by Organisational power refers to the capacity of individuals or groups to influence others’ behaviour, decisions, or outcomes despite resistance. Politics, closely related, involves the use of power and influence tactics to obtain desired outcomes not sanctioned by formal authority. While often viewed negatively, power and politics are inevitable in organisations due to competing interests, scarce resources, and divergent goals. Effective organisational behaviour requires understanding power sources, political dynamics, and their ethical boundaries. Power enables coordination and decision implementation; politics can facilitate change when formal channels are insufficient. However, excessive political behaviour damages trust, reduces collaboration, and diverts energy from organisational goals. Recognising the difference between constructive and destructive politics is essential for managers navigating real-world organisational complexities.
Nature of Organizational Power:
1. Relational in Nature
Organizational power exists in relationships between individuals or groups. It is not possessed alone but exercised when one person influences another. In organizations, managers use power to guide employee behaviour. Thus, power depends on interaction between people.
2. Situational
Power is situational and varies according to circumstances. A person may have power in one situation but not in another. In organizations, authority changes based on role and context. Thus, power is not constant.
3. Dynamic and Changing
Power is dynamic and keeps changing over time. It depends on position, knowledge, and relationships. In organizations, employees may gain or lose power due to performance or experience. Thus, power is flexible.
4. Based on Dependence
Power depends on the level of dependence between individuals. If one person depends more on another, the other gains power. In organizations, control over resources increases dependence. Thus, dependence creates power.
5. Invisible and Intangible
Power cannot be seen directly but can be felt through behaviour and influence. It is an invisible force that affects decisions and actions. In organizations, power is observed through authority and control. Thus, power is intangible.
6. Used for Influence
The main purpose of power is to influence others. It helps in directing behaviour and achieving goals. In organizations, managers use power to motivate and control employees. Thus, influence is the key aspect of power.
7. Linked with Authority and Responsibility
Power is closely related to authority and responsibility. Managers have power due to their position and duties. In organizations, proper use of power ensures discipline and coordination. Thus, power supports organizational functioning.
Sources of Power:
1. Legitimate Power
Legitimate power derives from an individual’s formal position or role within an organisation’s hierarchy. It is the authority granted by title—managers can assign tasks, evaluate performance, and allocate resources because of their position. Subordinates accept this influence because they believe the organisation has the right to establish such authority. Legitimate power has boundaries; it applies only within specific domains (e.g., a manager can assign work but cannot demand personal favours). Overreliance on legitimate power without other sources leads to compliance without commitment. Effectiveness increases when combined with expertise or referent power, as positional authority alone rarely inspires exceptional performance.
2. Reward Power
Reward power stems from the ability to provide valued outcomes—salary increases, bonuses, promotions, recognition, preferred assignments, or favourable schedules. Individuals with control over resources others desire wield significant influence. Reward power effectiveness depends on the recipient’s valuation of offered rewards; if the reward holds little value, power diminishes. Organisations must ensure reward allocation aligns with performance, as arbitrary distribution erodes credibility. Overuse of reward power can create entitlement or reduce intrinsic motivation. Effective leaders combine reward power with other sources, using recognition meaningfully rather than transactionally. Reward power is most potent when rewards are visible, desirable, and clearly linked to desired behaviours.
3. Coercive Power
Coercive power rests on the ability to impose negative consequences—demotions, terminations, undesirable assignments, public criticism, or withheld resources. Fear of punishment motivates compliance with directives. While coercive power can quickly stop unwanted behaviours, its overuse generates resentment, resistance, and retaliation. Employees comply minimally, doing only what is required to avoid punishment, while creativity and commitment suffer. Coercive power damages trust, psychological safety, and long-term relationships. Effective managers use coercive power sparingly, as a last resort, and ensure consequences are fair, predictable, and proportionate. Organisations relying heavily on coercion experience high turnover, low morale, and suppressed innovation.
4. Expert Power
Expert power arises from possessing specialised knowledge, skills, or abilities that others need but lack. Experts influence decisions because colleagues trust their judgment and defer to their competence. Unlike positional power, expert power is personal—it resides with the individual, not the role. Expertise gains power when knowledge is rare, relevant, and difficult to substitute. Experts must maintain credibility through ongoing learning and accurate advice; outdated or incorrect expertise erodes influence rapidly. Organisations increasingly value expert power in knowledge-intensive environments. Effective experts share knowledge generously rather than hoarding it, building influence through helpfulness. Expert power complements other sources, enabling influence without formal authority.
