Question

Find a research article about power and politics and make a Literature Review - should be conducted from 2010 – 2017.

Fill this up or answer this based on the article review:

1. TITLE OF THE ARTICLE

2. RESEARCHER/YEAR/ WEBSITE

3. OBJECTIVE/S OF THE STUDY

4. METHODOLOGY

5. MAJOR FINDINGS

6. IMPLICATIONS TO MANAGERIAL DECISION/ACTIONS (Application to your workplace)

Answer 1

1. Title of the Article: Power and Politics in Organizations

2. Researcher/Year: Lawrence Nwaeke and Ugiabe Maxwell A (2012). Site:www.irdi.org.ng

3.Objective of the Study: The study was done to review the impact of Power and Politics in the Organizations using global context. To explore the nature and practical implications of power and pol itics with particular reference to organizations

4.Literature Review:

Behavioural Dimensions of Power and Politics People ·seldom think of power and politics without mixed feelings . For one thing, power is frequently viewed in negative tenTIs. It tends to be associated with dictatorial tendencies and with selfish ends. This goes on to show that it is a highly contested concept The general Impression is that power and politics are conflictive in nature. It was the political philosopher; Thomas Hobbes Who inspired the critical inquiry into the capricious nature and common fear of power, based on his exposition of how the vicious struggle for power resulted in "the war of all against all" and loss of liberty to the leviathan. It is in this historical sense that societal concern persists on the sensitive issue of who shall control power and what shall he/she do with it. This concern has more or less transformed into an article c. faith, best expressed by Lord Action who said, to with that: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Charles Calet Colton encapsulated the inexplicable hold of power on the human psyche when he said that: "power will intoxicate the best hearts, as the wine strongest heads" In reality, little of the power instinct as a personal attribute is clearly understood. As a quest, power is elusive so much so that in the words of R. M. Kanter :" People who have it deny that they have it, people who want it try' not to appear getting seeking it and those who are good at it are secretive about how they got it."
Power is widely perceived as a morally inconsistent attribute. Politics is equally depressingly internalized.Political activity, according to Pareto is not a moralizing enterprise those who rule or control often resort to "violence, coercion, guiles and even deceit in pursuit of their goals Politics reminds people of conflicts. It is seen as a game of intrigue, a self-serving venture and a crisis-prone activity.

