1

Organizational Politics
Organizational politics are informal, unofficial, and sometimes behind-the-scenes efforts to sell
ideas, influence an organization, increase power, or achieve other targeted objectives. Politics has
been around for millennia. Aristotle wrote that politics stems from a diversity of interests, and those
competing interests must be resolved in some way. Rational decision making alone may not work
when interests are fundamentally incongruent, so political behaviors and influence tactics arise.
Today, work in organizations requires skill in handling conflicting agendas and shifting power bases.
Effective politics isnt about winning at all costs but about maintaining relationships while achieving
results. Although often portrayed negatively, organizational politics are not inherently bad. Instead,
its important to be aware of the potentially destructive aspects of organizational politics in order to
minimize their negative effect. Of course, individuals within organizations can waste time overly
engaging in political behavior. Research reported in HR Magazine found that managers waste 20%
of their time managing politics. However, as John Kotter wrote in Power and Influence, Without
political awareness and skill, we face the inevitable prospect of becoming immersed in bureaucratic
infighting, parochial politics and destructive power struggles, which greatly retard organizational
initiative, innovation, morale, and performance.
In our discussion about power, we saw that power issues often arise around scarce resources.
Organizations typically have limited resources that must be allocated in some way. Individuals and
groups within the organization may disagree about how those resources should be allocated, so they
may naturally seek to gain those resources for themselves or for their interest groups, which gives
rise to organizational politics. Simply put, with organizational politics, individuals ally themselves
with like-minded others in an attempt to win the scarce resources. Theyll engage in behavior
typically seen in government organizations, such as bargaining, negotiating, alliance building, and
resolving conflicting interests.
Politics are a part of organizational life, because organizations are made up of different interests that
need to be aligned. In fact, 93% of managers surveyed reported that workplace politics exist in their
organization, and 70% felt that in order to be successful, a person has to engage in politics.

[3]

In the

negative light, saying that someone is political generally stirs up images of back-room dealing,

manipulation, or hidden agendas for personal gain. A person engaging in these types of political
behaviors is said to be engaging in self-serving behavior that is not sanctioned by the organization.
Examples of these self-serving behaviors include bypassing the chain of command to get approval for
a special project, going through improper channels to obtain special favors, or lobbying high-level
managers just before they make a promotion decision. These types of actions undermine fairness in
the organization, because not everyone engages in politicking to meet their own objectives. Those
who follow proper procedures often feel jealous and resentful because they perceive unfair
distributions of the organization's resources, including rewards and recognition.
Researchers have found that if employees think their organization is overly driven by politics, the
employees are less committed to the organization, have lower job satisfaction, perform worse on the
job, have higher levels of job anxiety, and have a higher incidence of depressed mood.
The negative side of organizational politics is more likely to flare up in times of organizational change
or when there are difficult decisions to be made and a scarcity of resources that breeds competition
among organizational groups. To minimize overly political behavior, company leaders can provide
equal access to information, model collaborative behavior, and demonstrate that political
maneuvering will not be rewarded or tolerated. Furthermore, leaders should encourage managers
throughout the organization to provide high levels of feedback to employees about their
performance. High levels of feedback reduce the perception of organizational politics and improve
employee morale and work performance. Remember that politics can be a healthy way to get things
done within organizations.

Antecedents of Political Behavior

Individual Antecedents
There are a number of potential individual antecedents of political behavior. We will start off by
understanding the role that personality has in shaping whether someone will engage in political
behavior.
Political skill refers to peoples interpersonal style, including their ability to relate well to others,
self-monitor, alter their reactions depending upon the situation they are in, and inspire confidence
and trust. Researchers have found that individuals who are high on political skill are more effective

at their jobs or at least in influencing their supervisors performance ratings of them.

[13]

Individuals

who are high in internal locus of control believe that they can make a difference in organizational
outcomes. They do not leave things to fate. Therefore, we would expect those high in internal locus of
control to engage in more political behavior. Research shows that these individuals perceive politics
around them to a greater degree. Investment in the organization is also related to political
behavior. If a person is highly invested in an organization either financially or emotionally, they will
be more likely to engage in political behavior because they care deeply about the fate of the
organization. Finally, expectations of success also matter. When a person expects that they will
be successful in changing an outcome, they are more likely to engage in political behavior. Think
about it: If you know there is no chance that you can influence an outcome, why would you spend
your valuable time and resources working to effect change? You wouldnt. Over time youd learn to
live with the outcomes rather than trying to change them.

