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

The roles of departmental and position power in job evaluation

[Welbourne, T. M., & Trevor, C. O. (2000). The Roles of Departmental and Position Power in Job    Evaluation. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4 , pp. 761-771]

Power may be defined as an ability to influence the decisions or outrightly control the behaviour of people. In organisations, it is nowadays used as a tool which can lead to positive or negative outcomes depending on how it is used. Such use of power to attain desirable outcomes gives rise to another term i.e. ‘politics’. Studies have shown that almost all the departments and processes are under the huge influence of organisational power and politics, and job evaluation process is no exception to that. Job evaluation may be defined as a process of systematic comparison between jobs to access their relative worth for the purpose of establishing a rational pay structure. The researcher, in this paper has attempted to test whether the job evaluation outcomes are affected by the departmental power in a university setting.

The researcher has successfully proposed a political perspective on job evaluation wherein it is believed that the job evaluation is based on the worth of a position and not on the worth of its incumbent, due to which the position holders use influence tactics in the job evaluation committees. This has made the researchers suggest that job evaluation procedures are not accurate and reliable because power and politics come in between and influence the job evaluation outcomes.

Further, the coalitional view or the political view of the organisation suggest that firms can be characterised as groups of subunits, each with its own agenda, which might or might not be consistent with organisational goals and thus this gives rise to the ‘departmental power’ which becomes an important determinant for resource allocation decisions. The literature suggests that more powerful departments are better at acquiring what they want and thus they have positive effect on favourable job evaluation outcomes. However, the researcher proposes that such positive effect will be greater when the position power of the jobs being evaluated or upgraded is high. Thus, the researcher posits that it is not only the departmental power but also the position power within the department that influence the job evaluation outcomes. Also, a clear distinction has been made between the position power and personal power wherein the position power signifies the incumbent’s ability to influence others through position held in an organisation’s hierarchy rather than through personal characteristics.

The results suggest that departmental power definitely affects resource allocation, however such effects become more substantial when the power associated with resource recipients is high. Also, the effects of departmental power on the number of new positions and position upgrades are greater when the position power associated with the jobs being evaluated is high. Thus, both departmental power and position power strongly influence the job evaluation outcomes. However with regard to politics in job evaluation, the researchers hold mixed views. While some researchers view this politics positively since it ultimately improves the department’s and firm’s performance, others contend that such job evaluation (under the influence of power and politics), does not accurately access the worth of the job.

[submitted by Mansi Babbar, Ph D Scholar, 2017]

Individual Power and Political Behaviors in Organizations

[Schein, Virginia E. (1977), Individual Power and Political Behaviors in Organizations: An Inadequately Explored Reality. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jan), pp. 64-72]

In organizations, we have different perpetually ongoing and pervasive functions like planning, organizing, directing and controlling. All these functions deal with the usage of available resources in the organization like men and machinery. Employees (men) are an important asset of any organization. But as each individual is unique and they carry their unique personal goals along, the difference between their personal goal and organizational goal creates a conflict between the individual and organization. To avoid that open conflict, individuals try to acquire certain power or favor. That’s why individuals get involved in struggle for power. That’s how struggle for power and its practice become much a part and parcel of the above mentioned functions performed in organizations. By this one could conclude that power and political behavior will also be all pervasive function of the organizational environment.

The paper which is reviewed here narrates this reality and develops arguments.  Power is always acquired on the basis of certain tangible or intangible set of resources which forms the bases of power. Now when one is in possession of some power then one can use it (via means) in order to get our personal goals achieved (intent) using some tactics. In this paper, Schein describes intent of the power holder as the mediating variable between the powers available to them and means to be used. Intent of the power holder is a function of personal needs or goals of individual and the contingency of situational factors. Intent of the power holder will be the deciding variable for the means to be used for getting the needs fulfilled or goals accomplished. There is a strong link between intent and means of using power by individuals in the organization. He put forwarded that whether one’s personal goals are congruent to the organizational goal or not has a strong relation with what type of means one would be using to accomplish that goal. The literature had founded that when individual’s goal was congruent to organizational goal, then that individual had used overt means and when his goal was incongruent to organizational goal then that individual had used covert means. 

Now this is not true that at one time individuals use only one type of means as they are found to be using both overt and covert types of means simultaneously. For example, when an individual’s personal goal is incongruent to the organizational goal, then although he is using covert means to reach to his goal but he will be expressly showing certain overt means which are congruent to the organizational goal. Now in this way the individuals use their powers in order to get their incongruent personal goals achieved without openly going in contradiction with the organization. So in nutshell on the basis of paper one could conclude that the individual intent plays a very important role in evaluation of his political behavior in organization.

[submitted by Kirti Saroha, M.Phil Batch XLI (2017)]

Gender Differences in the Perceptions of Organizational Influence Tactics

[Drory, Amos and David Beaty (1991) Gender Differences in the Perceptions of Organizational Influence Tactics, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, No. 3 (May, 1991), pp. 249-258]

Organization politics is referred to as attempts to informally influence others to enhance or protect one’s share of organizational resources or benefits - often through use of power – and is generally associated with conflict. This paper explores extant literature on organization politics, and then tests some of the stereotypical beliefs about gender vis-à-vis organization politics.

Past studies indicate that attitude towards organization politics is affected by cultural and organizational variables, as well as supervisory position, in addition to characteristics of the behavior. This study explores attitudes and perceptions towards organization politics based on another variable – gender. It is commonly perceived that men and women behave differently when it comes to using power. The general perception is that women exploit less, have less need for dominance, do not understand organizational power as well as men do, are less skilled compared to men in handling informal networks, and are not as direct as men in using influence tactics. The study concerns itself with a two-fold purpose – first, to assess if men and women have different attitudes towards political behavior, and second, if gender affects judgment of organization politics.

An experiential instrument – a short critical situation in which one person (manipulator) tries to influence another (target of influence) - is used to test the hypotheses derived from questions above. The sample of male and female respondents to the given situation are differently grouped to assess responses based on four influencing combinations - (1) Male influencing male, (2) male influencing female, (3) female influencing male, and (4) female influencing female. Respondents are asked to describe their attitude towards the manipulator (friendly-unfriendly, pleasant-unpleasant,considerate-inconsiderate, and cunning-straight), and towards the behavior (aspect of morality, negative effect to the organization, and willingness to behave in a similar way).

Contrary to popular belief, the experiment shows that men and women are guided similarly in matters of power and politics based on the perceived effect of situations on their gender group. Thus both males and females perceive manipulators of their own gender more favorably, consider manipulating a person of the opposite gender less immoral compared to manipulating a person of the same gender, feel manipulating a person of the other gender less detrimental to the organization, and prefer to exert political influence over the opposite gender. These findings also indicate that both males and females consider gender to be a meaningful affiliation group.

The paper proposes that similar studies be undertaken to test attitudes towards organization politics among other affiliation groups such as work units, or professional groups.

We feel that certain aspects of the paper can be improved. The paper cites some issues about organization politics in relation to women during formulation of hypotheses, raising expectations that these issues will be addressed subsequently; these are not followed through. For example, the authors’ suggestion that this study challenges the stereotypical view that women accept male superiority at work, or that they are discriminated against, is unsupported by the experiment design. Similarly, the citation that males indulge more in organization politics as compared to women is not assessed by the instrument design. It is suggested that future research explore these assertions as well.

[submitted by Nidhi Sharma, Ph D Scholar, 2017]