14 – Power, Politics, Ethics in OD

Introduction

You learned about the various change models in the previous unit. Power is the ability to influence others who are dependent on you. This does not necessarily imply that the power holder and the target have a lousy relationship because most friendships entail reciprocal influence processes. Power can flow in either direction in an organisation, though members at higher levels often have more power. Power is a broad concept that applies to both individuals and groups. This lesson will examine power, politics, and ethics in organisational formation.

14.1 Control and Power Organizational Issues

Power and politics are unavoidable realities of organisational life. They are universal, important phenomena that employees, supervisors, and OD practitioners must understand. To deal effectively with organisational power and politics, practitioners must have both awareness (knowledge) and behavioural competence.

OD has been chastised for failing to account for organisational politics and influence. For many years, the critique was mostly correct; it is less so now.

14.1.1 Power

‘Power is the intentional influence over people’s beliefs, emotions, and behaviours. Potential power is the capacity to do so. Still, kinetic power is the act of doing so… one person exerts power over another to the degree that he can exact compliance as desired’, (Siu, 1979). Power is ‘the ability of those who possess power to bring about the outcomes they desire’ (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1971).

“Most definitions of power include an element indicating that power is the capability of one social actor to overcome resistance in achieving a desired objective or result” (Pfeffer).

From these definitions, interpersonal power in a social situation is the ability to get one’s way (McClelland 1970).

Social power may be observed everywhere: influence, leadership, persuasion, selling, forcing, and coercion are all examples of power in action. Having or exercising power is neither good nor harmful in and of itself. The concept of power is all around us.

Power issues stem from the intentions (goals) of influential people. There could be no cooperation or civilization without influence (power). Humanity would not have the same standard of living today if leadership (power) were not oriented toward medical, political, technological, economic, spiritual, and organisational endeavours. Without leadership (power) aimed at conflict, confiscation, persecution, and the like, humanity would not be in as much pain as it is today.

Power Has Two Faces

According to McClelland’s research, while most people associate power with negative connotations, things get done in the world through the exercise of power. Most human achievements, both good and evil, result from exercising power. According to him, the negative aspect of power is defined by a primal, unsocialized desire to dominate and subordinate others. A socialised need to begin, influence, and lead characterises the excellent face of power. This positive facet of power is designed to help others achieve their goals while also allowing the individual wielding power to achieve his or her own. The negative aspect of power desires power, whereas the cheerful face seeks “greater power for everyone.”

In organisations, the positive aspect of power predominates over the negative face of power. Positive organisational transformations occur due to the positive face of power and politics. Any OD programme is, by definition, a power or political event in the organisation’s life. OD’s concentration on problem-solving is a programme that increases the cheerful face of power and politics in organisations.

Power Utilization Requirements

The first condition of power usage is interdependence, which is defined as a scenario in which what happens to one organizational actor influences what happens to others. Interdependence can develop due to rivalry or cooperation on a work product, meaning that what one unit does to the product affects and may influence what another unit does. Interdependence is a critical condition. After all, it binds organisational actors together because each is now interested in what the other does and obtains. There would be no basis for conflict or interaction among the individuals if such interdependence did not exist.

The second requirement of power usage is diverse goals, or goals that contradict each other. Diverse ideas about technology or the relationship between decisions and consequences are related conditions.

Scarcity is the third condition that leads to the utilisation of power. When resources are insufficient to meet the diverse demands of organisational participants, decisions must be made on how to allocate those resources. The greater the scarcity compared to the market, the greater the power and effort required to resolve the decision.

Scarcity, interconnectedness, and diverse goals and attitudes regarding technology all contribute to conflict. Whether or not that disagreement leads to political conflict, the use of power in organisational contexts is determined by two other factors. The first requirement is the importance of choice or resource. When the decision is considered less significant, power and politics may not be used to settle it since the issue is too small to warrant the expenditure of political resources and effort. The second criterion is power distribution. When power is distributed, political activity, bargaining, and coalition creation occur essentially. When power is concentrated, the centralised authority makes decisions based on its rules and ideals. Political battles that occasionally emerge in organisations occur solely when there is some power and authority dispersion in the social order.