Figure 13.10

Individual and organizational antecedents can both lead to political behavior.

Organizational Antecedents
Scarcity of resources breeds politics. When resources such as monetary incentives or promotions
are limited, people see the organization as more political. Any type of ambiguity can relate to greater
organizational politics. For example, role ambiguity allows individuals to negotiate and redefine

their roles. This freedom can become a political process. Research shows that when people do not
feel clear about their job responsibilities, they perceive the organization as more political.
[16] Ambiguity also exists around performance evaluations and promotions. These human resource
practices can lead to greater political behavior, such as impression management, throughout the
organization. As you might imagine, democratic decision making leads to more political behavior.
Since many people have a say in the process of making decisions, there are more people available to
be influenced.

The Impact of Power and Politics in Organizational

Productivity
Power and politics play a huge role in business, from governing how decisions are made to how
employees interact with one another. In businesses big and small, the impact of power depends on
whether employees use positive or negative power to influence others in the workplace. Politics may
directly influence who has the power and determine whether the overall culture of the workplace
encourages productivity.
Positive Types of Power
Positive power in an organization involves encouraging productivity. This includes giving employees
the power to make decisions, rewarding employees for strong performance and appointing
employees who perform strongly to supervise other employees. Positive power builds employee
confidence and motivates employees to work harder. It also results in those in higher-level positions
gaining power through employee respect and communication, rather than coercive efforts. Employee
retention rates are higher when employees are given the power to express concerns and work
together in an organization.

Negative Types of Power

When leaders in an organization do not have the respect of the employees under them, they have a
negative power. This type of leader motivates employees to perform by threatening them with job
loss and other punishments or shows favoritism to certain employees rather than recognizing the
hard work of multiple employees. Not only does the quality of work produced decrease under this
type of power, but it leads to higher turnover rates in an organization.

Positive Workplace Politics

Employees who learn to navigate the politics of an organization are more productive than those who
are left out of the loop. To encourage productivity, organizations must develop a political culture easy
for employees to understand. Establishing clear policies and chains of command makes it easier for
employees to find the answers they need and spend more time on producing quality work. A climate
focused on collaboration and equal treatment prevents conflict that can reduce productivity.

Negative Workplace Politics

Organizations that develop climates of negativity and conflict suffer as a result. If employees are
encouraged to engage in dishonest or unethical behavior to get ahead and favoritism trumps the
quality of work, an organization faces decreases in productivity and higher turnover rates. An
organization without clear policies and chains of command leads to employees spending more time
searching for answers and attempting to fix problems than actually completing quality work.

Understanding Politics in Development

Development is a complex business but it should not be tackled in isolation from the political
dynamics in a country or context. And thats why development practitioners would be advised to
embrace the Political Economy Analysis, according to experts.
The Political Economy Analysis encourages and enables development professionals to better
understand key political dimensions in a particular context in which they operate. It may also
provide insights on how to adapt their approaches accordingly.
Development is essentially a locally driven political process, said Sue Unsworth from The Policy
Practice. If external players are going to be at all effective in influencing how that process takes
place, they have to understand it and look for ways of engaging with it.
A better understanding of the politics can help programme officers avoid over-ambitiousness, can
contribute to setting realistic time schedules and appropriate sequencing and to foresee future
problem areas or understand better why certain efforts have not been successful in the past.
The Political Economy Analysis has received a good deal of attention in recent years. But for it to
endure, and Ms Unsworth believes that Political Economy Analysis is an essential tool in the
development practitioners cache, donors have to change the way they operate, she said speaking at a
recent PEA seminar in Brussels.
The impact has been quite fragmented within agencies, and what [the Political Economy Analysis]
hasnt done is induce any kind of fundamental rethink about how development happens and what
the role of external players might be, said Ms Unsworth, And that in turn isnt affecting key
decisions agencies make about how they recruit and deploy staff and train and use them.
Alex Duncan, also from The Policy Practice and another key speaker from the learning seminar,
agrees that this approach is central to effective development, and one that donors have overlooked
for too long.

