In any organization, effective management is difficult to achieve and maintain. Analyzing organizations from multiple perspectives allows people to better understand the system and potential issues involved and to identify solutions. Bolman and Deal utilize a four-frame approach focusing on the structural frame, human resource frame, political frame, and symbolic frame.1 This paper will discuss the political frame. The political frame views companies as jungles and focuses on the powerful members in an organization who negotiate and influence others. The political frame also looks at the dynamics of alliances and opponents and how they interact.1 In terms of the political frame, the employer’s job is to influence and negotiate with people inside and outside of the company. If done correctly, these strategies give the employer access to key players in the industry by building strong alliances. If these strategies are used incorrectly, the employer is viewed as a con artist or thug and is distrusted by employees and outside companies who believe the employer is a fraud or is manipulating them.1 The political frame relies on the assumption that organizations are alliances of unique people and interest groups. The people are unique due to their different views of the world, their morals, faith and activities and the information they have given these characteristics. The political frame also assumes that all key decisions arise from the need to allocate scarce resources such as time, money and information. These scarce resources and differences amongst people are what make conflict the core of organizational dynamics and make power such a crucial asset. Finally, the political frame assumes that all objectives and conclusions are e... ... middle of paper ... ... getting emotional. However, he acknowledges that experience has helped him to avoid situations where he would make these mistakes and to be more cognizant of how and when these mistakes occur. Overall, Mr. Dinino and KBD Investments are excellent examples of how power, influence and negotiation can lead to success References 1. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. 2. Van Schaack, A. J. (2014). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University. 3. Van Schaack, A. J. (2014). Political frame: Negotiations. Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University. 4. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). The science of persuasion. Scientific American, 76-81. 5. McCarthy, A. (n.d.). 10 rules of negotiation. Negotiation Skills. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from http://www.negotiation-skills.org
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing Organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Politics or politicking is a game that is more ostensible and reserved for the political arena; however, metaphorically, much of the political discourse can also be found within organizations. Politics in organizations, then, is design for groups to reconcile differences between interests, conflicts, and power (Morgan, 2006). The case study to be analyze (Cutting Back at City Hall) is one that illustrates all three aspects of interests, conflicts, and power as the City of Smithville, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the International Association of Firefighters (IAF), and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) deliberate the city’s proposed budget.
In addition, the Political risk confronted by organizations can be demarcated as “the jeopardy of a financial, strategic or employees’ loss for the organization for the reason of such nonmarket aspects including the social and macroeconomic policies, or occasions connected to political variability (riots, terrorism, coups, insurrection and civil war). Furthermore, administrations may face difficulties in their aptitude to implement military, diplomatic or other ingenuities as a consequence of political jeopardy (Goddard, 1990)
Boje, D. M. , Luhman, J. T. , and Cunliffe, A. L. “ A Dialectic Perspective on the Organization
It is not about “what you do”, “it is about who you are and who you know”. As employees, we have all heard sayings like this before when it comes to the business world. The “power and politic” mindset is a direct result of the type of tug of war experienced for millions of years; from prehistoric times through modern day. Ever since Ugha smashed Mugha in the head with a club back in prehistoric times, politics have been around in the workplace. Politics are a subliminal fight for survival and it actually happens in personal lives as much as it does in our work lives. Politics can go hand in hand with power, just as night follows the day. Many of the political situations that occur within a corporation are a result of growth and change. However, part of the task of becoming a viable asset to a corporation is to look beyond the surface and find out where the company is heading as a result of these changes. In this way, employees can position themselves to be a positive part of the growth and change.
In this paper, we have examined our company of choice, TM Berhad, utilizing each of these four frames as a “spectacle” to determine the leadership approach of its management, and then detailing the more prominent of the frames used.
When people get together in groups, power will be exerted. When employees convert this power into action, they are said to be engaged in politics. Organizational politics involves those activities taken within organizations to acquire, develop, and use power and other resources to obtain one’s preferred outcomes”. Organizational politics is wider construct than political behavior. It consists of three levels individual, group and organizational. In organizational politics, the politics comes from organization where as in political behavior it comes individual. Political behavior is associated with individual behaviors and usually is implemented in communications and interactions among people. In other words, people in workplace follow their
When reading Bolman and Deal, it helped put a lot of situations that occurred with my previous employer into perspective. It was easy to see how decisions were made in reference to the structural frame and the political frame. Overall, the human resources frame was most useful in identifying deficits of my previous employer, particularly toward the end. However, there is a particular situation that is best explained using the Human Resource Frame.
During this course, I have learned a lot about negotiating. We learned about almost every negotiating technique there is. We learned about cross-cultural negotiations, body language, Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), variables in negotiating, and many more. Before this course, I did not know that much about negotiating. I thought that negotiating was just about trading or convincing someone to give you what you want and you did not care about the other side, resulting in a win-lose. I now know that negotiating is about getting what you want, but also giving the other side what they want as well to result in a win-win. This paper is about how I am going to improve my negotiating skills over the next six months. In order for me to improve my negotiating skills, I believe I need to improve the following skills- my body language, communication, planning, and my interpersonal communications. By improving those skills, I can become an effective negotiator.
As far back as history can be told mankind has struggled between balancing culture, power and politics. Many wars have been fought and many people have placed their lives on the line in order to stand up for what they believe in. The combinations of culture, power and politics have spilled over into the workplace. In today’s business environment individuals have much more to worry about than just completing their assigned tasks. Organizational culture, power and office politics influence day to day operations as well as govern the atmosphere within the organization. The amount of impact that power and politics have in the workplace, directly reflect the organization’s culture formally as well as informally.
If we think of organizations as complex social systems, we can appreciate the need for people to represent the system itself -even in times of change and diversity- and that may lead to their maximum development. Without any doubt, this is a difficult role to play by today...
According to Hatch and Cunliffe (2006), there are three major perspectives about the study of organization theory (OT): modern, symbolic interpretive, and postmodern. Each of these perspectives comes with its own assumptions and methodologies. Hatch and Cunliffe provided an introduction text about the concepts and characteristics of the three OT perspectives. Tsoukas and Knudsen also compiled a comprehensive handbook summarizing all facets of the meta-theoretical perspectives. In this post the writer will discuss the basic concepts of three perspectives, present Hatch and Cunliffe’s reasons why a multiple perspectives approach to organization theory is important, and compare Tsoukas and Knudsen’s introduction to the Hatch and Cunliffe introduction in their books.
Have you ever wondered what role politics and power play in organizations? When used effectively they can be compatible in reaching the organizations goals. Power is defined as the ability to get someone to do something you want done or the ability to make things happen in the way you want them. (Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn, Chap. 15). Power is important within organizations because it is the way in which management influences individuals to make things happen. When power and influence combine, most of the time 'politics' become involved in some manner which may pose some problems. Organizational politics is best described as management influenced by self-interest through the use of means not necessarily authorized by the organization. Organizational politics have been viewed as an organizations enhancement tool to survive and fulfill goals. Power and Politics, though closely related, share similarities and differences but ultimately work together for the success of an organization.
An effective organization focuses on strong leadership, power and political issues. These components are critical to creating an organization mindful of values, ethics, culture and innovation. Analyzing the use of power and politics are essential to understanding the behavior of individuals within organizations. There are two sides to power and politics. In one respect power and politics imply the shady side of leadership. However, power and politics can be positive tools that managers use to accomplish tasks. This paper defines power and politics and examines how one can be used to influence the other in a positive way, thus resulting in gain, and in a negative, corruptive way, which ultimately leads to destruction of an organization.