5. Referent Power
Referent power stems from others’ identification with, admiration for, or desire to emulate an individual. People comply because they respect, like, or identify with the power holder—not because of rewards, punishment, or expertise. Charismatic leaders, respected mentors, and admired colleagues possess referent power. This source produces deep commitment, as followers internalise the influencer’s values and willingly adopt desired behaviours. Referent power develops through consistent integrity, genuine care for others, role modelling, and shared identity. Unlike positional power, referent power does not diminish with proximity; it can influence across organisational levels. Building referent power requires authenticity, empathy, and time—it cannot be claimed or appointed but only earned through relationships.
6. Information Power
Information power derives from access to or control over valuable data, intelligence, or knowledge that others require. Individuals who gather, analyse, or distribute critical information—market trends, strategic decisions, performance data, or competitor insights—wield significant influence. Information power is temporary; once shared, its exclusivity diminishes. Gatekeepers control information flow, deciding what reaches whom and when. In organisations, those who manage reporting lines, sit on committees, or maintain networks hold information power. Effective use involves sharing selectively, timing disclosure strategically, and framing information persuasively. Information power increases with perceived relevance and scarcity. Modern transparency trends reduce traditional information power, but interpretation and synthesis skills create new forms of informational influence.
7. Connection Power
Connection power arises from relationships with influential individuals both inside and outside the organisation. Those who have access to senior leaders, board members, industry figures, or regulatory officials gain reflected influence—others comply hoping to access these connections. Connection power operates through perceived access, not necessarily actual influence with those contacts. Individuals build connection power through networking, mentorship relationships, cross-functional assignments, and external professional activities. Connection power can be transferred—asking someone to intervene with their contact. Ethical concerns arise when connection power enables favouritism or bypasses proper processes. Organisations benefit when connections bring valuable resources or information; they suffer when connection power substitutes for merit in decisions. Like referent power, connection power is personal, not positional.
8. Charismatic Power
Charismatic power, closely related to referent power, specifically refers to influence generated through exceptional personal qualities—vision, confidence, persuasiveness, and emotional appeal. Charismatic individuals inspire devotion, trust, and enthusiasm that extends beyond rational evaluation. They articulate compelling visions, demonstrate personal conviction, and create emotional connections motivating extraordinary effort. Charismatic power proves especially potent during crises or uncertainty when followers seek direction and meaning. Unlike legitimate power, charisma cannot be granted by title; unlike expert power, it does not require specialised knowledge. However, charisma without ethical grounding can enable manipulation. Sustainable charismatic power requires substance alongside style—visions must be achievable, commitments honoured, and followers’ interests genuinely served, not merely inspired temporarily.
9. Resource Power
Resource power derives from control over tangible assets—budgets, equipment, personnel, facilities, or supplies—that others need to accomplish their work. Individuals who allocate resources determine priorities, influence strategies, and shape outcomes. Resource power is particularly potent in organisations where resources are scarce, contested, or critical for success. Those controlling resources can trade access for compliance, favour certain units over others, and shape which initiatives succeed. Resource power requires stewardship; arbitrary or self-serving allocation damages trust and long-term influence. Effective resource power holders distribute resources transparently based on strategic priorities, using allocation decisions to signal organisational values. Resource power complements other sources but can create dependency when one party controls resources another cannot obtain elsewhere.
10. Network Power
Network power emerges from one’s position within formal and informal relationship structures connecting individuals across the organisation. Those occupying central positions—connecting otherwise disconnected groups, bridging structural holes, or controlling information pathways—wield influence disproportionate to formal authority. Network power depends on betweenness (serving as sole connection between groups), centrality (many direct connections), or boundary spanning (linking internal and external networks). Network power enables individuals to access diverse information, mobilise resources quickly, and broker relationships between others. Building network power requires strategic relationship investment, not merely collecting contacts. Effective networkers connect others, provide value before requesting favours, and maintain diverse ties across hierarchical, functional, and geographic boundaries. Unlike positional power, network power is invisible but highly consequential.
