeblood. Funds are required for infrastructure development, salary payments, etc. The treasury ought to be brimming with cash as well as precious metals and jewels. Taxation and the looting of warring nations are two ways to raise it.

Danda (The Army):- It stands for military. The state ought to maintain a sizable, disciplined, and highly skilled military. For the state's security, it is essential. It is best to recruit soldiers from families who have historically been connected to the military. It is important to pay soldiers adequately and provide the best possible care for their families. Equipment and appropriate training should be made available. Any fight can be won by soldiers who are well-fed and trained. If the king provides for the soldiers, they will be willing to give up everything, including their lives, for him.

Mitra:- is used to describe the king's friends. The king or queen ought to keep cordial ties with his ancestors' old allies. Moreover, he ought to establish new acquaintances. For his buddies, he ought to provide presents and other courtesy. When there is an emergency, they should be assisted. Loyalty is expected of them. The state's authority is increased via friends. They are also significant from the perspective of international trade.

King should advocate good deeds among his countrymen. So that a peace and prosperity can be promoted in the country.

सुखस्य मूलं धर्मः। धर्मस्य मूलमर्थः।

अर्थस्य मूलं राज्यम्।राज्यस्य मूलम् इन्द्रियजयः ।

इन्द्रियजयस्य मूलं विनयः ।विनयस्य मूलं वृद्धोपसेवः ।

वृद्धोपसेवया विज्ञानम् ।विज्ञानेन आत्मानं संपादयेत् ।

संपादितात्मा जितात्मा भवति ।जितात्मा सर्वार्थैः संयुज्येत ।

[The basis of happiness is dharma [i.e., right conduct, ethics]. The basis of dharma is artha [i.e., resources, wealth, economy]. The basis of artha is kingship [i.e., state, government]. The basis of kingship is control over the senses. The basis of control over the senses is discipline. The basis of discipline is subservience to elders. Through subservience to elders comes proficiency [i.e., discernment]. Equip yourself with proficiency. Those who have equipped themselves become self-controlled. Those who are self-controlled will become endowed with all attainments.]

His mandala theory is so true when we see today’s context in terms of our own standing with respect to bordering countries.

• Vijigishu: The king who aspires to be the conqueror

• Ari: Shares border with Vijigishu, an enemy

• Mitra: Friend or an ally of Vijigishu, shares border with ari

• Ari-Mitra: Friend of ari, shares border with mitra

• Mitra-Mitra : Friend or an ally of friend

• Ari Mitra-Mitra: Friend of enemy’s friend

• Parshnigraha: Enemy in the rear of the Vijigishu

• Aakranda: Friend in the rear behind Parshnigraha

• Parshnigraha-asara: Friend of Parshnigraha behind Aakranda

• Aakranda-asara: Friend of Aakranda behind Parshnigrahasara

• Madhyama: Indifferent kingdom

• Udasina: Neutral Kingdom

According to Kautilya, there is a good likelihood that our neighbours would turn against us since they have a strong desire to expand. Knowing exactly which nations belong to which group, it will help us plan our strategy and optimize our resources.

· Sandhi or peace: - A policy of peace and compromise is recommended if the monarch is in a weaker position than his opponent. The king would use this era of peace to develop military capabilities in order to rise from a position of weakness to one of power. Once substantial capabilities are achieved, new alternatives for foreign policy would become available.

· Vigraha or war:- Since war can be won with little loss, this tactic is recommended if the king has a military advantage over its adversaries. Only the opponent's fighting skill, not its prakriti, shall be destroyed by the king. The victor ought to be kind and forgiving to the loser.

· Asana or neutrality/wait and watch: If a king's challenger has an equal potential for power, Kautilya prescribes an asana policy. Once more, maintaining neutrality gives the monarch time to improve his military prowess. Once this is accomplished, the king should adopt an aggressive and active foreign policy.

· Yana or coercion: The king should use coercion and military mobilization if his enemies weaken or stagnate while he becomes more powerful. Even without engaging in combat, the opponent could be persuaded to make significant concessions and his surrender could be guaranteed by covert operations.

· Samshrya or alliance: The king ought to form an alliance with other nations if he does not believe that he will soon be able to outperform an enemy. Although it would be a defensive alliance, the king ought to try to turn it into an assault against the shared enemy.