Power Sources

Power can be perceived to come from a variety of sources. The power sources determine the process of generating and acquiring power. Various approaches to understanding acquire power and how (French & Bell, 1995). Among these are:

-“Power-dependence Theory” by Emerson

According to power dependence theory, power is inherent in any social interaction in which one person is dependent on the other. According to sociologist Richard Emerson (1962), “the dependence of actor A on actor B is (1) directly proportional to A’s motivational investment in the goals mediated by B, and (2) inversely proportional to A’s availability of these goals outside of the A-B relationship.” In other words, if someone possesses something we desperately want and we can’t obtain it anywhere else, that person has power over us. This theory’s components are a social relationship between two parties and resources (commodities, goals, and rewards) controlled by one party and wanted by the other.

-“The Foundations of Social Power” by French and Ravens

According to John R.P. French and Bertram Raven (1959), there are five sources or bases of social power:

1. Reward Power: Power is based on the power holder’s ability to reward another, i.e., to give something valuable to the other.

2. Coercive power is based on the power holder’s ability to punish the other, i.e., to give them something they don’t value.

3. Legitimate Power: Power is based on the belief that the power holder has a legitimate right to exercise influence and that the power receiver has a legitimate obligation to accept the influence.

4. Referent Power: Power derived from the power-identification receiver’s attraction to or sense of oneness with the power bearer.

5. Expert Power: Power based on the power holder’s expert knowledge or skill that the other requires. Informational power is expert power in which the power bearer has crucial facts or information that the other requires.

-Salancik and Pfeffer’s Strategic Contingency Model

According to this paradigm, power in organisations accrues to components (individuals, units, or departments) that are crucial for dealing with and solving the organization’s most critical challenges.

Some people refer to the environment’s “uncertainties” as these crucial issues. This theory also supports the notion that people with highly prized possessions have power.

Once achieved, power is used by subunits and all who possess it to improve their survival by controlling scarce crucial resources, installing supporters in key positions, and formulating organisational problems and policies.

-“Genesis of Power” by Henry Mintzberg

Mintzberg’s (1983) theory of organisational power is based on the idea that “organisational behaviour is a power game in which diverse players, referred to as influencers, seek to dominate the organization’s decisions and actions.” The three main criteria for the exercise of power are:

1. a source or basis of power,

2. the expenditure of energy in a

3. politically skilled manner when necessary.

According to Mintzberg, there are five possible sources of power: first, control of a resource, second, control of a technical competence, and third, control of a body of knowledge. All of these are essential to the organisation. Legal prerogatives – granted exclusive rights or privileges to impose decisions – could be the fourth power source. Access to persons who have power based on the first four bases is a fifth basis of power. In addition to power, the influencer must have the ‘will’ to utilise it and the ‘skill’ to use it. Numerous possible influencers exist within and around an organisation, including the board of directors, managers, top executives, employees, unions, suppliers, customers, regulators, etc.

In summary, these four perspectives on the sources of power are very similar. Possession or mediation of desired resources confers power. The resources may include the capacity to reward and punish, control over vital skills, knowledge, or information, the ability to solve critical issues or emergencies, or anything else that produces reliance on one actor or set of actors on another.

14.2 Organizational Politics as a Concept

Politics has been defined in many ways as the study of power dynamics in a group and their control. Organizational politics, as determined by French and Bell 1995, “involve intentional actions of influence to improve or safeguard the self-interests of individuals or groups” (Allen et al. 1979). Mayes and Allen (1977) define organisational politics as “the management of influence to obtain ends not sanctioned by the organisation or to obtain ends through non-sanctioned influence means.” French and Bell (1995) define organisational politics as “the management of influence to obtain ends not sanctioned by the organisation or to obtain ends through non-sanctioned influence means.” Politics, according to French and Bell, is an illegitimate power. “Politics is a subcategory of power—informal, illegitimate power.” Similarly, authority is a subset of power, but formal power, the power vested in office, is the ability to get things done due to the position held.”

