Class Politics in the United States

A distinctive feature of US politics, in comparison with most other industrialized nations in the
world, is its virtual lack of class-based politics. President George W. Bush, for instance, has said
that class is for European democracies or something elseit isnt for the United States of
America. We are not going to be divided by class (cited in Harrigan, 2000: 6). And this seems to
be the general attitude that pervades all of American society, to the extent where militating on the
basis of class could even be seen as culturally abhorrent. It is a fact that in the 1990s, trade
unionmembership accounted for only 15 percent of all wage and salary workers, down from 25
percent in 1975. This is despite 30 percent of all workers still employed in blue-collar jobs as of
1996 (McKay, 2001: 226; Vanneman and Cannon, 1987: 5). Between the two major political
parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, there are only relatively minor ideological
differences, with the former leaning slightly more to the liberal side, while the later are more
conservative, though neither articulates anything near resembling class politics.
This has led to much speculation among scholars as to why this could be the case. A number of
reasons have been posed, including:
1. America is mainly a middle class society, with an individualistic culture; high levels of social
mobility; and equality of opportunity, which are prized over collective action.
2. America does not have a feudal past, from which class cleavages can be drawn.
3. America is the richest industrialized nation in the world, and therefore has an overall higher
standard of living, which minimizes any potential for class action.
4. The American working class is divided sharply along ethnic and racial lines.
5. The American two-party system makes it difficult for radical political parties to develop.
However, despite this lack of class politics, the US continues to experience some of the most
exacerbated income and wealth inequalities in the industrialized world, with the gap between the
rich and the poor growing over the past thirty years. In addition, the proportion of the population
living in poverty, according to official figures, is at around 14-16 percent (McKay, op. cit. :27). This
raises the question as to the nature of class in the United States, and as to how the US class
structure (if one exists) is reflected in mainstream politics.
When political parties developed in the US, in the early 19th century, they were based mainly on
ideals of political equality and democracy (as well as patronage), rather than on lines of class,
race or religion. Thus from the beginning, ideology has been largely absent from US politics; what
Vanneman and Cannon (Vanneman and Cannon, op. cit. :1) have called American
Exceptionalism. Some have argued (e.g. Form, 1995), that until the economic hardships of the
Great Depression, the labor movement was contained through the efforts of organized business.
However, by 1932, with the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democrats had managed to

secure a seemingly unassailable coalition (generally referred to as the New Deal coalition),
comprised of their traditional Southern rural segregationist supporters, and of large segments of
the Northern urban working class. The Democratic New Deal focused on the redistribution of
wealth to those who most needed it, and passed laws better enabling workers to unionise. From
1932-1968, the Republicans only gained two presidential elections, in 1952 and 1956 (sometimes
called deviating elections by political analysts), which were largely attributable to the
overwhelming personal charisma of Dwight Eisenhower. Thus, for a time at least, America had
some sort of a class-based politics.
Nevertheless, fractures began to appear in the Democratic coalition in the 1960s. Firstly, the
traditional segregationist Southern voting base began to decline, as the party moved towards
desegregationist policies. Secondly, much of the blue-collar vote (and trade union influence within
the party) also began to fall off with the rise of the social issues of the New Left (upon which
many workers remained conservative). Thirdly, some have also claimed that the Republican
victories in the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972 were due to the ascent of a new
conservative majority, which was supposed to be based on a perceived newly expanded middle
class. However, the precise nature of this new class has been a matter of much debate. For
instance, according to McKay (2001: 27), in 1996, 67 percent of workers were in white-collar
occupations (such as professional, technical, managerial, and services), while only 30 percent
were in blue-collar work (with the remaining 3 percent of workers in agriculture). Thus, Boston
(1988: 11-16) asks: Does this mean there now exists a new middle class or a new working
class? Or are the new classes segments of existing classes? In any event, the ideological
cohesion associated with the Democratic New Deal coalition has receded farther and farther into
the past.
