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.

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)

The Role of Power and Politics in the Repricing of Executive Options

[Timothy G. Pollock, Harald M. Fischer and  James B. Wade, (2002) The Role of Power and Politics in the Repricing of Executive Options, The Academy of Management Journal, 45 (6), 1172-1182]

This paper aims at developing a framework explaining why certain firms reprice options while others do not. The focus of the paper is to explore the moderating role of CEO’s power, the power of external stakeholders and the visibility of the firm and it’s CEO on the primary relationship between negative spread (difference between strike price of stock options and the market price) and the likelihood to reprice options.

Ownership sources of power resulting from concentration of stocks in the hands of both the institutional investors as well as the CEO results in reduced likelihood to reprice options. Institutional investors can mitigate the power of executives either directly or indirectly by virtue of their large shareholding and hence can keep a check on the self-serving behaviour of management. CEO who also owns shares of his company might not undertake activities that have the potential to raise organisational risk of a negative backlash from the shareholders subsequent to options repricing even when such acts may reduce individual risks.

However, the structural source of power enhances the ability of the CEO to engage in option repricing and hence mitigate their losses. CEO who is also the chairman of the company enjoys much greater power to reprice options. When there are barriers to hostile takeovers such that the market loses its effective corporate control and the management has no fear of being ousted, then its ability to engage in unpopular activities rises. His ability to nominate people on the board who are either his loyalist or are dependent on him for board seats can significantly enhance his ability to make these directors function in the interest of the CEO.

But, when the board of directors perceive that their actions to reprice options will be visible and discussed publically then their incentive to reprice options goes down. They are more concerned about impression management rather than serving the interests of the CEO so that they do not lose out on their credibility and legitimacy regarding other claims.

The paper has articulated how the struggle of power, whether its ownership power or structural power between the shareholders and management gets reflected in the decision of the company to reprice options. The party having more power tends to make a decision that is in its own self-interest. The study gives suggestions to use restricted stock awards in place of stock options that gives ownership to the CEO but at the same time preventing him from selling the stock for a stipulated period of time.

[submitted by Anisha, M Phil Scholar, 2017]

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]

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]

The Ethics of Organizational Politics

[Gerald F. Cavanagh, Dennis J. Moberg and Manuel Velasquez (1981), The Ethics of Organizational Politics, AMR, 6(3) (Jul) 363-374]

The objective of the paper is to develop a normative model of ethical analysis that can be helpful in determining the ethical quality of political use of power within organizations. Power in organization is described in the paper as the ability to mobilize resources, energy, and information on behalf of a preferred goal or strategy [Tushman, 1977] and power is assumed to exist only when there is conflict over means or ends [Drake, 1979; Pfeffer, 1977].

The paper has also drawn distinction between political and non-political use of power. Non-political uses of power are those that involve approved means are used to achieve approved end. Political uses involve when unapproved means, or approved means are used to achieve unapproved or unjustified ends. Paper also highlights the difference between management theory and normative ethics. Management theory tends to focus on 'end justifies the mean'. What a manager should do is determined by the desirability of the consequences of the activity and not on the activities, processes and quality of the behaviors used to achieve that outcome. Normative ethics help to reduce the ethical uncertainty surrounding the political use of power. 

The proposed model in this paper integrated three kinds of ethical theories: Utilitarianism, Theories of moral rights and Theories of justice. Utilitarianism requires a decision maker to select decision which results in the greatest good for the greatest numbers. There are two types of PBAs (Political behavior alternatives) that are typically judged unethical:

(1) when personal goals are preferred at the expense of the societal goals, and

(2) when comparatively inefficient means are used to achieve the desired ends. 

Theories of moral rights assert that fundamental rights of the human beings should be respected in all decisions. Moral rights are like the right of free consent, right to privacy, right to freedom of conscience, right of free speech, and right to due process. One only needs to avoid interfering with the rights of others who might be affected by the decision. Theories of justice require decision of the decision makers to be guided by equity, fairness, and impartiality. Three types of moral prescriptions:

(1) Distributive rules: Individuals who are at equal or similar position should be treated similarly, and individuals who differ in some respect should be treated differently.

(2) Principles of administering rules: Rules should be clearly stated and declared publicly.

(3) Compensation norms: First, individuals should not be held responsible for matters over which they have no control. Second, individuals should be compensated for the cost of their injuries by the party responsible for those injuries. 

All the decisions of the organization taken under the political use of power should be examined under these three ethical criteria. Any ethical criterion is overridden if any significant factor exists to justify that. These factors are called overwhelming factors or situational factors. These overwhelming factors are (1) Conflicts between criteria and Principle of double effect: The good effect is important enough to permit the bad effect. (2) Conflicts within criteria and (3) Lack of capacity to employ the criteria: First, when Decision maker is in partial control of a certain decision and thus unable to employ a specific ethical criterion. Second, when decision maker fail to employ a certain ethical criterion due to a lack of adequate information. Third, when decision maker has strong and reasonable doubts about the legitimacy of an ethical criterion. 

In these cases, decision can legitimately be excused from adhering to that criterion.

[submitted by Anjali Sain, M.Phil Batch XLI (2017)]