Introduction

Organizational political behavior is those actions not officially approved by an organization taken to influence others to meet ones personal goals and would appear to be inevitable in organizational life. Political behavior in organizations is examined using an operant perspective. Operant principles help explain why political behavior tends to occur in competitive environments in which there are unclear rules for the distribution of outcomes and resources and why the true motivations behind political activities tend to be hidden. In addition political tactics are thought to occur when individuals are reinforced directly for these behaviors, when the tactics result in desired changes to consequences for performance, and when they increase power. Reasons why power holders are susceptible targets of political influence are also considered. Some managers thinking that its important for any organizations but sometime it can be come up with bed situation because organization political theory neglects individuals political behavior within organizations. It is called dysfunctional due to its potential power to disturb firms efficiency and effectiveness.

Analysis of Organizational politics Behavior

Organizational political behavior consists of Internal-External Dimension. External includes, whistle blowing, lawsuits, leaking information and Internal includes exchange of favors, reprisals. The internal-external dimension of political behavior is concerned with the focus of resources sought by those engaging in political behavior in organizations. In cases, such as whistle blowing, lawsuits and leaking information to the media, organization members attempt to expand the resources available for mobilization by going outside the boundaries of the organization and attempting to involve outsiders. Internal political behaviors, on the other hand, utilize resources which are already within the organization, as in the exchange of favors, trading agreements, reprisals. From an organizational standpoint, psychologists are concerned with the processes of learning, perception, and motivation. Sociologists study the various organizations that compose society, e.g., political, legal, business, governmental, and religious bodies. Finally, anthropologists are interested in the impact of culture on behavior. The three disciplines have
1|Page

had a major impact on the study of organizational behavior. While discussing political behavioral approach of organization, a member pursues in organizations, a more rational rather than intuitive approach is more informative and suggested. Organizational political theories backed up by the rational approach, even though they make available a valuable simplification of organizational reality, inevitably explain only a portion of the behavior that occurs. Organizational life involves contradictions because it encompasses two organizational realities: the rational and the political. Although, these two realities may involve contradictions, they frequently complement one another. Burns has observed that members of a corporation are at one and the same time cooperators in a common enterprise and rivals for the material and intangible rewards of successful competition with each other.

Perceptions of Politics in organization, Positive and Negative Over the past few years, research on perceptions of politics in organizations has begun a shift in direction. Initial research on perceptions of politics generated strong evidence of the validity of various portions with particular emphasis on the outcomes of perceptions of politics in organizations. Clearly, perceptions of politics as generally conceptualized and measured has been shown to be an antecedent to numerous negative outcomes, such as reduced job satisfaction, increased job anxiety, and increased intention to turnover. Factors such as uncertainty, competition, and change have been shown to be associated with a judgment of the occurrence of politics in the workplace. In this research we take a different tact in understanding perceptions of politics, one that includes traditional conceptualizations (typically having a negative connotation) as well as politics as a positive event in organizations. This is consistent raise the positive side of political behavior, or behavior judged to be political yet having positive consequences for the actor or others in the organization. These authors point out that the positive nature of politics in organizations is a particularly relevant pursuit since it is both under-researched and has the potential to significantly alter the study of politics in the workplace. Some definitions of politics in organizations have been traditionally framed in the negative. For example: individual or group behavior that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all in a technical sense, illegitimate sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise or actions by individuals which are
2|Page

directed toward the goal of furthering their own self-interests without regard for the wellbeing of others or their organization. Politics is informal, discretionary, promotes self-interest on the part of the actor that reflects intent or motives and is therefore cognition, potentially threatens others, is indifferent to or may run counter to organizational goals, and is based on social influence. Consistent with this essentially negative connotation is a body of research that shows how the perception of such behavior negatively affects the individuals who are exposed to it. Perhaps this is so because these actions are often seen as taking advantage of someone or acting outside the bounds of acceptable behavior, though often not expressly prohibited by the organization perceptions of politics have been consistent in tone with the belief that political behavior is an undesirable means to achieve self-serving goals. However, this traditional view of politics as always being somewhat evil is giving way to the understanding that political behavior may, at times, have a positive side or sides. One reason is that organizations tend to build systems to handle current and foreseeable events, but many things happen that organizational decision -makers do not plan for yet must also be addressed. As is becoming apparent, not all behaviors that might be deemed political are necessarily bad for organizations, and are often necessary for organizational effectiveness. In fact, many researchers have noted that organizational politics can be helpful for members of the organization. This includes such things as creating positive change in the organization or overcoming unforeseen difficulties that cannot be addressed using currently accepted lines of authority. Politics can be perceived as positive when they are used by organizational members to get things accomplished or to raise issues that are not appropriate at a particular time. For example, this could occur in a situation where an organizational team bypasses the chain of command to increase the visibility of particular ideas yet what is then done with those ideas benefits the organization. As such, positive and negative political behavior are often similar forms of behavior, essentially unsanctioned and ostensibly self-interested; the major differences lie in the outcomes. Further, both positive and negative forms of political behavior can occur simultaneously in organizations. It is notable that the distinction between negative and positive politics, as we have defined it, comes primarily in terms of the more positive nature of the outcomes for the latter. However, positive politics is not the opposite of or simply the absence of negative politics. Just as each is said to occur simultaneously, recent research has found that measures of positive and
3|Page

negative politics each contribute significantly to predicting outcomes such as job satisfaction. We recognize that the benefit of positive politics is likely mixed for organizational members; in so far as some may view that even positive political action can undercut the legitimacy of organizational authority and structures. As such, the definition of positive politics differs from traditional conceptualizations of politics primarily in that it does not threaten the interests of others or run counter to organizational goals. It is still informal, discretionary, does promote self-interest, and is influence- based. When employees work to achieve own goals then the overall organizational goal in blocked. Employees always think about their own advantage. So, their working procedure and decision making process become biased that give rise to the conflict of interest between proper political practice in the organization and individual need of the employee.

Decision:

Politics exists in organizations because many workplaces are still troubled by the fiefdom pattern, in which individuals have the view that their position are an asset and keep it safe, aggressively and jealously. Brilliant and highly rated performance is not always appreciated and encouraged in every organization. May be, some members in the top management enjoy hard workers in his or her organization and may use the fruits of their hard work and talent toward the progress and development of whole firm, but, at the same time, remaining top management members can perceive talented and hard workers as a potential threat, and can do whatever they can to get rid of them early, hence the process of politics begins.

Conclusion

This study represents an important step in our study of political behavior in organizations. When it comes to organizational politics, there is a potential up-side to what has traditionally been viewed as negative. However, there is clearly a lot more to learn about this important organizational phenomenon.

4|Page