Politics and power connote endless struggles that disorganize groups and distract them from pursuing and achieving their aims. They are nevertheless facts of life. People will fall back on the power that they have to achieve what they want. They do this by trying to have their way: by using available means or abilities to make others behave or act in a way they desire. This striving, effort or tendency on people's part to have their way when pursuing their objectives is a common attitude. It reflects the power drive in human nature. The important thing is not whether this tendency is expressed overtly or covertly. When the individual is successful in having his way - by getting others to behave in a manner that enables him do so-we say iilat he has exercised power, not just that he has it. It implies that some capacity or ability was exerted towards the use of available means with compel, coerce or simply to get others to behave in the particular way enquired. It is what takes place anytime two or more people come together for the purpose of attending to any matter at hand. On course will he what ~an be described as an exchange of power attempts (both overt and covert) the end result of which is politics or the use of power. The exchange of power attempts among people or within a social aggregate together with the differences and conflicts that arise is what politics is all about. It goes hand in hand with power. The process whereby people interact by competing to have their way when dealing with others or resolving common problems is what is involved in politic. From power in motion then, we derive politics, which is to say that politics involves the use of power. The ubiquity of power and politics, to paraphrase a construction of Dahl, can be likened to the energy in the foods we eat that sustains life. Power is inherent in the nature of man. In his daily activities, he has to utilize the powers he has or can mobilize to get what he wants. This pervasive behaviour is informed by social necessity. Man has many needs but the means of their satisfaction are few. As a result, he not only has to build several clusters of relations with other people but has to. continuously as well mobilized his means of power to get these others to act in accordance with the satisfaction of his needs whatever these may be. At one time. the individual is using the means of power available to him to try to have his way (by getting others to give way so as to get one need or the other satisfied. At another time, his attention is focused on overcoming - again with the means of power available to him -- the resistance of others to he satisfaction of some other need. At yet other times, the objective might be to prevent others from having their way because of some interests at stake. This is how people behave in social settings. Social interactions are ultimately about who and who have their way and who and who do not in matters of common interest. Those who have their way have had sllccess in extracting compI iance or obedience from others. Those who end up complying probably failed in their own power attempts. Sometimes, this is due to the fact that they were unable to mobilize their means of power; or it may be due to some sudden wage to give way to this other fellow. At other times, the roles are reversed and the compilers in a previous setting may find themselves gaining the upper hand. It is important here to mention that some scholars restrict their consideration of power to what is 'significant" and 'nontrivial". But we believe that this will raise a lot of philosophical and empirical questions. Focus, therefore, the important thing is what is of interest to the individual. No one is powerless (op. cit). Everyone, at one time out at one level or the other, has sought to lise power. Some people succeed in exercising it a lot more than others and cone to be recognized as men of power or influence. Others areas tar removed from this vantage position that they hardly realized that--- in achieving certain personal objectives in their families, clubs, workplaces, among friends, in falling in love or in making an impression on someone etc they too have been using or exercising power in some way. Such people would swear that they have no power and that there are others who could properly be called men of power or influence. The latter perception may be true but it is hardly a counter to the fact that everyone is imbued witI': the power drive. Power, indeed, is so Ubiquitous, and intrinsic to our daily actions that we hardly realize it is there until perhaps we feel the impact of the power attempts of others or we perceive a need for it. These are the complexities that make power a difficult concept to grasp. Political scientists study the phenomenon of power by trying to understand how it is organized both as a behavioural tendency and an instrument of control. From their studies, we come to understand that society has many systems of action and that these systems of action are also power centers and sub- centers or structures and processes through which power functions and is regulated fonnally and informally. As a group phenomenon, it is characterized by relationships of people defined by social and individual pressures: hence, as a group phenomenon it exists formally and informally. We speak of the hierarchy of a church (formal structure) and church politics (informal process), of the militarJi hierarchy and military politics and of the school administration and school politics. In organizational settings, power and politics reflect some of the rules or norms that people conform to. They are a natural proces~ in organizations and, as Rothnsoll et say, they are not going to go away.

Concepts Of Power and Politics From the fOFegoing, it is obvious that power and politics are !lot easy to define. Dahl (1957:203) argues that A has power over B to the extent that he can get him to do what he would not otherwise have done. George and Jones (1996:571) contend that po\ver is the ability of one person or group to cause another person or group to do something they otherwise might not have done. Leeds (1957) integrates th is perspective, characterizing power as the capacity to achieve one's aims and get others to do what they would not otherwise have done through the use of positive or negative incentives (resources). Such resources may include weapons, infonnation, jobs, money, special privileges, food, social status and punishments. These can all be used to bribe, threaten, induce or encourage others to comply with power attempts. Ball (1977:26) says that power is the capacity to affect another's behaviour by the threat of some form of sanction. The essential feature identified in their definitions is the ability to overcome opposition in pursuit of objectives. Weber describes power in terms of this opposition - assailing, will- crushing perspective. Emerson (1962:32) posits that the power of actor A over B is the amount of resistance on the part of B that can potentially be overcome by A. According to Deutsch (1985), power is the ability to prevail in conflict and to overcome obstacles. Oppenheim (1981) lIses this approach to examine different relationships of power anchored on the formulation that:
P exercises power over R's doing X if and only if (iff)
P influences R to do X or coerces R to do X or
pun ishes R for not having done X.
Similarly. P exercises power over Rs not doing X if
P influences R not to do X or restrains R from doing
X or punishing R for having done X.

