NASPA Journal

ISSN: 0027-6014 (Print) 1559-5455 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarp19

The Nature of Organizational Politics

Belinda K. Newman & D. Stanley Carpenter

To cite this article: Belinda K. Newman & D. Stanley Carpenter (1993) The Nature of
Organizational Politics, NASPA Journal, 30:3, 219-224, DOI: 10.1080/00220973.1993.11072315
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1993.11072315

Published online: 02 Feb 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 31

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uarp20
 NASPA JOURNAL, VOL. 30, No.3, SPRING 1993

The Nature of
Organizational Politics
Belinda K. Newman and D. Stanley Carpenter

The authors examine the role organizational politics play in student affairs,
concluding that professionals who fail to understand politics are at the mercy
of those who do.

One of the myths of the American work environment is that hard work is the
way to succeed. Many examples exist of people who worked hard, performed
well, got along with others, but failed to be promoted (DuBrin, 1978; Kennedy,
1980). A political culture is inherent in the structural and functional design of
any organization. Since much of the decision-making within an organization is
based on influence, rather than formal objective processes, it is important to
understand how the organization and individuals within it perceive politics, as
well as how politics operate within the context of organizational norms.
Individuals must make such judgments about their specific organizational
environments.
Background knowledge of politics as a concept is critical to understanding the
idiosyncratic nature of any organization. Several authors have defined political
behavior as an individual's activities outside the normal and expected
performance of the job (Farrell & Petersen, 1982; Madison, Allen, Renwick, &
Bronston, 1980; Mayes & Allen, 1977; Vredenburgh & Maurer, 1984).

Belinda K. Newman, Assistant to the Vice President of Instruction, Collin County Community
College, McKinney, TX 75070. D. Stanley Carpenter, Associate Professor, Department of
Educational Administration, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4226.

219
NASPA JOURNAL

POLITICAL BEHAVIOR-POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?

Is political behavior good or bad? Conceptually, it is neither. The degree to
which particular outcomes benefit or harm the organization and its members
determines perceptions about political behavior (Bianco, 1985). Negative
connotations stem from political actions that are primarily self-serving. Young
(1987) distinguished between appropriate and inappropriate political behavior
for managers accordingly: "Unacceptable political activities serve the personal
ends of the manager. Responsible political actions, on the other hand, serve
[organizational] purposes" (p. 65). Given that political behavior consists of
activities neither sanctioned nor authorized by the organization, it is "typically
divisive and conflictive, often pitting individuals or groups against formal
authority, accepted ideology, and/or certified expertise, or else against each
other" (Mintzberg, 1985, p. 134).
Politics, then, may be viewed positively as motivation or negatively as
manipulation-the distinction determined by the perceiver. When a receiver
responds positively to an attempt to influence, the result is likely to be
motivation. But if the response is negative, the receiver will likely feel
manipulated (Kakabadse, 1983).
As with any organization, political behavior (both positive and negative)
permeates student affairs. Student affairs administrators acknowledge this fact
(Newman, 1991). Informal processes often influence decisions regarding, for
example, resource allocations, promotions, hiring, and organizational structure.
Individuals wishing to cope within an organization and managers responsible
for managing the culture require a clear understanding of the nature of
organizational politics.
According to Lincoln (1986), individuals participate in an organizational
culture when "large numbers of subgroups share elements of belief systems
and constructions about the world they inhabit" (p. 4). Organizational cultures
have both formal and informal structures. An organizational chart typically
depicts the formal structure. Activities and relationships the chart does not
recognize constitute the informal. Funkhouser (1986) claimed, "No matter how
neat the organization chart, no matter how expertly designed the job
description, and no matter how [effective] the reporting network, there can be
a lot of space between what the people in the organization on paper are
supposed to do, and what they actually do" (p. 170). An assistant to a director,
for example, whose duties are ostensibly routine and trivial, might actually
control the director's schedule and therefore have a major influence on policy
decisions and information flow. Another example is the director who is equal
in rank to others, but actually "first among equals" by virtue of time in the
position, charisma, size and influence of the department, or a relationship with
the vice president. In effect, this person is second in command.
Two key factors in determining the characteristics of a political environment
are individual political behavior and organizational norms. Block (1987)
compared political actions to walking a tightrope between advocating one's
own interests and creating resistance. He further described the path a person
chooses as a mixture of two forces: the individual choices made in adapting to
the environment and the norms and values of the organization (i.e., expected
behavior that is officially or unofficially sanctioned).

