Discussion Topic 4 Prompts

Prompt 1: What did you learn about organizations, and/or the behavior of individuals
within an organization? How do the ideas presented in Part Four (the Political Frame)
of the B&D textbook enrich your understanding of the ways in which organizations and
the people working in them function?

Viewing organizations through the political frames means “power and conflict are
at the center of organizational decision making” (B&D, 2017, p. 199). Power is used a
tool to gain resources that align with their goals (B&D, 2017, p. 190). What really stuck
out to me was the impact and importance of power in this frame. Bolman and Deal
(2017) mention that “power in organizations is basically the capacity to make things
happen” and that “differences and scarce resources make power a key resource” (p.
186). What people choose to do with this power is not always just or constructive.

The political frame puts power directly in the hands of the managers and the
higher ups. From a position of power, politics can be both destructive and used to
achieve noble purposes (B&D, 2017, p. 216). The manager as a politician sets an
agenda, maps the political terrain, networks and builds coalitions, and
bargains/negotiates, (B&D, 2017, p. 204). With this power comes this responsibility for
managers to consider their organizations values and ethical principles when deploying
strategies for achieving goals (B7D, 2017, p. 216).

Prompt 2: How can you apply the concepts that you have learned about in the
readings to your personal or organizational life? Be specific.

Bolman and Deal emphasize the manipulability of power in the political frame. As
a politician, or manager, power is manipulated in order to achieve results. The authors
also talk about how power can either be misused, or used to achieve noble goals. At my
former workplace I often pondered why my manager wanted to be a manager. While I
don’t think her intentions aligned with the mission and values of our organization, I think
her intentions as manger were focused on achieving business goals. Because of this,
her power was focused less on relationships and more on strategic planning. While she
did not directly misuse her power, she often was able to get away with mistreating
emotionally mistreating employees because of her position. She was, however, able to
use her power and influence to run a very successful location despite her lack of ability
to create positive social relationships with all of her team members.

Prompt 3: Compare how structural theorist, human resource, and political frame
theorists view power.

While structural theorists view power as authority, using it to make decisions and
ensure that they are implemented, the HR frame focuses less on power and more on
empowerment while also using influence to enhance collaboration (B&D, 2017, p. 190).
The political frame views power as a tool to gain resources and manipulates it’s many
forms to produce the reality their organization is seeking (B&D, 2017, p. 190).

Prompt 4: What are the four strategies of principled bargaining? Come up with an
example of a bargaining situation in which you were involved (or that you are familiar
with). Connect the use (or failure to use) each of the strategies within the context of
your example.

The four strategies of principled bargaining are:

1.) Separate people from the problem: this avoids feeling personally attack and
entering defense mode or defeat (B&D, 2017, p. 211)

2.) Focus on interests, not positions: “If you get locked into a particular position, you
might overlook better ways to achieve your goal” (B&D, 2017, p. 211)

3.) Invent options for mutual gain: having more options increases the chance of a
better outcome (B&D, 2017, p. 211)

4.) Insist on objective criteria: setting objective standards at the beginning of a

negotiation reduces the likelihood of devious tactics that often prevent mutually
beneficial outcomes (B&D, 2017, p. 211)

Bolman and Deal (2017) mention that according to Fisher and Ury, a common
aspect of bargaining is that the parties involved typically “stake out positions and then
reluctantly make concessions to reach agreement” (p. 211). Their strategies instead
suggest a way to find a win-win situation in which both parties find a solution that is
better for everyone (B&D, 2017, p. 211).

An instance in which I’ve utilized Fisher and Ury’s strategy for finding a win-win
solution was when my husband and I bought a dog. The objective criteria (#4) was that
it be a small, hypoallergenic dog. The options for mutual gain (#3) were that we could
get a dog, as long as it was according to the objective criteria. Because I did not
particularly care for the criteria of the dog that we got, it was easy for me to agree to the
conditions of the purchase (#2); we focused on the interest of the situation, not the
position. And finally, because my husband knew how much I wanted a dog, there was
not belittlement or attack in the situation…just an agreement about the type of dog we
could get (#1).

Prompt 5: Throughout your progression in the Organizational Leadership program, you

have had a number of courses that include content complementary to the political
frame. Please highlight what you would consider to be two of the most important things
(ideas, concepts, theories, models, processes, skills, etc.) that you have learned in
previous coursework that you can relate to the Political frame. Briefly discuss each key
learning, the course where you learned it, and its connection with the Political Frame.
Bolman and Deal (2017) talk about the importance of making ethical decisions in
a position of power in the political frame. Because power is such an important element
in this frame, something that kept coming to mind for me was using power the right way.
I can’t help but connect material from my ethics course to this frame. In ethics,
utilitarianism prompts the person making a decision to consider what will do the most
amount of good for the most people. Though in business decisions are likely to be made
to benefit the company, it shouldn’t come at the cost of the good of others. Because
power in the political frame is used a tool to accomplish goals, consideration of the
utilitarian ethical theory could help keep power in check and ensure that it is being used
constructively.

Frame or Reframe an Organization from a Political Perspective

Prompt 6: How does politics work in an organization, group, or team with which you
are affiliated?

While I feel like my workplace uses less of a political frame and more of an HR
frame, there are still elements of the political frame present. For example,

Prompt 7: How does politics affect outcomes in your place of employment (or other
organization) for, say, customers, employees, colleagues, stockholders, surrounding
community and/or any other stake-holders? How has your organization or team
demonstrated being a political arena and/or political agent? Describe enough of a
situation concretely to provide context and use concepts from the readings in your
response.

The use of power in my workplace can directly impact how the employees feel
about their workplace. If power is being misused and the partners feel oppressed,
unappreciated, undervalued, and out-of-the-loop, they are less likely to enjoy their job,
more likely to be stresses, and less likely to give customer service. Every action made
by management in my workplace filters down to customer service. If our partners are
not happy in the workplace, neither are the customers.

A perfect example of my organization as a political agent is the recent

“Philadelphia incident”. In this incident, two African-American men were arrested for not
leaving a Starbucks when asked. Starbucks responded with an appeasement both for
the public (their enemies at this time), and their partners (their allies). Bolman and Deal
(2017) mention that “Organizations are lively arenas for internal politics” (p. 223).
Starbucks often inserts themselves into political situations as their mission is to be
involved in, and create, community. After the “Philadelphia incident”, Starbucks had to
make a political move that both appeased the enemies and the allies. Their answer to
this was the racial bias training. This incident and the response not only affected the
employees, but the customers as well.