Over the decades, by and large, development agencies have been remarkably ignorant of politics in
their programming which is not to say that their staff dont understand, as I think the staff often do
understand but that this way of thinking, of trying to be more realistic, has not been legitimised by
the organisations.
Agencies, like the Commission, have not given the staff the analytical tools and space to arrive at a
better understanding of the context in which they are working.
But now that the Political Economy Analysis has come to the fore, Mr Duncan cautiously believes
there is no going back.
It should not be oversold, it is not a new silver bullet that is suddenly going to transform the way
that organisations work, said Mr Duncan. It seems to me there is no going back to the situation
where we thought of the principle development challenges as a technical problem or a lack of
finance.
Plenty of evaluations carried out for the European Commission and others have said you have been
too naive politically and I think one has to respond to those kinds of findings of our past
effectiveness.

How to Deal with Organizational Politics

There is not an organization on earth (or space for that matter) that does not have to deal with
politics. The degree of organizational politics varies from one organization to another but the reality
is, all organizations have some sort of internal political struggle that can rip it apart. Dealing with
this struggle takes a keen awareness of the landscape, players and rules in which the political game is
played. Dont dilute yourself in thinking that your organization has no politics.The reality of any
organization with more than one person is that politics is the lubricate that oils your organizations
internal gears. Apply the proper lubricate and things will work fine. Forget to lubricate it and your
organization will grind to a halt.

The Political Landscape

Your organizations political landscape starts from the top. Whomever leads your organization will not
only form the landscape but also influence the rules (more on that later). The political landscape is the
formal hierarchy, informal hierarchy and alternative hierarchies that link the political players together.

Formal Hierarchy
In most organizations, this is the organizational chart that defines the reporting structure and who works
for whom. Its the first indication of how the organization is setup politically and can reveal a lot about
how the landscape is initially formed. Consider some of these ideas when looking at your organizations
reporting structure.

Flat Reporting: Flat reporting structures come about because the people at the top want
visibility into every aspect of the organization. Flat works when you are small but as an organization
grows, flat starts to strain and produces other hierarchies.

Lots of Executives: An organization with lots of executives usually means that there is a lot of
politics because executives want more influence and they now have to fight among other executives for a
smaller number of resources.

Functional: A functional hierarchy groups like resources (legal, HR, etc.) under one boss. These
resources are then farmed out to various groups or divisions (if they exist) to get tasks done. In general,
functional groups dont really have a revenue stream so they are constantly validating their existence and
this creates a natural political atmosphere.

Divisional: Most companies use the divisional approach since it allows for more accurate
reporting of performance and allows people to focus on specific products and markets. The politics of a
divisional hierarchy tend to center around budgets and interactions with the functional groups. Even a
divisional hierarchy needs some functional groups for support.

Matrix: A matrix takes the functional approach and the divisional approach and crosses them.
Resources are common and assigned to projects that divisions wants done. This structure is ripe with
political struggle because there are various reporting structures, resources dont work on one thing and
politicking is driven by the constant fight between matrix mangers and divisional managers.
As you can see, there are several different organizational hierarchies and each has its own unique political
challenges. Most organizations tend to be a hybrid and that adds an even more interesting dynamic to the
political landscape.

Informal Hierarchy
All organizations have an informal hierarchy that runs parallel to the formal one. This informal hierarchy
is built at all levels and comes about by people working together. By working together, people within the
organization know the go to people for critical items. These people can are the organizational gatekeepers

9
that yield some political power by the nature of their position or reputation. Its pretty clear who these
people are because they may control an executives schedule, are critical to a legacy system or know all the
office gossip.

Alternative Hierarchy
This is akin to the informal hierarchy but more formal in the sense that its usually associated with the
matrix type organizations where there is a lot dotted line reporting. Dotted line reporting is when you
have more than one boss. The dotted line implies you are responsible for some aspects of someone elses
project but they dont write your review. This alternative hierarchy can be a powerful political lever. It
usually taps into a different part of the organization and your dotted line boss can sometimes be a
valuable ally when your interests are aligned.

