Organization as a Political System
THE ORGANIZATION AS A POLITICAL SYSTEM
OVERVIEW:
The Political perspective brings into sharp focus some aspects of the organization that are very different from those we see using the Strategic Design lens. Where the Strategic design lens sees the organization as a social system deliberately constructed to achieve overarching strategic goals, the Political lens sees it as an arena for competition and conflict among individuals, groups, and other organizations whose interests and goals differ and even clash dramatically.
In the Strategic Design perspective, the roots of any conflicts lie in different analyses of problems and opportunities; more data and better analysis can resolve any disagreements, through a shared rationality that is universal. In the
Political perspective, the roots of conflict lie in different and competing interests, and disagreements require political action, including negotiation, coalitionbuilding, and the exercise of power and influence, all recognizing that rationality is local. The Strategic Design perspective asks, “What is the problem? What solution is best suited to the strategic environment and the capabilities of the organization?” The Political perspective asks, “Who’s defining the problem and what gives them the power to define it? Who’s advocating what solution, and why? How can I get an outcome that serves the interests of me and my group?”
The political aspects of organization are simultaneously the focus of much of the attention (and even more of the gossip) of those working in and leading organizations, and the least accepted. When people say, “That was a political decision,” they are usually implying that it was a bad decision made on the wrong criteria. If decisions are to be effective, however, they must be political, good decisions as well as bad. They must have the buy-in of those who have the power to implement or to block action. Power and interests, coalition-building and negotiation, conflict
OVERVIEW:
The Political perspective brings into sharp focus some aspects of the organization that are very different from those we see using the Strategic Design lens. Where the Strategic design lens sees the organization as a social system deliberately constructed to achieve overarching strategic goals, the Political lens sees it as an arena for competition and conflict among individuals, groups, and other organizations whose interests and goals differ and even clash dramatically.
In the Strategic Design perspective, the roots of any conflicts lie in different analyses of problems and opportunities; more data and better analysis can resolve any disagreements, through a shared rationality that is universal. In the
Political perspective, the roots of conflict lie in different and competing interests, and disagreements require political action, including negotiation, coalitionbuilding, and the exercise of power and influence, all recognizing that rationality is local. The Strategic Design perspective asks, “What is the problem? What solution is best suited to the strategic environment and the capabilities of the organization?” The Political perspective asks, “Who’s defining the problem and what gives them the power to define it? Who’s advocating what solution, and why? How can I get an outcome that serves the interests of me and my group?”
The political aspects of organization are simultaneously the focus of much of the attention (and even more of the gossip) of those working in and leading organizations, and the least accepted. When people say, “That was a political decision,” they are usually implying that it was a bad decision made on the wrong criteria. If decisions are to be effective, however, they must be political, good decisions as well as bad. They must have the buy-in of those who have the power to implement or to block action. Power and interests, coalition-building and negotiation, conflict
References: Beckhard, Richard, and Reuben T. Harris, 1977. Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change Blau, Peter, 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley. Burt, Ronald, 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Schein, Edgar H, 2003. DEC is Dead, Long Live DEC. (With Peter S. DeLisi, Paul J Watts, Duncan, 2003. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. New York: W.W