In an attempt to explain the changes occurring in the US class structure, Daniel Bell (1974),
defining class in a neo-Weberian sense (i.e. that a persons class is mostly determined by the
skills and qualifications they possess), put forth what has become known as a postindustrial
perspective. Bell believed that as industrialization advanced, technology would gradually replace
blue-collar workers, and that a corresponding rise in the demand for services would lead to the
emergence of information as the central indicator of class. Thus, in a postindustrial society,
those, including professionals and technical experts, who possess the ability to utilize information
to provide sought-after services would form a new preeminent middle class, while the blue-collar
workers would largely disappear. He did not, therefore, see a worker revolution in the manner of
Marx as imminent, and rejected any suggestions that the new class was an educated working
class. Rather, he contended that political battles would be fought mainly in the middle class
arena, on specific issues, and in shifting coalitions of interest groups with either business or
labor.
In response to this, Erik Olin Wright (1997), a neo-Marxist, sought to reconcile the new trends
occurring in the US within a Marxist framework. Wright claimed that the new class actually
consisted of individuals who occupied what he called contradictory class locations, that is, that
their acquired skills had allowed them to exercise domination over other workers (thus giving them
extra status), but that they themselves did not own the means of production. Therefore, while they
did not properly fit into the usual class categories (i.e. the ruling class, the petty bourgeoisie, or

the workers), at different levels they shared a number of characteristics with these categories.
For instance, while the lower end of the white-collar middle class was not dissimilar in conditions
and pay to the upper end of the blue-collar working class, the top managers and CEOs enjoyed
similar privileges to the owners of the means of production. Wright concluded that the class
structure of capitalism continues to become increasingly complex rather than simplified around a
single, polarized class antagonism (Wright, 1997: 66), although he did not see modern US
society as any less capitalistic than its predecessors.
Others have tended to see this new class as the new establishment or elite. Brooks (2000)
agrees with Bell that the rise of an information age from the 1960s had led to the end of traditional
class distinctions, and postulated that the newly expanded educated middle class had
transformed the nature of American society into one where [t]he ancient enmities between class
and ethnic groups have been overcome by the common bond of meritocratic ascent (ibid. :44).
He thus argues that this new breed of meritocrats have sought a Third Way beyond the old
categories of Left and Right. They march under reconciling banners such as compassionate
conservatism, practical idealism, sustainable development, smart growth [and] prosperity with a
purpose (ibid. :256). Indeed, the general move in US politics has been towards the Center. For
instance, when Bill Clinton gained the presidency in 1992 and 1996, he had campaigned mainly
on centrist policies such as those mentioned above. George W. Bush, in 2000, similarly
advocated a compassionate conservatism. Brooks believed that the new meritocracy was likely
to remain, because the openness of American society meant that [a]nybody with the right degree,
job, and cultural competencies can join (ibid. :52-53).
Nevertheless, despite this debate about the perceived changes within the middleor working
class, few scholars dispute the fact that a powerful ruling elite owns much of the countrys wealth.
Domhoff (1978), for instance, rejected the pluralistic views of Bell and Brooks, and instead
contended that the top 0.5 percent of the populationwho owns about a quarter of all the wealth
effectively rules the US through its control over the government and major institutions. In a
similar manner, Dye (1995) identified 7,314 individuals who occupied the top positions in US
institutions, whom he claimed were the nations elite. [1]
But perhaps the most enduring writer in relation to the American ruling elite has been C.Wright
Mills [see also my book review of Mills' 'The Power Elite':
http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/anarcho/web/millspowerelite.html]. Mills (1956) claimed that the
modern notion of democratic rule as the product of free discussionwhere the general will is
merely enacted by the Governmentis an eighteenth century idea, which is entirely inappropriate
in describing the contemporary US power structure. Instead, he contended that American society
was being transformed from a society of publics into a society of masses. In this later type, the
formation of a strong power elite has occurred as a result of class struggle, whilst the vast
majority of citizens are considered to be mostly ignorant and incapable of governance, and
therefore, must be guided by experts
Mills argued that these changes have been accompanied by fundamental alterations in the power
structure, such as in the growth of the executive arm of government, and of two giant and
unwieldy parties, neither of which is capable of winning psychologically impressive or politically

decisive majorities (ibid. :35). However, the most revealing sign of the society of masses, is the
phenomenon of the mass media, where experts who inform the masses (or media market)
replace free discussion. Mills also believed that [a]longside or just below the elite, there is the
propagandist, the publicity expert, the public-relations man, who acts to further the interests of
the ruling elite, because the powerful want to rule without showing their powerfulness (ibid. :315317). He says: There is little live political struggle. Instead there is administration from above, and
the political vacuum below (ibid. :308-309).
