The Political Frame: An Organizational Perspective

By Takuro Akamine Brian Benson Deidre Keene Lara McCabe Robert Sarmiento

The Political Frame: an Organizational Perspective Organizations are made of diverse groups of individuals, varied in their background, skills, and ideals. Bowman and Deal (B & D) describe organizations as living, screaming political arenas that host a complex web of individual and group interests.(2003, p. 186). The challenge for organizations is to mold this diversity into a functional, decision making unit. It is within this process of manipulation that organizational politics is born. B & Ds political frame provides five views which embody the essence of organizational politics. These views, as stated by B & D (2003) are as follows:
Organizations are Coalitions. There are enduring differences among coalition members. Important decisions involve allocating scarce resources Scarce resources and enduring differences make conflict central and power the most important asset. Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for position among competing stakeholders. (p. 187).

The purpose of this document is to examine each of the views in order to develop a better understanding of organizational politics and how to manage it to achieve organizational success. Coalitions Organizations are coalitions of diverse individuals and interest groups. Organizations, especially major, complex ones, have a number of sub-groups and individual people who have their own roles and agendas. However, these various groups and individuals must come together to achieve a greater goal. Traditionally, organizations are seen as pyramid-like, where at the top, one person wields the most power, with a few upper-level workers wielding the rest of the power,

where at the bottom, many workers have little or no power, and must follow the orders of the workers above. However, in a coalition of organizations, a hierarchical structure is not as prevalent, or does not even exist. Different players bargain with each other for specific roles, benefits, and power. In a coalition, power, for the most part, isnt wielded by only one group or individual, but is shared or delegated to certain groups. In light of coalitions, it is important that management consider alternative positions as well as attempt to determine which members will likely form coalitions in support of each alternative. Anticipating potential coalitions will help an effective manager establish beneficial political strategies such as securing ties with key supporters and identifying negotiable issues. Enduring Differences Coalitions are made of individuals that have enduring differences in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality. These enduring differences can bring diversity of thought to the table increasing voice and political activity. Enduring differences are found in beliefs that are arguable and differences in values. When debated, they enlighten the decision making process for the betterment of the individual and its coalition members. In order for coalitions that have enduring differences to be successful, it is imperative that they break away from the traditional hierarchical structure and embrace an inclusive process. Managers must create an environment where coalition members can voice their opinions on decisions without fear of retribution. This provides the opportunity for

understanding among members of differing coalitions and lays the groundwork for collaboration and resolution. Allocating Scarce Resources One of the main problems within any type of organization is that there are scarce resources. Scarce resources may mean limits on staff, time, expertise, or money -- not just shortage of a commodity. Organizations face these resource issues due to external forces such as the market, revenue, and the political process. Each of these resource problems funnel conversation and dissent in specific ways and in many ways define our organizational life. Limits on staff size or hiring tend to encourage an organization to either: abandon a course of action, scale down, or use a temporary solution (contractors). Limited amounts of time may encourage an organization to make quick decisions without enough analysis, set up a possibility of groupthink, and place too much emphasis on short term issues over long term organizational goals. The same can be said for money constraints-- organizational departments have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and individuals may drive discussion and behavior in order to protect their turf instead of solving problems. In terms of expertise and knowledge, if there is a shortage of expertise on a subject then the organization is at the mercy of the knowledge holder either contractors or individuals and this will lead to a tug-of-war over that knowledge instead of a focus on better operations. Finally, in cases where the government is providing a public good, discussion over access and fees are sure to develop. In effect, scarce resources drive the politics of organizations as they force confrontation between groups with different and sometimes incommensurate values.