According to the analysis of these definitions, power and politics are highly similar. Both are concerned with attaining one’s way – effecting. Both are concerned with pursuing one’s self-interest and overcoming the opposition of others. Organizational politics is exercising power in organisations; it is the pursuit of goals in an organisational framework.

Politics is neither good nor bad in and of itself, but it, like power, has two faces.

Example: Pursuing unsanctioned organisational aims or using unsanctioned organisational goals are the negative aspects of politics.

Illegitimate uses of authority, information, and resources may also indicate politics’ negative side. However, when “hard decisions” must be made, a cheerful face of politics is displayed, and most organisational members feel good about what was chosen and how it was decided. In this aspect, Jeffrey Pfeffer contends that organisations must engage in politics to run effectively and efficiently. Some organisations reflect a primarily positive side of politics, while others reflect a mostly negative side.

Organizational politics is commonly related to managerial decision-making, resource distribution, and dispute-resolution processes. These are the critical decision points, the locations where actors win and lose, the areas where ‘goods’ are distributed, and the goals are set. Evaluating an organization’s resource allocation techniques, dispute resolution, and choosing among different means and goals provides a quick grasp of its entire “political environment.”

14.2.1 The Political Subsystem

For convenience, the term “social subsystem” can refer to the subsystem in which the OD consultant is an expert and operates. As a result, the subsystem coexists alongside several others, one of which can be designated as a political subsystem.

The political subsystem comprises the organisation’s sources, places, and power flow. The essential criterion for subsystem effectiveness is the extent to which adequate power can be accumulated and moved to certain organisational locations (i.e., personnel) to maintain productive operations, solve problems, and execute solutions. A political subsystem is efficient if power can be accumulated and transferred swiftly and precisely.

Subsystems interact with one another, a principle of general systems theory. As a result, changes in the social or political subsystems will result in changes in the others. The interactive relationship poses at least two fundamental issues for OD consultants concerned with organisational politics. The first step is to figure out how to develop support inside the political subsystem to help with work within the social subsystem. The second step is to understand what adjustments must be made in the social subsystem to build a successful and efficient political subsystem.

To maximise the success of the intervention, the OD consultant must be politically savvier and more aggressive. However, in the past, OD consultants have showed little interest in politics, therefore the question is how they have survived, let alone been successful. One cause could be good fortune. Another possibility is that clients realise that political collaboration is required to safeguard their self-interest. There could be a third explanation: In addition to its clinical orientation, OD has acquired a largely unacknowledged political orientation, and this political orientation complements the clerical one in delivering successful treatments.

The OD knowledge base covers clinical principles relating to power models and even power sources available to consultants for intervention activities (Huse, 1980). Such conceptions of power can be a foundation for political theory and intervention strategy when seen correctly. Even today, the OD knowledge base lacks political theory and models to guide consultants in political intervention techniques. As a result, if political support is provided to a consultant, it must be based on the field’s value and technological background.

The more one discusses OD, the clearer its political side becomes. OD’s therapeutic focus is permanent, and the political side performs a mostly unnoticed, supportive role. The assessments offered by Bennis (1969), Beer (1976), and Burke (1976) are still valid today. Organizational Development has yet to completely comprehend the impact that organizational politics has on change initiatives. OD has also failed to produce the models, information, and facts required for a sophisticated political orientation.

Nonetheless, OD’s “political pacifism” should not be dismissed. It should be investigated further for at least three reasons. The first is to determine if its guidance is appropriate for the diverse scenarios that OD consultants face. Second, suppose OD is determined to become more politically active. In that case, a foundation for such expansion may be found in OD’s ideals and technology and its knowledge base. Third, OD’s current political inclination can be a starting point. As such, it is excellent for delving into the issues associated with taking on a more significant political role.