Political Tactics:
1. Building Coalitions
Coalition building involves forming alliances with influential individuals or groups to increase collective power. By uniting around shared interests, coalition members achieve outcomes unattainable individually. Coalitions form around issues—budget allocations, strategic direction, or policy changes. Successful coalitions recruit diverse stakeholders, maintain clear communication, and trade support across multiple issues. Coalitions require reciprocity; members must deliver when their turn arrives. While legitimate for advancing organisational interests, coalitions become problematic when they exclude relevant stakeholders or prioritise member interests over organisational good. Effective managers recognise coalition dynamics, building inclusive alliances that advance shared goals without creating permanent factions.
2. Controlling Information
Information control involves selectively sharing, withholding, or framing data to influence decisions and perceptions. Gatekeepers decide what information reaches whom and when—sharing favourable data early, delaying unfavourable news, or filtering what subordinates receive. Information control also includes framing—presenting data to emphasise certain interpretations while minimising others. This tactic succeeds because decisions depend on available information. However, excessive control destroys trust when discovered. Ethical information control focuses on timing and presentation without deception. Unethical control includes outright falsification or hiding material information. Organisations combat dysfunctional information control through transparency norms, multiple information channels, and leadership accountability for accurate communication.
3. Managing Impressions
Impression management shapes how others perceive an individual’s competence, character, or commitment. Tactics include self-promotion (highlighting achievements), ingratiation (complimenting others, doing favours), exemplification (working late to demonstrate dedication), and supplication (advertising limitations to gain support). In organisations, impression management influences performance evaluations, promotion decisions, and resource allocation. While everyone engages in some impression management, excessive or deceptive tactics backfire when detected. Effective impression management aligns with authentic behaviour—genuine achievements need highlighting; sincere helpfulness builds relationships. Organisations reduce dysfunctional impression management by basing decisions on objective data, rotating evaluators, and creating cultures where authenticity is valued over self-promotion.
4. Creating Obligations (Reciprocity)
Reciprocity tactics involve doing favours, providing resources, or offering support with implicit expectation of future return. By initiating exchanges, individuals create felt obligations—recipients psychologically compelled to reciprocate when requested. Favours may be tangible (resources, information) or intangible (support, advocacy). Timing matters: favours given before requests increase compliance likelihood. Reciprocity is culturally universal but varies in strength and expression. Ethical reciprocity involves genuine mutual support; unethical versions include entrapment (creating obligation for harmful requests) or exploitation (unequal exchange). Organisations cannot eliminate reciprocity but can establish boundaries—refusing inappropriate favours, disclosing potential conflicts, and ensuring reciprocity serves legitimate organisational purposes, not personal agendas.
5. Attacking or Blaming Others
Attacking or blaming deflects responsibility, protects reputation, or weakens rivals. Tactics include scapegoating (blaming individuals for problems they didn’t cause), negative rumour spreading, and highlighting others’ failures to distract from one’s own. This destructive tactic damages trust, psychological safety, and collaboration. While temporarily effective, attackers lose credibility when patterns emerge. Organisations with blame cultures experience suppressed innovation, hoarded information, and defensive behaviours. Prevention requires leadership modelling of accountability, psychological safety for admitting mistakes, and performance systems distinguishing learning from culpable failure. When blaming occurs, leaders must investigate fairly, protect the innocent, and address underlying issues without rewarding political attacks.
6. Using Outside Experts
Bringing external consultants, advisors, or experts lends credibility to preferred positions. Outsiders appear objective, providing evidence supporting internal agendas while seeming neutral. Leaders use experts to validate decisions, justify unpopular actions, or break deadlocks. This tactic succeeds because external voices carry legitimacy internal advocates lack. However, expert selection can bias outcomes—choosing consultants known for specific conclusions. Ethical use involves transparent expert selection, sharing competing expert views, and treating advice as input not mandate. Organisations should establish guidelines for expert engagement: disclosure of selection criteria, access to alternative perspectives, and clear distinction between expert opinion and organisational decision. Overreliance on experts signals weak internal decision-making.