220
 NEWMAN, CARPENTER

INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL BEHAVIOR

Farrell and Petersen (1982) noted that examination of political behavior should
focus on "intended or overt actions, while recognizing that unintended or even
personal idiosyncracies may have political consequences" (p. 404). Individuals
seem especially inclined to behave politically when a task or situation involves
a degree of uncertainty (Frost, 1987; Pettigrew, 1973). Ferris, Russ, and Fandt
(1989) reported that the propensity for political behavior is most likely when:
(1) emotionality or task involvement are moderate or low enough, or other
conditions exist, to stimulate self-consciousness; (2) the social interaction and work
context are not rigidly ritualized, scripted, or otherwise constrained (Le., a
reasonably high degree of uncertainty or ambiguity exists); (3) opportunities or
threats create perceptions of instrumentality (or usefulness) of political behavior;
(4) the employee believes he/she will be successful; (5) the situation and the
potential outcomes are important to the individual; and (6) the employee observes
relevant others (e.g., supervisors, coworkers, and so forth) engaging in political
behaviors, particularly when they do so successfully. (p. 5)
Most, if not all, of these conditions commonly exist in student affairs
organizations (Newman, 1991). Given task ambiguity, the nature of student
affairs work, and the dynamics of professionals in organizations, one can
logically expect student affairs employees to engage in political behavior. Such
behavior, and the intended or unintended perception arising from it, can be
mostly positive if student affairs professionals remain politically astute. That is,
employees should monitor their actions and their image, not in a self-conscious
or paranoid manner, but with objectivity, honesty, and sensitivity toward
others' opinions.

ORGANIZATIONAL NORMS
Organizational norms are particularly salient to understanding office politics
(Macher, 1986; Madison, et al., 1980; Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981), since
individual behavior responds to these norms. People "sense the norms of the
organization, and play the game according to the rules that they see others
using" (Macher, p. 83). Another way to say this is that people survive by
learning what is expected and rewarded (Macher, 1986; Vredenburgh &
Maurer, 1984). This can be good or bad, of course. If one works long hours
and is effective and well-liked by students, but receives the same salary and
perks as another who is less competent, then commitment to working overtime
and to the quality of one's work may decline to the least "acceptable" level.
Rewards (monetary and otherwise) can and should be used to encourage
valued behavior rather than be spread equally. Indeed, rewards provide some
of the clearest signals about the norms specific to an environment.
Political norms are usually established within the informal structure, since
organizations rarely develop or articulate formal policies regarding political
behavior. Vredenburgh and Maurer (1984) described "normative sanctioning
mechanisms, [which] specify the kind and degree of political behavior that will
be informally positively sanctioned by the organization, and . . . account for
the fact that an organization may quietly tolerate, or expect, or even encourage
political behavior by both units and individuals" (p. 50).

221
NASPA JOURNAL

In addition to the effect of norms, Madison et al. (1980) reported that certain
situational factors serve as significant influences on political activity, such as
reorganizations, personnel changes, and budget allocations. Other events, such
as rule and procedural changes and the establishment of individual
performance standards, did not seem to generate high levels of political
activity.
Farrell and Petersen (1982) developed a typology of political behavior in
organizations that includes three key dimensions: (a) internal-external,
(b) vertical-lateral, and (c) legitimate-illegitimate. The internal-external
dimension concerns the origin of resources used by the individual engaging in
political behavior. An example of behavior within this dimension might be
whistleblowing-leaking information to sources outside the organization.
Farrell and Petersen found that lower-placed members tend to depend on
external (to the organization) resources when behaving politically. The vertical-
lateral dimension characterizes hierarchical relationships as the dominant
feature of the organization and illustrates methods individuals use to increase
their power by building relationships and using peers and subordinates as
resources. Behaviors within the vertical dimension include complaining
to a supervisor, bypassing the chain of command, and mentor-protege
relationships. Behaviors representing the lateral include exchanging favors and
offering assistance to peers. The legitimate-illegitimate dimension examines the
distinction between acceptable and unacceptable politics, the latter violating the
rules established by the organization.
Ferris et al. (1989) developed a theoretical model that explores variables
affecting people's perceptions about organizational politics. The variables are
divided into three categories: (a) organizational influences, including degree of
centralization, degree of formalization, span of control, and organizational
level; (b) job environment, encompassing job autonomy, job variety, feedback,
and opportunity for advancement; and (c) personal influences, including
gender, age, personality characteristics, and self-monitoring. The authors
believe that when these variables are handled in a way that increases
ambiguity and uncertainty within an organization, the environment will be
perceived as highly political. Conversely, when the variables affect the
organization in a manner that reduces ambiguity and uncertainty, the
perception of politics as a factor will be reduced. In sum, the organizational
culture (norms) influences the political behavior (positive or negative) of
individuals; understanding the dynamics of political cultures will expedite
acclimation to the organization.