14.2.2 The Importance of Power and Politics in OD Practice

Most organisations’ political realities need OD practitioners to relate to them. He can do it in a variety of ways, including:

1. The nature of OD programmes necessitates a fundamental orientation for its practitioners. OD programmes emphasise problem-solving over power and politics. It is a process heavily reliant on behavioural science interventions, systematic collaborative problem-solving, and collaborative management of organisational culture and processes. OD programmes use normative–educative and empirical-rational tactics of planned charge rather than a power-coercive strategy (Chin & Benne, 1976). The normative-reeducative strategy concerns norms, culture, procedures, and the prevention of attitudes and belief systems. Change occurs by altering the matrix of standards and beliefs, usually accomplished through education and reeducation. The empirical change strategy focuses on facts, numbers, and information to discover “better” methods. Change comes as a result of finding and adopting improved methods. Charge’s power-coercive strategy focuses on accumulating and using power and establishing enforcement mechanisms. Change occurs when persons in positions of greater power impose their preferences on those in positions of lesser power and exact compliance. Examining OD’s methods and ideals reveals that problem-solving and collaboration are prioritised, whereas power and politics are de-emphasis. Almost all OD initiatives emphasise problem-solving rather than politics. The OD values of trust, openness, and collaboration encourage problem resolution rather than politics.

2. An OD practitioner is a facilitator, catalyst, problem solver, and educator. He is not a politician or a power broker. The “Interventionist,” according to Chris Argyris (1970), has three basic tasks:

(1) to provide valid helpful knowledge,

(2) to promote free, informed choices, and

(3) to help support the client’s internal commitment to the choices chosen.

These tasks include a facilitative, rather than a political, role. The practitioner tries to improve the organization’s abilities and knowledge. However, members of the organisation are free to accept or reject the practitioner, his or her programme, and his or her values, methods, and skills.

3. The OD practitioner possesses a potentially powerful power base that can be leveraged to his or her advantage. Legitimate power, expert power, informational power, and maybe referent power comprise the power basis. In organisations where politics-in-moderation is the norm, successful performance necessitates understanding and adhering to organisational power norms, playing the game by the rules, influencing and being affected by others, and offering something of value to the organisation. Michael Beer (1980) outlined four ways for OD groups to obtain and maintain power in organisations:

-Competence

-Political access and sensitivity

-Sponsorship

-Standing and credibility

-Resource Management

-Group Support

OD practitioners can use these ideas in organisations that portray primarily positive faces of power and politics. Knowledge of power and competence in using it help practitioners and OD programmes be more successful.

4. OD practitioners must assist members of organisations in reducing the negative aspect of power. Slack resource creation, replacing tight coupling of interdependent relationships with more loose couplings, reaching agreement on goals and means of goal accomplishment, centralising some decision-making, and addressing mixed-motive situations in two stages as indicated by integrative and distributive bargaining—all of these processes have been shown to reduce the negative consequences of intense power and politics. The OD practitioner can assist in implementing these conditions in the organisation, thereby changing the political atmosphere.

5. The concept of the positive and negative aspects of power and politics indicates where the practitioner will likely be effective or ineffective. In organisations with a high negative face of power and politics, the OD programme is likely to fail: the OD programme will likely be exploited as a power in the organisations’ power battles, and the OD practitioners can become a logical scapegoat when situations necessitate a “sacrifice.” OD programmes, on the other hand, are likely to be highly effective in organisations with positive faces of power and politics: practitioners assist organisations in developing multiple power bases, or they promote collaborative problem-solving, which leads to better decisions being made. The practitioner teaches organisation members to manage mixed-motive situations to ensure the best outcomes.

6. It is encouraged for the OD practitioner to study as much as possible about negotiating, negotiations, the nature of power and politics, influence methods and tactics, and the characteristics and behaviours of power holders. This understanding will make OD practitioners more competent actors in the organisation and more successful consultants in assisting organisation members to solve problems and capitalise on opportunities.