In this light, it is not surprising that voter turnout at US elections is so low. Indeed, ever since the
early 1960s, voter turnout has been declining in the US, with the lowest ever turnout recorded for
the presidential elections in 1996 (at only 48.4 percent), and attendance at House elections now
seldom passing 50 percent (McKay, op.cit. :106). In addition, poorer, less well-educated people
tend to vote least (ibid. :108-109). Voters do not vote because they rationalize that they will not
gain by doing so. As Vanneman and Cannon (1987) have said: The lack of a genuine Left
alternative fosters both the high rates of nonvoting and the low relationship between class and
party (Vanneman and Cannon, op. cit. :11). Based on a range of surveys, Vanneman and
Cannon found that class IS perceived in the US, but that workers felt impotent in the fact of capital
to act (Vanneman and Cannon, op. cit. :283-286). Harrigan points out that [t]he great tragedy for
most members of the lower-strata population is that there is no longer any powerful institutions
that effectively represent their economic interests (Harrigan, op. cit. :18). However, by not
mobilizing politically, the voices of the poor and not-so-well-off are being increasingly overridden
by the agendas of the rich and powerful, which in turn, further worsens the ever-growing gap
between the rich and the poor.
Notes:
[1] However, Dye also believed that the power resided primarily in the institutions themselves, and
that the elite merely played a necessary functional role in maintaining social stability.
Bibliography:
Bell, Daniel, The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, London,
Heinemann, 1974.
Boston, Thomas, D., Race, Class & Conservatism, North Sydney, Allen & Unwin, 1988.
Brooks, David, Bobos in Paradise: The Upper Class and How They Got There, New York, Simon
& Schuster, 2000.
Domhoff, William, G., The Powers That Be: Processes of Ruling-Class Domination in America,
New York, Random House, 1978.
Dye, Thomas, R., Whos Running America? The Clinton Years, (6th edn.), New Jersey, Prentice
Hall, 1995.

Form, William, Segmented Labor, Fractured Politics: Labor Politics in American Life, New York,
Plenum Press, 1995.
Graetz, Brian, Class and Inequality in Kellehear, Allan (ed.), Social Self, Global Culture,
Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 1996.
Harrigan, John, J., Empty Dreams, Empty Pockets: Class Bias in American Politics, New York,
Longman, 2000.
McKay, David, American Politics and Society, (5th edn.), Essex, University of Essex, 2001.
Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000.
Vanneman, Reeve, and Cannon, Lynn, Weber, The American Perception of Class, Philadelphia,
Temple University Press, 1987.
Wright, E., Class Counts, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
The Politics and Economics of Race in America by Carnoy
Martin Carnoy wanted to achieve one of the most difficult, emotional, and political topics in
Americas history. Faded Dreams: The Politics and Economics of Race in America addresses the
subject of economic inequalities among minorities. For the past century, material goods have
posed as the symbol of success and worth in our nations society. Carnoy argues that efforts to
improve technology have changed over the past century, but the social problems in our nation
continue. Carnoy agrees improvements have been made in the lives of minorities in America, but
they have fallen short or have been dismantled. He focuses on three reasons: individuals
responsibility, persuasive racism, and economic restructuring.