7. Controlling Decision Agendas
Agenda control determines which issues receive attention, how alternatives are framed, and what options remain unconsidered. By shaping decision processes, individuals influence outcomes without directly deciding. Tactics include limiting discussion time, establishing criteria favouring preferred options, adding or removing alternatives, and scheduling decisions when opponents are absent. Agenda control succeeds because excluded alternatives cannot be chosen. In organisations, those who set meeting agendas, define problems, or establish evaluation criteria wield significant influence. Ethical agenda control includes transparent criteria, inclusive alternative generation, and documented rationales for exclusions. Dysfunctional agenda control manipulates processes to produce predetermined outcomes, undermining decision quality and stakeholder trust.
8. Building Networks
Networking establishes relationships across organisational boundaries—different functions, levels, locations, or external stakeholders. Networks provide information, resources, support, and visibility unavailable through formal channels. Effective networkers connect diverse contacts, offer value before requesting favours, and maintain relationships consistently, not only when needing something. Networks enable influence because well-connected individuals access information earlier, mobilise resources faster, and build coalitions easier. However, networking for political advantage differs from building genuine relationships; transactional networking becomes visible when contacts feel used. Organisations benefit from robust internal networks but should ensure network influence complements rather than substitutes for merit. Network building is legitimate when relationships serve organisational goals, not personal advancement at collective expense.
9. Legitimising Favourable Positions
Legitimising uses organisational values, policies, or precedents to justify preferred positions. By framing proposals as aligned with official goals, existing commitments, or past practices, advocates reduce opposition. Legitimising tactics include citing strategic plans, invoking mission statements, referencing past decisions, or appealing to fairness and efficiency. This tactic succeeds because opposing legitimised positions appears unreasonable or disloyal. However, selective interpretation of policies or convenient memory of precedents manipulates legitimacy. Ethical legitimising involves honest application of relevant standards; manipulation involves cherry-picking supportive evidence while ignoring contradictory material. Organisations reduce dysfunctional legitimising by requiring documented rationales, maintaining accessible policy archives, and encouraging challenge of questionable interpretations.
10. Direct Confrontation
Direct confrontation involves openly challenging opponents, asserting positions forcefully, or demanding compliance. Unlike subtle tactics, confrontation escalates conflict, forcing resolution. Confrontation succeeds when power differential favours the initiator, when issues require immediate resolution, or when opponents have limited alternatives. Risks include damaged relationships, retaliation, and escalation beyond controllable levels. Effective confrontation focuses on issues, not personalities, and occurs after exhausting collaborative approaches. In organisations, confrontation may be necessary for ethical breaches, safety violations, or resource allocation impasses. However, routine confrontation creates adversarial cultures, reduced information sharing, and decision paralysis. Managers should assess whether confrontation or collaboration better serves long-term interests before escalating.
11. Co-opting Opponents
Co-optation involves bringing potential opponents into decision processes, giving them roles or voice that reduces resistance. By including critics, organisations gain their input, build ownership, and neutralise opposition. Co-optation can be substantive (genuinely incorporating diverse views) or symbolic (appearing inclusive without meaningful influence). Symbolic co-optation backfires when participants realise their input doesn’t matter. Successful co-optation requires authentic influence—co-opted individuals must genuinely shape outcomes. Organisations use co-optation through advisory committees, task forces, or consultation processes. This tactic reduces conflict without direct confrontation but risks slowing decisions. Ethical co-optation is transparent about influence boundaries; manipulative co-optation exploits participants’ time and goodwill without reciprocity.
12. Creating Stress or Crisis
Manufacturing or exaggerating crises creates urgency justifying otherwise unacceptable actions. Leaders use crisis narratives to bypass normal processes, consolidate authority, and limit dissent. Tactics include emphasising threats, creating artificial deadlines, or framing routine issues as existential. Crisis legitimises extreme measures—resource reallocation, procedural suspension, or authority centralisation. However, false crises destroy credibility when discovered, and even genuine crises poorly managed create unintended consequences. Organisations develop immunity to crisis manipulation through institutionalised decision processes, independent verification of threat claims, and cultural norms questioning urgency assertions. Ethical leaders communicate genuine risks honestly without exaggeration, recognising that crying wolf ultimately reduces capacity to respond to actual emergencies.