This forces managers to exert time and influence to mediate discussions and clarify organizational beliefs and organizational values. It also forces managers to regularly choose between their own beliefs, that of their department, and that of their organization. Power as an Asset Scarce resources and varying interests generate conflict. In the political framework, conflict is not necessarily a problem, but natural and inevitable. Key members of coalitions use their power to persuade others to accept their point of view. In this way, power is an asset. From Bowman and Deals (2003) perspective, power comes in many forms, ranging from authoritative or personal power to expertise or controlling agendas and rewards. From this mindset, power includes far more than such obtuse management strategies such as controlling raises, position appointments, and punishments. It also includes the power to use ones influence, expertise or charisma to reframe disputed points and gain support from other coalition forces. Power must be utilized by management wisely. Authoritative power is fleeting in that subordinates will only bow to it out of respect or fear. Once the two of these are gone, a manager is left with no power. Authoritative power, therefore, should be used cautiously. Managers should instead rely heavily on other sources of power, expertise, and persuasion in order to maintain their status within the organization and utilize authoritative power as a last resort. Goals and Decisions Knowing that resources are scarce, stakeholders with enduring differences must find some way to come to common consensus in order to make decisions. It is Bowman and Deals assumption that decisions within an organization are not made in a top-down

manner; but, are made by competing stakeholders through bargaining and negotiation (2003, p. 187). Individual stakeholders use their influence and resources to gather supporters for their positions from within the organization. In successful organizations, competing groups must be able to determine which points are the most important and be willing to give up on some of the minor points in order to make decisions. In this way, decisions that are made do not mirror either groups original idea, but, rather reflect a convoluted combination of the two. As a manager, it is important to prevent the conflict from becoming a personal attack between diverse members. The focus must always be maintained on the organization, the final decision and the relationship between the two. Conclusion Maneuvering around organizational politics is an impossible task. Organizational politics arises from the diversity of the individuals that make up and enrich the organization. It is, therefore, the responsibility of management to learn to manipulate the political frame in order to create a successful organization whose members can come together and make reasonable decisions. Management must first recognize that coalitions are an inevitable component of any organization. Because of their diversity, there will be enduring differences between members of a coalition as well as between different coalitions. These differences lead to conflict. Managers must create an environment in which these differences can be expressed and potential resolutions can be found. Power is an asset in this process. Power comes in many forms. Personal powers of persuasion and expertise are longer lasting than authoritative power. By managing the negotiating process, healthy decisions can be made, leading to organizational success.

Teaching Case: Bowman and Deals Political Frame Purpose: The purpose of this case is to enhance students knowledge of organizational politics and how management can utilize organizational politics to augment the decision making process. Goals: By the end of this lesson, students should be able to identify at least three of the five perspectives from Bowman and Deals political frame. This will be randomly tested through oral response to questions posed to the group. By the end of this lesson, students should be able to explain what factors lead to organizational politics in terms of the diversity of group members with differing backgrounds, beliefs, and values. This will be randomly tested through oral response to questions posed to the group. By the end of this lesson, students should be able to explain how this diversity can be considered a positive outcome of organizational politics in terms of providing vastness of information and creating an environment where multiple viewpoints must be considered. This will be randomly tested through oral response to questions posed to the group. By the end of this lesson, students should be able to identify coalitions and their main ideals as well as explain how decisions are made within organizations in terms of conflict between coalitions leading to negotiation and bargaining between coalitions. This will be randomly tested through oral response to questions posed to the group. By the end of this lesson, students should be able to explain how different sources of power influence the decision making process. This will be randomly tested through oral responses to questions posed to the group. By the end of this lesson, students should be able to describe how management must adapt in order to utilize organizational politics and enhance the decision making process. This will be randomly tested through oral responses to questions posed to the group. Lesson: This lesson consists of a combination of reading activities, visual aids, a questionanswer session and a supplemental scenario activity. Procedure: 1. Students must read the following papers prior to class attendance: a. Akamine, Benson, Keene, McCabe, and Sarmiento. (2006). The Political Frame: an Organizational Perspective. b. Surowiecki, James. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor Books. P.173-191 2. Students must watch the movie clip from the Reginald Roses 1957 classic movie 12 Angry Men. 3. Students must participate in discussion questions. 4. Students must break-up in to 5 groups and do supplemental scenario activity.