These scenarios encompass actual necessary conditions (whether negative or positive) for exercising power in a way that makes it objective or measurable. Negativity here does not imply any normative judgment as such but simply refers to constraining or necessary conditions that guarantee the exercise of power, including the exercise of coercion, restraint, influence, prevention and punishment. Coercion arises when, as a result of P's action R's attempt to avoid doing x fails. R is restrained by P when, because of the latter's acti9n, the formers attempt to do x fails. Influence, as an aspect of power, occurs when P's action caus,=s R to choose not to do X or when R, contemplating to do X, chooses not to do it based on some action on P's part. In this, there is no direct command as such. Command, force and the like fall within the continuum typed by coercion. However, Oppenheim, in applying the concept of coercion tries to specify the extent of its linkage to physical force. He is of the view that physically coercing someone to do something or restraining him, physically, from acting in a certain way occurs only in unusual ctrcumstan~es like wars, revolts or imprisonment. Thus power is only exceptionally exercised by means of physical violence or coercion. Coercion on take place through legal or moral sanctions. The important thing is that the coercive threat is so credible and the threatened sanction so severe that the person threatened has no choice but to comply, be persuaded or dissuaded not to follow the unfavoured course of action provided he is rational. A person coerced in this manner is restrained. For this latter concept, a simpler substitute could be prevention. Prevention means that P performs some actions that make it impossible for R to do X. One cannot talk of the power to restrain or prevent punishment and to actually punish. Punishment is felt when once there is a feeling of physical or mental pain as when 'one feels the pain of some deprivation.
Oppenheim encapsulates his interpretations of power with reference to the following premises: (i)    Power is related to causation sllch that A's behaviour causes B's behaviour; and ' (ii)    Control is a sufficient condition of power, the formula being that: A has power over B to the extent that he can get 8 to do something that B ll'ould not otherwise do".
This maKes it possible in some cases to ascertain or measure the degree of its control over B based 011 the magnitude of the deviation of B's actual behavior from what he would have done had A not intervened. Oppenheim's final formula concerns punishability ._- involving the ability to threaten and impose punishment as a necessarily and sufficient condition for power. It is also related to the issue of preferences