Individual responsibility refers to the issue that each person is the creator of his or her economic
and social future. Individual responsibility assumes that markets are open to all. These markets
reward those according to their worth and minorities are worth less then whites because they do
not want a good education, good jobs, and improvements in their lives. According to Carnoy,
individual-responsibility explanations place the blame of minorities continued poverty on poor
choices made by two social players: minorities themselves and white politician trying to solve the
problem of poverty. Minorities have chosen to play the victims when the conditions that made
them the victims have disappeared. The white politicians have continued to supply solutions to
the poverty of minorities that have been victims, therefore keeping minorities locked into the
dependents status. Carnoy states that minorities have taken advantage of all they possibly can,
but programs and legislation have continually abandoned their initial cause of helping minorities.
Minorities simply need to work harder and the government needs to follow through with its plans
to help minorities.
Persuasive racism refers to the issue of racial discrimination. Carnoy states there are two
explanations for the racial discrimination. The first places racism at the level of the individual and
collective individuals. White prejudice produces disadvantages and poverty for minorities, further
creating prejudice by creating whites opinions of blacks. Carnoy states that throughout time the

white business owners have discriminated against blacks and minorities by paying them less and
placing them in the lowest positions. The second explanation states that todays governments and
markets are constantly biased. Minorities could never catch up to white society no matter what
they do because there is continual racism. He believes that businesspersons feel they can
repress the minority due to the continual racism in our nations history. He states that our
Capitalistic economy would benefit if minorities had more money to spend and dispense in the
economy. Carnoy feels that if the government would set the example, then other businesses
would feel the same about minorities.
Economic restructuring refers to the argument that the world economy is changing and that
people in poverty are losers in which many people around the world will lose. This idea states
that it is not an issue of race, but an issue of class problems. Poor blacks, whites, and other
groups fall deeper into recession due to the fast moving world economy. The world economy is
never going to slow down; so all poor groups will become increasingly underclass. Carnoy states
that America made steps back in the 1950s and 1960s to help the minorities, but slowly these
ideas were lost due to new issues and political party changes. Minorities would take advantage of
the help they were receiving, but the government would see the progress and figure that they no
longer had to worry about continual help. Carnoy believes that forgetting to continue the
assistance is the downfall of all government attempts. He believes that politicians and the
government need to help create opportunities for minorities, who will hopefully take advantage of
these opportunities.
Carnoy uses solid facts to greatly enhance his books purpose. The many graphs and personal
accounts give you an exact feel of what happened and what was going on during different periods
of history. Carnoy shows the different income levels and wages paid to minorities by the use of
government graphs and numbers. This primary source allows the reader to get a clear picture of
what was and is going on in our economy. Carnoy uses personal accounts to help the readers
feel the conditions and accounts of what racism and discrimination was like. I feel personal
accounts make the readers pay more attention to what is going on; Carnoy does a good job of
maintaining peoples attentions.
Secondary sources help to solidify the points created by Carnoy. He productively uses a collection
of books written by economists, journals published by economic groups, and magazines written
during the different eras. The secondary sources fill the gaps and information pertaining to the
subjects he writes about. Carnoy creates balance in the book between primary source use and
secondary source use. This combination helps to create a precise book about the economic
struggles of minority groups.
The Annals of the American Academy feels that Carnoy finds truth in all his explanations and
uses solid information to address the issue of economic inequality in minority groups. The review
states that Carnoy uses logic and data in extremely valuable ways. The author believes that
Carnoy takes an issue with many different opinions and flaws, to create an explanation and
understanding of what went wrong and how to improve on economic racism. The author also likes
how Carnoy concludes with a plea to public officials to help the minority groups and be honest.
The American Political Science Review also feels that Carnoy did a nice job of placing all the
facts versus the flaws. The author feels Carnoy supports his reasoning of economic inequality in a
great manner. Carnoy is one economist who puts economic analysis within the context of the
political system. His work is balanced and empirically grounded. The author feels that Carnoys
book helps to contribute to the publics understanding of politics and economic inequality.