Discussion Questions: 12 Angry Men I. Identify the different coalitions that were observed in 12 Angry Men and their divergent opinions. 1. The main character (juror 8) Architect is an educated man that exhibits strong moral conscience, and power of conviction. He believes that everyone deserves a chance to be heard (rights of process), and that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution (innocence until proven guilty). He is mild mannered, but an assured leader that is attentive to detail and respectful of others. First to plead not guilty. 2. The next character, the older man (juror 9) retired he is also an educated man that exhibits traditional values of moral conscience and respect, which include attention to another persons opinion. He quickly identifies with the attitudes and values of the main character and this begins the coalition building. Second to plead not guilty. 3. The underprivileged Man with a slum background (juror 5) is quite, and shy and feels alienated by the groups attitudes towards poor people and quickly begins to identify with the plight of the youth and a more thoughtful process. Third to plead not guilty. 4. Foreign born Man (juror 11) Watchmaker respects the system and principles of democracy, and is thoughtful, respectful and well mannered. Fourth to plead not guilty. 5. White collar worker (juror 2) unsure rookie thoughtful, respectful, principled and mannered. Fifth to plead not guilty. 6. Blue collar worker (juror 6) used to following orders, but is principled, mannered, and respectful of elders. Sixth to plead not guilty. 7. Salesman (juror 7) Baseball fan joker, not thoughtful displays only selfinterest. Swing vote because he feels the tide turning. Seventh to plead not guilty. 8. Advertising guy (juror 12) joker, not thoughtful, impressed with authority and displays group interest flip-flopper. Swing vote because he wants to please the group. Eighth to plead not guilty. 9. Facilitator/coach (juror 1) is organized, likes rules, follows directions, and respects authority. Swing vote because he is a team player. Ninth to plead not guilty. 10. Racist Man (juror 10) is hot headed, confrontational, has no manners, sick, agitated, and has predetermined attitudes about the underprivileged that determined position. Only through confronting the social reaction to his racism does he secede to the group. Tenth to plead not guilty. 11. Broker (juror 4) is an educated, conservative, formal, logical/rational, and principled man that holds with the facts of the case for his final conclusion. Eleventh to plead not guilty. 12. Business Man (juror 3) authoritative, disciplined, hardworking, principled, but bitter because of father/son issues, which cloud his ability to deliver an unbiased opinion. Last to plead not guilty.

II. What factors influenced their individual changes throughout the clip? How did conflict between the varying coalitions influence the final decision?

The main coalition, the Jury, begins this judicial process in almost unanimous fashion, but for one theres always one they cry that stops, at least, this jury from making any decision prematurely. There are distinct sides on the onset of movie: the hard core believer in the guilt of the youth being charged with murder, to the unsure or convinced of guilt against the one believer in the youth innocence. Displaying strength of character, Davis, quickly establishes his power and position in a clear and determined, but unthreatening and respectful manner. An almost natural flow is quickly determined through the identification of similar values and the belief systems of individuals; this creates a movement or shift in the power dynamics of the group. Davis establishes his leadership quickly and encourages others to express their values and interests to the members of the group, which begs a process for allegiance. The old man is the first juror to second the not guilty verdict, which is as much based on his belief in Davis as in the youths innocence, and so the coalition begins. Now there are two distinct coalitions, the guilty and the not guilty camps, with members that have varying degrees of allegiance who begin to question the value system or cause of the group. The next juror to move coalitions is the underprivileged man who moves camp fairly quickly because of alienation and self-identification. After the unprivileged man moves camp, more tension is created as peoples personal values begin to be expressed and play a more significant role in the formulation of alliances. We then see a larger shift with jurors eleven, two, and six, becoming alienated and changing coalitions, just as much, because of their belief system and issues with respect and thoughtfulness being challenged, as with their belief in the youths innocence. The next shift are the swing voters, juror seven, twelve, and one, these individuals do not seem to possess any strong moral convictions or values and seem more influenced by the groups dynamics than their own personal opinions. The struggle now with the guilty camp is contending with the members with more conviction to their belief systems. The racist has strong beliefs that guide his opinions and not until he is socially confronted by his intolerance and biased judgment that he is forced to secede to the validity of the majority opinion. Then we have the Broker, who has a moral conscience and is principled, and is clearly convinced of the guilt of the youth; only through direct connection does he agreed that the evidence is refutable and thereby represents a reasonable doubt that he secede. Last, we have the hard-working conservative business man who is convinced of his opinion that all youths should be locked up because of the harm they cause parents; finally realizing that his power of conviction comes from the loss of what he blames his son for killing their relationship. III. What sources of power were observed to be effective in the alteration of the final decision? In 12 angry men, we can hardly see authoritative power to resolve conflict. Instead of authority, individuals have developed some strategies and tactics to persuade

