The area of peoples’ interests goes forward to gain more benefits by means of different actions. In fact, this truth is inevitable while working or participating in a team. In fact, the world of management is rather striking in episodes when people suffered from being oppressed by other colleagues. The reasons may be different: cases of cheating, stealing or misusing company’s resources. At such moments aggression and bullying becomes the most effective weapon for arranging so-called balance in the company. In practice, such situations are all over. The most significant feature about them is that they are mostly based on the features of financial and career profits.
Buchanan (2008) indicates that the politics of “back-stabbing” is a common practice that is enforced by such factors as: “misinformation, spreading rumours, and keeping dirt files for blackmail” (49). This is a domain of agenda-driven managers and their bosses who are seeking for the most useful pulls among the high and mighties. Needless to say, “back-stabbing” is mutual between key players in the dimension of great financial investments and political speculations. Suchlike manipulation in the area of business and professional relationships is considered to be a norm in the most cases. Even when people talk about corruption and fraud of the top of a company, politics of “back-stabbing” is especially used to regulate each step of the members and partners inside the company. “Back-stabbing” makes people go toxic about their destination in the work place (Dent, 2008). They are forced by looking for the counter factors that could reduce pressure on them from the part of colleagues or chief.
To eliminate the politics of “back-stabbing” is not that easy. It is a matter for the administration. The thing is that the cases of “mobbing” in the work space are constructed on the psychological or some personal details of an employee. Everything goes around the character of relationships between the dominants and subordinates. Turner (2006) makes special emphasis on what is that specific in relationships between the “top” and the “bottom” of the personnel: “Politicians in positions of authority demand “loyalty” from their followers and accuse aspirants for their office of “treachery” or “back stabbing” for contemplating a challenge” (16). Hence, the best way to eliminate politics of “back-stabbing” is when a person just does his/her job without provoking somebody’s blame.
It is especially hard to rise in careers because of spontaneity of probable “back-stabbing” from the side of colleagues surrounding a person. Soo (2009) points out that reaching “the pinnacle of the profession” may appear as a stimulus for “back-stabbing” (1). This is why it is better to find means to resist the pressure of negative effects throughout the work space. However, more dexterous people are contacting well even with the most scoundrels. Thus, it is possible to engage with political “back stabbing.” As a result, it may indemnify a person for a while.
In return it will affect the organization totally. There are multiple cases when companies claimed for bankruptcy. The fact that politics of “back stabbing” often took place in such organizations is one of the main inner psychological wide-spread reasons for fraud. One may compare such politics with a time bomb. It does not matter when the end will come. It will surely appear, unless politics of “back-stabbing” is eliminated within a company at the moment.
Reference
Buchanan, D. A. (2008, March). You Stab My Back, I’ll Stab Yours: Management Experience and Perceptions of Organization Political Behaviour. Journal of Management,19(1): 49-64.
Dent, F. (2008). Creating Working Relationships. Ashridge Business School. Web.
Soo, M. (2009). Politics of a Director of Radiology. Biomed Imaging Interview Journal 5(4).
Turner, K. (2006). The worldly art of politics. NY: Federation Press.