My completion of reading Faded Dreams: The Politics and Economics of Race in America has left
me with a negative thought. I knew before reading the book that minority groups did struggle
economically compared to whites. I did not realize that it was due to reoccurring patterns in our
society. I now see that our government does try to help the minority, but racism and labeling lead
to a giving up by our government and society. I feel Carnoy did a nice job of explaining his
thoughts in a clear-cut manner that did not blame anyone insensitively. I would recommend Faded
Dreams: The Politics and Economics of Race in America to anyone interested in economics and
racism in America.
Political Science to me is something of a cycle, which is attached to the worlds history and is an
ever-changing science of communication at a state and national level. This cyclical process is
also attached to my personal adoption of political ideologies, i.e., as times change, as well as my
surrounding environment, as an individual, I am forced to adapt to my surroundings, rather than a
rock smashing through stubbornly regardless of the damage it may cause to all parties. I am not
talking of conformism, rather the adoption to my political and social surroundings that would best
serve in the interests and security of the community at large.
To provide the reader of a greater understanding to this ideology perhaps entails that I give a
small personal example. I come from a diverse background that allows me to understand history
and politics from many perspectives and which has made me less biased than the average man.
Born in England, to a Turkish Father and a British Mother, and having lived in England, Turkey, as
well as Canada has broadened my vision of the world to a great extent. This is of course
excluding the many political conferences that I have attended and the many countries I have
visited around the world.
An example of an assignment which required the utmost patience and the most open of minds
was at a Model UN conference in Philadelphia I was assigned to represent Greece on the issue of
Cyprus, being part Turkish one can understand what open mindedness that took.
To do such a thing required the total adoption of what is the opposite of my historical perspective.
However in doing so, this has brought me an understanding of international relations, conflict and
interests.
This brings me to the ideology that I believe is most prevalent in the worlds state system of
todays Realism. Many people view this ideology as a somewhat pessimistic view of the world and
tend to believe in greater harmony and cooperation. These tend to be the idealists known to us as
the Social Democrats of Europe, the Liberals in Canada, and the Democrats in the United States.
Realism at this time and point of history seems to be the actual way that things are going
amongst states. Alliances (rather than friendships) are formed and balances are created. These
Alliances are not there for anything more than security and self-benefit, of course the other half of
an alliance definitely must fulfill its interests as well or else no alliance would be possible. It is a
quite simple ideology actually of favors and a meeting of mutual interests. As Hans J. Morgenthau
argues international relations is defined by states pursuing their national interests defined in terms
of power.

The more I study politics, history, and international relations the better I see the realistic approach
in international relations.
I have been delving more and more into the activities of what is known as the Deep State and
their role which is played in each and every nations policy building, and the way in which
countries interact. The more I read books for example about the NSA, CIA, KGB, MOSSAD, MIT,
MI5, MI6 etc, I am becoming in a true sense a realist. In reading about these agencies I can truly
say that I understand the goals of these agencies are to provide security for their nations and
states as well as to gain unimpeded access to the worlds natural resources, in particular oil.
It is this very strategic game which is being played out right now as I write this paper. The
Afghanistan issue, the Iraq issue, and most of the regional conflicts from Central Asia to the
Middle East are played out by the worlds powers indirectly and sometimes directly, with guerrilla
groups being backed by Deep State agencies of the more powerful countries. China, USA,
Britain, Russia, these are some of the top players in the covert strategic mission of gaining control
of the worlds natural resources.
This strategic game may be covered with pretexts, issues such as human rights, and democracy
vs. dictatorships. However, the end game remains pretty simple: to gain control or to secure
alliances with the resource nations in the world.
Sir Halford Mackinder and Alfred Thayer Mahan demonstrate a great example of this strategic
world map. Their map displays what they call the Heartland of the world. This area is heavily rich
in natural resources and we can look at this map to see that this area is heavily conflicted as well.