Information Links The Landscape

Within this political landscape, the main linkage between everything is the access to and the flow of
information. Information is a precious commodity. The worth of this commodity naturally rises and falls
as the political landscape shifts up and down all of these hierarchies. Realize that you are a player in this
landscape. Where you fit in and what power or influence your position and linkages have will be just as
important as your ability to use that influence.

The Political Players

Each player in the organization has a role in the politics that grease the wheels of getting things done. No
one can escape politics and thats why its vital to determine who the players are and what power they
wield. Any organization, whether its all volunteer or a corporation, will have several of the following
political players:
The boss: is the person thats in charge of the organization. Usually, they make the ultimate decision and
are who people are trying to gain favor with.
2nd in command: is being groomed for the bosses job and has a tremendous amount of political clout
with the boss.
The yes man: pretty much always agrees with the boss, even if its the wrong thing to do. Yes men get to
their position by catering to what every boss deep down wants to always be right.
The curmudgeon: is always looking at the downside of everything. Nothing is ever good enough or like
we used to do it. The curmudgeon has political power but its usually narrowly focused.
The vortex: always creates drama and wants to suck everyone to their side, even if its down the path to
disaster. Their typical task is to say they just want to be helpful and make sure every option is explored
but what they really want to do is slow things way down and push their own agenda.
The empire builder: loves the political power of having lots of people. They use this power to grab even
more power and will not stop until they are the boss.

10
The peacemaker: wants everyone to get along and work together in harmony. Usually, they have a ton
of political power because they are perceived as having the best interest of the company in mind.
The brain: knows everything and is purely data driven. Politicians usually avoid the brain because the
entire company knows how smart they are.
The rubber chicken: is hard to pin down and always has a what if. They are rubber chickens because
they squeak a lot but dont really say much.
The parrot: will steal someone elses idea as their own. They also tend to have no real opinion other than
the right opinion of the day and will parrot that all around the company.
One thing to remember is that people can and do change their roll, depending on the situation. Its not
uncommon for a yes man to be the boss in certain circumstances or even the curmudgeon being the brain
or even a peacemaker. The dynamics of the situation should always dictate a reexamination of the players
and how they fit into the landscape.
The essential item to remember is that people will fall into several different modes, depending on their
attitudes and political prowess

The Rules
Organizational politics does have rules and the sooner you figure them out, the better. These rules are
what the players have agreed to as the framework of how the organization will deal with political conflict.
Now, rules can also change and are sometimes situational when it comes to what hierarchy you are
dealing with. There are really no true set of general rules but the list below gives some of the basic ones
that most organizations will adhere too. Obviously, your organization will differ but once you understand
some of the basic rules, then it should be pretty easy to figure out the rest.

Strict chain of command: chain of command rules mean that any issues or decision must
follow the proper channels. There is no going over a mangers head to talk directly to his boss. This rule is
generally in organizations with a lot of hierarchy. Lots of hierarchy breeds paranoia in that if someone is
out of the loop, they are probably irrelevant.

Shoots the messenger: if the bearer of bad news is frowned upon or looked upon negatively,
then you clearly dont want to give bad news. Even if its the truth, you really need to learn how to tell the
whole truth in a positive way and not get shot in the process.

Favoritism trumps performance: this rule is usually in place when there is an organization
with a lot of yes men that the boss likes. In this situation, the most favorite people will have a ton of
influence and any political maneuvering has to go through them.

Paranoid android: In some political realms, there is a paranoia baked into the environment.
Everyone feels this sense that people are out to get you. When this type of environment is in play, the
rules dictate that you cover yourself from attacks by hyper communicating whats going on.

11

Kingpins: An environment with kingpins says that every decision has to go through a specific set
of people. Kingpins usually control groups or divisions and their influence is far reaching. In some cases,
the other rules dont apply to kingpins and that means you need to craft your positions directly to them.

Data driven: When an environment is data driven, the political posturing is somewhat reduced.
Politics never really go away but its more controlled when the environment trusts the data over
favoritism.

Decision by committee: When the rules of the game include committees, it takes longer to get
stuff done. Committees have their place and when decisions or directions are made strictly by committee,
you need to be vigilant in making sure every committee member understands the issues and has all the
data.