RESPONDING TO THE POLITICAL CLIMATE

Payne and Pettingill (1986) outlined four strategies individuals commonly use
to respond to an organization's political climate:
1. If the values supported by the firm's political process are objectionable to
the supervisor, he or she may want to avoid political involvement, even
leave the firm to find employment in a more supportive atmosphere.
2. If the supervisor has strong reasons for remaining with the firm, he or she
may wish to confront the political machine.
3. Some supervisors may choose to take a less risky strategy; they may try to

222
 NEWMAN, CARPENTER

understand the firm's political tendencies in order to protect themselves or

others from its potential abuses.
4. Supervisors ... also have the option of enhancing their careers by actively,
but carefully, becoming personally involved in office politics. An
understanding of organizational politics and a reasonably active political
posture can enable a supervisor to positively influence organizational
directions and combat negative or unethical values. (p. 30)
While all four strategies are viable options, Payne and Pettingill (1986) pointed
to the fourth as a proactive approach and the most desirable method for the
successful supervisor. But implementing this strategy must begin with a basic
understanding and awareness of organizational politics.

CONCLUSION
Both organizational conditions and individual behavior contribute to an
organization's political climate. From an organizational perspective, the norms
established within the informal structure have the greatest potential for
affecting the political climate since they convey what is expected behavior and
whether this behavior is sanctioned by the organization. Policy-makers should
assess what an organization's norms are perceived to be and determine if this
is the message intended. The task can be accomplished, in part, by looking at
the reward allocation process to see what criteria are used for evaluation.
Additionally, managers should be sensitive to any actions that may be
perceived as condoning illegitimate political activities and avoid or modify
these behaviors. Increasing communication and access to information for all
employees will help reduce the ambiguity and uncertainty associated with the
negative use of politics.
Effective organizations are designed to develop and maintain an open and
trusting atmosphere, thereby decreasing the need for members to use the
informal structure and processes in the service of organizational goals. Poor
information flow and bureaucratic boundaries inhibit initiative. Given that the
best and most creative people really do want to work toward organizational
success, activity within the informal structure is inevitable. Unfortunately, over
time a well-developed informal structure becomes open to abuse by less high-
minded employees. It follows, then, that a healthy, cooperative, and sharing
environment maximizes the productivity of positive players and minimizes the
leverage of the negative ones. More importantly, such a climate allows more
people to share in the power and influence process.
Employees will survive (and thrive) by assessing the organizational culture
and understanding its norms. They should also be aware of their own personal
needs and preferences, as well as those of influential others. Then politics can
be turned from a dirty word to a useful tool.
Although political behavior occurs at all levels, political skills should be
learned at the entry level and honed on the way up just like any other
skills. Demystifying politics is the best way to take power away from the
manipulative, egocentric employees and give it back to those who understand
that organizational success enhances personal success. But the sad fact is that
many people in student affairs think of themselves as "above" politics. The
result is that the most skilled politicians in student affairs (and other fields) are

223
NASPA JOURNAL

often the least scrupulous employees. In short, professionals who fail to

understand politics are at the mercy of those who do.

References
Bianco, V.E. (1985). The internal consultant and the eternal struggle. Training and Development
Journal, 39(8), 30-33.
Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
DuBrin, A.J. (1978). Winning at office politics. Dallas, TX: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Farrell, D., & Petersen, J.e. (1982). Patterns of political behavior in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 7(3), 403-412.
Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R.A. Giacolone &
P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Frost, P.J. (1987). Power, politics, and influence. In F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts, &
L.W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 503-548). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Funkhouser, G.R. (1986). The power of persuasion: A guide to moving ahead in business and life.
New York: Times Books.
Kakabadse, A. (1983). The politics of management. London: Gower Publishing.
Kennedy, M.M. (1980). Office politics: Seizing power, wielding clout. Chicago: Follett.
Lincoln, Y.S. (1986). Negotiating politics in organizational cultures: Some considerations for effective
program evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study
of Higher Education, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 268 893)
Macher, K. (1986). The politics of organizations. Personnel Journal, 65(2), 81-84.
Madison, D.L., Allen, R.W., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A., & Bronston, W.M. (1980).
Organizational politics: An exploration of managers' perceptions. Human Relations, 33(2),
79-100.
Mayes, B.T., & Allen, R.W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of
Management Review, 2(4), 672-678.
Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as a political arena. Journal of Management Studies,
22(2), 133-154.
Newman, B.K. (1991). Organizational politics in student affairs organizations. Journal of College
Student Affairs, 11(1), 4-12.
Payne, S.L., & Pettingill, B.F. (1986). Coping with organizational politics. Supervisory
Management, 31(4), 28-31.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision-making. London: Tavistock.
Porter, L.W., Allen, R.W., & Angle, H.L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in
organizations. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 3, pp. 109-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vredenburgh, D.J., & Maurer, J.G. (1984). A process framework of organizational politics.
Human Relations, 37(1), 47-66.
Young, S. (1987). Politicking: The unsung managerial skill. Personnel, 64(6), 62-68.

224