power relation is an actual or potential causal relation behveen the preferences of an actor regarding an outcome. This means that A's preferences caused B's behaviour. There is a clear indication here that power involves a conflict of intentions or preferences. Max Weber. Thus defines power as the probability that one actor within a social relation will be in a position to carry out his own preference despite resistance". Others have sought to moderate this characteristic tone of coercion in the definition of pO\ver. Rollinson et at (1 95) for instance, confine their definition of the concept to a framework in which choke Is given relevance. They describe power as the capacity of an individual or group to modify the conduct n other individuals or groups in a manner that they desire and without having to modify their own conduct In a manner that they do not desire. The idea of power as having to do with making others do what they would ordinarily not have done, gives the wrong notion that power cannot be exercised democratically. It is problematic notion for It could also Imply performing ethically inconsistent actions, it signifies hut purports to deny that the person over whom power is exercised has the discretion to make a choice. We are better off limiting the concept to the idea of the capacity of an individual to get other individuals to do what he wants them to do or do what they are required to do. Along this line, Kast and Rosenweig agree with Bertrand Russell hat power is the capability for doing something or affecting something. Power is the ability to get others to act In accordance ,with one'sgoals. it Implies the ability to Influence others. This underlies, in a nutshell, the ability to produce a certain occurrence. it also implies an Influence exerted by a person or group over the conduct of others in intended ways. Power, however, may exist but not used. It is, therefore, either a capacity or potential But power is also about effectiveness. It is the capability for influencing behaviour by limiting the alternatives available to those affected.
Major Approaches to the Study Of Power The issue of differences in capabilities, interests and preferences characterizing of relations of power is the subject of alternative approaches to the sturJy of power. One of the approaches is based on the Marxist perspective. The second approach highlights the role of the elite. A third approach is based on pluralist interpretations of power. Together, these approaches account for some of the structural forms in which power is known to pre-figure.
1. Marxist approach: The Marxist approach is one of the major economic interpretations of power. It views firms or businesses as lying at the core of production and private property and, therefore, as underpinning the economic as weil as the power structure in the capitalist society. Marxists contend that every society is structured around its material basis of production. This material basis determines the form in which individuals and society as a whole make a living produce, consume and distribute socially generated wealth, determines how people articulate norms to suit all this, the nature of human action, and the political superstructure (governmental and social institutions) dominating society. The power enjoyed by an individual fs thus less the product of his personal capabilities than the power position of his location in the system of production . As nee-Marxist put it: The exercise of power is not the unconditional out come of a mechanical clash of wills but has definite social and material conditions of existence and is circumscribed through its links with other determinations in a social formation - the analysis of these limits and constraints is therefore logically prior to the study ofthe actions ofthe agents involved in a power relation
Marxists insist that change and power in all human society can be explained as a result of the struggle between contending classes. For them, the starting point of analysis should be the study of each state in terms of its economics (production), relations of all classes, and the Interest stemm ing from these relations of all classes. Capitalist production relations essentially locate two classes, one made up of those who own the means of production and own the profits accruing from production; and the other comprising those who see thei:Jabour to owners of means of production for wages. Classes and their inequalities thus emerged with the appearance of private ownership of the means of production and attendant property inequality. The rich fars the poor, the masters and the workers, and the dominant and the subordinated came into being. The capital state on its own acts to defend tire interest of capitalist accumulation based on the exploitation of labour whether at home or at abroad. Ownership of means of production concentrates power, influence, position and domination in the hands of those with private property, as opposed to the labouring class, which is formally free but remains relatively - powerless and economically dependent 01' the propertied class. Marxists view this as an outcome of the economic structure and would posit that business or firms-locales of production relations --. are directly linked to the reproduction of class inequalities by virtue of the ownership structure and its contradictions. The argument that would flow from this is that any notion of organizations as representing unitary actors with collective interests is fallaciovs. With the managerial class allied 0 the interest of capital or propertied class, and with the rest of the employees constituted productively as labour, there exist fundamental contradictions and divergence of interests in organizational life. To Bottmore however, the two principal classes are not closed systems. The higher stratum of the population, according to him, undergoes changes in membership through recru itment of new members from the lower strata sometime. This done b means of the incorporation of new groups. The Marxists would react that this does not alter the structure or ownership and power. Or-tho-dox scholar would insist that t is a proof that nobody is powerless.Quote the criterion that the Marxist theory has become inval id because power is no longer concentrated in the hands of a few econom ic owners and their friends. For instance, they have to share power with the managerial class, which administratively runs tie workplace and this is relatively autonomous of ownership. Workers, too, have their own organizations, which can be used to bring pressure on the state. Accordingly, the entire interpretation of the structure of power and the role of the state in modern capitalism is said to be overly deterministic and descriptive. ft is said not to be a discuss, for instance, conflict between different sectors of capital. ft assumes that capitalists have unitary interests, which the state must follow without question. The capitalist state, however, enjoys relative autonomy from the ruing class and has not defended its interest in every specific terms. It, however, defends the interest of capital in general.
2. The Elite Approach From the argument of Bottomore and the Marxists, society can be characterized as an entity stratified or graded Into successive levels of rank, prestige and the like 1977. They come in the form of social c lass and income or occupational groupings. Social stratification proper means that there is a hierarchy of . groups In society determined by differential st&tus ranking. It underlies the idea of elitism, which we define as rule or dominance by a few or minority (oligarchy) based on this formulation. We can have a political, economic, local or traditional elite. Within the economic elite, we have a managerial elite based on position and expertise and which is of course, clearly demarcated from the rest of the workforce by hierarchy, status, Income, prestige and influence. With all this come distinction, privilege and power. Elitism clearly pervades organizational life. It does so in every ether sector of society. The elite approach contends that a memb~r of elites - social, economic, stratifies society (including managers and not just owners), bureaucratic and political - each of which has its own power base . According to Miliband, power derives not just from ownership of the means of production and property rights but may also depend on position. Mosca highlights the role of organized minorities who occupy an intermediate position between the ruling class and the majority of the people. These are recognized as functional elites bit base their position on privilege, as does the rest ofthe elites. In the modern elite theory, the term is used mote commonly in a broad sense in which it connotes as a looser grouping of individuals each exercising power and united by one or more of a number of features such as wealth, social origins or pre-eminence [n achievement in a particular field . Other features include greater organizational capacity, and shared group consciousness and objectives. The emphasis however, now lies on their internal characteristics and more on the role that they play in society that guarantees their preeminence. A second emphasis has been to argue for a plurality of elites, which may interact or compete in a variety of ways. The argument again is that the envisaged plurality of interests is a sham because the elites together constitute the ruling class.
3. The Pluralist Approach : The' central argument of the pluralist approach which like the elite approach is in direct. Fesponse.to,the · Marxist interpretation, is that power is no longer in the hands of the capitalist ruling class. It is now pluralistic and will change depending on the issue or circumstance at hand . fill contrast to both the Marxist and elite approaches, the pluralist approach argues that power is not concentrated in the hands of a single group but is relatively diffused among a variety of groups an~ actors. The assumption -- somewhat · =
ideal ized -.- is that power is equally distributed. All citizens are expected to have a choice to become politically active through individual and group action. The society is based on interest groups (Business professional, social, political etc), which compete to influence state policy. The process of decision-making is basically the outcome of conflicts between different groups. So power in pluralist terms is not something that is given to or appropriated by one group and denied the other based on economic or social position or privilege. Pluralists argue that contrary to Marxist and elitist assumptions, a lot of groups are involved in decIsion making. In many political systems and in various organizations power is centralized in some respect aild decentralized in other respects. The implication is that at any one time there is always a diverse body of interests at play. Pluralist approaches highlight the plurality of factors in terms of forces affecting decision-making. These are relevant for looking at the actual processes of decision-making based on the values, goals and strategies of groups involved. It does not stress "abstract, unfalsiflable and unobservable" notions of objective interests and conditions. For these reasons, they are biased against discovering evidence ofelite or bourgeois domination in the power struggle.