The OD practitioner understands that power comes from owning a commodity others value. If the OD programme enhances individual and organisational functioning, if the OD practitioner has mastered his or her profession well, then a valuable product has been generated that will be embraced by those in positions of organisational power.

14.3 OD Ethics

Modern organisations increasingly use Organizational change efforts to overcome numerous human, structural, and technical problems. This increased focus on the applications of OD has resulted in an increase in the number of OD consultants and those with long-term needs for OD activities. Although the number of practitioners in the field has grown, and many organisations have sought OD programmes and practitioners, the professionalisation of OD has not kept up structurally or scientifically. A review of the OD literature (Alderfer, 1977; French & Bell, 1978; White & Mitchell, 1976) reveals a remarkable increase in advanced strategies for conducting efficient OD. Simultaneously, significant growth in the use of OD to solve a wide range of organisational challenges has led some to question whether it is a religious movement (Harvey, 1974) or a new social technology (Havelock, 1972)

Many efforts have been made in the previous two decades to codify the evidence that OD activities are practical, indicating that OD is maturing as a science. Simultaneously, there is a growing concern in the sector concerning professional ethics. The issue of ethical quandaries in OD practice has been written about but never thoroughly investigated in terms of where they occur in the OD process. This could be partly attributed to a lack of a systematic approach to studying and analysing the ethical quandaries confronting the interventionist and client systems.

Ethical challenges and dilemmas encountered by OD practitioners may jeopardise OD’s scientific and professional advancement unless consensus is made on the types of ethical dilemmas and the points at which they are likely to be encountered. “Ethical quandaries” are the outcome of incorrect attitudes and actions or roles on the part of both change agents and client systems. Thus, ethical issues and dilemmas are a mutual responsibility of change agents and client systems, with the nature of their specific relationship playing a large role.

Ethical dilemmas, as viewed from the perspective that such problems are caused mainly by the nature of the relationships between the change agent and the client system, is a term that needs further definition. Previous approaches to ethical dilemma situations (Benne, 1959; Walton and Warwick, 1973) focused on the many values held by change agents and how these values influenced their behaviour. An ethical dilemma can be defined operationally as any choice situation encountered by a change agent or client system that can potentially result in a breach of acceptable behaviour. As a result, a problem differs from an ethical violation. A violation of ethics is a verified act or behaviour by a professional that violates a law, role, standard, or recognised norm.

14.3.1 Ethical Dilemma Major Categories

Although several authors have addressed the topic of professional ethics in organisational development, the literature on the types and specifications of ethical issues that occur is limited. An examination of the extant literature from works in organisational development, management consulting, and training and development does, however, reveal some uniformity in concept and form. Even though the vocabulary used varies greatly, the difficulties outlined are similar. These are the most common ethical quandaries in OD practice, as observed and documented by practitioners and scholars alike.

1. Intervention Selection: Selecting a suitable intervention, which depends on a comprehensive diagnostic of the organisation or department, is critical to the success of any OD programme. The choice of an intervention is heavily influenced by the practitioner’s values, beliefs, and standards. Many OD practitioners emphasise a favourite intervention or technique in managing organisational challenges, such as team development, survey feedback, or job enrichment. They let their values and views influence the method of transformation (Slocum, 1978). This might be detrimental to both the organisation and the practitioner. The intervention chosen must be appropriate for both the problem and the context in which it arises. This context is determined in part by the organisational political climate as well as the organization’s perceived readiness for change. The intervention chosen is also influenced by the practitioner’s opinions regarding OD. Unless all of these elements are considered in diagnosing the problem and subsequent selection of an intervention, the change effort is likely to fail.

