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