Straight from the gut: If you political environment relies on quick decisions and gut reactions,
then you will need to be prepared for a rapid change in direction at a moments notice. Influencing the gut
reaction environment requires having a solid grasp of the facts and the ability to think quickly.

Analysis paralysis: Some organizations deliberately ask for so much analysis that they never
make a decision. This rule can frustrate a person of action. To combat this, you need to do the analysis up
front and have a really compelling story or you will be asked to do even more analysis.
Some of the items above are not really rules but rather behaviors. These behaviors are important to watch
out for because they do frame how the political game is played and will guild you in your political
strategies.

Methods to Deal with Organizational Politics

Organizational politics is a full contact sport. It must be played with diligence and a full understanding of
the landscape, players and rules. Like any good sports team, preparation before the game makes the game
much easier to play and gives you a better chance of winning. Below are a few essential skills that will help
you play the game better:

Be data driven: Usually, data trumps any sort of political agenda. When you are data driven,
you rely on the facts and that is your best method to diffuse any sort of political positioning.

Foster alliances: You need to build up alliances well in advance of any political conflict.
Alliances are a great way to help each other ensure that nothing gets past your collective political radar.

Admit when you are wrong: The power of admitting when you are wrong is seldom
understood. When used correctly, it diffuses a politically charged situation within an instant. The trick is
to use it sparingly since if you are wrong too often, people will start to question your competence.

Understand the question behind the question: In a politically charged environment, the
line of questioning will always lead to some sort of political peak. Knowing where the questions are
leading will allow you to anticipate this and adjust accordingly.

12

Tell the truth: This may seem obvious but most people will skirt the truth because it may make
them look bad. Dont worry so much about looking bad that but rather, make sure you have the facts
straight and that you are striving to seek the truth about the situation.

Use email sparingly: Email can be a curse in a political environment since its a record of halfbaked ideas and half-truths. Use email sparingly and only when you have the facts straight.

Always look out for the best interest of the company: This is probably the single best
thing you can do when in a politically charged company. No one can debate you motivation when its in
the best interest of the company.

Foster relationships: Personal insights into your coworkers can help you navigate the political
landscape by giving you content into their personality. This is useful when the arguments get heated.

Stand up for yourself: When you right, let everyone know it. Dont cower when someone
attacks you. Rather, state the facts and be proud of how you handled the situation.

Help others: By helping others, you earn their trust and respect. You also earn their gratitude
that will come in handy when you need help.

Try and find common ground: Common ground is where everyone in the situation can agree.
In almost every situation, there is some common point where all parties will agree. Finding that will allow
you to accomplish a critical political move having the parties actually agree on something.

Agree to disagree: Sometimes a situation will descend into such chaos that the only solution is
to agree to disagree. This should be your last alternative but its a powerful tool when you are deadlocked.

Be the peacemaker: Its best that you get the reputation of someone who finds solutions to
tricky problems. Being the peacemaker is one way to achieve that. Peacemakers are looked at favorably
because they transcend the politics and focus on making progress.

Know When to Say I dont know: Its much better to say I dont know then to try and make
up an answer on the fly. Saying I dont know takes courage but when used correctly, those three simple
words can diffuse a volatile situation for another day. Just be careful not to use it too much.

Constantly adjust your approach: As the saying goes, one size does not fit all. You need to
read the situation you are in and select the best approach to achieve your objectives. Doing this will allow
you to be much more successful than if you just do the same thing over and over again.
One thing that stands out from the list above is the amount of effort it takes to interact in a politically
charged organization. Dont fret if you feel overwhelmed. Most people do get overwhelmed when they first
jump into a political environment. The thing to remember is to ease into it, if possible and really
understand the landscape before you start playing the game.

One Final Thought

The most important thing about organizational politics is to be prepared. Dont wing it or assume that you
have alliances when you spent no time beforehand doing research or building them. The worst thing you

13
can do is come into a political situation and not have all the facts, know the landscape, understand the
players and the rules. Thats a sure way to lose the game before you even started to play it.
You are here: Home > Economics help blog > The relationship between economics and politics

The relationship between economics and

politics
by Tejvan Pettinger on August 14, 2014 in concepts

Readers question: Why cannot politics and economics be seen in isolation?