This is the chess game that the worlds powers play in order to maintain their edge and power.
Many left wing and idealist movements tend to ignore the realities that States will always, and
have always, since the beginning not only of the Nation State, but as well the Empires of Historys
past, look out for the best interests of their own nation. Many people criticize the United States for
example for its global hegemony. To those people I ask where would we be now if the USSR had
not collapsed and the United States did so in its place? Something to ponder perhaps for the
Utopian philosophers.
Realism is a perspective that deals with the realities of the world rather than to hope against hope
that all states will work in harmony to achieve world peace. There has never been since the
beginning of man a period and time where there has been total peace in our world. Some may
say this is pessimistic. However, I believe that this is a historical fact. Another fact though that may
lead to optimism, and a change of this trend may be to look at the Historical fact that two
Democracies have never fought a war against each other. However we cannot forget, covert
operations and terrorist forces tend to do the dirty deed while the other Democratic nations feed
money and arms in order to serve their interests covertly rather than head on. An example of this
may be perhaps the PKK (Kurdistan Worker Party, Marxist Leninist Kurdish Terrorist group) which
was armed, funded, and supported logistically by Turkeys neighbor Syria, and its NATO ally
Greece and which cost over 35 000 Turkish Citizens lives. The leader of this Terrorist
organization, Abdullah Ocalan, was captured in the Greek Embassy in Kenya where he was

receiving shelter. Greece was then forced to fire key members of its intelligence agency to save
face.
This just reinforces the reality of the world is unfortunately not about cooperation at any cost, it is
more like a strategic game in which allies are made and interests are served in order to maintain
security.
Security is the key issue that faces any and every nation today. If a nation feels secure, and not
threatened the greater relations such as trade and cooperation may become possible. If a nation
does not feel a threat it will develop more relations based on trade and cooperation.
There is an aspect of liberalism however which I find may be blended with realism, and this
aspect is the aspect of the economy and trade blocks. Security and stability also must be
assessed within economic terms as economic stability ensures a peace and stability all by itself.
This may be simplified to something as local as the Quebec Separatist movement, as the
economy slouches the Separatist rhetoric increases and the referendum issue occurs and
receives more support. When the economy is going well and everyone is economically sound why
would an adventure of instability be undertaken? Economy is in the end intrinsic to maintaining a
peace and cooperation that could be formulated into the realist approach from the aspect of
Security and National interest.
What I have seen in my analysis of States and Empires throughout history is a constant
calculation of Interests in relation to Economy and Security, from the Ancient Greek City States,
the Roman Empire, the Feudal Empires of Asia, the Democratic states, the Communist States,
even to the provincial level here in Canada, each state is looking out for its own interests, which
includes first and foremost security based either on deterrence, trust and alliances, and
economical stability and cooperation. In general I may be more inclined to the realist perspective,
but as explained above I also believe that cooperation is also possible in the equation of the
nature ofinternational politics.
All theoretical approaches can be proved valid or useful for certain situations however it is from
the aspect of international relations which I believe all states follow the main policy of realism
which is based in National Security. There is no one nation in history that went to war to protect
another countries interests without calculating what gains it will achieve for itself. Whether it be a
newly established regional influence or a newly acquired strategic partner in an important region,
the reality is that Human Rights, Freedom, and Peace come after all other interests are satisfied,
and is used as window dressing for the mass population who doesnt know any better.
I would like to leave you now with a quote from a realistic approach which is expressed by Ismail
Cem, former Turkish Foreign Minister. Foreign policy is a mathematical equation of a countrys
interests. It is a matter of calculation. Foreign relations are the product of a dialectical process in
which the internal and external factors that shape interests are in constant motion. Stances that
perceive foreign policy as a static, rigid phenomenon and that define others within categories of
eternal friendship and eternal animosity are destined to be satisfied with the minimum possible
advantage.

