Politics in an Organization

For the purposes of our discussion, the book defines Organizational Politics as
the processes in which individuals or groups within an organization use non-formally
sanctioned power tactics to advance their own aims. Advancement in a company
usually involves gaining the requisite amount of skills and work experience needed to fill
higher positions. In simple terms, once you get better at your job, you tend to me more
likely to further your own position within the company. Political tactics however, add a
whole different dimension to the discussion. By resorting to political tactics, a person
can become more favored than counterparts who may be more qualified or more
experienced.
This may not be necessarily detrimental however, and there are two important
reasons why this is so. First, a persons career growth is strongly affected by the overall
standing of his or her employer. As such, an employee has a vested interest to ensure
that the company is performing to its full potential. Second, the time a person spends
with a company tends to create ties of loyalty between employee and employer. When
an employee begins to care about his or her company, then it is unlikely he or she will
act in ways that will act against company objectives.
The book describes several examples of political tactics. These include the
following:
Blaming or attacking others
Controlling information
Developing a base of support for ones ideas
Image building
Ingratiation
Associating with the influential
Forming power coalitions and developing strong allies
Creating obligations
It is interesting to note that these tactics all possess some element of deception
or manipulation. It can very well be argued that these elements are one of the central
characteristics of political tactics. It should not be made apparent that one is trying to
resort to non-formally sanctioned tactics to gain power, since the system is designed
such that power would be assigned purely on the basis of a persons qualifications.

Ethics of Political Tactics
It was mentioned earlier that political tactics are not always disruptive to an
organization. In fact, political tactics can be harnessed in ways that actually benefit the
company. First, they can help project proponents and department managers garner
support for endeavours which are beneficial for the company. Second, they may be the
only defense a person has against co-workers who would abuse their own political
powers at his or her expense. Used in these ways, political tactics can be considered as
ethical courses of action, despite their nature.
The problem with political tactics is that in the same way they can be used
beneficially, they can also be utilized in a manner that is clearly injurious to other
individuals, as well as the organization in general. For example, a Marketing manager
who befriends the division President may subsequently gain funding for his projects
while another, more qualified Marketing managers projects may not be approved, partly
due to the fact that the second manager is not as friendly with the President. The end
result is that the second manager is unfairly put in worse off position, through no fault of
his or her own. Also, the benefits of the projects the second manager was pursuing will
no longer be realized, and are essentially wasted for the company.

Utilitarianism
For a more detailed analysis of the ethics of political tactics, we once again refer
to the four main ethical principles discussed in class, beginning with the ethics of
Utilitarianism.
We established earlier that political tactics are similar to double-edged swords;
they are weapons which can be used both to protect and to destroy. Therefore, the
concept of political tactics is neither ethical nor unethical in and of itself. It is the
particular uses of political tactics which can be judged as unethical or ethical. If you use
political tactics to install organizational goals which are noble and generally beneficial, it
would be ethical. On the other hand, if political tactics are used purely for personal
interest and creates organizational inefficiency, it would be clearly unethical.
An example of this is the act of controlling information. In certain cases, this
helps some individuals leverage their own power and therefore put themselves in a
good position to achieve their personal goals. However, it comes at a significant cost for
the organization; individuals who would have been able to use to information for the
companys benefit are not given access to it, creating organizational inefficiency and
slowing down its overall progress.