Economics is concerned with studying and influencing the economy. Politics is the theory
and practice of influencing people through the exercise of power, e.g. governments,
elections and political parties.
In theory, economics could be non-political. An ideal economist should ignore any political
bias or prejudice to give neutral unbiased information and recommendations on how to
improve the economic performance of a country. Elected politicians could then weigh up this
economic information and decide.

14

In practise there is a strong relationship between economics and politics because the
performance of the economy is one of the key political battlegrounds. Many economic
issues are inherently political because they lend themselves to different opinions.

Political ideology influencing economic thought

Many economic issues are seen through the eyes of political beliefs. For example, some
people are instinctively more suspicious of government intervention. Therefore, they prefer
economic policies which seek to reduce government interference in the economy. For
example, supply side economics, which concentrates on deregulation, privatisation and
tax cuts.
On the other hand, economists may have a preference for promoting greater equality in
society and be more willing to encourage government intervention to pursue that end.
If you set different economists to report on the desirability of income tax cuts for the rich,
their policy proposals are likely to reflect their political preferences. You can always find
some evidence to support the benefits of tax cuts, you can always find some evidence to
support the benefits of higher tax.
Some economists may be scrupulously neutral and not have any political leanings (though I
havent met too many). They may produce a paper that perhaps challenges their previous
views. Despite their preferences, they may find there is no case for rail privatisation or
perhaps they find tax cuts do actually increase economic welfare.
However, for a politician, they can use those economists and economic research which
backs their political view. Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were great champions of supply
side economists like Milton Friedman, Keith Joseph, and Friedrich Hayek. When Reagan
was attempting to roll back the frontiers of the state there were no shortage of
economists who were able to provide a theoretical justification for the political experiment.
There were just as many economists suggesting this was not a good idea, but economists
can be promoted by their political sponsors. In the US, the Paul Ryan budget proposals
were welcomed by many Republicans because they promised tax cuts for better off, cutting
welfare benefits and balancing the budget. (1) A popular selection of policies for
Republicans.

Economics needs political support

15

If you study economics, you can make quite a convincing case for a Pigovian tax a tax
which makes people pay the full social cost of the good, and not just the private cost. This
principle of making the polluter pay, provides a case for Carbon Tax, congestion charges,
alcohol tax, and tobacco tax e.t.c.
However, whether these policies get implemented depends on whether there is political
support for them.
For example, a congestion charge was proposed for Manchester, but it was very heavily
defeated in a referendum. A new tax is rarely popular. As an economist, I would like to see
more congestion charging because it makes economic sense. But, what can make sense
to an economist can be politically unpopular.

The political appeal of austerity

Another interesting example is the political appeal of austerity. After the credit crunch, there
was a strong economic case for expansionary fiscal policy to fill in the gap of aggregate
demand. Yet, politically, it can be hard to push a policy which results in more government
debt. There may be an economic logic to Keynesian demand management in a recession
but a politician appealing to the need to tighten belts and get on top of debt can be easier
slogans to sell the general public, rather than slightly more obtuse multiplier theories of
Keynes

Who runs the economy Politicians or economists?

Another interesting case is the relationship between fiscal policy (set by government) and
monetary policy (largely set by independent Central Banks)
In the UK and US (and Europe) fiscal policy has been relatively tight, given the state of the
economy. As a consequence it has fallen to Central Banks to pursue expansionary
monetary policy to offset the deficiencies of fiscal policy. If politicians pursue tight fiscal
policy, Central Bankers have to adapt Monetary policy.
See: problem of politics and economics

Micro economics free of politics?

There are some areas of economics we could argue are free of politics basic supply and
demand and concepts like the theory of the firm are not laden with political ideology. But,
even in micro-economics, you could argue that politics cant help seeping in. If you take an

16

issue like privatisation there is a clear political issue. Who should control key industries
private enterprise or the government?

Agenda
Another issue with economics is that some criticise the subject for prioritising economic
growth and maximisation of monetary welfare. Some argue that the aim of society is not to
maximise GDP but to maximise happiness, the environment and being satisfied with what
we have. Therefore, a politician from an environmental background may disagree with the
whole premise behind macro-economics. It is not just about the best way to promote
economic growth. But, whether we should be aiming for economic growth in the first place.
That is a political issue too.