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