Politics is an inescapable part of most organizational structures and leaders have to indulge in organizational politics whether they like it or not. No organizational decision is completely rational since it is directly or indirectly influenced by organizational politics (Ratzburg). And leaders play an important role since they influence the followers to ensure their commitment and predetermined outcomes (Alagse). Leader can be successful only if they understand the organizational politics of their firm, otherwise it can be extremely difficult to get work out of the employees and get desired results. A lack of understanding of the organizational politics can also affect a leader’s chances of promotion.
It must be remembered that the power a leader has is a direct result of the position they hold. Mistaking this power of position as personal power can create a number of rifts between the leader and the followers. The young workers of the twenty first century are not afraid of their bosses and do not respect a leader just because he or she holds a higher position. An important aspect of the twenty first century organizational politics is that the leaders must earn the respect of their employees. Otherwise, the employees will not hesitate to leave the leader and the organization and give them both a bad reputation, which can create problems for both the leader and the organization.
Dr. Kennedy (1998) feels that in the current organizational atmosphere, a successful person needs to be leader rather than a manager. This advice makes sense since the younger employees do not like to be managed. They believe, and perhaps rightly, that they know their jobs and do not take kindly to being ordered around. Under the circumstances, the old fashioned authoritarian style of leadership will not work with these young employees. According to Kennedy, the only way to handle the younger employees is to include them in the decision making process. When leaders show faith in their employees and respect them, the employees tend to respect them back.
There are several different leadership styles and it has been argued that a successful leader uses each on of these styles according to the situation. It is often recommended to use aristocratic leadership style with new employees, when the leader knows more than the followers and when time is at premium. However, when dealing with young employees, the aristocratic style must be used with caution, since the generation X does not take kindly to being ordered around. These young employees like to feel that they are valued by their boss and when the leaders fail to instill this feeling in their young employees, they risk alienating thing.
The young today are anything but humble. Yet they look down upon arrogance. In the earlier generations, the leaders were expected to be arrogant while the followers were expected to be humble. However, the young today are well read and have a lot more knowledge than their older colleagues. As a result, deference to experience, authority and power does not come easily to them. In the ten years since Kennedy published the article, the problem has only grown with the younger employees becoming more and more confident. In order to handle these employees, the leader of today must lead by example and avoid indulging in activities which may make the employees feel inferior.
Although Kennedy’s article is related to the medical profession, most of the managerial issues that she raises are true for any organization. Perhaps the only organizations which can still get away with the aristocratic style of management are manufacturing firms, which still use the assembly line style of production. Any organization which requires knowledge and intelligence from its employees cannot use the aristocratic style of management.
The political environment of organizations has changed a lot in the last hundred years. The assembly line production style invented by Ford has now given way to innovative production methods where all employees are expected to contribute. This has greatly altered the political landscape of the twenty first century organizations. In today’s organization’s power does not flow from the top to the bottom. Rather, every employee is a center of power in his or her own sense. As a result, the relationship between the manager and the employee is no longer that of a leader and a follower but has grown to become a social relationship. This relationship is like the relationship between the different parts of a machine and the machine cannot function if even one part does not function properly.
In the organizational context, what this means is that every employee from the youngest and newest to the oldest and senior-most must be treated with the same respect. As stated earlier, the younger generation does not usually defer to authority. This can be a problem, since just like a machine, an organization needs to function as a unified entity in order to make profits. However, the young employees of today cannot be threatened or ordered to conform to the organizational culture. Hence, the only way to indoctrinate the young into the organizational culture is to form social relationships with them. This gives rise to a completely new set of organizational politics.
As stated by Ratzburg, the purpose of Organizational politics is to reconcile conflicts of interests so as to maintain order among the organization’s members. In view of the completely new set of interests of the younger employees, forming social relationship with them is a part of this organizational politics. Leaders must indulge in this politics for their own self interest and in the interest of the organization.
This resource to politics might make the organization seem like a political system. However, it must be noted, that all organizations must indulge in some form of politics in order to function smoothly. Also, this view of an organization as a political system does not conflict with other views of organizations. For example when we think of an organization as machine, we realize that a machine needs to be well oiled for it to function smoothly. Politics in an organizational context serves the same purpose that grease does for a machine.
The politics of forming a social relationship with the employees as a source of power also helps the leaders balance personal responsibility with organizational responsibility. As a leader, an individual is responsible for the conduct of the employees under him. Irrespective of the leadership style adopted by the leader, the failure or success of the employees reflects on the failure and success of the leader. So the leader cannot afford to be lax about the behavior of his subordinates.
A leader is also responsible for the well being of his subordinates, since a tired or disturbed employee is not very useful to the organization. Forming a social relationship with the employee helps a leader stay on top any problems in the employee’s life. When a leader is aware of the personal problems that an employee is facing, he is in a better position to make responsible decisions which are in the interest of both the individual and organization.
Thus, we see that with the changing social scenario, the way an organization functions is also changing. These changed functionalities have given rise to entirely new organizational politics. While social scientists have always impressed the need to change one’s leadership style according to the situation, this is even more relevant in the modern times. The old fashioned aristocratic style of management no longer works. A modern day leader must be flexible in the way he handles the employees.
The twenty first century leader has to face many challenges which the earlier generations never faced. The modern employee is informed and demanding and does not like to be ordered around. He is also less likely to respect a leader just because the leader happens to be in a position of power. In these situations, the politics of social inclusion is a way exercise power on these new generation employees. Politics was always an important part organizational setup. In the modern times, only the rules of organizational politics have changed. The leadership style which worked a few decades ago would only help a manager form enemies in the modern setup. So, in order to be successful, today’s leaders need to be more democratic than aristocratic. This change in organizational politics needs to be embraced by all mangers who hope to become successful leaders.
Reference
“Leadership and organizational politics.” Alagse. [Online]. 2008. Web.
Ratzburg, W.H. “Defining organizational politics.” [Online]. 2008. Web.
“Leadership styles.” [Online]. 2008. Web.
Kennedy, M.M. (1998) “The new rules of leadership and organizational politics- in the trenches.” Physician Executive. 2008. Web.