· Dvaidhibhava or duplicity: Kautilya has recommended a program of diplomatic double-gaming, contingent on a number of intricate circumstances and configurations. In terms of intelligence, deceit, forethought, and psychological traits, this policy is extremely difficult.

Kautilya's Arthashastra emphasizes the value of soft power even if it is frequently linked to realpolitik and hard power. In order to increase its worldwide impact, India's modern foreign policy makes use of multilateral collaboration, economic alliances, and cultural diplomacy. Soft power is demonstrated, for example, by India's participation in the International Solar Alliance and its support of international health programs. In addition to tackling global issues, these initiatives present India as a responsible and significant player in the world. These contemporary tactics echo Kautilya's emphasis on gaining supporters via kindness and diplomacy.

In the end I would like to propose my thoughts by saying that Kautilya Arthsatra is a practical book of governance. No Surprise that western thinker Max Weber and Helmut Plessner have sighted his work and contributed collective wisdom effectively. No wonders that most powerful countries across the world are following Kautilya’s Arthsatatra for their internal and external governance policies.

- submitted by Deepak Tiwari, Ph D Scholar 

Jeffrey Pfeffer on Power and Politics: An Academic Perspective

Everyone is eager to gain some kind of power, whether it is positional or personal power. Over the period, the definition of power is modified/changed or updated. Different scholars and thinkers who belong to different geographical areas explain power in different ways; some connect power with formal authority, and others with personal traits. In this Article, we understand the role and importance of power and politics in the organisational context from the viewpoint of Jeffrey Pfeffer.

Jeffrey Pfeffer is a renowned American business theorist, holding the position of Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organisational Behaviour at Stanford Graduate School of Business since 1979. Born on July 23, 1946, in St. Louis, Missouri, Pfeffer earned his BS and MS from Carnegie Mellon University and a PhD in Business Administration (Organisational Behaviour) from Stanford University. With a prolific academic career, Pfeffer has authored or co-authored over 16 books and 160 articles and delivered lectures on power, politics and HRM in organisations to over 40 countries, shaping the fields of management, power, and organisational politics.

As a learner in the field of organisational behaviour and development, I found Pfeffer's contribution very interesting and realistic. His vision much resonates with the current realities of organisations.

Knowledge originates from theory, which leads to information, and ultimately, wisdom (mental and thinking ability) emerges. In the same way, Pfeffer’s ideas resonate with the earlier thinkers, or we can say that the theoretical roots and historical connections of Pfeffer’s ideas on power and politics are found in:

• Kautilya’s Arthashastra (India Economist): The saptanga theory (seven limbs of power) in which Kautilya talks about the kingdom's power dynamics in seven limbs like the king, amatya, durga, etc. And mandala theory (circle of state) emphasises positional power, alliances, and networking.
• Francis Bacon (British Philosopher): Famously coined: “knowledge is power.” Someone with pure and sound knowledge must have power, influence, control and authority.
• Michel Foucault (French Historian): Explained that Bacon's “data is the new oil” articulation as informational power. He connects power with knowledge; someone having power directs the flow of information, knowledge and wisdom. He argued that power is not merely repressive, it is also productive, defines behaviour, truth, and social regulations.

After scanning the outlook of earlier and contemporary scholars and thinkers on power and politics, each one, despite belonging to different demographics and fields of study, was persuaded that power and political skills are prime factors in achieving organisational success and effective leadership.

Pfeffer’s Core Arguments on Power: 

Pfeffer argues that power is not related to fundamental authority but to the ability to get things done, despite the resistance of others (Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organisation, Book, 1992). When you articulate this argument, you can find the elements of both power and politics. The first part talks about what the real power means, and the latter part highlights the use of political skills by controlling the resistance. For example, in India (2004-2014), while Dr. Singh held the title of Prime Minister, many saw the real power (ability to get things done) resting with Mrs. Gandhi.

Not everybody is born with the power, a real one. Pfeffer argues that power can be built, earned and strategised. Built through personal traits like communication skills, charisma, and confidence. Earned through gaining formal authority or position. Strategised by enhancing one’s current power base for future growth.

Pfeffer defines power as influence and control over outcomes, people in the organisations and resources (information, money, support, access). Power is not always associated with negative or dirty words. It serves organisational success when aligned with group goals; when it serves personal rather than organisational objectives, it makes it “dirty.”

