The Need To Deal Wtih Power And Politics

Early literature on organizational change failed to address the role of power in such change. Among the reasons for this neglect was the belief not always spoken but certainly felt--that managerial decisions should be based on reason and legitimate authority rather than something as "non-rational" as power. Excluding power as a topic of discussion also assured the general public (especially investors) that decision making in organizations was based on efficiency and logic. Note that top executives rarely use the word "power" in their conversations with the media.

The more recent literature on organizational change indicates a recognition that both managing and changing organizations depend heavily on the use of power. Fortunately, we also know that not all power is bad, and that change can be achieved through its positive use.

However, our view of power in organizations is still somewhat simplistic. For example, Patricia Bradshaw-Camball (1989) says that managers and consultants tend to assume that the use of power can readily be observed in organizations--that "reality is objective." She argues that power plays are usually much more subtle and hidden. A key tactic she identifies is to create systems of meaning that others will accept. For example, in a meeting with other managers I might present only the information that supports my view of a situation. If the others accept my interpretation-- my system of meaning--I will have greater influence over the resulting decision-making process. Bradshaw-Campall studied a hospital in which top management had created the illusion of a financial crisis to gain additional resources from the hospital's funding agency. By overstating the hospital's budget deficit by $1.4 million and preventing department heads from seeing detailed, accurate financial reports, management created this false "system of meaning" to gain an edge over competitor hospitals funded by the same agency. The illusion of a crisis was so effective that, in a study of work force morale by an outside consultant, lower4evel managers and employees said they were very concerned about the potential for cutbacks--the apparent reality. The consultant, not being informed of management's game plan, based his recommendations for the hospital upon this finding. His examination of the situation was insufficient to uncover the power and politics that were being played.

Bradshaw-Camball recommends that those attempting to implement change should study the history of the organization and its relationships with its various stakeholders, including those beyond its boundaries. Only in this way can change advocates understand the observable but misleading "facts" and uncover the real systems of meaning to which managers and employees subscribe.

Dealing with Powerful Outsiders

George Savage and his associates (1991) also suggest a careful assessment of organizational stakeholders, especially those outside the organization--stockholders, customers, and so forth. The authors maintain that management should try to identify those that are likely to help or hinder an organizational change effort. Savage et al. label these two categories as "supportive" and "non-supportive," respectively.

They also identify two other categories that are not so clear-cut. The "mixed blessing" stakeholder may support or block a change, depending on the issue at hand. Customers generally fall into this category. For example, police officers in one Kentucky town complained about having to drive what they called the "bulbous" 1991 Chevrolet Caprice Classic. They had been quite content with the prior versions of the same car and would have been happy to block the purchase of the newer models.

The "marginal" stakeholder is not too concerned about current organizational issues but could be if the organization makes an undesirable decision. A good example is a professional association, which may cause no trouble for a company until the company attempts to revise performance standards for employees who are members of the association.

Savage and his associates point out that organizations can manage these stakeholders, which would be especially important during a change effort. firms should obtain supportive stakeholder involvement during change to maximize cooperative potential. A defense can be established against non-supportive stakeholders by reducing organizational dependence on them. Vertically integrating to gain independence from uncooperative suppliers is a good example. The interests of the marginal stakeholder need to be monitored continuously. Perhaps the firm can identify the few issues of concern to this stakeholder and tread carefully on those issues. Collaboration---discussions, formal negotiations, and even joint ventures---can help keep the mixed blessing stakeholder in a supportive stance.