2. Use of Information: A fundamental issue is the vast amount of information practitioners invariably get. Although most practitioners embrace transparency, trust, and equality, they must understand how such data is used. There is a human desire to utilise facts to strengthen one’s power position. Openness is one thing, but leaking information can destroy individuals and organisations. In this dilemma or choice circumstance, the change agent or client system must determine what information to utilise and how to use it. In OD, data misuse occurs when the client system’s voluntary consent or confidentiality is broken or abridged. Misuse of data as a breach of ethics in OD can potentially happen in two ways. It can happen when data is distorted, deleted, or not reported by either the client system or the change agent or when data is used punitively to assess individuals or groups, resulting in personal, professional, or organisational harm. Personality traits, career interests, and market information are common examples.

3. Service Withholding: A practical problem for OD consultants is whether a practitioner is justified in unilaterally withholding assistance from a needy organisation or department. Lippitt contends that the real question is as follows: Assuming that some type of change is unavoidable, doesn’t the consultant have a responsibility to manage the transition in the most productive way feasible (Lippitt, 1969)? An internal consultant or a consultant who already has an ongoing relationship with the client may find the inquiry more crucial and relevant. Argyris takes an even tougher stance, claiming that the responsibilities of professional OD consultants to customers are akin to those of lawyers or medics, who are not allowed to deny their services in principle. He recommends that the consultant should, at the very least, provide “first aid” to the organisation, as long as the assistance does not jeopardise the consultant’s values (Argyris, 1961).

4. Client Reliance: One of the challenges that the practitioner faces is produced by the assisting connection, which generates a dependency condition. Those in need rely on those who assist them. As a result, the client can be either counter-dependent or over-dependent, especially in the early phases of a relationship. A practitioner can take several different actions. One approach is to openly and publicly discuss how to handle the dependence problem with the client, particularly what is expected of one another. Another method is to concentrate on problem-solving. The client is usually looking for a solution to a perceived problem. The consultant can guide the energy toward improved joint diagnosis and ensure that both parties collaborate on problem identification and resolution. This activity shifts the client’s energy away from dependency. The practitioner can also openly discuss the tension between the consultant’s need for access to a large number of people and groups and the power that such information and data will confer. Finally, the client’s expectations might be changed from being assisted or controlled by the practitioner to a greater emphasis on the need to handle the situation.

5. Choosing to Participate: If people are to build self-reliance and solve their problems, they must be free to participate in OD interventions. In team building, for example, team members should decide whether or not to participate in the intervention. Management should not resolve on its own that team building benefits members. However, the ability to choose presupposes knowledge about OD. Many members of organisations are unaware of OD interventions, what they entail, and the nature and repercussions of becoming associated with them. For instance, some people have been pushed into joining T – groups, only to become victims of manipulation and other sophisticated tactics that forced them to talk against their will.

6. Manipulation of Clients: Kelman discusses the problem of manipulation in his discussion of the ethical dilemmas of the change agent, stating that behaviour changes “inevitably involve some degree of manipulation and control, and at least an implicit imposition of the change agent’s values on the client or the person he (or she) is influencing” (Kelmen, 1969). This puts practitioners in a bind because

(1) any attempt to change is a change and thus a manipulation, no matter how minor and

(2) There is no formula or method to structure a change situation, so such manipulation is absent.

To address the first aspect of the difficulty, Kelman emphasises freedom of choice, viewing any action that restricts freedom of choice as ethically ambiguous or worse. To address the second point, Kelmen contends that the OD practitioner must be acutely aware of her or his value system and look for the possibility that these values are being imposed on a client. In other words, one way out of the bind is to make the transformation effort as transparent as possible, with the folks involved’ full agreement and knowledge.

With the growing acceptability of OD programmes and practitioners, the ethical issues surrounding OD’s methods should be given more consideration. Its popularity in practitioner educational curricula provides evidence for expanded exposure through exploration and research. Ethical alignment among practitioners and customers will necessitate a concerted effort because of the diverse beliefs and backgrounds represented in the OD field. If OD is to be recognised as a genuine science and a profession, the principles that guide the behaviour of people who provide OD services must no longer be overlooked.