Pfeffer’s Core Arguments on Politics

Based on the data (Understanding Power in the Organisations,1992), Pfeffer stated that politics is inseparable from organisations, and organisations are ultimately a political entity.

So, we can conclude that political skills are critical, and political acumen helps solve conflicts, overcome resistance, and outperform competition by understanding dependence patterns, identifying key actors and assessing power dynamics. Leadership success depends on reading the political map, not avoiding it. Political tactics (networking, credibility, alliances and relationships) often outweigh formal performance metrics. Your achievement or hard work alone does not bring power; it must be visible to key decision makers.

Pfeffer suggests networking both with powerful individuals and weak ties, as weak ties often offer unique opportunities and support. Help them, they owe you their support. Success comes from combining political skill with power management; the combination of both can achieve unimaginable things.

Seven Rules of Power

Jeffrey Pfeffer, in his Seven Rules of Power (2022), gives stress of seven rules that create a path to gain, consolidate and manage power.

1. Get out of your way:

Self-doubt, fear of failure, and impostor syndrome are common hurdles that can hold people back from realising their potential. The greatest obstacle to power is often internal. To attain and maintain power in the long run, it's essential to begin by gaining a deep understanding of yourself.

2. Break the rules

Two kinds of people shape the world: those who follow rules and those who break them to forge new ones. Deng Xiaoping exemplifies the latter. As China's leader in the 1970s and 1980s, he defied traditional communist principles by opening the market to foreign industry and enabling Chinese companies to operate abroad. This shift, though contradictory to the ideology of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, propelled China to become a global manufacturing hub, driving economic growth and stability.

3. Appear powerful, confident, and attractive

Power without visible impact is futile. Perception is reality, and as the saying goes, 'what is seen is what is sold' (jo dikhta hai, wahi bikta hai). True power must be reflected in actions and behaviour to have any meaningful effect.

4. Build a powerful brand

Brand building involves enhancing visibility and reputation by strategically establishing connections with influential individuals and organising impactful events

5. Network relentlessly

Cultivate a wide network with a mix of weak ties and powerful connections to maximise opportunities.

6. Use your power

Power grows when you use it to act decisively and demonstrate your influence, as this attracts more supporters and opportunities

7. Success excuses almost everything

Once you've achieved power and success, the journey often fades into the background, and focus shifts to effectiveness. Rather than dwelling on potential backlash, prioritise achieving your objectives. The struggles and efforts become worthwhile when you reach your goals and receive recognition.

Cost and Risk Associated with Power

Power, like a double-edged sword, has its pros and cons. Along with benefits, it carries inherent costs and risks:

1. Greater visibility and scrutiny

Those in positions of power are constantly under the microscope, subject to intense scrutiny and surveillance. Every action, gesture, and decision is closely monitored and analysed by others. For instance, public figures like Prime Minister Modi are often under constant observation, with their speaking style, demeanour, habits, and work patterns being closely tracked and critiqued.

2. Loss of autonomy and increased demand

With great power comes great responsibility (Spider-Man Movie), and often, a loss of personal autonomy. As expectations from others rise, individuals in power must exercise caution in their actions and decisions. A notable example is Finland's former Prime Minister Sanna Marin, who faced backlash and ultimately resigned after a video surfaced showing her socialising and drinking with friends. The incident highlights the scrutiny and high standards that come with leadership positions, where personal life can become public fodder.

3. Trust issues and risk of losing power

Those in power often grapple with trust issues, constantly fearing that someone close to them might usurp their authority. This paranoia can lead to drastic consequences, as seen in the case of Saddam Hussein, who ruthlessly eliminated perceived threats, including relatives and friends, in a bid to consolidate his power.

According to Jeffrey Pfeffer, acquiring power within an organisation is crucial, as it correlates with improved health, longevity, and overall well-being. Conversely, a lack of power can lead to anxiety and feelings of helplessness. The dynamics of power are inherent to human nature, making it a game that organisations play, where you either participate or lose by default.

In the pursuit of organisational effectiveness, leadership, and influence, understanding and leveraging power are essential. Power is a key driver of change and implementation. To wield power effectively, one must be relentless and focused, avoiding the waste of political capital on non-essential issues.

As the adage goes, "He who has the gold makes the rules." (jiski lathi uski bhains) This timeless principle underscores the importance of power in shaping outcomes and achieving success.

- submitted by Sparsh Verma (Ph.D. Scholar)