Power & Politics in Today's Business

This may be the toughest of all areas within corporate life, dealing with power and politics. It can
make or break a career, cause many sleepless nights, and often has very little to do with the
actual job employee thought he was paid to do. Some companies are better or worse than others
in the amount of political activity required in the job. In some companies, playing corporate politics
is the only job you have time for. In the military, it is only marginally important. Usually, the larger
the company, the more part the politics play in your ability to perform.
In order to be successful in the corporate world, people need power. The types of power available
are formal power and informal power. Formal power is most easily recognized in our society:
generals and presidents have formal position power. Informal power is less well understood,
however, it is far stronger than formal power over the long term. The power of respect gained as a
result of what we know and what we can do. It is important to consider the personality type of the
target of influence when selecting a power strategy. In order to influence someone, several
strategies may be used involvement, negotiation, direction, and enlistment. Building a
Professional Network Outside used to be a less important issue than it is today, with mergers,
acquisitions, down sizing and major companies restructuring almost daily. Many very successful
and highly competent people have found themselves out of work due to the economy, industry
changes, corporate politics or just plain bad luck. The true value of a professional network is
combining people from with and individual work today, those worked with in the past, and those
that work with in community or professional groups may be the difference between finding a new
position quickly and facing financial disaster. Corporate politics also provides fresh ideas, new
insights into daily challenges, different perspectives to use in old situations and a way to broaden
your talents, skills and interests in a fun way. The outside network is often 'safety net' and support
system of people who care about the employee, and have interests at heart. They aren't usually
after the job, or concerned about the politics of the company, so are willing to provide advice
without political bias. They usually have nothing to lose take their advice. It is very importance
that individuals spent time and energy building a professional network.
According to our reading, power is defined as the ability to get someone to do something you
want done or the ability to make things happen the way you want them to. Also describes
leadership as a key power mechanism to make things happen. There are many ways you can get
people to accomplish a task or different jobs. In every organization has to be someone in charge
or in a power position. We found that in a power position we have six important aspects and those
are; reward, coercive, legitimate, process, information, and representative. Each of these aspects
contributes to the leadership style and varies according to the skills of the manager. Personal
power is in the people regardless what position they hold. The three bases of personal power are
expertise, rational persuasion, and reference. These are important bases in order to succeed in
building and maintaining high levels of both position power and personal power. When building
position power, managers should be able to demonstrate others that their work units are highly
relevant to organizational goals and are able to respond to urgent people's needs. Managers
should keep their employees well inform and filter information down to the lowest level. An
example of this is the military system, in which information is passing from the top individuals in
charge to the lowest soldier performing the task in the field. Managers should delegate activities
to subordinates. Personal power comes from personal character rather than the position the hold
in the organization. There are three personal characteristics; expertise, political savvy, and

likeability. The process by which a manager help employees acquire and use the power needed
to make a decision affecting themselves and their work is call empowerment. When talking about
politics is the management of influence to obtain ends not sanctioned by the organization or to
obtain ends non-sanctioned influence means. This meaning that they are seeking their own goals
or use ways that are not authorized by the organization. Managers should increase their visibility
by exposing themselves to the employees and maximizing the contact with their superiors. This
will give them the opportunity to gain recognition for a task or job performed. Employees as well
will appreciate the manager or supervisor who gets involve with their working environment and
empowers them by including them in the decision making process. By acquiring recognition the
chances for the acquisition of power and influence will also increase.