swing voters. Henry Fonda has power to make his argument sound. In the scene of discussion, he successfully withdrew additional information and expert knowledge that foster the discussion by adding more ingredients on the table, although there was limited information and evidences accessible to 12 jury. In addition to his persuasive speaking, networking efforts by Henry was the most powerful assets to gain support from other jurys. He brought many interesting questions that raise awareness of contextual background, the environment, subculture of suspect behind the criminal scene. His attentiveness to building and cultivating links with allies resulted in the flip of power dynamics in the jury room. IV. How does the situation in a jury room differ from a structural organization? In a structural organization, final decisions normally represent an intertwining of coalition ideals developed through bargaining and negotiation. Unlike in the jury room, in a structural organization, there does not have to be full consensus on the final decision. In addition, in a structural organization, decisions are rarely as concrete as guilty or not guilty. Rather than being black and white, alternatives are usually complex shades of grey with many alternative options in between. Unlike structural organizations, in the jury room the 12 men have equal power to express their opinion, guilty or not. Each has an equal veto-power. Members of a structural organization must use their individual power to influence other members of the organization, yet, there is always the authoritative structure in place that can have influence on how members of the organization share their opinion. And, while it may seem like an advantage that members of an organization often have more similar values, this can lead to an altered decision making process by the increased chance of group think. This movie is an excellent example of how the conflict and power game occurs in loosely controlled environment where leaders simply keep the group focused on the task on hand. V. What management recommendations as described by Akamine, Benson, Keene, McCabe and Sarmiento (2006) could have helped avert the Columbia disaster as described by Surowiecki? The MMT should have provided a more open decision-making process instead of an authoritative one. This would have allowed members provide their valuable expertise in the discussion.

10

Supplemental Scenario Activity Divide the class into 5 groups and assign each participating class group an educational group to represent throughout the activity. Educational Groups: District Administrative Office: The administration center for the school district School A: An urban school with a large minority population. A large percentage of the parents live at or near the poverty level. School B: A school from a very wealthy area of the city. Parents have formed many organizations that fundraises money for the school and are able to provide their students with many extras such as school plays, music and art classes. School C: A low achieving school with a moderate minority population. Although only a small percentage of the parents live at or near the poverty level, most children come from homes without much supervision due to the fact that either one parent works multiple jobs or both parents work. School D: A school from a middle income area of the city. Most families have two working parents, yet, they cant afford to provide the school with the many extras that are provided by having multiple parent fundraising organizations. Scenario: City School District has just received a large technology grant to be used to purchase 100 computers to be used in the schools. City School District consists of four different schools, each of which has 25 classrooms and educates 500 students daily. The Committee, which consists of members from the District Administrative Office, School A, School B, School C, and School D has to decide how to divide up the computers among the schools. The following proposals have been presented: all computers to one school (no school specified), 2 per classroom in 2 schools (no 2 schools specified), 1 per classroom in all four schools. Take 5 minutes to develop a plan from the viewpoint of the organization you represent in the committee. Directions: After plans have been developed, the teacher leads a discussion with the hope of developing a consensus on an actual plan to divide up these computers.

11

Bibliography 12 Angry Men. (1957) Produced by Reginald Rose. Starring Henry Fonda. Bolman and Deal. (2003) Reframing Organizations, 2nd Edition. Jossey Bass. Surowiecki, James. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor Books.

12