Structures and Categories OfPower The foregoing shows that power relation take many forms and exist under many conditions. These vary from individual and from situation to situation. The important thing is that power involves actual relationships of people and depends on structural conditions. Each fonn of power depend on a particular set of relationships, . which in turn determines it process and structure. In this section, we shall look at the structural bases of power as well as its major categories.
Structures of Power are based on two main issues of power dependency and capability as stated below:

i) Power & dependency

ii)Power & Capability

Categories of Powers:

A) Power as Influence

B) Ladership & Power

C) Authority

Sources of Power in Organization:

A)Formal Sources:

a)Legitimate Power

b)Reward Power

c)Coercieve Power

B) Levels of Powers:

a)Centralization

b)Decentralization

C)Formal Power:A Recaputilation

i)The Bureaucratic Model

ii)The Patriachal Model

iii)The Authoritarian Model

iv)The Polycentric Model

v)Comptitive Model

vi)Democratic Model

vii)Concus Model

viii)Loose Authority Model

D) Informal Powers

i)Expert Power

ii)Referent Power

iii)Access Power.

Political Behaviour In Organizations The foregoing is an indication of the extent to which politics or the use of power pervades organizational life. When individuals interact there is power exchange (clash of power attempts) with attendant conflicts that lead to m re and more exchange of power attempts. This is the basis of politics. Pol itics in organizations means' alt those curious irrational behaviour plus the more rational (official) ones that take place in organizations. Political behaviour in organization means employees behaving politically. This includes attitudes of formal compliance with orders and rules, as well as those actions of a political nature lying outside the official relations of power. Included among these attitudes are those activities that are not required as · part of one's fonnal rote in the organization, but that influence or attempt to influenct: the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization. Also included are' patterns of learning and experiences in the workplace by which the worker acquires political behaviour (political socialization). This process of socialization could be found to lie outside formalized codes of conduct, involves unstructured situations and may embrace behaviour that could be termed illegitimate. Employees can use blackmail, gossips, rumours, backbiting, concealment of vital information, trading of favours, and leakage of damaging information to the media to achieve one aim or the other. At times, they engage in promoting their self-image, or form or join coalitions to promote their interests. The essence of political behaviour, invariably, is to cope with the complexity ofthe organizational environment.
Political Actors and Styles Participants in organizational politics differ in characteristics One reason for this is that the goats within organizational politics vary from employee to employee. Secondly, as a result of personality traits, employees do not behave alike. It all depends on the character of the individuals concerned, their original political orientation and cuI.ture and their experiences and circumstances. Based on these criteria, we can isolate four types of organizational political actors; namely the agitator-activist, defender of the faith, collaborator, factionalist, innovator, integrator, the democrat-humanist and the, authoritarian actor.