Moral Rights / Justice
One of the more fundamental principles of human rights is Kants Categorical
Imperative, which basically states that people should be treated as ends, and not as
means to further ones interests. Since political tactics tend to deceptively use other
people as instruments to increase ones own power, they clearly fail to conform with the
premises of the Categorical Imperative.
However, this issue is complicated by the fact that political tactics are also
commonly used to defend against other peoples manipulation and deception. In that
sense, it actually promotes our rights to equal treatment. Without the use of political
tactics, we are left defenseless against the injustice that may be brought about by other
people and their deception. The entire organization might suffer the consequences as
well, since valuable contributions from members who are not as comfortable with
political tactics would not be gained.
Similarly, one of the fundamental principles of justice is equality of treatment. In
its ideal form, the corporate system of advancement is just, since it considers the
objective qualifications of its employees, and distributes positions and benefits
accordingly. However, political tactics tend to distort this system significantly. Undue
benefits and positions are given to people who can master the political game, and this
has nothing to do with their individual merits or capabilities. Conversely, undue penalties
are also imposed on those who choose not to involve themselves in office politics,
despite their own merits and capabilities.

The Ethics of Care
We believe that one of the most significant ethical issues involved in the issue of
Political Tactics is its effect on relationships. The continued and prolonged use of
deception through political tactics may have long-term and debilitating effects on
personal relationships in the office. And when we consider how much time we spend
with our officemates, we can see how political tactics can seriously damage what are
some of our most important relationships.
One of the main problems is the if a person is successful in utilizing deceptive
tactics to gain several benefits, he or she is encouraged to continue with this behaviour,
and thus gets increasingly comfortable in using other people as instruments in
advancing personal interests. As the book describes, this situation is very corrupting
and dehumanizing.
On the other hand, those who are on the receiving end of deception tend to feel
frustration, conflict, and feelings of failure. And that may just be a natural reaction to not
receiving the benefits commensurate to ones contributions and capabilities, while other
less deserving individuals may receive more than they are due.

The Caring Organization
The book defines a Caring Organization as one in which dominant moral
concepts are those that arise from an ethic of care.
Joanne M. Leidtka has formulated these four basic qualities of a caring
organization:
1. Focused entirely on persons, not quality, profits, or any of the other kinds of
ideas that much of todays care-talk seem to revolve around
2. Undertaken as an end in and of itself, and not merely a means toward achieving
quality, profits, etc.
3. Essentially personal, in that it ultimately involves particular individuals engrossed,
at a subjective level, in caring for other particular individuals
4. Growth-enhancing for the cared-for, in that it moves them towards the use and
development of their full capacities, within the context of their self-defined needs
and aspirations
We can clearly see that this is quite different from the CSR initiatives that modern
companies tend to practice, in that CSR in normally founded on the rationale that caring
creates customer goodwill and long-term economic growth. The Caring Organization on
the other hand, is selflessly concerned only with the welfare of its stakeholders.
This kind of philosophy could even be beneficial for the company in a business
sense. Since trust flourished in a Caring Organization, decisions tend to be made more
quickly and with less red tape. Also, there is more customer commitment in a Caring
Organization, and this can motivate its employees to create more value for its
customers.
Despite these potential benefits however, this concept is probably far too idealistic to
be realized in todays corporate environment, where company shareholders are
understandably concerned with the economic factors of their business. This is
especially true in our country, where the power in even the largest corporations tends to
be concentrated in the hands of a select few people. As such, we believe the book is
correct when it surmises that there is not a corporation in the world which perfectly
embodies the spirit of a Caring Organization.
Ethical Issues Regarding Care
The two main issues regarding care are caring too much and caring too little. It
seems counterintuitive at first glance, but caring too much can certainly be a problem.
The constant effort required to address other peoples needs can come at the expense
of oneself, leading to burnout. A happy medium must be established between caring for
others and caring for oneself.
Another consideration is that caring too much can affect ones impartiality, which
could then affect the way we handle moral decisions. We are just human after all, and
we are inevitable influenced by feelings and bias, which make impartial moral decisions
that much more difficult.
However, the more serious ethical issue may be not caring enough. If this occurs
on a personal level, it could lead us to neglect co-workers and friends in need. In the
organization level, this could create indiscriminate layoffs, creation of large
impersonalized bureaucracies, managerial styles that see employees as disposable
costs, and reward systems that discourage caring and reward competitiveness, all of
which could prove damaging to the individuals within the company.