Managing Organisational Politics:
1. Increase Resource Availability
Resource scarcity fuels political behaviour as departments compete for limited budgets, staff, and equipment. Managers reduce dysfunctional politics by increasing resource availability where possible—advocating for adequate funding, sharing resources across units, and establishing transparent allocation criteria. When resources remain scarce, clear rules reduce arbitrary decisions that invite political maneuvering. Organisations can also create slack resources—buffers that reduce competition during normal operations. However, excessive slack reduces efficiency; balance is essential. By addressing resource scarcity at systemic levels, leaders remove the structural conditions that generate defensive politics. Regular resource reviews and participative budgeting processes also reduce perceptions of favouritism that trigger political behaviour.
2. Clarify Rules & Procedures
Ambiguous decision processes invite political influence—when rules are unclear, individuals lobby, form coalitions, and use personal connections to shape outcomes. Clear, transparent rules for resource allocation, promotion, performance evaluation, and conflict resolution reduce political space. Written policies, consistent application, and accessible appeal mechanisms signal fairness. When employees understand how decisions are made and can verify consistency, they invest energy in performance rather than politics. However, excessive rules create rigidity; optimal clarity balances predictability with necessary flexibility. Regular communication about existing policies and rationales for exceptions maintains transparency. Leaders must also follow rules themselves—exemptions for executives undermine entire systems.
3. Reduce Interdependence
High task interdependence forces frequent coordination, creating political opportunities as units negotiate contributions, timing, and credit. Managers reduce dysfunctional politics by designing organisational structures that minimise unnecessary interdependence—clarifying handoffs, establishing service level agreements, and creating integrating mechanisms that depersonalise coordination. When interdependence is necessary, standardised protocols reduce negotiation space. Matrix structures and cross-functional teams, while valuable, increase political potential and require additional management attention. Organisations can also collocate interdependent units, improving communication and reducing misunderstandings that fuel political conflict. The goal is not eliminating interdependence which enables collaboration but removing ambiguity that becomes political weapon. Clear accountability reduces blame shifting.
4. Set Clear Performance Expectations
Vague performance criteria create political competition as employees jockey for favourable interpretations of success. Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals reduce political space by aligning effort around objective standards. Clear expectations include defined metrics, regular feedback, and transparent documentation. When employees know exactly what constitutes success, they focus on performance rather than impression management. However, overemphasis on quantitative metrics can create gaming behaviours—another political form. Balanced scorecards measuring multiple dimensions reduce this risk. Clear expectations also protect employees from arbitrary evaluation, reducing defensive political behaviour. Leaders must ensure expectations are genuinely achievable and updated as circumstances change to maintain credibility.
5. Model Ethical Political Behaviour
Leaders powerfully shape political norms through their own behaviour. When executives play favourites, withhold information, or punish honest dissent, they license similar behaviour throughout the organisation. Conversely, leaders who demonstrate transparency, admit mistakes, share credit, and make decisions fairly set standards that discourage destructive politics. Modelling includes refusing to engage in gossip, protecting those who raise concerns, and holding politically aggressive subordinates accountable. Leaders should also acknowledge their own political limitations—no leader is perfectly non-political, but transparency about difficult trade-offs builds trust. Modelling is most effective when consistent across situations; occasional ethical behaviour amidst routine politics sends mixed messages. Leadership modelling creates psychological safety for principled conduct.
6. Encourage Open Communication
Communication silos and secrecy create conditions where employees rely on informal networks, gossip, and speculation—political behaviours that flourish in information vacuums. Open communication practices—regular town halls, transparent decision rationales, accessible leadership, and anonymous feedback channels—reduce uncertainty that fuels political maneuvering. When employees understand organisational direction, decision processes, and their own standing, they spend less energy deciphering hidden agendas. Open communication must be genuine; pro forma transparency without substantive information breeds cynicism. Leaders should also encourage upward communication, protecting employees who raise difficult issues. Multiple communication channels (written, verbal, digital) accommodate different preferences. Transparency reduces but does not eliminate politics; some competition remains inevitable in any organisation.
