Organizational Politics
Organizational politics refers to a set of activities that involve the use of influential tactics to pursue individual and organizational interests without regard to their effect on the organization ( Vigoda-Gadot, 2007 ). Individuals who have political skills tend to fair much better in gaining power, managing job demands and stress as opposed to those who are politically naive. Consequently, they will have a greater impact on the outcome of an organization to achieve its objectives. In some cases, rational decision making does not work and as such, organizational politics must be used to influence the end results of a business scenario.
Leadership
Leadership can be defined as the art of motivating a group of individuals to act towards the accomplishment of a common goal ( Vigoda-Gadot, 2007 ). It involves setting and achieving challenging goals by taking divisive action to inspire others to perform well. Leadership is all about establishing a clear vision and sharing it with others so that they can follow it to completion. A good leader is able to make wise decisions and step up in times of crisis to develop an effective solution to organizational problems.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Comparison
Both organizational politics and leadership are used to achieve a common goal within a business establishment. At the end of the day, the decisions that are made by managers from both sides will be geared towards the accomplishment of a mutual task.
Organizational politics may make use of unethical schemes through manipulation and use of power to achieve a set objective. Leadership on the other hand, is an ethical management style that employs the use of moral procedures during the execution of a particular task.
Conflict Management Strategies
Superordinate Goals
These are goals that can only be attained if the conflicting parties come together and cooperate to achieve a common objective. This conflict management technique requires the persons in conflict to be indifferent to their differences so that they can merge their inputs and pool their resources for a common benefit ( Roche, Teague & Colvin, 2014 ). Peace between the groups will, therefore, come automatically because these situations require people to work together if they are to survive and coexist together in the work environment. A common goal, therefore, motivates the conflicting parties to dissolve their differences and develop a team spirit.
Expanding Resources
This conflict management strategy involves the addition of the resources that have caused the conflict. For instance, it may have been caused by the scarcity of money, office space, promotion opportunities or shortage of personnel. In this case, a manager can examine the financial position of the company before deciding to increase a particular resource. It is imperative to note that even though this may be a simple solution, it may be very costly to an organization, especially when the scarce resource is expensive to acquire. Hiring new personnel or releasing more money to a department may be very challenging to a firm with tight budgets.
Changing Personnel
A conflict within an organization may be caused by a specific individual. This may be a regular employee or a senior manager at the firm. In some cases, these individuals usually disrupt a positive and peaceful work environment through project failures, absenteeism decreased productivity and unethical behavior. In such a work environment, conflicts are bound to emerge between this individual and the other employees. Consequently, the best course of action in this case would be to either transfer them or terminate their employment contract with the company. This cannot, however, be done immediately as the process requires a careful examination of the situation to ensure that the action is justified.
Changing Structure
According to Rahim (2010) , there are cases when a change in the structure of an organization may be used to solve an existing conflict. In such a scenario, it is usually important for a company to create the role of an integrator who will act as a liaison between the two conflicting groups. It is very important for this individual to be a neutral third party so that they are not inclined towards the complaints of a particular side. Conversely, an organization can decide to formulate cross-functional teams from different departments of the conflicting parties. These teams reduce delays and improve coordination within an organization.
Confronting and Negotiating
Here, the members of the conflicting parties confront each other and negotiate to come into a form of agreement about the conflict ( Roche, Teague & Colvin, 2014 ). It normally involves an open exchange of words between individuals for the purpose of finding a mutual resolution to the problem at hand. Contrary to the ideology of distributive bargaining, integrative negotiation can be used for the purpose of developing a win-win approach. It is, however, imperative for both parties to set some conditions before they start the process. This includes having faith in each other’s problem solving abilities, a positive attitude to work together and maintaining mutual trust in the other party.
Cooperative and Competitive Strategies
Rahim (2010) notes that cooperative strategies are used when one side of the conflict strives to ensure that the concerns of the other party are met. Consequently, the disputants will work together to negotiate the terms to an amicable solution that will be built on trust and mutual benefits to all sides. The constructiveness of this strategy is based on the mutual gains approach in the conflict resolution process. Cooperative strategies are very effective when an organization is handling a dispute between its employee and a customer. In this case, it is very important for the company to ensure that the needs and concerns of the client are met because their operations cannot run without a client base. This technique may be used when the decision being made does not require immediate action. Consequently, a competitive strategy cannot be used for this situation.
Competitive strategies are those where the concerns and goals of one side are considered first. Consequently, this means that the concerns and opinions of the opposing party are ignored. Here, people operate from a position of strength, power and expertise to fight for what they believe in. In this case, winning the case is the only metric and as such, concession to the opposing side may be viewed as a loss and a sign of weakness ( Roche, Teague & Colvin, 2014 ). This means that the conflict must be won by any means possible. This style is normally used when one party has no concern for what the other group may be feeling and how the decision will impact them. This strategy is very helpful for dealing with situations that require quick action, or where there is no hope of reaching a resolution. A cooperative approach cannot, therefore, be used because it will take a long time to resolve the issue.
References
Rahim, M. A. (2010). Managing conflict in organizations . Transaction Publishers.
Roche, W. K., Teague, P., & Colvin, A. J. (2014). The Oxford handbook of conflict management in organizations . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). “Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees' performance: An empirical examination of two competing models.” Personnel Review , 36 (5), 661-683.