(i)    The agitator-activists: He or she takes an active interest in organizational politics. He plays an active role in it. He or she is often a unionist who seeks to promote the cause of workers. He or she is comm itted to principles and aspires .to promote reform or the transformation of the workplace in a way that enhances workers' ·benefits and their participation in decision-making.

(ii)    The Defender ofthe Faiths: He or she is committed to defending the values of the organization, and genuinely shares and projects the vision of the organization.

(iii)    The Collaborators: A collaborator is an employee who elects to be used by the boss or management against one or more employees. He or she often reports on other employees. The collaborator Is essentially a self~seeker who curries the favour ofthe boss for personal gains.

(iv)    The factionalist: He or she is an ardent practitioner the politics of promoting one clique or conflict subgroup or the other.

(v)    The integrator He or she works hard to ring other employees together, strives to buiid team spirit and is often actively involved in or promotes organizational social activities. He or she works for the solidarity of the organization.

(vi)    The innovator: He or she is likely to be a manager committed to his duty of initiating meaningful reforms or the promotion of new Ideas and techniques to enhance organizational performance . . .

(vii) The democrat-humanist: This individual is humane and open. He or she helps, and has a high degree of confidence in, subordinates; builds n their strengths while helping them overcome theirshortcomings. He or she accepts differences and is a conflict-resolution actor.

The authoritarian personality: The authoritarian employee is aggressive, coercive, rigid and seeks mostly to evoke a submissive and uncritical attitudes in subordinates or colleagues. The above - listed typologies raise possibilities that there could be more van ties of organizational political participants. Some of the varieties could involve combinations of these typologies. The average employee could have more than one trait. Finally, there is the case of the apolitical employees. These are employees who place a low value on rewards expected from political involvement.

Factors Contributing to Political Behaviour Rollinson and others trace employee's political behaviour to organizational and psychological factor.
These can be identified as follows: (a)    Organiiational factors

(i)    . Ambiquity: Ambiguity in phrasing organizational goals - for instance, "maximize market access", "close in on the market" - can create room for competitive interpretation: by managers and others towards operationaliztng them.

(ii)    Scarcity of resources: The distribution of scar resources usually takes place in an atmosphere 04 competition among groups and individuals Thus,the more the scarcity of resources, the greater the competition among such groups and individuals to acquire them.

. (iii)    Uncertain and Change: In periods of uncertainty and change, organizations come under stress and some experience power failure (collapse of the power distribution system). Such periods often witness intense rivalry among top managers to determine which version of the definition of the situation will prevail, what goals the organization should pursue and which leadership group should emerge. This situation, with its implications, can also likened to emergencies requiring immediate decisions.    .

(iv)    Loose Hierarchy: In this particular situation, power is loosely structured and no clear chain in command exists. This takes place when a boss is over - protective of his office and wants his immediate dep!:lties to compete among themselves to enable him keep them in check. As a result, managers and others may resort to open competition, intrigues and maneuverings to advance their interests.

(v)    Low Trust: In this type of environment, the level of trust among employees is low. This is likely to intensify competitive behaviour in organization. Mistrust can also arise from authoritarian and repressive control. Palt of the disenchantment towards this can come in the form of subversive acts by subordinates.

Using Political Power A number of ways in which members of organizations behave politically by using power have been identified what follows are some of the more commonly used tactics.

(i)    Control of Information: In a situation in which a certain information is crucial, a potent political tactic is to become the sole custodian of or gate keeper of such information. The influence of t~ose enjoying this control lies in the fact that they are the only ones with a total picture of the subject of the information.

(ii)    . Agenda control: A second tactic deals with agenda control. This is done by limiting the number of proposals that can be considered. A subcommittee can be set up to vet proposals with the idea of removing unwanted ones. Agenda control also involves specifying the order of discussion of items on the agenda: getting opponents to he absent from meetings; and ensuring that supporters are in the majority at crucial meetings.