It can be assumed that power and politics are a necessary evil in every organization. The ultimate
aim of a manager is to get his ideas implemented and for that he/she often needs to tactfully use
the art of power, politics and influence. According to Hitchner's article about Jeffrey Pfeffer's book
Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations; there are three main stages to
effectively wield power: getting power, using power, and keeping power. Before managers get to
the stages they must understand the sources of power more specifically according to Hitchner
(1992) "who has the power and where" ( 9); this source of power can be if the manager is part of
the upper echelon of the company or its board of directors, control over the wages, the location of
the division at the corporate headquarters, location of the division within the corporate compound,
who reads the division, reports? Does it get to the upper echelon?, how many of its members
form part of important panels within the company, and how much of the company's resources
does the division control. The first stage, the acquirement of power is mainly due to three factors:
first the individual or divisions' control over the company's wealth and property this is often
referred to as the (Hitchner, 1992) "the golden rule whoever has the gold, rules" ( 11); second
the connections an individual or division may have with people in power, is not what you know, but
who you know, Pfeffer discourages the making of deals and compromising as something too
temporary that will ultimately hurt more than help the goals that were set and instead encourages
coalition building to get your way even if others try to stand in the way; and third to the formal
authority conferred by his/her position in the company, having said that it is not automatic the
manager must show a degree of proficiency and self-confidence to earn the respect of its
subordinates and the inherent power that comes with it. Once a person has acquired power then
the second stage come into play, the use of power. The effective use of power can be achieved in
several ways; three of the most relevant ones are proper framing, proper timing, and proper
procedures. Hitchner (1992) states that proper framing is "presenting an idea or decision so that
is seen in the most favorable light" ( 18) in essence is how you package your message taking
into consideration the audience, the chances it has of getting approved, and any competition you
might have and how to make yours look better than the others; another aspect is proper timing, as
the say goes timing is everything, this couldn't be more true in the business world, many of the
same factors of framing come into consideration when considering timing and if you are not
sensitive to your surroundings an otherwise excellent idea might end up in an obscure drawer
simply because the timing wasn't right for presentation; finally proper procedure, follow a
structured method for the decision making process and involve the stakeholders to the extent
possible, this will make the process smother and greatly increase the chances of a favorable
decision. The third and trickier stage is keeping power. One of the most important tools an
executive must have in order to keep his/her power is flexibility towards change, even if this

means changing the status quo, managers must continually adapt to the new realities in their
organizations. The most common mistake an executive that fear losing power makes is trying to
stave off change and continue business as usual; paradoxically this very behavior virtually
guarantees the eventual loss of it. As Hitchner (1992) puts it "but no efforts can stave off
indefinitely the truism that power held by any member of any organization will someday be lost" (
23) and for this Pfeffer recommends integrating this inevitable fact into the culture of the
organization by publishing policies to that effect or make it part of the normal behavior of the
organization to name a few, this will ease the transition and ultimately help both the individual and
the organization. In my experience in the Army politics often take the form of people using their
influence because of a connection they might have or be perceived they have with a person in
power to get his/her policies implemented. This is especially true in DC were connections take on
a whole new meaning and people use them to advance their agendas.
Power and politics are a reality in today's business organizations, and the more organizations
grow the more power and politics play a key role in the conduct of business or as Raffaele (1985)
would interpret one of the book's editor's views "the second editor sees power as the result of
organizations becoming more complex. He notes that as people move from task centered jobs to
administrative roles, removed from the central purpose of the organization, they entered into a
subculture that is primarily personal goal-directed". Gary Raffaele in his review of the book by A.
Kakabadse and C. Parker: Power, Politics, and Organization: A Behavioral Science View explains
that most organizational development researchers and scholars tended to ignore or flat out hide
the central role power and politics play in organizations and try to dismiss it as a mere subset of
the process of influence. In summary ignoring the existence of power and politics in organizations
is not going to make it go away and this processes do serve a function in the successful
completion of the decision making process, in addition recognizing the sources and properly
utilizing power in terms of personally wielding it or empowering your subordinates can result in a
very efficient and well run organization.
References:
Schermerhorn, J.R., Hunt, J.G., & Osborn, R.N. (2005). Organizational Behavior,
chap. 12. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hitchner, E. (1992, winter). Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in
Organizations. National Productivity Review, p1-7.
Raffaele, G.T. (1985, spring). Power, Politics, and Organization: A Behavioral Science
View. Personnel Psychology, p199-203.