7. Use Participative Decision-Making
Involving affected employees in decisions reduces political opposition because participants develop ownership and understand rationales. Participative processes—consultation, advisory groups, representative committees—legitimise outcomes even when participants’ preferred alternatives are not adopted. Participation reduces the us-versus-them dynamic that fuels political conflict between decision-makers and implementers. However, participation must be genuine; token involvement without influence increases cynicism. Participation also consumes time and may slow decisions; leaders must balance inclusivity with efficiency. For routine decisions, standard processes suffice; for strategic choices with significant distributional consequences, broader participation reduces subsequent political resistance. Participative decision-making transforms potential political opponents into collaborative problem-solvers invested in collective success.
8. Align Rewards with Organisational Goals
Reward systems that recognise only individual performance encourage hoarding, blame shifting, and competition—political behaviours that subvert collaboration. Aligning rewards with organisational and team goals reduces incentives for self-interested political tactics. Balanced scorecards include individual, team, and organisational metrics, weighting collaboration alongside personal achievement. Recognition for knowledge sharing, helping behaviours, and constructive conflict resolution signals valued conduct. However, organisations must avoid forced distribution systems that pit employees against each other. Alignment also means ensuring rewards are transparently linked to measurable contributions; arbitrary rewards, even well-intentioned, invite political influence. Regular reward system reviews identify unintended consequences that incentivise political behaviour, enabling timely adjustments before patterns become entrenched.
9. Build a Strong Organisational Culture
Cohesive organisational cultures with shared values reduce political behaviour by establishing behavioural norms that transcend individual interests. When employees internalise values of collaboration, transparency, and fairness, they self-regulate political impulses. Culture strength matters—weak cultures with ambiguous values provide space for political maneuvering; strong cultures with clear, widely held expectations constrain it. However, culture must be genuinely shared, not imposed; top-down value statements without behavioural evidence create cynicism. Leaders build culture through consistent role modelling, storytelling that celebrates collaborative heroes, and accountability for cultural violations. Culture change requires sustained effort; political behaviour entrenched over years resists quick fixes. Strong cultures reduce but do not eliminate politics—some competition remains inevitable even in aligned organisations.
10. Manage Performance Consequences
Addressing dysfunctional political behaviour requires consequences—without accountability, political tactics continue because they succeed. Organisations must identify political behaviour (hoarding information, blaming others, coalition manipulation) and respond appropriately. Consequences range from coaching (for minor or first offences) to formal discipline (for repeated or severe behaviour) to termination (for ethics violations). Leaders often avoid confronting political behaviour, fearing conflict or lacking evidence. However, tolerating political tactics signals acceptance, encouraging escalation. Performance systems should include political behaviour in evaluations, with specific examples documented. Consequences must be consistent across levels; punishing junior employees while excusing executives undermines entire systems. Fair, predictable consequences shift cost-benefit calculations that sustain political behaviour.
11. Increase Leadership Visibility
Visible, accessible leadership reduces political behaviour by demonstrating accountability and approachability. Leaders who remain in offices, unavailable for input, create vacuums filled by informal networks, gatekeepers, and speculation—political dynamics flourish. Visible leaders engage in management by walking around, attend team meetings, hold regular office hours, and respond to employee concerns directly. Visibility also deters political actors who fear exposure. However, visibility without substance—perfunctory appearances without follow-through increases cynicism. Leaders must demonstrate that visibility leads to action: concerns raised are addressed, decisions explained, and feedback incorporated. Virtual visibility matters for remote teams: regular video check-ins, digital office hours, and responsive communication maintain presence. Visible leadership builds trust, reducing perceived need for political self-protection.
12. Provide Conflict Resolution Mechanisms
When employees lack legitimate channels for addressing disagreements, conflicts go underground, emerging as political tactics—coalitions, sabotage, or information hoarding. Formal conflict resolution mechanisms—mediation, ombuds offices, grievance procedures, facilitated dialogues—provide constructive alternatives to political warfare. Effective mechanisms are accessible, confidential, timely, and perceived as fair. Employees must trust that raising concerns will not trigger retaliation. Multiple pathways accommodate different conflict types and relationship contexts. Mechanisms should address both task conflicts (resource allocation, priorities) and relationship conflicts (interpersonal tensions). Proactive conflict resolution training equips employees with skills before disputes escalate. Organisations with robust resolution mechanisms experience less destructive politics because employees have legitimate, effective ways to address differences without resorting to informal, hidden tactics.