(iii) Coalition building: An important tactic is to networks, alliances or coalitions which can be used needed.

(iv)    Defining Acceptability Criteria: A boss who is interested in a particular decision outcome could maneuver to have adopted criteria on which the acceptability of the decision is to be based. This is more or less the same thing as presenting information, which makes a preferred option the automatic choice. In addition to the foregoing, the alt of game playing is also identified as part of tactics expressive of pol itical behaviour. It involves the following:

(i)    Authority games: These involve games by those in authority to gain compliance often by making threats or Imposing greater control.

(ii)    Power base games: These include obtaining resources, backing or favour by convincing a senior, powerful figure of one's loyalty; gaining support of colleagues often by given a pledge to support in return; creating the impression of questioned expertise; and encroaching upon and appropriating others' functions and responsibilities.

A different power game involves bringing about 0 blocking change. A second game is whistle - blowing or leaking information to people outside the organization for the purpose of directing bad publicity to certain unethical practices. A third power game is known as the Young Turks ' game played usually by a very dedicated opposition group with the aim of deposing existing power holders using covert build-up of alliances. The range of political assertiveness is limitless, it is also bound to vary from individual to individual and from situation to situation. Power tactics are like defense machines and nobody knows exactly what will be encountered at any point in time. Among the riskier power tactics identified by Rollinson et at, are those of violating the chain of command, losing personal control and defying the ultimate power holder. Some tactics are deviant and difficult to defend. These include divide and rule, excluding rivals from decision-making: fora aild settling scores. Rollinson et at are of the opinion, however, that the rewards of using pplitical tactics successfully are highly cherished. This means that organizational participants will naturally resort to them. Nevertheless, it is important to avoid some of the dysfunctional effects of the tactics. Morehead and Griffin suggest that this can he done in two ways

(i)    Opening-up communication to ensure that everyone knows how and why resources are allocated, and that there is no monopoly on information and its distribution.

(ii)    Controlling uncertainty so as to reduce the incentive for playing politics or manipulating others.

It must be said, however, that there is an ever-present tendency for political behaviour to occur in organizations. Differences between involvement and non-involvement in politics depends on the extent of the' believe that participation will either matter or not matter . The belief that their political behaviour will be of consequence is what distinguishes political organizational members from the a political members.

CONCLUSION This chapter has argued that power and politics are relational and form the pivots around which group and individual activities revolve, in many instances such as ensuring that assignments are carried out, that procedures are followed and that existing rules are set up to extract obedience. Structures are respected, power the ability to command and use it about the ultimate or only Instrument ofcontrol. It wi II succeed where other means of modifying behaviour including material and psychological motivators fail. A situation where an individual's self-interest is stronger than organizational incentives, it is only the coercion that comes from power that can ensure that the individual defers to group interest. Organizations cannot cope without power. Rules must be obeyed. Every employee knows that his fate lies in the hand of the employer, and that the employer has the power to ensure hat his services are delivered at the time, in the quantity and quality, and at the place chosen for him. This power, which derives from the ownership of the means of production, including the instruments of labour, is one of the greatest powers that any individual can wield over another-and by its nature represents the root of all contradictions under capitalism . The findings of ollr analysis support the implications of the relationship between power and politics and group and individual behaviour. Power and politics are basic needs as well as behavioural tendencies of individual and groups. Individuals use power to satisfy their needs or get what they want. Groups or organizations, on the other hand., use power to control their members and maintain or preserve themselves. Politics arises because people are invariably using and seeking to acquire power. Power and politics are integrated processes that have to be managed effectively in order to achieve cohesion . Group or organizational authority structures must be fashioned in such a way that they can withstand pressures brought on them by formal and informal power behaviours of their members while providing channels of ventilation of differences. Some organizations seek to regulate these conditions by centralizing power. Others try to strike the balance by decentralizing it. The central concern is always to avoid a trend of disorganization and to ensure that there isa conducive environment for the pursuit of collective goals.